National Water Quality Initiative 

(NWQI)

EPA Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities 

Committee

January 17, 2013

Tom Christensen

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Regional Conservationist – Central Region

1
2

“Most of what needs doing must be done 

by the farmer himself. . . . All the nonfarming public can do is to provide 

information and build incentives on 

which farmers may act.” 

—Aldo Leopold, 1933

Aldo Leopold

“In this democracy, national action 

to conserve soil must be generated 

by these millions of land users. If 

they are active and willing 

participants in such a movement, it 

will endure; otherwise it will fail.” 

—Hugh Hammond Bennett, 1939

Hugh H. Bennett

Private Lands and Conservation
3

• 70 percent of the land in the lower 48 

states is owned by private landowners. 

• 88 percent of all surface water falls on 

private land before reaching lakes, 

streams, and groundwater aquifers.

• The quality of our environment 

depends on the millions of individual 

decisions private landowners make 

every day.

Private Lands and Conservation

• Since 2009, USDA has worked with more than 500,000 private 

landowners to implement conservation practices.
Highest Priority Natural Resource Concerns

Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act (RCA) 2010 

Focus Groups and Surveys

Water: Sediment 

& Nutrients, 28%

Water: 

Insufficient, 

20%

Soil Erosion, 31%

Fish or Wildlife 

Habitat 

Condition, 9%

Plants: Invasive 

Species, 11%

Other, 26%
5

• Voluntary, incentives-based conservation 

approach is achieving results.

• Opportunities to further reduce sediment and 

nutrient losses from cropland.

• Comprehensive conservation planning and 

implementation are essential.

• Targeting enhances effectiveness and efficiency.

• Full treatment of most vulnerable acres will 

require a suite of conservation practices, because 

no single practice is a universal solution.

CEAP: Key Findings of the Regional Cropland Assessments

Upper Mississippi, Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Ohio/Tennessee, Missouri
6

River Sub-Basin Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) Reports

Published (in yellow)

○ Chesapeake Bay 

○ Upper Mississippi

○ Great Lakes

○ Ohio-Tennessee

○ Missouri

Scheduled for release in early 

2013:

○ Arkansas-White-Red 

(Under Peer Review)

○ Lower Mississippi

Scheduled for future release:

○ South/Atlantic/Gulf

○ Texas Gulf

○ Pacific Northwest

CEAP: Regional Cropland Assessments
7

CEAP: Key Findings of the Regional Cropland Assessments

15% 19% 19% 24%

1%

45%

61%

34%

46%

17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Upper Mississippi 

River Basin

Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed

Great Lakes 

Region

Ohio-Tennessee 

River Basin

Missouri River 

Basin

Moderate treatment need High treatment need

Acres Needing Conservation Treatment

Percentage of Cropped Acres
8

CEAP: Key Findings of the Regional Cropland Assessments

Acres Needing Conservation Treatment for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loss

Note: Percentages include cropped acres with a high or moderate need for additional conservation treatment.

Percentage of Cropped Acres

53%

64%

40% 37%

5%

22%

51%

12%

63%

1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Upper 

Mississippi River 

Basin

Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed

Great Lakes 

Region

Ohio-Tennessee 

River Basin

Missouri River 

Basin

Nitrogen loss 

(runoff and 

subsurface)

Phosphorus 

loss (surface 

water)
9

Energy

Climate Change

Plants

Soil Water

Animals Air

Conservation 

Planning

The Conservation Planning Process
At its core, the focus of conservation planning is on increasing 

voluntary adoption of:

 Right conservation systems

 Right position on landscape

 Right amount

 Right timing and sequencing of practice/system 

implementation (progressive implementation)

Focus of Conservation Planning = Conservation Systems

“Practices to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus are very different due to 

different transport pathways.”

—Dr. Jane Frankenberger, Purdue University
11

 Avoiding

 Nutrient management

 Rate, Timing, Form, Method

 Controlling

 Residue and tillage 

management

 Drainage water 

management

 Trapping

 Buffers

 Wetlands designed for nutrient 

removal

Systems Approach to Nutrients: 

Avoiding, Controlling, Trapping (ACT)

 Avoiding 

 Controlling Trapping 

ACT 
12

Initiatives have national or regional significance and focus on critical 

resource concerns at the landscape level.

• Build on existing locally-led efforts 

• Partnership driven

• Dedicated funding to accelerate implementation

• Science-based

• Focused on performance and environmental outcomes

Landscape Conservation Initiatives
13
Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll: 

Conservation funding should be higher for land that is 

most vulnerable to soil and water quality problems.

• Data were collected 

through the 2009 

Iowa Farm and Rural 

Life Poll (1,262 Iowa 

farmers)

• Dozen questions 

about targeting

• Analysis of factors 

associated with 

acceptance, or 

symbolic adoption, of 

targeted conservation 

as a concept

14

Source: J. Gordon Arbuckle Jr., Iowa State University
15
Fiscal Year Total

2010 $107 million

2011 $193 million

2012 $277 million

Total $577 million

16

Water Quality Driven Initiatives

Includes: Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative (MRBI), 

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

Initiative (CBWI), Ogallala Aquifer Initiative (OIA), Bay Delta Initiative, 

National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI), and Gulf of Mexico Initiative 

(GoMI). Numbers are approximate.
17
National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI)

18

 Goal: Remove streams and other water bodies 

 from 303d list, or

 from threatened status, or 

 from contributing to impairments, or 

 to adequately address a TMDL plan.

 NWQI addresses agricultural sources of pollution that NRCS 

can effectively address through voluntary action of 

producers:

 Nutrients

 Sediment 

 Pathogens (new for FY 2013) 
NWQI: Watershed Selection Process

State Water Quality Agency—Consultation

State Technical Committee—Consultation 

State Conservationist—Decision 

Regional Conservationist—Concurrence 

19
NWQI: Characteristics of Watersheds

 162 watersheds submitted

 Rejected 5 watersheds (either not a watershed or no 

sediment/nutrient problem)

 Three additional watersheds withdrawn (AK)

 154 watersheds approved in all 50 states plus Caribbean Area

 Average: three watersheds per state

 Ranges from one to seven (Texas)

 137 watersheds are 303d listed

20
NWQI: Conservation Practices/Activity Plans

 Core and supporting practices

 Core practices are those that have been selected that will directly

 impact the resource concern.

 Supporting practices are those that make it possible for core

 practices to function properly.

 Conservation Activity Plans: Five types

 Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMP)

 Nutrient Management Plan (NMP)

 Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

 Irrigation Water Management (IWM)

 Drainage Water Management (DWM)

21
NWQI: Screening and Ranking Criteria

Screen Applications 

High: All conservation practices within NWQI watershed, AND 

core conservation practices are on more than 25 percent of the 

acres OR the application is a Conservation Activity Plan.

Medium: One or more conservation practices within NWQI 

watershed, AND application contains core conservation 

practices.

Low: All others (these will not be ranked for FY 2013 NWQI).

Rank Applications

National program questions for consistency

State questions for specific NWQI objectives

Local questions in consultation with State Technical Committee

22
23

Progress Through NWQI (through 2012)

 More than 760 agreements with landowners in 154 

small (12-digit HUC) watersheds (1,082 applications 

received)

 128 have water quality monitoring stations

 82 have 319 projects

 68 are within Landscape Conservation Initiatives (e.g., 

MRBI and GoMI)

 Approximately 161,000 acres of targeted conservation 

under contract or agreement in FY 2012

 More than $38 million in funding obligated in FY 2012
24

Texas

FY 2012 

Progress: • Approximately 

$4.3 million in 

financial 

assistance

• 17,000 acres • 61 contracts
South Dakota: Skunk Creek Watershed

25

FY 2012 Progress:

• Approximately 

$1.3 million in financial 

assistance

• 8,600 acres

• 11 contracts
FY 2013 NWQI Improvements

 Earlier and consistent coordination with state 

water quality agencies.

 Strengthen outreach to farmers/ranchers in 

selected watersheds.

 Selection of FY2013 watersheds—allow states 

the flexibility to use FY2012 watersheds and/or 

add new ones on a limited basis.

 Encourage states to choose contiguous 

watersheds for any new selections.

26
FY 2013 NWQI Improvements (cont.)

27

 Additional emphasis on source water when 

selecting watersheds

 Establish realistic expectations for outcomes.

 Establish incremental measures of success—it 

may be many years before delistings.

 Need to be very strategic about where to add 

monitoring.
NWQI: Path to Outcomes

 Water Quality Index for Agricultural Fields (WQIag)

 One pilot watershed per state

 APEX at 12-digit HUC level

 Water quality monitoring

 Edge of field

 In-stream

 Pour point

28
29

Water Efficiency, November/December 2012

www.waterefficiency.net

Screenshot of online WQIag tool
 Modeling is needed to augment three-tiered monitoring.

 Simulates nutrient, pesticide, and sediment losses under conditions of 

agricultural practices based on farmer surveys at selected National 

Resource Inventory (NRI) sample points.

30

CEAP Agricultural Policy/Environmental Extender (APEX)

 NRCS is developing a method to 

use APEX to characterize 12-digit 

watersheds and is meant to 

complement monitoring activities.

 Boone and Raccoon 

Watersheds (Iowa)

 Maumee Watershed (Indiana, 

Michigan, and Ohio)
Partnership Opportunity: Three-Tiered Water Quality 

Monitoring

31

 To assess environmental outcomes and facilitate producer use of 

adaptive management, a three-tiered monitoring and evaluation 

approach is desired:

1. Edge-of-field

2. In-stream

3. Watershed level (Pour point)

 NRCS can cost-share with producers on edge-of-field monitoring but 

needs partners to assist producers with managing monitoring stations 

and covering the producers’ share of the cost.

 NRCS also relies on partners to perform the in-stream and watershedlevel monitoring and evaluation. 
32

Edge-of-Field Water Quality Monitoring Station 

Under Installation 
NRCS Edge-of-Field Monitoring and Evaluation

Purposes of Practice

1. Provide site-specific field data 

for input into models to predict 

practice/system performance 

and to validate the models

2. Sample and measure 

practice/system performance

3. Collect and evaluate data for 

adaptive management by 

producer

33
Edge-of-Field Monitoring in the Context of Three-Tier 

Approach to Water Quality Monitoring

34

Potential sub-watershed approach to edge-of-field monitoring
NRCS Edge-of-Field Monitoring and Evaluation

(Conservation Practice Standard 799)

Geographic Focus of Practice (Activity) in FY 2013

1. Mississippi River Basin Initiative, Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed Initiative, Great Lake Restoration 

Initiative, Gulf of Mexico Initiative, National 

Water Quality Imitative (one per state), Lake 

Champlain;

2. States may seek approval to use this practice in 

watersheds outside of the focus area when the 

watershed meet the established criteria. 

35
NWQI: What’s next?

 Entering year two of multi-year initiative (President’s FY2013 

Budget)

 Need to be strategic about where to add monitoring

 Focus on measuring outcomes for FY2013 

 NRCS uses many tools (CEAP-APEX, SWAT, SPARROW, 

WQIag, etc.)

 Use WQIag in selected watershed for FY2012

 Establish incremental measures of success—it may be many 

years before de-listing

36
FY 2013 NWQI: Timeline

Late January: Issue guidance to states.

Early March: States’ watershed selections are due.

Application and ranking period through July 2013.

37
Leveraging Partnerships to Enhance Small Watershed Approach

Field-to-Market (FTM)/Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) Pilot Program

 Use pilot watersheds to assess use of FTM’s 

Fieldprint Calculator in NRCS’s resource assessment 

and conservation planning processes

 Provide value to growers—conservation alternatives and 

economic impacts

 Incorporate NRCS’s WQIag into FTM’s Fieldprint Calculator

 Pilot watersheds: Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, 

Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas

 Grower groups: corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, potatoes

38
Leveraging Partnerships to Enhance Small Watershed Approach

Environmental Defense Fund/NRCS—Systems Approach to 

Improve Water Quality

 Pilot project in three small watersheds to implement a watershed 

approach

 Combine field-scale nitrogen management and conservation systems 

with landscape-scale nitrogen removal practices

• Achieve water quality goals with minimal impact on crop production

• Provide resilience against floods and drought

• Provide additional ecosystem service benefits (wildlife habitat, flood control, 

aquifer recharge, carbon sequestration, etc.)

 Pilot watersheds

 Indiana: St. Joseph River (Maumee River)

 Iowa: Upper Cedar River

 Minnesota: Root River

39
Opportunities to Improve Water Quality Efforts

 Increased commitment to a systems approach to conservation, 

with soil health as the foundation

 Improved and expanded technical assistance to foster systems 

approach

 Greater focus on the economics and sustainability of 

conservation systems

 Greater commitment to adaptive management and the 

tools/technical assistance to support it

 Approaches to foster and sustain conservation innovation with 

regards to both technologies and approaches

40
Opportunities to Improve Water Quality Efforts (cont.)

 Further refinement of targeting efforts—

greater focus on high treatment 

need/vulnerable acres

 Greater collaborative commitment to 

monitoring, modeling, and assessment of 

environmental outcomes on a long-term 

basis

 Development and implementation of 

recognition and certainty “programs” by 

states or added incentives to support 

voluntary approaches

 Continued development of environmental 

service economic opportunities

41
 In 1960, one farmer fed 26 people. 

Today, one farmer can feed 155 people.

 We’ll need farming systems that are:

 Even more productive,

 More environmentally friendly, and

 Capable of producing safe food from field to table.

 Targeting conservation resources generates 3 to 5 times 

the benefits of more general approaches.

42

Sustainable, environmentally friendly, safe food production 

 

Partnership Opportunity
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex,

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten

Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity

provider and employer.

43