71st SWCS International Annual Conference July 24-27, 2016 Louisville, KY

1. Targeting for Field Outcomes v.
Targeting for Landscape Outcomes
Field-level targeting Landscape-level targeting

2. Traditional conservation program approach
1. Limited funding – $430 M/yr = Just 9% of ~$5 B/yr spent on
cropland nutrient & sediment practices
2. Limited participation – Only 10% of US farms/yr
3. Inefficient targeting – Dispersed and thinly spread versus
concentrated to high priority watersheds & subareas within watersheds
4. Focus on outputs rather than outcomes – Program
spending rather than envtl & NR results

3. Possible reasons why limited success so
far with new watershed project approach &
why we don’t know
• Lack of data collection, communication, and
transparency
• Lack of upfront guidance to help projects
demonstrate success
• Institutional goals and identity

4. EPA’s S319 Projects
 612 Nonpoint Source
Success Stories (2005 to
present)
 WRI found 1/3 of 435
projects gave credit to
USDA conservation
programs with their
success
 OCC found ½ of 508
stories “thanked” NRCS &
2/3 praised county
conservation districts

5. Saving the Land that Sustains Us
www.farmland.org
Mperez@farmland.org; (c) 410-353-5492
Saving the Land and Water that Sustains Us
Give me your
card or email
me for launch
announcement

6. Head
SUBHEAD

7. Head
 text

8. Head
• text