| |
PIMA in Goose Branch Microwatershed
|
|
| Research Description and Objectives |
The Goose Branch microwatershed, a 3,700-acre
area of north central Texas that contains a number of dairy
operations, provided an opportunity to readily examine the
application of PIMA in a real-life setting. Goose Branch validated
the PIMA model and demonstrated that a microwatershed approach
can successfully drive new programs for addressing agricultural
nonpoint source pollution.
Problems
 Nonpoint
source pollution has traditionally been addressed through
voluntary methods such as planning, public education, technical
assistance, incentive and cost-share mechanisms, and best
management practices. Despite successes using voluntary measures,
there is not a model program that can be used to resolve polluted
runoff across the country, and many water bodies still do
not meet water quality standards. Based on its experience
in Goose Branch, TIAER believes government cannot appropriate
enough funding to support the cost-share and technical assistance
needed to achieve Clean Water Act objectives, without a companion
program that predictably deals with bad actors. Although the
Goose Branch microwatershed initiative was a success on a
number of fronts, the project was plagued by the lack of a
vehicle to assure that producers would accept full responsibility
for implementing and managing their nutrient management plan
in a manner to achieve Clean Water Act objectives.
Overall, Goose Branch dairy producers altered
their waste management practices as a result of intensive
soil sampling. The difficulty, however, was getting producers
to incorporate nutrient management into their everyday practices
on a continuing basis. It is not always profitable to manage
nutrients properly. While the vast majority of producers were
eager to do their part to ensure environmental protection,
they often did not always understand the finer points of agricultural
nonpoint source pollution protection that will be needed to
achieve Clean Water Act objectives.
Methods
 Benchmark
soil tests on individual farms provided the basis for determining
the producers' progress. Starting in January 1997 soil samples
from the seven participating dairies were collected over a
three week period. Tilled fields were sampled at a depth of
0-6 inches, while non-tilled field samples were collected
at depths of 0-2 inches and 0-6 inches. The samples taken
at 0-2 inches reflect the amount of phosphorus that has accumulated
on the surface of the soil, which can be readily transported
by rainfall induced runoff. Annual soil sampling was conducted
over a five-year span; TIAER collected and analyzed about
2,300 soil samples in the Goose Branch microwatershed.
A microwatershed producer council was established
in Goose Branch in May 1997. The microwatershed council encouraged
local ownership of water quality problems and local investment
in their resolution. In the first year alone, the Goose Branch
Microwatershed Council met on seven occasions. Seven producers
attended the first meeting, along with representatives from
the local conservation district, NRCS, and TIAER. Producers
 received
information regarding phosphorus loadings, feasibility of
composting strategies, fertilizer application,and the role
of government and landowners in achieving water quality improvement.
In later meetings producers obtained information regarding
funding issues, progress in development of enhanced nutrient
management plans, soil test results, and individual progress.
The Council also elected officers and established a newsletter
to keep up with project activities.
Throughout the entireGoose Branch project,
a TIAER employee worked closely with the seven participating
dairy operations. This individual was technically knowledgeable,
well liked, and able to secure the respect of each dairy operator.
Although the government currently lacks the resources to sponsor
a cost-free one-on-one education and technical assistance
program like the one used in Goose Branch, TIAER believes
that with predictable programs to deal with bad actors, government
can provide some of these services in a group setting through
microwatershed producer councils.
Results and Discussion
While most Goose Branch dairy producers
made progress in their nutrient management, they also fell
short of the level of management needed to bring elevated
nutrients down to acceptable levels. It must be remembered,
however, that the Goose Branch project was conducted during
a record drought. Crops and filter strips did not grow, frustrating
producers and TIAER staff alike. Overall, the project demonstrated
the height of the mountain to be climbed by agriculture, as
the industry moves to address the water quality concerns of
an increasingly unforgiving urban society.
As a result of its experience in Goose
Branch, TIAER learned, among other things, the following:
- Producers will participate in efficient
and well organized council meetings
- PIMA, and programs like it, will need
predictable programs to deal with bad actors, in order to
get the desired level of participation and daily management
- Eight to fifteen members is optimal
for a producer council
- Government employees are reluctant
to ask producers to do things that do not make economic
sense for the enterprise
- Producers are most interested in cost-share
for items that will make them money or save them time
- When a water quality problem must be
addressed, producers want everyone who had a hand in creating
the problem involved in its solution
- The microwatershed approach facilitates
development of positive peer pressure
- By dividing large watersheds into small
microwatersheds, the microwatershed approach provides the
capacity to deal with watershed complexities
- Targeting microwatersheds is a good
way to measure progress and success
|
|
