1 Conservation Innovation Grant Introductory Meeting November 9, 2006 Institute of Water Research Michigan State University East Lansing, MI

2 Agenda 1. Introductions All 2. Targeting Conservation Practices: the proactive approach Institute of Water Research 3. High Impact Targeting Demonstration Institute of Water Research 4. Background and Organizational Structure MDA & Institute of Water Research 5. Opportunities and Roles All 6. Discussion, Feedback, Questions All 7. Next Steps All

33 The Need to Target Proactively

4 High Impact Targeting (HIT) HIT is a web-accessible system that allows users to identify and prioritize, at multiple-scales, areas at high-risk for sediment loading. The data delivered through HIT are the product of results from the Spatially Explicit Delivery Model (SEDMOD)¹ and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE)². 1.Fraser. May Renard, Foster, Weesies, McCool, Yoder

5 Rainfall Support Practice Land Cover Landuse/Tillage Soil Clay Content Soil Erodibility DEM Delivery Ratio Soil Erosion Sediment Yield Sediment Yield SEDMOD/RUSLE Methodology Surface Roughness Soil Texture Distance to Stream Weighting C Factor K Factor R Factor P Factor LS Factor RUSLE SEDMOD

6 Prioritization of 8-digit HUCs Using 90m Resolution Data (Great Lakes Basin) Estimated Potential Sediment Loading Contributed from Cropland (tons/yr.) Source: Ouyang, Bartholic, Selegean (2005)

7 Prioritization of 12-digit HUCs Using 10m Resolution Data (Lower Maumee River Watershed – NW Ohio)

8 WatershedAcresTillage Total Sediment (tons) Reduction (tons) Percent Change Garret18,065 current practice 1,59100% Garret no till on worst 5% 1, % Garret no till on worst 10% 1, % Wolf17,440 current practice 2860 Wolf no till on worst 5% Wolf no till on worst 10% Applying BMP (no-till) on highest risk acres in contrasting watersheds

9 Slide “A” shows a 30 square mile area of watershed that can be examined to rapidly locate and magnify high risk contributing areas. 9

10 “B” shows an enlarged map area 10

11 “C” shows further enlargement with a photographic image of the area. C 0 2,000 feet

12 “D” shows this resolution with the photo overlaid with the sediment risk layer. D 0 2,000 feet

13 Specific problem areas can be interpreted from slide “E” by overlaying the sediment risk layer over the photograph. 0 1,000 feet E

14 Slide “F” shows contour lines and three example areas of high sediment delivery. 1) High sediment deliveries 2) Potential concentrated flow 3) High sediment delivery no riparian buffer F 1 2 3

15 Line of Sight in Blue, Model-predicted Flow in Yellow

16 Line of Sight in Blue, Traces of Gullies in Yellow

17 Closer Look at Trace of a Gully

18 Upstream Site Installed Grass Buffer If an existing BMP GIS layer is available, it can be incorporated into the model to further improve targeting efforts.

19 Benefits –Allows for prioritization of areas with a high risk for sediment loading –Watershed and field-level resolutions –Spatially distributed C-factor (weighted and averaged by county-level tillage data from CTIC) Limitations –RUSLE does not account for ephemeral gully erosion –10 meter resolution DEMs not available for all areas –SEDMOD processing can take over a week to finish Benefits and Limitations of the Methodology

20 Making the Data Web-Accessible: In order to realize the benefits of the HIT modeling process, the data needs to be readily available to decision makers. HIT front page. User selects a watershed.

21 Making the Data Web-Accessible: User has the option to view data for the entire 8- digit watershed in three formats: Tabular Bar Graph Spatial Those options are also available for viewing sub-watersheds of the 8-digit watershed. In this example, the user chooses to compare sub- watersheds, instead of looking at just one. Users can choose from multiple scales and formats to view data.

22 Making the Data Web-Accessible: Several watersheds will be compared. Cost benefit analyses will be run for each of two BMPs: No Till on the worst 5% of areas Mulch till on the worst 5% of areas Totals and rates will be calculated for each sub-watershed. Sediment data will be analyzed. Build a results table

23 Making the Data Web-Accessible: Table Results

24 Making the Data Web-Accessible: Closer look at the tabular results Results sorted by BMP cost per ton reduction (by clicking on column title). BMP cost/acre provided by NRCS. HIT uses NRCS value to calculate total cost of BMP in a particular watershed. This can help an organization determine where (and which) conservation efforts will yield the maximum return in sediment reduction within its budget.

25 Making the Data Web-Accessible: Same data displayed in the table is also available in bar graph format.

26 Making the Data Web-Accessible: If Wade Creek is identified as the targeted watershed, the user can use HIT to connect to Digital Watershed in order to explore Wade Creek’s high risk areas spatially. Viewing the data spatially

27 More options for entering the system Increase the BMP options Ability to query results Expand number of watersheds modeled Future Expansion of HIT

28 SEDMOD/RUSLE methodology facilitates prioritization of areas in terms of sediment loading at the watershed, sub-watershed, and field levels. HIT system makes SEDMOD/RUSLE results readily accessible over the web. HIT allows results to be explored in either tabular, bar graph, or spatial formats. Empowers conservation districts, field staff, and agricultural operators to target areas at high-risk for sediment loading. HIT Summary

/hit/hit.asp

30 MDA IWR Determine reduction targets Cost/benefit analysis of BMPs Conservation Districts Develop and deliver outreach plan Farmers CIG Specialists Interface with Model sediment yield in select watersheds Build and refine on-line HIT system Provide user feedback CREP Technicians MDEQ Monitoring CIG Technical Flow Feedback provided by a Technical Advisory Committee Year 1 Year 1- Year 2 On-going NRCS

31 MDA Composition of Advisory Committee and Planned Inputs MSUE MACD Farm Bureau Estimate levels of farmer participation Identify high risk erosion areas MDEQ Water quality info MDNR Advisory Committee Inputs Other inputs Identify Targeted Sub-watersheds Representatives of FSA NRCS Watershed Orgs IWR

32 IWR Composition of IWR Technical Committee MSU Ag Engineering MACDFarm Bureau Ease of system use Modeling improvements Outreach effectiveness Technical Committee Inputs HIT utility Refine and enhance HIT technical capacity Representatives of FSA NRCS Watershed Orgs CREP Technicians CIG Specialists MDA

33 MDA IWR Number of farmers and organizations receiving conservation education MDEQ CIG Program Evaluation Conservation Districts Participants and enrolled acres as a % of potential participants and acres Unique hits on HIT website Quantify reductions in sediment loadings Estimate long term water quality improvements Provides

34 How will NRCS, MDA, and IWR determine sediment reduction “targets”? –Use HIT models to come up with numbers to shoot for. Utilize the specialists to do some ground-truthing, get a sense if the worst 5% of areas predicted by the HIT model are actually the worst 5%. –We need to remember that these are targets, not deliverables. –Could also establish targets for specialists. Numbers of farmers engaged with the program, dependent on sub-watershed and degree of engagement. Opportunities and Roles

35 How will MDA and IWR evaluate the cost-benefit of BMPs? –Cost is the easy part. –Benefit is harder. What type of benefit? –Water quality? –Habitat improvement? –Project’s focus is sediment reduction. –Might be able to include Phosphorus into the analysis by looking at the soils. Have to make some assumptions, it is not possible to come up with precise estimates for efficacy of all BMPs. Each watershed will provide list of BMPs utilized, to give us a starting point. Opportunities and Roles

36 How will the Conservation Districts and IWR develop an outreach plan? –Get the HIT web system in place. –Recruit for focus groups, initiate dialogs with potential users/groups. –Tailor it based on initial conversations with potential users. –Utilize pre-existing outreach programs (319 or CSP). Opportunities and Roles

37 What are the primary responsibilities of the CIG Specialists? What will they do in the first year? –Familiarize themselves with HIT tool, provide initial feedback to IWR. –Familiarize themselves with conservation planning, MEAP, EQIP, other programs. Maybe in the form of a training program (after conservation districts assess their respective backgrounds). –Start informing the public about the program Meeting, interacting with watershed groups, building rapport with farmers. –Later-on: ground-truthing HIT model predictions. Opportunities and Roles

38 How often will the Advisory Committee meet? –Semi-annual –First meeting probably not until after February. Potential Advisory Membership –Exec. Dir Conservation Districts (Lori Phelan) –Each district could recommend a local watershed group rep. –M-DNR – Bill Mortz (Wildlife Division) –FSA – Dale Allen could recommend someone –MSUE – Jane Herber or Alan Krizeek (sp.?) –NRCS – Kevin Wickey –DEQ – Meghan McMahon Opportunities and Roles

39 How often will the Technical Committee meet? –Potential Technical Membership Spicer DEQ – John Esch –1st meeting? Opportunities and Roles

40 Establish advisory committees. –Advisory: MDA –Technical: IWR Set up introductory meetings between MDA, IWR, and CIG Specialists (once they have been hired) IWR begins building HIT data. After assessing each Specialist’s background, the Conservation Districts and MDA will develop a list of training needs for the specialists. Specialists familiarize themselves with MEAP, EQIP, CRP, other programs identified on the training list. Conservation Districts provide lists of most common BMPs to IWR and MDA. Next Steps

41 Thanks for Caring and Acting to Sustain Water Resources 41