1. Slide 1 Robert Kellogg NRCS, Beltsville Results and Lessons Learned on Regional/National Modeling Efforts: Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP)

2. Why do we do large-scale regional modeling and assessment? Slide 2

3. Why do we do large-scale regional modeling and assessment? Slide 3 To provide information in support of policy development or management of government programs.

4. Why do we do large-scale regional modeling and assessment? Slide 4 To provide information in support of policy development or management of government programs. How big is the problem? What has already been accomplished? What is left to do, and where? What can be expected if specific actions are taken? What is the most cost-effective approach?

5. Slide 5 1.Describe study and findings 2.Challenges in developing and presenting results 3.Lessons learned

6. Slide 6 Goals of the CEAP Cropland National/Regional Assessment  Define and evaluate practices in use  Estimate the effects/benefits of conservation practices in use  Estimate the need for additional conservation practices 4.Simulate effects/benefits of additional treatment

7. Slide 7 Cropland Regional Assessments

8. Slide 8 Sampling and Modeling Approach Farm survey data at NRI-CEAP sample points Field-level modeling APEX Watershed modeling HUMUS/SWAT Onsite (field-level) Effects Off-Site Water Quality Effects

9. Slide 9 Primary Sample Unit (PSU) Points Statistical Design

10. Slide 10 Modeling Strategy  Estimate a CEAP Baseline using farmer survey information at NRI sample points 2.Construct an alternative scenario assuming “no practices” Difference between these two scenarios represents the benefits of the accumulation of conservation practices currently in place on the landscape.

11. Slide 11 47-year minimum-maximum precipitation

12. Evaluation of Conservation Practices Slide 12

13. The Baseline Conservation Condition Slide 13 Soil erosion controlUpper Miss. Ches. Bay Great Lakes Structural practices for water erosion control -- All acres -- HEL acres 45% 72% 46% 63% 26% 37% Tillage -- No till -- Mulch till 28% 63% 48% 40% 32% 50%

14. The Baseline Conservation Condition Slide 14 Nitrogen application for all crops in rotation Upper Miss. Ches. Bay Great Lakes Appropriate rate39%32%40% Appropriate timing45%54%69% Appropriate method56%35%50% Appropriate rate and timing and method 16%12%18% No nitrogen applied2%3%4.5%

15. The Baseline Conservation Condition Slide 15 Nutrient application for all crops in rotation Upper Miss. Ches. Bay Great Lakes Appropriate rate and timing and method for both nitrogen and phosphorus, including acres with no applications 13%9%12% Cover crops<1%4%1%

16. Losses of Sediment and Nutrients from Fields Slide 16

17. Sediment Loss (tons/acre), Baseline Slide 17

18. Nitrogen Loss (pounds/acre), Baseline Slide 18

19. Nitrogen Loss in Subsurface Flows, Baseline Slide 19 Means: CB = 32.7 pounds/A UM = 18.7 pounds/A GL = 25.8 pounds/A

20. Inherent Vulnerability Slide 20 UMCBGL Avg. annual precipitation (inches)344234 Percent of cropped acres with slopes>2% 42%60%34% Percent of cropped acres that are HEL 18%44%17% Percent of cropped acres highly prone to surface water runoff 13%23%6% Percent of cropped acres prone to leaching 9%46%30%

21. Conservation Treatment Needs Under-treated acres were identified as those with an imbalance between the level of potential loss—inherent vulnerability— and the level of conservation treatment. Acres were assigned to three levels of need for additional treatment—High Moderate, and Low Slide 21

22. Slide 22 Average annual loss of nitrogen in subsurface flows, GL--pounds/acre/yr Soil leaching potential Low treatment Moderate treatment Moderately high treatment High treatment Low 252297 Moderate 43301210 Moderately high 61471511 High 54573316

23. Acres Needing Conservation Treatment Slide 23

24. Slide 24 Average annual loss of nitrogen in subsurface flows, GL--pounds/acre/yr

25. Slide 25 Average annual loss of nitrogen in subsurface flows, GL--pounds/acre/yr

26. High conservation treatment need for nitrogen and/or phosphorus loss

27. Challenges in developing and presenting results Slide 27

28. Challenges in developing and presenting results Slide 28 1.Evolution of models

29. Challenges in developing and presenting results Slide 29 1.Evolution of models 2.Establishing believability

30. Challenges in developing and presenting results Slide 30 1.Evolution of models 2.Establishing believability 3.Simplicity versus complexity

31. Challenges in developing and presenting results Slide 31 1.Evolution of models 2.Establishing believability 3.Simplicity versus complexity 4.Forecasting…and meeting…report publication deadlines

32. Challenges in developing and presenting results Slide 32 1.Evolution of models 2.Establishing believability 3.Simplicity versus complexity 4.Forecasting…and meeting…report publication deadlines 5.Presentations

33. Challenges in developing and presenting results Slide 33 1.Evolution of models 2.Establishing believability 3.Simplicity versus complexity 4.Forecasting…and meeting…report publication deadlines 5.Presentations 6.Peer review

34. Lessons Learned… Slide 34 1.Define clearly at the start the kinds of statements you will be including in your report, as well as what you will NOT address… Write up preliminary results and present to users of the information early and often. Don’t wait for the modeling to be completed before drafting. Try to manage expectations of your audience.

35. Lessons Learned… Slide 35 2.Involve a team of subject-area experts from different disciplines... But discuss the project as a group frequently to keep all on the same page.

36. Lessons Learned… Slide 36 3.Modeling decisions are NOT independent from the presentation of results… Discuss assumptions and methods as a team to confirm that the “messages” in the report are consistent with modeling assumptions, and vice versa

37. Lessons Learned… Slide 37 4.If “off-the-shelf” databases are fundamentally inappropriate for answering the questions, don’t try to “make do”… Collect the data you need.

38. Lessons Learned… Slide 38 5.Models and databases will always be modified and refined… You will have to do everything over more than once—plan on it.

39. Lessons Learned… Slide 39 6.If your results appear to be new scientific findings, you are probably doing something wrong… Regional modeling is primarily a synthesis of scientific knowledge and understanding.

40. Lessons Learned… Slide 40 7.Document…document…document Establishes believability. Avoids mis-use of the findings. Explain why you chose a method/assumption, and why alternatives were not chosen. Prepare documentation reports as you go…don’t wait until the end.

41. Lessons Learned… Slide 41 8.Consider keeping the technical report separate from other communication products designed specifically to focus on messages. 9.Be patient with your audience.

42. Lessons Learned… Slide 42 10.Avoid an open public review of a draft report.

43. Lessons Learned… Slide 43 10.Avoid an open public review of a draft report. 11.Don’t get into a “model war” with either EPA or USGS.

44. Slide 44 Information on CEAP can be found at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Technical/nri/ceap /