Interactive Distributed Conservation Planning

E.M. Brown¹, D. Ouyang², A.J. Asher², J.F. Bartholic²

¹Senior Manager, Maximus, Inc., Reston, VA. Email: browne@msu.edu.

²Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48823.

Contact: J.F. Bartholic, Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University, Suite 115 Manly Miles Building, East Lansing, Michigan 48823-5243; Ph: (517) 353-9785; Fax: (517) 353-1812; Email: bartholi@pilot.msu.edu

Keywords: land use decision support system, web tools

Abstract

In the environmental and agriculture conservation planning process, more efficient and effective tools are needed for planners to assist private landowners with making wiser land use decisions. Current methods are slow, inefficient, and costly. Scientific techniques have not been fully implemented within the planning process, yet such plans are increasingly needed to meet water quality and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements. The objectives of this study are to (a) utilize the web for accessing an integrated science-based land use decision support system; (b) link decision tools, models, and databases (to the user) via the web; (c) link distributed models and databases for enhanced planning efficiency; and, (d) integrate the above into an easily useable and readily accessible system. The procedures used involved utilizing focus groups input and planning expertise for the initial design. The system was developed in partnership with Natural Resources Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and several state agencies. A survey of 150 certified conservation planners (end users) was conducted to identify the data sets and needed planning tools. Data, tools, and models were then selected and integrated into a web accessible system. Specifically, the first generation used web interactive Geographic Information System (GIS) that overlaid on digital orthoquads and/or soils polygons field boundaries, transportation, hydrologic features (drains, rivers, lakes, etc.), and high pesticide risk run-off or infiltration areas. Conservation planners found they could save time with the system. Clients could access the system quickly to help them with preparation for a meeting with their planner. Acquiring GIS maps in some cases in the past had been a lengthy process that limited use of the information in land use decisions.

Problem Context

With an increasing population comes a rapidly growing demand for land resources. This growing population also results in the need for increased food production which has resulted in more concentrated animal operations and intensive cropping for economic efficiency. Unfortunately inadequate considerations to environmental conservation is occurring which results in a degradation of the ecosystem and particularly water resources. Despite some progress in reducing point source pollution, degradation of our land and environmental systems continues. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996, 1998). A prevalent indication is the response to the Clean Water Act 303(d) section which requires listing of impaired water bodies and river segments. Further, new studies from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and other sources have alerted us to additional compounds (pharmaceuticals, bacterial, etc.) that are reaching our water supplies from confined animal facilities, combined sewer overflow, and through sewage treatment systems.

Figure 1. Building a New Paradigm

At the same time an array of disjointed policies exist at the federal and state levels, plus local efforts for integrated planning remain relatively ineffective in most states. However, each program and effort has potential for improving wiser and more sustainable use of our natural resources. Through implementation of the Clean Water Act, educational assistance and the availability of information are being enhanced by EPA. Also, dollars from EPA through the 319 program for non-point source pollution reduction have more than doubled in recent years. USGS, with their National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) efforts, have helped to characterize water conditions and assist in our understanding the sources of pollutants and the degree to which they exist in different settings. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), through recent Farm Bill’s, empowered the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to prioritize environmental problems and watersheds as well as providing financial assistance in the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP). The recent Farm Bill included the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which has funding for targeted watersheds. Additionally, there are regional programs dealing with sediment reduction and numerous other non-point source pollution problems. Phase 2 of the Clean Water Act is requiring watershed planning and water treatment in more urbanized regions of the watershed.

Problem Definition

Because responsibilities and problems associated with water are broad and so complex, there are many legislative, regional, state, and local committees that address water problems. Also, political boundaries are not based on watersheds. Thus, we need to develop a new paradigm for our approach to utilize and protect water and other natural resources by implementing sustainable land use practices appropriate for aquatic systems. The new paradigm will require integrated information on human activities and natural resources and partnerships at all levels. Integrated efforts at the local level for watershed planning and management are particularly important.

Figure 1 shows, theoretically, the components that need to be considered and linked in building a new paradigm for managing land and water resources. Beginning at the bottom, more quality data and information characterizing land use and water quality is needed. Such information will assist with more informed decisions at the farm or field level, or in the urban setting associated with development, construction, park locations, etc. Moving up the triangle in Figure 1, local decisions need to fit harmoniously into a plan for the entire watershed, i.e. paving over an area may reduce soil erosion but

Figure 2. Moving to the New Paradigm

would speed runoff with subsequent enhanced stream erosion and/or flooding. Watershed planning that crosses existing political boundaries often requires state laws and policies for assistance and to encourage the effective development and implementation of watershed plans. The Watershed Management Districts in Florida is one good example of state laws empowering watershed planning and management. Numerous types of encouragement exist in many states. When larger watersheds/basins are involved, then regional policies and regulations often become critically important guidance. In some cases, funding can be provided for regional efforts. For example, the hypoxia condition in the Gulf of Mexico may be the result of nitrates being applied and accumulated throughout the Mississippi River basin (Faeth, 1995). In the Great Lakes, the need to regulate, set back, and protect riparian zones along lakes and streams, is critically important. National policy and support is critical at all scales even though it is obtained from a variety of federal agencies (NOAA, USDA, DOI, NASA, etc.).

Building a New Paradigm

Fortunately, as shown in the outer hexagon of Figure 1, there are a number of new information technologies plus increased awareness that are paving the way for an effectively integrated and thoughtful planning and implementation process. The information highway offers a broad spectrum of tools, graphics, electronic mail, and numerous methods for facilitating a more informed public and decision-makers. Decision support systems are increasingly available for scenario development, and evaluation of potential impacts of alternative scenarios including BMP implementation efforts. Data sharing over the web with automatic downloading, on-line GIS, and numerous other creative approaches exist and are well developed in some states while emerging in others. Distributive education is another key component in helping to assure an educated, motivated, and informed public.

This paper emphasizes an example of moving to a new paradigm (Figure 2) which highlights partnerships and information technology. The two ideas work synergistically to form the building blocks for a new

Figure 3. Coupling the components of a Watershed Planning and Management System

paradigm. The illustration works from a broad national/state policy standpoint and large scale watershed prioritization perspective, and transitions to the 14 digit watershed level and ultimately in a detailed system for aiding with local land use decisions, particularly farm scale, and environmental/land use decision making.

In this process, the partnership includes the Institute of Water Research (IWR) at Michigan State University (MSU) through a cooperative agreement with USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), and the Michigan State University Extension Service (MSUE). The cooperators involved include the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA), Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). Interactions also involved the Michigan Farm Bureau and environmental organizations. Focus groups were used for input in designing the system. These groups included farmers, crop consultants, environmentalists, and a variety of individuals from the aforementioned agencies and organizations.

The information technologies utilize computers for continual analysis, data integration, and linkage to the World Wide Web for communication including interactive GIS capabilities. Systems were integrated and linked to facilitate and assist in decision making and incorporated web-based alternative scenario assessment. The pilot system has been implemented for assessment. Web-based education and technical assistance continues to be incorporated as part of the new paradigm including formal watershed courses for certificate or credit.

The Evolving Paradigm with a Watershed Emphasis

Figure 3 depicts in general the watershed planning and management process. On the left side are social and ecological considerations, while the two boxes on the right represent knowledge and data that needs to be integrated into the process. Clearly, watershed planning and management requires an interactive process. A major challenge is facilitating the effective linkages among all of the components (boxes) and in particular, building an effective process for linking the left two boxes with the right two boxes. One

Figure 4. A flow diagram showing the Interactive Distributed Conservation Planning process components.

system, (Interactive Distributed Conservation Planning [IDCP]), has been developed to help couple the components (boxes) in this figure. IDCP is shown in Figure 4.

The conceptual design for the IDCP system is depicted in the center block (with a terminal) in Figure 4. This system links four important external modules/components: the state or watershed prioritization module, the distributed data and tools component, the resulting implementation plans, and benefit evaluation. Each of the four modules will be discussed and examples from each will be presented.

Watershed Prioritization

As one approaches watershed planning, it is important to initially know two comprehensive types of information. The first deals with policy and institutional considerations. Questions such as: Is the watershed on the NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) list? Is there a 319 project in the area? Is the watershed or components of it listed as impaired reaches or water bodies on the 303(d)? Has a TMDL assessment been developed? All need to be answered.

Secondly, an array of information relative to watershed planning involves public and scientific assessments that may have been undertaken to evaluate an expansive set of issues associated with the watershed. Information about the degree to which watershed planning is already underway and/or individuals or organizations are assisting in that process, are all important factors. There might be concerns about enhanced flooding, water quality (bacterial, nutrients, and toxins), loss of unique habitats, and general trends in population and land uses that might be threatening the watershed. Thus, the bottom line, or essence of this module, is a general awareness of the players, activities, and environmental, water quality and land use issues.

This information is developed in the IDSP system through access links to maps of the EQIP watersheds provided by NRCS, an interactive GIS mapping tool of the 303(d) sites throughout the state which was developed in cooperation with the MDEQ, and listings of other programs and activities such as those associated with the 319 projects. Simple links to additional related web sites that cover local watershed efforts could also be provided.

Distributed Data and Tools

Data:

For detailed conservation planning or watershed analysis, certain sets of maps or spatial information are generally required by all planners. A survey was sent to 150 conservation planners to assess the highest priority and most used maps or information they utilized. As a result of that survey, the systems incorporated to the maximum extent possible the types of information planners required. The data layers which are most frequently requested, included soils maps, land use and topographic data, hydrologic information including streams, rivers, and lakes, plus roads and other information to facilitate orientation and subsequent ground truthing. A prototype to bring this spatial data to the fingertips of all planners over the web was developed. Interactive GIS was used to facilitate this initial stage of the conservation planning process. In this process we found that two levels of data seemed essential. The first set of information assists in assessing critical areas within a 10, 12, or 14-digit watershed. The second set of information allows for a more detailed examination of the critical or high-risk areas for specific analysis and field level planning.

It is clear that characterization of the critical areas or high potential risk areas within a watershed is very important. Such a characterization allows the relatively limited human and physical resources to be focused on the highest risk areas which helps substantially in getting the ”biggest bang for the buck” for preserving and protecting land and water quality. Thus, to the maximum extent possible data sets that either in combination or through off-line analysis yield high-risk areas are vitally important.

Tools:

Analysis “tools” at the watershed level could simply consist of contour maps overlain with hydrologic and road networks, plus names available over the web in an interactive GIS format. A more informative spatial map can be created using digital elevation and soils data information in the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to show the highest potential erosion areas (Renard, et al., 1997; Ouyang and Bartholic, 2001). Such an analysis is shown in Figure 5. Sediment loading to water bodies can be approximated through refinements of erosion information by incorporating sediment delivery ratios, or the use of more sophisticated models such as Agricultural Non-Point Source models (AGNPS) (Ouyang and Bartholic, 1997; Perrone and Madramootoo, 1999).

Within the high-risk areas, planners can focus attention on human activities and BMP’s to minimize risk to water quality. In this process, data needs to be at the appropriate scale. At a finer resolution, individual farms, fields, construction or mining operations, or urban development can be assessed. From a watershed standpoint critical high-risk areas need to be targeted for proactive education and interaction with landowners and/or education and awareness programs for landowners, developers, and local government officials. Frequent outreach to the local watershed organization(s) from NRCS, extension or the local level conservation and technical education assistance entity, can emphasize the need for restricting certain operations in high-risk areas. In either case the correct scale of information is critical in planning and assessing alternative approaches and practices for implementation plans to reduce runoff and apply BMP’s to keep contaminants from reaching surface and groundwater.

Figure 5. Mapped results of spatial prediction calculated from RUSLE for 30-meter square grids.

Digital-orthoquad photography (DOQ) is one of the most requested information layers and has been shown to be very valuable. Figure 6 shows this information overlaid with roads and water features. At this level a general idea of farmstead location, building types, as well as field boundaries, and information on riparian buffer areas can easily be assessed. Analysis of the digital elevation maps can derive flow lines that can be overlayed as seen in Figure 7.

Implementation Plans:

Much of the framework or concepts in IDCP was considered in Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP) which involves several Departments in Michigan State University, state and federal agencies, and other organizations. This program helps farmers to utilize a variety of tools and data to develop and implement a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP). One of the environmental assessment tools is the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). The website is available at http://www.iwr.msu.edu/rusle/. With the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) and digital soils data, RUSLE can be used for assessing potential soil erosion on a field basis within a watershed.

In a case study in Clinton county, Michigan shown in Figure 7, there is a particular need to take precautions to assure that runoff from farm buildings and animal operations around the farmstead are contained since the flow lines show a direct connection between the farmstead and water conveyances and streams. Thus, any implementation plan should include a thorough analysis of the farmstead and probably incorporate many BMP’s associated with containing and treating runoff from animal facilities. With the implementation of TMDL’s, IDCP should be implemented within the watershed perspective. A website to assist with such planning is being developed at http://www.iwr.msu.edu/water/.

At the field level, one would want to integrate information on soils, slope, and ownership. This information can then be used by a landowner for developing a conservation plan and/or for a more detailed work plan development with a certified consultant or conservationist. In this process with the web-based RUSLE, it is very easy for a farmer or resource planner to enter the specific field information derived from the integrated spatial information soils, slope, etc. Having the web-based RUSLE model on-line with drop down menus and assessments allows planners to accomplish in a matter of minutes what normally could take 30 minutes for those familiar with the tables and graphs. Soil erosion can then be estimated and changes in BMP’s such as using conservation tillage can be entered into the system and a new erosion rate calculated.

Figure 6. RUSLE results overlayed on a Digital Ortho-Quad (geo-referenced photo).

Figure 7. Detailed information of farm with flowlines overlayed on evaluation area.

Figure 8. Photo showing two areas (both sides of the hill) with high erosion potential. The field in the top portion of the photo has good cover (BMP) while the slope at the bottom of the photo is bare and eroding.

The field information, present erosion rate, plus the potentially lower rate with new BMP’s can be printed out as part of an implementation plan. This BMP analysis can then be linked to federal and state offices of technical and financial assistance for cost-sharing, and technical specifications for implementation.

Monitoring Impacts, Evaluating Benefits, and its Accountability

To maximize positive impacts on water quality, the implementation of BMP’s in high-risk areas is critical. The analysis just described and implementation plans must first include the extensive implementation of practices in the high-risk areas. Then, the maintenance of BMP’s which have been implemented, requires a monitoring program. An effective, rapid, and perhaps the easiest way of monitoring includes the interpretation of aerial photographs. Fortunately, the USDA Farm Service Administration (FSA) continues to support aerial photographic flights annually over nearly all of the rural areas for which they support practices. The 35mm slide information, digital-ortho photography, data from fly-overs conducted by large consulting firms, or use of the new 1-meter resolution satellite monitoring data (pictures) can all provide information that allow evaluations to be made.

Recently, while examining predicted high erosion areas in a hydrologic unit study area, we found that some high-risk areas that did not have any plant cover during high rainfall periods were contributing significant sediment and potentially nutrients to nearby water bodies. Figure 8 shows this field with direct erosion to a drain at the fields’ edge.

Further, with GPS and digital systems, the locations of conservation practices such as riparian buffer strips, grass waterways, etc. can be placed in a GIS, and run in models such as AGNPS with the potential to assess integrated reductions in sediment and nutrients over the watershed. This general evaluation of the benefits of a program is another important component of such a system.

Summary

Building a new paradigm for watershed planning from a broad perspective was discussed. The approach incorporates partnering, use of advanced information technologies, and networking via the web. Details concerning the types of partnerships and information technologies available for building the new paradigm were presented. The Interactive Distributive Conservation Planning (IDCP) system demonstrated the potential for coupling information on federal, state, and local policies and activities into the system. A wide array of digital data and the ability of on-line analysis that utilized this integrated data was demonstrated. Direct development of implementation plans evolved from the process. Evaluation of potential impacts and monitoring for the presence of practices particularly on high-risk areas was shown.

References

Faeth, P. 1995. Growing Green: Enhancing the Economic and Environmental Performance of U.S. Agriculture. World Resources Institute.

Ouyang, D. 2001. Modeling Sediment and phosphorus loading in a Small Agricultural Watershed. Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan State University.

Ouyang, D., and J. Bartholic. 2001. Web-based application for soil erosion prediction. An International Symposium – Soil Erosion Research for the 21^st Century. Honolulu, HI. January 3-5, 2001.

Ouyang, D., and J. Bartholic, 1997. Predicting sediment delivery ratio in Saginaw Bay watershed. In: Proceedings of the 22^nd Annual Conference of the National Association of Environmental Professionals. 19-23 May 1997

Perrone, J. and C.A. Madramootoo. 1999. Sediment yield prediction using AGNPS. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 54 (1) 415-419.

Renard, K.G., G.R.Foster, G.A.Weesies, D.K. McCool, and D.C. Yoder. 1997. Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning With the Revised Univaersal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). U.S. Department of Agricuture, Agriculture Handbook No. 703.

Sharpley, A., and M. Meyer. 1994. Minimizing Agricultural Nonpoint-source Impacts: A Symposium Overview. Journal of Environmental Quality. 20:1-3.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States. EPA 841-R-96-002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress. EPA 841-F-00-006.