Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) and Use in Rural Watershed Engagement

Mark Tomer, USDA/ARS

Lisa Duriancik, USDA/NRCS

Conceptual FrameworkGIS databaseGIS Toolbox

What is the ACPF?

The ACPF has three components:

• Unifying concept for water quality management in agricultural watersheds

• Consistent input databases • Land Use and field boundaries

• Soil Survey – custom tables extracted from gSSURGO

• High resolution elevation / terrain data - hydrography

• ArcGIS toolbox to develop a menu of options for conservation practice placements

• In farm field

• Below farm field

• Riparian – stream side

Concept for Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF):

(Tomer et al., 2013)

1. Planning concept:

A mix of practices is needed to meet WQ goals.

Flexible siting criteria to be responsive to different landscapes and conservation priorities.

Develop menu of options to facilitate producer engagement and voluntary participation.

2. The ACPF Database

High resolution soils, land use, and terrain data

Soils: Custom extract of NRCS gSSURGO database to focus on soil survey data used in agricultural conservation planning

Land use: Agricultural field boundaries, cropping history and rotations derived from USDA-NASS Cropland Data Layer

Terrain: LiDAR derived 2-3 m DEM recommended. Tools to help ensure connectivity of flow paths, delineation of perennial streams

GIS Toolbox

Controlled DrainageControlled drainage allows landowners to control the water table within flat portions of their fields, lowering nitrogen loads by reducing overall drainage volume

Grassed WaterwaysGrassed waterways are installed to reduce the risk of concentrated flow (gully) erosion. Although a commonly installed practice, they remain underutilized in many of the country’s steeper farmed landscapes.

Contour Buffer StripsContour buffer strips are strips of perennial vegetation planted along topographic contours. They act to reduce sheet and rill erosion. Research has shown benefits of reduced runoff volume and improved water quality.

Water and sediment control basinsWASCOBS are small embankments built across drainageways in agricultural fields. This practice can reduce sediment and phosphorus loads, attenuate peak runoff discharge, and reduce risk of gully formation

Denitrifying bioreactors

Wetland Pool

Vegetated Buffer

Drainage Area

Sample Points

Nutrient Removal WetlandsNutrient-removal wetlands help mitigate the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone. In Iowa, this practice is being encouraged through the USDA under a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP).

➢ Goal is to determine site-specific designs for riparian buffers

➢ Cross-classification of 2 variables within each riparian catchment

Riparian Function Assessment

1. Runoff DeliveryEquals the size of the catchment (the amount of runoff passing through the riparian zone)

2. Denitrification PotentialThe average width of low-lying land (< 1.5 meters) within the riparian zone

Riparian zone defined as a 90 meter width out from the stream associated

with each riparian catchment

Saturated Riparian Buffers

15

• 250 / 1920.2 = 7.68• Round up/down = 8 segments• 1920.2 / 8 = 240.025

** if all segments were of equal sinuosity, the proportion of straight line distance of each to the whole would be 100/8, or 12.5%

Define Watersheds

to each stream

segment

Split watersheds by stream

Riparian Analysis

Riparian Catchments

How can ACPF results be used?

http://arcg.is/1qKn80

Results of social engagement studies:(P. Ranjan & L. Prokopy, Purdue Univ.)

Factors influencing farmers’ receptiveness towards precision conservation results for their farm

• Process autonomy: ownership, flexibility and voluntary nature

19

“…[the process via which conservation opportunities were discussed] made it feel like it was our decision to do it [adopt a suggested conservation

practice] rather than somebody telling you to do it…I guess that’s probably the value of what I [have] seen that’s different [in this watershed project]

than what has been historical.”

“I think it's important that we allow producers flexibility within finding solutions because there isn't a one-size-fits-all answer. So that's what I like about how this [ACPF map] has been administered so far in our watershed

because we've been bringing people along on a journey and allowing people to participate at the level that they're comfortable.”

• Field-scale issue validation

• Encourages watershed thinking

“When you walk past a problem every day, you don't see it after a few trips by it. You become blind to it. And I knew [the conservation professional] was on farm to find those things. And it is hard to hear that you have things you can improve, it just is… [The process] made me aware of those things I had

just stopped seeing anymore.”

It [ACPF watershed scale map] shows you the big picture, and sometimes the farmer doesn't think about that…Yeah, the water runs that way, but they don't catch if the water runs into this little creek that runs into this bigger

creek that runs into the river, and it goes right in the town of Ames.”

Results of social engagement studies:(P. Ranjan & L. Prokopy, Purdue Univ.)

Factors influencing farmers’ receptiveness towards precision conservation results for their farm

Results of social engagement studies:(P. Ranjan & L. Prokopy, Purdue Univ.)

Factors influencing farmers’ receptiveness towards precision conservation results for their farm

• Farmers were receptive towards targeted recommendations; subsequently, also willing to engage in conservation behavior

“I think it’s nice to see your specific land and recommendations tailored directly to that land, versus when you just go to a meeting that says, ““cover crops are good. Doesn’t matter where your land is, cover crops are good.”” Well that’s all fine…but if you can see it with your field specifically marked, I

think it helps.”

“[For saturated buffer], yes. It’s due to the map…We thought about doing something like this. But we just didn’t know how it would work or where it

would work, and the maps allowed that to be seen.”

Questions?

Thanks to:

USDA-NRCS: Central National Technology Support Center,

Conservation Effects Assessment Project and Area-wide Planning Branch

North Central Region Water Network:

Iowa State Univ, Univ of Wisconsin, Univ of Minnesota, Purdue Univ.

Further Information:

• http://www.jswconline.org/content/68/5/113A.full.pdf+html (Planning concept)

• https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/jeq/articles/44/3/754 (Tools & scenarios)

• https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/jeq/articles/44/3/768 (Riparian assessment)

• https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/jeq/articles/46/3/676 (Database)

• http://arcg.is/1qKn80 (SFIR watershed storybook)

• https://www.nrrig.mwa.ars.usda.gov/st40_huc/satBuff.html (Saturated buffer menu - Iowa)

• https://acpf4watersheds.org (Toolbox & data download, training & support)

Use and Support of ACPF within NRCSNovember 19, 2019, Great Lakes Sedimentation Workshop

Lisa F. Duriancik, USDA NRCS/SSRA/RIAD/Outcomes Team/CEAP

Co-Authors:

Lisa Duriancik, SSRA/Res. Assessment/Outcomes Team-CEAP Dee Carlson, Programs/Area-Wide Planning BranchRafael Guerrero, Dwain Daniels and Lyn Kirschner, S&T/Central NTSCSteve Davis, Ohio NRCSJan Surface, S&T/Ecological SciencesKarma Anderson, S&T/Water Quality and Quantity Team

History of ACPF in NRCS

• Conceptually based on CEAP Watersheds precision conservation: assessments, techniques and findings

• Funded by Regional Conservationists and then 2 Conservation Innovation Grants (S&T)

• Executive level regional plan to pilot ACPF in selected regions

• Follow on pilot project funding from CEAP to CNTSC to support an interagency agreement with ARS and partners

• Training development and delivery

• Website development and hosting

• Assessment refinement

• CEAP Watersheds funding for tool evaluation and development in PA

• Use in Indiana and Missouri in the MRB by NRCS specialists

25

ACPF use in CEAP Watersheds

• CEAP Approach: run ACPF in higher or lower relief, different hydrology, smaller field sizes, different preferred practices• Run; evaluate in known watersheds;

develop assessment approaches; develop for new practices

• PA CEAP ACPF use:• Mahantango Creek (CEAP), Spring Creek

(CEAP), Conawego Creek, one more

• Landscape breaks, catchment size effects, riparian buffer placement, DEM resolution sensitivity

• Next steps: SWAT modeling coupled; paired watershed assessment with ACPF output, etc.

26

ACPF use in CEAP Watersheds

• Tested or run so far in CEAP Watersheds in:• Iowa

• Indiana

• Georgia

• Work continues:

• Pennsylvania

• Ohio Blanchard River and Rock Creek

27

WLEB ACPF PILOT WATERSHEDS (A Variety of Landscape Slopes)

Seven 12 digit HUCs, Two states, Many PartnersARS, NRCS, The Ohio State University,

Heidelberg University, ODA, OEPA, TNC

OHIO ACFP PILOT PROCESSPilot Project:

✓ Invited partners to participate✓ Selected pilot watersheds✓ ARS held user training session in the basin✓ ARS did hydro-modification, ran tool, checked

quality control on output (maps)✓ Implement use, outreach, & planning activities

o Next Steps: Examine results from districtconservationist feedback, determine next steps, costs, potential of scaling up.

Delivered Output Maps/Products To Field Offices for Review

Via Password Protected Website

Provide NRCS the tools and

recommendations necessary

for field offices to use ACPF

for watershed planning and

outreach.

Readiness

AssessmentThrough interviews, online

surveys, focus groups,

and training evaluations,

examine current NRCS

procedures, knowledge

and capacity to integrate

ACPF into NRCS toolkit.

Broadly assess potential

long-term impacts of

spatially targeted

conservation.

Technical

DevelopmentBuild ACPF database and

toolbox results in pilot

watersheds. Determine

needs to integrate new

tools for NRCS needs into

ACPF toolbox. Assess

NRCS technical capacity

for readiness assessment

and serve as experts for

training & outreach.

Training & OutreachSupport training

development and

implementation designed

for both ACPF tool

development/output

productions and using

ACPF in watershed

management. Maintain

ACPF website and

communication availability

of ACPF resources.

Pilot

Watersheds

already in

ACPF Database

(Upper

Midwest)

Pilot

Watersheds not

already in ACPF

database

(Other US

regions)

New ACPF NWQI Agreement

Iowa Water Center – Project

Management/Team Development

USDA- Ag Research Service

USDA NRCS Conservation

Planning and Technical

Assistance Division, Resource

Assmt. Div., CNTSC, and S&T

Readiness

AssessmentPurdue University

Natural Resources

Social Science Lab

Iowa State University

Natural Resources

Ecology and

Management

Technical

DevelopmentIowa State University

Agricultural Biosystems

and Engineering

Iowa State University

GIS Facility

Training & OutreachUniversity of Wisconsin-

Madison Division of

Extension

Minnesota Water

Resources Center

NRCS local,

state and

regional staff,

NRCS watershed

planning partners

CEAP

Watershed

Scientists,

ORISE

Participants

Partners

CEAP Watersheds Next Steps for ACPF Evaluation

• Continue evaluation and use in Blanchard CEAP Watershed, OH

• ~$250K under new NRCS $1M Agreement for NWQI:

• Chesapeake Bay

• Choptank River subwatersheds in MD

• Very low relief watersheds, ditch drained

• Riparian buffer placement

• Lower Mississippi River

• AR CEAP Watersheds

• MS CEAP Watersheds

• Oklahoma

• Under new NRCS $400K Agreement for CEAP:

• Vermont, PA (Susquehanna), and NC Piedmont

• Small field sizes; higher elevation; add more P reducing practices 33