69th SWCS International Annual Conference July 27-30, 2014 Lombard, IL

1. Developing and Testing Tools to
Improve Targeting of Conservation
Programs and Practices
Claire Baffaut & E. John Sadler
SWCS ‐ Annual International Meeting ‐ July 2014

2. Context
Problem
• Erosion and pollutant
transport continues in
spite of significant
implementation of
management practices
Causes
• changes in land use,
• changes in
management,
• climate change,
• but also sub‐optimal
placement of BMP in
the agricultural
landscape

3. Vulnerability, practice & effectiveness
Excellent Poor
Vulnerable Resilient
Zero
effect
Little
effect
Little
effect
Maximum
effect
After Nowak and Cabot,
JSWC, 59(6), 2004

4. What is targeting?
Geographic targeting Benefit/cost targeting
• Areas with the greatest
potential improvement per
dollar spent
• Most vulnerable areas
– Soil, land use, topography
• Most pristine areas
– Management
• Areas with the greatest
potential improvement
– Soil, land use, topography,
and management
(After World Resource Institute presentation
by Michelle Perez)

5. Conclusions from WRI study
Compared to current BMP implementation
strategy, Benefit/Cost targeting is:
– 12 times more effective for reducing N
– 8 times more effective for reducing P
– 8 times more effective for reducing sediment
– 7.5 times more effective for sequestering carbon

6. How do we solve the problem?
Required Characteristics
• Validated
• Accurate
• User friendly
Tools
• Policy: voluntary vs
mandatory
• Technical tools:
– Identify vulnerable areas
– Identify areas with
potential environmental
improvement
• Optimization tools

7. • Review selected targeting tools and
their validation techniques
• Identify gaps and next steps
Objectives

8. The topographic index (TI)
• Cornell group [Lyons et al. Hyd. Proc. 18.2004]
• Identify areas with high probability of
saturation in a setting characterized by
permeable soils on top of a restrictive layer.
• The most validated index?

9. Validation of the Topographic Index
• Comparison of predicted and observed (GPS
located) saturated areas in a small watershed
(2 km2).
• Additional corroboration by comparison with
thermal images that qualitatively approximate
wet areas in that same watershed.
• Comparison of high saturation probability
with piezometer data (different watershed).
From Lyons et al. Hydrol. Processes 18, 2757–2771 (2004)

10. Other existing targeting tools
• Hydrology characterization tool (HCT, Brooks and
Boll group, U of Idaho)
• Water input index (WII) and sediment retention
index (SRI, Dosskey, Forest Service, Nebraska)
• Pesticide index (Shea group, U of Nebraska)
• Conductivity claypan index (CCI, Baffaut, Missouri)
• Soil vulnerability index (SVI, NRCS)

11. Validation Techniques
Tool
• HCT
• WII and SRI
• Pesticide Index
• CCI
• SVI
Validation method
1. Professional judgment
2. Qualitative comparison to
aerial photos
3. Comparison to other
indices
4. Comparison to model
results
5. Limited comparison to data
1, 5
1,2,3
1,5
1,2,4
1,2,3,4

12. Summary:
Targeting index evaluation methods
• Expert knowledge of an area
• Overlay with aerial photos
• Comparison to other index methods
• Comparison to model results in test case
• Comparison to field data in test case

13. Gaps / Limitations
• Spatial analysis tools to identify visible
critical areas in aerial photos.
• Tools for spatial comparison of maps.
• Identification of non‐visible critical areas?
• What is the accuracy of models in
simulating effectiveness of practices?

14. Next steps
• Evaluate models’ accuracy in simulating BMP
effects when calibrated in the absence of a
BMP.
• Develop and use advanced spatial and GIS
analysis tools
• Conduct experimental work to test the validity
of targeting.