Innovation for Local Watershed Management and Implementation
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•18 views
This document discusses the development and use of PTMApp, a tool for prioritizing conservation practices, in Minnesota watershed management. PTMApp was created to help local practitioners identify priority areas for best management practices (BMPs) and estimate the water quality benefits of implementing BMPs. It has been applied in several Minnesota watersheds and counties. The document outlines PTMApp's components, how it is supported, examples of its use, and plans for future updates to improve watershed planning and targeted implementation efforts.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Innovation for Local Watershed Management and Implementation
Similar to Innovation for Local Watershed Management and Implementation (20)
More from National Association of Conservation Districts
More from National Association of Conservation Districts (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Innovation for Local Watershed Management and Implementation
- 1. Innovation for Local Watershed Management and Implementation Prioritize Target Measure Application (PTMApp) Matt Drewitz| Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Doug Bos| Rock County SWCD Doug Thomas| Houston Engineering Inc. National Association of Conservation Districts, Las Vegas, NV
- 3. Content Watershed Management in Minnesota and Drivers for PTMApp Development PTMApp: what, who, how, where, and when Local Collaboration: Missouri River One Watershed One Plan (1W1P) Questions
- 4. The Challenge • Minnesota’s surface and ground water quality problems far exceed the available resources to fix them. • Minnesotans expect to see measurable progress toward clean water through Legacy Amendment of 2008.
- 6. The Minnesota Water Management Framework SWCDs, NRCS, and Landowners
- 7. Partnerships are Critical for Watershed Management State Agencies Federal (NRCS, FSA) Non- Profits Shared vision and goals Counties SWCDs Watershed Districts Public University of Minnesota
- 8. Water Management TransitionPlanning links data to action 8 Collaboration key between State, Federal, and Local Partners
- 10. Drivers for Innovation and PTMApp Development State Agency agreement on limiting number of models and tools • Non propriety, state supported • HSPF/HSPF SAM, Zonation, PTMApp, WHAF, GSSHA We are here Timeframe: 2008 to present LiDAR and Terrain Analysis -NW MN first -Statewide later Models and Tools in Development mode (prototypes) Twin Cities Metro area has been using a wide variety of models for decades Legacy Amendment and MN Accountability Act Programmatic and Financial Audits (more $) External Forces: Legislature, constituents, etc. Technical Policy One Water One Plan, Watershed Based Funding, and SWCD Capacity $ Watershed Decisions Support Systems (production)
- 11. Why is PTMApp Needed in Minnesota? • Provide a source of information to identify and agree on priority resources within the watershed, • Local practitioners need information to tie BMP installation to larger goal(s), • Develop, compare and contrast the water quality benefits, cost, and ability to achieve load reduction goals, and • Efficiently develop practical watershed implementation plans. 11
- 12. What is PTMApp? Technically Feasible Practice Locations Numbers by Practice Type Relative to Defined Water Quality Goal Estimated Cost Benefits • Field edge • Downstream Multiple locations #
- 13. PTMApp COMPONENTS Create Products Using PTMApp–DESKTOP • Free for download and use • ArcGIS Toolbar • Planning data included • Creates products • Includes example uses Internet Access of Product Using PTMApp–WEB • Use info created in Desktop • Targeted Implementation Strategy • Grant Applications • One Watershed One Plan • Refine WRAPs Source: HEI
- 14. How is PTMApp Supported? Core Team • MN Board of Water and Soil Resources • State Geospatial Agency (MnGEO) • Houston Engineering Inc. (Contractor) • International Water Institute Local Government Partners (SWCDs) User Base BWSR Internal Team Technical Advisory Committee Interagency Research Team University of Minnesota 2/24/2020 14
- 15. Where has PTMApp been run in Minnesota? 2/24/2020 15
- 16. PRIORITIZE: Priority Resource Points (with Catchments) 2/24/2020 16
- 17. PRIORITIZE: Source - Sediment Delivery per Catchment 2/24/2020 17
- 18. PRIORITIZE: Source - Sediment Delivery by Catchment to Resource of Concern 2/24/2020 18
- 19. PRIORITIZE: Evaluate - Sediment Reduction Storage Practice Feasibility 2/24/2020 19
- 20. TARGET: Which practices have the highest benefit 2/24/2020 20
- 21. TARGET: Which practices have the highest benefit 2/24/2020 21
- 22. MEASURE: Benefit-Cost Curves – Used to gage feasibility to reach water quality goals 2/24/2020 22
- 23. MEASURE: Benefits of Individual Practices 2/24/2020 23
- 26. What are Future Plans for PTMApp: 2019 PTMApp Needs Assessment • Needs Assessment Completed • Documentation of business needs • Plan for short and long term needs for web and toolbar (model development) • Prioritization and estimated costs for future work • PTMApp Advisory committee will review this document on an annual basis 2/24/2020 26
- 27. Planned System Updates for 2020 • PTMApp Desktop Toolbar • Upgrade model to Arc GIS Pro • Enhance BMP suitability to include outputs by NRCS practice type • PTMApp Web Application • Updates to report functions to better meet local government needs, • Adding new datasets (ex. Stream Power Index) • Training • Develop on-line videos • Tailored in person training for 1W1P watersheds 2/24/2020 27
- 28. Local Perspective on Providing Water Quality Assistance • Rock County SWCD/Land Mgt • Joint Powers between SWCD and County since 1996 • Doug Bos • Asst. Director • Water Planner 2/24/2020 28
- 29. Local Perspective on Providing Water Quality Assistance • Old Model – your county boundary • Assist willing landowners • Account for reductions • Hope efforts were accumulative to effectively restore resource • Shotgun approach – random acts of conservation • More times than not, hard to see change in water samples 2/24/2020 29
- 30. Prioritization-Collaboration with New Tools • New Model – watershed based • Use State water quality data to prioritize sub-watersheds • Utilize Lidar and PTMapp to prioritize catchments (30-40 acres) • 2015 Pilot Project on the Rock River 4 Counties, 4 SWCDs • Provided for concentrated efforts on the Rock River Watershed 2/24/2020 30
- 31. Prioritization-Collaboration with New Tools • Utilized Lidar data and PTMapp • Prioritized catchments based on • RUSLE – factors affecting soil erosion • Stream Power Index – speed and concentration of water flow • Distance to surface water • Contacted landowners • Offered field assessments • Provided conservation practice options • If interested designed practice and offered cost share 2/24/2020 31
- 32. Collaboration on a Watershed Basis • Missouri River Watershed • 6 SWCDs, 6 Counties and 2 Watersheds • BWSR has approved Watershed Plan • Providing 1.3 million for 2 years • Organizational Structure • Joint Powers Board 2/24/2020 32
- 33. Collaboration on a Watershed Basis • Very Comprehensive Process • Planning Group comprised of local staff • 2.5 years to develop • 12 Resource Concerns • 27 Priority Issues • Stakeholder Input High Priority • Advisory Committee including State Agencies • Public opportunities – Web & Mtgs 2/24/2020 33
- 34. Collaboration on a Watershed Basis • Prioritization and Ranking • Utilizing Lidar and PTMapp • Established Measurable Goals • Short (10 year)and Long Term Goals • Targeted Implementation Efforts • Very focused approach to conservation efforts • Most effective approach to improving water quality! 2/24/2020 34
- 35. Where can I get information on PTMApp? 2/24/2020 35
Editor's Notes
- The legacy fund backdrop: 1) Minnesota’s water quality (and other) problems far exceed the available resources to fix them. 2) Minnesotans expect to see measurable progress toward clean water (especially before 2034).
- As I said, TMDLs were a big driver behind the legacy amendent. The legacy act provided a funding and policy framework that set the stage for MN to fulfill its requirements under the clean water act. Prior to the amendment, we were on the “100 year plan” The watershed approach as been effective in accelerating our pace of progress for meeting our requirements under the Clean Water Act. This graph shows how dramatically the pace of progress on TMDLs has increased. (Talk a LITTLE about why… it’s not because pollution has increased THAT dramatically…) The watershed approach is much more efficient/effective than our previous approach Increased funding from legacy act/amendment We are getting better at doing assessments More/better data as time goes on (?)
- Minnesota’s state water agencies established the Minnesota Water Management Framework to describe our agreed-upon adaptive management approach. Implementation – mainly at the local level with funding from local, state, federal, and other sources, is ongoing. Every 10 years, the MPCA visits each of the state’s major watersheds… to collect biological data that gives a holistic look at the health of the water. Assessments determine whether the water body is meeting standards for its designated use. The purple box indicates a deeper analysis, including stressor identification to determine the root cause of problems, watershed modeling, and other analysis. Strategy development – WRAPS and GRAPS at the major watershed scale compile recommended strategies based on the data and information from the previous steps. CWMPS – Local governments develop plans based on data, state strategies, and local values. Plans are comprehensive and address protection and restoration.
- SHAINA This graphic is a conceptual representation of how the program works. The program REQUIRES participation from SWCDs, counties, and watershed districts that have land in the watershed. One elected/appointed (in the case of WDs) official from each local government type comprise the policy committee, who makes the final decisions about the plan. The advisory committee, which is appointed by the policy committee, makes recommendations to the policy committee. The advisory committee must include representatives from the state water agencies and the staff from the participating local governments. Planning groups then round out the advisory committee with representatives from cities, drainage authorities, federal agencies, tribal governments, lake or river associations, citizen based environmental groups, sporting organizations, farm organizations and agricultural groups or key land owners, and other interested in technical people like current and former county water plan task force members. In a word – stakeholders. BWSR has been strongly encouraging the local leaders to invite NRCS staff to participate in advisory committees. In the words of one of our BWSR board conservationists who used to work for NRCS: “if I would have understood the importance of One Watershed One Plan, I would have made it a priority to participate on the advisory committee for the Root River Plan when I was invited.” Many of the players are the same in both One Watershed, One Plan and locally led USDA LWGs. BWSR supports taking advantage of the opportunity for one process to feed into the other and vice versa, especially if it means fewer meetings for local stakeholders. {Dave’s feedback as a former NRCS employee – we used to be considered as local resource experts in the county –this could be an opportunity to invite them to the table and nurture them along…they may really relish the opportunity to do something different. EQIP is like an aircraft carrier – it’s not going to turn very quickly. The progressive, nimble conservation will be with the clean water fund and SWCDs} {Optional: you could include slides 24 and 25 as a more robust (confusing?) explanation of how the program works}
- In Minnesota the legacy amendment has dramatically increased the amount of data available for planning. … stream flow, groundwater levels, well testing, biological data collection, and stream monitoring network. All this information feeds into the one watershed, one plan process, mostly via WRAPS and GRAPS. The one watershed, one plan process is about taking that data and developing a plan for targeted implementation based on the data and local values.
- We now have nearly half of the suggested planning areas engaged in the program. The colored areas on the map are in various stages of planning. Each has been approved for a planning grant from BWSR to support the effort. ________________________________________ This is a statewide program. BWSR has created a map of suggested planning boundaries, based on major watersheds. There are currently 63. They can be modified by local request – some groups are proposing to lump multiple planning boundaries together and there have been some suggestions of splitting along watershed lines, which will cause the number to shift a bit over time. 18 of 63 watersheds (~1/3) of the state are currently participating. The program is voluntary, but the state legislature has set a goal of having all watersheds participating by the year 2025. BWSR intends to provide funding for one planning grant for each boundary to help reach the legislature’s goal (provided the legislature continues to appropriate funds for the planning grants). BWSR is also piloting a program to distribute implementation grants to watersheds with approved plans starting earlier this year. You may notice that the Root River Watershed was one of the first watersheds to go through the comprehensive watershed management planning process, and recently received $851,000 in an implementation grant for priority projects identified in it’s plan. It’s expected that the current money available in the form of BWSR competitive grants will transition to these watershed-based implementation grants over time.
- PTMApp is really about being able to have information which allows you to make a variety of water quality related business decisions, through the life cycle of your work, from planning through implementation.
- Created on Web App, data it’s built on is from Desktop App.
- Upstream of each Priority Resource Point, what is the span of sediment delivery per catchment? Tons/acre/year
- Zoom in of Priority Resource Point #17 in South Fork Root
- Sediment reduction at same point, during a 10-yr event
- 307,000 acres or 480 sq miles
- 365,000 acres or 570 sq. miles
- 700 catchments identified. Approximately 1/3 of the landowners responded with 1/2 of those requesting a walkover
- 1.1 million acres or 1783 square miles
- Planning Group developed a comprehensive inventory of 15 resources and 65 issues impacting the watershed using a combination of existing reports, data, and stakeholder input. Through public input and advisory group was refined to 12 and 27. Advisory Committee selection was very encompassing– Wanted everyone at the table.