FUTURE ACTION

Where do we go from here? Any of the fifteen tools in the short list have the potential to provide valuable information to our field staffs. Do we need to maintain expertise in a large suite of tools, each with its own "touch and feel," or do we need to limit the agency to two or three tools that are approved and supported by NRCS specialists? Probably neither option is realistic in view of the limited number of technical specialists involved with water quality modeling and the wide range of conditions and situations across the country that could be modeled. Then where do we go?

The Water Resource Group in a recent meeting agreed to a two pronged approach to the increased use of water quality models within NRCS. The first will be the development of a coordinated approach to water quality model technology transfer. The second prong will be a departure from the past in that the move will be toward developing a framework where model components or modules can be chosen for their ability to address specific situations and assembled together as needed.

Technical Transfer Component

Before options for technology transfer are discussed, some general questions need to be asked and answered. What would be the goal to be achieved in a technology transfer program? What are we trying to accomplish? Probably a simplistic answer is that we hope to put model technology in the hands of ones that need to apply the technology to solve conservation problems. A more complex answer involves informing NRCS specialists about water quality models and what the use of models will provide them.

There was a quite elaborate technology transfer program developed in the middle 1990’s as mentioned above. Are we considering organizing something similar? The previous technology transfer involved providing extensive in-house support and training. Are we going to provide the same level of training, or are we going to leave it to the individual to use the model documentation? How about re-instituting the model liaison positions that worked so well in the 1980’s? Is this a role our institutes can assume? Undoubtedly it is the consensus of managers within the agency that we no longer have the resources to mount a comprehensive effort such as that in the 1990’s that was borne primarily by the NTC’s. However, it is recognized some level of assistance and training will be needed. The question then becomes one of how much support and who will provide it.

Finally, do we know who is needing to or wanting to use water quality models, and what problems are they wanting to address? To a certain extent the answer is yes in that there are continued contact between technical specialists at the centers and institutes and a network of regional, state, and local NRCS employees. However, the networks are more tenuous now than ever before, and the NRCS can’t rely on the centers and institutes to intuitively know the needs of potential model users.

The team recognizes there is no one way to best provide for technology transfer. The process below is one possible scenario. There could be many variations of this scenario as well as others.

• Identify typical water quality modeling needs at the field and state office levels. A clear definition of the problem or management issue is essential. We have to know what the decision variables are before we can choose the best analysis method.
• Identify regions where the climatic and hydrologic processes are well / not well represented by components of existing models. We should expect that there would be areas or circumstances where no existing model can be recommended, or recommended only with certain caveats and qualifications.
• Develop a list of the better models based on model review matrix, applicability to identified analysis needs, availability of software and documentation, etc. The team believes the fifteen models identified in the summary matrix will meet the needs of the field and state offices as outlined above, and generally will provide adequate hydrologic relationships. The fifteen comprise a more extensive list than can be transferred in the short term. We do not see technology transfer focusing on broad area (regional) training sessions. As the need for assistance in model application is recognized as outlined below; the technology for the model would be transferred to those who are using the tool.
• Develop a web page similar to the one previously supported by the NWCC. Provide relevant information on selected models, including descriptions of components modeled, input data requirements, limitations, as well as links to the model developer where downloadable software and documentation are located. The web site needs to be designed with the user in mind, and provide a mechanism for navigating through the models looking for the appropriate tool. Some form of flowchart or decision support system has been suggested as possibilities for assisting the user select the right tool. Success stories highlighting NRCS use of a tool would be appropriate as well.
• Establish a clearinghouse or first point of contact for assistance in model application. There will be some in the states who will be able to sort through the suite of models described on a web site and be able to select a specific tool to meet their need. For most, a point of contact to assist them in selecting the appropriate tool or tools would be helpful. The NWMC or some other entity with a direct assistance focus would be a logical first point of contact.
• Identify experts and develop a process for technical consultation and on-site assistance. These technical specialists will be identified with specific models and need to be available for field / state people to call on them to guide the potential user through the entire process, from project conception to model selection to model implementation to interpretation of results. This will require a commitment on the part of the assigned specialist and their supervisory chain to be available when the need arises. As model experts work with the states, and those assisting the states, the responsibility for model assistance could shift.

Modular Model Development

Any field level tool must be specifically designed to address the decision to be made. This requires that the tool builder have a thorough knowledge of both the precise need at the field office and the models, methods, and science available pertaining to the issue. This should be the function of the NRCS Center and Institute personnel, which means they play a bridging role between the researchers and the practitioners, and, to do so, they themselves really need to be both. It also means that any such tool must be carefully designed and maintained so as actually to be useful to the field office, which requires a focused effort and, of course, a serious commitment of resources. Here is the dilemma. Researchers are often interested in science for science sake. NRCS is interested in "science" to meet specific needs. How do we marry the needs of the NRCS Field Office with the development of science? Certainly our PMT effort is crucial.

There have been and currently are many independent water quality modeling efforts within ARS as well as in other government agencies and in universities. Most of these models have not been designed and built specifically for NRCS, but rather they represent the efforts of research scientists whose motivations and goals are not necessarily fully aligned with those of NRCS. It is essential, then, that NRCS maintain a cadre of technical peers to these model developers to be able to sort through all of these modeling activities, critique the equations and algorithms used in the models, and work side-by-side with the model developers to ensure that NRCS will obtain models that meet its needs. To some extent this is akin to the model liaisons of the 1980’s.

It should not be expected that any one tool or model would contain all the "right" components. More likely, several models may contain one or more elements or modules, that when combined with other modules, can produce a tool to meet a specific need. To this end, NRCS needs a coordinated, focused effort, led by a cadre of technical experts, for putting together a modular modeling system. The system will facilitate the development of models tailored for NRCS needs at each office level by extracting the best parts of the existing ones and consolidating them together in an appropriate and convenient fashion. Probably the key to satisfying the long term needs of the NRCS with water quality tools lies in adopting a pro-active stance where we tell researchers what modules or components we need and working with those providing those needs.

There is an ongoing, interagency effort to develop an advanced modular model framework for agriculture and natural resource systems. A complete description of the project is included in Appendix C. The vision of the project is stated as; "A modular modeling system is a computer framework consisting of a library of alternate science and database modules, which facilitates the assembly of a modeling package, tailored to the problem, data constraints, and scale of application. The framework is supported by appropriate graphical user interface (GUI) modules and utility modules such as data retrieval and storage, GIS, graphical and Statistical analysis packages.

The description of the project lists the benefits as; "In the past, ARS has had various teams develop software technology and simulation models at an average expense of $l5 Million per project that contained significant duplication of work. The proposed system will leverage the investment that ARS has made in model development to facilitate the creation of future models, or modification of existing models, with newer technology at a fraction of the cost. Additional advantages of the proposed Modular Modeling Framework are:

1. It will use the best science available for the given conditions and problem.

2. It will be easier to maintain and update as the new knowledge, data, and technology become available. It will allow a "plug and play" mechanism for modules consisting of sub-models, equations, graphics, statistics, and risk analysis.

3. It will eliminate duplication of work by modelers. The library of modules will serve as a reference and a coordination mechanism for future improvements. It will facilitate communication between modelers and scientists by providing a common standard for development and implementation.

4. It will significantly reduce the problem for users of different models giving different results by utilizing a library of evaluated, documented and standardized modules, thus greatly benefiting NRCS and other users as well as ARS.

S. The common interface for model usage will result in lower training costs and reduced startup time for future modelers and scientific users.

6. The java can be compiled into a runtime executable for consistent interface use for NRCS and others resulting in lower training costs."

It is the recommendation of the team that NRCS should adopt and support the current cooperative effort with ARS and USGS in the development of a modular modeling system. This involves activity in two areas: computer systems and science. In order to populate this system with process modules, another interagency team will need to be established. NRCS will need to participate in this as well as develop a group to lead a model building effort that utilizes this system. All of this is a major long-term investment in technology development, in which NRCS needs to take a leadership role.