Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Clean Rivers, Clean Lake 8 -- Water Quality Trading -- Dennis Frame
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Clean Rivers, Clean Lake 8 -- Water Quality Trading -- Dennis Frame

284
views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
284
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Water Quality Trading inthe Agricultural Community Dennis Frame Professor, UW – ExtensionDirector, UW – Discovery Farms
  • 2. Purpose of This Presentation Discuss the reasons for, the challenges with and the possibilities of developing point/non-point trading programs Evaluate phosphorus losses from different farms and settings Discuss what point sources need/want
  • 3. Water Quality Targets Total Phosphorus  0.1 mg/l for non-wadable rivers and estuary  0.075 mg/l for wadable streams
  • 4. Water Quality Targets In this watershed you are evaluating sources of phosphorus and developing reduction targets  Point sources  Non-point sources  Natural sources  Background levels
  • 5. Water Quality Targets The question is, can point sources afford to reduce phosphorus losses to achieve the new requirements? If not, how can they be achieved?
  • 6. Water Quality Trading Can a process be developed where point sources can trade with non-point sources to achieve an overall reduction in phosphorus?
  • 7. Water Quality Trading Can a process be developed where point sources can trade with non-point sources to achieve an overall reduction in phosphorus? Will changes in management show up in water quality?  Annual variation  Lack of precision in ag
  • 8. Point Sources Easy to sample Easy to get flow rates Therefore, relatively easy to calculate nutrient loads
  • 9. Nonpoint Sources Nonpoint source pollution, unlike pollution from industrial and sewage treatment plants, comes from many diffuse sources.
  • 10. Nonpoint Sources NPS pollution is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away pollutants, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and even our underground sources of drinking water.
  • 11. Background A Dodge County Farmer: “I believe that all farmers are concerned about nutrients moving. We want to see real data--- not something manufactured by someone behind a desk in an office.”
  • 12. Background I start with this quote because you cannot solve a problem until all the people involved in the challenge take ownership of the problem.
  • 13. Background I start with this quote because you cannot solve a problem until all the people involved in the challenge take ownership of the problem.  What I believe and “know”;  What you believe and “know”;  Is not as important as what the people and businesses living in the watershed think, believe and know!
  • 14. Total phosphorus yield, in pounds per acre 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 SW1, 2005 SW1, 2006 SW1, 2007 SW2, 2004 Mean SW2, 2005 SW2, 2006 Frozen ground SW2, 2007 SW2, 2008 Non-frozen groundPioneer, 2003Pioneer, 2004Pioneer, 2005Pioneer, 2006Pioneer, 2007Pioneer, 2008 SE1, 2006 SE1, 2007 SE1, 2008 NE1, 2004 NE1, 2005 NE1, 2006 NE1, 2007 NE1, 2008 NE2, 2005 NE2, 2006 Phosphorus Loss - Summary NE2, 2007 NE2, 2008
  • 15. Distribution of event-mean total P concentration 2003 - 08
  • 16. KoepkeKoepkeFarms, Inc. KP3 (Surface) Annual P and Sediment Loss Surface phosphorus loss 7 280 was higher in corn years 6 240 (FY06, FY08) vs the DRP soybean year (FY07) Phosphorus yield (lbs/acre) Sediment yield (lbs/acre) 5 Particulate P 200 Sediment 4 160 Dissolved phosphorus 3 120 was the dominant form of P loss 2 80 1 40 Total P loss was not 0 0 strongly linked to FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 sediment C SB C The average total phosphorus loss for the surface basin was 3.1 pounds/acre/year
  • 17. KoepkeKoepkeFarms, Inc. Tile Phosphorus Loss: Concentrations and Loads FY2005* FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009KP1 Alfalfa Alfalfa Corn grain Corn silage SoybeanConcentration 0.03 mg/L 0.01 – 0.22 0.01 – 1.17 0.01 – 2.60 0.01 – 0.04Range (Avg.) (0.03 mg/L) mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L (0.04 mg/L) (0.15 mg/L) (0.38 mg/L) (0.02 mg/L)Load 0.01 lbs 1.5 lbs 10.8 lbs 36.1 lbs -----KP2 Corn silage Corn grain Soybean Corn silage AlfalfaConcentration 0.02 – 1.02 0.01 – 2.02 0.00 – 0.57 0.01 – 5.59 0.01 – 0.06Range (Avg.) mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L (0.14 mg/L) (0.23 mg/L) (0.13 mg/L) (0.78 mg/L) (0.03 mg/L)Load 0.01 lbs 9.5 lbs 10.3 lbs 52.8 lbs -----*Annotates partial year of samplingAnnotates only monthly base flow sampling
  • 18. KoepkeKoepkeFarms, Inc. Speciation of Total Tile Phosphorus Loss Phosphorus Loss 1. The majority of P lost during the 23% monitoring period on this farm was Particulate P dissolved P. 77% Dissolved P Total Surface Phosphorus Loss 18% Particulate P 2. This farm’s no-till cropping system 82% Dissolved P greatly reduces sediment loss.
  • 19. KoepkeKoepkeFarms, Inc. Conclusions  Average total P loss for the surface basin (KP3) during the monitoring period was 3.1 pounds/acre/year; typically occurred at snowmelt and spring runoff (March, April) and during large runoff events through the year.  The contributing area for tile drainage systems could not be determined; P yields could not be generated. Raw water sample concentrations and loads were used to identify trends in water quality data.
  • 20. KoepkeKoepkeFarms, Inc. Conclusions  Tile total P loss under alfalfa was lower than corn and soybeans.  Increases in total P concentration and loads in tile lines were correlated to recent manure applications. The timing of manure applications likely had a role in the timing of P loss, especially in the dissolved form, on this farm.
  • 21. Surface Phosphorus Loss by Basin 4.5 FY2004 frozen ground 4 FY2004 non-frozen ground 3.5 FY2005 frozen ground 3 FY2005 non-frozen ground Yield (lbs/acre) FY2006 frozen ground 2.5 FY2006 non-frozen ground 2 Site P2 removed FY2007 frozen ground Not sampled 1.5 FY2007 non-frozen ground 1 FY2008 frozen ground 0.5 FY2008 non-frozen ground 0 P1 P2 P3The average total phosphorus loss for all surface basins during the monitoring periodwas 1.8 pounds/acre/year.
  • 22. Tile Phosphorus Loss Tile Phosphorus Loss by Basin 1.4 FY2005 frozen ground 1.2 FY2005 non-frozen ground 1.0 FY2006 frozen ground Yield (lbs/acres) 0.8 FY2006 non-frozen ground 0.6 FY2007 frozen ground 0.4 FY2007 non-frozen ground 0.2 FY2008 frozen ground 0.0 FY2008 non-frozen ground P4 P5Total phosphorus loss - tile basins = 0.9 pounds/acre/year• As water moves through the soil, it carries phosphorus with it through the preferentialflow paths and soil profile.
  • 23. Surface vs. Tile Comparison 4-yr Basin Average: Total Phosphorus LossTile: 0.9 pounds/acre/year average Surface Tile 34% 66% Surface: 1.8 pounds/acre/year averageTile phosphorus loss was 34 percent of the combined total loss.Some phosphorus is lost via tile, but surface loss is the most dominant phosphoruspathway in these agricultural landscapes.
  • 24. Basin Comparison Total Phosphorus Loss by Basin 6 5 Surface Tile 4 Yield (lbs/acre) 3 2 1 0 P1/P4 P3/P5 P1/P4 P3/P5 P1/P4 P3/P5 P1/P4 P3/P5 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008
  • 25. Collaboration Water quality cannot be improved without everyone being involved and being part of the solution. Every acre counts! Every source matters!!!
  • 26. Challenges with Trading How do we estimate the current levels of loss (P-index, APEX, SWAT, etc.)? How do we accurately predict reductions? How do we account for variations based on weather, farming system and management?
  • 27. Challenges with Trading The producers who are looking to get engaged with trading are probably the ones with the lowest levels of loss.  Can they make changes that reduce losses to a level that is measurable in water quality? Farmers want to protect water quality – they need to be involved throughout the process.
  • 28. Bragger Base Flow Samples Total P, WY02 - WY08TP Concentration, mg/L Dam Installed 0.40 North TP 0.35 0.30 South TP 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 Mar-02 Mar-08 Sep-02 Dec-04 Oct-03 Jul-06 Oct-08 Jan-01 Jan-06 Jun-05 Feb-07 Apr-03 May-04 Aug-01 Aug-07

×