Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Modeling phosphorus runoff in the chesapeake bay region to test the phosphorus index

552 views

Published on

Full Proceedings available at: http://www.extension.org/72795

The revision of USDA-NRCS’s standard for nutrient management coincided with significant assessment of the performance of Phosphorus (P) Indices in the six states that are tied to the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The 64,000 square mile watershed is the focus of unprecedented activity around nutrient management as a result of a 2011 Total Maximum Daily Load for P, nitrogen (N), and sediment under the Clean Water Act. In addition, the state of Maryland had required updates to it’s original P Index, resulting in broad scrutiny by various interest groups. Within this setting, USDA-NRCS funded a multi-state project to help advance the testing and harmonization of P-based management in the Chesapeake region.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Modeling phosphorus runoff in the chesapeake bay region to test the phosphorus index

  1. 1. Modeling Phosphorus to Test the P Index in the Chesapeake Bay Region Pete Kleinman, D. Beegle, Z. Easton, A. Collick, J. Weld, Q. Ketterings, K. Czymmek, D. Fuka, T. Veith, A. Shober, S. Cela, M. Reiter, A. Allen, J. McGrath, R. Bryant, J. Liu, K. Clark, T. Buda and M. Amin, T. Basden
  2. 2. Spring Creek Mahantango Creek Conewago Creek Allegheny Plateau Dressler Run Nanticoke River (Bucks Branch) Upper Manokin River Factory Brook Valley & Ridge Piedmont Coastal Plain Shenandoah River Chesapeake Conservation Innovation Grant Watersheds
  3. 3. 1. Model proving Monitoring database 3. Site assessment tool evaluation Project Approach Phosphorus routines Alternative models
  4. 4. Mahantango Creek, PA Valley & Ridge
  5. 5. WE38 – detailed field-scale modeling https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wx0SJM7FeEc/mqdefault.jpg http://www.extension.org/sites/default/files/w/4/4a/ Spreading_manure.jpg • Pre-process SWAT to field-scale • Every field can have a different set of practices • Field specific management scenarios
  6. 6. Hydrologic Routine Testing – Mahantango Creek • Similar outlet discharge hydrographs • Better spatial distribution of runoff with TopoSWAT • Improved identification of nutrient sources with TopoSWAT Standard SWAT WE38 outlet TopoSWAT Collick et al., 2014
  7. 7. P Routine Testing: Mahantango Creek Collick et al., in review 6000 gal ac-1 9000 gal ac-1 NewOld NewOld 6 3 0 Total P in runoff kg ha-1 APPLICATION RATE Right Timing: 1, 5, and 10 days prior to storm 1/15 1/31 2/14 New Old Total P in runoff kg ha-1 0.1 0 0.2 6000 gal ac-1 APPLICATION TIMING
  8. 8. Nanticoke River, DE and Upper Manokin River, MD Coastal Plain
  9. 9. USGS gauge UMES farm Manokin River, Delmarva Peninsula • Field-scale modeling limited by very flat terrain - SWAT lacks sufficient representation of subsurface P transfers • Solutions to modeling challenge – Geophysical imagery – Coarse-scale model setup - waterbalance
  10. 10. Flat terrain in ditched crop fields, < 1% 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Ditches Monitoring flumes Contours, 0.5m
  11. 11. Figure : The delineations of the four ditches on the 1m LiDAR (A), 3m NED DEM (B) and 10m NED DEM (C). Only three drainage areas are apparent from the 10m DEM. A. 1m DEM B. 3m DEM C. 10m DEM HUC12 Manokin River – Taylor Branch 10m DEM 3m DEM UMES Experimental Farm D. Manokin Watershed Ditch 5 Ditch 7 Ditch 6 Ditch 8 Ditch 5 Ditch 7 Ditch 6 Ditch 8 Ditch 5 Ditch 6 & Ditch 7 Ditch 8 4
  12. 12. Testing the coastal plain P Index Drainage intensity and distance to drains Majority of P loss occurs in subsurface flow Empirical work Geophysical techniques to map shallow flow paths
  13. 13. Factory Brook, NY Allegheny Plateau
  14. 14. Factory Brook – Limited watershed monitoring • TopoSWAT without calibration • Automation of farm nutrient management plan data – 100 field management schedules converted to modeling format in 10 minutes • Upcoming: APLE model comparison
  15. 15. NY P index and TopoSWAT – 1st Run R² = 0.29 R² = 0.57 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 SolublePfromTopoSWAT,kgha-1 Dissolved P index Corn and alfalfa fields Grass fields Very preliminary results from uncalibrated TopoSWAT run of Factory Brook R² = 0.4785 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 50 100 SolublePoutputfrom SWAT,kgha-1 Phosphorus applied, kg ha-1 Soluble P load in SWAT compared to dissolved P index R² = 0.9061 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 NYDissolvedPindex Total Source Contribution from NY P Index Exploration Using SWAT to assess factors in P Index. 1st Run indicates further vetting of results and rerunning when necessary
  16. 16. Spatial Comparison of P index and TopoSWAT NY Dissolved Pindex, 2009 NY Particulate Pindex, 2009 McMahon_Farm_PartP PARTPI_09 0.0 - 50.0 50.1 - 74.0 74.1 - 99.0 > 100 Low Medium High Very High Soluble P in TopoSWAT, 2009 Particulate P in TopoSWAT, 2009
  17. 17. Scenario development Testing the P Index and SWAT • Assess range of conditions in physiographic provinces • Simulate management scenarios on range of representative sites SWAT FrameworkPennsylvania P index
  18. 18. How representative are our watersheds? Are there important site conditions we’re missing?
  19. 19. Developing reasonable scenarios Distance to stream – what important conditions are missing in our watersheds? Field management Soils Field delineation Landuse Topography Watershed Soil texture at variable distance from stream
  20. 20. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . .. .. . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . .. .. . . .. PLoss (ModeledorMeasured) Representative* Scenarios Modeled Monitored Scenario . Modeled Scenario Integrating Modeling and Monitoring Doug Beegle’s dream… * Major Panel Activity P Index
  21. 21. Physiographic region – Expert panels Feedback (problems, needs, project review) Image PACD, http://pacd.org/2014/11/manure-management-workshop-held-in-columbia-county/ Initial meetings held for all regional expert panels • Introduced regional project staff • Reviewed project objectives • Discussed survey results Next steps… • Follow-up meetings to review SWAT and P Index results • Management scenario feedback
  22. 22. Allegheny Plateau New York and Pennsylvania Ridge and Valley/Piedmont Pennsylvania and West Virginia Coastal Plain Delaware Assess opinions regarding… – Current P Index factors (importance and reliability) – P Index modifications (boundaries and screening tool) Evaluation and Revision of Phosphorus Indices Questionnaire for Nutrient Management Experts
  23. 23. Pete Kleinman USDA Agricultural Research Service University Park, PA 16802 peter.kleinman@ars.usda.gov Thank you
  24. 24. Shenandoah River, VA Piedmont
  25. 25. Next generation: Forecasting models SWAT with weather forecasterWatershed stakeholder decision support system architecture • Forecast runoff risks (6-hrs to 3 days) across Chesapeake Bay watershed • Provide information for land management decision-making to reduce nonpoint source pollution risks • Enabled for smart phones and other GPS- enabled devices

×