Engaging Farmers in Watershed Planning through Precision Conservation 1
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•275 views
70th SWCS International Annual Conference July 26-29, 2015 Greensboro, NC
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Engaging Farmers in Watershed Planning through Precision Conservation 1
Similar to Engaging Farmers in Watershed Planning through Precision Conservation 1 (20)
More from Soil and Water Conservation Society
More from Soil and Water Conservation Society (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Engaging Farmers in Watershed Planning through Precision Conservation 1
- 1. Root River Field to Stream: Application of Conservation Planning Tools Kevin Kuehner Soil Scientist , CCA SWCS Conference, Greensboro, North Carolina, July 27, 2015
- 2. Field to Stream Partnership • Started in 2009 • Small scale, nested monitoring design, 9 stations • Minimum 10-year year effort
- 3. Root River Watershed 75 Miles 3 5 m i l e s Glacial Till Karst Bluffland Karst Headwaters Crystal Creek Bridge Creek Corn Soybean Forest, Pasture, Grass, Alfalfa, Other Source: 2010 cropland data layer, NASS
- 4. Headwaters 2,778 acres 94% cropland Crystal Creek 3,728 acres 78% cropland Bridge Creek 4,665 acres 64% cropland
- 5. Study Phases Implement Practices Baseline Monitoring & Assessments Phase 1 2010-2015 Phase II 2016-2020 Planning and Field Walkovers
- 6. 6 Existing practices inventory Documented active erosion areas Ag Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) Runoff Risk (Adjusted for Cropland in Grass Cover) Conservation Planning Tools
- 7. Stream Power Index, Statistical Analysis and Field Validation Odds of erosion occurring at non-BMP sites are about 6.5 times higher than for BMP sites. T. Dogweiler et al, Winona State Univ.
- 8. 2 8Example Field Area What tools have been most useful for us?
- 9. Pasture C/S/H-Mixed Agriculture Corn/Soybeans Continuous Corn C/H- Conserv. Rotation CRP C/S with Continuous Corn Cropping System (2008-2013) >95th 90th - 95th 85th - 90th 80th - 85th 75th - 80th 70th - 75th <70th SPI Percentile 26-year Rotation (ACPF)Existing Practices (pre-walkover) Concentrated Flow Areas (Stream Power Index) General Erosion Risk Areas (SPI) Crystal Creek Active Erosion Waterways Terraces Ponds#0 Practices 9
- 10. Pond and Basin Potential (AGREN) Rank out of all potential in the watershed. 1 = most cost effective. Red outline = pond temp pool. Runoff Risk Present High VeryHigh Critical Active Erosion Contour Buffer Potential (ACPF) Slope >10% Slope 5-10% Contour Buffer Strip Potential 2Runoff Risk (ACPF) Waterway Potential (ACPF)
- 11. July 1954Nov 1937 June 1968 June 1991 2 11
- 12. Delivery Process
- 13. Producers sent their own letter to encourage their neighbors to participate. Field Walkovers to Initiate the Conversation Field Walkovers Walkover Status 100% of crop acres in Crystal and over 70% in Bridge Creek.
- 15. Preliminary Results • Total of $1.1 million in conservation needs identified. • About 1/3 of these costs were classified as a high priority. Field Walkovers
- 16. • Total of $700,000 dollars in structural and vegetative practice needs and fixes. Field Walkovers Next…seek funding for those that want it. Study goal is to have all high priority sites addressed in the next 2 years. …..process builds the foundation with farmers and their advisors to then address nitrate-N loss strategies -40% of this cost was associated with fixes to existing practices; a low hanging fruit.
- 17. Root River Field to Stream: Application of Conservation Planning Tools Kevin Kuehner Soil Scientist , CCA SWCS Conference, Greensboro, North Carolina, July 27, 2015 THANK YOU!
Editor's Notes
- A collaboration among farmers, farm groups, private industry, conservation organizations, researchers, and MDA and other agencies is gathering on-farm data to help farmers better protect water quality in Southeastern Minnesota. Project will help answer several key questions. As much as this project is about water quality and farm practice data collection, it has highlighted the importance of high quality conservation planning and delivery at both the sub-watershed and field scales. I will highlight the approach that this demonstration project has taken to integrate a comprehensive, science based monitoring program with conservation delivery.
- 3 small watersheds selected in 2009. 50 farmers, 500 fields covering 10,000 crop acres. Small watersheds, but information is applicable to many areas of Southeast Minnesota.
- focus on 3 small watersheds with information that can be applied the entire SE Region. 50 farmers, 400 fields, 10,000 crop acres
- the odds of erosion occurring increase by 4% for every one-unit increase in stream power index (SPI) the odds of erosion occurring are almost 71 times higher when SPI percentile = 99.8 than when 2.2
- Advanced level of conservation planning and customer service Need the energy of a recent graduate but with 25+ years of working with farmers and technical BMP design Focus on simple report for the farmer and devoting a dedicated, experienced planner.
- Conservation planning tools helped determine what was considered a high priority. 4 months of student worker to prepare walkover GIS files, maps. Formatting post-walkover final reports. 3 days/producer on avg. for walkover 1 day for preparing for walkover and conducting it. 2 day report/notes and post follow-up with producer
- Total of $400,000 in feedlot improvement and waste storage needs.
- Integrating advanced conservation Will this process actually lead to more practices on the ground and water quality performance? Biggest limitation as I see it now, are experienced conservation planners