July 29-1130-Kris Reynolds
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•52 views
2019 SWCS International Annual Conference July 28-31, 2019 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (13)
Similar to July 29-1130-Kris Reynolds
Similar to July 29-1130-Kris Reynolds (20)
More from Soil and Water Conservation Society
More from Soil and Water Conservation Society (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
July 29-1130-Kris Reynolds
- 1. Right Practice, Right Place Increasing the Nutrient Reduction Potential of Conservation Activities in the Upper Macoupin Creek Watershed Emily Bruner1 Kris Reynolds1 Jeff Boeckler2 1 American Farmland Trust 2 Northwater Consulting
- 3. SWAMM Custom and spatially explicit GIS based nonpoint source model (surface runoff) Shares characteristics with other models such as SWAT and pLoad except: • Can evaluate loading at the field level • Can evaluate the exact placement of treatment practices • Can be visualized in map format It is relatively simple, relying on good input data for accurate outputs rather than complicated equations Easy to perform needed analysis • Load allocation and load reductions
- 5. All fields are not created equal Model Characteristics • Soils • Climate • Landuse • Tillage etc • Delivery • Management Practices
- 6. SWAMM
- 7. Load Contribution by Land Use Landuse Acres Watershed Area (%) P Load (%) N Load (%) Sediment Load (%) Rowcrops 80,678 59 85 90 98 Forest 31,953 23 3 2 0.52 Pasture 3,829 3 4 3 0.35 Total Acres in Watershed = 137,680Gully P Load by Landuse • 45% Forest • 20% Rowcrops • 21% Pasture • 13% Grassland
- 8. Annual Loads by Land Use* Landuse P (lbs) P (lbs/ac) N (lbs) N (lbs/ac) Sediment (tons) Sediment (tons/ac) Forest 3,318 0.10 30,217 0.95 521 0.02 Pasture 4,829 1.26 37,226 9.72 356 0.09 Rowcrops 100,449 1.25 1,280,157 15.87 99,309 1.23 Watershed 117,522 0.85 1,423,770 10.34 101,089 0.73 *Direct runoff (surface loading) SWAMM estimates *Gully P Load = 12,364 lbs *Streambank P Load = 13,356 lbs
- 9. Current Management (In-Field) Practice Acres Rowcrop Area (%) P (lbs) P Load (%) Sediment (Tons) Sediment Load (%) Mulch-Till 24,406 30 34,238 29 33,900 34 Reduced-Till 23,543 29 26,356 22 21,983 22 Conventional Till 18,141 22 28,859 25 35,483 35 No-Till 8,322 10 7,548 6 5,829 6 Cover Crops 2,959 4 1,755 1 1,120 1 Strip-Till 1,287 2 886 1 621 1
- 10. Current Management (Structural) Terraces (42) 25 to 60% P reduction (SWAMM) 30 to 65% Sediment reduction (SWAMM) WASCOBs (1,138) 10 to 60% P reduction (SWAMM) 15 to 65% Sediment reduction (SWAMM)
- 11. Individual fields ranked according to annual P load (lb/acre): • 1) Not a priority: < 1 • 2) Low: 1 – 2 • 3) Medium 2 -5 • 4) High >5 Defining Critical Areas
- 12. Critical Areas by Practice Priority Areas for Reduced Tillage Upper Macoupin Creek µ 0 2 4 6 81 Miles Priority Level Medium High Practice P Load Reduction in lbs (%) Total Available Acres (Fields) Switch from Conventional to Conservation Tillage 5,756 (5) 3,462 (173) Lower P Application Rate 3,487 (3) 11,272 (746)
- 13. Critical Areas by Practice Practice P Load Reduction in lbs (%) Total Available Acres (Fields) Cover Crops on Current Mulch, No, Reduced and Strip Till Acres 4,462 (4) 5,180 (361) Priority Areas for Cover Crops Upper Macoupin Creek µ 0 2 4 6 81 Miles Priority Level Medium High
- 14. Sub-Watershed Prioritization Sub-watershed Acres Runoff (Ac-ft) Nitrogen (lbs/ac) Phosphorus (lbs/ac) Sediment (tons/ac) Coop Branch 35,013 34,790 12.38 1.24 1.32 Spanish Needle Creek 32,714 32,233 10.87 1.08 1.1 Hurricane Creek 19,313 20,293 11.85 1.01 0.96 Dry Fork 19,443 19,670 9.89 0.95 0.91 Bullard Lake 15,519 12,551 9.85 1.1 1.23 Honey Creek 15,678 16,436 6.85 0.52 0.26
- 15. Model based outreach • NFWF grant received in 2019 • Provide Technical Assistance to farmers and landowners • Another set of boots on the ground
- 16. Outreach project goals • More conservation adoption on critical areas • FA dollars from MRBI and RCPP programs being spent in critical areas • Right Practice, Right Place, Right Investment • Make local ranking questions work
- 17. Outreach plan • Identify Farmers in critical areas • Work with Ag retailers in the watershed • Identify farmers with NRCS and SWCD • Letters, direct calls, farm visits • Provide farmers with info and resources they need
- 18. Saving the Land that Sustains Us www.farmland.org Questions?
- 19. Coop Branch Load Reductions Practice P Load Reduction (lbs) P Load Reduction (%) Total Available Acres Switch from Conventional to Conservation Tillage 1,796 5 979 Cover Crops on Current Conventional, Mulch, No, Reduced and Strip Till Acres 1,302 4 1,582 Lower P Application Rate 1,312 4 4,216
- 20. Spanish Needle Load Reductions Practice P Load Reduction (lbs) P Load Reduction (%) Total Available Acres Switch from Conventional to Conservation Tillage 867 3 593 Cover Crops on Current Conventional, Mulch, No, Reduced and Strip Till Acres 1,055 4 1,101 Lower P Application Rate 701 2 2,208
- 21. Load Contribution by Source Source P Load (%) N Load (%) Sediment Load (%) Runoff 82 97 70 Streambank 9 2 15 Gully 9 1 15 Total (lbs) 143,242 1,471,866 144,544
- 23. Management Effects (Edge-of-Field) Buffers • Estimated P Reduction (IL NLRS): 25 – 50 %
- 24. Current Management 15 28 33 2422 41 25 12 37 26 18 19 37 32 18 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 No till (%) Mulch Till (%) Reduced Till (%) Conventional (%) Percent of Soy Acres by Tillage Method for UMC and Statewide UMC 2017 UMC 2018 State 2017 State 2018
- 25. Current Management 1 8 16 75 2 8 18 72 15 14 23 48 14 16 21 49 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 No till (%) Mulch Till (%) Reduced Till (%) Conventional Till (%) Percent of Corn Acres by Tillage Method for UMC and Statewide UMC 2017 UMC 2018 State 2017 State 2018
- 26. Load Reductions Practice P Load Reduction (lbs) P Load Reduction (%) Total Available Acres Switch from Conventional to Conservation Tillage 14,430 12 18,141 Cover Crops on Current Conventional, Mulch, No, Reduced and Strip Till Acres 29,372 25 75,750 Lower P Application Rate 6,854 6 75,750
- 27. Coop Branch Load by Land Use Landuse P (lbs) P (lbs/ac) N (lbs) N (lbs/ac) Sediment (tons) Sediment (tons/ac) Forest 761 0.11 6,812 1.02 128 0.02 Pasture 1,962 1.46 14,624 10.91 147 0.11 Rowcrops 31,841 1.44 381,751 17.27 34,849 1.58 Watershed 36,570 1.04 420,437 12.01 35,343 1.01 Rowcrops contribute 91% of P and N and 99% of Sediment Loads Gully P (highest contribution of all sub-watersheds) = 4,098 lbs Streambank P = 2,741 lbs
- 28. Coop Branch Load Reductions Practice P Load Reduction (lbs) P Load Reduction (%) Total Available Acres Switch from Conventional to Conservation Tillage 4,987 14 6,041 Cover Crops on Current Conventional, Mulch, No, Reduced and Strip Till Acres 9,389 27 21,132 Lower P Application Rate 2,191 6 21,132
- 29. Spanish Needle Load by Land Use Landuse P (lbs) P (lbs/ac) N (lbs) N (lbs/ac) Sediment (tons) Sediment (tons/ac) Forest 885 0.11 7,951 1.02 147 0.02 Pasture 1,180 1.39 8,636 10.18 84 0.10 Rowcrops 23,619 1.33 303,942 17.17 23,081 1.30 Watershed 28,425 0.87 342,330 10.46 23,642 0.72 Rowcrops contribute 72% of P, 89% of N and 98% of Sediment Loads Gully P = 2,387 lbs Streambank P (highest contribution of all sub-watersheds) 4,656 lbs
- 30. Spanish Needle Load Reductions Practice P Load Reduction (lbs) P Load Reduction (%) Total Available Acres Switch from Conventional to Conservation Tillage 2,886 9 3,606 Cover Crops on Current Conventional, Mulch, No, Reduced and Strip Till Acres 6,891 21 16,491 Lower P Application Rate 1,608 5 16,491
- 33. Field Level Prioritization 26 Lbs 26 Acres 46 Lbs 17 Acres
- 34. Field Level Prioritization 152 Lbs 76 Acres 88 Lbs 58 Acres 167 Lbs 80 Acres
- 35. Field Level Prioritization 81 Lbs 162 Acres
Editor's Notes
- KRIS—Introduce Emily and Jeff and their roles in the project As I was putting this together, I attempted to generate slides that could be recycled for our SWCS presentation. So think of this as our first draft of that presentation as well. We can use this slide deck as a template and begin to add/delete content as appropriate. Text in italics are notes pertaining to revisions for SWCS. Please keep notes for SWCS in italics for consistency and ease of revisions in the future. For SWCS slides will need to enter 2 or 3 project background and location slides (some potential ones are at the end of this slide deck)
- The UMC watershed has been identified as one of the top three non-point source P loading watersheds in Illinois. AFT is the lead partner in RCPP and MRBI for parts of the watershed. 2nd year of RCPP 4th year of MRBI. Watershed Model will allow us to prioritize applications based on critical area. Outreach will also be based off of results from watershed model beginning with critical sub-watersheds and then field area prioritization.
- Items in bold represent factors we can manipulate to generate different loading outcomes Organisms would be influenced via management (crop rotation, tillage, chemical and fertilizer use, etc.) Artificial drainage primarily being tile, but drainage water management and other structural manipulations (terraces, WASCOBs, wetlands, etc.) would apply here as well.
- Watershed Area = (total acres in each landuse / total acres in watershed) * 100 P, N, and Sed Load (%) = (total load (lbs) from each landuse / total load (lbs) from entire watershed) * 100 ***Remember this is just surface loading estimated via SWAMM, gully and streambank loading not included. ***
- Watershed Area = (total acres in each landuse / total acres in watershed) * 100 P, N, and Sed Load (%) = (total load (lbs) from each landuse / total load (lbs) from entire watershed) * 100 ***Remember this is just surface loading estimated via SWAMM, gully and streambank loading not included. ***
- These numbers are from SWAMM and were generated via the windshield survey (conventional acreage is combined total of conventional and conventional high (17,255 + 886), wheat (organic)=38, reduced-till (organic)=51, cover crop strip (24) and mulch till (103) comprise less than 1% of cropped area acreage and are not included in any chart categories, but were included in total cropped acreage (80,675) estimates for calculating percentages Wheat crop rotations (1446) are 2% of cropped acreage and hay (482) in the crop rotation is 1% of cropped acres.
- What criteria did Jeff use to define terrace vs WASCOB? Are the N_eff, P_eff and Sed_effs just a straight percentage reduction (i.e. what is in the slide now) Numbers in parentheses represent the current georeferenced point total for the entire watershed based off the windshield survey, (Existing_BMP.shp file) Want to add numbers from lit review? Other definitions?
- These classifications were chosen strictly via eyeballing the maps, i.e. no specific criteria was used. May want to revisit classification scheme after we decide how we are defining critical areas.
- From Jeff Table represents TOTAL LOAD Estimates from Run2
- Steering committee identified the need for more technical assistance. Farmers that weren’t in programs or interested in programs didn’t receive the same attention that farmers in the programs did. The model is great, but we knew from the beginning that if we wanted to get anything out of it, we needed someone to use it on a consistent basis. The NFWF grant allowed us to hire a Conservation Technician (Introduce Sarah) that could use the model to reach farmers that were farming cropland in the critical areas of the watershed.
- Model tells us where cropland is but we needed to know who is farming. 2 Ag retail coops are part of the watershed project with customers in the watershed. We are working with them and their customers to provide program information and advice on conservation practices.
- Spring 2018
- Total available acres for scenario 1 (tillage conversion) = sum of conventional tillage and conventional tillage high acres P Load reduction (lbs) = sum of total load for conventional and conventional high acres * .50 Watershed total P load reduction (%) = P Load reduction (lbs) / total watershed P load (lbs) * 100 Total available acres for scenario 2 (cover crop adoption) = sum of conventional till, conventional till high, mulch till, mulch till, reduced till, reduced till (organic), no till, and strip till acres P Load reduction (lbs) = sum of total load for conventional till, conventional till high, mulch till, mulch till, reduced till, reduced till (organic), no till, and strip till acres * .30 Watershed total P load reduction (%) = P Load reduction (lbs) / total watershed P load (lbs) * 100 Watershed total = Coop Branch – 433,395 lbs (N), 43,491 lbs (P), 46,241 tons (sediment) Add if reduce P Application levels from above maintenance levels (how many of rowcrop acreage to include in 7% reduction)? Use same number as Cover crops?
- Total available acres for scenario 1 (tillage conversion) = sum of conventional tillage and conventional tillage high acres P Load reduction (lbs) = sum of total load for conventional and conventional high acres * .50 Watershed total P load reduction (%) = P Load reduction (lbs) / total watershed P load (lbs) * 100 Total available acres for scenario 2 (cover crop adoption) = sum of conventional till, conventional till high, mulch till, mulch till, reduced till, reduced till (organic), no till, and strip till acres P Load reduction (lbs) = sum of total load for conventional till, conventional till high, mulch till, mulch till, reduced till, reduced till (organic), no till, and strip till acres * .30 Watershed total P load reduction (%) = P Load reduction (lbs) / total watershed P load (lbs) * 100 Watershed total = Spanish Needle –355,536 lbs (N), 35,467 lbs (P), 36,140 tons (sediment)
- Total loads from .shp files in Dropbox. There is a discrepancy between runoff and gully load estimates provided by Jeff via Run2 Spreadsheet and estimates calculated from running statistics on various columns of attribute tables, specifically P, N and Sediment runoff values are higher (Run2) and gully P, N and sediment loads are lower (.shps). Streambank values are the same for Run2 spreadsheet and .shp calculations.
- Image courtesy of Left: https://www.monotec.co.za/products/strip-till/ Right: https://www.striptillfarmer.com/articles/66-michigan-study-confirms-benefits-of-strip-till Table modified from http://draindrop.cropsci.illinois.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/IL-NLRS-Practice-Factsheet_2016.pdf
- From : https://agbmps.osu.edu/bmp/saturated-buffer-nrcs-604
- Data collected via SWCD during tillage transect survey. UMC results are watershed specific (a subset of individual county survey results).
- Data collected via SWCD during tillage transect survey. UMC results are watershed specific (a subset of individual county survey results).
- Total available acres for scenario 1 (tillage conversion) = sum of conventional tillage and conventional tillage high acres P Load reduction (lbs) = sum of total load for conventional and conventional high acres * .50 Watershed total P load reduction (%) = P Load reduction (lbs) / total watershed P load (lbs) * 100 Total available acres for scenario 2 (cover crop adoption) = sum of conventional till, conventional till high, mulch till, mulch till, reduced till, reduced till (organic), no till, and strip till acres P Load reduction (lbs) = sum of total load for conventional till, conventional till high, mulch till, mulch till, reduced till, reduced till (organic), no till, and strip till acres * .30 Watershed total P load reduction (%) = P Load reduction (lbs) / total watershed P load (lbs) * 100 Total available acres , switch tillage = 22% of cropped watershed acres Total available acres, cover crops = 94% of cropped watershed acres
- Numbers in table are from .shp calculations Percent of watershed total (runoff contribution) P = forest – 2 , pasture – 6 , rowcrop – 91 Sediment = forest – less than 1 , pasture – less than 1 , rowcrop – 99 N = forest – 2, pasture – 3, rowcrop – 91 Additional contribution from Gully and Streambank (these numbers from Jeff Run2) Gully P (highest contribution of all subwatersheds) (4,098 lbs) Streambank P ( 2,741 lbs)
- Total available acres for scenario 1 (tillage conversion) = sum of conventional tillage and conventional tillage high acres P Load reduction (lbs) = sum of total load for conventional and conventional high acres * .50 Watershed total P load reduction (%) = P Load reduction (lbs) / total watershed P load (lbs) * 100 Total available acres for scenario 2 (cover crop adoption) = sum of conventional till, conventional till high, mulch till, mulch till, reduced till, reduced till (organic), no till, and strip till acres P Load reduction (lbs) = sum of total load for conventional till, conventional till high, mulch till, mulch till, reduced till, reduced till (organic), no till, and strip till acres * .30 Watershed total P load reduction (%) = P Load reduction (lbs) / total watershed P load (lbs) * 100 Watershed total = Coop Branch – 433,395 lbs (N), 43,491 lbs (P), 46,241 tons (sediment) Add if reduce P Application levels from above maintenance levels (how many of rowcrop acreage to include in 7% reduction)? Use same number as Cover crops?
- Percent of watershed total (runoff contribution) P = forest – 3, pasture – 4, rowcrop – 72 Sediment = forest – 1, pasture – less than 1, rowcrop – 98 N = forest – 2, pasture – 3, rowcrop – 89 Additional contribution from Gully and Streambank (Run2 estimates) Gully P = 2,387 lbs Streambank P (highest contribution of all sub-watersheds) 4,656 lbs
- Total available acres for scenario 1 (tillage conversion) = sum of conventional tillage and conventional tillage high acres P Load reduction (lbs) = sum of total load for conventional and conventional high acres * .50 Watershed total P load reduction (%) = P Load reduction (lbs) / total watershed P load (lbs) * 100 Total available acres for scenario 2 (cover crop adoption) = sum of conventional till, conventional till high, mulch till, mulch till, reduced till, reduced till (organic), no till, and strip till acres P Load reduction (lbs) = sum of total load for conventional till, conventional till high, mulch till, mulch till, reduced till, reduced till (organic), no till, and strip till acres * .30 Watershed total P load reduction (%) = P Load reduction (lbs) / total watershed P load (lbs) * 100 Watershed total = Spanish Needle –355,536 lbs (N), 35,467 lbs (P), 36,140 tons (sediment)
- Example from Winter meeting Will need to refine after we set critical area criteria. Will need to run specific load reduction scenarios from in field and edge of field practices once agree on how want to calculate stacked practices.
- Example from Winter meeting List of potential questions for critical area definition – Area limit? Minimum of 5, 10, or 15 acres to set initial screen/filter in SWAMM? lots of teeny polygons, how to define “fields”? P load criteria? Sediment load criteria? Need to be HEL? Distance to stream? Use this to weight candidate fields? Already taken into consideration by the model?
- Example from Winter meeting
- Example from Winter meeting
- Example from Winter meeting