From Field to Stream: Measuring Sediment and Nutrient Losses - Kuehner
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•415 views
This document summarizes a study measuring sediment and nutrient losses from agricultural fields to streams in the Root River watershed in Minnesota. The study found high losses occurring during the spring months. Identified conservation needs through on-farm assessments totaled over $1 million, with about a third classified as high priority. The study aims to implement priority practices to reduce losses and engage farmers in long-term conservation planning at the sub-watershed scale.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to From Field to Stream: Measuring Sediment and Nutrient Losses - Kuehner
Similar to From Field to Stream: Measuring Sediment and Nutrient Losses - Kuehner (20)
More from Soil and Water Conservation Society
More from Soil and Water Conservation Society (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
From Field to Stream: Measuring Sediment and Nutrient Losses - Kuehner
- 1. From Field to Stream: Measuring Sediment and Nutrient Losses to Demonstrate the Need for Sub-Watershed Scale Conservation Planning Kevin Kuehner Soil Scientist , CCA SWCS Conference, Greensboro, North Carolina, July 27, 2015
- 2. Minnesota Challenge • Tourism / outdoor recreation a lead industry • Agricultural products top export • Over 2,400 impairments requiring TMDLs
- 3. On-Farm Demonstrations • Discovery Farms • Root River Field to Stream Partnership
- 4. Field to Stream Partnership • What’s the water quality like today? What are the long-term trends? • What’s the range of sediment and nutrient losses? • How effective are new and existing BMPs? Targeted BMPs? What’s feasible? • What's the best approach to engage producers and deliver cost-effective conservation?
- 5. Field to Stream Partnership • Started in 2009 • Small scale, nested monitoring design, 9 stations • Minimum 10-year year effort
- 6. Study Phases Implement Practices Baseline Monitoring & Assessments Focus on Surface Runoff first and then practices for Nitrate-N Phase 1 2010-2015 Phase II 2016-2020 Planning and Field Walkovers
- 7. 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
- 8. Headwaters 2,778 acres 94% cropland Crystal Creek 3,728 acres 78% cropland Bridge Creek 4,665 acres 64% cropland
- 9. Corn/soybean, no manure Corn silage, liquid dairy manure Corn, soybean and alfalfa, liquid hog manure Continuous corn grain or silage, liquid dairy or hog manure Field #3= 96 acres Field #4= 21 acres Field #2 = 18 acresField #1 = 26 acres Tile Edge of Field
- 11. Root River Field to Stream: Average Annual Losses (2010-2014) Average Losses Avg. 46% frozen
- 12. Four months of the year accounted for more than 90% of the annual losses: March, April, May and June 4 sites, 5 year average, 2010-2014 Timing of Field Surface Losses
- 13. Existing practices inventory Documented active erosion areas Ag Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) Runoff Risk (Adjusted for Cropland in Grass Cover) Conservation Planning Tools ACPF tools developed by M. Tomer, S. Porter, D. James, USDA-ARS
- 14. 14 Existing practices inventory Documented active erosion areas Ag Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) Stream Power Index (SPI) Conservation Planning Tools
- 15. 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.
- 16. • The odds of erosion occurring are almost 8 times higher at Bridge Creek than at either Crystal Creek or the Headwaters Watershed. • Sediment and Phosphorus concentrations are nearly 3X higher in Bridge Creek. Stream Power Index and Water Quality Sediment Total Phosphorus
- 17. Delivery Process
- 18. 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.
- 19. 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
- 20. • 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 tackle nitrate-N loss strategies -40% of this cost was associated with fixes to existing practices; a low hanging fruit.
- 21. From Field to Stream: Measuring Sediment and Nutrient Losses to Demonstrate the Need for Sub-Watershed Scale Conservation Planning Special Thanks to Project Farmers, Partners, SWCDs/NRCS and MDA Monitoring Unit. Kevin Kuehner Soil Scientist, CCA SWCS Conference, Greensboro, North Carolina, July 27, 2015 THANK YOU!
Editor's Notes
- Today I would like to share with you preliminary results pertaining to a very comprehensive watershed study that is taking place in SE MN and will focus how we have worked with our partners to advance the level of conservation planning and delivery at the farm and sub-watershed scales. Like many states in the upper Midwest, the challenge that Minnesota faces is centered on how to maintain or improve water quality while maximizing ag productivity. Tourism $13 billion/year . 2008 Clean Water Land & Legacy Amendment to MN constitution to protect water and enhance Nat. Resources. Ag marketing $23 billion/year Land area planted to our top 3 row crops exceeds 70,000 km2 or 27,000 mi2 Land of 10,000 lakes and 4,114 impairments of which 2,400 require TMDL. 40% related to turbidity or nutrients. Milestone goal of 12-20% reduction in Phosphorus and Nitrogen by 2025 for state NRS. In several counties, 10% of the wells in SE MN test above the drinking water standard of 10 mg/L. Before we can talk about adding additional conservation we first need to start with a conversation. Needs to be based on facts and sound science.
- Long history of establishing demonstration sites to apply science in real world applications 15 Demonstration sites; 26 monitoring stations 9 stations in the RRFSP—
- We cant’ do this alone…takes many people to make this work 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.
- 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
- Mention that we are doing subsurface nitrate monitoring with lysimeters….
- --Losses are highly variable by site and year. On average, less than 10% of the precipitation that falls on the field runs off. However, in 2013 up to 25% ran off one particular field. About 50% of the runoff volume loss occurs during frozen soil conditions. --SE MN Streams have high baseflow contributions. Most nitrate lost through leaching and cropland groundwater movement to the stream during baseflow and not through surface runoff. -- About 84% of TP is in particulate form and 16% DOP at EOF scale. --Sediment drops off considerably at the sub-watershed scale indicating both natural processes for storage and cumulative effects of existing watershed conservation practices.
- Most of the annual runoff volume loss occurs in Mar and Apr….mostly during frozen soil conditions in March. Only 31% of the runoff carries 71-89% of the sediment and phosphorus 69% of the DOP was derived with the 62% runoff volume in march and April
- Precision Conservation---right place at the right time– how can we get our biggest return on investment
- 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
- Can practice targeting affect our upper end concentrations or overall exceedance values?
- 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