the usda-ars conservation effects assessment project (ceap) · the usda-ars conservation effects...

National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory

The USDA-ARS Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP):

Lessons learned from 10 years of water quality monitoring

D.R. Smith, G.C. Heathman, and S.J Livingston

USDA-ARS NSERL


Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) for the

St. Joseph River Watershed

D. Smith, R. Gillespie, Anonymous (farmers and landowners), S. Livingston, C. Huang, J. Knudson, A. Haynes, D. Frye, B.

Langston, J. Draper, E. Pappas, G. Lake, J. Loomis, S. Lovejoy, G. Heathman, S. Armstrong, D. Bucholtz, B. Zuercher, J.

Hardisty, S. Zezula, P. Owens, J. Lake, T. Bailey, B. Fisher, B. Clarizia, S. Naylor, J. Lemunyon, M. Zwonitzer, K. King, P.

Smiley, J. Frey, D. Flanagan, D. Norton, D. Stott, J. Ascough, M. Larose, M. Crawford, T. Cosby, S. Davis, D. Karlen, etc.


Why the St. Joseph River?

• Late 1990’s report: Ft. Wayne had the 2nd highest levels of Atrazine in drinking water

– high levels of NO3-N in Defiance, Ohio’s drinking water

– sediment, pesticides and nutrient loading to Lake Erie

• Congressional mandate for USDA-ARS NSERL to work in the St. Joseph River Watershed


Original Goal of SWPI

• Find voluntary practices to reduce pesticide (specifically atrazine) loads to drinking water sources

• In 2004, SWPI was rolled into CEAP (Conservation Effects Assessment Project) as a result of mandates from 2002 Farm Bill and OMB request to NRCS.


Conservation Spending

• $13 per U.S. resident for conservation spending

• Immediate water/air/soil quality improvements not always observed

• Are these payments making improvements?

• OMB requested NRCS account for public benefits from conservation spending


ARS 14 Cropland CEAP Watershed Assessment Studies

S. Fork Iowa River

Walnut Creek

Mark Twain Lake Goodwater Cr

U. Washita River

U. Leon River

Town Brook St Joseph River

Upper Big Walnut Creek

Yalobusha River

Little River

Goodwin Creek Beasley Lake

Choptank

Upper Snake R Rock Creek


Why is St. Joseph River Watershed Important to Present

Conservation Discussions?


Friday, March 13, 2009

18:09 GMT

About 4 inches of rain

on March 10, 2009

Sediment Loading into Lake Erie


Eutrophication in Lake Erie

This glass of water came from this

Microsistis bloom


Objectives

• Compare at field and watershed scale influence of:

– Buffer strips

– Blind Inlets

– Conservation Cropping

– Nutrient Management


!\

!\

!\!\

!\

!\

!\

!\

!\

!\

!\

!\!\

!\!\!\!\!\!\

Ma

tso

n D

itch

Swartz Ditch

W S

mith

Ditc

h

Cedar C

reek

Dib

bling D

itch

Lein

s Ditch

Ho

ffeld

er

Dit

ch

Ced

ar Cree

k

Mats

on Ditc

h

AD

AS2AS1

F34

CME

CLG

BME

BLG

AME

ALG

MI

IN

OH

MI

IN

OH

MI

Ontario

Tile Drainage

Direct Drainage

Pot-Hole

!

LowPoint

¯

0 50 100 150 200 250

Miles

0 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Miles


Influence of Drainage Class on Nutrient Losses

• Nutrient losses were higher from watersheds with more:

– Direct Drainage

– Pothole Drainage


Ditch Spoil Blocks Flow to Drainage Ditch

Ditch Water

Runoff Water


Ditch Buffers

Buffered ditch spoil

2 to 4 ft higher than

field soils

Vegetative buffer strips

often placed adjacent to

ag ditches

– Spoils are not removed

– No direct flow-path

– VBS does not diffuse

concentrated flow

– DOES serve as a setback


Ditch Buffers

Spoils removed,

50 ft wide buffers

on both sides

Photo taken ~100 ft looking

upstream from previous

photo

– Spoils removed

– There IS opportunity for

filtration in these VBS’s

– Corridor wide enough that we

see slumps in the bank, so the

channel is migrating toward a

natural stream


Modeling of Buffers on TP Loads

-9

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

All-practices CLU-grassland VBS-30.5 m VBS-61 m

Pe

rce

nt

red

uc

tio

n o

f T

P l

oad

(%

)

Modeling

indicates ~8%

decrease in TP

Loading from

buffer strips


Modeling of Buffers on TP Loads

Modeling also

suggests if all

fields were

buffered, could

achieve ~50%

decrease in TP

Loading


Traditional Tile Risers


Precipitation and Stage at One Monitored Site

Time of Day

23:00:00 07:00:00 15:00:00 23:00:00

Cu

mu

lative

Pre

cip

ita

tio

n (

mm

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Ditch

Sta

ge

(m

m)

280

300

320

340

360

380

400

420

Precipitation

Stage

Su

rfa

ce

Ru

no

ff(I

nclu

de

s "

Po

t-H

ole

s")

Tile flow


Subsurface Tile & Tile Riser Flow

In our landscape, the hydrology has

been short circuited. Dating back to the mid-1800’s, settlers

had to drain the land to break the

sod. Pothole is 1.85 miles from ditch

(nearest point)


Rock Inlets

Rock inlets have been

tested in other locales as

an alternative to tile risers:

– Not very effective at

decreasing contaminant

loads

– Silt in with time

– Farm over them???


ADW ADE

Pothole Study Site


10’ x10’ Blind Inlet


Blind Inlet with riser alternate

Ris

er

inle

t


Blind Inlet with pit-run cover (coarse sand and gravel)


April 2010 Hydrology

4/25

/10

12:0

0:00

4/25

/10

18:0

0:00

4/26

/10

0:00

:00

4/26

/10

6:00

:00

4/26

/10

12:0

0:00

4/26

/10

18:0

0:00

4/27

/10

0:00

:00

Dis

ch

arg

e (

L s

-1)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Pre

cip

itatio

n In

tensity (m

m h

r-1)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Blind Inlet

Tile Riser

RF Intensity

33.5 mm precip total


Conditions prior to runoff event of April 5, 2009 • ADE (riser)

– No cultivation since spring 2008, – 100% residue cover, no disturbance

• ADW (blind Inlet) – No cultivation after spring 2008 – Silage harvest, late summer 2008 (10% residue cover) – Disturbance on lower portion late fall (10% disturbed)

ADW Residue estimate 10% ADW disturbed estimate 10% of lower section


Percent Reductions in Sediment and Nutrient Loads: blind inlet vs tile risers Nutrient

2009 % Reduction

2010 % Reduction

Sediment 11* 79

Ammonium-N 30 59

Nitrate-N 34% increase 24

Total Kjehldahl N 66 48

Soluble P 64 72

Total P 52 78


Watershed Scale Assessment

• Blanketed a 300 ha monitored watershed with blind inlets

• Work with Indiana NRCS for consideration as an approved conservation practice


Total Phosphorus as a Function of Discharge Before (2009) and After (2010) Watershed Installation of Blind Inlets

Discharge (L s-1

)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

To

tal P

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n (

mg

L-1

)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2009

2010

P < 0.0001 r2 = 0.44

P < 0.74; r2 = 0.001


SP Load by Management

No-Till Rotation Till Conv Till/8yr Rot

SP

Lo

ad

(g

ha

-1)

0

100

200

300

400

500


TP Load by Management


TP

Lo

ad

(g

ha

-1)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400


SP in Surface Runoff:Total Discharge Ratio by Management


SP

Su

rfa

ce

Ru

no

ff /

To

tal

Dis

ch

arg

e

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0


SP:TP Ratio by Management


SP

/TP

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6


0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Dis

char

ge (

L)

Precip (mm)

Surface Runoff SP Load by Precip & Discharge

AS1

AS2

ADE

ADW


0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Dis

char

ge (

L)

Precip (mm)

Surface Runoff SP Load by Precip & Discharge

AS1

AS2

ADE

ADW

Large Additions of P Every

2 yrs Smaller Annual P Applications


Western Lake Erie Basin

• WLEB = 7,700 mi2

• Aerial P Loadings

DRP (lb P/ac)

TP (lb P/ac)

Maumee 0.243 0.998

Sandusky 0.277 1.258

Honey Cr. 0.329 1.150

Rock Cr. 0.223 1.230


Common Fertilizer Management

• Most common rotation in St. Joe watershed is Corn-Soybean

• Most common fertilizer application is 100 lb of DAP (18-46-0) or MAP (11-52-0) in fall or spring before corn crop

– 46 lb P2O5 from DAP (20 lb P/ac)

– 52 lb P2O5 from MAP (22.7 lb P/ac)


2008.0 2009.0 2010.0 2011.0

To

tal P

in

Su

rfa

ce

Ru

no

ff (

kg P

/ha

)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Field 1

Field 2

Field 3

Field 4

Maumee

Total P in Surface Runoff & Maumee River


2008 2009 2010 2011

Tota

l P

in T

ile (

kg/h

a)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Field 1 Tile

Field 2 Tile

Field 3 Tile

Field 4 Tile

Maumee

Total P in Tile Discharge & Maumee River


What about our original goal?

y = -344.21x + 692929

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Atrazine loads (g/mo)

Atrazine loads (g/mo)

Linear (Atrazine loads(g/mo))


Conclusions - Buffers

• Many buffers along streams serve predominately as setbacks

• Current buffering in watershed reduces TP Loading by ~8%

• Could increase to 50% reduction if all field buffered (Mega $$$)


Conclusions – Blind Inlets

• Distant fields with risers are directly connected to streams.

• Blind inlets reduce connectivity of contaminants

• Breaking connectivity appears to decrease TP loading to streams during runoff events


Conclusions – Cropping & Management

• More frequent, lower rates of fertilizer result in less loss

• Longer rotations lose less P

• No-till may result in > SP loss, but must balance that with < TP loss

• More P lost with corn (due to P applications???)

• Documented reduced Atrazine Loadings


? Questions?

the usda-ars conservation effects assessment project (ceap) · the usda-ars conservation effects...

Documents