conservation effects assessment project: western lake ......• average phosphorus to lake erie •...
Post on 16-Sep-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Conservation Effects Assessment Project: Western Lake Erie Basin Update
Great Lakes Sedimentation Workshop1 November, 2017
Conservation Effects Assessment ProjectImprove the efficacy of conservation practices and programs on agriculturally dominated landscapes by quantifying conservation effects and providing the science and education base needed to enrich conservation planning, implementation, management decisions, and policy.
Began in 2003
Congressional Support: Tax Dollar Accountability
CROPLAND WETLAND WILDLIFE GRAZING LAND WATERSHEDS
NATIONAL LEVEL REGIONAL LEVEL
CEAP - CroplandsGoals:
1. Quantify current conservation practice adoption on cultivated cropland.
2. Estimate impacts of currently adopted agricultural conservation practices.
3. Identify outstanding conservation needs.
4. Explore alternative decisions by simulating outcomes of alternative treatment approaches.
Farmer Survey: 3 years of data on all farming activities and conservation practices in 2003-06 (492 farmers) and 2012 (1,019 farmers).
APEX: apply field-scale, process based model to estimate water, sediment, and nutrient losses from the field.
SWAT: Use watershed hydrology model to estimate water quality in streams and delivery to major water bodies.1. Model alternative management.
2. Produce national/regional reports. 3. Re-survey to identify trends in conservation adoption (CEAP2 -2015/16).
Modeling Framework: WLEB
2003/06 vs. 2012 – Survey ResultsStructural Practice Adoption: Increased• Use of one type of water erosion control practice
increased from 25 to 40 percent of acres.• Use of more than one type of water erosion control
practice increased from 9 to 15 percent of acres.• Field Border use increased from 5 to 19 percent of acres.• Edge of field buffering/filtering practice increased from 18
to 31 percent of acres.• Advanced Drainage Water Management increased from
less than 1 to 9 percent of acres.
Cover Crops and Tillage Management: No change • ~25% no till; ~30% seasonal no-till; ~10 % mulch;• ~30% seasonal conventional; ~5% conventional
Sediment Management Classes
Low Moderate Mod-High HighSediment 03-06 33% 33% 24% 10%Sediment 2012 30% 25% 28% 18%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Perc
ent o
f WLE
B C
ropl
and
acre
s
Edge of Field Impacts (2003/06 vs 2012)Sheet and Rill • Decreased by 38%, from 1.3 to 0.8 tons per acre per
year.
Edge of Field Sediment Loss to Water Erosion• Average loss rate decreased by 55%, from 1.1 to 0.5
tons per acre per year.• Acres losing more than 2 tons per acre per year
decreased from 10 to 4%.
Surface Water Dynamics Unchanged• Same volume, but cleaner water
Within Field Soil Variability Matters
None <1 day per yearwith >0.5 ton loss
1-3 days peryear with >0.5
ton loss
>3 days per yearwith >0.5 ton loss
2003-06 percent of acres 44% 46% 5% 4%2003-06 percent of total tons lost 3% 23% 18% 56%2012 percent of acres 57% 39% 3% 1%2003-06 percent of total tons lost 7% 36% 20% 37%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Instream and Delivery Results (SWAT)• Average annual sediment losses from Edge of Field
• 2012: 80% lower than if no conservation was in place• 2012: 47% lower than 2003-06
• Average legacy sediment deposition• 2012: 84% lower than if no conservation was in place• 2012: 55% lower than 2003-06
• Average sediment delivery to Lake Erie• 2012: 40% lower than if no conservation was in place• 2012: 14% lower than 2003-06
• 2012:• 3.4 million tons lost from edge of field annually• 2.4 million tons deposited in WLEB hydrology annually• 1.3 million tons delivered to Western Lake Erie annually
Single and Multi-Strategy ScenariosSingle Practice ScenariosSEC: Structural Erosion ControlNM: Nutrient ManagementCC: Cover Crops
Multi-Practice ScenariosENM: SEC+NMENC: SEC+NM+CC
Take Home:SEC works in WLEB andProvides benefits to EoF, legacy, and load delivery reductions
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
2012 SEC NM CC ENM ENC
RED
UC
TIO
NS
SEDIMENT
Edge of Field Deposition Lake Load
What about Phosphorus? • Average annual phosphorus losses from Edge of Field
• 2012: 61% lower than if no conservation was in place• 2012: 17% lower than 2003-06
• Average legacy phosphorus deposition• 2012: 72% lower than if no conservation was in place• 2012: 30% lower than 2003-06
• Average phosphorus to Lake Erie• 2012: 41% lower than if no conservation was in place• 2012: 3% lower than 2003-06
• 2012:• 9.5 million pounds lost from edge of field annually• 4.0 million pounds deposited in WLEB hydrology annually• 6.8 million pounds delivered to Western Lake Erie annually
Single and Multi-Strategy ScenariosSingle Practice ScenariosSEC: Structural Erosion ControlNM: Nutrient ManagementCC: Cover Crops
Multi-Practice ScenariosENM: SEC+NMENC: SEC+NM+CC
Take Home:SEC works in WLEB andProvides benefits to EoF, legacy, and load delivery reductions
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
2012 SEC NM CC ENM ENC
RED
UC
TIO
NS
SEDIMENT
Edge of Field Deposition Lake Load
Single and Multi-Strategy ScenariosSingle Practice ScenariosSEC: Structural Erosion ControlNM: Nutrient ManagementCC: Cover Crops
Multi-Practice ScenariosENM: SEC+NMENC: SEC+NM+CC
Take Home:• Complementary conservation practices work best in WLEB.• Comprehensive Conservation Plans are the BMP.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2012 SEC NM CC ENM ENC
RED
UC
TIO
NS
PHOSPHORUS
Edge of Field Deposition Lake Load
Goals Matter when Making Plans
ENC provides 1st best solution forall reduction goals.
ENC Cost: $277M (2012) + $440M
Second best depends on goalCC Cost: $277M + 284MENM Cost: $277M + 155M
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
2012 SEC NM CC ENM ENC
RED
UC
TIO
NS
SEDIMENT
Edge of Field Deposition Lake Load
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
2012 SEC NM CC ENM ENC
RED
UC
TIO
NS
PHOSPHORUS
Edge of Field Deposition Lake Load
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
2012 SEC NM CC ENM ENC
RED
UC
TIO
NS
NITROGEN
Edge of Field Deposition Lake Load
CEAP-Croplands in WLEBLessons Learned (or Reinforced!)
1. “Vulnerable Acres” are actually “Vulnerable Soils”
2. Soils within a Field are variable in terms of vulnerabilities
3. Comprehensive Conservation Planning is the BMP
4. Response to Conservation Practice Adoption may take time
Next Iteration: CEAP-2: 2015/16!
Thank You!
Questions?Mari-Vaughn Johnson, Ph.D.mjohnson@brc.tamus.edu
top related