Volume 2

Field Study

Nutrient

Evaluation Project

Beneficial Management Practices

Government

Nutrient Beneficial Management PracticesEvaluation Project

Volume 2

Field Study

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development

2014

Nutrient Beneficial Management Practices

CitationAlberta Agriculture and Rural Development. 2014. Nutrient Beneficial Management PracticesEvaluation Project: Volume 2 - field study. Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development,Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. 802 pp.

Published byWater Quality BranchIrrigation and Farm Water DivisionAlberta Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentLethbridge, Alberta, Canada

Copyright 2014. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (Alberta Agriculture and Rural©

Development). All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in anyform or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise without permissionfrom Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development.

This report is also available athttp://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/epw11955

Project ManagersAndrea KalischukBarry Olson

Contributing authors

Ki AuWiebe BurumaJanna CassonJollin Charest

Design and layoutBonnie Hofer

Mapping and graphicsBrian Coffey

Volume 1: Summary and RecommendationsVolume 2: Field StudyVolume 3: Modelling Study

Taren ClelandAndrea KalischukMadison KobrynKristen Lorenz

Lynda MiedemaBarry OlsonTroy OrmannColleen Phelan

Nicole SeitzAndrew SommervilleJanelle Villeneuve

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, this work would not have been possible if not for the cooperation of manyproducers in the study watersheds. They were gracious hosts during the period we were guests ontheir properties. Their interest, patience, and responses to our many questions were all gratefullyappreciated.

We gratefully acknowledge the significant funding from the Alberta Crop Industry DevelopmentFund ( Project 2007C012R). The flexibility shown by as the project evolved wasACIDF ACIDFvery much appreciated. Funding support was also provided by Alberta Environment andSustainable Resource Development (2007 to 2009), as well as some support from the AlbertaConservation Association (2010). The Indianfarm Creek Watershed Group was successful inobtaining a grant from the Alberta Stewardship Network in 2010, and the grant was used to supportthe bioengineering work in the watershed.

A project of this size requires many skilled and talented individuals. During the course of thissix-year field study, we are grateful to the following Alberta Agriculture and Rural Developmentstaff: Syd Abday, Phil Boehme, Angela Chinn,Michael Bock, Tony Brierley, Brian Coffey, DanaColes, Brian Cook, Alexandra Crook, Sarah Depoe, Mike Ellefson, Clair Fitzpatrick, FrancineForrest, Daniel Itenfisu,Paul Graveland, Lloyd Healy, Ward Henry, Bonnie Hofer, Mark Kadijk,Andy Jedrych, Jennifer Kerr, Adelle Kientz, Larry Kwasny, Joanne Little,Len Kryzanowski,Rhonda MacKay, Cory McIsaac, Brock McLeod, MarilouGyan Mankee, Cody Metheral,Montemayor, Geoff Montgomery, Tanya Moskal-Hébert, Lana Ontkean, JimGerald Ontkean,Parker Longin Pawlowski, Mark Potvin,, Brent Paterson, Jason Pentland, Murray Peters, MikeSajjad, Lawrence Schinkel, Trevor Wallace,Barb Shackel-Hardman, David Spiess, Jamie Wuite,Karen Yakimishyn, Peter Yu, and Alison Zook.

We are also grateful for the following support at various stages during this project.

� The Municipal District of Pincher Creek and the County of Lacombe.

� Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, through the former Agri-Environment Services Branch( ), for providing and modifying the AgCapture program for recording the land-coverAESBinventories for the Indianfarm Creek and Whelp Creek watersheds. We particularly thankSonia Salyzyn and Jason Vanrodaeys.

� The collaboration with Dr. Gary Kachanoski and his research team, including Dr. GroLilbaek, from the University of Alberta, with special thanks to Andre Christensen forassisting with the installation of the groundwater wells in the Whelp Creek Sub-watershed.

� The advice and suggestions from Dr. Stewart Rood of the University of Lethbridge,regarding riparian assessment.

� The Rocky Mountain Forage Association for advice in preparing a plan for the SouthBMPPasture Site in the Whelp Creek Sub-watershed.

Nutrient Beneficial Management Practices

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Introduction

In Alberta, crop and livestock producers face challenges with increasing input costs, marketcompetition, and continued pressure to improve environmental stewardship. In recent years, theimpact of agriculture on the environment has focused on livestock production, and in particular theintensive livestock industry and manure management, with concerns regarding the effects ofnutrients on water quality. Producers seek proven and practical beneficial management practices( s) that will maintain efficient and viable farm operations while protecting the environment.BMP

Numerous s have been developed and promoted to minimize the effects of agriculture onBMPthe environment and increase the sustainability of the agricultural industry. Beneficial managementpractices are defined as conservation practices, management techniques, or social actions thatminimize potential negative effects on the environment while being practical for producers to meetor exceed regulatory requirements and meet production targets.

Beneficial management practices are often developed to protect water quality by managingnutrient inputs at the source to minimize or prevent nutrient losses. Nutrient management fulfillscrop nutrient requirements and minimizes the potential for loss to the environment.

The effectiveness of s under Alberta conditions is not well known. Producers areBMPrequesting science- and risk-based, site-specific analytical tools to assist them in deciding whichmanagement practices would yield the greatest benefit for their financial investment. Producersand policy makers require information on the least-cost alternatives for reducing environmentalimpacts, and this requires an economic analysis of costs and benefits.

It is largely assumed that s elicit a positive effect on the environment. However, s areBMP BMPoften not assessed or evaluated at larger scales (i.e., watersheds) because fewer factors can becontrolled, replication is less feasible, and larger studies are expensive. There is also limitedresearch showing the cumulative effects of s on the environment. Within Alberta, additionalBMPBMP study sites are especially needed because of the diverse agro-climatic regions in the province.

Under the leadership of Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, and in partnership with theAlberta Crop Industry Development Fund, Alberta Environment, Municipality of Pincher Creek,County of Lacombe, and the University of Alberta, a 6-yr research project was carried out toevaluate s at field and watershed scales in Alberta.BMP

2 Objectives

In this study, suites of s, rather than individual s, were evaluated at each field site.BMP BMPThe s were assessed to determine if they improved surface water-quality, and other indicators,BMPsuch as riparian and rangeland quality, were assessed at some sites. Nutrient s were examinedBMPin this study, with a focus on livestock production systems. Three main types were evaluated:BMPmanure nutrient management, livestock management, and surface-water management. The specificproject objectives were to:

iv

� Evaluate the effectiveness of nutrient s in reducing agricultural impacts on theBMPenvironment at the farm scale.

� Assess the effects of s on water quality in specific reaches of a watershed stream.BMP

� Predict the cumulative effects of s on the overall quality of a watershed stream usingBMPmodels (refer to Volume 3).

� Evaluate nutrient s for effective use of manure in crop production.BMP

� Assess economic costs and benefits associated with s implemented in this study.BMP

3 Methods

The primary focus of this project was in two agricultural watersheds in Alberta: IndianfarmCreek ( ) Watershed (14,145 ha) located east and southeast from Pincher Creek and WhelpIFCCreek ( ) Sub-watershed (4595 ha) located west from Lacombe. Investigations includedWHCwatershed-wide assessments of water quality and land-use practices, as well as assessmentBMPsites on the property of cooperating producers. Outside of these two watersheds, two additionalfield sites were selected: one (65 ha) in the Battersea Drain Watershed and the other (130 ha) in theLower Little Bow River Watershed. Both of these field sites were irrigated and had a history ofheavy manure application.

A total of 22 field sites were established in the study: 12 sites in the Watershed, eight sitesIFCin Sub-watershed, plus the Battersea Drain Field ( ) and Lower Little Bow Field ( )WHC BDF LLBsites. Beneficial management practices plans were developed for 20 sites, of which s wereBMPimplemented at 16 sites. Water quality data were used to assess the effectiveness of the s at 11BMPsites. Water quality was the main indictor to evaluate the effectiveness of the s implementedBMPat the study sites. In addition, riparian quality, rangeland quality, and soil nutrient status were alsoused as indicators at certain sites. The total costs and labour for the s were also recorded.BMP

The number of water quality monitoring stations ranged from one to six stations among theBMP IFC WHCsites. In addition, watershed-wide stations, were established in the and watersheds,including the watershed outlets. The monitoring stations included edge-of-field and instreamstations. The edge-of-field stations were equipped with automatic water samplers and the instreamsites were either sampled with automatic samplers or grab sampled. Water flow was determined forall monitored sites using various instantaneous and continuous measuring techniques, includingstaff gauges, dataloggers, and flow metering.

The before-and-after approach was used to evaluate the s. The sites were selected andBMPwater quality was monitored for 2 to 4 yr with existing management practices. In cooperation withthe produces, the plans were implemented. Then, water quality monitoring continued forBMPanother 2 to 4 years, depending on the site.

Nutrient Beneficial Management Practices

v

A summary of project study sites, sites for which plans were developed, sites that were successfullyBMP

implemented with s, and sites where s were able to be evaluated using environmental indicators.BMP BMP

BMP evaluation carried out

SitezBMPtypey

BMP plandeveloped

BMP plansuccessfullyimplemented

Waterquality

Waterquantity

Soilnutrients Riparian

Range-land

Photopoints

Indianfarm Creek IMP C � � � �

Watershed NMF C � � �

PST C � � � � �x

WIN C � � � �

SMFw N �

DMFv N �

REFu C �

FLT t C,S � � �s

�

DUG C � � � �

OSW C � � � �

FENr C � �

CAT S � �

Whelp Creek WFD N � � �

Sub-watershed NFD N � � �

EFDq�

SFD N � � �

NPS C � � � �p

SPS C � � � �p

REF1o

REF2o

Irrigated field sites BDF N,S � � � � �

LLB N,S � � � � �

Number of sites 22 20 16 11 2 2 5 4 3z IMP NMF PST WIN= Impoundment, = North Manure Field, = Pasture, = Wintering, = South Manure Field,SMFDMF REF FLT DUG OSW= Dairy Manure Field, = Reference, = Feedlot, = Dugout, = Off -stream Watering, =FENFencing, = Catch Basin; = West Field, = North Field, = East Field, = South Field, =CAT WFD NFD EFD SFD NPSNorth Pasture, = South Pasture, 1 = Reference 1, 2 = Reference 2, = Battersea Drain Field, andSPS REF REF BDFLLB = Lower Little Bow Field.y C = cattle management s involved infrastructure alterations, offBMP -stream watering, windbreaks, fencing, and/orimproved grazing plans; N = manure nutrient management s on cropland involved nutrient management plans,BMPapplication setbacks, and/or buffer zones; and S = Surface-water management involved berming and redirecting theflow of surface water ( , ) or irrigaFLT CAT tion management to reduce runoff ( , )BDF LLB .x Rangeland survey and rangeland production.w The plan was not implemented due to the lack of a custom manure applicator and a late season.BMPv The plan was only implemented for 1 yr due to wet weather anBMP d field access issues.u The site was not supposed to require a . However, cattle were introduced for fall grazing and a planREF BMP BMPwas developed. The plan was only implemented 1 yr and then the could not be maintained because of a cropBMPfailure, a change in crop management, and flooding of the drainage channel.t Because of a lack of time, an adequate number of post-BMP water samples were not obtained in order to evaluatebased on water quality.s Rangeland survey.r The could not be evaluatedBMP because of cold weather, equipment failure, and failure of the erosion control.q The plan was not implemented as the crop was switched from annual cereal to perennial forage after theBMPplanning phase. However, this site was used to assess the risk of l iquid manure application on a forage crop to runoffwater quality.p Rangeland production.o The 1 and 2 sites were not supposed to require a .REF REF BMP

vi

Sitez

BMP typey

Successfully implemented BMP plan

IMP C Cattle exclusion and distribution control using fencing; Off-stream watering; Portablewindbreak

NMF C Cattle distribution control during fall grazing; Excluded cattle from drainage channel withtemporary electric fence

PST C Rotational grazing and off-stream watering to protect riparian area during sensitive periods;Corral removal

WIN C Rotational grazing and off-stream watering to protect riparian area during sensitive periods;Wintering site relocated

FLT C,S Relocation of bedding and feeding site; Re-direct tributary flow, grass waterway ; Improveberms around dugout and catch basin

DUG C Control access of cattle to dugouts with fencing; Off-stream watering; Improved cattlecrossing with a bridge

OSW C Excluded cattle from dugout; Off-stream watering

FEN C Prevent access to creek with fencing; Off-stream watering

CAT S Drainage ditch was constructed to divert run-on away from the feedlot

WFD N Apply manure based on P crop removal; Manure application setbacks; Change to injectedmanure application; Relocated manure storage; Erosion control on a drainage channel

NFD N Apply manure based on P crop removal; Manure application setbacks; Change to springmanure application

SFD N Apply manure based on P crop removal; Manure application setbacks; Buffer zone atdrainage outlet

NPS C Exclude cattle from degraded riparian area; Increase pasture size; Pasture rest with nograzing; weed control

SPS C Rotational grazing among paddocks created with new fencing and water system

BDF N,S Stop manure application and nutrient management plan; Pivot modification and irrigationmanagement to control runoff from irrigation

LLB N,S Stop manure application and nutrient management plan; Pivot modification and irrigationmanagement to control runoff from irrigation; Grass cover in drainage channel

z IMP = Impoundment, = North Manure Field, = Pasture, = Wintering, = South Manure Field,NMF PST WIN SMFDMF REF FLT DUG OSW= Dairy Manure Field, = Reference, = Feedlot, = Dugout, = Off -stream Watering, FEN= Fencing, = Catch Basin; = West Field, = NorthCAT WFD NFD Field, = East Field, = South Field,EFD SFDNPS SPS REF REF BDF= North Pasture, = South Pasture, 1 = Reference 1, 2 = Reference 2, = Battersea DrainField, and = Lower Little Bow Field.LLBy C = cattle management s involved infrastructure alterations,BMP off-stream watering, windbreaks, fencing, and/orimproved grazing plans; N = manure nutrient management s on cropland involved nutrient management plans,BMPapplication setbacks, and/or buffer zones; and S = Surface-water management involved berming and redirecting theflow of surface water ( ) or irrigation management to reduce runoff ( , )FLT BDF LLB .

Water samples were collected using an event-based protocol. Soil samples were collected eachyear from the crop and pasture sites. Riparian assessment was carried out at five sites, andrangeland assessment was carried out at four sites. Water samples were analyzed for a variety ofparameters including total nitrogen ( ), total phosphorus ( ), total suspended solids ( ), andTN TP TSSEscherichia coli E. coli( ). Soil samples were analyzed for extractable N and soil-test phosphorus( ).STP

Nutrient Beneficial Management Practices

vii

4 Key Points

4.1 General

With the addition of manure, from either grazing or manure application, andTN TPconcentrations in edge-of-field runoff water were significantly higher compared to non-manured or pasture sites.

� For the pasture and non-manured (inorganic fertilizer) sites, the average concentrationTNranged from about 2 to 6 mg L and concentration ranged from about 0.8 to 1.0 mg L .

-1 -1TP

� Sites with moderate or heavy manure application (pre- ) had average concentrationsBMP TNthat ranged from about 12 to 14 mg L and concentrations that ranged from about 2 to 5

-1TP

mg L .-1

The location or scale at which water quality was measured had important implications on theexpected nutrient concentration. Generally, the smaller the scale, the higher theconcentration of nutrients (edge-of-field > tributary > mainstem of a stream).

� Measuring water quality at a smaller scale like at the edge-of-field rather than instreamimproved the likelihood of measuring a successful environmental response caused byBMPs.

4.2 Implementation of Beneficial Management Practices

There were challenges in implementing the s. When issues arose, plans wereBMP BMPmodified, partially implemented, or not implemented.

� Challenges included poor weather and difficult field access, untimely access to manure-spreading equipment, producers not willing to implement or maintain a portion of the BMPplans, and technical difficulties with irrigation equipment.

� There were also challenges trying to anticipate management changes, which could varyfrom year-to-year.

4.3 Cost of Beneficial Management Practices

The cost of the s ranged from $466 to $87,770 and labour ranged from 13 to 202 h. TheBMPmedian cost was about $12,000 per site. The majority of cost was generally a one-time, up-front cost to implement the s. The most costly s involved surface-waterBMP BMPmanagement and manure hauling.

� The two surface-water management s in cost $87,770 and $13,200. The sBMP IFC BMPwere at feedlots, and surface water was diverted away from the pens.

� Riparian bioengineering was implemented at two sites in at an average cost of aboutIFC$18,000. Bioengineering was particularly labour intensive.

viii

4.4 Effectiveness of Beneficial Management Practices

Almost all of the suites implemented at the sites were found to be effective (eight sites)BMPat significantly improving water quality in terms of , , , and/orTN TP TSS E. coli

concentrations. For those sites where water quality did not improve (three sites), the BMPplans were often not implemented as designed.

� Cattle management s were likely to show short-term immediate water qualityBMPimprovement; whereas, nutrient management was a long-term and continuous improvementscenario. A monitoring time frame of a few years may be sufficient to captureenvironmental benefits for some s like cattle management changes, although itBMPdepends on the variability of the weather, management practices, and expected responsetimes.

� Of the six sites that involved cattle management, four were effective at improvingBMPwater quality. For the two sites that did not have significant improvements, one site wastrending towards improvement and any possible positive results at the other site were likelymasked due to the size of the contributing area.

� Of the five sites that involved field-nutrient management, four were effective atBMPimproving water quality. For the one site that did not have significant improvement, theBMP was poorly implemented due to unavailability of manure injection equipment andinappropriate field conditions for establishing a vegetative buffer.

� For the s that were effective at improving water quality, concentration reductionsBMPranged from 2 to 85% during runoff events.

� In addition to water quality, the s had a positive effect on riparian and/or rangelandBMPquality, particularly when cattle were completely excluded ( , , ) or accessIMP OSW DUGwas denied at certain times of the year through rotational grazing ( , , , andPST WIN PSTFLT PST). The change to grazing practices also improved rangeland production at the site.

� At the two irrigated field sites, automatically turning off sprinkler nozzles reduced irrigationrunoff from contributing drainage areas of the irrigated fields. However, in practicality,there were implementation challenges with the variable rate technology used at these twofield sites.

� The Alberta Irrigation Management Model ( ) was able to reasonably predict soilAIMMmoisture, except under wet conditions, particularly when there was contribution fromsubsurface water. Also, rainfall shortly after a major irrigation event increased the risk ofrunoff, and this could not be avoided by using .AIMM

4.5 Soil Nutrients and Water Quality

Fields with high soil P will likely take decades to be reduced P concentration. Field-nutrientmanagement s were costly when there was a requirement to haul manure furtherBMPdistances due to high soil nutrients.

� At the site, the cost to haul manure 7.5 km was $30,000. If the of manureLLB BMPcessation continued at , the cost of manure transport would be borne on an annualLLBbasis.

Nutrient Beneficial Management Practices

ix

� For the and sites, the focus should be on reducing the soil P levels to or belowBDF LLBagronomic requirements, recognizing that it will take at least a decade to be able to measurechanges in the soil profile. Realistically, however, the cost of manure transportation willcontinue to be an impediment if it must be borne by producers for the long term. Currently,BMP funding support programs do not have this type of long-term funding.

A key proactive action to protect water quality will be to avoid the build-up of soil nutrients.Fields with a slight accumulation of soil nutrients can be reduced within a few years withBMPs. Particular attention should be given to hotspots that can develop within fields ifmanure or livestock are confined to a small area.

� At the site, dairy manure was applied at very high rates, but to only a few hectares inDMFa given year. With time, this practice resulted in accumulation to more than 120 mg kgSTP

-1

on average. Similarly, the corral area ( -corral) had a relatively high concentration,PST STPat slightly more than 100 mg kg and was particularly affected by congregating of cattle,

-1

which resulted in high densities of fecal pats in this area compared to the rest of the pasture.

� Although it has high agricultural intensity with several confined feeding operations, theWHC Sub-watershed generally had soil nutrients that were only slightly above or belowagronomic levels. Continued application of manure at or below crop uptake may besufficient for environmental risk mitigation.

4.6 Water Quality from Agricultural Fields and Watersheds

Recommendations for s within watersheds can be provided on the basis of naturalBMPregions, given that runoff, water quality, and land-use patterns are generally consistent in theregions.

� For the Grassland Natural Region watersheds, s should target particulateBMPconcentrations during the spring rains. Many of the s in the Grassland watersheds mayBMPinvolve extensive livestock (i.e., grazing) and field erosion.

� For the Parkland Natural Region watersheds, s should target dissolved inorganicBMPnutrient concentrations in snowmelt.

� This study confirmed that flow was the primary driver for the observed load and exportdifferences at the watershed outlets. Hence, if load and export reductions are needed, flowreduction may need to be targeted.

Because only a few s were implemented in relatively large watersheds, there is still a gapBMPin understanding the cumulative benefit of implementing s in effort to improve waterBMPquality at a watershed scale. Further, desired end states or water quality objectives for theedge-of-field and the outlets of agricultural watersheds need to be defined.

� Even though modelling component (Volume 3) of the Project investigated theBMPcumulative effects of s, further work is required for on-the-ground validation ofBMPcumulative s in improving water quality.BMP

� It will be important to develop site-specific nutrient objectives with consideration of scale.

x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Surface Runoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.3 Agricultural Impacts on Surface Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.3.1 Nutrients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.3.2 Sediment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.3.3 Microorganisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.4 Types and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10BMP1.5 Methods to Evaluate Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11BMP

1.5.1 Experimental Designs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131.5.2 Statistical Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151.5.3 Considerations for Water Quality Trend Detection Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151.5.4 Other Methods to Evaluate Water Quality Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171.5.5 Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

1.6 Project Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2 General Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232.2 Study Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232.3 Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272.4 Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2.4.1 Environment Canada Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272.4.2 Study Site Weather Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2.5 Land Use, Land Cover, Management, and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30BMP2.5.1 AgCapture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302.5.2 Producers Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312.5.3 Annual Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2.6 Water Monitoring Station Types. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322.7 Water Flow Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

2.7.1 Circular Flumes and Float Potentiometers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382.7.2 Argonaut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412.7.3 Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42TROLL2.7.4 Staff Gauges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432.7.5 Flow Metering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432.7.6 Flow Calculations and Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

2.8 Water Quality Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452.8.1 Automated Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452.8.2 Grab Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462.8.3 Laboratory Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Nutrient Beneficial Management Practices

xi

2.8.4 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512.9 Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

2.9.1 Characterization Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542.9.2 Agronomic Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542.9.3 Soil-test Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562.9.4 Deep Core Samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572.9.5 Samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57AIMM2.9.6 Soil Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

2.10 Manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582.10.1 Manure Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582.10.2 Manure Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

2.11 Riparian Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592.11.1 Cows and Fish Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592.11.2 Annual Transect Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

2.12 Rangeland Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622.12.1 Rangeland Transects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622.12.2 Production Cages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

3 Indianfarm Creek Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

3.1.1 Watershed Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653.1.2 Beneficial Management Practices Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

3.2 Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673.2.1 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673.2.2 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

3.3 Land Use and Land Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743.3.1 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743.3.2 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

3.4 Watershed Hydrology and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853.4.1 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853.4.2 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923.4.3 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

3.5 Impoundment Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1243.5.1 Introduction and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1243.5.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1253.5.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1323.5.4 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

3.6 North Manure Field and Fencing Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1483.6.1 Introduction and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1483.6.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1493.6.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1583.6.4 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

3.7 Pasture Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1773.7.1 Introduction and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1773.7.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1783.7.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1903.7.4 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

xii

3.8 Wintering Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.8.1 Introduction and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.8.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.8.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2283.8.4 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

3.9 South Manure Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2403.9.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2403.9.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2403.9.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2453.9.4 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

3.10 Dairy Manure Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2593.10.1 Introduction and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2593.10.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2593.10.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2643.10.4 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

3.11 Reference Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2773.11.1 Introduction and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2773.11.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2783.11.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2843.11.4 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

3.12 Off-stream Watering Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2953.12.1 Introduction and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2953.12.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2953.12.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3003.12.4 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304

3.13 Dugout Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3053.13.1 Introduction and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3053.13.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3053.13.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3103.13.4 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316

3.14 Feedlot Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3173.14.1 Introduction and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3173.14.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3173.14.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3243.14.4 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336

3.15 Catch Basin Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3373.15.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3373.15.2 Site Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3373.15.3 Surface Hydrology Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3383.15.4 Implementation and Cost of Beneficial Management Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3413.15.5 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344

4 Whelp Creek Sub-watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3454.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345

4.1.1 Sub-watershed Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3454.1.2 Beneficial Management Practices Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347

4.2 Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347

Nutrient Beneficial Management Practices

xiii

4.2.1 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3474.2.2 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349

4.3 Land Use and Land Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3534.3.1 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3534.3.2 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353

4.4 Watershed Surface Hydrology and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3584.4.1 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3584.4.2 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3624.4.3 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387

4.5 Watershed Groundwater Hydrology and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3914.5.1 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3914.5.2 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3984.5.3 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411

4.6 West Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4134.6.1 Introduction and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4134.6.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4134.6.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4194.6.4 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429

4.7 North Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4304.7.1 Introduction and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4304.7.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4304.7.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4394.7.4 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454

4.8 East Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4564.8.1 Introduction and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4564.8.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4574.8.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4644.8.4 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473

4.9 South Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4754.9.1 Introduction and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4754.9.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4754.9.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4814.9.4 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496

4.10 North Pasture Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4984.10.1 Introduction and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4984.10.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4984.10.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5044.10.4 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516

4.11 South Pasture Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5184.11.1 Introduction and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5184.11.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5184.11.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5244.11.4 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533

4.12 Reference 1 Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5354.12.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5354.12.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5354.12.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538

xiv

4.12.4 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5444.13 Reference 2 Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545

4.13.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5454.13.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5454.13.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5484.13.4 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554

5 Battersea Drain Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5575.1 Introduction and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5575.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558

5.2.1 Site Description and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5585.2.2 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560of Beneficial Management Practices5.2.3 Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5645.2.4 Soil Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5645.2.5 Manure Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5675.2.6 Water Flow and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567

5.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5695.3.1 Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5695.3.2 Manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5725.3.3 Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5735.3.4 Water Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5815.3.5 Alberta Irrigation Management Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585BMP5.3.6 Pivot Irrigation System Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589BMP5.3.7 Cost of Beneficial Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5945.3.8 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 596

5.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619

6 Lower Little Bow Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6236.1 Introduction and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6236.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624

6.2.1 Site Description and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6246.2.2 Implementation of Beneficial Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6266.2.3 Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6296.2.4 Soil Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6306.2.5 Manure Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6316.2.6 Water Flow and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 631

6.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6326.3.1 Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6326.3.2 Manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6336.3.3 Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6336.3.4 Runoff Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6376.3.5 Alberta Irrigation Management Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6406.3.6 Pivot Irrigation System Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645BMP6.3.7 Cost of Beneficial Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6486.3.8 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650

6.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656

Nutrient Beneficial Management Practices

xv

7 Field Study Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6597.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6597.2 Project Watershed Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659

7.2.1 Watershed Characteristics and Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6597.2.2 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6617.2.3 Soil Nutrients and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663

7.3 Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 670BMP7.3.1 Improvement on Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674BMP7.3.2 Cumulative Effect of s on Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 677BMP7.3.3 Improvement on Riparian and Rangeland Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678BMP7.3.4 Cost of s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 679BMP

7.4 Water Quality from Agricultural Fields and Watersheds in Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6817.4.1 Water Quality from Agricultural Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6817.4.2 Water Quality from Agricultural Watersheds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682

7.5 Summary and Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 690

8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695

9 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717Appendix 1 Land use and management survey forms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718Appendix 2 Water analysis quality assurance and quality control during the

switch of laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727Appendix 3 Laboratory quality control and quality assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735Appendix 4 Summary of soil characteristics for the beneficial

management practices sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737Appendix 5 Riparian transect tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 755Appendix 6 Average concentration of nitrogen, phosphorus, total suspended

solids ( ), and ( ) measured at monitoringTSS Escherichia coli E. coli

stations in Indianfarm Creek Watershed and at the Battersea DrainField ( ) and Lower Little Bow Field ( ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799BD LB

Appendix 7 Average concentration of nitrogen, phosphorus, total suspendedsolids ( ), and ( ) measured at monitoringTSS Escherichia coli E. coli

stations in Whelp Creek Sub-watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801

xvi