Andrew Lyon and Daniel Storm Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Grazing Management for Healthy Riparian Areas Authors: Gene Surber, MSU Extension Natural Resources Specialist Bob Ehrhart, Research Specialist, RWRP,
Advertisements

Chicken Industry Programs to Prevent Water Pollution Bill Satterfield Executive Director Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc. June 5, 2013.
Cost-Share Funding Opportunities – How the Lower Souris Watershed Committee Can Help You? Karmen Kyle Group Plan Advisor, Lower Souris Watershed Committee.
Part III Solid Waste Engineering
Listed on 303(d) list Organic enrichment causing depleted oxygen levels. Not sustaining the designated use for aquatic life because of low dissolved oxygen.
Legislative Changes Affecting Water Quality at a Local Level October 2011 Robert Kollinger, P.E. Water Resources Manager Polk County Parks and Natural.
Minnesota Watershed Nitrogen Reduction Planning Tool William Lazarus Department of Applied Economics University of Minnesota David Mulla Department of.
1 United Water Delaware “Cut the Crypto” Watershed Control Plan 1 Nancy Trushell, P.E. Director of Engineering United Water Delaware.
Current Planning for 2017 Mid-Point Assessment Gary Shenk COG 10/4/2012 presentation credit to Katherine Antos and the WQGIT ad hoc planning team.
Water Pollution. Watershed A watershed is an area of land from which all the water drains to the same location, such as a stream, pond, lake, river, wetland.
Mark Dubin Agricultural Technical Coordinator University of Maryland Extension-College Park Modeling Quarterly Review Meeting April 17, 2012.
NMDESS: A Decision Support System for Nutrient Management E. O. Mutlu 1, I. Chaubey 1, M. Matlock 1, R. Morgan 1, B. Haggard 1, D. E. Storm 2 Ecological.
Point Source POLLUTION: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES
Overview of Watershed Systems
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Grazing – Our Most Commonly Used Conservation Practices.
Northwest hydraulic consultants 2NDNATURE Geosyntec Consultants September 11, 2007 Urban Upland / Groundwater Source Category Group (UGSCG) Overview Presentation.
Agricultural Best Management Practices For Protecting Water Quality Recommended by Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission and approved by the EPD.
Land Uses & Water Pollution Sources Christopher Gale Bill Taft.
Izard County Conservation District Arkansas Natural Resource Commission U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Agriculture Enhancement Program West Virginia Conservation Agency.
Best Management Practices and the Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model Jeff Sweeney University of Maryland Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Taking the Next Step: Implementing the TMDL. What IDEM Provides to Help With Implementation  Compiling all the data in one place  Data-driven recommendations.
Working to Improve Water Quality. Accelerating Riparian Buffer Adoption to Enhance Water Quality and Farm Income USDA-CSREES Extension Education project.
Watershed Management Assessment Through Modeling: SALT and CEAP Dr. Claire Baffaut Water Quality Short Course Boone County Extension Office April 12, 2007.
 The Chesapeake Bay  History  How it affect agriculture enterprises  How does it affect Mineral County  Water Runoff  Careers related to the Chesapeake.
Our Mission Helping people help the land. NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service Our Vision Productive Lands ---- Healthy Environment.
LOWER L’ANGUILLE WATERSHED COST SHARE PATRICIA PERRY ST. FRANCIS COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
Baxter County Conservation District.  Baxter County Conservation District  Arkansas Natural Resources Commission  EPA Section 319 of Clean Water Act.
Indiana’s Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program Coastal Advisory Board Meeting April 18, 2007.
Neuse River Basin Provided by Dr. D. Monreau to Dr. G
Reducing Nutrient Loads from the Opequon Creek Watershed Project Team Meeting Oct 19, 2007 Chesapeake Bay Targeted Watersheds Grant Program.
Michigan’s Nonpoint Source Program Pass Through Grant Funding Past, Present, and Future Outlook Bob Sweet Past Aquatic Biologist, Present Administrative.
A Project to Reduce Bacteria in Texas Waterways: Lone Star Healthy Streams Larry A. Redmon 1, Kevin L. Wagner 2, Robert K. Lyons 3, and Garrett Norman.
CENTRAL MUSCATATUCK WATERSHED. BMPs Cost-Shared by Central Muscatatuck Watershed Project.
Listed on 303(d) list Organic enrichment causing depleted oxygen levels. Not sustaining the designated use for aquatic life because of low dissolved oxygen.
1 United Water Delaware “Cut the Crypto” Watershed Control Plan 1 Nancy Trushell, P.E. Director of Engineering United Water Delaware.
Beef Cattle Management for Water Quality Protection Dirk Philipp University of Arkansas Animal Science Department October 2012.
Conservation Provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
Land Uses & Water Pollution Sources By Joan Schumaker Chadde, Western U.P. Center for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education. All photos by Chadde,
Precision Management beyond Fertilizer Application Hailin Zhang.
ANIMAL CONCENTRATION AREAS WORKSHEET Completing a Manure Management Plan Workshop v
Human Impacts Part 2- Watersheds. What’s a Watershed? An area of land that drains into a common body of water.
2015 Clean Water Farm Award BILLY A HUDSON. At the Barn Here Senior District Conservationist P.W. Morgan (left) stands next to Billy Hudson (right) next.
Prepared by the Falls and Jordan Lake Watershed Oversight Committees John Huisman - DWQ & Julie Henshaw - DSWC.
Where critical areas & agriculture meet
Yahara River Watershed RCPP
Using RMMS to Track the Implementation of Watershed-based Plans
Using RMMS to Track & Report BMP Implementation
Chapter 10 Analysis of Covariance
Hydrosphere Notes Part 9-Land Use.
Department of Environmental Quality
Agricultural Best Management Practices For Protecting Water Quality
By: Lucas Hendrickson, Ian Strasburg, John Koets, and Shenquan Li
WIP Regional Meetings Jason Keppler
Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s Citizens Advisory Committee
Current VA Ag Initiatives
Land Uses & Water Pollution Sources
Environmental Management Commission Information Item January 8, 2015
Southfork of the Spring River Sub-Watershed Project ( )
Annual Agriculture Progress Reports Tar-Pamlico / Neuse / Falls Lake
Annual Agriculture Progress Reports Neuse & Tar-Pamlico River Basins
Water Quality Protection Zones
Annual Agriculture Progress Reports Neuse & Tar-Pamlico River Basins
Fulton County Conservation District
Overview of US EPA & State Manure Management Regulations
Land Uses & Water Pollution Sources
Manure Management Implementation by US Farmers
Government Conservation Programs
Upper Clark Fork Watershed Restoration and TMDLs
2018 BMP Verification Assessment
Presentation transcript:

Paired Watershed Analysis To Evaluate Phosphorus in Beaty Creek, Oklahoma Andrew Lyon and Daniel Storm Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering Oklahoma State University

Eucha–Spavinaw Basin Problem Poultry production is the principle industry in the basin 2,000 poultry houses in basin produce 85 million birds annually, which produce 91,700 tons of poultry litter Of 48,000 kg/yr of P entering Lake Eucha, 69% comes from runoff from poultry litter applied to permanent pastures Centrifugal spreader

Eucha–Spavinaw Basin Problem Poultry House Locations and Soil Test P Levels Land Cover Poultry house complex of 3 houses to 15 houses, note concentration near Decatur on Arkansas side. Phosphorus Mass Balance Issues

Eucha–Spavinaw Basin History 1997 – City of Tulsa and OCC water quality study found both lakes were nutrient enriched, which lead to algal production 1999 – Under EPA section 319 program, OCC began to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) in Beaty Creek basin such as off-site watering and heavy use areas for cattle, pasture improvement, and fencing off of riparian areas December 2001 – City of Tulsa files suite against six poultry integrators and City of Decatur, AR for polluting Tulsa’s water resources Watershed team supervised by the court-appointed special master

Eucha–Spavinaw Basin History 2003 – Out of court settlement resulted in $7.5 million payment from poultry industry to City of Tulsa During 2003 a full moratorium on litter application in the basin From 2004 to 2008 at least 1/3 of litter must be transported out of basin Anyone who uses litter must have approved nutrient management plan Producers and Ranchers Court approved watershed management team develop plans

Paired Watershed Approach History 1950’s – Inception of approach, primarily used to evaluate effect of forestry practices in Northwest 1980’s – Paired Watershed Studies began to be employed to evaluate BMP effects in agricultural settings 1993 – U.S. EPA adopted a uniform paired watershed study design, approach became the most appropriate for documenting BMP effects over relatively short time periods

Paired Watershed Approach Conditions of Use Requires two watersheds Control and a treatment Two periods of study, calibration and treatment Control watershed has constant management during total duration of study Treatment watershed undergoes a change in management during the treatment period, such as implementing BMPs Data are collected in both watersheds before and after the BMPs are implemented Two periods are compared, assuming a quantifiable relationship exists in water quality between the two watersheds until a change is made in one of the watersheds, then a new relationship will exist

Paired Watershed Approach Conditions of Use Does not assume water quality is the same in each watershed Assumes both watersheds respond in a predictable manner due to experiencing the same weather Controls weather influence and other environmental factors, which is the primary reason to use the paired watershed study approach ANCOVA used to test significance between periods Regression Analysis is used to quantify differences between periods, if any.

Paired Watershed Approach Limitations Basins should be close in proximity to assume they experience the same weather Basins hydrology should be similar Bedrock and surficial geology Slope Soils Land cover and land use Size

Study Results Previous OCC Study In August 1999 the OCC began a project to document BMP effectiveness in Beaty Creek Basin Paired watershed study design was used with Little Saline Creek Basin was as the calibration watershed Calibration period: Sept 1999 to Sept 2000 Treatment period: Sept 2003 to Sept 2004 Published in 2005, 14% reduction in total P Practices included riparian management, buffer and filter strips, streambank stabilization, animal waste storage facilities, pasture establishment and management, heavy use areas for cattle production and instillation of septic systems (OCC 2005). Specifically in the Beaty Creek basin, implemented BMPs included protecting 330 acres of riparian area by installing 34 off-site watering facilities and establishing 9.4 miles of fencing. They improved pastures on 7,135 acres in the watershed by reducing nutrient runoff through prescribed grazing strategies, implemented nutrient management plans, and planting 1,683 acres of pasture that was formerly either cropland or poorly vegetated pasture (OCC 2005). Other BMPs were implemented in the basin by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) EQIP program. The NRCS only tracks dollars spent on BMP implementation on a county level and not a watershed level, so quantifying the amount spent from this program in the Beaty and Spavinaw Creek basin is very difficult.

Study Methods Build upon existing OCC project Use full two year calibration and treatment periods Beaty Creek was paired with Little Saline Creek Calibration period: Sept 1999 to Sept 2001 Treatment period: Sept 2003 to Sept 2005

Study Results Periods were significantly different at the 0.086 level 31% reduction in total P Due to BMPs, reduced poultry litter application, and possibly other unknown influences

Summary and Discussion Practices implemented in Beaty Creek, 2001-2003 OCC implemented BMPs NRCS EQIP implemented BMPs Reduction in poultry litter application, i.e. litter exported out of basin Analysis showed a 31% total P reduction, 9/2003 to 9/2005 (treatment period) Actual total P load increased during treatment period A cause and effect link between BMPs and water quality cannot be shown as all the factors that affect the response to the treatment are not controlled. An association relationship between these practices and water quality allows us to infer that the reduction in stream total P was likely the result of these activities