Summary of Findings and Strategies to Move Toward a 40% Phosphorus Reduction 25 September 2017 To be updated periodically (Adaptive Management)  Kristen.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Overview – Nutrient Fate and Transport Mark B. David University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Presented at Building Science Assessments for State-Level.
Advertisements

Hybrid Presentation By Bob Watson & Larry Stone. Hybrid Presentation In recent years at the Annual Wastewater Conference the EPA, DNR, IDALS, USDA, ISU.
Phosphorus As A Stressor Alexandra Arntsen, Alison Foster, Scott Ritter April 2011.
The Lake Allegan/Kalamazoo River Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Plan Implementation by Jeff Spoelstra, Coordinator, Kalamazoo River Watershed Council.
Summary of soil P levels and stratification GLPF Grant- Team meeting #5 July 23-24, 2013.
Effects of Conservation Tillage Systems on Dissolved Phosphorus Dr. David Baker Heidelberg University Tiffin, Ohio November 15, 2012 Davenport, IA.
7:00 pmWelcome and introductions 7:05pmHLWD planning overview Plan update process 7:25 pmStakeholder involvement Watershed problems 7:40 pmPublic comment.
Essex Region Conservation Authority Brad Arsenault & Kaylyn Boyd.
Scenario Analysis costs per acre for various practices estimate each fully applied practice for N or P then combine for N or P to reach 20 or 45% finally,
Team Meeting #5, Great Lakes Protection Fund Grant A Phosphorus Soil Test Metric To Reduce Dissolved Phosphorus Loading to Lake Erie Heidelberg University.
Minnesota Watershed Nitrogen Reduction Planning Tool William Lazarus Department of Applied Economics University of Minnesota David Mulla Department of.
Water Quality Concerns in Ohio Waters What has been Happening in Lake Erie? Greg LaBarge, Field Specialist, Agronomic Systems.
OHIO SEA GRANT AND STONE LABORATORY Phosphorus reductions from POINT sources (29,000 metric tons to 11,000) ‐Somewhat aided by agriculture practices Late.
Science Assessment to Support an Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction Strategy Mark David, Greg McIsaac, George Czapar, Gary Schnitkey, Corey Mitchell University.
Elm Creek Watershed Green Lands, Blue Waters Annual Conference November 20-21, 2013 Linda Meschke, Rural Advantage.
P Index Development and Implementation The Iowa Experience Antonio Mallarino Iowa State University.
Point Source POLLUTION: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES
Reducing phosphorus emissions: Why voluntary programs struggle and market-based instruments are likely to work best Brent Sohngen (OSU)
Nutrient Loading from Point and Non-Point Sources on Surface Waters by Adam Lanning.
EUTROPHICATION (NUTRIENT POLLUTION) SOLUTIONS REVIEW BEST POLICIES & REAL FIXES.
Managing P & N Nutrient Resources Agronomy In-service January 3, 2013 Greg LaBarge, Field Specialist, Agronomic Systems.
Lake Erie Overview Dr. Jeffrey M. Reutter, Director Ohio Sea Grant and Stone Laboratory The Ohio State University Office of Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur.
Science Assessment to Support an Illinois Nutrient Reduction Strategy Mark David, George Czapar, Greg McIsaac, Corey Mitchell March 11,
BMP CHALLENGE Experience: Cannon River Watershed Partnership Information provided by: Dave Legvold Executive Director Cannon River Watershed Partnership.
Cover crop economics: estimating a return on investment Liz Juchems and Jamie Benning.
Science Assessment to Support an Illinois Nutrient Reduction Strategy Mark David, Greg McIsaac, George Czapar, Gary Schnitkey, Corey Mitchell University.
Drainage Management for Water Quality and Crop Production Benefits Don Pitts Agricultural Engineer NRCS USDA Champaign, IL.
Lecture 2. Agricultural Pollution Control in the Baltic Sea with Special Emphasis on Manure Management Prepared by Assoc. Prof. Philip Chiverton, SLU and.
Summary of supplementary data GLPF Grant- Team meeting #5 July 23, 2013.
KWWOA Annual Conference April 2014 Development of a Kentucky Nutrient Strategy Paulette Akers Kentucky Division of Water Frankfort, KY.
Sediment Delivery to the Watonwan River
Opportunities for Collaboration on Water- Quality Issues in the Mississippi River Basin Herb Buxton, Office of Water Quality.
Private Lands Voluntary Conservation in the Great Lakes Basin Vicki Anderson Great Lakes Coordinator.
Team Meeting #5, Great Lakes Protection Fund Grant A Phosphorus Soil Test Metric To Reduce Dissolved Phosphorus Loading to Lake Erie Heidelberg University.
Phosphorus Stressor in Lake Champlain Basin Alison Nord, Anna Speed, Ashley Murphy.
P Index Fundamentals of Nutrient Management Training Course December 15, 2005 Isaac Wolford, West Virginia NRCS State Agronomist.
Eutrophication Nutrient pollution in the Mississippi River Delta Eutrophication : Mississippi River Delta.
IOWA NUTRIENT REDUCTION STRATEGY A science and technology-based framework to assess and reduce nutrients to Iowa waters and the Gulf of Mexico James Gillespie.
Taking on the Challenge Addressing Sustainability and Nutrient Loss Reduction Strategy Goals Caroline Wade, Nutrient Watershed Manager Illinois Corn Growers.
Human Impacts Part 2- Watersheds. What’s a Watershed? An area of land that drains into a common body of water.
4R Tomorrow Nutrient Stewardship “ Doing RIGHT today, 4R Tomorrow!” Ohio SWCDs are Working Together to Improve the Quality of Life for All Ohioans! *Photo.
Where critical areas & agriculture meet
The state belongs to all of us - "Kansas Don't Spoil It"
Yahara River Watershed RCPP
Using RMMS to Track the Implementation of Watershed-based Plans
EVALUATING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANS NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT APPROACHES IN THE LAKE ERIE BASIN AND KEY LOCATIONS OUTSIDE OF THE LAKE ERIE WATERSHED Ohio Stormwater.
Hydrosphere Notes Part 9-Land Use.
Environmentally sensitive areas
Costs and Environmental Gains from Conservation Programs
Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction Strategy - NLRS
Eutrophication & Management
By: Lucas Hendrickson, Ian Strasburg, John Koets, and Shenquan Li
Update on Lake Erie Nutrient and Algal Issues
Texas Water Resources Institute
WIP Regional Meetings Jason Keppler
Plant Nutrients Diego and lorenzo.
Costs of P Reductions in Lake Erie.
Building a Phase III WIP for Wastewater, Stormwater & Septic Systems
2018 Louisiana Soil Health and Cover Crop Conference
Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance
The Effect of Improved Manure Management on Water Quality
Watershed Management Plan Citizens Advisory Committee April 18, 2011
Lake Erie HABs Workshop
Drainage Water Management
Eutrophication & Management
Environmentally sensitive areas
ManPlan Inc is a Technical Service Provider
Components of a Nutrient Management Plan
Environmental problems caused by Dairy Farming
Watershed Assessment of Detroit River Loads to Lake Erie
Presentation transcript:

  Summary of Findings and Strategies to Move Toward a 40% Phosphorus Reduction 25 September 2017 To be updated periodically (Adaptive Management)  Kristen Fussell, Gail Hesse, Laura Johnson, Kevin King, Greg LaBarge, Jay Martin, Jeffrey Reutter, Robyn Wilson, and Christopher Winslow

White Paper Contents Introduction and Goal Findings Background and History Nutrient Sources Today Understanding Agricultural Nutrient Loss  Identifying Effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) Understanding Farmer Decisions Possible Strategies to Move Toward a 40% P Reduction Information Gaps and Research Needs Literature Cited

GOALS “We hope with this white paper to clearly and briefly summarize current scientific understanding.” “It is our hope that this white paper will aid elected officials, managers, and decision makers in the development of Domestic Action Plans (DAPs) to move toward the 40% phosphorus reduction target, and in so doing, enhance agricultural productivity."

Process I drafted 2.5-page strawman on 7 April and made the pitch to the group and then served as an author and editor. Team met 9 times face to face in Sea Grant Office and culminated with a 3-hour conference call Sunday night, 24 September, to allow us to complete the document and submit it by the Ohio DAP deadline of 25 September. I submitted it to Ohio on 25 September for Ohio DAP and to USEPA on 27 September for US DAP.

40% Reduction in Phosphorus Loading Ohio Phosphorus Task Force (2013) IJC (2013) US and Canada GLWQA (2015) 40% Spring (1 March-31 July) reduction in TP and DRP loading to Western Basin for HABs (target loads for Maumee River = 860 tons TP and 186 tons DRP, or less with FWMC of 0.23 mg/l TP and 0.05 mg/l DRP) 40% reduction in TP loading to Western and Central Basins for hypoxia (dead zone)

GLWQA and CWA—1972 GLWQA allowed US and Canadian scientists to reach agreement that excessive phosphorus loading was driving the blooms and dead zones, and to set targets for phosphorus loads to the Lake—11,000 metric tons annually (approximately a 60% reduction). GLWQA also allowed agreement on phosphorus concentration targets for sewage treatment plant discharges. The CWA provided the authority to regulate sewage treatment plants and require them to reach target discharge concentrations. In Ohio, sewage treatment plants outside of the Lake Erie watershed were not required to reach the target discharge concentrations.

What happened to the original target? The original phosphorus target (11,000 metric tons) from the GLWQA was for Total Phosphorus (TP). TP is composed of both particulate phosphorus (PP), phosphorus attached to soil particles, and dissolved phosphorus (DRP), phosphorus dissolved in the water. PP is approximately 25% bioavailable (usable by plants and algae) and DRP is ~100% bioavailable. The annual load of TP to Lake Erie is still close to the 11,000-metric ton target, but the amount of DRP in that load has increased by 132% (Bullerjahn, 2016). This is the primary driver for the HABs we are seeing today.

2015 Annex 4 Report Findings include: Because the retention time for water in the Western Basin is only 20-50 days, when P loading to the basin is reduced, the lake responds immediately, as evidenced by the huge reduction in bloom size between 2011 and 2012 and between 2015 and 2016, where 2011 and 2015 were very wet springs with large P loads and large HABs, and 2012 and 2016 were very dry springs with very small P loads and small HABs. To reduce the intensity of HABs, strategies should focus on bioavailable P (DRP plus 25% of particulate P). Reducing N loading is also important.

Maumee and Sandusky Rivers Largest P loaders to GL and 87% is from non-point sources (primarily agriculture). 70-90% of P and N loads come in during the largest 10 storm events each year. Mean TP concentrations in these rivers (0.42 mg/l) are about 30 times greater than in the Detroit River (0.014 mg/l). Detroit River concentration is not high enough to cause a HAB, but it does contribute to hypoxia.

Non-Ag Sources of Phosphorus Point sources from sewage treatment plants underwent major improvement in the 1970s and 1980s (over 75% reduction in P), and now contribute less than 9% of the P. Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) have been greatly improved since the mid-1990s. By 2020, 40 of the 62 communities in the Lake Erie basin will have completed all the projects required by their Long-Term Control Plans. In 2013, CSOs in the Maumee River contributed less than 1% of the load. Home sewage treatment systems (septic tanks, etc.) contribute 4% of the total P load annually. Scott’s Miracle-Gro removed P from its lawn care products effective, 1 January 2013.

Understanding Agricultural Nutrient Loss From the 1970s to the mid-1990s, phosphorus was applied at 10-40 pounds P2O5 above crop removal rates, resulting in an accumulation of phosphorus in the soils of the region. Since the mid-1990s, reports show application at near crop removal rates. NRCS (2016) found that 42% of the acres accounted for 78% of the total phosphorus runoff and 80% of the sediment loss. When Soil Test Phosphorus (STP) does not exceed 50 ppm Bray P1, DRP concentrations in drain tiles generally meet Annex 4 guidelines (0.05 mg/l, the target flow-weighted mean concentration for DRP for the Maumee River). As STP levels increase above 50 ppm, DRP concentrations in tiles increase.

Fertilizer and Manure Guidelines Tri-state fertilizer guidelines used in Ohio recommend no additional phosphorus when STP levels are 50 ppm Bray P1 and above. Current guidelines for manure do not recommend applications of any P source on fields with STP levels that exceed 150 ppm (NRCS, 590 Standard). Between 40 and 150 ppm, the 590 standards allow a P application rate equal to crop removal for 1 or more years with rates limited by the P index or 250 lbs. of P2O5, whichever is less. Fields with STP levels above 100 ppm are often termed “Legacy P Fields”. Fields contribute P disproportionately with Legacy Fields generally contributing more, but reductions from Legacy Fields alone may not be enough to reach the 40% target.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) Farmers should follow the 4R’s of Nutrient Stewardship (right time, place, rate, source) and the two most important points are subsurface placement of fertilizer/manure and using soil-test-informed application rates. Subsurface placement on all row crop acres in Maumee watershed could reduce DRP by 46% (annual) and 42% (spring), and TP by 29% (annual) and 27% (spring). Converting tile risers to blind inlets can reduce P loss by 60%. Drainage water management can reduce DRP and TP from tiles by more than 50%. For every 1% increase in organic matter, the soil is capable of holding an additional 0.75 inches of water. Cover crops are very effective at reducing N losses with no benefit to P.

Understanding Farmer Decisions ~1/3 of farmers (and about 1/3 of acres) are engaged in BMPs or willing to do so, ~1/3 are hesitant but considering BMPs, and ~1/3 are unlikely to change practices in short-term (specific numbers depend on the BMP) be closer to retirement, and/or farm more rented acres. ~58% of target farming population appears willing to use cover crops, but unlikely to do so without incentives to off-set short-term cost/risk due to uncertainty around effectiveness. ~65% of target farming population appears willing to use subsurface placement, and may be persuaded with better information about the relative costs-benefits. ~90% of target farming population is willing to use soil tests at sufficient frequency to inform nutrient application and likely to do so with little additional persuasion.

Strategies to Move Toward a 40% P Reduction—#1 3 Ways to get Adoptions of BMPs Outreach and education to encourage voluntary adoption Incentives to encourage voluntary adoption Regulations to mandate action

#2—Recommendations from SERA-17 Conference Soil-test-informed application rates (i.e., follow tri-state guidelines and apply only the P that is needed) Insert fertilizer when applied (e.g., banding, in-furrow with seed) Control erosion from fields (e.g., filter strips, grass waterways, blind inlets) Manage and minimize the amount of water leaving a field (e.g., drainage water management)

#3—Correct Application Rate and Subsurface Placement Generally, no application of fertilizer is needed when STP levels are above 40 ppm Bray P1 or 58 ppm Mehlich III-ICP due to a lack of economic return (corn-soybean rotation) Subsurface placement can reduce DRP loss significantly at the field level and over 40% at the watershed level assuming 100% adoption. Current adoption levels are 36% with another 29% reporting that they are likely to use the practice in the future. Converting tile risers to blind inlets can reduce P loss by 60% at the field level.

#4—Legacy Fields First, must find the Legacy Fields Prevent development of new legacy fields by following tri-state guidelines Recommendations for current legacy fields include: No additional P application with continued crop removal via planting and harvesting. Consider using P-hungry crops such as wheat. Adding iron slag or alum to tile drain bioreactors or ditches Adding wetlands to catch water leaving the fields, with careful pre-measurements to ensure soils will not release DRP when inundated. Building phosphorus filter beds to treat runoff

#5—Modelling of Multiple BMPs Results from ongoing watershed modeling efforts indicate that there are multiple pathways to reach the 40% P reduction target. Each of these pathways typically requires a total adoption level of 50 to 75% for any specific practice (indicating the need for a majority to act, but that the 40% target is possible without 100% adoption). However, each of these pathways will require accelerated adoption of conservation management practices to move toward the 40% reduction target by 2025, as current adoption rates of recommended practices range from 20 to 50% on average.

Consider Targeting Only Large Farms Maximizing the rate of change may be possible by focusing on the larger farms, and accounting for the impact of rental acreage. Farms greater than 50 acres only represent 45% of the farms, but 97% of the total acres. Over half of the land that is planted is rented, raising the importance of conservation on rented not just owned land.

Information Gaps and Research Needs Alternative strategies and policies to aid farmers who are dealing with manure application and distribution challenges--no manure should be applied when STP levels are 40 ppm and above, Bray P1.

For more information: Dr. Jeff Reutter 101 Spring Creek Dr. Westerville, Ohio 43081 614-738-5311 Reutter.1@osu.edu