Contaminant Source and Watershed Characterization Data Needs Gregory McIsaac, Robert Howarth, and Richard B. Alexander Univ. of Illinois Cornell Univ.

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

SPARROW Modeling in the Mississippi and Atchafalaya River Basins (MARB) Dale Robertson, Richard Alexander, and David Saad U.S. Geological Survey USGS/USEPA.
Phosphorus Loads from Streambank Erosion to Surface Waters in the Minnesota River Basin D. J. Mulla Professor, Dept. Soil, Water, Climate University of.
Phosphorus Index Based Management Douglas Beegle Dept. of Crop and Soil Sciences Penn State University
Update: National Assessment of Fish Habitats Climate Change and Fish Habitat Meeting, Denver, CO, October 19-20, 2009 Dana Infante 1, Peter Esselman 1,2,
Developing Modeling Tools in Support of Nutrient Reduction Policies Randy Mentz Adam Freihoefer, Trip Hook, & Theresa Nelson Water Quality Modeling Technical.
Defining Land Management in the Wisconsin River Basin Defining Land Management in the Wisconsin River Basin Adam Freihoefer Wisconsin Department of Natural.
Paul Bireta December 4, 2012 The Impact of Large Storm Events on Nutrient Loadings in Texas Rivers 1.
Minnesota Watershed Nitrogen Reduction Planning Tool William Lazarus Department of Applied Economics University of Minnesota David Mulla Department of.
SOURCES AND FLUX OF NUTRIENTS IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN: MONITORING, MODELING, & RESEARCH NEEDS Donald A. Goolsby, U.S. Geological Survey.
Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) Measuring the Environmental Benefits of Conservation Managing the Agricultural Landscape for Environmental.
Lisa Helper 1 CE 394 GIS WR 2011 Lisa Helper 2011 Special Thanks to: Ahmad Tavakoy, Tim Whiteaker (CRWR), Rich Mueller(USDA NASS Research and Development.
CENTRAL MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN (CMRB) LTAR USDA-ARS Columbia Missouri Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session.
Illinois Drainage Water Management Demonstration Project Don Pitts Agricultural Engineer State Water Quality Specialist Champaign, IL NRCS USDA.
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.
SPARROW Modeling in the Mississippi River Basin Iowa Science Assessment Davenport, IA Nov. 14, 2012 (608) By Dale M. Robertson*
NuGIS: a Nutrient Use Geographic Information System March 29-31, 2011 Denver, Colorado Paul Fixen Ryan Williams and Quentin Rund.
National Hydrography Data Use and Applications.
Getting the Big Picture How to Look at Your Watershed Indiana Watershed Planning Guide,
Great Environmental Indicators (GLEI) Lakes.
Millions of ponds: distribution and significance of small artificial impoundments in the conterminous United States. W. H. Renwick, Department of Geography,
Long-term Changes in Lamprey River Chemistry William H. McDowell University of New Hampshire.
Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) Model Input
Brian Haggard Arkansas Water Resources Center UA Division of Agriculture Arkansas Water Resources Center.
Impact of Climate Change on Flow in the Upper Mississippi River Basin
Economic and Biophysical Models to Support Conservation Policy: Hypoxia and Water Quality in the Upper Mississippi River Basin CARD Resources and Environmental.
Measuring Carbon Co-Benefits of Agricultural Conservation Policies: In-stream vs. Edge-of-Field Assessments of Water Quality. Measuring Carbon Co-Benefits.
GIS Tools for Watershed Delineation Public Policy Perspectives Teaching Public Policy in the Earth Sciences April 21, 2006 Gary Coutu Department of Geography.
Science Assessment to Support an Illinois Nutrient Reduction Strategy Mark David, George Czapar, Greg McIsaac, Corey Mitchell March 11,
Co-Benefits from Conservation Policies that Promote Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture: The Corn Belt CARD, Iowa State University Presented at the Forestry.
Support of the Framework for Monitoring Office of Management and Budget March 26, 2003.
Watershed Management Assessment Through Modeling: SALT and CEAP Dr. Claire Baffaut Water Quality Short Course Boone County Extension Office April 12, 2007.
SPARROW Surface Water Quality Workshop October 29-31, 2002 Reston, Virginia Section 5. Comparison of GIS Approaches, Data Sources and Management.
Modeling experience of non- point pollution: CREAMS (R. Tumas) EPIC (A. Povilaitis and R.Tumas SWRRBWQ (A. Dumbrauskas and R. Tumas) AGNPS (Sileika and.
1 Evaluating and Estimating the Effect of Land use Changed on Water Quality at Selorejo Reservoir, Indonesia Mohammad Sholichin Faridah Othman Shatira.
Patapsco/Back River SWMM Model Part I - Hydrology Maryland Department of the Environment.
Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia and Mississippi River Basin Nutrient Losses Herb Buxton, USGSRob Magnien, NOAA Co-Chairs, Monitoring, Modeling, and Research Workgroup,
Agricultural Subsurface Drainage USGS Staff: Nancy Baker, Wes Stone GIS Contact: Michael Wieczorek.
How Breakthroughs in Information Systems Can Impact Local Decisions Bruce Babcock Center for Agricultural and Rural Development Iowa State University.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Using Monitoring Data from Multiple Networks/Agencies to Calibrate Nutrient SPARROW* Models, Southeastern.
Vision for the National Geospatial Framework for Surface Water Robert M. Hirsch Associate Director for Water U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological.
An Overview of Air, Water & Soil in Agriculture Barbara McCarthy, Ph.D. Environmental Health Department Colorado State University.
Drainage Management for Water Quality and Crop Production Benefits Don Pitts Agricultural Engineer NRCS USDA Champaign, IL.
Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia and Nutrient Management in the Mississippi River Basin Herb Buxton, U.S. Geological Survey.
™ Nutrient Management Planning ¨ Will these be mandated in your state?  An emerging national issue is how to account for agricultural non-point source.
BASINS 2.0 and The Trinity River Basin By Jóna Finndís Jónsdóttir.
The University of Mississippi Geoinformatics Center NASA MRC RPC – 11 July 2007 Evaluating the Integration of a Virtual ET Sensor into AnnGNPS Model Rapid.
1. The Study of Excess Nitrogen in the Neuse River Basin “A Landscape Level Analysis of Potential Excess Nitrogen in East-Central North Carolina, USA”
Relating Surface Water Nutrients in the Pacific Northwest to Watershed Attributes Using the USGS SPARROW Model Daniel Wise, Hydrologist US Geological Survey.
Opportunities for Collaboration on Water- Quality Issues in the Mississippi River Basin Herb Buxton, Office of Water Quality.
Kg P per county (1000) > < 45 Figure 4 Estimated P production from confined livestock. kg N per county (1000) > 908 Figure.
Impacts of Riparian Ecosystems on Water Quality in the Western Upper Suwannee River Watershed Richard Lowrance, George Vellidis, David Bosch, Joe Sheridan,
Ch. 1: “Watersheds and Wetlands” Lesson 1.5: “Factors That Affect Wetlands and Watersheds” Part 2.
SPARROW: A Model Designed for Use With Monitoring Networks Richard A. Smith, Gregory E. Schwarz, and Richard B. Alexander US Geological Survey, Reston,
Jackson Blue Spring Overview and Basin Delineation Kris Barrios, NWFWMD Jackson Blue Spring Basin Working Group September 21, 2006.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Reston, Virginia (703) NHD Flow and Velocity Project Greg Schwarz, Reston,
Effect of Potential Future Climate Change on Cost-Effective Nonpoint Source Pollution Reduction Strategies in the UMRB Manoj Jha, Philip Gassman, Gene.
Effects of N Loadings from Dairy Cows to the Susquehanna River Effects of N Loadings from Dairy Cows to the Susquehanna River Austin Weidner CE394K : GIS.
Precision Management beyond Fertilizer Application Hailin Zhang.
Nutrients and the Next Generation of Conservation Presented by: Tom Porta, P.E. Deputy Administrator Nevada Division of Environmental Protection President,
Nitrogen Budgets for the Mississippi River Basin using the linked EPIC-CMAQ-NEWS Models Michelle McCrackin, Ellen Cooter, Robin Dennis, Jana Compton, John.
Sanitary Engineering Lecture 4
Brian Haggard Arkansas Water Resources Center University of Arkansas
L-THIA Online and LID Larry Theller
in the Neversink River Basin, New York
Texas Water Resources Institute
Image courtesy of NASA/GSFC
1. The Study of Excess Nitrogen in the Neuse River Basin
Jacob Piske, Eric Peterson, Bill Perry
Central Valley Salinity Coalition
Presentation transcript:

Contaminant Source and Watershed Characterization Data Needs Gregory McIsaac, Robert Howarth, and Richard B. Alexander Univ. of Illinois Cornell Univ. USGS SPARROW Workshop October 29, 2002

Contaminant source and watershed data needed for effective water quality modeling Contaminant Sources Point source discharges Non-point sources Atmospheric deposition Erosion, fertilizers and pesticides Livestock wastes Biological N fixation Watershed Characteristics Land cover and management practices Topography Soils Precipitation Hydrology: surface and sub-surface discharges Hydraulics: flow paths and residence times

Integrating Databases Various efforts underway USGS: SARROW model USDA-NRCS EPIC modeling with NRI and Census of Ag Data USDA-ARS: SWAT model CENR effort for the Mississippi River Basin (Goolsby et al) USDA-ARS: Miss. R. Basin N budgeting by Burkart and James.

NRI Data Modeled with EPIC: Change in average Labile P in Runoff due to Changes in Crop Mix, manure not considered (by Atwood, Kellogg, Lemunyon, Potter and Pitts USDA-NRCS and TX Ag Exp. Station)

N inputs – N outputs by Basin for 1992 (Burkart and James, 1999)

Average Annual Total N inputs: Fertilizer, Fixation, Manure, Atmospheric, Deposition, Cropland Soil Mineralization (Goolsby and Battaglin, 2000)

Proposed National Nutrient Accounting System Interagency effort to compile nutrient input and output estimates on a consistent national basis for: model evaluation and comparison targeting monitoring and research guide conservation efforts

Contaminant source and watershed data needed for effective water quality modeling Contaminant Sources Point source discharges Non-point sources Atmospheric deposition Erosion, fertilizers and pesticides Livestock wastes Biological N fixation Watershed Characteristics Land cover and management practices Topography Soils Precipitation Hydrology: surface and sub-surface discharges Hydraulics: flow paths and residence times

Point Source Discharges EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Designed for avoiding problems caused by point discharges, not designed for monitoring of actual loads discharged

Non-Point Sources: Atmospheric Deposition Wet deposition Dry Deposition National Atmospheric Clean Air Status and Deposition Program Trends Network (NADP) (CASTNET) Current Monitoring Locations CASTNET

Non-point sources: Fertilizers Sales and Survey data

Non-point sources: Fertilizer Sales data by state Assoc. of Am. Plant Food Control Officials (AAPFCO) County level sales for some states County level estimates of sales developed by USGS Estimated N fertilizer use per county for the 1991 crop year (Battaglin and Goolsby, 1994)

Non-point sources: Fertilizer Survey data USDA-ERS annual surveys for major crops in states where production is concentrated Surveys are costly and sampling is often sufficient for state level aggregation only Until recently, information on recommended levels of fertilizer application or timing of application were not collected.

Non-point sources: Pesticides USDA annual surveys by crop and state National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy compilations of national and state data Census of Agriculture expenditures on agri-chemicals USGS county level estimates

Non-point sources: Livestock Wastes Annual state and county livestock inventory and production estimates statistics from USDA-NASS More extensive data collection from the Census of Agriculture every 5 years. Waste volume and nutrient content are estimated from generalized relationships for species and age classes. Recent experiments indicate that waste characteristics can vary considerably with diet. Impacts on water quality will depend on animal and manure handling practices and proximity to water bodies.

Robert L. Kellogg, 2000, based on Census of Agriculture

Land cover National Land Cover Data (NLCD) From Schwarz, USGS, 2001

Land cover Satellite Imagery: there are some errors in classification difficulties distinguishing annually planted crops from hay and pasture USDA-National Resource Inventory Survey of a sampling of fields every 5 years to estimate soil erosion USDA Census of Agriculture Anonymous surveys, precise location cannot be reconstructed

Topography USGS DEMs at 30 m resolution available for most of USA 10 m resolution in progress in some locations. May still be too coarse for flat regions in portions of Illinois, Ohio & Michigan where tile drainage is common. Soils Soil Survey STATSGO ~1 km resolution Finer resolution data are available, but not yet in digital form for most locations

Hydrology: discharge Daily and 15 minute discharge from USGS gauges High quality data. Mostly large basins where there are multiple influences. Few stations in coastal areas.

Hydrology: flow paths and residence times EPA and USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Hydrology: flow paths and residence times EPA and USGS National Hydrography Data (NHD) 1:100,000 scale, designed to accommodate higher resolution Existing flow network data needs corrections Inconsistent coverage of wetlands, lakes and reservoirs Need to have correct and consistent coverage of stream density, flow, time of travel and integrate information on National Inventory of Dams (NID) from US ACE. Does not address tile drainage, which can significantly influence nitrate transport to streams.

US ACE National Inventory of Dams (NID) >70,000 Reservoirs, Lakes, Ponds

RegionTile drainageNet N Input River N flux (kg N/ha-yr) East Central IL extensive2724 Southern IL minimal23 9 Effect of Tile drainage on River N Flux in Illinois

Infrared aerial photograph east Central IL, prior to crop emergence and after significant precipitation Inferred location of tile drains From Zucker and Brown, 1998

Summary Much data is available but there is always room for improvement

Summary Much data is available but there is a continual need for improvement Highest priority needs in our opinions: Point source loads Refined NHD Atmospheric Deposition in Urban and Coastal Regions Finer resolution of fertilizer use in agricultural regions Tile drainage and finer resolution topography in flat areas CAFOs and animal waste handling practices Higher frequency, nationally consistent land cover that can distinguish between row crops and pasture Institutional cooperation for integrating, improving and interpreting data

Thank You.