Land Use Loading Rates Olivia H. Devereux Forestry Workgroup October 1, 2014.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
creating a sustainable world The Chesapeake Bay TMDL A Policy Model for Nutrient Pollution Reductions James Noonan October.
Advertisements

Frank J. Coale Mark P. Dubin Chesapeake Bay Program Partnerships Agriculture Workgroup BMP Verification Review Panel Meeting Annapolis, Maryland December.
A Model for Evaluating the Impacts of Spatial and Temporal Land Use Changes on Water Quality at Watershed Scale Jae-Pil Cho and Saied Mostaghimi 07/29/2003.
Transport of nitrogen and phosphorus from Rhode River watersheds during storm events David Correll, Thomas Jordan, and Donald Weller Water Resources Research,
Project collaborators: Laura Ward Good, Katie Songer, Matt Diebel, John Panuska, Jeff Maxted, Pete Nowak, John Norman, K.G. Karthikeyan, Tom Cox, Water.
2013 KY NRCS (590) Nutrient Management Standard Highlights: NRCS 590 is now only required for producers applying to receive NRCS financial or technical.
The Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s Watershed Model Gary Shenk Presentation to COG 10/4/2012.
Management for Water Yield Basic treatments –Removal of woody vegetation –Weather modification –Construction of “catchments”
Defining Land Management in the Wisconsin River Basin Defining Land Management in the Wisconsin River Basin Adam Freihoefer Wisconsin Department of Natural.
Scenario Builder and Watershed Model Progress toward the MPA Gary Shenk, Guido Yactayo, Gopal Bhatt Modeling Workgroup 12/2/14 1.
Christopher Brosch University of Maryland Modeling Subcommittee Meeting January 11, 2012.
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.
Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) Measuring the Environmental Benefits of Conservation Managing the Agricultural Landscape for Environmental.
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.
Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Activities and Monitoring Network Design Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Activities and Monitoring Network Design Stephen.
Nutrient Trading Framework in the Coosa Basin April 22, 2015.
Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model 101.
USDA, NRCS, Watershed Science Institute WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM NUTRIENT DYNAMICS (WEND) Modeling Phosphorus (P) at a Watershed Scale: A Mass Balance Approach.
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Integrating Cropland Management into.
Point Source POLLUTION: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES
Chesapeake Bay Program Incorporation of Lag Times into the Decision Process Gary Shenk 10/16/12 1.
Evaluation of Nutrient Management Practices Mark Dubin, University of Maryland Steve Dressing, Tetra Tech Agriculture Workgroup (AgWG) Meeting January.
Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessments Hands-On Training Workshop Impact, Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment for the Agriculture Sector – Part 2.
Center for Watershed Protection USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry How to estimate future forest cover in a watershed.
Science Assessment to Support an Illinois Nutrient Reduction Strategy Mark David, George Czapar, Greg McIsaac, Corey Mitchell March 11,
Stormwater 101 Ohio Lake Erie Commission Best Local Land Use Practices Kirby Date, AICP.
Best Management Practices and the Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model Jeff Sweeney University of Maryland Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool CAST Olivia H. Devereux Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 12/13/2011.
Taking the Next Step: Implementing the TMDL. What IDEM Provides to Help With Implementation  Compiling all the data in one place  Data-driven recommendations.
Virginia Assessment Scenario Tool VAST Developed by: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin.
Karl Berger Dept. of Environmental Programs Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling Developments April 28, 2015.
Assessing Alternative Policies for the Control of Nutrients in the Upper Mississippi River Basin Catherine L. Kling, Silvia Secchi, Hongli Feng, Philip.
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.
Review of Scenario Builder BMP crediting Christopher F. Brosch University of Maryland Extension Chesapeake Bay Program Office
1 Chesapeake Bay Program Management Board Meeting March 6, 2012 Discussion for the Final Evaluation of Milestones.
Updating Background Conditions and BMP Efficiencies Jeff Sweeney Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Phase 6 Land Use Co-Chairs: Karl Berger, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Jennifer Tribo, Hampton Roads Planning District Commission Coordinator:
THE SUPPLY OF CORN STOVER IN THE MIDWESTERN UNITED STATES Richard G. Nelson 1, Marie E. Walsh 2, and John Sheehan 3 1 Kansas State University 2 University.
Chesapeake Bay Policy in Virginia - TMDL, Milestones and the Watershed Agreement Russ Baxter Deputy Secretary of Natural Resources for the Chesapeake Bay.
Timeline Impaired for turbidity on Minnesota’s list of impaired waters (2004) MPCA must complete a study to determine the total maximum daily load (TMDL)
Mixed Annual-Perennial Systems: Diversity on Iowa’s Land Matt Liebman Wallace Chair for Sustainable Agriculture Iowa State University.
CLUES: Modelling the impacts of mitigation on sediment and nutrient loads to the Kaipara Harbour Annette Semadeni Davies Kelly May National Institute of.
Chesapeake Bay Program Decision Support System Management Actions Watershed Model Bay Model Criteria Assessment Procedures Effects Allocations Airshed.
Next Generation Science/Common Core Standards Addressed! WHST Gather relevant information from multiple authoritative print and digital sources,
Lecture 2. Agricultural Pollution Control in the Baltic Sea with Special Emphasis on Manure Management Prepared by Assoc. Prof. Philip Chiverton, SLU and.
2004 Tributary Strategies: Assessment of Implementation Options Steve Bieber Water Resources Program Presented at: COG Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee.
Clifton Bell, P.E., P.G. Chesapeake Bay Modeling Perspectives for the Regulated Community.
Chesapeake Bay Program’s Baywide and Basinwide Monitoring Networks: Options for Adapting Monitoring Networks and Realigning Resources to Address Partner.
Sediment Delivery to the Watonwan River
Chesapeake Bay TMDL 2017 Midpoint Assessment: A Critical Path Forward Lucinda Power EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting.
Urbanized Stream Source Ratio October 20, 2015 Urban Stormwater Workgroup Reid Christianson, PE, PhD Neely Law, PhD Bill Stack, PE.
Iowa BMPs for soil erosion prevention. BMP context BMPs needed for managed land (duh!) Strategies differ by land- use – Ag/crops (>71%) +/- CRP, etc –
Precision Management beyond Fertilizer Application Hailin Zhang.
JULIE MAWHORTER MID-ATLANTIC URBAN & COMMUNITY FORESTRY COORDINATOR CHESAPEAKE TREE CANOPY STRATEGY & WORKPLAN UPDATE CITIZEN’S ADVISORY.
MANURE MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY – RATE TABLES 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.
Milestones, Progress and the Mid-point Assessment APPROACHING 2017 James Davis-Martin Chesapeake Bay Program Manager Department of Environmental Quality.
Introduction to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations CAFOs Christina Richmond West Virginia Department of Agriculture.
Agricultural Soil and Water Conservation Stewardship
Update for the Citizens Advisory Committee February 22, 2017
Paper by: Bloniarz D. , M. Matteo, T
WIP Regional Meetings Jason Keppler
Local Planning Process…
2025 Chesapeake Bay Climate Change Load Projections
Manure management plan summary – Rate tables
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Milestones, Progress, Mid-point Assessment
Chesapeake Bay Program Climate Change Modeling 2.0
2018 BMP Verification Assessment
Presentation transcript:

Land Use Loading Rates Olivia H. Devereux Forestry Workgroup October 1, 2014

Outline Loading rate targets—what are they and how are they used? Data sources Synthesis Workgroup input Timeline 10/1/20142

Loading Rates and Targets Loading rates from multiple models and literature are used to inform the targets Targets are specified loading rates used to calibrate the Phase 6 Watershed Model –Does not include BMPs –Show relative differences among land use loading rates –Subject to modification through calibration. Actual rate adjusted; relative differences maintained 10/1/20143

Use of Targets Targets order the influence of different land uses in the same area Account for differences in loading among the same land uses in different areas. Calibration process balances loads spatially Phase 6 targets will not be the same everywhere –Targets may vary geographically based on nutrient balance and watershed characteristics. Loads will vary around the target based on the nutrients applied and management actions 10/1/20144

Loads from Model Calibration Ultimately we will end up with N, P, and sediment loads from the CBP Partnership Watershed Model Phase 6. Loads will vary spatially and among scenarios –Initial conditions (animal numbers, septic systems, land use acres) –BMPs Objective is to isolate effect of BMPs for planning purposes 10/1/20145

Phase 5 Average Targets 10/1/20146 Land UseTN Lbs/AcreTP Lbs/Acre Nursery24085 Crop Harvested Forest200.8 Extractive Urban Hay Pasture Forest20.15

Data Sources for Establishing Loading Rate Targets Tetra Tech urban literature review (need to convert concentrations to loads) Tetra Tech agricultural, forest, and other land uses literature review Panel and workgroup documents and recommendations Collaborative work with USGS-Sparrow CBP Sensitivity Work using the multiple model framework –Sparrow –APLE –APEX –AgCHEM –RUSLE2 for sediment –iTree CWP small-scale sediment work Land data team riparian analyses Land data team impervious connectedness analysis STAC recommendations CBP Partnership Watershed Model Phase 5 background documentation, where relevant and reflects the latest science ICPRB calibration work 10/1/20147

Literature Review—Urban 10/1/20148 Total Nitrogen

Literature Review—Agricultural Journal Title/Type of Study Brief Study Description LU(s) LU specifically described? (Y/N) State(s) Parameter(s) Sample Location Modeling or Monitoring Study? Results by Season? Dry/Storm/ Simulated? EoF or Watershed? Flow through BMP? Data Source Data Quality Study Scale Original Land Use Crop Rotation Years in Crop Rotation Crop 1 Crop 1 Plant Date Crop 1 Harvest Date Yield Crop 1 Yield Units Crop 1 "Additional Yield Info" Original Parameter For N and P. "Reported As" Units. Pathway Load or Concentration? Study Load/ Concentration Study Unit Normalized Load or Concentration Normalized Units EoF or Delivered? Area and unit Corrected Area Standard Area Unit Flow and units Time Frame Sampled Flow Sample Size Sample Type Total Rainfall Amount (cm) Rainfall Total Type General Precipitation Conditions Simulation Method Rain Intensity (cm/hr) Number of Rainfall Events Description CAFO or AFO? Animal Type Animal Details % Imp Soil Type(s) Percent Slope Tillage Erosion Control Measures Crop1 Residue Cover (%) Crop1 Leaf Cover (%) Nutrient Management Measures Animal Stocking Density Grazing Management Irrigation Practices Drainage Management Other Relevant Measures Manure Type and form Manure Moisture Content (%) Rotation N Fert Form Rotation N Application Rate Basis Rotation FertN Rate and Units Rotation FertN Application Date Rotation FertN Method Rotation ManureN Rate, Units Rotation ManureN Application Date Rotation ManureN Method Rotation OtherN Rate, Units Rotation OtherN Application Date Rotation OtherN Method Rotation N_Other: Specify Crop 1 N Fert Form Crop1 N Application Rate Basis Crop1 FertN Rate, Units Crop1 FertN Timing Crop1 FertN Method Crop1 ManureN Rate Crop1 ManureN Units Crop1 ManureN Timing Crop1 ManureN Method Crop1 OtherN Rate, Units Crop1 OtherN Timing Crop1 OtherN Method Crop-Specific N_Other: Specify Rotation P Fert Form Rotation P Application Rate Basis Rotation FertP Rate, Units Rotation FertP Application Date Rotation FertP Method Rotation ManureP Rate, Units Rotation ManureP Application Date Rotation ManureP Method Rotation OtherP Rate and Units Rotation OtherP Application Date Rotation OtherP Method Rotation P_Other: Specify Crop 1 P Fert Form Crop1 P Application Rate Basis Crop1 FertP Rate, Units Crop1 FertP Timing Crop1 FertP Method Crop1 ManureP Rate, Units Crop1 ManureP Timing Crop1 ManureP Method Crop1 OtherP Rate and Units Crop1 OtherP Timing Crop1 OtherP Method Crop-Specific P_Other: Specify 10/1/20149

Agricultural Literature Review 10/1/ Tetra Tech searched Web of Science and AGRICOLA for any combination of the keywords in the four groups below. Primary consideration was given to in-watershed resources published after Group IGroup IIGroup IIIGroup IV PhosphorusLoading coefficientLand useChesapeake Bay NitrogenExport coefficientLand coverDelaware SedimentExportAgricultureMaryland NutrientsLoadCroplandNew York Water qualityLoading rateCorn silagePennsylvania PollutantAreal loadSoybeanVirginia EutrophicationLossSmall grainWest Virginia RunoffForage Hay Pasture Vegetables Nursery Orchard Farmstead

Agricultural Literature Review Status as of 9/19/2014 Keyword search results reviewed: 5,224 Abstracts reviewed: 400+ Full text articles identified for review: 240 Articles yielding useful data, to date: 21 articles with 500+ data records Geographic scale of data entered, to date: Two of the articles yielding useful data to date are based in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The data entered are from AL, GA, IN, IA, MD, MO, NE, NY (Lake Ontario area), NC, OH, OK, PA, SD, TX, and WI. Land uses represented in data entered to date include: –Mixed agriculture (row crops, pasture, hay, poultry houses) –Corn-soybean, corn-wheat, corn-oats, wheat-sorghum, and other rotations with/without cover crops –Apple orchard, sorghum, pasture, hay, native grass, peanuts, cotton, fallow –Continuous corn (silage) 10/1/

Forest, Barren, Stream Corridor Literature Review Number of papers to review = 62 Number of articles reviewed to date = 42 –25 papers contained useful information. –Mainly watershed scale. 2 catchment scale and a few unknown. –Mix of dry weather and storm data. –Few studies have flow, soil, or precipitation data. –Types of information found: mostly nitrogen and phosphorus loads, concentrations, and EMCs for general forest. Have found two studies with upland forest and another of harvested. Not pulling information on urban breakdowns that were reviewed before. 10/1/201412

Wetland Literature Review Number of papers to review = 184 Number of articles reviewed to date = 0 This is in part for the Wetland Expert Panel –Review for wetland efficiency –Review for loading rates –Panel has not met. Under this task, Tetra Tech will probably review to pull information so as not to delay deliverables for this task. 10/1/201413

Role of Sparrow Sparrow’s strengths are indicating the differences among land use categories Sparrow provides data that may be used to inform scaling factors in the CBP Partnership Watershed Model –Edge of field (EOF) export rates –Land to water factors for soil parameters and slopes, and more Sparrow generates uncertainty estimates 10/1/201414

Scale Goal is to have targets at the smallest scale that also is best informed by data –Field (EOF) –Hillslope –EOS –Small Watersheds or Small Stream Networks –Large Rivers 10/1/201415

Land Uses—Developed Phase 6 Proposed Impervious –Roads –Buildings, parking lots, etc. –Tree canopy over impervious Pervious –Turf –Tree canopy –Open space Construction Extractive Phase 5 Impervious developed Pervious developed Construction Extractive 10/1/ All are also divided by federal, MS4-regulated, and Combined Stormwater Sewer (CSS)

Land Uses—Agricultural (slide 1 of 2) Phase 6 Proposed Commodity crops –Corn Grain, fall fallow Grain fall small grain (double cropped) Silage, fall fallow Silage fall small grain (double cropped) –Soybeans Fall fallow Fall small grain (double cropped) –Small grains (Wheat, Bar, Canola, Rye, Triticale, Oats, Spelt, Emmer) Fall fallow Forage Double crop beans Hay and legume and forage –Alfalfa and other legumes –Non-legume forage –Pasture and pastured cropland Phase 5 Hightill with manure Hightill without manure Lowtill with manure Nutrient management hightill with manure Nutrient management hightill without manure Nutrient management lowtill Alfalfa Hay with nutrients Hay without nutrients Nutrient management alfalfa Nutrient management hay Pasture Nutrient management pasture 10/1/ Categories developed using nutrient use intensities, management strategies, and bare soil

Land Uses—Agricultural (slide 2 of 2) Phase 6 Proposed Specialty and other crops (9 separate land uses) –Vines High, medium, low input –Low cover High, medium, low input –High cover High, medium, low input Farmsteads (4 separate land uses) –Animal Impervious AFO (nonregulated) CAFO (regulated) –Non-animal Impervious Pervious Other land use (cropland idle or used for cover crops or soil improvement but not harvested and not pastured or grazed) Degraded riparian pasture (TRP): To be determined Phase 5 Nursery Animal feeding operations Concentrated animal feeding operations Degraded riparian pasture 10/1/ Cows in stream Denuded loafing area next to stream

Land Uses (Cont.) Phase 6 Proposed Natural –Forests Riparian/floodplain Upland Harvested Disturbed (e.g.: insect, fire) –Wetlands Tidal emergent Fresh emergent Non-tidal woody Barren –Extractive (e.g.: active mines) Stream corridors –Urban –Suburban/rural Scrub, shrub, grass (Mixed open) Water Phase 5 Forest (included wetlands) Harvested forest Water 10/1/

Land Use Summary Phase 6 proposed land uses = 47 –Urban 8 –Agricultural 27 –Other 12 Phase 5 land uses = 23 –Urban 4 –Agricultural 16 –Other 3 It may be that the loading rate data do not support differentiation among some land uses 10/1/ Urban is also divided by federal, MS4-regulated, and Combined Stormwater Sewer (CSS)

Reasons to differentiate land uses Distinct land use loading rates from literature, models, other data sources BMPs are exclusive to one type of land use (e.g.: stream corridor buffers or fencing) Helps jurisdictions for planning and reporting purposes. In this case, there would not be a different loading rate. 10/1/201421

Land Use Load Decisions – Phase 6 Sparrow Literature Relative load between Large land use classes Nutrient inputs CBP decisions Further refined land use classifications Literature Segment-specific land use calibration targets Estimated loads in rivers Final calibrated land use loads  Modeling workgroup   other CBP groups --  10/1/201422

Role of Workgroups Provide critical pieces of information in addition to the full literature review that is already underway. Panel, workgroup documents and recommendations, and available literature are critical sources of data for developing the loading rate targets. Modeling workgroup approves the final Phase 6 model 10/1/201423

Timeline December 31, Sparrow and literature review results for draft land uses February 28, draft targets for draft land uses April 30, final targets approved by Modeling Workgroup for draft land uses Oct 1, Once the final land uses are approved, we will finalize targets using a Sparrow update, final sensitivities, and other information. 10/1/201424

Keeping Up To Date – Webpages Land Use Loading Rates _mpa_effort/land_use_loading_rates _mpa_effort/land_use_loading_rates Additional information on Mid-Point Assessment ter_quality_goal_implementation_team/wmp_fo r_the_mpa ter_quality_goal_implementation_team/wmp_fo r_the_mpa 10/1/201425

10/1/201426

EXTRA SLIDES 10/1/201427

Communication Presenting at: –Modeling Team 9/15. –Agricultural Modeling Subcommittee 9/16 –Agricultural Workgroup, as Mark Dubin determines –Urban Stormwater Workgroup 9/23 –Land Use Workgroup 9/25 –Modeling Quarterly Review 9/30-10/1 –Forestry Workgroup 10/1 –Watershed Technical Workgroup 10/2 –Wetland Expert Panel November –Also available to any other Workgroup Will present multiple times. 10/1/201428