Root River Field to Stream: Application of Conservation Planning Tools

Kevin KuehnerSoil Scientist , CCA

SWCS Conference, Greensboro, North Carolina, July 27, 2015

Field to Stream Partnership

• Started in 2009 • Small scale, nested

monitoring design, 9 stations

• Minimum 10-year year effort

Root River Watershed

75 Miles

35 milesGlacial Till

Karst Bluffland Karst

Headwaters

Crystal Creek

Bridge Creek

CornSoybeanForest, Pasture, Grass, Alfalfa, Other

Source: 2010 cropland data layer, NASS

Headwaters2,778 acres

94% cropland

Crystal Creek3,728 acres

78% cropland

Bridge Creek4,665 acres

64% cropland

Study Phases

Implement Practices

Baseline Monitoring

& Assessments

Phase 12010-2015

Phase II 2016-2020

Planning and Field Walkovers

6

Existing practices inventory

Documented active erosion areas

Ag Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF)

Runoff Risk (Adjusted for Cropland in Grass Cover)

Conservation Planning Tools

Stream Power Index, Statistical Analysis and Field Validation

Odds of erosion occurring at non-BMP sites are about 6.5 times higher than for BMP sites.

T. Dogweiler et al, Winona State Univ.

8

2

Example Field Area

What tools have been most useful for us?

9

Pasture

C/S/H-Mixed Agriculture

Corn/Soybeans

Continuous Corn

C/H- Conserv. Rotation

CRP

C/S with Continuous Corn

Cropping System (2008-2013)

>95th

90th - 95th

85th - 90th

80th - 85th

75th - 80th

70th - 75th

<70th

SPI Percentile

26-year Rotation (ACPF)Existing Practices (pre-walkover)

Concentrated Flow Areas (Stream Power Index) General Erosion Risk Areas (SPI)

Crystal Creek

Active Erosion

Waterways

Terraces

Ponds#0Practices

Pond and Basin Potential (AGREN)

Rank out of all potential in the watershed. 1 = most cost effective. Red outline = pond temp pool.

Runoff Risk

Present

High

VeryHigh

Critical

Active Erosion

Contour Buffer Potential (ACPF)

Slope >10%

Slope 5-10%

Contour Buffer Strip Potential

2Runoff Risk (ACPF)

Waterway Potential (ACPF)

11

July 1954Nov 1937

June 1968 June 1991

2

Delivery Process

Producers sent their own letter to encourage their neighbors to participate.

Field Walkovers to Initiate the Conversation

Field Walkovers

Walkover Status

100% of crop acres in Crystal and over 70% in Bridge Creek.

Preliminary Results

• Total of $1.1 million in conservation needs identified.

• About 1/3 of these costs were classified as a high priority.

Field Walkovers

Simple Report + Dedicated Planner

• Total of $700,000 dollars in structural and vegetative practice needs and fixes.

Field Walkovers

Next…seek funding for those that want it. Study goal is to have all high priority sites addressed in the next 2 years.

…..process builds the foundation with farmers and their advisors to then address nitrate-N loss strategies

-40% of this cost was associated with fixes to existing practices; a low hanging fruit.

Root River Field to Stream: Application of Conservation Planning Tools

Kevin KuehnerSoil Scientist , CCA

SWCS Conference, Greensboro, North Carolina, July 27, 2015

THANK YOU!