View
131
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
69th SWCS International Annual Conference “Making Waves in Conservation: Our Life on Land and Its Impact on Water” July 27-30, 2014 Lombard, IL
Citation preview
Incorporating Conservation Practice Effectiveness and Technological Tools to Develop Watershed Conservation Plans for Improving Water Quality in Tile‐
drained Subwatersheds of the Mackinaw River, Illinois, USA
Presented by Maria Lemke, The Nature ConservancyKrista Kirkham, The Nature Conservancy; William Perry, Illinois State University
Mike Wallace, University of Illinois; David Kovacic, University of IllinoisKent Bohnhoff, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Suzy Friedman, Environmental Defense Fund; Rick Twait, City of Bloomington
Root River, Minnesota
Boone River, Iowa
River restoration in Upper Mississippi River Basin
Pecatonica River, Wisconsin
Mackinaw River, Illinois
Land UseCornSoybeanForestedGrasslandDeveloped
Mackinaw River Watershed Land Use
80‐90% Agricultural
60‐70 fish species25‐30 mussel speciesHigh quality stream
Illinois River
Mississippi River
Research and Demonstration Farm
Paired WatershedProject
Bloomington DrinkingWatersheds Project
Paired Watershed Project: Phase 1 (2000-2006)
Questions:• Does outreach increase application of conservation practices by farmers? • How well do conservation practices work to improve water quality, hydrology,
and biodiversity?• What encourages farmers to apply conservation practices?
(Lemke et al., 2010 JSWC 65:304-315)
Frog Alley: Reference(4000 ha)
• Biotic surveys (seasonal): Macroinvertebrate, Fish, Mussel, Habitat
• Hydrology: Stage height at D sites
• Water quality:Temp, Oxygen, Conductivity, Turbidity @ D sitesNutrients: biweekly (NH4
+, NO2-, NO3
-, SRP, TP)Total Suspended Sediment (TSS): biweeklyStorm Events for Nutrients and TSS @ D sites
Mackinaw River
Bray Creek: Treatment (4000 ha)
D
U U
D
Study sites: Monitoring:
p=0.047
p=0.004
p=0.007
Lemke et al., 2011 JEQ 40:1215‐1228
5
10
15
20
25
30
35TreatmentReference
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Total Pho
spho
rus (mg/L)
Nitrate‐nitrogen
(mg/L)
Downstream Sites: Biweekly
Water Year00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
Downstream sites: Biweekly Nitrate‐N (mg/L) (expectation )
‐15
‐10
‐5
0
5
10
Treatm
ent N
O3‐ ‐N
minus Referen
ce NO3‐ ‐N
(mg/L)
99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08Water Year (Oct 1 – Sept 30)
R2=0.009, p=0.16
Lemke et al., 2011 JEQ 40:1215‐1228
Drainage tile systems: 4.7 million hectares of subsurface drainage in Illinois (12 million acres)
Contributes 16.8% of the nitrogen and 12.9% of the phosphorus to the Gulf of Mexico (Alexander et al., 2008)
Inlet
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3Tile
3% 3% 3%
6%
9%
Monitornutrients& flow
Monitornutrients& flow
Monitornutrients& flow
Monitornutrients& flow
How well does a wetland perform?
What size of wetland is most effective at reducing nutrients in tile runoff?
6‐year Monitoring Results
EastGullyWest
Nitrate‐nitrogen
load
redu
ction (%
)
3% 6% 9%Wetland to drainage area ratio
20
40
60
80
1000
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
East Gully West
CornSoybean
Total
Nitrate‐nitrogen
loadings (kg)
12‐35%
30‐50%40‐60%
Next Steps: Effectiveness of bundled in‐field and edge of field practices
N
How do winter cover crops influence nutrient export from tile‐drained farmland?
USDA‐NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant 2011‐2014
How does nitrogen management influence nitrogen export from tile‐drained farmland?
XX
Mackinaw River
Bray Creek: Treatment (10,000 acres)
Frog Alley: Reference(10,000 acres)
Paired Watershed Project
X
YSIYSI
YSI
Question: How well do wetlands work to improve water quality, hydrology, and biodiversity at the watershed scale?
ISCO Water Samplers (Storm events, stage height)
Biweekly grab samples: NH4+, NO3
-, SRP, TP, TSS
Met Stations: Air temperature, rain, soil moisture
Water temperature, turbidity, pH, conductivity, DO
New wetlandsCurrent wetlands
8‐in6‐in
8‐in
6‐in
6‐in
12‐in
6‐in
XX
Mackinaw River
Treatment (10,000 acres)
Reference(10,000 acres)
YSIYSINew wetlandsCurrent wetlandsLong term monitoring
Inlet
Outlet
0
5
10
15
20
25
Nitrate‐nitrogen
(mg/L)
2010 2011 2012 2013
InletOutlet
29%
24%
38%
36%
Year
USGS gaging stations
Money Creek
Bray Creek
Frog Alley
Six Mile Creek
Lake EvergreenLake Bloomington
McLean County
DemonstrationFarm
Mackinaw River Watershed
Apply constructed wetlands to address drinking water supply nutrient concerns
USDA‐NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant : 2012‐2015
Money Creek which feeds Lake Bloomington annually exceeds the EPA standard by >2 fold
Bloomington, Illinois Finished Water Nitrate Levels
0
510
1520
2530
35
01/1
4/83
01/1
4/84
01/1
4/85
01/1
4/86
01/1
4/87
01/1
4/88
01/1
4/89
01/1
4/90
01/1
4/91
01/1
4/92
01/1
4/93
01/1
4/94
01/1
4/95
01/1
4/96
01/1
4/97
01/1
4/98
NO
3-N
(mg/
L)
Smiciklas et al., 2008
Nitrate‐N sources: 1993‐ 2002
0 5 10 15 20
Tile water: Row Crop Agriculture
Tile water: Organic Agriculture
Surface water runoff: Agriculture
Artesian well
Rain water
Tile water: pasture
Creek water
Nitrate‐N (mg/L)
Smiciklas et al., 2008
Long‐term goals:• To reduce nitrate loading to Lake Bloomington, the source of water for 80,000 people and Bloomington and Normal, IL.
• To construct tile‐drainage treatment wetlands and nitrogen management practices at scale throughout the Lake Bloomington watershed.
• A proof of concept study that proposes a more sustainable approach to agricultural runoff than solely an engineering solution.
X 3
Monitoring equipmentAdaptive managementConstructed wetlands
ConstructedWetlands
Bundled Practices
TreatmentReference
+ +
How many wetland acres are needed? (i.e., how much tile is in the watershed?)
What kind of watershed reductions can be expected?
How many wetland acres are possible?
How well does a wetland perform?
Kovacic
Tier 2 Sub-basin of Lake Bloomington LB-1
Tier 1 Entire Lake Bloomington Watershed LB
Tier 3 Sub-basin LB-1-1
Tier 4 Sub-basin LB-1-1-1
Tier 5 Sub-basin LB-1-1-1-1
Tier 6 Sub-basins LB-1-1-1-1-1
Watershed Mapping: i.e., Where are the tiles?
30 acres
8 acres
1.6 acres
43,000 acres
200-2000 acres
Dr. Miran Day(Ball State University) Dr. David Kovacic
(University of Illinois)
Flow netsusing high resolution LiDAR data
Tier 4
Tier 5
Data Link – Sample Location (1A, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 11): overall (2003‐2012) average nitrate‐nitrogen concentration
Lake Bloomington Watershed
Green Light Map
How many wetland acres are possible?
X 3
Monitoring equipmentAdaptive managementConstructed wetlands
ConstructedWetlands
Bundled Practices
TreatmentReference
+ +
How many wetland acres are needed?
What kind of watershed reductions can be expected
Economic analyses and financial models
+Landowner and funding commitment
How many wetland acres are possible?
How well does a wetland perform?
‐ Improved water security for the City of Bloomington within 5 years‐Water Fund blueprint/proof of concept with wide applicability beyond the Mackinaw River for sustainable conservation and agricultural production
ParWalton Family FoundationGrand Victoria FoundationLumpkin Family FoundationWorld Wildlife Foundation/Coca ColaMosaic CompanyMonsantoDuPont-PioneerKellogg FoundationDucks UnlimitedUSDA-NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant ProgramU.S. Farm Services Agency
Natural Resources and Conservation Service Soil and Water Conservation DistrictFarm Services Agency University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana Illinois State University
Environmental Defense FundCity of Bloomington, IllinoisPrivate landowners and producers
Partners and Funding Sources
Krista Kirkham
Ashley Maybanks
Tim Lindenbaum –Photograpy