Nutrient Runoff in a Livestock-Dense Watershed: A Case Study of the Grand Lake St. Marys Watershed

Purpose

Stream Restoration at Mercer County Elks Golf Course, 2019

Grand Lake St. Marys (GLSM), located in Ohio, has experienced harmful algal blooms for decades. In 2010, a massive algal bloom shut down the Lake for the entire summer season. In 2011, the GLSM watershed was declared “distressed,” requiring a new set of rules imposed upon livestock producers in the watershed. These rules required each farm that produced over 350 tons of solid manure or 100,000 gallons of liquid manure per year to create and maintain a nutrient management plan. There was also a winter manure application ban enacted, which prohibits manure application from December 15 to March 1 of each year. These rules still apply to the watershed today.

What Did We Do?

Coldwater Creek Treatment Wetlands, established 2016 (Photo Summer 2021)

An influx of federal and state funds was poured into the watershed to assist the approximately 135 farms with constructing additional manure storage and other best management practices to improve manure management. Over 130 manure storage structures, 80 feedlot covers, 15 waste treatment systems, 20 leachate collection systems and 5 mortality compost structures were built from 2011 through 2019.

KDS Separator Pilot (Swine Manure Solids), March 2018

Other local efforts to improve water quality in GLSM include the restoration and creation of new wetlands to treat stream flow prior to entering GLSM. Since 2010, we have more than doubled the acreage of wetlands along the south side of the lake and have seen an incredible diversification of wildlife in the area. Additional best management practices have also been installed, such as stream restoration projects, saturated buffers, tile phosphorus filters, double cropping, cover crops and much more. Mercer County has also expended a considerable amount of effort to research manure nutrient recovery technologies throughout the last six years. Manure nutrient recovery is challenging due to cost; however, many technologies can achieve a 90+% recovery of phosphorus from manure.

What Have We Learned?

Long-term monitoring data is collected on two streams feeding GLSM, Chickasaw Creek (installed in 2008) and Coldwater Creek (installed in 2010). The data from Chickasaw Creek was used to determine the effects of the best management practices installed along with the effects of the winter manure application ban. The data showed a reduction of 10-40% of nitrogen and phosphorus because of these improved practices (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Nutrient Reduction Trends Pre and Post Distressed Watershed (Pre-Condition 2008-2011; Post-Condition 2012-2016) Jacquemin, etal (2016).

Future Plans

Nutrient management planning is an ongoing effort in the Grand Lake St. Marys watershed and will continue as long as the watershed remains distressed. Research and collaboration continue on manure nutrient recovery and development and adoption of technologies. Monitoring of stream and effectiveness of treatment wetland will also continue to ensure that maintenance and management is conducted appropriately. Additional conservation projects, including wetlands, stream restoration and more are planned in the coming years.

Author

Theresa A. Dirksen, PE, Mercer County, Ohio Agriculture & Natural Resources Director

Additional Information

Jacquemin, Stephen J., Johnson, Laura T., Dirksen, Theresa A., McGlinch, Greg. “Changes in Water Quality of Grand Lake St. Marys Watershed Following Implementation of a Distressed Watershed Rules Package.” Journal of Environmental Quality, January 12, 2018.

Jacquemin, Stephen J., McGlinch, Greg, Dirksen, Theresa, Clayton, Angela. “On the Potential for Saturated Buffers in Northwest Ohio to Remediate Nutrients from Agricultural Runoff.” PeerJ, April 12, 2020.

Link to wetland monitoring data summaries: https://lakeimprovement.com/knowledge-base/

Acknowledgements

Dr. Stephen Jacquemin, Wright State University Lake Campus

Mercer Soil and Water Conservation District

Grand Lake St. Marys Restoration Commission

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2022. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Oregon, OH. April 18-22, 2022. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

April 20, 2022June 22, 2022

Evaluation of Agricultural Nutrient Management Technologies at Vermont Natural Ag Products, Middlebury, Vermont

Purpose

The objective of this study was to evaluate nutrient dynamics and operational costs within an existing manure Compost Aeration and Heat Recovery system (CAHR) by Agrilab Technologies, Inc. at the Vermont Natural Ag Products (VNAP) compost facility in Middlebury, Vermont in comparison to conventional windrow manure composting where aeration only occurs via turning. Constructed in 2016 and 2017, the CAHR has been fully operational since 2018 and has proven effective at reducing VNAP’s expenditures on #2 heating oil, propane, diesel fuel, and labor (Foster et al., 2018).

The basic design of the CAHR system includes compost windrows placed on a paved pad containing a shallow trench oriented longitudinally with the windrow. The trench contains perforated High Density Poly Ethelene (HDPE) piping bedded in wood chips. These pipes are connected to solid, insulated HDPE piping which runs to a shipping container outfitted with circulation fans and a heat exchanger. While the circulation fans are negatively aerating (i.e., pulling vapor from) the compost, warm vapor entering the system transfers heat energy to water piped through the heat exchanger. Heat recovered from compost windrows has been used to heat the site’s bagging building via radiant floor heating and to dry finished compost prior to the screening and bagging process. Furthermore, due to elevated oxygen levels provided by positive and negative aeration, CAHR-treated compost has been reported to mature more quickly and require less turning, reducing diesel, labor, and equipment maintenance costs (Foster et al., 2018).

What Did We Do?

Two compost windrows of equivalent feedstock contents and ratios were monitored. Our control, denoted as “TRAD”, was a conventionally treated windrow that did not receive aeration aside from periodic windrow turning with a Komptech Topturn x53 compost turner. Our experimental windrow, denoted as “CAHR”, received periodic positive and negative aeration via the CAHR system, as well as aeration through periodic turning. The initial volumes of the TRAD and CAHR windrows were 480.2 CY and 548.8 CY, respectively.

Compost samples were collected between August 24th, 2021 and December 15th, 2021. For the first thirteen weeks of the sampling period, samples were taken thrice weekly from both treatments. At the end of the thirteenth week, on November 19th, VNAP staff deemed the CAHR treatment compost suitable for market and it was pulled for processing. Sampling continued once weekly for the TRAD treatment for another four weeks, terminating on December 15th, when the TRAD windrow was pulled for processing. This resulted in a total of 43 samples of TRAD and 39 samples of CAHR composts.

What Have We Learned?

This study evaluated nutrient status, financial cost, and energy cost for a pair of commercial compost windrows in a normal production setting. From a time and space management standpoint, compost treated with a forced-aeration system was deemed suitable for market in approximately 75% of the time as a conventionally turned windrow; 13 and 17 weeks, respectively. Analysis of nitrogen species status throughout the study suggests that greater nitrogen losses occurred during conventional treatment than during CAHR treatment, presumably due to higher rates of denitrification and ammonia volatilization. Data also suggest a lower risk for phosphorus loss through leaching from CAHR-treated compost, as water extractable phosphorus (WEP) concentrations were consistently higher in the conventional treatment. During the active composting process, it was found that operational costs for CAHR compost were 2.1 times more expensive financially and 5.5 times more energy-intensive than a conventional compost on a per CY basis. However, the energy and infrastructure cost offsets provided by the CAHR system (as operated at VNAP) could provide a net savings of $4.06/CY finished compost. In this study, with paired windrows of approximately 12 feet in width, it was shown that a CAHR system produced a comparable compost product, with higher operational input, in less time.

Furthermore, the data suggest that land application of either compost treatment evaluated in this study may reduce phosphorus loss due to leaching versus direct manure application. For example, WEP concentrations in the finished composts in this study ranged between 0.256 and 0.304 g/kg on a dry weight basis, while WEP concentrations in dairy manures have been found to range between 1.98 and 4.0 g/kg (P. Kleinman et al., 2007; P. J. A. Kleinman et al., 2005). It is probable that either compost treatment, when applied to agricultural land, would release less phosphorus as WEP during rainfall events than direct manure application, providing water quality benefits.

Future Plans

The Newtrient CIG will continue to evaluate 13 more technologies over the next 2 years to determine their effect on water quality.

Authors

Mark Stoermann, Chief Operating Officer, Newtrient LLC

Corresponding author email address

Mstoerm@newtrient.com

Additional authors

Finn Bondeson, Graduate Student, University of Vermont; Joshua Faulkner, Research Assistant Professor and Farming and Climate Change Program Coordinator, University of Vermont; and Eric Roy, Assistant Professor, Interim Director of Environmental Sciences Program, University of Vermont

Additional Information

Newtrient.com

April 20, 2022June 22, 2022

Evaluating Dry Manure Storage Options for Water Quality Protection in Western Washington

Purpose

The purpose of this project was to collect local on-the-ground data to evaluate the effectiveness of different manure storage options installed on working farms in King County, Washington. Agricultural areas in King County receive over 40 inches of rain annually with most of it falling between the months of October through March. During this time, farms often store and compost their manure for spring and summer field application. Composting livestock manure and waste can produce a valuable resource for land managers. However, if managed improperly, manure leachate and runoff can contaminate ground and surface water resources posing a risk to humans and other wildlife.

The project aimed to collect data on water quality and manure quality under different solid manure storage options during the fall and winter months. During the project, we worked with two farms to monitor water quality and manure quality as well as held education and outreach events to engage with stakeholders about benefits and/or costs of adopting new manure management BMPs.

What Did We Do

For the project, we worked with two farms and established four manure storage areas on each including: a concrete slab with walls and a roof, concrete slab with walls and no roof, a compacted soil areas with a tarp cover, and a compacted soil area with no cover. The manure piles were managed by the farmer following common winter practices and were turned and added to 2-3 times per month. We monitored the temperature of the piles over time to assess their composting activity, although it was not a primary focus of our study.

We collected samples of the manure from each storage area during the project to monitor changes over time. To assess nutrient loss and pollution via a stormwater runoff pathway, we collected runoff from the concrete slabs. To assess nutrient loss and pollution via a leaching pathway, we collected soil samples, from under the compacted soil areas. This monitoring allowed us to compare the storage options. The study was conducted over the course of eight months from October 2020 through May 2021. Below are photos of our study setup. Stormwater runoff water quality samples were collected using an ISCO automated sampler that was programmed to grab samples during rain events that generated runoff from the manure piles. Soil and manure samples were collected on a monthly basis.

Figure 1. Manure storage treatments. From left to right: slab covered, slab uncovered, soil covered, and soil uncovered.

Figure 2. Stormwater runoff collection system from the concrete slabs.

What Have We Learned

The project results support the conclusion that the covering of solid manure piles had positive environmental benefits. Covered manure piles stored on a concrete slab have less stormwater runoff with lower loads of nutrients in the leachate than uncovered manure piles on a concrete slab. The covering of dry manure piles stored on compacted soil surfaces reduced the leaching of nutrient, particularly nitrate and nitrite, from manure piles into the soil. It also created a better manure end-product by allowing higher heat values to be reached and creating a drier end product. Additionally, the

placement of manure on a non-permeable, concrete surface eliminated the leaching of manure nutrients below the piles. Covered manure piles, whether stored on a concrete slab or dirt, tended to be drier and have higher temperatures, which results in a better composted manure product.

The results of this study demonstrated that the type of animal species and pile management (how often the pile was turned or added to) also greatly affected the nutrient composition of the leachate. For instance, at Site A, there was higher TP in the manure, and thus higher TP in the runoff water quality and in soil samples.

Future Plans

Due to the short duration of the project, we pursued and were awarded additional funding to extend the project and expand the data set to allow for more robust statistical analysis and conclusions. Partner agencies and organizations as well as the farmers have expressed support and interest in continuing this research, and the project Steering Committee members have also expressed interest in further participation.

In future studies, we intend to try to better quantify the flow volumes from manure piles stored on slabs. In addition, we intend to better assess leaching potential underneath the manure piles stored on soil by using lysimeters to measure leachate volumes.

Authors

Presenting Author

Scarlett Graham, Conservation Research Specialist, Whatcom Conservation District

Corresponding Author

Laura Redmond, Landowner Incentive Program Coordinator, King Conservation District
laura.redmond@kingcd.org

Additional Authors

Addie Candib, Pacific Northwest Regional Director, American Farmland Trust

Additional Information

American Farmland Trust website: https://farmland.org/project/south-puget-sound-discovery-farms/

Acknowledgements

Dr. Nichole Embertson, PhD, Dairy Sustainability at Starbucks (formerly worked at the Whatcom Conservation District)

Videos, Slideshow and Other Media

South Sound Discovery Farms® Project

March 17, 2022March 17, 2022

Swimmers beware, land application of manure can increase antibiotic resistance downstream

A summary of Catchment-scale export of antibiotic resistance genes and bacteria from an agricultural watershed in central Iowa by Neher et al. 2020

Key points

With some year-to-year variation, manure application increased antibiotic resistance surface water downstream of application site.
The CAMRADES team, led out of Iowa State University, will be expanding efforts to monitor and model AMR in agricultural watersheds in the region.

Continue reading “Swimmers beware, land application of manure can increase antibiotic resistance downstream”

December 13, 2019March 10, 2022

Phosphorus Management Lessons Learned from the Field

During this webinar three extension and research leaders for phosphorus management issues shared their experience on critical lessons learned about phosphorus management. This presentation was originally broadcast on December 13, 2019. More… Continue reading “Phosphorus Management Lessons Learned from the Field”

March 5, 2019March 20, 2019

Field Technology & Water Quality Outreach

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

In 2015, Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) partnered with local and state agencies to help identify potential sources of fecal coliform bacteria that were impacting shellfish beds in northwest Washington. WSDA and Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) program partners began collecting ambient, as well as rain-driven, source identification water samples. Large watersheds with multiple sub-basins, changing weather and field conditions, and recent nutrient applications, meant new sites were added almost daily. The increased sampling created an avalanche of new data. With this data, we needed to figure out how to share it in a way that was timely, clear and could motivate change. Picture of water quality data via spreadsheet, graphs, and maps.

Conveying complex water quality results to a broad audience can be challenging. Previously, water quality data would be shared with the public and partners through spreadsheets or graphs via email, meetings or quarterly updates. However, the data that was being shared was often too late or too overwhelming to link locations, weather or field conditions to water quality. Even though plenty of data was available, it was difficult for it to have meaningful context to the general public.

Ease of access to results can help inform landowners of hot spots near their home, it can link recent weather and their own land management practices with water quality, as well as inform and influence decision-making.

What Did We Do?

Using basic GIS tools we created an interactive map, to share recent water quality results. The map is available on smartphones, tablets and personal computers, displaying near-real-time results from multiple agencies. Viewers can access the map 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

We have noticed incre Picture of basic GIS tool. ased engagement from our dairy producers, with many checking the results map regularly for updates. The map is symbolized with graduated stop light symbology, with poor water quality shown in red and good in green. If they see a red dot or “hot spot” in their neighborhood they may stop us on the street, send an email, or call with ideas or observations of what they believe may have influenced water quality. It has opened the door to conversations and partnerships in identifying and correcting possible influences from their farm.

The map also contains historic results data for each site, which can show changes in water quality. It allows the viewer to evaluate if the results are the norm or an anomaly. “Are high results after a rainfall event or when my animals are on that pasture?”

The online map has also increased engagement with our Canadian neighbors to the north. By collecting samples at the US/Canadian border we have been able to map streams where elevated bacteria levels come across the border. This has created an opportunity to partner with our Canadian counterparts to continue to identify and correct sources.

What Have We Learned?

You do not need to be a GIS professional to create an app like this for your organization. Learning the system and fine-tuning the web application can take some time, but it is well worth the investment. GIS skills derived from this project have proven invaluable as the app transfers to other areas of non-point work. The web application has created great efficiencies in collaboration, allowing field staff to quickly evaluate water quality trends in order to spend their time where it is most needed. The application has also provided transparency to the public regarding our field work, demonstrating why we are sampling particular areas.

From producer surveys, we have learned that viewers prefer a one-stop portal for information. Viewers are less concerned about what agency collected the data as they are interested in what the data says. This includes recent, as well as historical water quality data, field observations; such as wildlife or livestock presence or other potential sources. Also, a brief weekly overview of conditions, observations and/or trends has been requested to provide additional context.

Future Plans

The ease and efficiency of the mobile mapping and data sharing has opened the door to other collaborative projects. Currently we are developing a “Nutrient Tracker” application that allows all PIC partners to easily update a map from the field. The map allows the user to log recent field applications of manure. Using polygons to draw the area on the field, staff can note the date nutrients were identified, type of application, proximity to surface water, if it was a low-, medium- or high-risk application, if follow-up is warranted, and what agency would be the lead contact. This is a helpful tool in learning how producers utilize nutrients, to refer properties of concern to the appropriate agency, and to evaluate recent water quality results against known applications.

Developing another outreach tool, WSDA is collecting 5 years of fall soil nitrate tests from all dairy fields in Washington State. The goal is to create a visual representation of soil data, to demonstrate to producers how nitrate levels on fields have changed from year to year, and to easily identify areas that need to be re-evaluated when making nutrient application decisions.

As part of a collaborative Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) group, we would like to create a “Story Map” that details the current situation, why it is a concern, explain potential sources and what steps can be taken at an individual level to make a difference. A map that visually demonstrates where the watersheds are and how local neighborhoods really do connect to people 7 miles downstream. An interactive map that not only shows sampling locations, but allows the viewer to drill down deeper for more information about the focus areas, such as pop-ups that explain what fecal coliform bacteria are and what factors can increase bacteria levels. We envision a multi-layer map that includes 24-hour rainfall, river rise, and shellfish bed closures. This interactive map will also share success stories as well as on-going efforts.

Author

Kerri Love, Dairy Nutrient Inspector, Dairy Nutrient Management Program, Washington State Department of Agriculture

klove@agr.wa.gov

Additional Information

Results Map Link: http://arcg.is/1Q9tF48

Washington Shellfish Initiative: http://www.governor.wa.gov/issues/issues/energy-environment/shellfish

Mobile Mapping Technology presentation by Michael Isensee, 2016 National CAFO Roundtable

Sharing the Data: Interactive Maps Provide Rapid Feedback on Recent Water Quality and Incite Change by Educating the Public, Kyrre Flege, Washington State Department of Agriculture and Jessica Kirkpatrick, Washington State Department of Ecology, 2016 National Non-Point Source Monitoring Workshop

Whatcom County PIC Program: http://www.whatcomcounty.us/1072/Water-Quality

Skagit County, Clean Samish Initiative: https://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/PublicWorksCleanWater/cleansamish.htm

Lower Stillguamish PIC Program: http://snohomishcountywa.gov/3344/Lower-Stilly-PIC-Program

GIS Web Applications: http://doc.arcgis.com/en/web-appbuilder/

Acknowledgements

The web application was a collaborative project developed by Kyrre Flege, Washington State Department of Agriculture and Jessica Kirkpatrick, Washington State Department of Ecology.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Recommendations for Manure Injection and Incorporation Technologies for Phase 6 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

A Best Management Practice (BMP) Expert Panel was convened under guidance of the Chesapeake Bay Program’s (CBP) Water Quality Goal Implementation Team to assess and quantify Nitrogen and Phosphorus load reductions for use in the Phase 6 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model when manure is injected or incorporated into agricultural lands within the watershed. (Further description of Expert Panels and processes can be found in the 2017 Waste to Worth Proceedings and Presentation by Jeremy Hanson and Mark Dubin).

What Did We Do?

The Expert Panel first created definitions of injection and incorporation practices, which allowed technologies utilized in research to be categorized within each definition. Categorization considered the manner in which manure was placed beneath the soil surface as well as the level of surface disturbance. Manure injection was defined as a specialized category of placement in which organic nutrient sources (including manures, biosolids, and composted materials) are mechanically applied into the root zone with surface soil closure at the time of application with soil surface disturbance of 30% or less. Manure incorporation was defined as the mixing of dry, semi-dry, or liquid organic nutrient sources (including manures, biosolids, and compost) into the soil profile within a specified time period from application by a range of field operations (≤24hr for full ammonia loss reduction credit and 3 days for P reduction credit(s)). Incorporation was divided into categories of high disturbance (<30% residue retention) and low disturbance (>30% residue retention). Both liquid and solid manures were considered.

The panel conducted an extensive literature review of research that allowed comparison of nutrient loss after manure injection and incorporation with a baseline of surface manure application without incorporation. These comparisons were assembled in a large categorical table in percentage form, that reflected loss reduction efficiency. Many manuscripts offered a percentage comparison of application treatments to the surface application baseline. For research reports that did not provide a percentage comparison, the panel interpreted results into a percentage comparison when possible.

Consideration to soil variability and location in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed was considered on a very broad basis and in a manner consistent with work of other panels and modeling team recommendations. Loss reduction efficiencies were provided for soils or locations listed as either Coastal or Upland regions. Nitrogen efficiencies did not vary between the regions, but Phosphorus efficiencies did.

What Have We Learned?

Nitrogen and Phosphorus loss reduction efficiency reported or derived from literature varied within categories. For some categories, the volume of literature was small. Research providing these efficiencies is often conducted on small plots with simulated rainfall. Literary reduction results were often provided as a range and not as a single value. Professional scrutiny and judgment was applied to each value provided from literature and to all values within injection and incorporation categories to determine loss reduction efficiencies to be used in the broad categories of the model. The final loss reduction efficiencies of the Expert Panel’s final report are provided in Tables 1 (Upland Region) and 2 (Coastal Region).

Table 1. Loss reduction efficiency values for Upland regions of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

Category	Nitrogen			Phosphorus
Category	Time to Incorporation	Ammonia Emission Reduction	Reduction in N Loading¹	Time to Incorporation	Reduction in P Loading²
Injection	0	85%	12%	0	36%
Low Disturbance Incorporation	≤24 hr 24-72 hr	50% 34%	8% 8%	≤72 hr	24%
High Disturbance Incorporation	≤24 hr 24-72 hr	75% 50%	8% 8%	≤72 hr	0%³

¹ Reduction in N loading water achieved only for losses with surface runoff. The portion of total N loss through leaching is not impacted by the practices. 25% of total N losses to water are assumed to be lost with runoff (both dissolved N and sediment-associated organic matter N).

² Reduction in P loading water achieved only for losses with surface runoff. The portion of total N loss through leaching is not impacted by the practices. 80% of total P losses to water are assumed to be lost with runoff (both dissolved and sediment-bound P) in upland regions of the watershed.

³ Reduction in dissolved P losses typically offset by greater sediment-bound P losses due to greater soil erosion with tillage incorporation in upland landscapes.

Table 2. Loss reduction efficiency values for Coastal Plain region of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

Category	Nitrogen			Phosphorus
Category	Time to Incorporation	Ammonia Emission Reduction	Reduction in N Loading¹	Time to Incorporation	Reduction in P Loading²
Injection	0	85%	12% 12%	0	22%
Low Disturbance Incorporation	≤24 hr 24-72 hr	50% 34%	8% 8%	≤72 hr	14%
High Disturbance Incorporation	≤24 hr 24-72 hr	75% 50%	8% 8%	≤72 hr	14%

² Reduction in P loading water achieved only for losses with surface runoff. The portion of total N loss through leaching is not impacted by the practices. 48% of total P losses to water are assumed to be lost with runoff (both dissolved and sediment-bound P) in Coastal Plain.

Future Plans

The report of the Manure Injection and Incorporation Panel were accepted by the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Agricultural Workgroup in December 2016. The values will be utilized in Phase 6 of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model. Future panels may revisit the efficiencies as future model improvements are made.

Corresponding author (name, title, affiliation)

Robert Meinen, Senior Extension Associate, Penn State University

Corresponding author email address

rjm134@psu.edu

Other Authors

Curt Dell (Panel Chair), Soil Scientist, USDA-Agricultural Research Service

Art Allen, Associate Professor and Associate Research Director, University of Maryland – Eastern Shore

Dan Dostie, Pennsylvania State Resources Conservationist, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service

Mark Dubin, Agricultural Technical Coordinator, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, University of Maryland

Lindsey Gordon, Water Quality Goal Implementation Team Staffer, Chesapeake Research Consortium

Rory Maguire, Professor and Extension Specialist, Virginia Tech

Don Meals, Environmental Consultant, Tetra Tech

Chris Brosch, Delaware Department of Agriculture

Jeff Sweeney, Integrated Analysis Coordinator, US EPA

For More Information

Two related presentations given at the same session at Waste to Worth 2017

Acknowledgements

Funding for this panel was provided by the US EPA Chesapeake Bay Program and Virginia Tech University through an EPA Grant.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

March 5, 2019March 20, 2019

Developing Science-Based Estimates of Best Management Practice Effectiveness for the Phase 6 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is a regional partnership that leads and directs Chesapeake Bay restoration and protection. The CBP uses a suite of modeling and planning tools to estimate nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) and sediment loads contributed to the Bay from its watershed, and guide restoration efforts. Non-point source (NPS) pollutant sources (e.g., agricultural and urban runoff) are largely related to diverse land uses stretching across six states and the District of Columbia. On-the-ground pollutant reductions are achieved by implementing both management and structural best management practices (BMPs) on those diverse land uses. Short and long-term reductions in NPS pollutant loads that result from BMP implementation are estimated using the CBP modeling suite of tools. The CBP recognizes (i.e., represents pollutant reduction credits for) over 150 BMPs across 66 land uses total for all sectors in its Phase 6 suite of modeling tools. The estimated pollutant reduction performance (i.e., effectiveness) of each BMP is parameterized in the CBP modeling suite. Within the CBP, BMP effectiveness is determined by groups of qualified scientific and technical experts (BMP Expert Panels) that review the relevant literature and make an independent determination regarding BMP performance which are reviewed and approved by the CBP partnership before being integrated in to the modeling tools by the CBP modeling team.

BMP Expert Panels are primarily convened under the auspices of the CBP’s Water Quality Goal Implementation Team and tasked to specific sector workgroups for oversight and management. Panels are tasked with addressing a specific BMP, or a suite of related BMPs. Panel members, in coordination with the CBP partnership, are selected based on their scientific expertise, practical experience with the BMP, and expertise in fate and transport of nutrients and sediment. Panels review the relevant literature and through a deliberative process and form recommendations on BMP pollutant production performance, and how the BMP(s) should be accounted for/incorporated into the CBP modeling tools and data reporting systems. Convening BMP Expert Panels is an ongoing focus and priority of the CBP partnership, given the integral role BMP implementation plays in achieving the pollution reduction goals required by the 2010 Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).

What Did We Do?

Expert panels follow the process and adhere to expectations outlined in the Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s Protocol for the Development, Review, and Approval of Loading and Effectiveness Estimates for Nutrient and Sediment Controls in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model (aka the “BMP Protocol”). The expert panel process functions as an independent peer review, similar to that of the National Academy of Sciences.

Each panel reviews and discusses all current published literature and available unpublished literature and data related to the BMP(s), and formulates recommendations using the guidance provided in the BMP Protocol to help weigh the applicability of each data source. Consensus panel recommendations are recorded in a final report, which is presented to relevant CBP partnership groups, including the CBP partnership’s Agriculture Workgroup for feedback and approval.

Panel recommendations are built into the modeling tools following CBP partnership approval of the panel’s report.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Map

Basic Diagram of the Chesapeake Bay Program Expert Panel BMP Review Process

What Have We Learned?

The availability of published, peer-reviewed data varies greatly based on the scope of the panel. Some panels have dozens of articles to analyze while others may have a limited number of published studies to supplement gray literature, unpublished data and their best professional judgment. Even panels with a large amount of relevant literature at their disposal identify important gaps and future research needs. Given the wide range of stakeholders in the CBP partnership, regular updates and communication with interested parties as the panel formulates its recommendations is extremely important to improve understanding and acceptance of final panel recommendations.

Future Plans

The Chesapeake Bay Program evaluates BMP effectiveness estimates as new research or new conservation and production practices become available. Thus, expert panels sometimes revisit BMPs that were previously reviewed, but new and innovative BMPs are also considered. The availability of resources and new research limit the frequency of these reviews in conjunction with the priorities of the CBP partnership. Given the CBP partnership’s interest in adaptive management and continually improving its scientific estimates of BMP effectiveness, there will continue to be BMP expert panels for the foreseeable future.

Corresponding author (name, title, affiliation)

Jeremy Hanson, Project Coordinator – Expert Panel BMP Assessment, Virginia Tech

Corresponding author email address

jchanson@vt.edu

Other Authors

Mark Dubin, Agricultural Technical Coordinator, University of Maryland Extension

Brian Benham, Professor and Extension Specialist, Virginia Tech

Each expert panel has at least several other authors and contributors, which is not practical for listing here. Each individual report identifies the panel members and other contributors for that specific panel.

Additional Information

The BMP Review Protocol is available online at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/publications/title/bmp_review_protocol

All final expert panel reports are posted on the Chesapeake Bay Program website under “publications”: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/groups/group/bmp_expert_panels

Acknowledgements

These BMP expert panels would not be possible without the generosity of expert panel members who volunteer their valuable time and perspectives. Staff support, coordination and funding for these panels is provided by the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, specifically through Cooperative Agreements with Virginia Tech and University of Maryland, with additional contract support from Tetra Tech as needed. The work of these expert panels is strengthened through the participation, review and comments of the CBP partnership.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

March 5, 2019March 19, 2019

Effectiveness of Livestock Exclusion in a Pasture of Central North Carolina

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

*Do not make slides downloadable

Purpose

Jordan Lake (Reservoir), located in central North Carolina, is a 5,650-ha impoundment with a 436,860-ha watershed of which 18% was urban, 20% agricultural, and 56% forested. Like many lakes in the eastern U.S., the use of this water resource is being threatened by excessive nutrient inputs. A proposed nutrient reduction strategy set overall nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) load reduction goals for the watershed at 8-35% for N and 5% for P. Because much of the agricultural land in the watershed was used for pasture, the initial focus of reduction efforts was on pastures with livestock exclusion fencing identified as having the most potential. The objective of this project was to document the effectiveness of a combination of livestock exclusion fencing and nutrient management implemented on a beef cattle pasture typical of pastures in the Jordan Lake watershed and of the Piedmont region of NC.

What did we do?

figure 1a The paired watershed experimental approach used in this project, required simultaneous monitoring of two watersheds (treatment and control), during a calibration and a treatment period. The calibration period was from 12/30/07 to 10/5/11 and the treatment period was from 10/6/11 to 12/18/15. During both periods, the rainfall and quantity and quality of discharge were monitored continuously. Land use information (number of cattle, fertilization, soil test results) was collected at least annually. The treatment watershed (Past-treat) encompassed 54.5 ha all but 7.3 ha of which was used for beef cow pasture. The control watershed (Past-cont) encompassed 78.1 ha 39.5 ha of which was pasture, while most of the remainder (27.5 ha) was wooded.

In the treatment watershed the exclusion fenceline was constructed in October, 2011 about 3 m from the top of the streambank on either side and was limited to the main stream channel only (fig. 1b). Nutrient management was also implemented which eliminated P application as soil tests showed that there was adequate P in the soil to support the growth of pasture grasses such as fescue. In the control watershed, beef cattle had unlimited access to the stream channel during the entire project (fig. 1a). Monitoring included collecting flow-proportional samples during storm events and analyzing them for total Kjeldahl (TKN), ammonia (NH3-N), and inorganic (NOx-N) nitrogen as well as total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS).

What have we learned?

figure 1b Statistical analyses of storm event load data documented that during the post-fencing period, mass loading of TKN (34%), NH3-N (54%), TN (33%), TP (47%), and TSS (60%) was reduced significantly in the treatment relative to the control watershed, while storm discharge and NOx-N loads were not significantly different. These data showed that even a relatively narrow exclusion corridor implemented on only the main stream channel can significantly reduce the export of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment from a beef cattle pasture.

Future Plans

Evaluate livestock exclusion fencing at another Piedmont site with a wider exclusion corridor.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Daniel Line, Extension Specialist at NC State University

Corresponding author email

dan_line@ncsu.edu

Other authors

Deanna Osmond, Professor, NC State University

Additional information

Published in J. Environmental Quality 45:1926-1932

Acknowledgements

This project received support from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Integrated Water Quality Grant award 2011-0515 as well as funding from NCDEQ-DWR as pass-through funds from U.S. EPA 319.

March 5, 2019August 14, 2019

Water Quality Regulations and Animal Agriculture Curriculum Materials

As livestock and poultry production has intensified it is no surprise that regulations have become a more prominent part of the business. This module introduces the Clean Water Act (CWA) and it application to animal agriculture. This material was developed for use in beginning farmer and extension programs, high school classrooms, and for self-study or professional continuing education.

Agriculture Professionals and Farmers

Check out this self-study module “Playing By the Rules“. This module is estimated to take 60 minutes and offers a certificate upon successful completion.

Teachers, Extension, Consultants

Educators are welcome to use the following materials in their classrooms and educational programs. More modules…

Instruction Guide – includes lesson plan, links to additional information, connections to national agriculture education standards (AFNR Career Content Cluster Standards), application to Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) projects, sample quiz/review questions, and enrichment activities.
Presentation – 36 slides, Powerpoint 97-2003 format. Annotated.
- Preview on Slideshare
- Download (11 MB)

Acknowledgements

Author: Thomas Bass, Montana State University

Reviewers: Paul Hay, University of Nebraska, Lyle Holmgren, Utah State University, Jill Heemstra, University of Nebraska, Elizabeth Burns Thompson, Drake University (law student), Mary Catherine Barganier, NYFEA, Shannon Arnold, Montana State.

Building Environmental Leaders in Animal Agriculture (BELAA) is a collaborative effort of the National Young Farmers Educational Association, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and Montana State University. It was funded by the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) under award #2009-49400-05871. This project would not be possible without the Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community and the National eXtension Initiative.

Water Quality Regulations and Animal Agriculture

View more presentations from LPELC