engaging farmers in watershed planning through precision conservation 1
TRANSCRIPT
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!