Conservation Effects Assessment Project: Western Lake ......• Average phosphorus to Lake Erie •...

Conservation Effects Assessment Project: Western Lake Erie Basin Update

Great Lakes Sedimentation Workshop1 November, 2017

Conservation Effects Assessment ProjectImprove the efficacy of conservation practices and programs on agriculturally dominated landscapes by quantifying conservation effects and providing the science and education base needed to enrich conservation planning, implementation, management decisions, and policy.

Began in 2003

Congressional Support: Tax Dollar Accountability

CROPLAND WETLAND WILDLIFE GRAZING LAND WATERSHEDS

NATIONAL LEVEL REGIONAL LEVEL

CEAP - CroplandsGoals:

1. Quantify current conservation practice adoption on cultivated cropland.

2. Estimate impacts of currently adopted agricultural conservation practices.

3. Identify outstanding conservation needs.

4. Explore alternative decisions by simulating outcomes of alternative treatment approaches.

Farmer Survey: 3 years of data on all farming activities and conservation practices in 2003-06 (492 farmers) and 2012 (1,019 farmers).

APEX: apply field-scale, process based model to estimate water, sediment, and nutrient losses from the field.

SWAT: Use watershed hydrology model to estimate water quality in streams and delivery to major water bodies.1. Model alternative management.

2. Produce national/regional reports. 3. Re-survey to identify trends in conservation adoption (CEAP2 -2015/16).

Modeling Framework: WLEB

2003/06 vs. 2012 – Survey ResultsStructural Practice Adoption: Increased• Use of one type of water erosion control practice

increased from 25 to 40 percent of acres.• Use of more than one type of water erosion control

practice increased from 9 to 15 percent of acres.• Field Border use increased from 5 to 19 percent of acres.• Edge of field buffering/filtering practice increased from 18

to 31 percent of acres.• Advanced Drainage Water Management increased from

less than 1 to 9 percent of acres.

Cover Crops and Tillage Management: No change • ~25% no till; ~30% seasonal no-till; ~10 % mulch;• ~30% seasonal conventional; ~5% conventional

Sediment Management Classes

Low Moderate Mod-High HighSediment 03-06 33% 33% 24% 10%Sediment 2012 30% 25% 28% 18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Perc

ent o

f WLE

B C

ropl

and

acre

s

Edge of Field Impacts (2003/06 vs 2012)Sheet and Rill • Decreased by 38%, from 1.3 to 0.8 tons per acre per

year.

Edge of Field Sediment Loss to Water Erosion• Average loss rate decreased by 55%, from 1.1 to 0.5

tons per acre per year.• Acres losing more than 2 tons per acre per year

decreased from 10 to 4%.

Surface Water Dynamics Unchanged• Same volume, but cleaner water

Within Field Soil Variability Matters

None <1 day per yearwith >0.5 ton loss

1-3 days peryear with >0.5

ton loss

>3 days per yearwith >0.5 ton loss

2003-06 percent of acres 44% 46% 5% 4%2003-06 percent of total tons lost 3% 23% 18% 56%2012 percent of acres 57% 39% 3% 1%2003-06 percent of total tons lost 7% 36% 20% 37%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Instream and Delivery Results (SWAT)• Average annual sediment losses from Edge of Field

• 2012: 80% lower than if no conservation was in place• 2012: 47% lower than 2003-06

• Average legacy sediment deposition• 2012: 84% lower than if no conservation was in place• 2012: 55% lower than 2003-06

• Average sediment delivery to Lake Erie• 2012: 40% lower than if no conservation was in place• 2012: 14% lower than 2003-06

• 2012:• 3.4 million tons lost from edge of field annually• 2.4 million tons deposited in WLEB hydrology annually• 1.3 million tons delivered to Western Lake Erie annually

Single and Multi-Strategy ScenariosSingle Practice ScenariosSEC: Structural Erosion ControlNM: Nutrient ManagementCC: Cover Crops

Multi-Practice ScenariosENM: SEC+NMENC: SEC+NM+CC

Take Home:SEC works in WLEB andProvides benefits to EoF, legacy, and load delivery reductions

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2012 SEC NM CC ENM ENC

RED

UC

TIO

NS

SEDIMENT

Edge of Field Deposition Lake Load

What about Phosphorus? • Average annual phosphorus losses from Edge of Field

• 2012: 61% lower than if no conservation was in place• 2012: 17% lower than 2003-06

• Average legacy phosphorus deposition• 2012: 72% lower than if no conservation was in place• 2012: 30% lower than 2003-06

• Average phosphorus to Lake Erie• 2012: 41% lower than if no conservation was in place• 2012: 3% lower than 2003-06

• 2012:• 9.5 million pounds lost from edge of field annually• 4.0 million pounds deposited in WLEB hydrology annually• 6.8 million pounds delivered to Western Lake Erie annually



Take Home:SEC works in WLEB andProvides benefits to EoF, legacy, and load delivery reductions

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%


RED

UC

TIO

NS

SEDIMENT




Take Home:• Complementary conservation practices work best in WLEB.• Comprehensive Conservation Plans are the BMP.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


RED

UC

TIO

NS

PHOSPHORUS


Goals Matter when Making Plans

ENC provides 1st best solution forall reduction goals.

ENC Cost: $277M (2012) + $440M

Second best depends on goalCC Cost: $277M + 284MENM Cost: $277M + 155M

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%


RED

UC

TIO

NS

SEDIMENT


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


RED

UC

TIO

NS

PHOSPHORUS


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


RED

UC

TIO

NS

NITROGEN


CEAP-Croplands in WLEBLessons Learned (or Reinforced!)

1. “Vulnerable Acres” are actually “Vulnerable Soils”

2. Soils within a Field are variable in terms of vulnerabilities

3. Comprehensive Conservation Planning is the BMP

4. Response to Conservation Practice Adoption may take time

Next Iteration: CEAP-2: 2015/16!

Thank You!

Questions?Mari-Vaughn Johnson, [email protected]

Conservation Effects Assessment Project: Western Lake ......• Average phosphorus to Lake Erie •...

Documents

Transcript of Conservation Effects Assessment Project: Western Lake ......• Average phosphorus to Lake Erie •...