Overview best management machinaw river watershed kirkham
•
1 recomendación•312 vistas
71st SWCS International Annual Conference July 24-27, 2016 Louisville, KY
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Destacado
Destacado (14)
Similar a Overview best management machinaw river watershed kirkham
Similar a Overview best management machinaw river watershed kirkham (20)
Más de Soil and Water Conservation Society
Más de Soil and Water Conservation Society (20)
Último
Último (20)
Overview best management machinaw river watershed kirkham
- 4. 2025 Goals: 1) Reduce nitrate nitrogen levels 15% 2) Reduce total phosphorus levels by 25% Target Goal: • 45% reduction in nitrate‐nitrogen and total phosphorus (in accordance with the 2008 Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan) Illinois: • Contributes 20% of N, 11% of P loadings, but only 7% of the total water flow to the Gulf of Mexico
- 5. Mackinaw River Program Goals (1) Improve hydrology and water quality of the Mackinaw River watershed for mussels, fishes, and people who depend on it for habitat, water supply, and recreation (2) Reduce nutrient export from the Mackinaw River to downstream river systems (3) Develop a model for hydrologic and water quality improvements that is economically viable, compatible with agricultural production, and scalable across the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
- 6. Land Use Corn Soybean Forested Grassland Developed Mackinaw River Watershed 730,000 acres c Illinois River Mississippi River Franklin Research & Demonstration Farm Paired Watershed Project Bloomington Drinking Watersheds Project
- 7. XX Mackinaw River Bray Creek: Treatment (10,000 acres) Frog Alley: Reference (10,000 acres) Paired Watershed Project (13 years) X YSI YSI YSI Question: How well do conservation practices 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
- 9. Paired Watershed Project Results: 1999‐2006 • Outreach works • No nutrient/suspended sediment reduction • No impact on hydrology or biota Need to better retain runoff, especially from tile drainage WETLANDS
- 12. Inlet Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Tile 3% 3% 3% 6% 9% Monitor nutrients & flow Monitor nutrients & flow Monitor nutrients & flow Monitor nutrients & flow How well does a wetland perform? What size of wetland is most effective at reducing nutrients in tile runoff? 3% 6% 9%
- 14. USGS gaging stations Lake Evergreen Lake Bloomington Research and Demonstration Farm This image cannot currently be displayed. Paired Watershed Drinking Watershed Project Mackinaw River Project Sites Illinois River Mississippi River Six Mile Creek Watershed • 25,730 acres • Evergreen Lake Money Creek Watershed • 43,100 acres • Lake Bloomington
- 15. 0 10 20 30NO3‐N (mg/L) Finished Water Nitrate Levels 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Year 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 EPA Drinking Water Standard Money Creek Lake Bloomington
- 16. 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 nutrient 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.
- 21. Lessons Learned/Challenges Ahead (1) Partnerships are critical: Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil and Water Conservation District, universities, non‐profit conservation organizations • Challenge: Declining funding to support local partners (i.e., SWCD) (2) Communication: Consistent, transparent (3) Monitoring is important, but expensive: Federal and state grants, private funding (e.g., match) • Challenge: Keeping pace with agricultural impacts (i.e., tiling) (4) Leverage Farm Bill dollars for implementation • Challenges: (a) Inconsistency of available programs, (b) Sign‐up process is complicated and time‐consuming (5) Engage agricultural landowners and producers: Planning, Implementation, Outreach and Communication • Challenges: How to (a) engage more agricultural landowners and producers, (b) provide appropriate incentives and financial support
- 22. (1) Alternative funding options: Development of sustainable funding (Water Fund, Environmental Utility) (2) Engagement with agricultural community: (a) Development of Agricultural Advisory Group (i.e., grass roots support and outreach), (b) Continue partnerships with agricultural agencies (IL Corn, IL Soy, Farm Bureau) to help promote large‐scale adoption of effective practices and community awareness of IL Nutrient Loss Reduction Strategy On the Horizon
- 27. Collaborators, Partners and Funding Sources: Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) University of Illinois at Champaign‐Urbana (UIUC) Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)/Walton Family Foundation City of Bloomington, Illinois World Wildlife Foundation Private landowners and producers Illinois State University (ISU) Monsanto DuPont ‐Pioneer Lumpkin Family Foundation Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS) AGREM LLC Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Southern Illinois University (SIU) Ducks Unlimited (DU) Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS) Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Kellogg Foundation; Mackinaw River Partnership
- 28. Thank you!