Tuesday Plenary Panel - Tomer

Overview of the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework-

Database, Concept, and GIS Toolbox for Watershed Planning

Mark Tomer USDA-ARS

National Laboratory for Agriculture and the EnvironmentAmes Iowa

Some questions• How many HUC-12 watersheds are there in the Ohio and upper

Mississippi river basins?• 11,198• How many farm fields are there in Iowa?• 708,884• How do we improve water quality across all Midwestern

landscapes?• We certainly need to prioritize among fields and watersheds, but

then we must address them collaboratively, one watershed and one field at a time.

• How to be consistent across the Midwest in this effort?• With consistent and well detailed data that are analyzed and

presented in a way to help local planners and landowners make good decisions for resource improvement.

• gSSURGO 10m rasters• MUAggAtt• VALU1• Horizon• Texture• Parent Material

Soils Data

3

FBndID Acres isAG GenLU CropRotatn CropSumry CCCount MixCountF070801050202_10 105.9 1 Corn/Soybeans BCBCBC C3B3 0:6 0:6F070801050202_8 109.0 1 C/S with Continuous Corn BCBCCC C4B2 2:6 2:6F070801050202_50 94.8 1 Continuous Corn CCCCCC C6 5:6 0:6F070801050202_62 41.9 1 Pasture PPPPPP P6 0:6 6:6F070801050202_282 35.5 1 Conservation Rotation PPPCBC C2B1P3 0:6 3:6

maj07 pct07 maj08 pct08 maj09 pct09 maj10 pct10 maj11 pct11 maj12 pct12… 5 94 1 93 5 92 1 94 5 93 1 99… 5 74 1 82 5 74 1 91 1 82 1 91… 1 84 1 93 1 84 1 96 1 97 1 99… 181 68 181 66 181 45 181 51 171 43 171 74… 181 74 181 32 181 46 1 76 5 80 1 87

Land Use Data• 2007-2012 NASS CDL• Sequence of major crops• Individual-field dominant crop• Dominant crop percent of field• Rule-based crop rotation• Continuous corn count

4

Terrain Data

Flow Accumulation

Slope

• LiDAR-derived digital elevation model• 3m horizontal resolution• Hydrologically enforced

6

Any broad-based approach to watershed planning must recognize:

• That each watershed is unique;• That each farm is unique and that farmers must each

be included as equal partners in planning process;• That nutrient reduction goals can only be met by a

mix of practices placed within fields and below field edges; and,

• That the need to protect and improve the health of our soil resource is paramount to maximize crop production and to protect water quality.

7

Concept for Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF):A CONSERVATION PYRAMID FOR AGRICULTURAL WATERSHEDS

8(Tomer et al., 2013)

AVOID and CONTROL : Improve soil health within cropped fields to avoid and control pollutant losses by- Protecting soils from erosion with zero or minimum tillage; Limiting excess nutrients through rates and timing of fertilizer and manure applications;Building soil organic matter and rejuvenating compacted soils with intensified crop

rotations

IN FIELDS:Place water control /

filter practices

BELOW FIELDS Place water

detention / nutrient removal practices

RIPARIAN ZONEPlace/design practices for

ecosystem function and nutrient removal

Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework to improve water quality in agricultural watersheds

CONTROL, TRAP, and/or TREAT TILE DRAINAGE SURFACE RUNOFF

9

Yes No

H A B C

M B C

L C

Close to stream?

Slop

e st

eepn

ess

Yes No

H CZ MSB SSG

M MSB MSB SSG

L DRV DRV SBS

Shallow water table?

Runo

ff de

liver

y

Runoff Risk Assessment:Prioritize fields where

multiple erosion control practices are most needed

Riparian Assessment:Identify riparian function

by stream reach

Assessments for prioritization and design of practices

9

Nutrient removal wetlandsTwo-stage drainage ditch

Denitrifying bioreactors

Practices for Reducing Nitrate Loads from Tile Drainage

Controlled drainage

Controlled Drainage where slopes are least

Photo by IDALS-DSC

Nutrient interception wetlands

12

Grassed waterwaysContour filter strips

Conservation cover

Practices to Manage Runoff & Water Quality

Sediment detention basins

Water/Sediment Control Basins to detain runoff/sediment

Grassed Waterways to slow concentrated flows

Potential Riparian Functions Depend on Landscape Attributes and May Be Achieved at Varying Buffer Widths

Schultz et al., 2009

Channel Network

Contributing Area > 1 HA

0 0.40.2 Miles

1. Local Runoff

Riparian Analysis

N

Channel Network


Shallow Water Table Zone

0 0.40.2 Miles

2. Shallow Water Table

1. Local Runoff

Riparian Analysis

N

Channel Network



Riparian Analysis Polygon

0 0.40.2 Miles


3. Riparian Analysis Polygons

1. Local Runoff

Riparian Analysis

N

Channel Network



Riparian Analysis Polygon

0 0.40.2 Miles


3. Riparian Analysis Polygons

Critical Zone

Multi Species Buffer

Stiff Stemmed Grasses

Deep Rooted Vegetation

Stream Bank Stabilization

Riparian Function

4. Riparian Function

1. Local Runoff

Riparian Analysis

N

Across watershed: Nutrient/manure management, Cover Crops, No-tillage or strip tillage

AVOID and CONTROL : Improve soil health within cropped fields to avoid and control pollutant losses by- Protecting soils from erosion with zero or minimum tillage; Limiting excess nutrients through rates and timing of fertilizer and manure applications;Building soil organic matter and rejuvenating compacted soils with intensified crop

rotations

Controlled Drainage where slopes are least

Bioreactors or small wetlands constructed

above field-tile outlets

Re-Saturated Buffers

Yes No

H A B C

M B C

L C

Close to stream?

Slop

e st

eepn

ess

Yes No

H CZ MSB SSG

M MSB MSB SSG

L DRV DRV SBS

Shallow water table?

Runo

ff de

liver

y

Design Types for Riparian Buffers:CZ Critical Zone -sensitive sitesMSB Multi-Species BufferSSG Stiff-Stemmed GrassesDRV Deep-Rooted VegetationSBS Stream Bank Stability

Grassed Waterways where gullies may form

Contour Filter Strips, Terraces, Conservation Cover

where slopes are steep

Ditch design: Two-Stage Ditches; novel practices for detention /

diversion of tile drainage

Runoff Risk Assessment:Prioritize fields where

multiple erosion control practices are most needed

Riparian Assessment:Identify riparian function

by stream reach

Surface Intake Filters or Restored Wetlands where

depressions occur

IN FIELDS:Place water control /

filter practices

BELOW FIELDS Place water

detention / nutrient removal practices

RIPARIAN ZONEPlace/design practices for

ecosystem function and nutrient removal

Perennial crops, & novel

practices to intercept flows where soils stay wet

Downstream/ In-stream: River restoration (e.g., pool-riffle structures, re-meandering,

oxbow rehabilitation)

Process for conservation planning to improve water quality in agricultural watersheds using precision technologiesDATA REQUIRED: LiDAR-based digital elevation model, Soil survey, Field boundaries, Land use

CONTROL, TRAP, and/or TREAT TILE DRAINAGE SURFACE RUNOFF

Assessments for prioritization and design of practices

Water detention using impoundments of varying designs

Nutrient Removal Wetlands

Sediment Detention BasinsFarm Ponds

APPLICATION: Scenario Development/ stakeholder feedback/ implement/ monitor/ adapt 22


Wetland Pool Area

Wetland Buffer

Drainage Areas

Resaturated Buffers

Resat. Buffer Opportunities

Cover Crops

Cover Crops Fields

Stream Network

Stream Network

Wetland Pool Area

Wetland Buffer

Drainage Areas

Cover Crops

Cover Crop Fields

Controlled Drainage

Drainage Mgmt Opportunities

Stream Network

Stream Network


Conservation Planning ScenarioLime CreekBeaver Creek

0 21 Kilometers 23

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Crop

land

tak

en f

rom

pro

ducti

on b

y sc

enar

io

(ha)

Average nutrient removal efficiency needed among all scenario practices to achieve 40% reduction for watershed

Included

Excluded

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Crop

land

tak

en f

rom

pro

ducti

on b

y sc

enar

io

(ha)


66-100%

0-33%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Crop

land

take

n fr

om p

rodu

ction

by

scen

ario

(h

a)


Included

Excluded

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Crop

land

tak

en f

rom

pro

ducti

on b

y sc

enar

io

(ha)


66-100%

0-33%

Average nutrient removal efficiency required among all practices in scenario to achieve 40% reduction

Area

of c

ropl

and

take

n ou

t of p

rodu

ction

und

er s

cena

rio (h

a)

WetlandsWetlands

Covercrops

Covercrops

Beaver Creek Lime Creek

Types of practices sited by the ACPF

• Drainage water management• Surface intake treatments (e.g., blind inlets)• Grassed waterways• Contour filter strips/terraces• Water/sediment control basins• Nutrient removal wetlands• Riparian buffers – functional opportunities• To be added: saturated buffers, bioreactors, two stage

ditches• However, users are encouraged to identify unique features

that present conservation challenges and/or opportunities (e.g. springs, gravel pits, sinkholes, depressions)

ACPF Summary: see http://northcentralwater.org/acpf/

• Aim is to develop a customized planning resource for HUC12 watersheds. Input data are widely available in the Midwest.

• Addresses tile drainage and runoff pathways, while stressing the importance of soil health for conservation success.

• Suggests possible beneficial locations for different types of practices placed in fields, at field edges, and in riparian zones. Well known and new types of practices can be included.

• Planning alternatives can be developed and ranked without additional input data.

• No recommendations are made. Results provide a planning resource, not a plan. Actual watershed planning is inherently a local consultative process involving landowners.

26

http://northcentralwater.org/acpf/

Thanks to:Sarah Porter, USDA-ARSDavid James, USDA-ARS

Kathy Boomer, The Nature ConservancyEileen McLellan, Environmental Defense Fund

Support: NRCS Conservation Innovation Grantawarded to the Environmental Defense Fund

27

Tuesday Plenary Panel - Tomer

Environment

Transcript of Tuesday Plenary Panel - Tomer