Evaluation of Nutrient Management Practices Mark Dubin, University of Maryland Steve Dressing, Tetra Tech Agriculture Workgroup (AgWG) Meeting January.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Clain Jones, Andrew John, Adam Sigler, Perry Miller and Stephanie Ewing Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences Effect of Agricultural.
Advertisements

Frank J. Coale Mark P. Dubin Chesapeake Bay Program Partnerships Agriculture Workgroup BMP Verification Review Panel Meeting Annapolis, Maryland December.
Division of State Lands’ Wetlands Program. Issues That Spawned State Wetlands Program (SB 3) Lack of detailed wetlands inventory information or guidance.
Watershed Approaches and Community Based Planning
2013 KY NRCS (590) Nutrient Management Standard Highlights: NRCS 590 is now only required for producers applying to receive NRCS financial or technical.
Developing Modeling Tools in Support of Nutrient Reduction Policies Randy Mentz Adam Freihoefer, Trip Hook, & Theresa Nelson Water Quality Modeling Technical.
Nutrient Management Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Minnesota Watershed Nitrogen Reduction Planning Tool William Lazarus Department of Applied Economics University of Minnesota David Mulla Department of.
Christopher Brosch University of Maryland Modeling Subcommittee Meeting January 11, 2012.
Current Planning for 2017 Mid-Point Assessment Gary Shenk COG 10/4/2012 presentation credit to Katherine Antos and the WQGIT ad hoc planning team.
SPONSOR of 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program. The Nature Conservancy Teaming with the Florida agriculture industry to increase farmer profitability and.
Mark Dubin Agricultural Technical Coordinator University of Maryland Extension-College Park Modeling Quarterly Review Meeting April 17, 2012.
P Index Development and Implementation The Iowa Experience Antonio Mallarino Iowa State University.
Logo Certified Nutrient Management Planning7-1 Module 7: Manure Utilization By Hailin Zhang.
David Halldearn, ERGEG Conference on Implementing the 3 rd Package 11 th December 2008 Implementating the 3rd Package: An ERGEG Consultation paper.
NITROGEN TRACKING AND REPORTING TASK FORCE A Summary Agricultural Expert Panel Public Meeting #1 May 5, 2014 Amrith Gunasekara, PhD Science Advisor to.
What is Business Analysis Planning & Monitoring?
CBP Partnership’s BMP Verification Review Panel’s Findings and Recommendations to Date CBP Citizens Advisory Committee December 6, 2013 Meeting Rich Batiuk,
Planning Process for CNMPs Vicki S. Anderson Resource Conservationist Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Jim Edward, Deputy Director Chesapeake Bay Program (EPA) 1 CBP Program Update Citizens Advisory Committee February 27, 2014.
CBP Partnership’s BMP Verification Review Panel’s Findings and Recommendations to Date CBP Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee December 3, 2013.
Forestry BMP Review Process Mark Sievers, Tetra Tech Forestry Workgroup (FWG) Conference Call—February 1, 2012.
The Chesapeake Bay Program’s Scenario Builder Gary Shenk CCMP workshop 5/11/2010.
Land Treatment and the Conservation Planning Process CNMP Core Curriculum Section 3 — Land Treatment Practices.
Virginia Assessment Scenario Tool VAST Developed by: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin.
Karl Berger Dept. of Environmental Programs Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling Developments April 28, 2015.
Review of Scenario Builder BMP crediting Christopher F. Brosch University of Maryland Extension Chesapeake Bay Program Office
1 Chesapeake Bay Program Management Board Meeting March 6, 2012 Discussion for the Final Evaluation of Milestones.
Phase II WIP Background & Development Process Tri-County Council – Eastern Shore June 2,
Developing Final Phase II WIPs and Milestones Jim Edward EPA Deputy Director Chesapeake Bay Program Office DDOE Meeting with Federal Partners February.
July 2008 CPS2 Waiver SDT Technical Workshop for Draft BAL-001-TRE-01 Judith A. James Reliability Standards Manager TRE.
Presentation to the Chesapeake Bay and Water Resources Policy Committee July 30, 2010.
Components of a Nutrient Management Plan Scott Sturgul Nutrient & Pest Management Program Soil & Water Management Farm & Industry Short Course Feb. 16,
Nebraska CNMP Educational Program Records for NPDES Permit.
USDA Role in Supporting Decisions on Climate Change William Hohenstein Global Change Program Office January 10, 2005.
Field Specific Decisions: N vs P CNMP Core Curriculum Section 5 – Nutrient Management.
Non-point Source Update Marc T. Aveni Regional Manager.
EPA Chesapeake Bay Trading and Offsets Workplan June 1, 2012.
Integration Issues for RTF Guidelines: Savings, Lifetimes and Cost/Benefit October 24, 2012 Regional Technical Forum Presented by: Michael Baker, SBW.
Robert M. Summers, Ph.D. September 16, 2015 How can we make sure the Chesapeake Bay Restoration really works?
Clifton Bell, P.E., P.G. Chesapeake Bay Modeling Perspectives for the Regulated Community.
1 Phase 5.3 Calibration Gary Shenk 3/31/ Calibration Method Calibration method largely unchanged for several years –P5.1 – 8/ first automated.
Chesapeake Bay TMDL 2017 Midpoint Assessment: A Critical Path Forward Lucinda Power EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting.
Nutrient Issues Review of Nutrient Management Issues Addressed by EPA NODA for Proposed CAFO Regulations.
Water Resources Technical Committee Chesapeake Bay Program Overview & Updates July 10, 2008 Tanya T. Spano.
OWEB Effectiveness Monitoring Program Key Components  Effectiveness Monitoring Workshop  Development of definitions  Effectiveness Monitoring of: 
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plans: Why, What, and When Katherine Antos U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office MACo Winter Conference January.
Components of a Nutrient Management Plan The How, Where, When, and Why.
Precision Management beyond Fertilizer Application Hailin Zhang.
JULIE MAWHORTER MID-ATLANTIC URBAN & COMMUNITY FORESTRY COORDINATOR CHESAPEAKE TREE CANOPY STRATEGY & WORKPLAN UPDATE CITIZEN’S ADVISORY.
Creating the environment for business Assessment of the Implementation by the Member States of the IPPC Directive Advisory Group Meeting Friday 13 th January.
Soil Sampling for Fertilizer and Lime Recommendations.
Nutrient Management Planning for CAFO & AFO Fundamentals Nutrient Management Training Dec. 16 &17, 2009 Tom Basden WVU Extension Service.
Update for the Citizens Advisory Committee February 22, 2017
Chapter 15 Organic Amendments.
Department of Environmental Quality
Test Drive Results and Revisions of the New Stream Restoration Crediting Protocols Bill Stack & Lisa Fraley-McNeal December 2, 2013.
WIP Regional Meetings Jason Keppler
Watershed Implementation Plan
Quantification of BMP Impacts on CBP Management Strategies
Agricultural Credit Generation
What is a Watershed Implementation Plan?
Agriculture WIP Phase III Development Update
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Milestones, Progress, Mid-point Assessment
Jim Edward Acting Director Chesapeake Bay Program Office May 23,2018 EPA’s Draft Final Phase III WIP Expectations.
Chesapeake Bay Program Climate Change Modeling 2.0
The Estonian experience with ex-ante evaluation – set-up and progress
Agricultural Credit Generation
Components of a Nutrient Management Plan
2018 BMP Verification Assessment
Presentation transcript:

Evaluation of Nutrient Management Practices Mark Dubin, University of Maryland Steve Dressing, Tetra Tech Agriculture Workgroup (AgWG) Meeting January 12, 2012

Outline  Overview of Tetra Tech Support of Expert Panel  Previous AgWG Recommendations to Panel  Tetra Tech Proposal for Interviews  Expert Panel members  State agriculture program experts  Discussion and Identification of Additional Experts

Tetra Tech Support-Collect Technical and Modeling Information on NM BMPs  N-based nutrient management  P-based nutrient management  Precision/Decision agriculture  Enhanced nutrient management  Form, Method, Rate, and Timing  Cropland, Nurseries*, and Pasture*  N mineralization  P indexes *Have expertise on Panel

Tetra Tech Support -Collect Technical and Modeling Information on NM BMPs  Technical information on practices implemented in federal/state programs in CB Watershed  Operational conditions relative to these practices:  Program guidelines  Permits  Regulations  Restrictions

Tetra Tech Support -Collect Technical and Modeling Information on NM BMPs  Work with modelers to identify how BMPs will be handled in current applicable CBP models  Help incorporate into BMP definitions and effectiveness estimation information to support data tracking, reporting, and analysis requirements of CB models

Tetra Tech Support-Interviews  Why?  To obtain research papers, project reports, fact sheets, websites, etc. that can provide information on NM BMPs  To obtain information on areas where BMPs are implemented and programs that have adopted the BMPs  Who?  Expert Panel members  State agriculture program experts  Other experts identified by AgWG and Panel

Tetra Tech Support-Scientific Literature Search  To assist NM Expert Panel  BMP definitions  BMP effectiveness  Tt searches and screens articles for applicability, usefulness, and quality  Peer-reviewed literature back to January 1, 1985  Tt provides citations and abstracts

Tetra Tech Support-Teleconferences and Meeting Support  Help set up teleconferences for Expert Panel  Assist with meetings as appropriate

Tetra Tech Support-Evaluation Recommendations  Compile available information for each BMP identified by Panel for recommendation  Assist Panel in developing BMP definitions and effectiveness values  Follow criteria for Phase II TMDL, Current Progress Reporting (Phase 5.3.2), and Phase III TMDL Planning (Phase 6.0)  Seek a balance between the science and practicality

Tetra Tech Support-Review Process  Source Sector Review  Assist with presentations of Panel recommendations for review by AgWG for recommendation of approval by the Water Quality Goal Implementation Team (WQGIT)  Technical components of recommendation  Technical Review  Assist with presentation of Panel recommendations for review by the Watershed Technical Workgroup (WTWG) for recommendation of approval by the WQGIT  Modeling components, tracking, and reporting  Recommendation Approval  Assist with presentation of Panel recommendations for review by the WQGIT for final approval  Process used and consistency with existing approved BMPs

Tetra Tech Support-Documentation and Reporting  Documentation and Reporting  Fully document completed and approved BMP evaluations  Report to include the documentation and reporting elements delineated in BMP Protocol.

AgWG Recommendations to Expert Panel  Use pre-1995 nutrient recommendations as a reference for determining non- NM rates.  Non-NM application rates should be higher than NM in all cases (a possible minimum of 5% of the NM rate).  Apply bio-solids in the model monthly to accurately represent field conditions; may need to develop a separate land use and condition vs. manure.  Application of NM as a BMP vs. a land use change to improve transparency and reflect actual field level changes.  Programmatic differences between states due to programs and regulations. Agricultural NM will be evaluated separately from urban NM but a summit will be held to ensure a uniform approach. Considerations:

AgWG Recommendations to Expert Panel (cont.)  Manure volumes, fate, and distribution in the models for NM and non-NM on a regional and local scale.  Decision ag is very broad in definition; affects sequencing in the models which can occur differently for various operations.  Soil testing  Crop tissue testing  Variable rates  Split applications  Incorporation/injection  Slow release materials  Incorporating program changes into the future.  Organic sources of N on legumes – intermediate (base applications on P vs. N)  Limiting fall fertilization of small grains on residual N – intermediate (track as commodity cover crops)

AgWG Recommendations to Expert Panel (cont.)  Applications setbacks for ft. depending on nutrient source and application method.  Eliminate winter applications to turn off nutrient applications for all nutrients; bio-solids, manure, and fertilizer.  Use interim or alternative methods with the current modeling to better represent current NM benefits; e.g. report as decision ag in the future.  More clearly define levels of NM to assist with tracking, reporting, and verification.  Values of one- vs. three-year NM plans for reporting and model credit.  NM management changes for irrigation; e.g. more consistent nutrient uptakes.

AgWG Recommendations to Expert Panel (cont.)  P management tools and data such as from P-I applications to represent P  NM changes due to genetics, yields, and production management over time affecting nutrient updates and removal.  Current conditions of agronomic recommendations that may more closely match plant requirements; e.g. limited benefit of Yield Reserve.  Fertilizer application methods in the models which are currently automatic; should be able to “turn off” applications.  Edge of stream delivery for sediment does not appear to be representative similar to P processes.

AgWG Recommendations to Expert Panel (cont.)  Creating increased transparency of model representation of NM applications and BMPs; capable to reflect regional and local conditions.  Total N and P pools of nutrients available for application in the models versus automated applications.  The balancing of time required for NM planning and implementation vs. tracking, reporting, verification and model data support.  NM evaluation approaches that demonstrate actual impacts vs. standard values; empower the states to report performance through NM effectiveness, soil tests, etc.  CEAP results in evaluation; recommend an NRCS representative on panel.  Standard tracking and reporting by jurisdictions is needed, growing importance of NM and production data in the model; specific definitions are needed to reclassify “NM”.

AgWG Recommendations to Expert Panel (cont.)  Alternate forms of nutrient losses from field applications such as tile drainage (vertical) that could impact effectiveness.  NM may be different for nutrient sources; e.g. manure sources, fertilizer, nursery, pasture, etc.  The averaging of data in the models now cannot provide the level of detail needed to drive water quality for the future – consider new data sets to define performance such as PSNT and CSNT as examples.

AgWG Recommendations to Expert Panel (cont.)  The ability of the models to accept new sources of data from the states to supplement existing data sources.  The concern with transparency of the models is due to complexity – decisions made may have other consequences; adding more rules decreases transparency.  Averaging an acre for nutrient management is not applied in the field, decisions are made by specific crops and conditions – the models need to represent actual processes for nutrient applications and recommendations.  Yield data are currently used to drive plant uptake; which does not adequately represent changes in weather, crop acreages, etc.  PSNT and CSNT are taken to perform adaptive management based on soil and plant processes, but may be able to back calculate performance levels for modeling.

AgWG Recommendations to Expert Panel (cont.)  Changes to defined land uses and appropriate management scenarios are within the ability of the AgWG and the Panel to recommend for the 2017 models.  Alternative options, pilot counties, distributive model vs. lump parameter model, may take longer than a 2017 model.  Evaluate research data from individual farms not only of the effectiveness values but also inputs and outputs (mass balance) for comparing to the model processes.  SB needs to account for multi-year process of nutrients not a single year as of now.  Mineralized N for manure is three years and bio-solids is for 10 years under university recommendations; SB only represents year 1 and the WSM represents years 2-3 as well.  Formula for N forms could be changed; e.g. nitrates vs. ammonia.

AgWG Recommendations to Expert Panel (cont.)  P soil saturations, P limiting applications, etc. with regard to the reporting of P-based plans for future reporting/planning.  Plant genetics changes to nutrient uptake requirements is not reflected in the model data; yield data over past Ag Census data is represented but may not be a good measure of genetic changes.  Negative nutrient balances are not adequately represented in the models, all crop needs are in reality not always met or supplied by manure vs. fertilizer- a model structure question.

Proposal for Interviews  Nutrient Management Expert Panel  Survey tool Emphasis on BMP definition and effectiveness Literature, fact sheets, studies, etc.  Sent to Panel in advance of scheduled call  Call to discuss Panel responses and more Dr. Michael D. Smolen Dr. Deanna Osmond  Summary of calls for Panel

Proposal for Interviews  State agriculture program experts  Survey tool Emphasis on State programs Program guidelines, permits, regulations, restrictions  State profiles sent to experts in advance of call  Call to discuss expert responses and more  Summary of calls for Panel  Other experts identified by AgWG or Panel

Discussion and Additional Experts  Discussion of interview proposal  Recommendations for additional experts to interview

Schedule  December: Tt starts literature search. Panel selection.  January: Panel conference call. Interviews and collection of program info.  Early February: Summary of interviews.  Early February: Citations/abstracts for retrieved literature-first draft. Summary of program information.  Mid February: Consult with modelers on BMP incorporation.  Mid February: Panel initial findings to AgWG.  Early March: Preliminary information for use in Phase 2 WIPs.  March–June: Panel continues research on BMPs. Prepares for reviews and approvals.  June/July: Final recommendations from Panel.  July: Source Sector Review.  July: Technical Review.  August: Approval meeting for WQGIT.  August/September: Final report

Contact Information Steve Dressing Tetra Tech, Inc Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA /