1. Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution and Water Quality as a function of Land Management Practices on Four Kansas Farms William W. Spotts Dr. Donald Huggins Dr. Jerry DeNoyelles Dr. Chip Taylor

2. Introduction Agricultural nonpoint source pollution Best management practices (BMPs) Research: sampling and modeling

3. Agricultural nonpoint source pollution (NPSP) The USEPA has identified agricultural NPSP as the major source of stream and lake contamination preventing attainment of the water quality goals identified in the Clean Water Act. (1988). What ? Nutrients, pesticides, sediment, pathogens Who? Livestock and cropping systems How ? Diffuse, episodic, weather-driven Where ? KDHE 97% of streams and 80% of lakes Why ? Impacts water quality, aquatic communities, reservoirs

4. Nonpoint source pollution: Cropland Tillage Field applications

5. Nonpoint source pollution: Livestock Erosion Fecal coliform N and P loading

6. Introduction Agricultural nonpoint source pollution Best management practices (BMPs) Research: sampling and modeling

7. Best Management Practices (BMPs) Methods, measures or practices designed to prevent or reduce pollution Structural controls Source controls Land management How do you measure the “effectiveness” of BMPs?

8. Introduction Agricultural nonpoint source pollution Best management practices (BMPs) Research: monitoring and modeling

9. Monitoring: Describe trends, evaluate effectiveness Modeling: Predict pollutant movement Goal: Provide reliable estimates of pollutant loads Application: Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)

10. Project overview Clean Water Farms Project Four farms with different land management practices Runoff and groundwater for 2-5 years SIMPLEX for comparisons

11. Important Questions What are typical edge of field concentrations relative to different land management practices ? What factors influence agricultural water quality? How do experimental values compare to the expected values? Can changes in land management lower nutrient and herbicide levels in groundwater and field runoff ?

12. Experimental methods Monitoring program design Sampling efforts SIMPLEX Loading Model

13. Aspects of a NPSP monitoring program Goals Management Opportunistic Adaptable Participation

14. Runoff sampling Sigma 800SL Edge of field data First flush runoff

15. Sampling Shallow Groundwater Lysimeter clusters Depth Transect approach Space

16. Primary agricultural nonpoint source pollutants Nitrogen Phosphorus Atrazine

17. Modeling Runoff SIMPLEX Nutrient Loading Version 1.0 Goal: Estimate runoff volumes ArcView GIS –Aerial Photos (DOQQ) –Land Use / Land Cover (site visits) –Drainage area (DRG) –Soils (SSURGO) Inputs: Watershed area, LU/LC and precipitation

18. DOQQ and LU/LC

19. Add Topography…

20. To define the contributing drainage area

21. LU/LC, Drainage and Soils

22. Runoff volume and loading estimator

23. On-farm research of agricultural NPSP

24. Monitoring crop production systems Land management practices –Stripped-crop rotation –No-till crop production

25. Bartel farm: Stripped-crop rotation Marion County –French Creek Watershed Concerns –Marion Reservoir –Soil fertility and erosion Sampling: Runoff and groundwater Objectives: Nutrient concentrations relative to the crop rotation

26. Stripped-crop rotation: Soybeans and wheat

27. Monitoring program on the Bartel Farm

28. Field applications of “compost” around the sampling sites were unexpected

29. Mean* nutrient and herbicide concentrations: Upper site

30. TN in runoff at the upper sampler

31. TP in runoff at the upper sampler

32. Mean* nutrient and herbicide concentrations at the Bartel farm lower site

33. TN in runoff at the lower sampler Bartel farm Before field applicationsAfter field applications

34. TP in runoff at the lower sampler Bartel farm After field applicationsBefore field applications

35. SIMPLEX modeling on the Bartel farm

36. SIMPLEX Volume calculations Watershed area = 52.2 hectares or 130 Acres

37. Groundwater on the Bartel farm Two clusters Sampled eleven times Nitrogen Phosphorus Atrazine

38. Total nitrogen in groundwater at both sites Bartel farm stripped-crop rotation

39. Total phosphorus in groundwater at both sites Bartel farm stripped-crop rotation

40. Monitoring crop production systems Land management practices –Stripped-crop rotation –No-till crop production

41. Peters Farm: No-Till Marion County –South Cottonwood Watershed Concerns –Nutrients and herbicides in runoff –Groundwater contamination –Soil erosion Sampling: Runoff and groundwater Objectives: Monitor trends in nutrient and herbicide concentrations relative to no-till practices.

42. Residue management at Peters farm

43. Conventional tillage on neighboring farm

44. Monitoring program on the Peters farm

46. Mean* nutrient and herbicide concentrations Peters No-till farm

47. TN in first flush runoff on the Peters farm.1 1 10 100 020406090120150180 Concentration (mg/L) Time (minutes) Sampling Date Jun 22, 98 Sep 20, 98 Oct 2, 98 Oct 11, 98 Nov 10, 98 Jun 16, 99 Aug 1, 99 Nov 22, 99

48. TP in first flush runoff on the Peters farm.001.01.1 1 10 020406090120150180 Concentration (mg/L) Time (minutes) Sampling Date Jun 22, 98 Sep 20, 98 Oct 2, 98 Oct 11, 98 Nov 10, 98 Jun 16, 99 Aug 1, 99 Nov 22, 99

49. Atrazine in first flush runoff on the Peters farm.001.01.1 1 10 100 1000 020406090120150180 Concentration (ug/L) Time (minutes) Sampling Date Jun 22, 98 Sep 20, 98 Oct 2, 98 Oct 11, 98 Jun 16, 99 Aug 1, 99 Kansas statewide average: 1.12 ug/LWatershed average: 1.54 ug/L

50. SIMPLEX Modeling on the Peters farm

51. SIMPLEX Volume calculations Watershed area = 79.4 hectares or 196 acres

52. Groundwater at the Peters farm Sampled 8 times at one location TN < 1.0 mg/L TP < 0.06 mg/L Atrazine < 0.2 ug/L

53. Monitoring livestock operations Land management practices –Land conversion –Rotational grazing

54. Townsend farm: Convert cropland to pasture Dickinson County –Deer Creek Watershed Concerns –Erosion of HEL –Nutrients from cropland Sampling: Runoff and groundwater Objectives: Monitor trends in nutrient concentrations relative to the conversion

55. Continuous wheat alfalfa and fescue

56. Monitoring program on the Townsend farm

57. Mean* nutrient and herbicide concentrations in runoff Townsend farm

58. Total nitrogen in runoff: 1998.1 1 10 100 020406090120150180 Concentration (mg/L) Time (minutes) Sampling Date Jul 7, 98 Jul 30, 98 Aug 26, 98 Sep 24, 98 Sep 30, 98 Oct 17, 98 Nov 1, 98 Townsend farm

59. .1 1 10 020406090120150180 Concentration (mg/L) Time (minutes) Sampling Date Jul 7, 98 Jul 30, 98 Aug 26, 98 Sep 24, 98 Sep 30, 98 Oct 17, 98 Nov 1, 98 Total phosphorus in runoff: 1998 Townsend farm

60. SIMPLEX Modeling on the Townsend farm

61. SIMPLEX Volume calculations Watershed area = 23.1 hectares or 57 acres

62. Groundwater at the Townsend farm Three clusters sampled eight times at 8 feet Total nitrogen: 2 - 5 mg/L Total phosphorus: Two clusters < 0.5 mg/L Upper cluster 0.5 – 1.5 mg/L Atrazine: All clusters < 0.2 ug/L

63. Monitoring livestock operations Land management practices –Land conversion –Rotational grazing

64. Marshall County –Lower Black Vermillion Watershed Concerns –Flooding from creek –Soil erosion –Nutrients in runoff Sampling: Runoff and groundwater Objectives: Monitor trends in nutrient concentrations relative to rotational grazing. Howell Farm: Rotational Grazing

66. Monitoring program on the Howell farm

67. Mean* nutrient and herbicide concentrations Howell farm

68. Total Nitrogen 1 10 100 020406090120150180 Concentration (mg/L) Time (minutes) Sampling Date Jun 9, 98 Sep 28, 98 Nov 1, 98 Jun 22, 99 Jun 20, 00 Jul 17, 00

69. Total Phosphorus.1 1 10 020406090120150180 Concentration (mg/L) Time (minutes) Sampling Date Jun 9, 98 Sep 28, 98 Nov 1, 98 Jun 22, 99 Jun 20, 00 Jul 17, 00

70. SIMPLEX Modeling on the Howell farm

71. SIMPLEX Volume calculations Watershed area = 33 hectares or 82 acres

72. Groundwater at the Howell farm Three clusters –Field –Edge –Riparian Sampled 8 times

75. Review so far Four farms with different land management Runoff and groundwater concentrations SIMPLEX calculates volumes for loading values

76. Important Questions What are typical edge of field concentrations relative to different land management practices ? What factors influence agricultural water quality? How do experimental values compare to the expected values? Can changes in land management lower nutrient and herbicide levels in groundwater and field runoff ?

77. TN in groundwater

78. TP in groundwater

79. Runoff TN concentrations by land use

80. Runoff TP concentrations by land use

81. Important Questions What are typical edge of field concentrations relative to different land management practices ? What factors influence agricultural water quality? How do experimental values compare to the expected values? Can changes in land management lower nutrient and herbicide levels in groundwater and field runoff ?

82. What affects runoff concentrations Natural levels of N and P (soils) Applications (B and P) Land cover (T and P) Hydrograph

83. What does runoff hydrograph look like? Is 8-bottle mean a representative concentration?

84. Important Questions What are typical edge of field concentrations relative to different land management practices ? What factors influence agricultural water quality? How do experimental values compare to the expected values? Can changes in land management lower nutrient and herbicide levels in groundwater and field runoff ?

85. Experimental TN and TP loading Values

86. Loading values from literature

87. Comparing loading values Research Crop production TN: 10.1 and 31.6 TP: 4.1 and 6.8 Livestock Operations TN: 6.1-7.7 TP: 2.5-4.5 Literature Crop production TN: 2.1 to 79.6 TP: 4.1 to 6.8 Livestock Operations TN: 0.26 to 18.6 TP: 0.14 to 4.90

88. Modeling Issues Loading = Volume X Concentration Scale issues affect volume? Representative concentrations?

89. Research Conclusions Runoff and groundwater concentration data varied in a wide but acceptable range. Applications, ground cover and weather patterns impact agricultural water quality. Loading values calculated using SIMPLEX and empirical data are similar to literature. However, BMPs are not likely to cause noticeable decreases in nutrient and herbicide concentrations in the short term.

90. Future study possibilities Identify NPSP “hotspots” Determine field-scale runoff hydrograph

91. Special Thanks Kansas Rural Center Bartels, Peters, Townsends and Howells KBS: Steve, Jeff, Don, Chip and Jerry YOU