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

Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution and Water Quality as afunction of Land Management Practices on Four Kansas Farms

William W. Spotts

Dr. Donald Huggins

Dr. Jerry DeNoyelles

Dr. Chip Taylor

Introduction

• Agricultural nonpoint source pollution

• Best management practices (BMPs)

• Research: sampling and modeling

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

Nonpoint source pollution: Cropland

• Tillage

• Field applications

Nonpoint source pollution: Livestock

• Erosion

• Fecal coliform

• N and P loading

Introduction

• Agricultural nonpoint source pollution

• Best management practices (BMPs)

• Research: sampling and modeling

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?

Introduction

• Agricultural nonpoint source pollution

• Best management practices (BMPs)

• Research: monitoring and modeling

Research: monitoring and modeling

• Monitoring: Describe trends, evaluate effectiveness

• Modeling: Predict pollutant movement

• Goal: Provide reliable estimates of pollutant loads

• Application: Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)

Project overview

• Clean Water Farms Project

• Four farms with different land management practices

• Runoff and groundwater for 2-5 years

• SIMPLEX for comparisons

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 ?

Experimental methods

• Monitoring program design

• Sampling efforts

• SIMPLEX Loading Model

Aspects of a NPSP monitoring program

• Goals

• Management

• Opportunistic

• Adaptable

• Participation

Runoff sampling

• Sigma 800SL

• Edge of field data

• First flush runoff

Sampling Shallow Groundwater

• Lysimeter clustersDepth

• Transect approachSpace

Primary agricultural nonpoint source pollutants

• Nitrogen

• Phosphorus

• Atrazine

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

DOQQ and LU/LC

Add Topography…

To define the contributing drainage area

LU/LC, Drainage and Soils

Runoff volume and loading estimator

On-farm research of agricultural NPSP

Kansas EcoregionsCentral Great PlainsCentral Irregular PlainsCentral Oklahoma/Texas PlainsFlint HillsOzark HighlandsSouthwestern TablelandsWestern Corn Belt PlainsWestern High Plains

Monitoring crop production systems

• Land management practices– Stripped-crop rotation– No-till crop production

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

Stripped-crop rotation: Soybeans and wheat

Monitoring program on the Bartel Farm

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

Mean* nutrient and herbicide concentrations: Upper site

TN in runoff at the upper sampler

1

10

100

0 20 40 60 90 120150180

Conce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/L

)Jun 23, 97Jul 29, 97Jul 16, 99Sep 14, 99May 26, 00

TP in runoff at the upper sampler

.1

1

10

0 20 40 60 90 120150180

Conce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/L

)

Jun 23, 97Jul 29, 97Jul 16, 99Sep 14, 99May 26, 00

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

Sampling Date Rain TN TP AtrazineNov 16, 96 3.0 8.16 0.80 0.01Jun 23, 97 0.7 4.14 1.45 0.28Sep 24, 98 4.7 4.86 1.23 0.03Oct 2, 98 3.8 3.86 0.74 0.03Oct 31, 98 0.9 5.51 0.92 0.01Nov 10, 98 2.4 0.31 0.18 0.01Pre-application mean 3.74 0.89 0.06

"Compost" Added in Fall 98

Sampling Date Rain TN TP AtrazineJun 18, 99 1.1 9.83 1.22 0.75Jul 16, 99 1.9 13.44 2.82 0.30Sep 14, 99 1.7 22.06 3.39 0.01Nov 22, 99 2.4 19.53 3.58 0.18May 26, 00 1.5 35.31 10.28 0.47Jun 13, 00 0.9 20.67 4.71 0.47Jul 19, 00 1.0 35.09 7.98 0.13Post-application mean 22.28 4.85 0.33

TN in runoff at the lower samplerBartel farm

.1

1

10

100

0 20 40 60 90 120 150 180

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L)

Time (minutes)

Sampling Date

Jun 23, 97Sep 24, 98Sep 25, 98Oct 2, 98Oct 31, 98Nov 10, 98

Before field applications After field applications

.1

1

10

100

0 20 40 60 90 120 150 180C

once

ntra

tion

(mg/

L)

Time (minutes)

Sampling Date

Jun 18, 99Jul 16, 99Sep 14, 99Nov 22, 99May 26, 00Jun 13, 00Jul 19, 00

TP in runoff at the lower samplerBartel farm

After field applications

.1

1

10

100

0 20 40 60 90120150180

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L)

Sampling Date

Jun 23, 97Sep 24, 98Sep 25, 98Oct 2, 98Oct 31, 98Nov 10, 98

Before field applications

.1

1

10

100

0 20 40 60 90120150180

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L)

Sampling Date

Jun 18, 99Jul 16, 99Sep 14, 99Nov 22, 99May 26, 00Jun 13, 00Jul 19, 00

SIMPLEX modeling on the Bartel farm

SIMPLEX Volume calculationsRunoff Volume

inches cm m3 TN TP TN kg/event TP kg/event TN kg/ha TP kg/haJun 23, 97 0.7 1.8 633.6 4.14 1.45 2.62 0.92 0.05 0.02Sep 24, 98 4.7 11.9 39540.1 4.86 1.23 192.16 48.63 3.68 0.93Oct 2, 98 3.8 9.7 29310.3 3.86 0.74 113.14 21.69 2.17 0.42Oct 31, 98 0.9 2.3 1476.1 5.51 0.92 8.13 1.36 0.16 0.03Nov 10, 98 2.4 6.1 13783.9 0.31 0.18 4.27 2.48 0.08 0.05Jun 18, 99 1.1 2.8 2617.9 9.83 1.22 25.73 3.19 0.49 0.06Jul 16, 99 1.9 4.8 8941.4 13.44 2.82 120.17 25.21 2.30 0.48Sep 14, 99 1.7 4.3 7153.3 22.06 3.39 157.80 24.25 3.02 0.46Nov 22, 99 2.4 6.1 13783.9 19.53 3.58 269.20 49.35 5.16 0.95May 26, 00 1.5 3.8 5445.6 35.31 10.28 192.28 55.98 3.68 1.07Jun 13, 00 0.9 2.3 1476.1 20.67 4.71 30.51 6.95 0.58 0.13Jul 19, 00 1.0 2.5 1916.1 35.09 7.98 67.24 15.29 1.29 0.29Sums 23.0 58.4 126078.3 1183.3 255.3 22.7 4.9

ExportSampling Date Rainfall 8 bottle mean Loading

Watershed area = 52.2 hectares or 130 Acres

Groundwater on the Bartel farm

• Two clusters• Sampled eleven times

• Nitrogen

• Phosphorus

• Atrazine

Total nitrogen in groundwater at both sites

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Jul 19, 96

Jun 14, 97

Aug 7, 97

Jul 22, 98

A

ug 4, 98

Dec 2, 98

Jul 15, 99

S

ep 7, 99

Dec 8, 99

M

ay 13, 00

Jul 19, 00

Upper Site

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L)

0.0

16.0

32.0

48.0

64.0

80.0

Jul 19, 96

Jun 14, 97

Aug 7, 97

Jul 22, 98

Aug 4, 98

Dec 2, 98

Jul 15, 99

Sep 7, 99

D

ec 8, 99

May 13, 00

Jul 19, 00

Lower site

Depth (ft) 1 4 8

Bartel farm stripped-crop rotation

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Jul 19, 96

Jun 14, 97

Aug 7, 97

Jul 22, 98

A

ug 4, 98

Dec 2, 98

Jul 15, 99

S

ep 7, 99

Dec 8, 99

M

ay 13, 00

Jul 19, 00

Upper Site

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Jul 19, 96

Jun 14, 97

Aug 7, 97

Jul 22, 98

A

ug 4, 98

Dec 2, 98

Jul 15, 99

S

ep 7, 99

Dec 8, 99

M

ay 13, 00

Jul 19, 00

Lower Site

Depth (ft) 1 4 8

Total phosphorus in groundwater at both sites

Bartel farm stripped-crop rotation

Monitoring crop production systems

• Land management practices– Stripped-crop rotation– No-till crop production

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.

Residue management at Peters farm

Conventional tillage on neighboring farm

Monitoring program on the Peters farm

Mean* nutrient and herbicide concentrationsPeters No-till farm

Sampling Date Rain TN TP AtrazineJun 22, 98 2.3 3.06 0.49 2.45

Sep 20, 980 1.2 2.53 1.69 0.13

Oct 2, 981 1.1 1.46 1.03 0.10

Oct 11, 981 1.5 0.32 0.01 0.02

Nov 10, 981 0.5 2.58 0.81 -Jun 16, 99 0.5 3.37 0.34 45.36Pre-construction mean 2.22 0.73 9.61

Aug 1, 99 2.1 8.52 1.08 26.87Nov 22, 99 2.5 19.53 3.53 -Site mean 14.03 2.31 12.08

Construction on grassed waterway

TN in first flush runoff on the Peters farm

.1

1

10

100

0 20 40 60 90 120 150 180

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L)

Time (minutes)

Sampling DateJun 22, 98Sep 20, 98Oct 2, 98Oct 11, 98Nov 10, 98Jun 16, 99Aug 1, 99Nov 22, 99

TP in first flush runoff on the Peters farm

.001

.01

.1

1

10

0 20 40 60 90 120 150 180

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L)

Time (minutes)

Sampling DateJun 22, 98Sep 20, 98Oct 2, 98Oct 11, 98Nov 10, 98Jun 16, 99Aug 1, 99Nov 22, 99

Atrazine in first flush runoff on the Peters farm

.001

.01

.1

1

10

100

1000

0 20 40 60 90 120 150 180

Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/L)

Time (minutes)

Sampling DateJun 22, 98Sep 20, 98Oct 2, 98Oct 11, 98Jun 16, 99Aug 1, 99

Kansas statewide average: 1.12 ug/L Watershed average: 1.54 ug/L

SIMPLEX Modeling on the Peters farm

SIMPLEX Volume calculations

Sampling Date Runoff Volumeinches cm m3 TN TP TN kg/event TP kg/event TN kg/ha TP kg/ha

Jun 22, 98 2.2 5.6 12758 3.06 0.49 39.0 6.3 0.49 0.08

Sep 20, 980 4.2 10.7 42707 2.53 1.69 108.0 72.2 1.36 0.91Oct 02, 98 4.1 10.4 41001 1.46 1.3 59.9 53.3 0.75 0.67Oct 11, 98 1.5 3.8 5099 0.32 0.01 1.6 0.1 0.02 0.00Nov 10, 98 5.8 14.7 40695 5.58 0.81 227.1 33.0 2.86 0.42Jun 16, 99 0.5 1.3 147 3.37 0.34 0.5 0.05 0.01 0.00Aug 1, 99 0.4 1.0 303 8.52 0.44 2.6 0.1 0.03 0.00Nov 22, 99 2.4 6.1 14915 5.79 3.53 86.4 52.6 1.09 0.66Sums 21.1 53.6 157624.1 525.1 217.6 6.6 2.7

8 bottle mean ExportRainfall Loading

Watershed area = 79.4 hectares or 196 acres

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

Monitoring livestock operations

• Land management practices– Land conversion – Rotational grazing

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

Continuous wheat alfalfa and fescue

Monitoring program on the Townsend farm

Mean* nutrient and herbicide concentrations in runoff Townsend farm

Sampling Date Rain TN TP Atrazine

Jul 28, 97 0.8 3.72 1.19 0.01

Jul 7, 98 0.5 2.81 0.79 0.42

Jul 30, 98 3.7 3.14 0.68 0.16

Aug 26, 98 0.8 9.73 2.39 0.05

Sep 24, 98 1.1 3.50 1.13 0.03

Sep 30, 98 1.3 4.09 1.02 0.03

Oct 17, 98 1.4 2.66 0.81 1.00

Nov 1, 98 4.9 1.56 0.43 0.21

Jun 18, 99 0.8 2.91 1.04 0.21

Aug 2, 99 3.6 1.41 0.94 0.26

4.1 1.04 0.14Site Mean Value

Total nitrogen in runoff: 1998

.1

1

10

100

0 20 40 60 90 120 150 180

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg

/L)

Time (minutes)

Sampling DateJul 7, 98Jul 30, 98Aug 26, 98Sep 24, 98Sep 30, 98Oct 17, 98Nov 1, 98

Townsend farm

.1

1

10

0 20 40 60 90 120 150 180

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L)

Time (minutes)

Sampling DateJul 7, 98Jul 30, 98Aug 26, 98Sep 24, 98Sep 30, 98Oct 17, 98Nov 1, 98

Total phosphorus in runoff: 1998Townsend farm

SIMPLEX Modeling on the Townsend farm

SIMPLEX Volume calculations

Sampling Date Runoff Volumeinches cm m3 TN TP TN kg/event TP kg/event TN kg/ha TP kg/ha

Jul 28, 97 0.8 2.0 420.3 3.72 1.19 1.6 0.5 0.1 0.0Jul 7, 98 0.5 1.3 36.5 2.81 0.79 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0Jul 30, 98 3.7 9.4 12221.9 3.14 0.68 38.4 8.3 1.7 0.4Aug 26, 98 0.8 2.0 420.3 9.73 2.39 4.1 1.0 0.2 0.0Sep 24, 98 1.1 2.8 1112.7 3.5 1.13 3.9 1.3 0.2 0.1Sep 30, 98 1.3 3.3 1701.8 4.09 1.02 7.0 1.7 0.3 0.1Oct 17, 98 1.4 3.6 2032.8 2.66 0.81 5.4 1.6 0.2 0.1Nov 1, 98 4.9 12.4 18470.7 1.56 0.43 28.8 7.9 1.2 0.3Jun 18, 99 0.8 2.0 420.3 2.91 1.04 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.0Aug 2, 99 3.6 9.1 11706.1 1.41 0.94 16.5 11.0 0.7 0.5Sum 18.9 48.0 48543.4 106.9 33.9 4.6 1.5

8 bottle mean ExportRainfall Loading

Watershed area = 23.1 hectares or 57 acres

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

Monitoring livestock operations

• Land management practices– Land conversion – Rotational grazing

•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

Monitoring program on the Howell farm

Mean* nutrient and herbicide concentrationsHowell farm

Sampling Date Rain TN TP AtrazineJun 9, 98 1.2 6.61 2.46 0.25Sep 28, 98 4.4 1.92 1.65 0.12Nov 10, 98 1.0 3.34 1.83 0.01Jun 22, 99 0.8 4.09 0.41 0.20Jun 2, 00 0.8 2.53 2.42 0.26Jul 17, 00 1.8 1.63 1.43 0.05

3.34 1.70 0.18Site Mean Value

Total Nitrogen

1

10

100

0 20 40 60 90 120 150 180

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg

/L)

Time (minutes)

Sampling DateJun 9, 98Sep 28, 98Nov 1, 98Jun 22, 99Jun 20, 00Jul 17, 00

Total Phosphorus

.1

1

10

0 20 40 60 90 120 150 180

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg

/L)

Time (minutes)

Sampling DateJun 9, 98Sep 28, 98Nov 1, 98Jun 22, 99Jun 20, 00Jul 17, 00

SIMPLEX Modeling on the Howell farm

SIMPLEX Volume calculations

Sampling Date Runoff Volumeinches cm m3 TN TP TN kg/event TP kg/event TN kg/ha TP kg/ha

Jun 11, 98 1.2 3.0 1640 6.61 2.46 10.8 4.0 0.33 0.12Sep 28, 98 4.4 11.2 20943 1.92 1.65 40.2 34.6 1.22 1.05Nov 10, 98 1.0 2.5 931 3.34 1.83 3.1 1.7 0.09 0.05Jun 22, 99 0.8 2.0 468 4.09 0.41 1.9 0.2 0.06 0.01Jun 2, 00 0.8 2.0 468 2.53 2.42 1.2 1.1 0.04 0.03Jul 17, 00 1.8 4.6 4268 1.63 1.43 7.0 6.1 0.21 0.18Sums 10 25.4 28717 64.2 47.7 1.9 1.4

8 bottle mean ExportRainfall Loading

Watershed area = 33 hectares or 82 acres

Groundwater at the Howell farm• Three clusters

– Field

– Edge

– Riparian

• Sampled 8 times

Review so far

• Four farms with different land management

• Runoff and groundwater concentrations

• SIMPLEX calculates volumes for loading values

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 ?

TN in groundwater

.01

.1

1

10

100

Bartel-1

Bartel-2

How

ell-1

How

ell-2

How

ell-3

Peters-1

Townsend-1

Townsend-2

Townsend-3

TNC

once

ntra

tion

(mg/

L)

TP in groundwater

.001

.01

.1

1

10

Bartel-1

Bartel-2

How

ell-1

How

ell-2

How

ell-3

Peters-1

Townsend-1

Townsend-2

Townsend-3

TP

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L)

Runoff TN concentrations by land use

.1

1

10

100

B-Low

er

B-M

anure

H-G

razing

P-N

o-till

T-Conversion

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L)

Runoff TP concentrations by land use

.001

.01

.1

1

10

100

B-Low

er

B-M

anure

H-G

razing

P-N

o-till

T-Conversion

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L)

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 ?

What affects runoff concentrations

• Natural levels of N and P (soils)

• Applications (B and P)

• Land cover (T and P)

• Hydrograph

• What does runoff hydrograph look like?

• Is 8-bottle mean a representative concentration?

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 ?

Experimental TN and TP loading Values

CropRain TN TP Factor TN TP

Bartel 23 22.7 4.9 1.4 31.6 6.8Peters 21 6.6 2.7 1.5 10.1 4.1

KS annual rain = 32 inches

GrazingRain TN TP Factor TN TP

Townsend 19 4.6 1.5 1.7 7.7 2.5Howell 10 1.9 1.4 3.2 6.1 4.5

kg/ha/yrkg/ha

kg/ha kg/ha/yr

Loading values from literature

Total phosphorus (kg/ha/yr)Rowcrops Rowcrops

Mean 16.09 Mean 4.46Median 9.00 Median 2.24Range 2.1 79.6 Range 0.26 18.6

Grazing GrazingMean 8.65 Mean 1.50Median 5.19 Median 0.81Range 1.48 30.85 Range 0.14 4.90

Total Nitrogen (kg/ha/yr)

Comparing loading values

Research• Crop production

TN: 10.1 and 31.6TP: 4.1 and 6.8

• Livestock OperationsTN: 6.1-7.7TP: 2.5-4.5

Literature• Crop production

TN: 2.1 to 79.6TP: 4.1 to 6.8

• Livestock Operations TN: 0.26 to 18.6TP: 0.14 to 4.90

Modeling Issues

Loading = Volume X Concentration

Scale issues affect volume?

Representative concentrations?

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.

Future study possibilities

• Identify NPSP “hotspots”

• Determine field-scale runoff hydrograph

Special Thanks

• Kansas Rural Center

• Bartels, Peters, Townsends and Howells

• KBS: Steve, Jeff, Don, Chip and Jerry

YOU