Nichole M. Embertson, Ph.D. Whatcom Conservation District ARM...Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Month % of Yearly Total Soil NO3 Ground Water NO3 Gound Water Depth
Post on 26-May-2020
2 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Nichole M. Embertson, Ph.D. Whatcom Conservation District
May 2, 2012 Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer Groundwater Nitrate Science Forum Abbotsford, CN
Background ARM System Assessment Development Implementation and Monitoring Evaluation, Adaptation, and
Outreach Preliminary Findings Questions/Discussion
System to address surface runoff, groundwater leaching, and air emissions in one tool
Minimize pollution risk from manure application with education and effective management tools
Address risk on a spatial and temporal scale Individual field analysis and assessment Seasonal criteria for risk (winter vs. summer, high vs. low
risk) Accountability – ARM Worksheet submittal Flexibility – Farmers have better options when to apply Goal: Integrate ARM into nutrient planning processes
Soil and Ground Water Nitrate
0
5
10
15
20
25
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Month
% o
f Yea
rly T
otal
Soil NO3 Ground Water NO3 Gound Water Depth Precipitation Soil Temp
These are smoothed annual trends based on actual data and will vary depending on soil type and seasonal conditions.
*There is NO nitrate (NO3-) in manure
EPA Watershed grant to develop, test, adapt, and initiate ARM system
4 year study: 2010-2014 Four Overlapping Phases: Phase 1 - Assessment Phase 2 - Development Phase 3 - Implementation and Monitoring Phase 4 - Evaluation, Adaptation, and Outreach
Field Level Risk Assessment Soil risk rating based on 15 factors: Soil type, permeability, seasonal high water table, distance to surface
water, slope, hydrologic group, available water holding capacity, infiltration rate, flooding potential, compaction potential, runoff rate, aquifer recharge, wetlands present, and crop type (i.e., grass or corn)
Example Risk Levels - Runoff: High – Bare ground, adjacent water, high water table, flooding Med-High – Minimal cover, high water table, ponding Medium – Adjacent water, ponding, good infiltration, low slope Low-Med – Dense cover, low water table, minimal slope Low – Grass, no adjacent water, good infiltration, good AWC
Fill out Worksheet Look at forecast Assess individual fields Application equipment Protective measures in place
Worksheet Output Gives warnings, individual
parameter risk ratings, overall risk, and max application rate
Optional tools in the future to enter and log data
Send to WCD Check and revise application if
analysis is incorrect
Application Limiting Factors: Forecast: >0.25 in (day of); 0.5 in (cum. 3d) Soil Moisture: >90% Water Table: <12 in to surface (24 in) Vegetation Cover: <3 in height, <75% cover Conditions: frozen (>1 in), flooded Setbacks – 2x filter strip width (Nov-Feb)
Give overall risk (low-high) Application amount (risk:gal) Under review and revision throughout project
Implementation: Install on test farms (began Fall 2011) Update NMPs to include ARM Field mapping and risk analysis Monitor ARM system
Monitoring, assessment, and validation: Soil, manure, forage, surface water, groundwater,
soil water, and air Analyze application practices and resource
relationships to identify BMPs
Continuous evaluation and adaptation of ARM throughout the project
Workgroups (Partner and Farmer): Offer feedback on system throughout project
Outreach: Education of partners, farmers, and custom
applicators Newsletter, email list, webpage, workshop Manure Spreading Advisory
BMPs and guidelines to reduce pollution risk Adapt ARM to use with all sectors of ag
Nutrient concentration gradient with depth (↓ with ↑ depth)
Soil and soil water nitrate levels not necessarily correlated
Soil types have different leaching characteristics – Effect manure application timing recommendations
Well and lysimeter data is comparable Still many unknowns and questions to be
answered….
top related