Application of multiple approaches to enhance conservation at ceap sites
Download as PPTX, PDF0 likes46 views
This document summarizes research applying multiple approaches to enhance conservation at two sites in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Researchers surveyed riparian buffer sites, assessed stream and wetland conditions, and modeled hydrologic impacts. Field surveys found buffers averaged 80 meters wide but were often bisected. Rapid assessments rated most sites as sub-optimal. Modeling showed buffers reduced nutrients by 25-50% but 39% of flows bypassed buffers. New sensors will monitor real-time water quality. The research aims to better understand buffer functions and identify opportunities to improve conservation practices.
Application of multiple approaches to enhance conservation at ceap sites
- 1. Application of Multiple Approaches to Enhance Conservation at the Mahantango Creek and Choptank CEAP Sites Curtis Dell USDA Agriculture Research Service, University Park, PA With Tamie Veith, Pete Kleinman, Kyle Eklin, Ray Bryant, Greg McCarty, Carlington Wallace, Rob Brooks, and Erik Hagan: USDA-ARS and Penn State
- 2. Performance of CREP Buffers in Chesapeake Watersheds ARS, Penn State, State College ARS, Beltsville, PA ASSESSMENT 1. Survey sites 2. Evaluate 3. Extrapolate USFS, Annapolis, MD FSA, NRCS Washington, DC VaTech, Blacksburg, VA
- 3. CREP – Buffer Selection Chesapeake Watershed: 15,000 CP-22 buffers SELECTION CRITERIA: • away from coastal features (> 300 m) • expiration date (2017 or later) • adjacent to riverine systems (< 100 m) = 8,000 • random selection of sites, equal number per ecoregion (20%) = 300 sites total in pool, selected 150 sites to sample Sites by Geophysical Region Coastal Plain Pied- mont Ridge and Valley Appal. Plateau No. Sites 30 30 28 29 Area (ha) 1.9 1.8 1.8 2.3 Length (m) 284 339 367 331 Adjusted Width (m) 96 73 68 82 Slope (%) 1.3 5.5 10.0 5.3
- 4. CREP – Results - Geometry Total/ Average Headwater Mainstem No. Sites 149 117 32 Area (ha) 2.0 1.9 2.4 Length (m) 345 330 405 Total Width (m) 119 114 123 Adjusted Width (m) 80 103 • Longer when located near mainstems Buffers: • Can be quite narrow • Usually located parallel to streams: 95% • Often bisected by streams in headwaters Perimeter to Area Ratio 0.05 0.05 0.06 • Show shape complexity 4th order stream 1st order stream
- 5. Rapid Field Assessment: Stream-Wetland-Riparian (SWR) Index - index of aquatic ecosystem condition (~ 2h) Training State Agency Personnel: protocols for surveying sites Equipment: provided paper forms, measurement tools, etc. Problems encountered: polygons with less than 0.8 ha were eliminated (~50%); access denied or not answering phone calls (12%) CREP – Buffer Field Survey – Thanks to the FS field crews! FINAL NUMBER of VISITED SITES: 149 Stream Order Physiographic Region Number of Sites 1 Headwater Coastal Plain 30 2 Headwater Piedmont 30 3 Headwater Ridge and Valley 28 4 Headwater Allegheny Plateau 29 5 Mainstem All Regions 32
- 6. CREP - Stream Wetland Riparian (SWR) Final SWR Score All Sites 0.63 Headwater 0.62 Mainstem 0.65 Coastal Plain 0.59 Piedmont 0.56 Ridge & Valley 0.63 Allegheny Plateau 0.70 p<.0001 Rapid Field Assessment (Floodplain – In Stream Determinations) Values normalized to a 0 – 1 scale relative to pristine, native forest Optimal Sub-Optimal Marginal Poor 15% 72% 12% 1% 15% 70% 14% 1% 13% 81% 6% 0% 3% 80% 17% 0% 3% 77% 20% 0% 18% 75% 4% 4% 43% 43% 13% 0%
- 7. Modeling Objectives 1. Evaluate concentrated flowpaths and hydrologic (bypass) features affecting riparian buffers (CP22) effectiveness 2. Quantify nutrient and sediment reduction benefits of current CRP 3. Predict added benefit of additional conservation practices
- 8. Modeling Methods Forested riparian buffers flowpath analysis Use high resolution LiDAR DEM to determine: • Topographic openness in low relief landscape (convexity or concavity of a landscape location) • Flow accumulation in high relief landscape using flow-tracing algorithm (traces the flow across each cell in a DEM separately until flow finally leaves the DEM) Topo-SWAT hydrologic water quality modeling N, P and sediment losses simulated on daily time-step • 2007-2014 cropping sequences and climate 3 riparian buffer scenarios • Pre-CP cropland • CP-21: established grass • CP-22: mature forest Average annual losses compared across scenarios • Locally: differences in transport behavior • Across CRPs: total versus effective contributing areas
- 9. A) Potential contributing area of approximately 72 acres (29 ha) intersected by micro ditches B) Buffer effective contributing area is limited to 5 acres (2 ha) Forested riparian buffers flowpath analysis: Tuckahoe watershed
- 10. A) Site with two concentrated flowpaths that fully transect the buffer, with the largest flowpath draining approximately 59% of the contributing area B) Site with a major concentrated flowpath where grassed waterway is implemented along with CP22 to maximize efficiency. Forested riparian buffers flowpath analysis: Mahantango Creek watershed
- 11. 6.7 kg P/ha 20 kg N/ha TN kg/ha TP kg/ha Without CREP With CP22 (Today) N, kg/ha 30% reduction 20 -> 14 25% reduction P, kg/ha 6.7 -> 5.0 Bypass Area Bypass Area % bypassing buffer N P Sed 39% 38% 44% Redesign CP22 to treat bypass flowN, kg/ha 14 -> 10 P, kg/ha 5.0 -> 4.1 39% reduction 50% reduction
- 12. C1 C2 C3 C4 WIP TMDL Total N 22 26 38 44 12 25 Total P 7 11 14 15 15 25 Sediment 4 24 27 29 41 30 % reduction from baseline Targeted wooded buffers, and no-till and N-mgt in high risk areas Mahantango + manure injection, cover crop in high risk areas; grass buffers on streams + No-till in medium risk areas + No-till in low risk areas 12 15 41 44 15 29 0 10 20 30 40 50 Total N Total P Sediment NutrientLossReduction(%) 25% 25% 30%TMDL goal $24/ha: WIP $ 7/ha: "smart" BMP cost
- 13. Multifunctional Approach Current Paradigm Photo: Patrick Ma Management flexibility focused on outcomes Different strategies can produce desired ecosystem services
- 14. PACT Rating performance based upon the literature SERVICES MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Buffers and stream restoration Grazing Annual crops PROVISIONING REGULATING SUPPORTING
- 15. PACT Application Examples from the Riparian Zone Grazing Rotational Grazing in Pasture Flash Grazing in Buffer Improved Stream Crossing Scenario 3: Optimized Grazing Benefits: - Stream Water Access - Improved grassland habitat - Improved water quality - Improved erosion prevention - Improved Provisioning Services - Improved Pasture/soil health - Maximized grazing potential Cons: - Not optimized habitat - Not optimized shading potential - Some nutrient/fecal loading Scenario 1: Over grazed Benefits: - Stream Water Access - Ease of Management - Ease of Maintenance - Maximized grazing area Cons: - Degraded water quality - Degraded Habitat - Degraded Animal Health - Poor pasture condition - Degrading soil health - …. Scenario 2: CREP Benefits: - Optimized Habitat - Water quality improvements - Natural Ecosystem processes - Erosion mitigation enhanced - Grassed waterway Cons: - Unmanaged concentrated flows - Enhanced nutrient cycling through leaf senescence - unmanaged regrowth - Removal of provisioning service potential Photo: Patrick Ma
- 16. CEAP – New Real Time Water Quality Sensors Testing at the Mahantango Creek Watershed
- 17. Contacts • Project overview: Pete Kleinman (peter.kleinman@ars.usda.gov) • Site Assessment: Rob Brooks (rpb2@psu.edu) • Modeling: Tamie Veith (tamie.veith@ars.usda.gov) • PACT tool: Erik Hagen (erik.hagan@psu.edu) • New measurement technologies: Kyle Elkin (kyle.elkin@ars.usda.gov) Funding USDA-NRCS CEAP, USDA-FSA, and USDA-ARS