Transcript Conservation in the 2002 Farm Bill

Assessing the Need
for Additional Conservation
2013 Pennsylvania
Inter-Agency
Nutrient Management
Annual Conference
Dan Dostie
June 2013
CEAP: An Interagency Project
Conservation Effects Assessment Projects:




Strengthen the Science Base
Assess Current Environmental Benefits
Assess the Need for Additional Conservation
Formulate How Best to Manage the Landscape
Chesapeake Bay Region . . .
Key Findings for Cultivated Cropland:
1.
Voluntary, incentive-based conservation works
• Most cropland acres by 2006 have practices to control erosion
– Nearly half are protected by structures such as buffers or terraces
– Reduced tillage is used in some form on 88 percent
2.
Accomplishments are reducing losses from fields
•
•
•
•
edge of field sediment loss reduced by 55%
losses of nitrogen with surface runoff by 42%,
losses of nitrogen in subsurface flows by 31%, and
losses of phosphorus (sediment attached and soluble) by 41%
Key Findings for Cropland
3.
Opportunities exist to make further reductions
• 19% (810,000 acres) have a high need for additional
conservation practices to further reduce:
–
–
–
–
4.
edge-of-field sediment loss by 37 percent,
losses of nitrogen with surface runoff by 27 percent,
losses of nitrogen in subsurface flows by 20 percent, and
losses of phosphorus (sediment-attached and soluble) by 25 percent.
Targeting improves effectiveness of conservation
• acres most prone to runoff or leaching and with low levels of
conservation practice use—can reduce sediment and nutrient peracre losses by over twice as much!
Key Findings for Cropland
5.
Comprehensive is essential
• The most critical conservation concern is to reduce nutrient
losses, especially nitrogen . . . .
• Suites of practices that include soil erosion control and
comprehensive nutrient management appropriate rate, form,
timing, and (method) placement of application are required
6.
Cropland, only 10% of the region, delivers its
share of the load to rivers and streams too . . .
•
•
•
22 percent of the sediment,
31 percent of the nitrogen, and
28 percent of the phosphorus
Loads delivered to streams\rivers
Land Use:
Nitrogen :
Sediment:
Phosphorous:
Need for additional conservation
Compared to inherent vulnerability:

A high level of need exists on ~ 810,000 acres,
 19% need a lot!
 A moderate level of need exists on ~ 2.6 million acres,
 61% need more!
 A low level of need exist on ~ 872,000 acres,
 20% need little
The greatest reductions of sediment and or nutrient
losses come from targeted comprehensive conservation.
Inherent vulnerability?
Target conservation HERE:

Areas of sloping soils are more vulnerable to overland
flow of surface water and consequently to polluted water
runoff:




loss of sediment and attached P
loss of N
loss of dissolved P
Areas of level, permeable soils are more prone to
nitrogen losses through subsurface pathways
WHERE???
Characteristics of the region:

10% of basin in cultivated cropland
 38% of cropland receive manure
 44% of cropland is HEL
 23% has high runoff potential
 46% mod high\high leaching potential


44% + 46% = 90% . . .
Map shows land cover, red is urban, yellow is
corn, soybean, wheat, orange is grass pasture,
light green alfalfa
Here . . .
Going in the right direction . . .
Current conditions are better than no practices
and are reducing loads to rivers and streams:
 Sediment
loads by 57%,
 total
nitrogen loads by 36%, and
 total
phosphorus loads by 39%.
Potential for gains . . .
Targeting comprehensive conservation could
further reduce loads beyond current loads:

Sediment by 84% gaining from 57 to ~93%!

total nitrogen by 52% gaining from 36 to ~69%!

total phosphorus by 51% gaining from 39 to ~59%
To rivers and streams, not just edge of field . . . .
Helping the Bay too . . .
Targeting on cultivated cropland further
reduces loads to the Bay from ALL sources:

sediment by 6% gaining from
10% to 15%

total nitrogen by 15% gaining from
14% to 27%

total phosphorus by 12% gaining
from 14% to 59%
Gains from Winter Cover Crops
When used properly, cover crops:
 protect
the soil from erosion during the winter
months,
 take
up nutrients remaining in the soil, and
 release
plant available nutrients slowly over the
subsequent cropping period, thereby reducing
nutrient leaching and runoff during the nongrowing season
Gains from Winter Cover Crops
Determining Level of Conservation

Avoid: avoid excess nutrients, pesticides, and
tillage with in-field applied practices

Control: control losses not avoided with in-field
applied practices (terrace, contouring, etc)

Trap: losses not avoided or controlled need to be
trapped by filters, buffers, artificial wetlands, etc
More potential gains . . .
Emerging technologies that have potential to
further reduce nutrient loss from farm fields:
 variable rate technology for precise nutrient
application rates and placement methods;

nitrogen use efficiency enhancers (time release
and ammonia loss inhibitors);

Less so in Pennsylvania:


drainage water management which reduces late fall\early spring flushes of nitrate-laden drainage water;
constructed wetlands that receive surface water runoff from fields prior to discharge to streams\rivers
Additional help to meet the need
PA No Till Alliance
Additional help to meet the need
PASA, PCO, Rodale, and more
for example only . . .
And a new alliance emerging . . .
PA 4Rs Alliance
• the right source
•
at the right rate
•
at the right time
•
in the right place