tmdl: an agricultural perspective, bill hafs, 9/2010

8/8/2019 TMDL: An Agricultural Perspective, Bill Hafs, 9/2010

1/45

1

TMDLan

Agricultural

Perspective

Wauwatosa, WisconsinSeptember 15, 2010

7th Annual Clean Rivers, Clean Lake Conference

Mark Hagedorn

Brown County

UW Extension

Bill HafsBrown County

Land and Water Conservation Department


2/45

Presentation Overview

Current livestock situation inNE Wisconsin

Industry trends Land use trends

Distribution/densities of

livestock Surface water

Overview of the Lower FoxRiver TMDL

2


3/45

3

Livestock Numbers

All Cattle and Calves (Fox- Wolf Basin)

Cattle Cropland Acres/Cow

Brown 105,000 162,000 1.54Outagamie 85,000 194,700 2.29Winnebago 32,000 127,600 3.99Calumet 60,000 120,900 2.02Fond du Lac 100,000 242,700 2.26Waupaca 55,000 134,400 2.44Shawano 85,000 171,900 2.02

Counties with highest cattle numbersGrant 173,000 330,000 1.91Dane 143,500 363,400 2.53Marathon 139,000 288,200 2.07Clark 136,500 235,800 1.73

Dodge 106,500 304,400 2.86Manitowoc 97,000 183,800 1.89

* 2009 Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics


4/45

4

Brown County 18 existing CAFO permits (>1000 AU)

13 potential (>500 AU) CAFO permits.

1000 (1400 lb) dairy cows generatesthe waste = 18,000 humans (source

DNR)

80,000 animal units = 1,440,000humans (waste equivalents).

City of Green Bay + De Pere Metro

area = 200,000 humans on GBMSD.100 Staff work at sewage district.


5/45

5

1000 Animal Unit

Operations(statewide 2007 DNR)64/134 Dairy CAFOs in NE Wisconsin

Less than 5 CAFOs In Wisconsin in 1985


6/45

Crop

Potatoes

Barley

Corn

Hay

Peas

Oats

Snap Beans

Soybeans

Sweet Corn

Wheat

1969

50

700

67,800

87,000

1,600

47,300

300

100

2,100

150

207,100

1981

750

65,000

74,000

2,500

31,500

1,200

200

1,600

2,050

178,800

2008

62,000

61,800

22,400

15,800

162,000

Brown County Crop

Production Overview


7/45

Production/Cow

# Cows# HerdsAve. Herd SizeCattle All

19699,950

#/head

40,9191,348~ 30

198113,200

#/head

39,200

91,400

200822,300

#/head

41,000239

~172105,000

In 1975, there were 40,000 cows.

Cattle All = 88,200

Brown County Dairy

Production Overview


8/45

8

Land Use

Brown County total land areaapproximately 350,000 acres.

Year Farms Land in Farms

1954 2,672 300,900 acres1972 1,920 274,800 acres

1978 1,730 263,400 acres

1983 1,480 241,500 acres

2008 1,053* 162,000 acres

2010 ??

(Source: 1991 Brown County Farmland Preservation Plan; NASS 2007*, 2009)


9/45

Fox River and Milwaukee River

Upstream Areas with largeAgriculture areas flow downstream

to Large Urban area. Trends reduced agriculture areas

because of urban sprawl and lesscropland.

Fewer farms, larger farms, milkproduction and manure productionper cow increased.

Urban sprawl + increased farmsize = potential for conflict.


10/45


11/45

11

Distribution and

Livestock Density


12/45

Trends2009 US Dairy Statistics Milk Production

(Source: Progressive Dairyman)

State Ranking in Total Milk productionWisconsin is #2 nationwide.

Wisconsin average herd size = 95

Number dairy herds 13,170 (13,730 in 2008)

TOP DAIRY COUNTIES IN MIDWEST Region

(12 states) Milk 2008-09

1. Stearns Mn (106 million lbs) +67%

2. Clark (103 million lbs) +35%3. Marathon (94 million lbs) +25%4. Dane (94 million lbs) +15%5. Fond du Lac (81 million lbs) +39%6. Brown (80 million lbs) +16%

(14% in 2008)

7. Outagamie (75 million lbs) +40%


13/45

13

Sustainability

How many acres are needed per AU forland spreading of animal waste forPhosphorus?

Clemson University 3 acres/cow P(Planning Free stall Facilities for the Expanding Dairy John P. Chastain,Ph.D. Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering ClemsonUniversity 2000 )

UWEX,CALS, DATCP, USDA 1.6 2.9 acres/ cow P(UWEX, CALS, USDA-ARS Dairy Forage Research Center, USDA-CSREES Initiative for future agriculture and food systems, WDATCP)

80,000 AU in Brown County x 2 acres/AU = 160,000 acres cropland needed.

Distribution of Livestock operations.Density standards need to bedeveloped or other waste technologiespromoted and funded.


14/45

14

Land Application of

Wastes 162,000 acres of cropland in Brown

County. (2009 NASS)

1/3 of Cropland is estimated to

have spreading restrictions suchas:

Set backs to streams

Set backs from wells

Set backs from wetlands Set backs from KARST, Bedrock,

sinkholes

Slope restrictions

106,920 acres of cropland (66%)is more accurate estimate ofspread able cropland.


15/45

15

Other Waste

DNR approved land spreadingsites Brown County 2/14/07:

Industrial= 566 sites, 23,214 acres,18 facilities.

Municipal = 243 sites, 4854 acres,9 facilities.

Septage= 31 sites 1300 acres, 8facilities.

Total = 29,368.9 acres/162,000acres total cropland acres in

Brown County = 18% ofcropland approved for land

spreading of other wastes.


16/45


17/45

Surface Water

The Fox River is the largestcontributor of phosphorus to

Lake Michigan of all tributarystreams (21%).

The Fox River is the 3rd

largest contributor of Sedimentto Lake Michigan of all tributarystreams.

(U.S.G.S. Water Resources)


18/45


19/45

Surface Water - Phosphorus

AgriculturalLand44%

Barnyard3%

Urban9%

ConstructionSites3%

Othernonpoint

3%

MunicipalPoint

17%

IndustrialPoint21%

Total Phosphorus ExportLower Fox River Basin and Duck Creek

2004 Baseline, Total 238,912 kg

(Data Sources: Integrated Watershed Approach Demonstration Project: APollutant Reduction Optimization Analysis for the Lower Fox River Basin and

the Green Bay Area of Concern. August 2007; prepared by the CadmusGroup for the U.S. EPA, with contributions from the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, 26 pp. Solids data from P. Baumgart, UW-Green Bay, 2008.)


20/45

Phosphorus


21/45

Suspended Sediment


22/45

Nutrient Management

in Brown County

2010 nutrient managementplans = 115,000/162,000 acresof cropland covered (71%)

Private agronomists NE WI sayabout 50% are currently

implemented within reason.


23/45

Soils Phosphorus PPM in TMDLRed >100 ppm Orange 50 100 ppm P


24/45

PI 6 is agronomic based

The DNR will not seek to base nutrient managementplanning on the potential delivery of nutrients to surfacewater. Rather, nutrients will be managed in accordancewith the needs of a crop.(June 23, 2010 Wisconsin DNR Board approves changes to NR 151)

Rotation Soil test Rotation Soil testPI P ppm PI P ppm

4.1 146 1.5 953.9 166 1.9 843.6 141 4.1 2373.2 124 3.1 753.6 196 5.0 595.5 102 1.9 1014.5 63 1.4 693.7 131 2.0 87

4.0 60 1.8 601.6 110 3.0 705.3 103 4.2 62

0.6 59 0.9 572.8 85


25/45


26/45

Opportunities Nutrient Management state required, 2010

Brown County 115,000/ 162,000 acres Needbetter plan implementation, revised PItargets lower than 6.

Winter spreading plans -100 per year

Promotion of new technologies

and funding by state of waste water treatment,

digesters, dewatering, Waste TransformationTechnology to overcome cropland shortage andincrease sustainability.

Adequate staff to enforce, inspect, monitor.Green Bay Metro Sewage has 100 employeesto monitor and treat waste from estimated200,000 human residents. 80,000 animal units

= 1,440,000 humans and there are less than 10County and DNR staff monitoring animal waste.

Regulation protects water quality andAgriculture from liability (3 billion dollar/ yearindustry in Brown County)

Great Lakes Initiative grants

Baird Creek $377,000 Buffer strips

West Shore Pike $395,000

TRADING?


27/45

To Trade orNot to Trade

GBMSD to reduce P discharge by 25,000pounds per year will cost over$200,000,000.

The cost share for farmers in BrownCounty from DATCP and DNR in 2011will be $60,931.

Annual discharge of Phosphorus by subbasin :

Duck Creek 63,172 lbs/yr

East River 48,748 lbs/yr Apple Creek 35,088 lbs/yr

Plum Creek 31,569 lbs/yr

Bower Creek 27,777 lbs/yr

Total sub watersheds in Basin = 549,703 lbs/y ofwhich 45.7% is Ag (251,382 lbs/year)

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/wqs/303d/DraftTMDLs/Lower%20Fox%20River%20TMDL%20Report%20(public%20draft%2006-24-10)%20-%20complete[1].pdf


28/45

28

Education NeededSurvey of Dairy Farmers in Lower Fox by UW

( February 2007)

168 (58%) responded (CAFOs not in survey) 86% agreed it is their responsibility to

protect WQ. Only 14% would be willing to pay moreto improve WQ.

Twice as many (36%) identifiedWaterfowl droppings as more seriousthan Agriculture (18%).

Respondents see water pollution asgenerated principally by non Agsources.

Two most influential factors areprofitability (88%) and out of pocket

expense (87%). 75% will maintain or expand herd size

in next 5 years.


29/45

Total Maximum Daily

Loads (TMDLs)

TMDLs require that best

management practices bedesigned to meet the waterquality objectives of animpaired water body.

29


30/45

Total Maximum Daily

Loads (TMDLs) TMDL means the amount of

pollutants specified as a

function of one or more waterquality parameters, that can bedischarged per day into awater quality limited segment

and still ensure attainment ofthe applicable water qualitystandard.

Phosphorus

Sediment

30


31/45


32/45

BMP #1

Reduce phosphorus in dairy cow feedby 25%

Phosphorus feeding recommendations for

lactating dairy cows.*

Milk yield

(lb/cow/day)

Ration P(%, dry

basis)

55 0.32

77 0.35

99 0.36

120 0.38

*Assumes feed intake rates of the NRC

(2001) model.


33/45

BMP #1 (continued)

33

Dairy Ration Phosphorous Trends

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

9

/6

/1

9

9

5

3

/6

/1

9

9

6

9

/6

/1

9

9

6

3

/6

/1

9

9

7

9

/6

/1

9

9

7

3

/6

/1

9

9

8

9

/6

/1

9

9

8

3

/6

/1

9

9

9

9

/6

/1

9

9

9

3

/6

/2

0

0

0

9

/6

/2

0

0

0

3

/6

/2

0

0

1

9

/6

/2

0

0

1

3

/6

/2

0

0

2

9

/6

/2

0

0

2

3

/6

/2

0

0

3

9

/6

/2

0

0

3

3

/6

/2

0

0

4

9

/6

/2

0

0

4

3

/6

/2

0

0

5

9

/6

/2

0

0

5

3

/6

/2

0

0

6

9

/6

/2

0

0

6

3

/6

/2

0

0

7

9

/6

/2

0

0

7

3

/6

/2

0

0

8

9

/6

/2

0

0

8

Date

P

h

o

s

h

o

ru

s


34/45

BMP #2

Manure Incorporation Increase the proportion of

applied manure that is

incorporated within 72 hours How did we approach this

BMP?

Surveyed the 5 county area

Increase manure storage

34


35/45

BMP #2Manure Incorporation

Storage Survey


36/45

BMP #3

Nutrient Management Stabilize soil test phosphorus

at 40PPM

Examines crop removal versusphosphorus production fromlivestock

Largest challenge is theuneven distribution of livestock

We will go into more detail aswe review BMP #7

36


37/45

BMP #4

Conservation Tillage Mulch tillage versus zone

tillage

37


38/45

BMP #5

Cover Crops Utilized on low residue fields

There is a great deal of corn

silage chopped in conjunctionwith a decreasing amount ofalfalfa

The financial overview of thispractice was interesting toexamine

38


39/45

BMP #6

Vegetative Buffer Strips Impacted by NR151 revisions

We have a unique situation in

that Brown County has anordinance for VBSs

This yields a wide variety ofestablishment costs

39


40/45

BMP #7

Nutrient Management Reduce soil P from 40 PPM to

25 PPM

40


41/45

BMP #7

Nutrient Management Hyperlink to the online

Phosphorous Balancer for

Brown, Calumet, Manitowoc,Outagamie, and WinnebagoCounties

http://www.co.brown.wi.us/departments/page_4b3351439d09/?department=68d3c3d55278&subdepartment=9207c5a3d3d5

41


42/45

BMP #8

Bio-Fuel Crops Adding switch grass to the

typical cash-crop rotation of

alternating soybean and corn-grain

No where to go with the endproduct shy of dairy

replacement and dry cow feed

42


43/45

BMP #9Water And Sediment COntrol

Basins

Affectionately referred to as aWASCOB

Expensive to construct Limited opportunities to utilize

Not a lot of interest

43


44/45

BMP #10

Anionic Polyacrylamides

New technology to help controlrunoff, soil erosion, and

nutrient loss Proprietary technology

Has been used in reseedingwildfire areas and forestablishment of cover growthat construction sites

Indications are that it is

expensive and little use inproduction agriculture

44


45/45

Wrap-up for the day!

Opportunities/benefits

Challenges

Questions

tmdl: an agricultural perspective, bill hafs, 9/2010

Documents