Western Lake Erie Watersheds

7.1 Million Acres70% Oh, 12% In, & 18% Mi

About 76% Cropland,3/4 Corn & Soybeans

Maumee Drains 2/3rds Area

Average Annual Export From the Maumee WS is 1.1 Pounds of P per acre

as measured through the Heidelberg Gage at Waterville.

Where Does the Agricultural Component of P Runoff 

Come From?

What Causes The Loss?

March 8 2009

March 2009

Maumee River, Total Phosphorus Loading, 2003 Water Year

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

10/01 11/30 01/30 04/01 06/01 08/01Date

TP lo

adin

g ra

te,

mto

ns/d

ay

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

TP lo

ad, m

etric

tons

TP loading rate, mtons/day TP load, metric tons

2,448 metric tons P exported

Major Storms With High 

Delivery of P

March‐June Maumee Total P

1,099

Year 2011

Year 2013

Year 2012

08/30/2012

09/03/2011)

83%17%

Supplied By Manure

Supplied By Commercial

Fertilizer

8 lbs/ac Average 40 lbs/ac Average

Phosphorus Produced In Western Lake Erie Basin

As Percent of Crop Need

NRCS Watershed Analysis

Climate Trends – NWF Report1988 2nd Wettest June for Ohio since 1883

2003 3rd Wettest May in 100 years – Maumee ws

2008 1100 Daily Precip Records broken in Ohio

2011 75% Annual Ohio Precip fell Feb ‐May

2013 8th Wettest May since 1882 – Toledo Airport

How Do We Reduce The Loss?

Upland/In‐field Edge‐of‐field Downstream% Red

uctio

n in Pollutant Transpo

rt4‐R approach

Scale

What is the most effective scale to address water quality? How do we avoid tradeoffs among pollutants? How does it depend on the 

ecoregion? How do we convince landowners to look at their individual fields in a larger environmental context?

Avoid Control Trap

Key to Reducing AgriculturalPhosphorus Transport

• Reduce Runoff – P moves with water!

• Improve Soil Quality

• Manage fertilizer better

• Trap Nutrients  At Edge of  Field  and  Within Our Drainage/Stream Systems

What Conservation – BMP Practices Are Effective?

Cover CropsRight Place

Right Time

Right Rate

It Starts With Residue Management and No‐Till

Fertilizer In Soil + Residue = Less Runoff

Fertilizer Injection Into Cover Crop

Grass Waterways

Buffers

Wetlands

Precision Mgt.Filter Strips

Controlled Drainage

Bio Filters

Blind InletDrainage Water Management

Need To Put Filters and Retention Back in our drainage Systems

In all we have collected 200+ samples, to date, and the soluble P from gypsum treated soils averaging

over 50% reduction.

Samples were collected from the Rolland Wolfrum Hale Farm (Hicksville, OH) on December 20, 2012.

Water Quality Benefits

Ohio Phosphorus Risk Evaluation And

Field Scale Edge of Field Monitoring

Measuring  Field Scale  Surface and 

Tile Runoff

16 Paired Edge of Field Sites

32 Fields

Do These Things Work?

Maumee Sandusky

Flow Has Increased 4.6% Per Decade 4.9% Per Decade

Suspended Sediment Has Decreased

-18% Per Decade -11% Per Decade

Particulate Phosphorous Has Decreased

-14% Per Decade -10% Per Decade

Since 1974

Source: Heidelberg College NCWQ

Documents 5 Years of 

Changes in the Watershed

2013 Chesapeake CEAP Report:

SedimentNitrogen

PhosphorousSoil Carbon

100%

18%25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

No ConservationPractices

With ConservationPractices

With ConservationPractices

Sediment Load % of Base

Phosphorus Load % of Base

Base

2011 Chesapeake Edge of Field Loads With Conservation Practices

Compared  To No Practice Condition

Chesapeake Bay 2006 to 2011 Changes

2003‐2006

2011 Change

Structural Practices on

52% of ac 66% of ac 14% increase

Edge FieldTrapping on

14% of ac 31% of ac 17% increase

Continuous No‐Till on

38% of ac 54% of ac 16% increase

Cover crops at some point in rotation on

12% of ac 52% of ac 40% increase

Chesapeake Bay 2006 to 2011Edge of Field Changes in Losses:

2003‐2006

2011 Change

Sediment loss 5.1 t/ac 1.9 t/ac 63% reduction

Total P loss 3.4 #/ac 1.9 #/ac 44% reduction

N Loss ‐ surface 15.7 #/ac 9.7 #/ac 38% reduction

Acres losing Soil Carbon

189 #/ac 95 #/ac 50% reduction

Edge of Field P Losses

P Reduction Due ToConservation Practices

No Practices Loss

Existing PracticesLoss 

Existing Practices Loss

Pounds Reduction

Percent Reduction

20.9Million Lbs

14.2 Million lbs

2.05Lbs/ac

6.65Million Lbs

32%

Impact of Conservation Practices on Phosphorous Loading

To Lake Erie BasinNRCS Great Lakes CEAP Report  ‐ Tables 49&50

Potential P Savings From Additional  Treatment Basin Wide ‐All Areas Treated /W All Practices

Edge of Field Savings ‐ Great Lakes Basin CEAP StudyCritical Under Treated Areas

Additional Under Treated Areas

Remaining Areas

Acres 2,840,000  5,040,000  6,920,000 

% of Basin 19% 34% 47%Potential P SavingsAvg Lbs/Ac

Worst Acres 

2.8 lbsMiddle Acres 

1.9 lbsBest Acres 

0.9 lbsReduction 14% 17% 12%

What About Regulation?

March 8 2009

Scene of the 

Crime!

44 Different Crop Fields!

14 Different  Soil Types818 Acres Drainage Area

30 Different Parcels18 Farms & 12 Home sites

44 Crop Fields14 Soil Types30 Landowners

18 Different Farms4 Major Tile Mains818 Acres Drained

March 8 2009

Who Do You Handcuff?

8,700 =

Number of These 818 Acre Units in Western Lake Erie 

Basin Watershed!

15,500 Farms In 

Ohio Portion of Western Lake Erie Basin!

How Can We Change/Increase Adoption of These Practices? 

Ohio Agriculture Fertilizer Applicator Certification Training

• Required if apply fertilizer on more than 50 acres

• Three hour training session –by Sept 2017

• Renewed every 3 years

• 750 Farmers Attended First Three Sessions

For FY 2010, 2011, and 2012, NRCS Invested $24 Million in EQIP Cost Share 

In Lake Erie Basin.

That Calculates to an average of $1.60 Per Acre

On Land That:

• Sells for $5,000 to $12,000 per acre

• Has Potential for Gross Receipts of $500 to $1000 per acre

• Impacts a $1 Billion Per Year Sport fishing Industry and $11 Billion Tourism Industry 

What About Targeting?

Every EQIP Application Is Ranked OnMore Than 20 

Different factors!

Sample Ranking QuestionsAre the practices planned within one of the following Priority HUC 10 Watersheds: (100 Points)

i. Bad Creek , Upper Swan Creek, and Lower Swan Creek HUC 0410000903, 0410000907, 0410000908 (Fulton and Lucas Counties)…..

Does a field within offered acres have a soil test exceeding 150 lbs/Acre of P2O5 (Bray P1 Soil Test)?  (50 Points)

Are 50% of the acres adjacent to a stream or ditch?  (10 Points)

Priority Practices: Blind inlet, Drainage Water Management Structure, Cover Crops, or Nutrient Placement.  (50 Points)

The Tri‐State Western Lake Erie Regional  Conservation Partnership Proposal = 

$17.5 Million in Conservation Funding to the Western Basin.

More Than 40 Partners Signed Letters of Intent To Cooperate for the Tri‐State WELB Project.

RCPP GoalGoal – “to protect the western basin of Lake Erie by reducing phosphorus (P) and sediment loading, harmful algal blooms (HAB) by working with partners and farmers to identify sources of nutrients and sediment  and implement conservation practices and technology to address them”

What Other Efforts Are Underway?

2015 Water Quality Programs for Nutrient Reduction 

2015 Water Quality Programs for Nutrient Reduction 

Ohio Department of Natural ResourcesDivision of Soil & Water Resources

Nutrient Reduction Programs Lake Erie ‐ Nutrient Reduction Program 

‐ $1.2 Million ‐ August 2014 thru March, 2015

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative ‐ Nutrient Reduction Program  ‐ $5.9 Million  ‐ August, 2014 – Sign‐ups continue until Fall, 2015

Regional Conservation Partnership Program ‐ $17.5 Million January, 2015 thru December 2019

Lake Erie ‐ Nutrient Reduction Program

Three Best Management Practices • Cover Crops • Controlled Drainage Structure • Blind Tile Inlets 

GLRI‐NRP Best Management PracticesStructural Practices Manure Storage & Roofing Controlled Drainage

Agronomic System Practices Soil Testing Cover Crops Agronomic System

GLRI‐NRP Best Management PracticeFertilizer Placement

Goal: 20,000 Acres $1,300,000.00

Ksfarmsmfg.com, 2014

Looking for new and innovativeways to place fertilizer below the surface

A team approach to increase conservation practice implementation and MAEAP verifications on farms in

the Western Lake Erie Watershed Basin

From the Fields to the Great Lakes

Michigan Agricultural Environmental Assurance Program

Ted Mason Farm

Iott Farms

Calby & Lindsay Garrison Farm

EducationOn Farm

Risk Assessment

Third Party (MDARD)

Verification

“More Farmers need to get out to the Great Lakes to see for themselves and learn about what is happening – the Great Lakes are a treasure and we all need to do our part to protect them”.  Blaine Baker  Bakerlad Dairy, Clayton, MI 

OSU Field To Faucet Initiative

Ohio Farm Bureau Federation $1 Million ‐Water Quality Action Plan

All WLEB Farmers certified by Earth Day, 2015

Assist Farmers prepare Nutrient Mgt Plans – OFB, OSU Extension – NRCS grant for 4 Agronomists in basin

Demonstration farm proposal with NRCS

Industry Led4R Nutrient Certification Program

• 49 AG RETAILERS HAVE APPLIED

• REPRESENTS 1.25 MILLION ACRES

• 25% OF MAUMEE WATERSHED

• www.4rcertified.org

Summary:

We know today.  “No Regret” Actions:1. Manage runoff – Maintain Residue Cover, Improve Soil 

Quality, Use Buffer and Trapping Practices.  Manage tile drain water

2. Follow 4R’s – Follow Tri State Guide Recommendations, Soil Test, Manure Test, Use Variable Rate Technology.

3. Drawl down High Soil Test Fields.4. Eliminate application on frozen and snow covered ground5. Place P in contact with the soil, or incorporate and plant a 

cover crop6. Look for low risk application windows (after wheat harvest, 

etc)7. Do not apply ahead of predicted large rain events.