Evaluating the effectiveness of wetlands and other BMPs in improving water

quality in tile-drained subwatersheds of the Mackinaw River

Krista Kirkham The Nature Conservancy

I-55

Bloomington-

Normal

Peoria

Pekin

I-39

I-74

N

Mackinaw River Watershed

Why Agriculture?

46-51% of undeveloped land in US in agriculture1

Almost 80% of land in Illinois is in agriculture

Generates $9 billion annually (~40% corn, 35% soybeans, 25% livestock)2

~90% of land in McLean County is in agriculture3

1USDA, 2Illinois Dept. of Agriculture, 3University of Illinois Extension Service

Environmental concerns from modern agriculture

Intensive conversion of the original landscape (

Mackinaw River, IL

Root River, MN

Boone River, IA

River restoration in agricultural landscapes

Pecatonica River, WI

Mackinaw River, IL Mackinaw River, IL

60-70 fish species 25-30 mussel species

High quality stream segments

~ 90% agricultural (corn, soybeans)

I-55

Bloomington-

Normal

Peoria

Pekin

I-39

I-74

N

Demonstration Farm

Mackinaw River Watershed Program Sites

Paired Watershed

Drinking Watersheds

Project

Paired Watershed Project: Phase 1 (1999-2006) Objectives: • Measure effectiveness of outreach on implementation of best management practices (BMPs) • Measure watershed-scale effectiveness of BMPs on water quality, hydrology, and biodiversity • Document what encourages and discourages producers and landowners from adopting BMPs (Lemke et al., 2010 JSWC 65:304-315)

• Outreach was conducted by a local landowner and

farmer in the treatment watershed from 2000 to 2003

• Outreach was conducted using one-on-one interviews,

workshops, demonstrations, flyers and newsletters

• Landowner surveys were conducted in 2000 and in

2003

Frog Alley: Reference

• Biotic surveys (seasonal): Macroinvertebrate, Fish, Mussel, Habitat • Hydrology: Stage height at D sites • Water quality: Temp, Oxygen, Conductivity, Turbidity @ D sites Nutrients: biweekly (NH4

+, NO2-, NO3

-, SRP, TP) Total Suspended Sediment (TSS): biweekly Storm Events for Nutrients and TSS @ D sites

Mackinaw River

Bray Creek: Treatment

D

U U

D

Methods:

p=0.047

p=0.004

p=0.007

Lemke et al., 2011 JEQ 40:1215-1228

Year

0.1

0.3

0.5

0.7

0.9

03 04 05 06 07 08

Tota

l Ph

osp

ho

rus

(mg

/L)

Treatment

Reference

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

Nit

rate

-nit

roge

n (

mg

/L)

Downstream Sites: Biweekly

Lemke et al., 2011 JEQ 40:1215-1228

Downstream sites: Biweekly Nitrate-N (mg/L)

(expectation )

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

Trea

tmen

t N

O3-

-N m

inu

s R

efer

ence

NO

3--N

(m

g/L

)

99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

Water Year (Oct 1 – Sept 30)

R2=0.009, p=0.16

Lemke et al., 2011 JEQ 40:1215-1228

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Trea

tmen

t TP

min

us

Ref

eren

ce T

P (

mg

/L)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

Downstream Sites: Biweekly Total Phosphorus (mg/L)

(expectation ) R2=0.013, p=0.10

Lemke et al., 2011 JEQ 40:1215-1228

Paired Watershed Project Results: 1999-2006

• Outreach works • No nutrient/suspended sediment reduction • No impact on hydrology or biota

Need to better retain runoff, especially from tile drainage

Source: Sugg, Z. 2007. Assessing U.S. Farm Drainage: Can GIS Lead to Better Estimates of Subsurface Drainage Extent? World Resources Institute, Washington D.C.

0% - 6% 7% - 16% 17% - 32% 33% - 51% 52% - 82%

Percent Total County Land With Subsurface Tile Drainage

McLean County, IL

Potential Nitrogen Fertilizer Loss from Farm Fields, Based on Production of 7 Major Crops

Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service - National Resources Inventory

Paired Watershed Project Results: 1999-2006

• Outreach works • No nutrient/suspended sediment reduction • No impact on hydrology or biota

Need to better retain runoff, especially from tile drainage

WETLANDS

1 0 1 2 M i l e

H R U w i t h N o W e t l a n d

H R U w i t h W e t l a n d

S t r e a m s

N

Where will wetlands be most effective at improving water quality?

Reference (Frog Alley)

Treatment (Bray Creek) From Bekele et al., 2010

Predicted sites for constructed wetlands for 25-26% reduction in total pollutants

Watershed Hydrologic Model – Illinois State Water Survey

74 hydrologic units 82 hydrologic units

8-in 6-in

8-in

6-in

6-in

12-in

6-in

1 0 1 2 M i l e

H R U w i t h N o W e t l a n d

H R U w i t h W e t l a n d

S t r e a m s

N

Reference (Frog Alley)

Treatment (Bray Creek) From Bekele et al., 2010

Predicted sites for constructed wetlands for 25-26% reduction in total pollutants

Watershed Hydrologic Model – Illinois State Water Survey

74 hydrologic units 82 hydrologic units

What size of wetland is most effective at reducing nutrients in tile runoff?

3% 6% 9%

Cumulative 5-year Monitoring Results

Percent of drainage area

Removal NO3-N: 19-47% ORP: 49-58%

N

NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant 2011-2013

How do winter cover crops influence nutrient export from tile-drained farmland?

N

USGS gaging stations

Money Creek

Bray Creek

Frog Alley

Six Mile Creek

Lake Evergreen Lake Bloomington

McLean County

Demonstration Farm

Mackinaw River Watershed

Apply constructed wetlands to address drinking water supply nutrient concerns

Mackinaw Drinking Watersheds Project

Precision conservation and monitoring: (1) Using GIS, aerial topography, and infrared photography to map existing tile drainage patterns and placement in the watersheds (2) Placement of constructed wetlands in locations where they will effectively retain agricultural tile drainage water and reduce nitrates (3) Monitor wetlands effectiveness (nutrients, hydrology)

Use of Farm Bill programs: Farmable Wetlands Program (CP39) within the Conservation Reserve Program (50% c/s; 40% PIP; $100/acre SIP; CRP rental payments + 20%)

Agricultural agencies: Outreach (SWCD); Initial survey, site selection, and wetland design (NRCS); Sign-up process (FSA)

• Innovative partnerships: The Nature Conservancy, City of Bloomington, Environmental Defense Fund, NRCS, SWCD, FSA, University of Illinois, Illinois State University, local farmers and landowners

Drinking Watersheds Project: Updates

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between City of Bloomington, TNC, and EDF

Awarded National Conservation Innovation Grant (USDA) for $536,173 over 3 years Monitoring (equipment and personnel)

Agricultural nutrient management

Economic analysis: gray vs. green infrastructure

Wetlands 3x cheaper in removing nitrogen

VISION FY12-14: Diverse habitats and native species; Acceptable hydrologic, sediment and nutrient balances; Increase conservation impact beyond the places we work

Applicability beyond the Mackinaw River for sustainable conservation and agricultural production

Paired Watershed Research

Research and Demonstration Farm

● Outreach

● Partnerships

● Scientific credibility

● Economic incentives

● Targeted approach

Bloomington Drinking Watersheds

● Integrating human and environmental interests

● Implementation and measures of multiple conservation practices

Mackinaw River Program

● Watershed-scale measures

Collaborators, Partners and Funding Sources: Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana (UIUC) Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)/Walton Family Foundation City of Bloomington, Illinois World Wildlife Foundation Private landowners and producers Illinois State University (ISU) Monsanto DuPont -Pioneer Lumpkin Family Foundation Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS) AGREM LLC Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Southern Illinois University (SIU) Ducks Unlimited (DU) Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS) Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Kellogg Foundation; Mackinaw River Partnership

Questions?

Goolsby and Pereira, 1995

Nitrogen application rates (tons/square mile)

McLean County, IL