Incorporating Conservation Practice Effectiveness and Technological Tools to Develop Watershed Conservation Plans for Improving Water Quality in Tile‐

drained Subwatersheds of the Mackinaw River, Illinois, USA

Presented by Maria Lemke, The Nature ConservancyKrista Kirkham, The Nature Conservancy;  William Perry, Illinois State University

Mike Wallace, University of Illinois;  David Kovacic, University of IllinoisKent Bohnhoff, Natural Resources Conservation Service

Suzy Friedman, Environmental Defense Fund;  Rick Twait, City of Bloomington

Root River, Minnesota

Boone River, Iowa

River restoration in Upper Mississippi River Basin

Pecatonica River, Wisconsin

Mackinaw River, Illinois

Land UseCornSoybeanForestedGrasslandDeveloped

Mackinaw River Watershed Land Use

80‐90% Agricultural

60‐70 fish species25‐30 mussel speciesHigh quality stream

Illinois River

Mississippi River

Research and Demonstration Farm

Paired WatershedProject

Bloomington DrinkingWatersheds Project

Paired Watershed Project: Phase 1 (2000-2006)

Questions:• Does outreach increase application of conservation practices by farmers? • How well do conservation practices work to improve water quality, hydrology,

and biodiversity?• What encourages farmers to apply conservation practices?

(Lemke et al., 2010 JSWC 65:304-315)

Frog Alley: Reference(4000 ha)

• Biotic surveys (seasonal): Macroinvertebrate, Fish, Mussel, Habitat

• Hydrology: Stage height at D sites

• Water quality:Temp, Oxygen, Conductivity, Turbidity @ D sitesNutrients: biweekly (NH4

+, NO2-, NO3

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

Mackinaw River

Bray Creek: Treatment (4000 ha)

D

U U

D

Study sites: Monitoring:

p=0.047

p=0.004

p=0.007

Lemke et al., 2011 JEQ 40:1215‐1228

5

10

15

20

25

30

35TreatmentReference

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Total Pho

spho

rus (mg/L)

Nitrate‐nitrogen

 (mg/L)

Downstream Sites: Biweekly 

Water Year00      01     02     03       04    05     06    07       08      09       10     11      12      13

Downstream sites: Biweekly Nitrate‐N (mg/L) (expectation )

‐15

‐10

‐5

0

5

10

Treatm

ent N

O3‐ ‐N

 minus Referen

ce NO3‐ ‐N

 (mg/L)

99      00           01       02          03        04           05         06       07        08Water Year (Oct 1 – Sept 30)

R2=0.009, p=0.16

Lemke et al., 2011 JEQ 40:1215‐1228

Drainage tile systems:      4.7 million hectares of subsurface drainage in Illinois (12 million acres)

Contributes 16.8% of the nitrogen and 12.9% of the phosphorus to the Gulf of Mexico (Alexander et al., 2008)

Inlet

Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3Tile

3% 3% 3%

6%

9%

Monitornutrients& flow

Monitornutrients& flow

Monitornutrients& flow

Monitornutrients& flow

How well does a wetland perform?

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

6‐year Monitoring Results

EastGullyWest

Nitrate‐nitrogen

 load

 redu

ction (%

)

3% 6% 9%Wetland to drainage area ratio

20

40

60

80

1000

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

East Gully West

CornSoybean

Total

Nitrate‐nitrogen

 loadings (kg)

12‐35%

30‐50%40‐60%

Next Steps:  Effectiveness of bundled in‐field and edge of field practices 

N

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

USDA‐NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant 2011‐2014

How does nitrogen management influence nitrogen export from tile‐drained farmland?

XX

Mackinaw River

Bray Creek: Treatment (10,000 acres)

Frog Alley: Reference(10,000 acres)

Paired Watershed Project

X

YSIYSI

YSI

Question: How well do wetlands work to improve water quality, hydrology, and biodiversity at the watershed scale?

ISCO Water Samplers (Storm events, stage height)

Biweekly grab samples: NH4+, NO3

-, SRP, TP, TSS

Met Stations: Air temperature, rain, soil moisture

Water temperature, turbidity, pH, conductivity, DO

New wetlandsCurrent wetlands

8‐in6‐in

8‐in

6‐in

6‐in

12‐in

6‐in

XX

Mackinaw River

Treatment (10,000 acres)

Reference(10,000 acres)

YSIYSINew wetlandsCurrent wetlandsLong term monitoring

Inlet

Outlet

0

5

10

15

20

25

Nitrate‐nitrogen

 (mg/L)

2010                    2011              2012               2013

InletOutlet

29%

24%

38%

36%

Year

USGS gaging stations

Money Creek

Bray Creek

Frog Alley

Six Mile Creek

Lake EvergreenLake Bloomington

McLean County 

DemonstrationFarm

Mackinaw River Watershed

Apply constructed wetlands to address drinking water supply nutrient concerns 

USDA‐NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant : 2012‐2015

Money Creek which feeds Lake Bloomington annually exceeds the EPA standard by >2 fold

Bloomington, Illinois Finished Water Nitrate Levels

0

510

1520

2530

35

01/1

4/83

01/1

4/84

01/1

4/85

01/1

4/86

01/1

4/87

01/1

4/88

01/1

4/89

01/1

4/90

01/1

4/91

01/1

4/92

01/1

4/93

01/1

4/94

01/1

4/95

01/1

4/96

01/1

4/97

01/1

4/98

NO

3-N

(mg/

L)

Smiciklas et al., 2008

Nitrate‐N sources: 1993‐ 2002

0 5 10 15 20

Tile water: Row Crop Agriculture

Tile water: Organic Agriculture

Surface water runoff: Agriculture

Artesian well

Rain water

Tile water: pasture

Creek water

Nitrate‐N (mg/L)

Smiciklas et al., 2008

Long‐term goals:• To reduce nitrate loading to Lake Bloomington, the source of water for 80,000 people and Bloomington and Normal, IL.

• To construct tile‐drainage treatment wetlands and nitrogen management practices at scale throughout the Lake Bloomington watershed.  

• A proof of concept study that proposes a more sustainable approach to agricultural runoff than solely an engineering solution. 

X 3

Monitoring equipmentAdaptive managementConstructed wetlands

ConstructedWetlands

Bundled Practices

TreatmentReference

+ +

How many wetland acres are needed? (i.e., how much tile is in the watershed?)

What kind of watershed reductions can be expected?

How many wetland acres are possible?

How well does a wetland perform?

Kovacic

Tier 2 Sub-basin of Lake Bloomington LB-1

Tier 1 Entire Lake Bloomington Watershed LB

Tier 3 Sub-basin LB-1-1

Tier 4 Sub-basin LB-1-1-1

Tier 5 Sub-basin LB-1-1-1-1

Tier 6 Sub-basins LB-1-1-1-1-1

Watershed Mapping: i.e., Where are the tiles?

30 acres

8 acres

1.6 acres

43,000 acres

200-2000 acres

Dr. Miran Day(Ball State University) Dr. David Kovacic

(University of Illinois)

Flow netsusing high resolution LiDAR data

Tier 4

Tier 5

Data Link – Sample Location (1A, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 11): overall (2003‐2012) average nitrate‐nitrogen concentration

Lake Bloomington Watershed

Green Light Map

How many wetland acres are possible? 

X 3

Monitoring equipmentAdaptive managementConstructed wetlands

ConstructedWetlands

Bundled Practices

TreatmentReference

+ +

How many wetland acres are needed?

What kind of watershed reductions can be expected

Economic analyses and financial models

+Landowner and funding commitment

How many wetland acres are possible?

How well does a wetland perform?

‐ Improved water security for the City of Bloomington within 5 years‐Water Fund blueprint/proof of concept with wide applicability beyond the Mackinaw River for sustainable  conservation and agricultural production 

ParWalton Family FoundationGrand Victoria FoundationLumpkin Family FoundationWorld Wildlife Foundation/Coca ColaMosaic CompanyMonsantoDuPont-PioneerKellogg FoundationDucks UnlimitedUSDA-NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant ProgramU.S. Farm Services Agency

Natural Resources and Conservation Service Soil and Water Conservation DistrictFarm Services Agency University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana Illinois State University

Environmental Defense FundCity of Bloomington, IllinoisPrivate landowners and producers

Partners and Funding Sources

Krista Kirkham

Ashley Maybanks

Tim Lindenbaum –Photograpy