DOCSLIB.ORG

Using Water Quality Trading to Promote Conservation Measure

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Using Water Quality Trading to Promote Conservation Measure USING WATER QUALITY TRADING TO PROMOTE CONSERVATION MEASURE ADOPTION IN THE BLANCHARD RIVER WATERSHED, OHIO, IN THE CONTEXT OF CLIMATE CHANGE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Yanting Guo, M.Sc. Environmental Science Graduate Program The Ohio State University 2018 Dissertation Committee: Dr. Richard Moore Dr. Karen Mancl Dr. Charles Goebel Dr. Eric Toman Copyrighted by Yanting Guo 2018 ABSTRACT Agricultural phosphorus loading has been identified as the main cause of Lake Erie eutrophication and Harmful Algae Blooms since the mid-1990s. Efforts for alleviating the problem have been focused on promoting the adoption of conservation measures, such as the best management practices (BMPs). Water quality trading (WQT), a market-based mechanism that allows one pollution source (e.g. a factory) to meet their regulatory obligations by using pollutant reductions created by another source, such as agriculture, is a method to promote conservation through the lower pollution remediation costs of that source. Agriculture has a vast potential for supplying low cost conservation, however, limited studies have been done on farmers’ opinions about WQT or their selection and adoption of conservation measures in WQT programs. This study aims to fill this knowledge gap. The general objective of this study is to evaluate whether WQT has the potential to serve as an incentive to promote water quality conservation measures in the Western Lake Erie Basin of Ohio in the USA. Based on the case study of the Blanchard River watershed which is a subwatershed of the Maumee River, the largest tributary flowing into the Western Lake Erie, this study investigated 1) how WQT models affected BMP selection and adoption, as well as farmers’ willingness to participate in WQT, in order to inform the current debate over credit “stacking” (trading more than one type of pollutant credits in one trading project) with insights from the potential credit suppliers; 2) the possibility of expanding the use of WQT from agriculture to another often-neglected nonpoint source, rural septic systems, encouraging rural households to improve nutrient removal efficiency of their systems; and 3) how farmers select and adopt BMPs based on their observation of climate change and prediction of its impact on local water quality. i With quantitative and qualitative data collected from an in-person questionnaire survey completed by 96 farmers and 88 nonfarmers in the Blanchard River watershed, I employed binary logistic regression, special analysis and content analysis to investigate the different aspects of people’s perceptions about WQT and their adoption of conservation measures in WQT and climate change scenarios. The major findings are as follows. First, the farmers showed a clear preference for the credit “stacking” trading model (termed “All-in-One” WQT model) over the conventional single credit trading model. This preference led to enhanced interest in participating in WQT. Farmers valued both the economic and ecological benefits represented by the “All-in-One” model. Although planting cover crops was the most popular BMPs for farmers who intended to adopt in a WQT scenario, farmers’ adoption of cover crops or other BMPs was not significantly associated with their preference for trading model. Factors associated with farmers’ BMP adoption were much more complicated and were inconsistent among locations, types of BMPs and adoption stages. For farmers in the Blanchard River watershed, previous experience is critical to cover crop adoption while income and land tenure is important to no-till plowing adoption. In general, when considering BMP adoption, farmers were most concerned about yield loss and improvement in water quality. Given the complexity and heterogeneity inherent to BMP adoption, as well as the stewardship valued by farmers in the Blanchard River watershed, a small-scale, community- based WQT project might be more likely to succeed. Second, 58% of households that used septic systems were found to be interested in participating in WQT. WQT as an incentive for septic system upgrades had higher levels of acceptance in certain locations, namely upstream households of Blanchard River and Lye Creek. These households were more concerned about ii the environment, perceived the local water quality to be degraded and were aware of the limitation of their septic systems. Pilot WQT projects should be focused on approaching these households. Third, the study found that farmers’ observation of changes in climate was the main driver of their action. Farmers who had already taken action were those who observed climate trends more accurately. However, the observation did not significantly affect farmers’ intentions to adopt additional conservation measures in the future, even for those who had already taken action. Consistent with the farmers’ willingness to participate in WQT, environmental concerns and income were the most important factors in BMP adoption in the climate change scenario. In sum, while many farmers and septic system users in the Blanchard River watershed were open to the idea of WQT, some groups were more interested than others. Environmental awareness, income level, stewardship values, and concern about local water quality, were the indicators that could help WQT project designers identify potential participants. iii Dedicated to my husband Li and children Charlotte and Andrew, who supported and accompanied me during my Ph.D. journey iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This dissertation would not have been possible without the guidance, encouragement, and unreserved support from my advisor, Dr. Richard Moore. In the past 4 years, I am indebted to him for his teaching, insights, and ceaseless curiosity. I truly appreciate the support I received from my committee. I would like to thank Dr. Karen Mancl, who set an example, in academia and beyond, for a female Ph.D. student like me. I also appreciate her willingness to step in as committee chair. I feel grateful to Dr. Charles Goebel for his generous support, especially in the last 2 years. I also thank Dr. Eric Toman for his inspiration in my study of the social dimensions of climate change issues. Special thanks go to the famers and residents who helped me complete the survey in Hancock County, I am very grateful to the valuable opinions and the kindness they shared with me and my family. I am also thankful for Phil Martins of the Blanchard River Watershed Partnership, Dr. Ed Lentz at OSU Extension of Hancock County, Drew Humphreys at Hancock County Natural Resources Conservation Service, Dr. Gary Wilson at Hancock County Farm Bureau and Dr. Tim Murphy at University of Findlay, who had helped me from design to delivery of the survey. I would like to thank the three survey assistants from University of Findlay, Mishael Theis, Drew Garverick and Eli deNijs. In addition, I am thankful for Josh Sadvari at the OSU Research Common, who provided technical support in GIS. Last, I want to thank the strangers who pulled our car out from a ditch on a snowy evening during survey field work. I am very appreciative to the various funding sources provided for my education. First, the Fay Fellowship supported my first year of study. Then I was funded by the USDA- v Agriculture and Food Initiative: Grant No. 416-40-63C followed by funding provided by the OSU Targeted Investment in Excellence (TIE) initiative. I also appreciate my friend Zhe Zhang, who always lent me a hand when I needed it; Yina Xie for sharing her experience and friendship with me; Long Lin for her warm help and encouragement. Finally, I am most grateful to my husband Li Zhang, who has been my best friend and mentor for 17 years. Without his love, support and sacrifice, I would not have been able to pursue and achieve my goals. I am also thankful to my daughter Charlotte for her company during the survey, her understanding when I needed to study, and for all the joy she brings to the family. I am grateful to my son Andrew, who has been a patient baby and a wonderful sleeper, allowing me to finalize the dissertation soon after he was born. Also thanks go to my parents who were so supporting during my education. Lastly, I want to thank my parents-in-law who came all the way from China to support our family when I was finishing this dissertation. vi VITA 2002-2006…………………………… B.S. Biological Sciences, Zhejiang University 2006-2007…………………………… M.Sc. Biodiversity, Conservation and Management, University of Oxford 2013-2014…………………………… ESGP Fay Fellow, The Ohio State University 2014-2015…………………………… ESGP Graduate Administrative Associate, The Ohio State University 2015-2017…...……………………… Graduate Research Associate, School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS Guo, Yanting. 2017. Water Quality Trading for On-site Septic System Nutrient Management in Lake Erie Watershed under the Changing Climate Conditions. Poster presented at the 2017 OARDC Annual Conference. Columbus, OH. Guo, Yanting. 2015. A Feasibility Study of Water Quality Trading in the Former Great Black Swamp of the Lake Erie Watershed under Changing Climate Conditions in the Corn Belt. Poster presented at the National Worship on Water Quality Markets. Lincoln, NE. Guo, Yanting. 2015. Application of Water Quality Trading in the former Great Black Swamp under Changing Climate Conditions of Lake Erie. Poster presented at the 1st ESGP Poster Symposium, Columbus, OH. Xu, J., B. Gu, Y. Guo, J. Chang, Y. Ge, Y. Min, X. Jin. 2010. "A Cellular Automata Model for Population Dynamics Simulation of Two Plant Species with Different Life Strategies." Proceedings of 2010 IEEE International Conference of Intelligent Systems and Knowledge Engineering, Nov. 15-16, 2010, Hangzhou, China: 517-523. vii Chang, J., J. Xu, Y. Ge, B. Gu, X. Jin, Y. Guo, Y. Min. 2007. "Studies of Population Quantity Dynamics of an Endangered Plant Based on Cellular Automata." Mind and Computation 1(4): 465-474.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biological and Water Quality Study of the Blanchard River Putnam, Hancock, Seneca, Allen, Wyandot, and Hardin Counties, OH
    State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Biological and Water Quality Study of the Blanchard River Putnam, Hancock, Seneca, Allen, Wyandot, and Hardin Counties, OH June 28, 2007 Ted Strickland, Governor Chris Korleski, Director EAS/2007-6-2 2005 Blanchard River Basin TSD June 28, 2007 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Blanchard River and Selected Tributaries 2005 Putnam, Hancock, Seneca, Allen, Wyandot, and Hardin Counties, OH June 28, 2007 OEPA Technical Report EAS/2007-6-2 Prepared by State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Lazarus Government Center 50 West Town Street, Columbus OH 43215 Mail to: P.O. Box 1049, Columbus OH 43216-1049 Ted Strickland, Governor, State of Ohio Chris Korleski Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency EAS/2007-6-2 2005 Blanchard River Basin TSD June 28, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTICE TO USERS ........................................................................................................ i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..................................................................................................iii FOREWORD...................................................................................................................iv MECHANISMS FOR WATER QUALITY IMPAIRMENT..................................................ix INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Blanchard River Watershed TMDL Report
    State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency July 2009 Blanchard River Watershed TMDL Report What are the essential facts? Ohio EPA studied the Blanchard River watershed and found water quality problems at all of the locations measured. The watershed can make progress towards restoration with practical, economical actions. Improving the streams depends on the participation of the watershed’s residents. What is the significance of this report? The Blanchard River Watershed TMDL Report is a tool that will include local ideas from the endorsed watershed action plan to help improve and maintain water quality and habitat in the watershed. What is a watershed? A watershed is the land area from which surface runoff drains into a specific body of water. Where is the Blanchard River and types of fish and aquatic collected in 2005 and 2006 to watershed? insects in the water. An abundance support a computer model that of fish and insects that tolerate evaluates where the pollution The Blanchard River water- pollution indicates an unhealthy comes from and where pollution shed is located in portions of Allen, stream, while a large number that reductions are needed. Hancock, Hardin, Putnam and are sensitive to pollution indicates Wyandot counties in northwest a healthy stream. The conditions of the water- Ohio. It is a sub-watershed of the shed were compared with state Maumee River Basin that flows In 2005, Ohio EPA scientists water quality goals to determine into the western Lake Erie basin collected comprehensive which stream segments are and drains 771 square miles. biological, chemical and physical impaired, and how much needs to data in the Blanchard River water- be done to restore good stream An estimated 91,266 citizens shed (see map).
    [Show full text]
  • Western Lake Erie Basin Collaborative Agreement
    State of Ohio’s Western Lake Erie Basin Collaborative Implementation Framework A Pathway for Transitioning Ohio to a Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Domestic Action Plan February 2017 State of Ohio Western Lake Erie Basin Collaborative Implementation Framework Introduction On June 13, 2015, the governors of Ohio and Michigan, and the premier of Ontario committed to a goal of reducing phosphorus loadings to Lake Erie by 40 percent as specified in the Western Basin of Lake Erie Collaborative Agreement (Collaborative). The Collaborative is intended to advance efforts toward the proposed nutrient reduction targets put forth in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). This will be done through the development of this Implementation Framework (Framework), ahead of the formal timeline for completing a state Domestic Action Plan (DAP) as set forth in the GLWQA. The Collaborative will focus on the western basin watersheds of the Maumee, Portage and Toussaint rivers and the Sandusky River. The GLWQA through the Domestic Action Plan will include the Central Basin tributaries of the Huron and Cuyahoga rivers, but these will not be addressed in detail in this Framework. Goals of the Collaborative • Achieve a 40 percent total load reduction in the amount of total and dissolved reactive phosphorus entering Lake Erie’s western basin by the year 2025 with an aspirational goal of a 20 percent reduction by 20201. • To use 2008 as the base year from which progress will be measured. • That each state and Province commits to developing, in collaboration with stakeholder groups, a framework outlining actions and timelines toward achieving the goals.
    [Show full text]
  • By Earl E. Webber Water Resources Investigations Report 82-4044
    FLOOD OF JUNE 13-15, 1981, IN THE BLANCHARD RIVER BASIN, NORTHWESTERN OHIO By Earl E. Webber U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water Resources Investigations Report 82-4044 Columbus, Ohio 1982 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR JAMES G. WATT, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURJVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can write to: be purchased from: District Chief Opeh-File Services Section Water Resources Division Western Distribution Branch U.S. Geological Survey U.S^ Geological Survey 975 West Third Avenue Box 25425, Federal Center Columbus, Ohio 43212 Denver, Colorado 80225 (Telephone: (303) 234-5888) CONTENTS Page Abstract .................................................. 1 Introduction .............................................. 1 Acknowledgments ........................................... 3 Weather conditions preceding flood ........................ 4 Precipitation and runoff during flood ..................... 5 High-water profiles ....................................... 8 Flood-peak discharges ..................................... 8 Conclusions ............................................... 31 References ................................................ 32 ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figure 1. Map showing location of peak discharge measurement sites and isohyetal lines for storm of June 13-15, 1981, in northwestern Ohio ............................ 2 2. Graph showing daily precipitation at the Findlay NOAA weather station and discharge for gage at station 04189000 Blanchard River near Findlay, Ohio, June, 1981
    [Show full text]
  • City of Findlay Riverside Park- Blanchard River HUC-12
    Nine-Element Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategic Plan (NPS-IS plan) Created by: Blanchard River Watershed Partnership PO Box 1237 Findlay, OH. 45839-1237 Phil Martin - Watershed Coordinator This page intentionally left blank Table of Contents Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................................iv Chapter 1 Introduction..............................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Report Background.................................................................................................................1-3 1.2 Watershed Profile & History..................................................................................................1-4 1.3 Public Participation and Involvement..................................................................................1-7 Chapter 2 Characterization and Assessment Summary.........................................................2-1 2.1 Summary of Watershed Characterization for the City of Findlay Riverside Park- Blanchard River HUC-12.......................................................................................................2-1 2.1.1 Physical and Natural Features.................................................................................2-1 2.1.2 Land Use and Protection.........................................................................................2-2 2.2 Summary of Biological Trends for the City of Findlay Riverside Park- Blanchard
    [Show full text]
  • Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Blanchard River
    State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Blanchard River Watershed Blanchard River at Riverbend Recreation Area, Hancock County (photo courtesy of Tim Powell, 2006) Final Report May 22, 2009 Ted Strickland, Governor Chris Korleski, Director Blanchard River Watershed TMDLs TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 TMDL overview ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 General introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Public participation ......................................................................................................... 5 2.0 Description of the project area ....................................................................................... 8 2.1 Project delineation .......................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Water resources ........................................................................................................... 11 2.2.1 Blanchard River-headwaters WAU (HUC 04100008-010) .................................... 11 2.2.2 The Outlet/Lye Creek WAU (HUC 04100008-020) ............................................... 12 2.2.3 Eagle Creek WAU (HUC 04100008-030) .............................................................. 12 2.2.4 Ottawa Creek WAU (HUC 04100008-040) ............................................................ 13 2.2.5 Riley
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrology Report 11-8-2017.Docx 1
    Hydrologic Evaluation of the Blanchard River Hancock County Flood Risk Reduction Program Prepared for: Maumee Watershed Conservancy District 1464 Pinehurst Dr. Defiance, Ohio 43512 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 11687 Lebanon Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45069 November 8, 2017 Revision Description Author Quality Check Independent Review 0 FINAL E. Caudill Nov. 8, 2017 SP 11/8 Sign-off Sheet This document entitled Hydrologic Evaluation of the Blanchard River was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (“Stantec”) for the account of Maumee Watershed Conservancy District (the “Client”). Any reliance on this document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this document is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be responsible for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this document. Prepared by (signature) Erman Caudill, PE (KY #23451), CFM Reviewed by (signature) David Hayson, PE Approved by (signature) Scott Peyton, PE HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF THE BLANCHARD RIVER Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Work Program 208 Plan Maintenance and Targeted Water Quality Planning Final Report FFY16 Allotment June 2018
    Water Quality §604(b) Work Program 208 Plan Maintenance and Targeted Water Quality Planning Final Report FFY16 Allotment June 2018 Table of Contents Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Goal ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Methods ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 Study Area ............................................................................................................................................. 7 Inventory of Municipal Sanitary Sewers ............................................................................................... 8 Inventory of Package Plants .................................................................................................................. 8 Creation of Sanitary Sewer Maps ......................................................................................................... 8 Populations and Housing Units ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Howard Run-Blanchard River HUC-12 (04100008 03 04)
    Howard Run-Blanchard River Watershed NPS-IS (04100008 03 04) Nine-Element Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategic Plan (NPS-IS plan) Howard Run-Blanchard River HUC-12 (04100008 03 04) Created by: The Blanchard River Watershed Partnership P.O. Box 1237 Findlay, OH 45839-1237 [email protected] Approved: June 4, 2020 Howard Run-Blanchard River Watershed NPS-IS Plan Revision (04100008 03 04) This page intentionally left blank Cover Photo Credit: Blanchard River (Martin) ii Howard Run-Blanchard River Watershed NPS-IS Plan Revision (04100008 03 04) Acknowledgements The Blanchard River Watershed Partnership would like to thank the Ohio EPA and the Ohio Lake Erie Commission for providing the funding for the creation of this NPS-IS Plan. The Partnership would also like to thank the City of Findlay, Hancock County Commissioners, Steve Wilson, Flood Mitigation Project Manager - Maumee Conservancy District, University of Findlay, Findlay City Schools, and the Hancock County Soil and Water Conservation District for input and advice in developing the Best Management Practices outlined in this NPS-IS Plan. Special thanks to Elaine Reynolds for the GIS maps that she created. Finally, thanks to Phil Martin, former watershed coordinator, for writing the plan. This NPS-IS Plan will help to secure funding to address the nonpoint source impairments in the Howard Run-Blanchard River HUC-12 watershed of the Blanchard River Watershed. iii Howard Run-Blanchard River Watershed NPS-IS Plan Revision (04100008 03 04) Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Blanchard River Watershed Model, OH Great Lakes Tributary Model Program (Section 516E, WRDA 96)
    Blanchard River Watershed Model, OH Great Lakes Tributary Model Program (Section 516e, WRDA 96) Project Location: This project is located in the Blanchard River watershed, which is located in the Counties of Allen, Hancock, Hardin, Putnam, Seneca and Wyandot in the State of Ohio. The Blanchard River is a tributary of the Auglaize River, which drains into the Maumee River and eventually into Lake Erie near Toledo, OH. Sediments and non-point pollutants from this watershed discharge to the Toledo Harbor and the Western Lake Erie basin. Project Description: Land use in the 771 square mile Blanchard Watershed is estimated to be 80.8% cultivated crops, 10.1% developed, 5.6% forest, 2.6% pasture and grassland, and < 1% open water and wetlands. This modeling effort will support local stakeholders in identifying sources of sedimentation and excess nutrients throughout the watershed. For this project, the Agricultural Non-Point Source (AGNPS) suite of models were applied to determine sediment sources, contributing locations, and the effect of best management practices (BMPs) on rates of sediment delivery to the mouth of the watershed. Project Benefits: The Blanchard River watershed model will: 1) Simulate erosion, sediment delivery pathways and sediment delivery yields and loads in the watershed; 2) Simulate fate and transport of nutrients throughout the watershed; 3) Project the potential benefits of conservation treatment strategies and best management practices and; 4) Support the larger GLRI effort by reducing erosion in the Maumee Basin and reduce sediment and associated nutrient delivery to Toledo Harbor and Lake Erie. Status: This two-year modeling effort will be completed in September 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • NPS-IS) for Lapp Ditch-Auglaize River HUC-12 (04100007 09 05
    Nine-Element Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategy (NPS-IS) for Lapp Ditch-Auglaize River HUC-12 (04100007 09 05) Prepared for: Putnam Soil and Water Conservation District Prepared by: Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. Toledo, Ohio Version 1.0: May 2020 Approved: May 19, 2020 This page intentionally left blank. Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. i Putnam Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-495 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy Acknowledgements Version 1.0 prepared and written by: Jeff Giesige, Jeff Nordhaus, Sarah Rieman, Curtis Tobe Putnam Soil and Water Conservation District 1206 E. Second Street Ottawa, OH 45875 Deanna Bobak Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4841 Monroe Street, Suite 103 Toledo, OH 43623 The Putnam Soil and Water Conservation District would like to acknowledge the collaboration of multiple partners in the preparation of this Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategy (NPS-IS) for the Lapp Ditch-Auglaize River HUC-12. Thank you to the individuals and organizations that contributed background information, insight into objectives and projects for inclusion in this NPS-IS. Special thanks to Rick Wilson, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency – Division of Surface Water, for guidance throughout the development of this NPS-IS for the Lapp Ditch-Auglaize River HUC-12. Cover photo: the Auglaize River; courtesy of Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. ii Putnam Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-495 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy
    [Show full text]
  • Blanchard River Watershed Summary
    BLANCHARD RIVER WATERSHED SUMMARY The Blanchard River watershed is located in northwest Ohio in portions of Allen, Hancock, Hardin, Putnam, Seneca and Wyandot counties. The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) was used to estimate this watershed’s contribution to nutrient loadings to the Western Basin of Lake Erie (WLEB), as well as simulate estimated nutrient outputs when specific best management practices (BMPs) were implemented. Model results estimated that ~30% of the Blanchard watershed contributes phosphorus outputs that range from 1.71 to 2.97 lbs/acre to the Blanchard River on an annual basis. The Blanchard River SWAT model was used to simulate phosphorus outputs if several agricultural BMPs were adopted at a rate of 50% in the areas that have higher Total P contributions. The scenarios modeled were: 1) subsurface application of fertilizer, 2) no-till practices, 3) P-fertilizer application at half the Baseline scenario rate, and 4) a combination of subsurface application of fertilizer, half P-rate application, no-till practices, and use of cover crops. Analysis of these scenarios shows: No single BMP provides optimal nutrient reduction everywhere. Not every BMP is best-suited for an area, or as a stand-alone BMP. Implementation of some BMPs help nutrient loads reach the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 40% reduction goal in some Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC-12) subwatersheds, while even a combination of BMPs is not enough to reach that goal in others. For those areas where nutrient reduction goals are not met, an adoption rate of greater than 50% or alternative BMPs may be needed.
    [Show full text]