DOCSLIB.ORG

Soil Fertility Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Soil Fertility Management ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ● H.J. PATTERSON HALL ● COLLEGE PARK, MD 20742 PHONE (301) 405-1351 ● FAX (301) 314-2763 ● [email protected] Soil Fertility Management SFM-7 October 2015 THE MARYLAND PHOSPHORUS SITE INDEX TECHNICAL USERS GUIDE The Phosphorus Index Concept excessive levels and the transport of P from In 1990, a national cooperative workgroup of soils to sensitive water bodies. scientists from numerous Universities and the USDA was organized to develop a procedure that The Objective of the Phosphorus Index could identify soils, farm management practices, The P Index uses readily available information to and specific locations within a farm where evaluate two broad categories of factors that phosphorus (P) losses in field drainage water may contribute to the potential for P loss from pose the potential for negative environmental agricultural land: (1) P loss potential due to site impacts on nearby surface waters. The goals of this and transport characteristics, and (2) P loss national workgroup were: potential due to management and source • To develop an easily used field rating system characteristics. The first group of factors assesses that rates farm fields according to the potential the potential for P to be transported off the field for P loss to surface water (the Phosphorus with runoff, leaching, and drainage water. The Index). second group of factors assesses the quantity, • To relate the P Index to the sensitivity of availability, and forms of P present at the site and receiving surface waters to eutrophication and the likelihood that the P present in the soil is a degradation resulting from non-point source P source of potential environmental concern. The enrichment. aim of the P Index is to identify critical areas • To facilitate adaptation and modification of the where there is a high P loss potential from the P Index to regional and site-specific site because there is both a large potential for conditions. transport of P off the field and a large source of P • To develop agricultural management practices present in the soil that may potentially pose a that will minimize the buildup of soil P to significant environmental impact if it reaches Solutions in your community Issued in furtherance of Extension work, acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, University of Maryland, College Park, and local governments. Cheng-i Wei, Dean and Director of University of Maryland Extension. The University of Maryland is equal opportunity. The University’s policies, programs, and activities are in conformance with pertinent Federal and State laws and regulations on nondiscrimination regarding race, color, religion, age, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital or parental status, or disability. Inquiries regarding compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; Title IX of the Educational Amendments; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990; or related legal requirements should be directed to the Director of Human Resources Management, Office of the Dean, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Symons Hall, College Park, MD 20742. nearby surface waters. method. Each of the twelve site characteristics or Development of a Modified Phosphorus Index management factors is evaluated for a specific Specifically for Maryland Conditions location and assigned a numeric value. The sum of In 1994, we began the development of a P Index the site characteristics determined for Part A is specifically tailored to Maryland’s soils, multiplied by a scaling factor (0.02) so that P agricultural management practices, climate, transport potential is expressed on a relative scale topography, hydrology and surface water with a range of 0 to 1, for most situations. Thus, characteristics. The Maryland Phosphorus Site the total site and transport value determined for Index (PSI) was originally based on the generic Part A can be interpreted as the proportion of the P national model published in 1993 by the USDA’s source present at the site that is susceptible to Natural Resources Conservation Service, but has being transported off of the field by drainage water undergone many substantive changes and and impacting adjacent surface waters. modifications since its development so that it more accurately reflects Maryland conditions. The sum of the management practice and source characteristic values determined for Part B is The Maryland PSI has been evaluated on nearly multiplied by the total site and transport value eight hundred farm fields across the state. The determined for Part A and the product is the final information generated from those on-farm “P Loss Rating” for the site. This multiplicative evaluations has been used to develop this initial operation assures that the fields that have the version of the PSI. As more farm fields are highest P Loss Rating have both a high P transport evaluated and we gain more information on the potential (large Part A value) and large source of strengths and weaknesses of this nutrient potentially damaging P (large Part B value). If management planning tool, revised and improved either the P transport potential (Part A) or the P versions of the PSI will likely be developed. source characteristics (Part B) are low, then the final P Loss Rating will be relatively low. An Overview of How the Maryland Phosphorus Site Index Works General Interpretation of the P Loss Ratings The Maryland PSI is structured into two distinct The final P Loss Rating is subdivided into four portions: Part A and Part B (Table 1). Part A interpretive categories: Low, Medium, High, and evaluates the P loss potential due to physical site Very High. Table 2 can be used to interpret the characteristics and P transport potential. This management implications of the P Loss Rating assessment is made by evaluation of six site- determined for a specific site. It is important to specific characteristics: soil erosion, surface understand that the P Loss Rating is only a relative runoff, subsurface drainage, leaching potential, value and is not a numeric or quantitative distance to surface water, and watershed priority prediction of P loss from the field. Sites with a P ranking. Part B evaluates the P loss potential due Loss Rating in the “Low” category are predicted to to farm management practices and P source have a relatively lower potential for P losses than characteristics by assessing six additional factors: sites in the “Medium” category. Sites with a P conventional soil-test P level, P fertilizer Loss Rating in the “Medium” category are application rate, P fertilizer application method, predicted to have a relatively lower potential for P organic-source P (manures, biosolids, composts, losses then those locations with a “High” P Loss etc.) application rate, organic-source P availability Rating, and so on. or solubility, and organic-source P application 2 Using the Maryland Phosphorus Site Index This Technical Users Guide presents the step-by- Information Source #2: County Soil Survey step procedure for using the Maryland P Site Index 1. Predominant soil mapping unit in the field as a component of an overall agricultural nutrient 2. Soil permeability class management plan. Although attempts were made 3. Soil drainage class to make this Technical Users Guide 4. Depth to seasonal high water table comprehensive, nutrient management advisors and certified consultants will undoubtedly encounter Information Source #3: Watershed Map real-world situations and physical circumstances 1. Watershed name and/or number for location that do not precisely correspond with the categorical or numerical options presented in Information Source #4: Field Visit various sections of the PSI determination. In such 1. Distance to surface water cases, the certified nutrient management planner 2. Slope of field (length and steepness) should use the category or value that most 3. RUSLE “P” practices: ridge height, furrow accurately represents the real-world conditions or grade, cover management condition, number of interpolate between two numeric choices. In some crop strips across RUSLE slope, width of crop cases, averaging across values for a single site and/or buffer strips. characteristic (weighted values) may most accurately represent the real-world conditions. Supplies Necessary for Data Collection The following is a list of supplies or equipment Gathering All Appropriate Information that is necessary for collecting P Site Index data. The following is a list of information needed to 1. P Site Index Technical Users Guide determine the P Site Index, as well as the source 2. Maryland NRCS RUSLE section of the PSI from which to obtain the information. Training Materials 3. Maryland watershed map Information Source #1: Farm Operator 4. Maryland Nutrient Management Training 1. Soil-test P level from soil-test report Manual 2. Amount, analysis and type of P fertilizer 5. County soil survey applied 6. Clinometer or similar slope measuring device 3. Application method and timing of P fertilizer 7. Measuring wheel or measuring tape application 4. Amount and type of manure, compost or Determining Values for Site Characteristics and biosolids applied Management Practices 5. Application method and timing for manure, On the following pages are detailed procedures for compost or biosolids application determining values for each site characteristic, 6. Manure, compost or biosolids analysis management practice, and the final P Loss Rating. 7. Type and width of vegetated field buffers Manual calculation of each value can be quite 8. Width of “no P application zone” buffers time consuming. New computer software is 9. Crop rotation sequence currently being developed that will speed-up and 10. Tillage rotation sequence simplify the P Site Index calculation. Although the 11. Conservation practices such as strip or new P Site Index computer program will expedite contour cropping, buffer strips, etc. the calculations, the certified nutrient management 12.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Title 26 Department of the Environment, Subtitle 08 Water
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION Chapters 01-10 2 26.08.01.00 Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION Chapter 01 General Authority: Environment Article, §§9-313—9-316, 9-319, 9-320, 9-325, 9-327, and 9-328, Annotated Code of Maryland 3 26.08.01.01 .01 Definitions. A. General. (1) The following definitions describe the meaning of terms used in the water quality and water pollution control regulations of the Department of the Environment (COMAR 26.08.01—26.08.04). (2) The terms "discharge", "discharge permit", "disposal system", "effluent limitation", "industrial user", "national pollutant discharge elimination system", "person", "pollutant", "pollution", "publicly owned treatment works", and "waters of this State" are defined in the Environment Article, §§1-101, 9-101, and 9-301, Annotated Code of Maryland. The definitions for these terms are provided below as a convenience, but persons affected by the Department's water quality and water pollution control regulations should be aware that these definitions are subject to amendment by the General Assembly. B. Terms Defined. (1) "Acute toxicity" means the capacity or potential of a substance to cause the onset of deleterious effects in living organisms over a short-term exposure as determined by the Department.
    [Show full text]
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2012-AG-Environmental-Audit.Pdf
    TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER ONE: YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER AND DEEP CREEK LAKE .................. 4 I. Background .......................................................................................................... 4 II. Active Enforcement and Pending Matters ........................................................... 9 III. The Youghiogheny River/Deep Creek Lake Audit, May 16, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned............................................................................................. 12 CHAPTER TWO: COASTAL BAYS ............................................................................. 15 I. Background ........................................................................................................ 15 II. Active Enforcement Efforts and Pending Matters ............................................. 17 III. The Coastal Bays Audit, July 12, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned .. 20 CHAPTER THREE: WYE RIVER ................................................................................. 24 I. Background ........................................................................................................ 24 II. Active Enforcement and Pending Matters ......................................................... 26 III. The Wye River Audit, October 10, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned 27 CHAPTER FOUR: POTOMAC RIVER NORTH BRANCH AND SAVAGE RIVER 31 I. Background .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Lease Applications 9-23-20.Xlsx
    Summary of Shellfish Lease Applications (1/1/2015 - 9/23/2020) Waterbody County AcreageStatus Received CompleteTFL Sanctuary WC Gear Type IssuedDate Smith Creek St. Mary's 3 Recorded 1/6/15 1/6/15 11/21/16 St. Marys River St. Mary's 16.2 GISRescreen (revised) 1/6/15 1/6/15 Yes Cages Calvert Bay St. Mary's 2.5Recorded 1/6/15 1/6/15 YesCages 2/28/17 Wicomico River St. Mary's 4.5Recorded 1/8/15 1/27/15 YesCages 5/8/19 Fishing Bay Dorchester 6.1 Recorded 1/12/15 1/12/15 Yes 11/2/15 Honga River Dorchester 14Recorded 2/10/15 2/26/15Yes YesCages & Floats 6/27/18 Smith Creek St Mary's 2.6 Under Protest 2/12/15 2/12/15 Yes Harris Creek Talbot 4.1Recorded 2/19/15 4/7/15 Yes YesCages 4/28/16 Wicomico River Somerset 26.7Recorded 3/3/15 3/3/15Yes 10/20/16 Ellis Bay Wicomico 69.9Recorded 3/19/15 3/19/15Yes 9/20/17 Wicomico River Charles 13.8Recorded 3/30/15 3/30/15Yes 2/4/16 Smith Creek St. Mary's 1.7 Under Protest 3/31/15 3/31/15 Yes Chester River Kent 4.9Recorded 4/6/15 4/9/15 YesCages 8/23/16 Smith Creek St. Mary's 2.1 Recorded 4/23/15 4/23/15 Yes 9/19/16 Fishing Bay Dorchester 12.4Recorded 5/4/15 6/4/15Yes 6/1/16 Breton Bay St.
    [Show full text]
  • MDE-Water Pollution
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION Chapters 01-10 Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................... 1 Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION .................................................................................................................... 1 Chapters 01-10 ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................... 2 Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION .................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 01 General ......................................................................................................................................... 2 .01 Definitions................................................................................................................................................. 3 .02 Principles of Water Pollution Control....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Report Card 2017 Midshore Rivers
    Report Card 2017 Midshore Rivers 114 South Washington Street Suite 301 Easton, MD 21601 shorerivers.org EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ShoreRivers is pleased to release this eighth annual River Report Card regarding the Choptank, Miles and Wye Rivers, Eastern Bay, and their tributaries. This is produced from data collected by our scientists, Riverkeepers, and approximately 50 volunteer Midshore Creekwatchers who together sampled at over 100 sites from May to October 2017. I am pleased to report that the results are in line with those from the past two years, reflecting improved water clarity, expanding grass beds, and reduced or stable pollution concentrations for many sampling locations. The year 2017 had wet and dry months and the data correlated to these weather trends. Months with increased rainfall washed from the land pollutants such as sediments and fertilizers into our rivers, an important indicator that river pollution comes from the surrounding land. As in years past, our organization has been heavily involved in installing pollution- reducing practices across our watersheds that are contributing to improved river health. As many of you know, Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy merged January 1, 2018 with the Chester River Association and the Sassafras River Association to become ShoreRivers, employing four Riverkeepers and a staff of twenty river advocates. We are in the process of developing a uniform program including a quality assurance project plan (QAPP) that will meet the standards set forth by the state and federal government for Tier III status so that our data will be acceptable to state and federal agencies for consideration in policy decision-making.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Stream Waders 10 Year Report
    MARYLAND STREAM WADERS TEN YEAR (2000-2009) REPORT October 2012 Maryland Stream Waders Ten Year (2000-2009) Report Prepared for: Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 1-877-620-8DNR (x8623) [email protected] Prepared by: Daniel Boward1 Sara Weglein1 Erik W. Leppo2 1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 2 Tetra Tech, Inc. Center for Ecological Studies 400 Red Brook Boulevard, Suite 200 Owings Mills, Maryland 21117 October 2012 This page intentionally blank. Foreword This document reports on the firstt en years (2000-2009) of sampling and results for the Maryland Stream Waders (MSW) statewide volunteer stream monitoring program managed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division (MANTA). Stream Waders data are intended to supplementt hose collected for the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) by DNR and University of Maryland biologists. This report provides an overview oft he Program and summarizes results from the firstt en years of sampling. Acknowledgments We wish to acknowledge, first and foremost, the dedicated volunteers who collected data for this report (Appendix A): Thanks also to the following individuals for helping to make the Program a success. • The DNR Benthic Macroinvertebrate Lab staffof Neal Dziepak, Ellen Friedman, and Kerry Tebbs, for their countless hours in
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Decisions Regarding Nutrient and Sediment Load Allocations and New Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Restoration Goals
    To: Principal Staff Committee Members and Representatives of Chesapeake Bay “Headwater” States From: W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr., Chair Chesapeake Bay Program Principals’ Staff Committee Subject: Summary of Decisions Regarding Nutrient and Sediment Load Allocations and New Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Restoration Goals For the past twenty years, the Chesapeake Bay partners have been committed to achieving and maintaining water quality conditions necessary to support living resources throughout the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. In the past month, Chesapeake Bay Program partners (Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Chesapeake Bay Commission) have expanded our efforts by working with the headwater states of Delaware, West Virginia and New York to adopt new cap load allocations for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. Using the best scientific information available, Bay Program partners have agreed to allocations that are intended to meet the needs of the plants and animals that call the Chesapeake home. The allocations will serve as a basis for each state’s tributary strategies that, when completed by April 2004, will describe local implementation actions necessary to meet the Chesapeake 2000 nutrient and sediment loading goals by 2010. This memorandum summarizes the important, comprehensive agreements made by Bay watershed partners with regard to cap load allocations for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediments, as well as new baywide and local SAV restoration goals. Nutrient Allocations Excessive nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries promote undesirable algal growth, and thereby, prohibit light from reaching underwater bay grasses (submerged aquatic vegetation or SAV) and depress the dissolved oxygen levels of the deeper waters of the Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief History of Worcester County (PDF)
    Contents Worcester’s Original Locals ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Native American Names ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 From Colony To Free State ................................................................................................................................................................. 6 A Divided Land: Civil War .................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Storm Surges & Modern Times ........................................................................................................................................................... 8 Our Historic Towns .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Berlin ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Ocean City .................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Ocean Pines
    [Show full text]
  • Ocean City Harbor Inlet and Sinepuxent Bay Maryland Fact Sheet
    OCEAN CITY HARBOR & INLET & SINEPUXENT BAY, MD FACT SHEET as of February 2019 AUTHORIZATION: The project was approved by the River and Harbor Act of August 1935 in accordance with Rivers and Harbors Committee Document No. 38, 72nd Congress and modified in Document No. 60. It was also modified in 1954. TYPE OF PROJECT: Navigation PROJECT PHASE: Operation and Maintenance CONGRESSIONAL INTEREST: Senators Van Hollen and Cardin (MD), Representatives Harris (MD-1) NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR: Worcester County, Maryland BACKGROUND: The location of the Ocean City inlet is on the far eastern boundary of Maryland along the Atlantic Coast. The project provides for an inlet channel 10 feet deep from the Atlantic Ocean through West Ocean City harbor. The inlet channel width varies from 100 to 200 feet. The inlet channel is protected by two stone jetties at the entrance from the Atlantic Ocean. The project also includes a channel 6 feet deep and with widths that vary from 100 to 150 feet in Sinepuxent Bay from the inlet to Chincoteague Bay. The project also includes a channel 6 feet deep with widths that vary from 75 to 125 feet from the inlet into the Isle of Wight Bay. STATUS: The Ocean City inlet has a history of shoaling rapidly, especially near the entrance to the West Ocean City harbor. Limited maintenance dredging of the Ocean City inlet via one of the Corps’ special purpose dredges will be accomplished with fiscal year (FY) 2019 funds. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS – BALTIMORE DISTRICT 2 Hopkins Plaza, Baltimore MD 21201 https://www.nab.usace.army.mil page 1 of 5 BUDGET: Federal Funds Data Total Allocation for FY 2018 750,000 President Budget FY 20191 5,000 Allocation for FY 20192 255,000 President Budget FY 20201 TBD 1 The President typically sends the budget to Congress in February each year.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland's Lower Choptank River Cultural Resource Inventory
    Maryland’s Lower Choptank River Cultural Resource Inventory by Ralph E. Eshelman and Carl W. Scheffel, Jr. “So long as the tides shall ebb and flow in Choptank River.” From Philemon Downes will, Hillsboro, circa 1796 U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle 7.5 Minute Topographic maps covering the Lower Choptank River (below Caroline County) include: Cambridge (1988), Church Creek (1982), East New Market (1988), Oxford (1988), Preston (1988), Sharp Island (1974R), Tilghman (1988), and Trappe (1988). Introduction The Choptank River is Maryland’s longest river of the Eastern Shore. The Choptank River was ranked as one of four Category One rivers (rivers and related corridors which possess a composite resource value with greater than State signific ance) by the Maryland Rivers Study Wild and Scenic Rivers Program in 1985. It has been stated that “no river in the Chesapeake region has done more to shape the character and society of the Eastern Shore than the Choptank.” It has been called “the noblest watercourse on the Eastern Shore.” Name origin: “Chaptanck” is probably a composition of Algonquian words meaning “it flows back strongly,” referring to the river’s tidal changes1 Geological Change and Flooded Valleys The Choptank River is the largest tributary of the Chesapeake Bay on the eastern shore and is therefore part of the largest estuary in North America. This Bay and all its tributaries were once non-tidal fresh water rivers and streams during the last ice age (15,000 years ago) when sea level was over 300 feet below present. As climate warmed and glaciers melted northward sea level rose, and the Choptank valley and Susquehanna valley became flooded.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Bays
    Priority Areas for Wetland Restoration, Preservation, and Mitigation in Maryland’s Coastal Bays Prepared by: Maryland Department of the Environment Nontidal Wetlands and Waterways Division Funded by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency State Wetland Program Development Grant CD 983378-01-1 December 2004 Table of Contents Priority Wetland Restoration, Preservation, and Mitigation in Maryland’s Coastal Bays EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 2 TARGETING........................................................................................................................................... 8 Wetlands and wetland loss......................................................................................................................10 Existing management plan goals ............................................................................................................32 Existing targeting efforts.........................................................................................................................36 Additional targeting considerations ........................................................................................................41 GIS data sources .....................................................................................................................................54 Summary of restoration targeting information - existing recommendations..........................................56 MDE restoration
    [Show full text]