DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY

Phosphorus Indicies:What Is The Water Quality Goal?

(or How Do We Match P Loss Assessments with Water Quality Outcomes)

Deanna Osmond

Waste to Worth ConferenceSeattle, WA

March 30 – April 2, 2015

DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY

Comparing Ratings of the Southern P Indices: Prior Work

DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY

TX

OK

FL

AL GA

AR

LA

NC

MS

TN

KY

SC

²0 250 500125 Miles

Albers Equal-Area Conic

Southern States and Types of Phosphorus Indices

IR

IR

IRIR

IR

IR

N

IR

IR

NN

N

DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY

Southern Phosphorus Indices CIG: Objectives

1. Determine pre-existing watershed or plot-scale (11) sites where accuracy of P Indices to estimate site P loss potential can be evaluated.

2. Compare predictions of P-Indices to water quality data from benchmark sites.

3. Compare fate and transport models against water quality data. Use water quality data (monitored or predicted by model) to guide refinement of P Indices.

4. Compare predictions of P Indices against fate and transport water quality models (APEX, TBET, APLE) for calibrated and uncalibrated models.

5. Refine P Indices to ensure better consistency in ratings across state boundaries and within physiographic provinces.

DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY

Locations of Data Sets

TX

OK

FL

AL GA

AR

LA

NC

MS

TN

KY

SC

²0 250 500125 Miles

Albers Equal-Area Conic

DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY

Southern Field SitesState # Plots Date range Site-years Crop STP range (ppm)

1 2 3 4

AR 7 2009 – 2011 21 Pasture 81 - 183 Captina (C)GA 6 1995 – 1998 24 Pasture 14 - 142 Cecil (B) Altavista (C) Sedgefield (C) Helena (C)

NC 5 2011-2013 15Corn with wheat

cover44-121 Delanco (C)

MS 2 1996-1999 8Cotton or soybens with wheat cover

37-79 Dubbs (B) Tensas (D) Alligator (D) Dundee (C)

OK 1 1972-1976 4 Cotton 20 McLain (C) Reinach (C)OK 1 2006-2007 1.17 Pasture 50 Clarksville (B)OK 1 1977-1992 16 Native grass 15 Bethany (C)OK 1 1980-1985 6 Wheat 35 Norge (B)TX 1 1998-2001 4 Hay 435 Duffau (B)TX 1 2005-2008 4 Sorghum/Oats 34 Topsey (C) Brackett (C) Krum (D)TX 1 2005-2008 4 Native grass 10 Nuff (C)

TX 1 2001-2008 7Corn with wheat

cover51 Houston Black (D)

Soil Series (hydro group)

DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY

Arkansas Data:Southern State P-Index Ratings

Fields Total Pkg/ha

NRCSRating

State P-Index Rating

AL AR FL GA KY LA MS NC OK SC TN TX

Check 0.26 Low -- Low Low Low Low Low Low Low High Low Med Low

Broadcast+ Litter

1.52 Low Low Med Low Low Low Low Med Low High High Med Med

Inject+litter 0.63 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low High Med Med Med

Inject Litterx2 0.86 Low Low Med Low Low Low Low Low Low Severe High Med Med

RotGraz+ Litter

1.03 Low Low Med Med Low Med Low Med Med High High Med Med

ContGraz+Litter

2.09 Low Low Med Med Low Med Low Med Med Severe High Med Med

Hay+Litter 1.43 Low Low Med Med Low Low Low Med Low High High Med Med

NRCS P Loss Ratings0 to 2.2 kg/ha/yr = Low

2.2 to 5.6 kg/ha/yr = Medium> 5.6 kg/ha/yr = High

DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY

North Carolina Data:Southern State P-Index Ratings

FieldsTotal Pkg/ha

NRCSRating

State P-Index Rating

AL FL GA KY LA MS NC OK SC TN TX

CTConv2011 7.55 High Low Low Low Med Low -- Low Low Low Low Med

CTConv2012 1.43 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Med Low Low Med

NTConv2011 0.60 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Med Low Low Med

NTConv2012 0.22 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Med Low Low Med

CTOrg2011 3.09 Med Low MedV.

HighMed Low Low Low Med High High Med

CTOrg2012 1.68 Low Low Med High Low Low Low Low Med Med High Med

NTOrg2011 1.20 Low Med MedV.

HighLow Low Low High Med V. High High

V.Low

NTOrg2012 0.40 Low Low Med Med Low Low Low Med Med High High V. Low

• Arkansas Soluble P/Total P Range = 77 to 96%• North Carolina Soluble P/Total P Range = 2 to 29%

DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY

USEPA Ecoregions of the United States

DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY

USEPA Nutrient (P) Criteria by Ecoregion

Ecoregions - Lakes and ReservoirsII III IV V VI VII VIII IX XI XII XIII XIV

TP mg/L0.009 0.017 0.02 0.033 0.038 0.015 0.008 0.02 0.008 0.01 0.018 0.008

Ecoregions - Rivers and StreamsII III IV V VI VII VIII IX XI XII XIII XIV

TP mg/L0.047 0.01 0.022 0.023 0.067 0.076 0.033 0.01 0.037 0.01 0.04 0.031

DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY

USEPA Nutrient Criteria Information

DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY

Nutrient (P) Criteria by State and Water Resource: Wisconsin Lakes &

Reservoirs

Type of Lake and ReservoirTP

(mg/L)Both seepage and stratif ied lakes 0.02Drainage lakes, not stratif ied 0.04Open and nearshore waters of Lake Michigan 0.007Open and nearshore waters of Lake Superior 0.005Seepage lakes, not strat if ied 0.04Stratif ied reservoirs 0.03Stratif ied two-story f ishery lakes 0.015Unstrat if ied reservoirs 0.04

DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY

Nutrient (P) Criteria by State and Water Resource: Wisconsin Rivers and Streams

River or Stream TP (mg/L)

Rock River from outlet of Sinissippi Lake downstream to the state l ine, excluding Lake Koshkonong.0.1

Sheboygan River from outlet of Sheboygan Marsh to the opening at the end of the piers at Lake Michigan.0.1

South Fork of Flambeau River from state highway 13 near Fif ield to Flambeau River.0.1

St. Croix River from confluence with Namekagon River downstream to Mississippi River, excluding Lake St. Croix near Hudson.0.1

St. Louis River from state l ine to the opening between Minnesota Point and Wisconsin Point at Lake Superior.0.1

Streams not l isted above 0.075

DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY

Nutrient (P) Criteria by State and Water Resource: Florida Estuaries

Estuary Total P (mg/L)Backshelf 0.011Blackburn Bay 0.21Card Sound 0.008Central Florida Bay 0.019Charlotte Harbor Proper 0.19Inner Waterway 0.033Lower Keys 0.008

DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY

Yields per unit area (Ib/ac.y):TN = 2.86TP = 2.93NO3 = 1.01Total Yields (Ib/y):TN = 130,887TP = 130,579NO3 = 47,267Total Reductions Available (Ib/y):TN = 45,541TP = 69,398NO3 = 4,475

Yields per unit area (Ib/ac.y):TN = 2.90TP = 3.02NO3 = 0.98Total Yields (Ib/y):TN = 51,746TP = 51,579NO3 = 17,896Total Reductions Available (Ib/y):TN = 18,308TP = 27,551NO3 = 1718

Yields per unit area (Ib/ac.y):TN = 2.87TP = 3.06NO3 = 0.91Total Yields (Ib/y):TN = 23,125TP = 22,217NO3 = 7,725Total Reductions Available (Ib/y):TN = 8,321TP = 12,020NO3 = 717

Where Do You Measure to Meet the Criteria?

• Where do you measure?

• What do you measure? TP or SP?

• What do you report? Concentration or Load?

Figure compliments of M. Arabi and A. Tasdighi

DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY Slide courtesy of Andrew Sharpley

Mean total P, mg/L Mean dissolved P, mg/L

DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY

But after 2002, greater dissolved P loads generated relative to flow

than before

Relationship between total P Relationship between total P loads and flow was the same loads and flow was the same

before and after 2002before and after 2002

Total P, tons/d

Flow, m3/second200 600

20

60

120

0 400 8000

2002-2012

1988-1999_

_

_

_

_

_

__ _ __2

6

12

Flow, m3/second

0 200 400 600 8000

Dissolved P, tons/d

2002-2012

1988-1999

_

_

_

_

_

_

__ _ __

Slide courtesy of Andrew Sharpley

DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY

Tile Losses: Phosphorous

K.W. King et al.,2014 JEQ

Phosphorus Losses (~50% tile and ~50 overland flow)•Dissolved/soluble P (49%)•Total P (48%) Hydrology•Peak tile discharge occurred concurrently or even before peak discharge in surface runoff•Water and P moving via macropores

Slide compliments of L. Duriancick, USDA-NRCS as interpreted fromWith permission, Douglas R. Smith, et al., JEQ, October 10, 2014

DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY

Oklahoma Data:Southern State P-Index Ratings

Fields Total P

kg/ha

NRCSRating

State P-Index Rating

AL AR FL GA KY LA MS NC OK SC TN TX

Demo N 0.02 Low Low High Med Low Low Low Med Low Med Low Med High

Chickasha 5.80 High Low -- Med Med Med Low Low Low Low Low High Med

Cyril 0.18 Low Low -- Low Low Low Low Low Low Low High Low Med

El Reno 0.02 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Med Low Low V Low

NRCS P Loss Ratings0 to 2.2 kg/ha/yr = Low

2.2 to 5.6 kg/ha/yr = Medium> 5.6 kg/ha/yr = High

Soluble P/Total P Range = 3 to 100%

DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY

How to Match Nutrient (P) Criteria with USDA-NRCS P Loss Tools?

It’s going to be a challenge– Most states have yet to develop nutrient criteria and it may

take years if not decades– Many water resources have unique nutrient (P) criteria– Where do you measure? Edge of field? Small watershed?

Larger watershed? Receiving water resource?– What do you measure? TP or DP?– Concentration is not the entire story– Small losses can have large consequences

DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY

Questions

Thanks to our sponsor,69-3A75-12-182