-
The webinar will last for about an hour.
-
As attendees, you'll be muted
throughout the presentation.
-
If you have questions, please type them
into the questions pane in your go-to
-
webinars toolbar, which should be on the
side of your screen.
-
We will try to reserve about 15 minutes
at the end of the webinar to address any
-
questions, which we will read aloud so
our speakers can respond.
-
The webinar is being recorded and will
be available later this week for your
-
reference.
-
If you have any technical questions,
please email Emily at
-
ebrumit@cowatercongress.org.
-
So now on to the topic at hand.
Cyanotoxins, algoglams, nutrients and
-
of course, how it affects
Coloradoan's public health.
-
Today, we will hear from, hopefully,
three wonderful experts and leaders
-
who will guide us through these topics.
-
Djenette Khiari with the water research
foundation.
-
Steve Lundt, representing the Barr
Milton Watershed association.
-
And Troy Bauder with CSU extension.
-
Steve has worked on lakes and reservoirs
as a certified lake manager since 1999.
-
Focusing on improving water quality
through in-lake techniques and
-
watershed projects.
-
Today he will be talking with us about
work reducing algolams at Barr lake.
-
Which he has worked on along with other
reservoirs downstream of Denver for
-
the past 15 years.
-
Troy Bauder is an Extension water
quality specialist in the department
-
of soil and crop sciences at Colorado
State University.
-
There he is responsible for conducting
statewide educational and applied
-
research programs for water quality,
especially related to the protections
-
of groundwater quality from
impremest to agricultural chemicals.
-
His research and expertise include
nutrients and irrigation management,
-
which he'll be talking about today.
-
Is Dejenette on the line?
-
I am not seeing that Dejenette has been
able to join us.
-
As Kaitlyn mentioned, she had a
power outage.
-
So we are planning, um, Steve if you
are OK with this plan.
-
So kind of like, let you go through her
slides, and I will advance them for you.
-
Does that work for you?
-
[laughing] I will do my best. I'll have
to remember what she was going
-
to talk about.
-
But I can definitely address some of the
things also in my talk, but I can maybe
-
fill in a little.
-
Kaitlyn: So I'll just go through the
slides and when you are ready for
-
me to advance, just let me know.
-
So Djenette was going to offer an
introduction to cyanobacteria
-
and cyanotoxins. So Steve can kick us off.
-
Steve: [laughing] This is a fun game,
to wing someone else's presentation.
-
The whole reason why we probably have
all these people on this webinar is to.
-
Because we all do care about our lakes,
our reservoirs, our rivers and it boils
-
down to managing nutrients that
support algae bloom that then now
-
have gotten into the realm of toxins.
-
This idea of blue-green algae blooms
that produce cyanotoxins has been around
-
for quite a while. but it wasn't until
about 2015, I believe, with Lake Erie
-
and the Toledo incident where they had
to close down their drinking water plant
-
for, what was it, close to 1 million
people. or a half a million people.
-
So it really brought this topic to the
surface for our country.
-
and so since then we've been really
focusing on cyantoxins.
-
what does it mean to drinking water?
-
what does it mean to recreation?
and all that.
-
Colorado and around the country,
have been focusing on nutrient standards
-
and have been trying to come up with
appropriate numbers for phosphorus
-
and nitrogen. And maybe the main focus
has been on, obviously, to control algae
-
blooms and to make sure all the uses for
those waters are being met.
-
And so what's kind of come up as more of
a higher priority is, maybe, this public
-
health idea. So maybe let's go to the next
slide and see what she has to say.
-
So there are a few key blue-green algae
that are very common.
-
There's microcystins, Anabana,
Aphantzomenon and those blue-greens
-
are very typical throughout our lakes
and reservoirs around our country as
-
well as the world.
-
The world health organization, a few
years back, you know, came up with
-
some guidelines for the toxins that
those produce.
-
It's really been a hard topic because
those blooms sometimes produce
-
the toxins and sometimes they don't.
-
And sometimes when they die and there's
no bloom or scum on the surface, that's
-
when the toxins are the highest.
So it's a really hard thing
-
to understand about these toxins
and the properties around them.
-
But some of them, they impact the liver.
They impact your nervous system.
-
They also, you know there's even
dermatologists that will give you
-
skin rashes and so forth. And then
there's some toxins that will kind
-
of cover everything and just wreck
havoc on your body and your system.
-
A lot of times those toxins, have hurt
animals like cattle and pets like dogs
-
that will go down to a scum covered pond
and drink from it.
-
Typically humans are wise enough to know
not to get into close contact or to drink
-
water with cyanotoxins in it, with a
bloom.
-
But you can see from this chart, that
some of the names of the toxins.
-
Some of the primary organs that it
goes after.
-
and then the different species of algae for each of those toxins.
-
Might talk later, for Barr Lake, we
definitely have mirocystis, and
-
Anabana. Those are the ones
that I mainly have been monitoring.
-
As well as Aphanzomenon. You
can go to the next one.
-
Microcystin, there's a whole sort
of different kinds of these toxins.
-
So there's microcystin-LR , but there's
a whole series of different kinds of
-
microcystin. So this is just a more
common one. And then you can
-
see the saxitoxin and the
cylindrospermopsin and anatoxin-a.
-
Some samples that I've sent off from
Barr Lake we sent to a lab in Florida.
-
When we had them tested for these four
main categories, to see what we had
-
in Barr Lake. And then also states around
the country are starting to set up their
-
monitoring program and how to sample
for toxins and to give warning to people
-
that are using it for drinking water,
for recreation.
-
So these are the main cyantoxins that
we are concerned about. Next one.
-
So in June 2015, EPA put out an
advisory for drinking water.
-
I know here in Colorado I've been working
with the health department and a group to
-
kind of figure out what that means for drinking water plants and how do you
-
monitor, and where do you monitor and
how do you go about this whole process.
-
This whole new thing about another
toxin to worry about.
-
To figure out how to make sure it's not in
your drinking water, how you're
-
getting it out of your drinking water,
how to prevent it.
-
And then what to do, god forbid that
it gets through the system and it's all
-
sent out into distribution lines, what
do you do then?
-
So states, Colorado and others have
been working on that since 2015.
-
And then you see recently, EPA sent out
in the fall of 2016 the recreational waters.
-
And this is more applied to Barr Lake
and to maybe more reservoirs in Colorado
-
where there's a lot more recreational
contact and swimming involved.
-
And you can see those toxins and
those levels for recreational waters.
-
The closing period for comments, I
believe, just closed for that process.
-
Let's see. I think we can skip this one
and I'll cover it with maybe my talk?
-
I like this one actually. When I saw this,
it definitely tells the story.
-
Blue-greens are the only species of
algae that can change their buoyancy.
-
So that's why you see that one cartoon
figure up there on the surface
-
getting a suntan.
-
It's blocking out the sunlight to any
other species of algae that grow.
-
So blue-greens have evolved over
billions of years to really be able to
-
do a good job of surviving in any kind
of condition.
-
They prefer the warmest water.
-
They prefer the still water, so that's why
they are more in lakes and reservoirs.
-
And they can get to the surface.
-
Obviously they can change their
buoyancy and they go down at night.
-
I've seen blooms literally come to
the surface while I'm anchored in
-
one spot monitoring a lake.
-
They can go down and they can
store phosphorus.
-
They also have the ability to take
nitrogen right out of the atmosphere
-
and use that instead of ammonia or
nitrate.
-
So they are capable of using nitrogen right
out of the atmosphere, which all the other
-
species cannot do.so that's why they
definitely can beat when nitrogen is low.
-
They can still use that phosphorus that
they stored up and they can use it
-
from the air.
-
So they have this kind of daily cycle
of going down and coming back
-
up to get to the sun and blocking
everything out.
-
Definitely, this occurs and has occurred
at Barr Lake for many years.
-
Next slide.
-
I think I can get to my slides on this
one too.
-
We can skip this one.
-
Definitely these are the sources of
nutrients. If any body is dealing with
-
lakes, with reservoirs, with water quality
with drinking water, with waste water,
-
these are the classic sources of nutrients.
If any body's ever doing TMDL for nutrients
-
and you're doing it on a watershed scale,
these are, you're going to be looking at
-
background, you're going to be looking
at fertilizer application whether it's lawns
-
or agriculture.
-
Definitely stormwater. And then reservoirs
and lakes, you know when a lake has zero
-
oxygen at the sediment, the phosphorus
can recycle, dissolve out of the sediment
-
and get recycled into the water.
next slide.
-
Nice pictures. Those are all the different
sources.
-
So, how much is too much?
-
A lot of times for lakes and reservoirs
I've seen where anything under 10 micro
-
grams per litre, you should be really
good.
-
Anything that gets above 10, above 20,
then you're going to start running into
-
signs of nutrofication and water quality
issues with algae.
-
So dealing with lakes, I kind of keep
those numbers in mind.
-
We can keep going , I think , to the
next one.
-
So you can see here, you know, if total
phosphorus is below 10 then it should
-
be very good. And then to the different levels.
Very high or poor, you'll see over 100 and
-
with my talk, you'll see where we are at
Barr Lake.
-
I'm at, right now, typically 250 at Barr Lake
and I'm ecstatic.
-
I'm happy because it's a lot better than
where it used to be.
-
So these numbers are all relevant, they
are just sort of guidelines too, so just
-
keep that in mind. Next slide.
-
Source control strategies. There's a lot
of things you can do in the reservoir to
-
keep intraloading, to keep the phosphorus
in the sediment.
-
There's a lot of things you can do at
point sources like wastewater treatment
-
plants. They are starting to treat for
phosphorus, tertiary treatment.
-
There's a lot of in lake techniques.
You can skim the algae off.
-
That's sort of a band-aid approach. Not
really getting at the source of the
-
problem, which is the phosphorus.
Many states, there's about 12
-
states that have state-wide phosphorus
controls on lawn fertilizers.
-
We don't have one here in Colorado, but
definitely that's the way.
-
You can no longer buy phosphorus in
detergents in laundry soap.
-
That has definitely helped since 1970's
with the Great Lakes and around the
-
country is controlling phosphorus in the
products that everybody uses.
-
Go to the next one. Multi-barrier approach.
Let's see. I think we'll just skip this one.
-
Prefer to get to my talk here soon.
[laughter]
-
Looks like we are getting close to
the end here. Obviously her organization
-
has put out a lot of good information and
hopefully you can contact Dejenette and
-
get more information from the great things
that she does. at the water resource
-
foundation. How was that?
-
Kaitlyn: thank you so much Steve,
that was awesome!
-
Steve: Sure.
-
Kaitlyn: Thanks, for stepping in for
Djenette. I'm going to go ahead and
-
pass the controls to you for your
presentation.
-
Steve: Sure.
-
Thank you.
-
Are we good? Alright.
-
Round 2 here. I first want to say I just
really appreciate this opportunity to talk
-
about Barr Lake specifically.
-
I've worked on it for about 15 years and
for me it's pretty exciting to see how water
-
quality has changed over those 15 years.
-
And so much like the talk before, going
to talk about nutrients and how algae
-
responds and I have definitely seen
improvements in Barr Lake.
-
So this is why I was definitely on board
when I was asked to do this webinar.
-
First off, cultural eutrophication it's
sort of, it's a fancy way, a term of
-
saying people mess up a lake by sending
it too much nutrients all at once.
-
Especially at Barr Lake. Barr Lake probably
gets a million years' worth of phosphorus
-
in just a few months when it fills up
every year.
-
So the process of lakes that can handle
over time, thousands of years, millions
-
of years, can transition from a
ligatrophic lake to a mesatrophic
-
to a hypotrophic lake where it's
very very productive.
-
That can occur in a reservoir in a
matter of years. So that's the process
-
that we all talk about and that we're
worried about with cyanotoxins.
-
In the news, we usually hear about
the problems. Where it's toxins, fish kills.
-
For Barr Lake it was high pH. It was
all based around the idea that there's
-
these algae blooms. But again, it's
mislabled. Those are just symptoms,
-
the true problem, is that it always
goes back, every single time to too
-
much phosphorus and nitrogen, too
quickly to a body of water.
-
To introduce you to Barr Lake, this is
an aerial photo of Barr Lake.
-
It's just north of DIA. A lot of times,
people fly in and you can see it out
-
your window as you are looking at
the mountains.
-
Just north of the rocky mountain
arsenal wildlife refuge.
-
There's also, you can see the community.
There's definitely a lot of developments and
-
growth in the area. It's not quite as
popular as Cherry Creek and Chatfield,
-
but this reservoir is quite different.
-
It's been around for a little over 100 years.
About as old as Denver, almost.
-
The other thing is, is that, it fills up
every winter and the main use over
-
the years has been agriculture.
-
While Cherry Creek and Chatfield and
Bear Creek have been flood control.
-
Barr Lake has been around a long
time and a lot of water goes out
-
there to be sent out to grow crops.
-
And so the residence time is only 8 months.
Basically, fills in the winter and releases
-
during the summer and does
this annual cycle.
-
It is twice the size of volume as
Cherry Creek so it is pretty big.
-
It's had a state park since 1975. And
the main uses now are recreation,
-
aquatic life, agriculture and drinking
water that was added about
-
15 or so years ago.
-
The main source of water to Barr Lake
is from the South Platte river.
-
There's a 19 mile ditch, the Burlington
Ditch that diverts water from the
-
South Platte River. Typically, it sweeps
the entire river. So any water you see
-
downtown by the confluence at Cherry
Creek or by REI, that's going out a
-
couple of miles to almost the riverside
cemetery and gets diverted and
-
sent to Barr Lake.
-
So travel time, if you were standing
Downtown Denver, water going down
-
the south platte, it probably gets to
Barr Lake in about a day and a half.
-
A lot of times, people think Barr Lake
is way out northeast. People don't see
-
it that much, but it is definitely
connected to the urban Denver area.
-
The ditch can also send water around
Barr Lake to several other agricultural
-
reservoirs. So here's the watershed.
Back in the 90's it collected a lot of
-
water quality data in Barr Lake as
well as Milton Reservoir.
-
And determined that both were
exceeding the pH standard which
-
is the upper limit is 9 and so they
were going above 9.
-
So it got put on a 303 D-List. And
similar to Bear Creek, and Chatfield
-
and Cherry Creek, the state helped
organize a watershed association.
-
We call it the Barr-Milton watershed
association because we focus on both
-
of those. But my main focus of this talk
is Barr lake. The idea was that this group
-
would bring all the stakeholders
together.
-
And help write a TMDL for pH. Which
meant obviously, pH is a symptom,
-
so you go back to phosphorus.
-
So it's actually a phosphorus TMDL.
To determine how you can achieve
-
the pH standard.
-
The big story for this watershed,
obviously, is the number of people
-
living just upstream of Barr Lake.
-
It's literally about 1 in 2 coloradoans,
live upstream of Barr. Which means,
-
obviously, cultural eutrophication
again and excessive amount of
-
phosphorus that goes out to Barr Lake.
-
This is sort of a timeline. This is a
timeline of the phosphorus out at
-
Barr Lake, prior to 1960's for
about 50 years.
-
As long as there was water in the
South Platte coming out of Denver,
-
they didn't care what was in it.
-
Quantity trumped quality, so they sent
water, anything to Barr Lake to
-
according to it's water rights so they
could fill it up so they could grow crops.
-
But that finally caught up to them and
it was labeled as the country's largest
-
inland sewage bloom back in the
50's and 60's.
-
And so you can see the phosphorus
concentrations are enormous.
-
Then there was in the mid-60's there was
a better job of consolidating wastewater
-
treatments. and built a new treatment
plant that was downstream of the
-
burlington ditch. And then by 1975
it became a state park. EPA actually
-
came out and sampled it three
times in the mid 70's.
-
So you can see where the concentrations
were in the 70s, just over 1 milligram
-
per litre phosphorus.
-
and then we started collecting a lot of
data on water quality in the 90's, 2000's.
-
And we collected a lot more data and that
resulted in showing about half of the
-
phosphorus now, about 660
micrograms per litre.
-
Then by 2015 we got down to 250 micrograms
per litre and that's where I got excited,
-
because look where we came from.
-
From 10,000 micrograms per litre to 250.
reason why this happened was there was
-
the 2013 flood that happened in September
and it came down sand creek and washed
-
out a pipeline that used to send treated
effluent from metro wastewater uphill
-
and put it into the burlington ditch.
-
That pipeline was washed away. so since
2013 there's been no treated effluence
-
being pumped up into the ditch to go
to Barr Lake.
-
So by, sort of, an act of God. It has
definitely helped water quality.
-
The TMDL process, the goal is to get
to less than 100 micorgrams/litre in
-
the growing season. So that's what we're
shooting for. So we still have to reduce
-
it by half again. So now we're in
the phase of implementing the TMDL.
-
From the TMDL, we estimated the annual
load of phosphorus, 70,000kg would go
-
out to Barr Lake. About 90% of that came
from point sources, which was wastewater
-
treatment plants and permitted
stormwater MS4 folks.
-
then there was background, and background
is what's coming from Chatfield, Cherry Creek
-
and Bear Creek. Those reservoirs release
water into our watershed and so then
-
we have to account for that.
-
And then about 4,000kg comes internally
from the reservoir.
-
We need about a 92% reduction, which is
huge, to get down to about 6,000kg a year.
-
And then, you can see, it's a little more
balanced distribution from the different
-
sources. One thing to note though, in
this process, we learned that even if
-
you removed every single person in
the watershed, all the streets, all the
-
stormwater, removed all the point
sources, you'd still be left with the
-
3,000 coming in from upstream watersheds
and the 4,000 in the reservoir.
-
So that's 7000kg which is more than what
we think it will take to achieve the pH
-
standard. And so it just means that every
single source needs to be addressed.
-
So how are we going to do this?
-
A lot of dollar signs on this slide, so
you can see it's going to take a lot of money
-
to get down below 100 micrograms
per litre.
-
First off, wastewater treatment plants
are moving to tertiary treatment.
-
Metro wastewater, Littleton/Englewood,
and Centennial are the three upstream
-
wastewater treatment plants to Barr Lake.
-
Stormwater also. Denver, just last year I
believe, increased their stormwater bills. So they
-
now have plans for major improvements in
north Denver.
-
Platte Park Hill is one of those big
stormwater projects that will eventually
-
help water quality in Barr Lake.
-
We've also looked at studies for internal
loading. Not quite as expensive, but still
-
going to cost some money.
-
we also have to treat the phosphorus
that's coming out, from upstream in
-
our watershed. So we somehow have
to intercept that.
-
And then of course we do public education.
-
Here's a chart of our phosphorus.
This is sort of a monthly timeframe
-
of the 15 years I've been sampling.
-
You can see the phosphorus comes in
with the water in the winter and slowly
-
drops out. and then increases again in
the summer, maybe during internal loading.
-
and then it gets lowest in October.
-
Along with that, you get chlorphyill A.
Chart here shows there's a big diatom
-
growth in the spring time.
-
the best time to go up to Barr Lake, I
recommend, is in May and early June.
-
There's very little growth of algae, it's
full, and it's got great water clarity.
-
Because as soon as 4th of July comes
around and the big recreational season,
-
and the growing season.
-
Typically we would get the big blue-green
algae bloom, the first one, the microcystis
-
algae bloom. And the kind of crash and
bloom, crash and bloom. And we have
-
another big one Aphantzomenon in
late September.
-
So this is why Barr Lake has the reputation
of being a blue-green algae scummy lake.
-
When I first started in '02 sampling this
was pretty much every summer what it
-
would look like. It would be monoculture
of algae bloom that would go over
-
the entire lake. And eventually get crusty
and scab over and cause odor issues
-
and stuff.
And you can see the bottom picture.
-
The people that would mostly recreate
would be people fishing from shore
-
and they would just tolerate it and avoid
those scums the best that they could.
-
More recently, since the 2013 flood, there
has been a big noticeable change.
-
Open water, it's clear and back in '02
and '03 the boat wake would be green
-
not white and foamy. And then you can
see last, middle of July, when we should
-
be having a big bloom, we have really
nice water quality compared to
-
previous years.
-
We did, because of the 2015 issues
around the cyanotoxins. We decided to
-
say "Ok let's just kind of explore this
and get some strip tests from Abraxis
-
and do some testing out there." I tested
the open water as well as near shore.
-
Open water never had any indication
of the cyanotoxins. The only time I got
-
it was when I would sample the shoreline
where we see this green line of
-
blue-green algae.
-
Water quality's pretty good. It's not like
the other pictures where it's completely
-
crusted over.
-
There was still a small less intense algae
bloom. It was typically microcystis and
-
some Aphantzomenon.
-
but when we sent off those samples to
green water, we did get a hit on
-
microcystin. We did not have any
Anatoxin-A, saxitoxin, or
-
cylindrospermopsin. It was mainly
because of the microcystis.
-
But Barr Lake, key note is, that even
though it's classfied as primary full
-
contact use. The rules out there for the
state park is that there is no swimming,
-
no swim beach, even dogs are not allowed
to wade into the water.
-
The main thing is just boating and recreating,
fishing from shore.
-
Now clearly, people get into the water
they roll their kayaks this was a camp
-
here that would take kayaks out and learn
how to roll kayaks.
-
so there is incidental contact. but the
thing is that we try to do a good job of
-
educating people year round at Barr Lake
to be algae aware.
-
That you just want to avoid any time you
see green surface scum on any body of water.
-
So what we do educationally, we try to do
our best to educate people just algae in
-
general, water quality, phosphorus and
the watershed.
-
So the big plan here. If we achieve making
sure all these uses are being met, then
-
I think we'll be good.
-
Obviously there's dollar signs to this.
so if aquatic life is happy then the
-
fish will be happy.
-
We'll be spending less money on fixing
the problem than just maintaining the
-
proper conditions out there.
-
Recreation's a big deal. And then of
course we grow a lot of food and
-
it's a water supply.
-
So those are definitely all these.
What's unique about our lake is that
-
these uses are equally important.
-
And if we achieve the right amount of
nutrients coming from the watershed,
-
then we believe the blooms will be less
intense, not as long and that the
-
reservoir will be a healthy system.
-
So I believe with that, I'll end with a
sunset picture and I thank every body
-
for listening to me for the last
half hour.
-
Kaitlyn; Thank you so much Steve.
We are going to switch to Troy.
-
Troy I just made you a presenter and I
believe you just un-muted yourself.
-
So thank you.
-
Troy: Good morning every body.
Is my sound and screen working ok?
-
They sure are.
-
Troy: Ok good deal.
-
Moderator: You are not in presentation
mode so we can still see your next slide.
-
Troy: Let's try that. Did that help?
-
Moderator: No, we can still see your next
slide but feel free to carry on.
-
Troy: Ok, sorry about that. So you get a
preview of what I'm talking about before
-
I get there. We're going to switch from
point sources, that Steve was talking
-
about with Barr Lake.
-
You know, system mostly impacted by point sources to non point source.
-
My field is working with agricultural producers on reducing nutrient losses on their fields.
-
I'll give you a little bit about the
process. and where we are on that.
-
So it's important to remember that ag
nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus are
-
in other nutrients, but in this instance
we are talking about N and P.
-
Are absolutely required for productive
agriculture. If we fail to replace or
-
supplement nitrogen and phosphorus
that's removed by our crop systems,
-
ultimately not only will you result in low
and unprofitable yields,
-
but you'll end up with a situation where you're not putting enough crop residue back into the system and you can have soil degredation.
-
So it is important for sustainable
agriculture.
-
But of course we need good management.
To prevent too much N and P in our soils
-
and then of course the potential to
reduce the potential for movement to
-
surface and groundwater.
-
So recently, in 2012, Colorado passed
a nutrient policy called regulation 85.
-
For agriculture it's still a non point
source kind of voluntary approach
-
to help incentivize producers to utilize,
voluntarily, BMPs around nitrogen and
-
phosphorus control in their operations.
-
and we partnered with CDPHE, to produce
some resources and outreach program
-
which we are calling Colorado Ag Water
Quality and this is our logo.
-
And you'll find all these resources at
that URL, coloradoagnutrients.org.
-
the purpose of this outreach effort is
to get the word out to growers about
-
how reg 85 could potentially affect them.
-
and right now it's a non point source
voluntary policy for agriculture, but
-
they are going to reevaluate that in
2022 to see if we've made progress
-
on BMP implementation, adoption and
water quality as it relates to non
-
point source in agriculture.
-
I'd really encourage you to go to that
URL. There's a couple of videos up
-
there that do a really nice job of having
the stakeholders, producers and people
-
that represent them talk about how
nutrient, using nutrients in agriculture
-
is important to them.
-
and practices they can use to prevent
non point source pollution.
-
I'd encourage you to go check that out.
-
So the approach that I encourage and
we do in our program is what I call
-
participatory research and outreach.
-
Around getting growers to implement
BMPs voluntary.
-
And some of the concepts that we work
with are nutrient management with
-
the 4R concept.
-
We encourage BMPs around conservation
tillage and the soil resource.
-
And what's really important in a semi-arid
state like colorado, where so much of our
-
crop production relies on agriculture's
managing that water source improved
-
irrigation systems and advanced
irrigation scheduling.
-
and i'll talk about that a little bit more
in a couple of slides.
-
and then finally, we definitely want to
work with our growers on the agronomic
-
and economic feasibility of these
practices to help them understand
-
how they can help the bottom line.
-
so early in the process of any localized
or state wide stakeholder engagement
-
around ag and water quality, it's
important to get the stakeholders
-
involved early in the process.
-
And we've been doing that for many years.
producer input; we want them to
-
understand that buying into what is even
defined as a best management practice.
-
and then demonstrate their effectiveness
and their agronomic practicality.
-
and then try to follow up with tools and
resources that our producers can use
-
and understand and help them manage
their nutrients and water better.
-
So a little bit about BMP effectiveness
on the ground.
-
I talked about the 4R concept that's kind
of become fairly popular recently in
-
agriculture. And that is applying the
right nutrient at the right amount, or rate,
-
at the right place within the soil.
-
Either spatially or within the plane of
the root zone, at the right time. Trying
-
to time our nutrients when the crops
need them the most.
-
So the uptake efficiency will be be higher.
and the right source.
-
Sometimes we have different nutrient
sources, whether it be compost or
-
commercial fertilizer. It might be
better for the conditions on the
-
ground or the farmer's situation.
-
When these practices are properly
implemented, they do in most cases
-
increase nutrient use efficiency by the
crop and thus prevent the potential for
-
movement in most environments.
-
However, as I mentioned before,
in Colorado in our irrigated
-
environment we know that most of our
losses are with water, soluableized
-
or attached to sediments.
-
For these 4R's to work we need improved
irrigation management to take place
-
at the same time. In each of nutrients
type we don't manage our water,
-
we could be defeating the purpose.
-
So a little bit about irrigation
management.
-
Like I mentioned, it's really critical
for quatifiable reductions at the
-
field level. Particularly with nitrate
leaching but also with runoff.
-
and you can have improvements in system
upgrades moving from a furrow to a
-
pivot to a drip system. or you can improve
your management in terms of scheduling
-
your water at the right time and
right amount.
-
and together those two practices can go a
long way for tightly managing your water
-
and your nutrients. and a lot of this is
occurring organically in the watershed.
-
a good example I like to show is some
google earth imagery, satellite imagery
-
from around fort morgan.
And if you go back to 1998 and look,
-
and this is black and white imagery. you
can see a grid work of rectangular and
-
square fields out there as recently as
only 20 years ago.
-
but if you look at an image from just a
couple of years ago, you can see that
-
most of those have been replaced with
circles and center pivot irrigation systems
-
and the opportunity to manage your
water and your nutrients is much higher
-
when you improve your efficiency of
your system.
-
a lot of this is happening already.
growers are adopting these practices
-
for a variety of reasons, but usually it's
economics and labor.
-
I mentioned we like to provide tools that
growers can use to manage their nutrients
-
and their water.
-
and recently we released an online
irrigation scheduler called WISE.
-
This is a couple screen shots from that
particular product.
-
you can find that at wise.colostate.edu.
-
it's a very user friendly, convenient
irrigation scheduling platform at
-
erams at colorado state university.
-
again tying our nutrients to our
water management.
-
the other thing that i mentioned that is
important for agriculture for adoption
-
of BMPs is to show results and water
quality is part of that.
-
growers need to know that if they use
these practices it will make a difference.
-
on one side of your screen you can see
some water quality coming off fields
-
where we had just conventional tillage
and on the other side of the screen
-
you can see BMP in terms of strip tillage
and you can see the residue that it
-
left in place there.
and how that residue is affecting the
-
quality of the water coming off that plot
compared to the other plot.
-
and of course, the bottom line matters
with growers. they are in business to
-
make money. and so we try to provide
them the costs and returns of
-
adopting practices. our gross returns are
represented largely by the yield on one
-
side of your graph where you can see the
dark brown bar of conventional, compared
-
to the light brown bar of strip vs the green
bar of another BMP that we tried that was
-
minimum till on this particular project.
-
and where the gross returns showed the
BMP was losing a little bit of money,
-
when we looked at the net returns because
of the costs of inputs for that particular
-
practice, you can see that the gross
returns were highest with the BMP
-
practice of strip tillage.
-
so the bottom line matters and it's
important to work with growers so
-
that they know how these practices are
going to affect that for them.
-
Some challenges that i see or have seen in
my career, both looking locally and
-
nationally in terms of what we're facing in
nutrients and water quality.
-
in colorado, where water rights and
policy may be perceived from keeping
-
growers from implementing certain,
maybe, irrigation practices.
-
a lot of times that's more perception
than reality but it's still out there.
-
In many parts of the country we have some
nutrient balances and watersheds, with
-
high density of animal feeding
that are off.
-
we have more N and P coming in than
is going out as product.
-
I see places where perhaps our baseline
concentrations are greater than the
-
standard that we are going to try and
achieve and I think that's going to be
-
difficult with non point source
implementation to meet those targets.
-
And then the idea, we know that a lot
of our water quality problems are localized.
-
And how do you target a watershed or an
area of agriculture without making the
-
producers feel like they are being
targeted, as, at the problem with
-
finger pointing. Funding is always an
issue. not all of these BMPs are cost
-
neutral or positive.
-
so getting funding through NRCS cost
shares or other places to help implement
-
these is an issue.
-
and then finally, when it comes to showing
these are working. obtaining non point
-
source water quality and adoption data is
going to be necessary to show agriculture's
-
doing it's part moving forward.
-
just to finish up here. like i said,
supplemental nutrients are definitely
-
necessary for sustainable agriculture.
you can't continue to grow profitable crops
-
without supplementing what they are
removing from the system.
-
They have a lot of BMPs that can help
mitigate that loss in movement in
-
water resources.
-
A lot of these growers are using already
and I think we can improve upon what
-
we are doing as we learn more information.
-
Incentives, tools and resources are all
critical to help growers adopt BMPs.
-
and i think we can all work together
to do a better job with that.
-
It's definitely important to engage
growers early and often in this process
-
and not only the growers but their
representatives and commodity groups
-
and the people that advise them.
-
and that is what I had to share this morning.
I appreciate your attention and
-
I appreciate the opportunity to be
on this call. So I'll turn it back to Kaitlyn.
-
Kaitlyn: It looks like we have a few
questions coming in, so i think Emily
-
will read those and Troy and Steve can
see if they have responses.
-
Emily: Yeah, so we have a few questions.
-
The first question comes from Lisa
Buchanan and she asks, "How difficult
-
was it to get buy in for upstream treatment for Barr Lake?"
-
Steve: Well, buy-in. So starting in 2002
we formed this watershed group that
-
brought together the point source
dischargers as well as the users of the
-
lake and the owners of the lake and the
people that use it for drinking water.
-
So our goal from the very beginning
was to have the consensus- driven
-
process with this board of directors and
this watershed group.
-
We didn't want to have finger pointing
and going down lawsuit routes and
-
have twenty models trying to
explain the system.
-
so from the very beginning when we
formed our watershed group and we put in
-
our bylaws, we wanted to have buy in from
every body that was sitting at the table.
-
To join, and to be a member of the board,
you had to put in $10,000 as a member
-
and you got a seat on the board.
-
And so the people, the dischargers, the
upstream folks that were definitely
-
going to be part of the TMDL as an
allocation for phosphorus, wanted
-
to be at the table.
-
so you joined and then we all agree,
that you know. We all understand this
-
is an effort by everybody and that
everyone's going to be paying for
-
treatment plant upgrades, everyone's
going to be paying for drinking
-
water upgrades.
-
Everybody will hopefully be enjoying
Barr Lake and so we really tried to come
-
together as one group and always make
decisions based on 100% consensus.
-
We literally do our voting with thumbs up
or thumbs down. if we don't have
-
everyone's thumbs up then we
continue to work on it.
-
Emily: thank you so much.
we have a couple more questions.
-
The next one is directed at Steve. "Steve
did you alum to fix P in sediment?
-
If so, what was the result and cost? Thanks"
-
Steve: Sure. So alum is a very common
whole lake treatment process. People
-
have been using since the 70's.
-
We have not used alum in Barr Lake.
We have people, we've had some reports
-
saying that alum would be a great way to
bind up and keep that phosphorus
-
bound up in the sediment.
The in-canal treatment,
-
treating the upstream phosphorus that
comes into our watershed and then
-
comes through and comes down the ditch.
-
One process or a study we said was that
we could divert that water out of the ditch.
-
mix it with alum, separate the phosphorus,
and then send that water into Barr Lake.
-
We did use alum a little bit in, there
was that picture of those corrals, those
-
columnar corrals they did some studying
of what would happen to cholophill A
-
and phosphorus if phosphorus
did get below 100.
-
Because we've never seen it below 300.
so we had to do some artificial
-
testing out there. and we did use alum
to strip out the phosphorus in the water
-
column. just so we could see how
the lake responds.
-
It's about, when we did our study, it's
about $1 per gallon and so it's just a
-
matter of how many gallons of alum you
want to put in to remove the amount
-
of phosphorus.
-
Emily: thanks. The next question comes
from Ken Clark. "What are the
-
opportunities. What opportunities are
there for translating or scaling, agricultural
-
BMPs to urban landscape practices?"
-
Let me know if you want me to
repeat the question.
-
Troy: Go ahead and start Steve.
-
Steve:The only thing I can sort of talk
about a little bit is, some of those
-
translations of nutrient management with
fertilizers, the same concept can be
-
applied to what we do with urban lawns.
-
And so, a lot of times, its a matter of
keeping the fertilizer on your lawn.
-
so it's the 4R's applies to your lawn as
well as a corn field in Weld county.
-
Don't do it just before a storm event,
washes on your driveway and goes
-
into a storm drain. Maybe do some soil
testing and maybe you don't need
-
phosphorus to grow a lawn.
-
Phosphorus is, as I understand, is for
seed production and flowering. People
-
just want a green lawn so that's the
nitrogen part of it. Troy do you have
-
anything else?
-
Troy: Just would ditto that. Again when
you look at CSU Extension's
-
recommendations for lawns, we don't
really even recommend phosphorus.
-
We prefer folks stick with nitrogen
and for a low maintenance lawn that's
-
really at around 1 pound per
1,000 square foot per year.
-
Again making sure you put the right rate on,
not too much, at the right time.
-
and we have recommendations for those too.
-
And the biggest one is just keeping it
off impermeable surfaces.
-
Emily: Great, thanks. So the next question
is directed at Troy. From Kelly Denataly.
-
"Do you think the rollback of the Obama
administration's clean water rules
-
will change the attitudes of ag producers
towards implementing BMPs?"
-
Troy: Hmm. [chuckle] Good one Kelly.
I don't think so.
-
Particularly in Colorado, since we do have
somewhat of a statewide policy with reg 85
-
and some of the other policies with non
point source with agriculture.
-
You know, our state, is so semi-arid and
we have so few places where we have
-
direct contact between agriculture and a
stream, I don't think so.
-
I think that there are a lot of economic
incentives especially around fertilizer to
-
apply the 4R concept to what they're
doing that what I worry perhaps more
-
about is cuts to conservation programs
within agencies such as USDA-NRCS
-
and research potential cuts as has been
proposed to the ag research service,
-
agricultural research service within USDA
and our land grant system.
-
because that's where we develop a lot of
the information that we can translate to
-
producers about, you know, the best way
to manage their nutrients.
-
I don't think it's going to be, I'm less
worried about perhaps, changes in
-
attitudes with growers than I am with the
proposed cuts to our research and land
-
grant and outreach organizations that work
directly with producers around the country.
-
Emily: the next question comes to us from
Kevin McBride. and he asks "how is the?"
-
agricultural practice of high alt hay and
ranching different from the row cropping
-
discussed? Is there extra nutrients appropriate BMPs?"
-
Troy: I think I understand the question.
What are some differences in Best
-
management practices between high
altitude mountain meadow production
-
versus row crop production.
-
They are not terribly different, it's just
the opportunities perhaps to do things
-
like placement like nutrients in the
root zone or a little more limited in
-
those established pastures.
-
but there's other things that they can
do up there. Timing makes a difference
-
on when you apply fertilizer to a high
altitude meadow system.
-
we've done some research with Joe
Brummer, in our department, a forage
-
and high mountain meadow specialist, on
timing fertilizer applications in the fall vs
-
early spring vs late spring.
and found that the earlier you can apply
-
your nutrients before you apply your
irrigation water in the spring, the less
-
likely they are going to move out of
those systems.
-
I'd say the other difference is that
those mountain meadows have a
-
very short growing season and limited
productivities, so they, a lot of times
-
their productivity is not necessarily
defined as much by how much fertilizer
-
they apply.
Is the short growing season whereas
-
down here on the plains with row crop
agriculture much longer growing season
-
and typically much higher nutrient application rates.
-
Emily: great thanks. The next question is
for Troy from Lisa Buchanan. She asks
-
"for areas where BMPs are being used, have
you seen an improvement in downstream
-
water quality is treated?"'
-
Troy: Yeah that's a good question. I
personally haven't done any, that
-
many studies with surface water quality
and BMP implementation on a
-
watershed scale. The data I showed
you was on the edge of field scale.
-
and we definitely can show edge of
field water quality improvements at
-
edge of field in the work that I've done.
nationally other folks have done
-
watershed studies and it depends on the
BMP systems and how well they were
-
implemented and how well the BMP
fit the agriculture in the area.
-
Emily: thanks. we have time for one
more question. This question comes
-
from Jojo Laff and he asks "Troy in your
experience what is the best way to
-
agricultural members buy in for
participation in voluntary programs?"
-
"What do you believe are the best
incentives for participation? Additionally,
-
what is the best way to conduct public
education on BMPs and the tools available?"
-
Let me know if you want me to repeat
any part of that.
-
Troy: So the best, or the first part of that
question I heard, I think I heard was
-
"what's the best way to agricultural
producers involved and interested in
-
learning about and implementing
best management practices.?"
-
It depends on the practice to be honest
with you. I think a lot of practices, like I
-
showed with implementing center pivot
irrigation instead of furrow irrigation
-
are happening on their own because
the incentives are already there.
-
whether it's labor saving time or
money or nutrients.
-
The tougher ones I think are
structural BMPS like filter strips
-
and set backs and things like that may cost
producers some time and money.
-
I think those have, your incentives there
are cost sharing and those kinds of things.
-
I think in terms of getting them to the table,
you know, working through their groups that
-
represent them, whether they be commodity
or livestock associations are really important.
-
those folks are really engaged in the
conversation and they want their
-
producers to know what's going on.
-
Because there's so many producers and
there's so few of us doing this kind of work,
-
that we can't talk to every body.
-
But getting people around the table is really important whether it be growers or the people that represent them.
-
Can you repeat the second part of
that question?
-
Emily: The second part asks, "Additionally,
what is the best way to conduct public
-
education on BMPs and the tools available?"
-
Troy: yeah, that is an interesting question.
-
because we just went through this process
with CDPHE and stakeholders over the past
-
year with reg 85 and the example outreach
program that I showed early in my
-
presentation. And we've kind of evolved
about how we presented information to
-
producers. It used to be a lot of factsheets
and bulletins and written materials.
-
and that kind of thing. and it's certainly
going more high tech with short videos a
-
nd websites and providing them tools
like irrigation schedulers or nutrient
-
management planners that they can use.
particularly stuff that they can pull
-
up on their smartphone when they
are up there on their tractor with their g
-
uidance system taking them down the row.
-
Definitely, technology and I think the
other place, again, is getting to the
-
people that talk to them.
-
getting to the local extension people,
getting to NRCS, getting to
-
certified crop advisers.
-
Fertilizer dealers, people who, input
suppliers can reach so many more
-
growers than we can.
Emily: great thanks so much.
-
I believe that concludes the question
part and I will pass it over to Katelyn.
-
Kaitlyn: thank you to both of our
panelists. And Steve, thanks for
-
taking over for Dejenette. We did record
this webinar, so you all will receive an
-
email with links to the recording.
-
Or you can find it on either
of our websites.
-
We encourage you to take the next step
by connecting with the Colorado foundation
-
for water education and colorado
water congress.
-
You should see our websites on
your screen.
-
Thanks to the presenters for their
time as well as the audience for
-
their participation and those
wonderful questions.
-
This concludes our webinar, thank you.