Squaw Creek WMA: From watershed planning to implementation

Transcription

1 X Squaw Creek WMA: From watershed planning to implementation

2 Introductions Pat Conrad, Water Resources Specialist Dan Haug, Watershed Educator

3 WMA Overview Formed in E Agreement Webster Stratford Stanhope WMA Representatives City of Ames City of Gilbert City of Stanhope City of Stratford Boone County Boone County SWCD Hamilton County SWCD Story County Story County SWCD Webster County Webster County SWCD Boone Hamilton Story Gilbert Ames

4 From Planning Stakeholder defined goals Prioritized, Targeted, Measurable Implementation Strategies

5 to Implementation IDALS awarded Water Quality Initiative grant to Prairie Rivers of Iowa in April 2015 Leading a New Collaborative Approach to Improving Water Quality in the Squaw Creek Watershed Grant award: $609,164 Total project: $930,788

6 Plan: Goals Education Outreach: Increase people s awareness and understanding of the individual connections and efforts within the watershed Water Quality: Improve water quality in the watershed. Hydrology: Reduce the effects associated with altered hydrology within the watershed Habitat: Increase the variety of habitat for animal and plant life in the watershed Recreation: Create outstanding recreational opportunities in the watershed Partnership: Work cooperatively to identify stakeholders and resources and facilitate partnerships to implement the watershed plan

7 Plan: WQ Objectives Goal: Improve water quality in the watershed. Objectives: Achieve a 29% reduction in TP Achieve a 41% reduction in N Meet the Iowa E. Coli standard Improve stream turbidity and clarity Monitor water quality

8 Plan: WQ Approach Prioritizing Watershed Hot Spots BMP Performance BMP Cost Targeting ACPF Siting Tools

9 Plan: Prioritizing Areas Watershed Hot Spots: SWAT Modeling- Phosphorus & Nitrogen 33% of nutrient loads originate from 20% of lands

10 Land Use anges Edge-of-Field Practices In-field Practices Plan: Prioritizing Practices Category Nutrient Management Practices % Est. Practice Cost N P $/ac/yr Reduce nitrogen application rate to (2.00) MRTN 10 0 Use a nitrification inhibitor 9 0 (3.00) Eliminate fall anhydrous nitrogen 6 0 (35.00) Sidedress all spring applied nitrogen Reduce phosphorus application rates 0 17 (12.00) Manure injection/phosphorus Cover crops Convert intensive tillage to conservation tillage 0 33 Convert conservation tillage to no till Increase soil organic matter 10 0 NA Nutrient Removal Wetlands 1, a Denitrification Bioreactors 2, a Sediment Basins 1, a Riparian Buffers 3, b Controlled Drainage a Grassed Waterways 3, b Saturated Buffers a Perennials/Energy Crops c Pasture and/or Land Retirement c

11 Urban ractices Land Use Changes In-field Practices Edge-of-Field Practices In-field Practi Practices Sidedress all spring applied nitrogen Reduce phosphorus application rates 0 17 (12.00) Manure injection/phosphorus Cover crops Convert intensive tillage to conservation tillage 0 % 33 Est. Category Convert conservation Practice tillage to no till Cost Increase soil organic matter 10 N P 0 $/ac/yr NA Nutrient Reduce nitrogen Removal application Wetlands 1, rate a to (2.00) 9.41 Denitrification MRTN Bioreactors 2, a Nutrient Sediment Use a nitrification Basins 1, a inhibitor (3.00) 5.90 Management Riparian Eliminate Buffers fall anhydrous 3, b nitrogen (35.00) 6.78 Practices Controlled Sidedress all Drainage spring applied a nitrogen Grassed Reduce phosphorus Waterways 3, application b rates (12.00) Saturated Manure injection/phosphorus Buffers a Perennials/Energy Cover crops Crops c Pasture Convert and/or intensive Land tillage Retirement to c Extended conservation alfalfa tillage rotations c New Convert Development conservation tillage to no till N/A Existing Increase Development: soil organic matter Re N/A NA Existing Nutrient Development: Removal Wetlands Voluntary ,000 Plan: Prioritizing Practices 2, a

12 In-field Practices Urban Practices Land Use Changes Edge-of-Field Practices Nutrient Removal Wetlands Denitrification Bioreactors 2, a Sediment Basins 1, a Riparian Buffers 3, b Controlled Drainage a 33 % Est. Grassed Waterways Practice 3, b Cost Saturated Buffers a 50 N P 0 $/ac/yr 7.52 Perennials/Energy Reduce nitrogen application Crops c rate to (2.00) 698 Pasture MRTN and/or Land Retirement c Extended Use a nitrification alfalfa rotations inhibitor c (3.00) 71 New Eliminate Development fall anhydrous nitrogen (35.00) N/A Existing Sidedress Development: all spring applied Re- nitrogen N/A Existing Reduce phosphorus Development: application Voluntary rates 0 17 (12.00) 3,000 (Rebates/Incentives) Manure injection/phosphorus Cover crops Convert intensive tillage to conservation tillage 0 33 Convert conservation tillage to no till Plan: Prioritizing Practices 1 Assumed 1:100 ratio between pool area and upslope drainage area for /acre/yr costs 2 Assumed one bioreactor treats 40 acres for /acre/yr costs 3 Assumed 1:25 ratio between vegetated treatment area and upslope drainage area for /acre/yr costs a Assumed lifespan of 20 years for /acre/yr costs b Assumed 5year commitment for /acre/yr costs c Category Nutrient Management Practices

13 In-field Practices Nutrient Management Practices Plan: Prioritizing Practices Scenario Reduce nitrogen application rate to the MRTN Sidedress all spring applied nitrogen BMP Effectiveness N reducti on % per unit area P reduct ion % per unit area 10% 0% 7% 0% Use a nitrification inhibitor 9% 0% Eliminate fall anhydrous nitrogen application Reduce phosphorus application rates Manure injection/ Phosphorus banding on all current no-till acres Increase soil organic matter by 100% (3% to 6%) Cover crops (rye) on all corn/soybean and cont. corn acres 6% 0% 0% 17% BMP Scenario Treatment Areas Treat ed acres 118, , , , ,6 57 Trea ted % 100 % 100 % Trea ted % of total N load Treat ed % of total P load Squaw Watershedwide Scenario Results Total N load reduct ion % Total P load reduct ion % 97% 92% 10% 0% 97% 92% 7% 0% 25% 24% 23% 2% 0% 25% 24% 23% 1% 0% 100 % 97% 92% 0% 16% 0% 24% 9,493 8% 8% 7% 0% 2% 10% 0% 31% 29% 118, , % 100 % 97% 92% 10% 0% 97% 92% 30% 27% Cover crops (rye) on all no-till acres 31% 29% 9,493 8% 8% 1% 2% 0% Convert all existing tillage to no till 0% 90% Convert all existing intensive tillage to conservation tillage Denitrification Bioreactors on all tile drained acres Nutrient Removal Wetlands on applicable tile drained areas Sediment Basins on all applicable acres 0% 33% 43% 0% 52% 58% 0% 85% 109, , , , , % 90% 91% 0% 82% 53% 48% 45% 0% 15% 70% 86% 64% 37% 0% 50% 61% 45% 32% 26% 10% 10% 9% 0% 8%

14 In-field Landuse Practices Edge-of-field Practices Nutrient Management Practices In-field Practices Nutrient Managemen Eliminate fall anhydrous nitrogen application Reduce phosphorus 6% 0% 4 29, , % 24% 23% 1% 0% 0% 17% application rates Manure injection/ Phosphorus Plan: Prioritizing Practices 100 % 97% 92% 0% 16% banding on all current no-till acres 0% 24% 9,493 8% 8% 7% 0% 2% Increase soil organic matter by 118,6 100 Squaw 10% 0% 100% (3% to 6%) BMP BMP 97% 92% 10% 0% 57 Scenario % Treatment Watershedwide Scenario Cover crops (rye) on all Effectiveness 118,6 100 Areas 31% 29% 97% 92% 30% 27% corn/soybean and cont. corn acres 57 % Results N P Trea Treat Cover crops (rye) on all no-till acres reducti 31% reduct 29% 9,493 8% ted 8% ed 1% % Total 2% Total 0% P Treat 109,1 Trea Convert all existing tillage to no till on 0% % ion 90% % 92% % 90% of 91% of N load 0% load Scenario ed 82% 64 ted per per total total reduct reduct acres % Convert all existing intensive tillage unit unit 57,85 N P ion % ion % 0% 33% 53% 48% 45% 0% 15% to conservation tillage area area 7 load load Denitrification Reduce nitrogen Bioreactors application all tile 83,46 118, % 10% 0% 70% drained rate acres to the MRTN 57 2 % 86% 97% 64% 92% 37% 10% 0% Nutrient Sidedress Removal all Wetlands spring applied on 59,25 118, % 7% 58% 0% 50% applicable nitrogen tile drained areas 57 8 % 61% 97% 45% 92% 32% 7% 26% 0% Sediment Basins on all applicable 11,57 29,66 Use a nitrification inhibitor 0% 9% 85% 0% acres 54 10% 25% 10% 24% 23% 9% 0% 2% 8% 0% Riparian Eliminate Buffers fall on anhydrous all applicable 84,05 29,66 91% 6% 58% 0% acres nitrogen application 14 71% 25% 69% 24% 65% 23% 63% 1% 38% 0% Grassed Reduce Waterways phosphorus on all 99,01 118, % 58% 17% 83% applicable application acres rates 57 3 % 81% 97% 77% 92% 0% 44% 16% Controlled Manure Drainage injection/ all Phosphorus 33% 0% 500 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% applicable banding tile on drained all current acres no-till 0% 24% 9,493 8% 8% 7% 0% 2% Saturated acres Buffers on all applicable 83,46 50% 0% 70% 86% 64% 41% 0% tile Increase drained soil acres organic matter by 118, % 0% 97% 92% 10% 0% 100% (3% crops to 6%) on 10% of 11,86 57 % 72% 34% 10% 20% 20% 14% 6.8% Cover Agricultural crops (rye) Land on all 118, % 29% 97% 92% 30% 27% Pasture/Land corn/soybean Retirement and cont. corn on 10% acres of 11,86 57 % Agricultural ChangesPerennial 85% 75% 10% 20% 20% 17% 15% Cover crops Land (rye) on all no-till acres 31% 29% 9, % 8% 1% 2% 0% Convert all existing tillage to no till 0% 90% Convert all existing intensive tillage to conservation tillage Denitrification Bioreactors on all tile drained acres Nutrient Removal Wetlands on 0% 33% 43% 0% 52% 58% 109, , , ,25 92% 90% 91% 0% 82% 53% 48% 45% 0% 15% 70% 86% 64% 37% 0% 50% 61% 45% 32% 26%

15 Urban Land Use Changes Edge-of-field Practices In-Field Practic es Plan: Prioritizing Practices BMP % of watershed Treatment Area Acres % of Ag % of N/P Squaw Creek Watershed-wide Reductions % N reduc. % P reduc. Nutrient Management 32% 47,463 40% 49%/36% 9% 6% Cover Crops 16% 23,731 20% 29%/18% 10% 4% No-Till 16% 23,731 20% 29%/18% 0% 16% Nutrient removal wetlands 1,2 Riparian buffers 1,2,3 Bioreactors 32% 47,463 40% 49%/36% 20% 13% Sediment Basins Grassed Waterways Saturated Buffers Perennial energy crops Pasture/Land retirement Alfalfa/corn rotations 3% 4,746 4% 5%/4% 4% 1% Urban BMP Category/Practice % of watershed Acres % of Urban % N reduc. % P reduc. New & Existing Development BMPs 3% 4,500 45% 2%/2% 0% 1% TOTAL REDUCTIONS: 43% 41% 1 BMPs are assumed to be implemented upslope to downslope -- within the same area 2 These BMPs were emphasized in the analysis because of high N and P reduction potential

16 Plan: Targeting Practices Crooked Creek Subwatershed ACPF Findings Practice Unit Result Grassed Waterways Length (km) 137 Drainage Area (HA) 4,340 Nutrient Removal Wetlands Pool Area (HA) 15 Drainage Area (HA) 725 Sedimentation Basins Pool Area (HA) 0.36 Drainage Area (HA) 114 Riparian Buffers Critical Zones Drainage Area (HA) 653 Multi-Species Buffers Drainage Area (HA) 150 Stiff-stemmed Grasses Drainage Area (HA) 2,610 Deep-rooted Vegetation Drainage Area (HA) 17

17 Plan: Targeting Practices

18 Plan: Targeting Practices

19 Implementation: Education and Outreach 4 field days Al Lingren farm, Ogden (77 attendees) Jim McHugh & Prairie Hill farm, Hamilton County (40 attendees)

20 Implementation: Education and Outreach 4 field days Larry Haren farm, Webster City (58 attendees) Key Cooperative, Nevada (39 attendees)

21 Implementation: Education and Outreach Co-hosting Workshops Master River Stewards Program with Story County Conservation Cover Crop workshop with Heartland Coop

22 Implementation: Education and Outreach Co-hosting Workshops Women Caring for the Land Workshop with WFAN Nutrients in November Participatory modeling with ISU Water and Climate Change Group

23 Implementation: Education and Outreach Soil tubes and prairie root displays 4 pop-up banners Blogging and quarterly newsletters Soil health social media campaign

24 Implementation: Education and Outreach Presentations and tabling events including Coops and commodity associations (i.e. United Suppliers SUSTAIN training, United Soybean Association Research Conference) Community groups (i.e. Women League of Voters, St. Andrews Lutheran Church, Hickory Hills HOA) Story County legislative reception Iowa Children s Water Festival Sustainability events (Ames EcoFair, ISU Earth Day) Farmers markets and county fairs High school and college classes

25 Implementation: Improving water quality

26 Implementation: Improving water quality One-stop cover crop service: 1611 acres seeded in Story, Webster, and Boone counties

27 Implementation: Improving water quality WQI Cost share practices in Squaw Creek Watershed Cover crops No-till/Strip till Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 (so far) Total practices 375 acres acres acres acres obligated 250 acres acres acres acres obligated Extended rotation 10.5 acres 10.5 acres 21 acres Bioreactor 1 unit (Fall 2017) 1 unit

28 Implementation: Improving water quality Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) Mailings Consultations with farmers and landowners

29 Implementation: Monitoring ISCO Sampler installed near USGS gage on Squaw Creek Ames City staff collect and test samples monthly and storm composite

30 Implementation: Monitoring

31 Implementation: Monitoring Results updated on Prairie Rivers website EOR analyzes loading and trends Observed nitrogen concentrations were consistently higher than the EPA Recommended Criteria The total annual TN load in 2016 for Squaw Creek was estimated at 4,535,454 pounds per year. TN concentrations were highest during baseflow events.

32 Implementation: Restoring Hydrology Practices like cover crops have hydrology as well as soil health and water quality benefits

33 Implementation: Restoring Hydrology City of Ames has installed bioretention and permeable pavers Public works does stormwater education and rebates for rain gardens

34 Implementation: Facilitating Partnerships Bringing in non-wma partners to collaborate on grants and events Story County NRCS Boone County NRCS Hamilton County NRCS Story County Conservation Key Cooperative Heartland Cooperative Iowa Soybean Association Iowa Corn Growers Association Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance Squaw Creek Watershed Coalition Technical Service Providers Network ISG Engineering Iowa State University Water and Climate Change Group

35 Implementation: Facilitating Partnerships Additional grants and contracts Urban fringe of Squaw Creek watershed Watershed plan for neighboring Keigley-South Skunk watershed Story County assessment of remaining HUC12 watersheds Story County watershed/stream signage

36 Next Steps for 20-year Plan Habitat Improvement Recreational Enhancement Stream Restoration