IOWA NUTRIENT REDUCTION STRATEGY A science and technology-based framework to assess and reduce nutrients to Iowa waters and the Gulf of Mexico Spring

Why? And Why Now? Society expects higher environmental actions from cities, industry and agriculture Gulf Hypoxia Task Force requires plan to reduce N and P load to Gulf by 45% by 2013 EPA requests strategy that emphasizes state implementation of new and existing N and P practices for point and non-point sources Pending lawsuit to force EPA to adopt nutrient standards for 31 states of Mississippi River 2

Nutrient Reductions Needed to Meet Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Goal Nutrient Reductions 45% reduction of nitrogen to Gulf 45% reduction of phosphorus to Gulf Statewide strategy by 2013 for achieving reductions 3

Nutrient delivery to the Gulf of Mexico State shares of the total nutrient flux Nitrogen Phosphorus Alexander et al, Environ. Sci. Techn., in press 4

Science Assessment For nonpoint source landscapes, to achieve 45% N & P reductions identify –what practices needed –what level of practice adoption –what targeted locations for practices –what estimated costs –what resource assistance and programs are needed 5

Nutrient Reduction Strategy – Science Team Matt Helmers – ISU – N Team Lead Tom Isenhart – ISU – P Team Lead John Lawrence – ISU John Sawyer – ISU Antonio Mallarino – ISU William Crumpton – ISU Rick Cruse – ISU Mike Duffy – ISU Reid Christianson – ISU Phil Gassman – ISU Dean Lemke – IDALS Shawn Richmond – IDALS Jim Baker – IDALS/ISU Keith Schilling – IDNR Calvin Wolter – IDNR Dan Jaynes – USDA-ARS Mark Tomer – USDA-ARS John Kovar – USDA-ARS David James – USDA-ARS Eric Hurley – USDA-NRCS Mark David – Univ. of Illinois Gyles Randall – Univ. of Mn Katie Flahive - USEPA 6

Science Assessment Establish baseline – existing conditions –Major Land Resource Areas used to aggregate conditions Extensive literature review to assess potential performance of practices –Outside peer review of science team documents (practice performance and baseline conditions) Estimate potential load reductions of implementing nutrient reduction practices (scenarios) –“Full implementation” and “Combined” scenarios Estimate cost of implementation and cost per pound of nitrogen and phosphorus reduction 7

Nitrogen or Phosphorus? Nitrogen moves primarily as nitrate-N with water Phosphorus moves primarily with eroded soil 8

Reaching the 45% goal Point sources achieve maximum biological removal rate: 4% N and 16% P Nonpoint source goal becomes 41% N and 29% P to achieve 45% goal for Iowa Requires high adoption of full suite of practices to reach the goal –Not simple –Not impossible 9

Nitrogen Reduction Practices Practice % Nitrate-N Reduction [Average (Std. Dev.)] Nitrogen Management Timing (Fall to spring)6 (25) Source (Liquid swine compared to commercial) 4 (11) Nitrogen Application RateDepends on starting point Nitrapyrin (N Serve)9 (19) Cover Crops (Rye)31 (29) Land Use Perennial – Land retirement85 (9) Living Mulches41 (16) Extended Rotations42 (12) Edge-of-Field Drainage Water Mgmt.33 (32)* Shallow Drainage32 (15)* Wetlands52 Bioreactors43 (21) Buffers91 (20)** 10

Phosphorus Reduction Practices Practice % Phosphorus-P Reduction [Average (Std. Dev.)] Phosphorus Management Producer does not apply phosphorus until STP drops to optimal level 17 (40) Source (Liquid swine compared to commercial) 46 (45) Incorporation36 (27) No-till (70% residue) vs. conventional tillage (30% residue) 90 (17) Cover Crops (Rye)29 (37) Land Use Perennial – Land retirement75 (-) Pasture59 (42) Edge-of-FieldBuffers58 (32) Phosphorus assessment does not include stream bed and bank contribution 11

Summary of Example Scenarios Initial Investment (million $) Total EAC* Cost (million $/year) Statewide Average EAC Costs ($/acre) Name NCS13, NCS31,2221,21458 NCS84,

Agricultural Nonpoint Sources Nutrient impairment is not mainly due to mismanagement of fertilizers and manures, but more to historic changes in land use and hydrology 13

Agricultural Nonpoint Sources Nutrient impairment is not mainly due to mismanagement of fertilizers and manures, but more to historic changes in land use and hydrology It is unlikely that in-stream phosphorus loading WQ goals will be achieved from only in-field P loading reductions to streams, given in-channel bed and bank erosion and resulting P loads 14

What’s New? Nonpoint and point sources integrated plan & working together towards goal Nonpoint source science assessment Harness the collective initiative of Iowa ag organizations, ag business & farmers Major cities (102) and industries (46) treat to remove nutrients Coordination through water resources coordinating council (WRCC) 15

Goal – Iowa Leader “As Iowa is a national and global leader in the production of food and renewable fuels, a goal of this strategy is to make Iowa an equal national and global leader in addressing the environmental and conservation needs associated with food and renewable fuels production.” 16

Iowa Strategy Approach – Nonpoint Sources Achieve nutrient load reductions through voluntary technology-based actions, while Continuing to assess and evaluate nutrient water quality standards 17

22 Nonpoint Source Actions In 8 Categories 1.Watershed prioritization & goals 2.Setting priorities 3.Research & technology 4.Strengthen outreach, education, collaboration 5.Increased public awareness & recognition 6.Funding 7.Accountability & verification measures 8.Public reporting 18

Strategy Implementation 12 of 22 nonpoint source action items are underway now through WRCC & agencies ISU Extension Outreach –Integrated Crop Management Conference – 1000 CCA’s –Pesticide & manure applicator training, Crop Advantage Series meetings – 26,000 farmers Ag landowners, farmers encouraged to evaluate practices, continue adoption 19

Why is Strategy Important? Based on sound science in Iowa, for Iowa Meaningful and measureable progress Builds on current programs and targeted watersheds Utilizes the policy framework which will provide greatest progress and success Improves water quality in Iowa and Gulf of Mexico 20

Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship 21