More than an advisory committee ingels

More than an Advisory Committee:
Farmers Take the Lead in Northeast Iowa
Watershed Improvement
Chad Ingels
ClearWater Ag Strategies, LLC
ISU Extension Watershed Projects
Soil & Water Conservation Society Annual Conference
July 25, 2016

Northeast Iowa
Farmer-led watershed
improvement projects
Improving Water Quality is the Goal

Citizen Participation
In
Performance-based
Management
Goals-PlansPerformance
Targeting
Evaluation
Awareness
Assessment
Performance-based Watershed Management

Residents come together as a watershed community
Watershed Council Development

Awareness,
Assessment &
Evaluation
through
water monitoring

Awareness, Assessment & Evaluation
reporting results

Enhancing and developing waterways
46% less sediment loss, costing $8.85/A
Exclude crop removal fertilizer applications
on high testing fields
12% less soluble N
32% less soluble P, saving $18.86/A PN
Full nitrogen accounting from manure to
reduce commercial N use
43% less soluble N, saving $9.24/A
N
Sed

• Iowa Phosphorus Index
– Developed by ISU, Soil Tilth Lab, NRCS
– Used in Iowa DNR MMPs
– Incorporates soil loss, distance to stream, soil test P,
management practices, P application
• Soil Conditioning Index
– Product of RUSLE2 calculation
– Eligibility standard for CSP enrollment
• Cornstalk Nitrate Test
– Developed at ISU
– Testing available at many Iowa labs
– Recognized for use with CSP N management enhancements
Performance Tools

Seed cover crops on 20 fields
receiving manure applications
Reduce annual sediment by 7,500
tons
Two consecutive years of season-
long, rain event, average total
phosphorus water analysis of less
than 1.40 mg/L at Site 3
Watershed average PI of 2.00
and SCI of 0.6
A recreation season indicator
bacteria (E. coli) geometric mean
less than the Class A2 criterion of
630 orgs/100 ml at monitoring site
DRC 19
Watershed participation rate
of 85%
Goal setting

Incentive Program Alternatives

P-Index list – HewittP-Index list – Coldwater/Palmer
PRODUCER_ID FIELD_ID FIELD_ACRES P_INDEX SCI SOILTEST_P STALK_N STREAM_DIS ROTATION CONTOUR NOTILL
9 12 7.9 9.85 0.54 311 0 320 CCOHH Y
33 b2 17.6 9.56 0.46 399 0 570 CS Y
9 11 4.4 8.88 0.82 535 0 200 CCOHH N
19 H6 10.0 8.84 0.14 248 0 3230 CCCOMMM N
25 2 8.2 7.51 0.23 217 0 560 CCB N
41 4A 20.3 7.20 -0.04 145 0 800 CC Y
45 V-1 20.8 7.19 -0.31 23 0 260 CS Y
25 3 18.4 6.86 -0.11 130 0 1360 CCB N
44 H-2 36.5 6.65 -0.02 125 0 940 CS Y
25 4 64.7 6.61 -0.11 111 0 860 CCB N
9 13 13.8 6.52 0.54 201 0 440 CCOHH Y
44 K-3 7.9 6.51 -0.76 23 0 1610 CS Y
9 10 1.1 6.36 0.72 224 0 630 CCOHH N
13 1 38.3 5.90 0.25 105 0 330 CC N
31 5 6.6 5.84 0.56 148 0 480 CCOMMM Y
41 4B 9.5 5.82 0.42 145 0 185 CC Y
12 2 36.6 5.56 0.17 126 0 2120 CS Y
12 4 18.4 5.55 0.17 93 0 1075 CS Y
26 2 8.8 5.55 0.14 46 0 380 CCCOHHH Y
33 b1 12.7 5.43 0.66 399 0 300 CS
26 8 5.8 5.42 0.49 45 0 280 CCCOHHH N
30 N4 20.7 5.26 0.06 22 0 220 CS Y
43 1 32.4 5.24 -0.23 32 0 1080 CC Y
6 B4 11.4 5.20 -0.02 73 0 740 CC Y
23 H-east 67.6 5.14 0.43 277 0 1550 CC N
35 W4 12.4 5.09 0.23 58 0 670 CCCOHHH Y
13 2 117.0 4.99 0.24 145 0 1090 CC N
26 7 8.4 4.96 0.35 58 0 990 CCCOHHH N
6 R3 19.9 4.92 0.49 99 0 600 CCCOHHH Y
21 6 5.4 0.44 1.00 21 0 500 RGraze N Y
14 a5 5.6 0.38 0.85 23 0 240 CS N Y
21 1 32.3 0.20 1.10 19 0 730 RGraze N Y
5 14 52.6 0.00 0.46 0 0 4200 CCCCS Y
38 P-fs 3.0 0.00 0.64 0 0 380 CS N Y
38 H-fsw 3.2 0.00 0.63 0 0 720 CS N Y
PI Category # of fields total acres avg. PI avg. SCI avg. soil P avg N avg. distance % hay/graze % contour % no till
>5 26 513 6.24 0.13 150 0 958 35 62 0
3 to 5 98 2236 3.83 0.34 79 0 1488 52 48 2
2 to 3 112 3039 2.51 0.50 55 0 1693 65 57 5
1 to 2 83 2351 1.54 0.62 48 0 2534 34 48 30
0 to 1 50 1319 0.74 0.79 26 0 1569 28 22 80
No PI 3 59 0.00 0.48 0 0 3816
372 9516
2.54 0.51 60 0 1785 47 48 19
>5 20 413 6.62 0.15 181 0 1054 45 40 0
3 to 5 84 1692 3.72 0.41 86 0 1661 58 52 1
2 to 3 106 2828 2.48 0.54 57 0 1572 67 57 7
1 to 2 70 2169 1.61 0.59 49 0 2336 47 50 27
0 to 1 36 1085 0.72 0.76 29 0 1380 24 26 91
316 8187
2.48 0.54 63 0 1741 54 50 19
2007 Watershed Weighted Average

Phosphorus Index listing
PRODUCER_ID FIELD_ID FIELD_ACRES P_INDEX SCI SOILTEST_P STALK_N STREAM_DIS ROTATION CONTOUR NOTILL
9 12 7.9 9.85 0.54 311 0 320 CCOHH Y
33 b2 17.6 9.56 0.46 399 0 570 CS Y
9 11 4.4 8.88 0.82 535 0 200 CCOHH N
19 H6 10.0 8.84 0.14 248 0 3230 CCCOMMM N
25 2 8.2 7.51 0.23 217 0 560 CCB N
41 4A 20.3 7.20 -0.04 145 0 800 CC Y
45 V-1 20.8 7.19 -0.31 23 0 260 CS Y
25 3 18.4 6.86 -0.11 130 0 1360 CCB N
44 H-2 36.5 6.65 -0.02 125 0 940 CS Y
25 4 64.7 6.61 -0.11 111 0 860 CCB N
9 13 13.8 6.52 0.54 201 0 440 CCOHH Y
44 K-3 7.9 6.51 -0.76 23 0 1610 CS Y
9 10 1.1 6.36 0.72 224 0 630 CCOHH N
13 1 38.3 5.90 0.25 105 0 330 CC N
31 5 6.6 5.84 0.56 148 0 480 CCOMMM Y
41 4B 9.5 5.82 0.42 145 0 185 CC Y
12 2 36.6 5.56 0.17 126 0 2120 CS Y
12 4 18.4 5.55 0.17 93 0 1075 CS Y
26 2 8.8 5.55 0.14 46 0 380 CCCOHHH Y
33 b1 12.7 5.43 0.66 399 0 300 CS
26 8 5.8 5.42 0.49 45 0 280 CCCOHHH N
30 N4 20.7 5.26 0.06 22 0 220 CS Y
43 1 32.4 5.24 -0.23 32 0 1080 CC Y
6 B4 11.4 5.20 -0.02 73 0 740 CC Y
23 H-east 67.6 5.14 0.43 277 0 1550 CC N
35 W4 12.4 5.09 0.23 58 0 670 CCCOHHH Y
13 2 117.0 4.99 0.24 145 0 1090 CC N
26 7 8.4 4.96 0.35 58 0 990 CCCOHHH N
6 R3 19.9 4.92 0.49 99 0 600 CCCOHHH Y
21 6 5.4 0.44 1.00 21 0 500 RGraze N Y
14 a5 5.6 0.38 0.85 23 0 240 CS N Y
21 1 32.3 0.20 1.10 19 0 730 RGraze N Y
5 14 52.6 0.00 0.46 0 0 4200 CCCCS Y
38 P-fs 3.0 0.00 0.64 0 0 380 CS N Y
38 H-fsw 3.2 0.00 0.63 0 0 720 CS N Y
PI Category # of fields total acres avg. PI avg. SCI avg. soil P avg N avg. distance % hay/graze % contour % no till
>5 26 513 6.24 0.13 150 0 958 35 62 0
3 to 5 98 2236 3.83 0.34 79 0 1488 52 48 2
2 to 3 112 3039 2.51 0.50 55 0 1693 65 57 5
1 to 2 83 2351 1.54 0.62 48 0 2534 34 48 30
0 to 1 50 1319 0.74 0.79 26 0 1569 28 22 80
No PI 3 59 0.00 0.48 0 0 3816
372 9516
2.54 0.51 60 0 1785 47 48 19
>5 20 413 6.62 0.15 181 0 1054 45 40 0
3 to 5 84 1692 3.72 0.41 86 0 1661 58 52 1
2 to 3 106 2828 2.48 0.54 57 0 1572 67 57 7
1 to 2 70 2169 1.61 0.59 49 0 2336 47 50 27
0 to 1 36 1085 0.72 0.76 29 0 1380 24 26 91
316 8187
2.48 0.54 63 0 1741 54 50 19
Phosphorus Index
Soil Conditioning
Index
Aerial Photos
Phosphorus Index & Soil Conditioning Index
Why use multiple measures?

Why use multiple measures?
Phosphorus Index & Soil Conditioning Index

Cornstalk nitrate test results

Incentives for Producers, Demonstrations and Animal Waste Facilities (Feedlot Runoff)
2010 ($) 2011 ($) 2012 ($) 2013 ($) 2014 ($) Total ($)
Phosphorus Index 5,240 7,435 10,055 8,170 7,820 38,720
Soil Conditioning Index 18,710 17,788 12,379 16,771 20,774 86,422
Nitrogen Performance 9,120 5,900 4,660 5,835 7,160 32,675
Grassed Waterways 6,380 7,205 6,198 4,855 4,170 28,808
Cover Crops 2,390 3,590 9,040 11,320 11,180 37,520
Feedlot Runoff 200 2,200 2,000 400 14,000 18,800
Demonstrations 0 1,000 0 1,000 0 2,000
Other Incentives 3,730 4,850 5,250 4,776 3,290 21,896
Total Incentives $45,770 $49,968 $49,582 $53,127 $68,394 $266,841
Cooperators 52 56 59 59 62
Hewitt Creek Watershed Incentives

30% reduction in stream
nitrate – Coldwater-Palmer
Watershed average IPI improved - 2.48 to
2.19 – Hewitt Creek
Installation and improvement of 150,000
feet of grassed waterways and vegetative
buffers – Hewitt Creek
Family Biotic Index improved: 5.83 (fairly
poor) to 4.74 (good) – Hewitt Creek
Evaluation of Outcomes

10,500 tons reduction of sediment
delivery – North Fork Maquoketa
Watershed participation exceeds
80% - Hewitt Creek
19% reduction in stream nitrate with 2
years consecutive years less than 10
mg/L – Lime Creek
Watershed average IPI improved - 2.70 to
2.18 – North Fork Maquoketa
Evaluation of Outcomes

Outcomes
• Developing policy recommendations such as extending water
project timelines
• Evaluating performance-based approaches – Iowa/Vermont CIG
• Training watershed leader/technical specialist teams
• Defining the performance-based approach – Minnesota and
Heartland Water Quality roundtable/webinar
• Engaging in larger watershed - Cedar River Coalition involvement
Watershed Resident Leadership

Chad Ingels
chad.ingels@gmail.com
563-920-5899
@hort4cy
Hear more about Hewitt Creek
during the Water Quality Targeting Success
Stories session at 10:30 tomorrow

More than an advisory committee ingels

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to More than an advisory committee ingels

Similar to More than an advisory committee ingels (20)

More from Soil and Water Conservation Society

More from Soil and Water Conservation Society (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

More than an advisory committee ingels