IOWA NUTRIENT REDUCTION STRATEGY A science and technology-based framework to assess and reduce nutrients to Iowa waters

1. IOWA NUTRIENT REDUCTION STRATEGY A science and technology-based framework to assess and reduce nutrients to Iowa waters and the Gulf of Mexico Spring 2013

2. 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

3. 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

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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

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

9. 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

10. Nitrogen Reduction Practices

11. Phosphorus Reduction Practices Phosphorus assessment does not include stream bed and bank contribution

12. Summary of Example Scenarios

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

14. 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

15. 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)

16. 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.”

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

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

19. Strategy Implementation • 12 of 22 nonpoint source action items are underway now through WRCC & agencies • ISU Extension Outreach 2012-13 • 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

20. 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

21. www.nutrientstrategy.iastate.edu • Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship • www.IowaAgriculture.gov