a decision case study: effects of conservation management ...• impact on water supply and natural...

A decision case study: Effects of conservation

management practices on a northwest Iowa floodplain

Kimberly Ann Thayer

Growing Up

Education & Experience Timeline

• May, 2009– Associate of Arts Degree– Iowa Central Community College, Fort Dodge, Iowa

• Summer 2010– Iowa Lakeside Laboratory, Okoboji, Iowa

Photos courtesy of Kimberly Thayer


• Bachelor of Science in Environmental Science with minors in Agronomy and Criminal Justice Studies– May, 2011– Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

• Started Graduate Program in Agronomy


• Summers of 2011 and 2012– Iowa Department of Natural Resources: Water Patrol Officer

– Summer 2012: Internship at Tucker Consulting, Inc.



• May, 2013 – current– Full‐time employment at Tucker Consulting, Inc.

Photo courtesy of Kimberly Thayer

Raccoon River Watershed

• Drains 2.3 million acres• North, Middle, and South segmented streams

• Portions of 17 Iowa counties contribute to the watershed

• Tributary of the Mississippi River Basin• Very important source of drinking water• Buena Vista County is at the head of the North Raccoon River watershed• Consists of 85% cropland

Raccoon River Watershed

Photo courtesy of DSM: H20

Water Quality: A Growing Concern

• Conversion of native prairie and permanent vegetation to row crops

• Loss of wetlands• Subsurface tile drainage

– Approximately 78% of land in the North Raccoon River segment has subsurface drainage

• NUTRIENT LEACHING AND SOIL EROSION INTO THE WATER

Drainage Ditch Outlet, Buena Vista County

Before rain

After rain


The Des Moines Water Works Lawsuit

• Holds Buena Vista, Sac, Calhoun Counties accountable for nitrate loading

• EPA Safe Drinking Water Act– Maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate is 10 mg/L

• Sac County nitrate levels as high as 39.2 mg/L

• Increased cost to remove excessive nitrates = increased consumer prices

Photo courtesy of The Des Moines Register


2011 Sample Data; Agren, Inc.


• Segments of the North Raccoon River deemed “impaired”– Nitrate– Increasing levels of phosphorus, sediment, and bacteria

“[Buena Vista, Sac, and Calhoun counties are] transporting groundwater that is heavily polluted

because of agricultural activities. [The counties are] a point‐source polluter like a factory or a city storm

water system or a wastewater plant.”

‐ Water Works CEO Bill Stowe

Iowa Water Quality InitiativeMISSED OPPORTUNITIES

‐ Offered $2.8 million for farmers to install conservation management practices through cost‐share• State‐governed nutrient reduction

strategy• 2013 – 1,125 Iowans signed up• Underwhelming results

considering 920 farms exist in Buena Vista County

• Buena Vista county had the third‐fewest number of acres enrolled

• Least interest out of all 99 counties

• Only $1,678 out of $2.8 million was applied towards Buena Vista

(Cullen, 2013)

Last year, BV County had the highest recorded soil losses in the state: up

to 20 tons per acre!


History of Buena Vista County, Iowa

• Northwest quadrant of Iowa consisting of 580 sq. miles

• Year 1855– 97% native prairie grasses

• Year 1977– 1,374 farms averaging 255acres each

• Today– 362,553 acres of cropland– 98% of total ground cover

Photo courtesty of wikipediaSoil Survey of Buena Vista County, 1977

Soil Forming Factors of Buena Vista County

• Wide temperature range: 0‐92 degrees Fahrenheit

• 75% of precipitation between April and September

• Parent material of glacial till, outwash, loess, alluvium, eolian sand, and lucastrine sediment

• Nebraskan, Kansan, and Wisconsin glaciations with oldest depositions 14,000 years ago

Photo courtesy of PhysicalGeography.netSoil Survey of Buena Vista County, 1977

Buena Vista County Agriculture• Conventional agriculture:

‐ Chemical Dependence• High inputs • Impact on water supply and natural ecosystems

‐ Monocultures• Adverse effects on soil fertility

‐ Lack of permanent vegetation• Conversion of grazing land, groves, and old farmsteads into tillable

acres“We consider severe erosion to be an area where 20‐tons per acre or more of soil has detached and transported to a point of deposition. It’s equivalent to an eighth of an inch

of soil loss over the surface of an acre.”

The average soil loss per acre per year on Iowa cropland is almost five tons.

(Pate, 2004)

Buena Vista County Agriculture


The River: Background

Photo courtesy of the Acre Co.

The River: Background• Gordon Miller, NRCS state technician; April 25, 2013

– Future developmental construction– Property windbreaks– Hay ground management– Flooding management– Riparian buffer strip– Wetland restoration– Wildlife habitat– Native prairie grass

Photo courtesy of Gordon Miller, NRCS

Objectives

• Sustainability• Promote native wildlife habitat• Reduce nutrient runoff from agricultural field• Research and participate in possible programs available for conservation restoration

• Build and add livestock

The First Flood


Conservation Management Zones

• Zone 1: Upland– Native prairie

• Zone 2: Floodplain– Oxbow restoration

• Zone 3: River– Riparian buffer strip

Photo courtesy of Gordon Miller, NRCS

Dilemma

What should I, the landowner, choose to pursue to help promote environmental

health and wildlife habitat, while reducing agricultural runoff, erosion, and nutrient

load into the river system?

Management Zone 1 Option: Native Tallgrass Prairie

• Type of grassland with mostly warm‐season, perennial plants and extensive root systems

• High organic matter; Mollisol soils• Agricultural applications

– Field and water borders– Grass waterways– Sloped/erodible land



• Benefits– Soil erosion reduction– Nutrient retention– Beneficial insect habitat– Wildlife and songbird habitat– Watershed hydrology stabilization


“It has been estimated that native natural enemies save commodity

farmers in the United States about $4.5 billion annually on pest control.”

‐ Jarchow, et. al., 2011


• Eligibility criteria through NRCS Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)– Cost‐share up to 60%– Cost dependent on

• Site preparation• Seed selection• Post‐establishment management

– Free technical assistance– 5‐10 year contract– $25,000 total price ceiling– At least one project complete in the first year

Management Zone 2 Option: Oxbow Restoration

• Produced by a meandering stream• Erosion and deposition• Flooding event leads to a “cutoff” of the river• Oxbow pond builds sediment over time

– “swamp” to “scar”

• Unique ecosystem

Photo courtesy of Google Images


Photos courtesy of Aleshia Kenney, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


• Benefits– Wildlife habitat

• Topeka Shiner and Blandings Turtle

– Water quality• Reduce nutrient inputs and erosion into river

– Flood mitigation• Water storage capacity



• Project Goals• Laws• Establishing boundaries• Proposed elevations

and slopes• Project diagrams• Water supply• Soils• Vegetation• Invasives• Protective buffer zones• Maintenance plan• Monitoring program

Photos courtesy of Aleshia Kenney, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


Photo courtesy of AleshiaKenney, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


• Eligibility criteria through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program available by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – 100% fully funded– Voluntary contract with minimum of 10 years– Responsible for maintaining project– Must allow federal employees access

• Regular water testing, wildlife population checks

– Free technical assistance– Cannot return to original state, damage, or destroy property without reimbursement

Management Zone 3 Option: Riparian Buffer Strip

• Combination of trees, shrubs, grasses, and forbs that are established along the natural route of a stream or river to act as a buffer

• Benefits– Soil erosion reduction– Streambank stabilization– Filtration system

• agricultural runoff• sediment

– Protective barrier to river• Slows surface water



• Vegetative biodiversity– Increased biodiversity = increased success

• Vegetation selection

• Site preparation• Maintenance


“The types of plants chosen depend upon soils, amount of sunlight, water levels, frequency and

duration of flooding, and adjacent land use. The type of plants selected is very dependent upon conditions

within the buffer.”

‐Green Horizons Agroforestry Newsletter in conjunction with Dr. Richard Schultz, Iowa State University


1,680 linear feet on south bank1,885 linear feet on north bank

Total: 3,565 linear feet



• Eligibility through Continuous Conservation Reserve Program (CCRP) available by the USDA– Land rental rates per acre per year– 50% total cost share

• Possible cost share for livestock fencing– Signing Incentive Payment (SIP) = $100/ac– Practice Incentive Payment (PIP) = additional 40% paid with timely

completion– Contract length 10‐15 years– No harvesting or grazing allowed– Width of 35 to 180 feet on both sides of the river– Management strategies required for invasives

Controlling bank erosion on a natural river can involve a large amount of work and cost. In the past, I have seen estimates for this kind of work

typically range from $75 to $95 per [linear] foot and as high as $300 per [linear] foot.”

‐ Gordon Miller, NRCS; Storm Lake office

Teaching Notes: Part 1

• Each student will read the decision case study and answer the following questions:1. Who is the decision‐maker? What is their relationship to

the situation?2. What additional information is needed about the land so

a decision can be made? Why?3. Identify and define Kim’s goals for the farm

(management, economic, long‐term, etc.).4. What issues will Kim encounter if she chooses NOT to

participate in a conservation program?5. What issues will Kim encounter if she chooses to

participate in a conservation program?


Each student will develop a recommendation for Kim in regards to conservation practices.

If you were participating as a consultant for Kim Thayer, what would your recommendation be? Why? Do you need additional information before giving a

recommendation? In your opinion, which conservation practice is least applicable to Kim’s land?

Why?

Teaching Notes: Part 3Teaching Strategy – Utilizing this decision case study

• This decision case study is a learning tool for earth science education courses. – Natural Resource Ecology, Agriculture Education, Environmental Science, Conservation Management,

Wildlife ecology, etc.

• The goal is to promote critical thinking relating to a real issue in today’s world: conservation in a conventional system. – This case will be especially useful for students and participants who already understand the differences in

agricultural management practices and the basic concepts of available conservation projects, but who may not know about the challenges and benefits associated with these projects.

– This case study could also be used for those seeking a Master’s degree in a related environmental science field.

– Employed as a teaching tool for a farmer or landowner considering a conservation program on their ground.

• Teaching this case study – asking students and participants to read through the presented information prior to class. This will allow the

students/participants to know the background history and have an opinion relevant to the decision case study.

– A brief introduction and overview of the main points may be completed by the instructor at the beginning of class.

– The class can then be divided into small groups (3‐5 individuals per group) to discuss the possible answers to the questions outlined in Part 1 of the Teaching Notes. Each small group can deliberate about their opinions regarding solutions to the dilemma and choose a representative to present a summary of the answers and a recommendation for the case study.

– The instructor can move the discussion forward to have the students consider each topic: objectives, challenges, and potential solutions to overcome the challenges.

• Resources


Kim Thayer’s Resolution to the DilemmaKim Thayer decided to employ the oxbow restoration

project offered through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. She contacted Katherine Koskovich, Private Lands Biologist

with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, and Aleshia Kenney, Fish and Wildlife Biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Both specialists evaluated Kim’s land and agreed that the oxbow met the requirements to submit an application for construction. The permit process has

been completed and all paperwork has been approved. An estimated 1,450 cubic yards will be removed from a 0.3 acre area of the oxbow. Part of the waste will be blended into the hillside at a depth no greater than six inches and the rest will be removed from the site. A local construction crew has been reserved to begin work in the spring of 2016.

References• Basu, Rekha. "We Can't Let Agriculture Destroy Our Environment." Des Moines Register. The Des Moines Register, 9 Aug. 2014. Web. 10 Aug. 2014. <http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/

columnists/rekha‐basu/2014/08/09/agriculture‐destroy‐environment/13849183/?from=global& sessionKey=&autologin=>.

• "Board of Water Works Trustees Issue a Notice of Intent to Sue for Polluted Drinking Water." DMWW. Des Moines Water Works, 8 Jan. 2015. Web. 7 Mar. 2015. <http://www.dmww.com/about‐us/news‐releases/board‐of‐water‐works‐trustees‐issue‐a‐notice‐of‐intent‐to‐sue‐for‐polluted‐drinking‐water.aspx>.

• "Continuous Conservation Reserve Program (CCRP)." 2014 Farm Bill Programs. Texas Parks & Wildlife, n.d. Web. 29 Aug. 2015. <https://tpwd.texas.gov/landwater/land/private/farmbill/ccrp/>.

• Cullen, Art. "Underwhelmed." Underwhelmed. The Storm Lake Times, 06 Nov. 2013. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. <http://www.stormlake.com/articles/2013/11/06/underwhelmed>.

• "Expedition & Fishing Guide: North Raccoon River, South Raccoon River, Middle Raccoon River, and Raccoon River." DNR: Iowa Water Trails. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2015. <https://www.iowadnr.gov/portals/idnr/uploads/riverprograms/map_raccoon north south and middle.pdf?amp;tabid=868>.

• "FSA Maps, Soils Maps & Topography." Surety Customized Online Mapping with FSA Maps. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 May 2014. <http://www.suretymaps.com/>.

• Hytrek, Nick, and Dave Dreezsen. "Iowa Farmers Ponder Effects of Water Works Lawsuit." Washington Times. The Washington Times, 9 May 2015. Web. 09 May 2015.<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/9/iowa‐farmers‐ponder‐effects‐of‐water‐works‐lawsuit/?page=all>.

• "Iowa Online Soil Survey Manuscripts." NRCS Soils. 1977. Web. 06 Apr. 2011. <http://soils.usda.gov/survey/online_surveys/iowa/#buena1977>.

• Jarchow, Meghann E., and Matt Liebman. "Incorporating Prairies into Multifunctional Landscapes." (2011): Leopold Center. Iowa State University: University Extension. Web. 7 Aug. 2015. <https://www.leopold.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/pubs‐and‐papers/2011‐02‐incorporating‐prairies‐multifunctional‐landscapes.pdf>.

• "Native Plants: The Right Choice for Cleaner Water, Wildlife Habitat and Reduced Erosion in a Buffer System." Green Horizons Newsletter. Vol. 9., No. 3. N.p., Summer 2005. Web. 2 Dec. 2015. <http://agebb.missouri.edu/agforest/archives/v9n3/gh2.htm>.

• Natural Resources Conservation Service. Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program: It's Habitat Forming. N.p.: Natural Resources Conservation Service, n.d. Print.

• Pate, D. 2004. “May rains cause severe erosion in Iowa.” Washington DC: Natural Resources Conservation Service.

• “Raccoon River Watershed Water Quality Master Plan.” Agren, Inc., Nov. 2011. Web. 9 Sept. 2014. <http://www.iowadnr.gov/Portals/idnr/uploads/water/watershed/files/ raccoonmasterwmp13.PDF>

• "Raccoon River Watershed Master Plan." DSM: H20. Des Moines Water Works, 5 Apr. 2011. Web. 18 Jan. 2016. <http://www.dsmh2o.com/tag/raccoon‐river/>.

• "Real‐Time Nitrate Monitoring in the Raccoon River." ACWA: Water Monitoring. ACWA ‐ Agriculture's Clean Water Alliance, n.d. Web. 11 Jan. 2016. <http://www.acwa‐rrws.org/monitoring‐nitrate.html>.

• Thomas, Janell. "Des Moines Water Works' Nitrate Lawsuit Filed." Farm Futures. Penton, 27 Mar. 2015. Web. 30 Mar. 2015. <http://farmfutures.com/story‐des‐moines‐water‐works‐nitrate‐lawsuit‐filed‐0‐125246>.

• "Water Works to Sue 3 Counties over River Pollution." Storm Lake Pilot Tribune. Storm Lake Pilot Tribune, 12 Jan. 2015. Web. 20 Jan. 2015. <http://www.stormlakepilottribune.com/ story/2155318.html>.

• "Watersheds: Racoon River Watershed (RRW)." CARD: Center for Agricultural and Rural Development. Iowa State University, n.d. Web. 05 Sept. 2014. <http://www.card.iastate.edu/environment/ watersheds/raccoon.aspx>.

• "Web Soil Survey." Web Soil Survey. Natural Resources Conservation Service, n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2014. <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx>.

• "Wetlands Protection and Restoration." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 16 Sept. 2015. <http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/upload/wetlands‐guide‐central‐states.pdf>.

• Whitworth, Jodi. "Des Moines Water Works Customers Expect Increase in Water Bill." Whotv.com. N.p., 28 Oct. 2015. Web. 29 Nov. 2015. <http://whotv.com/2015/10/28/des‐moines‐water‐works‐customers‐expect‐increase‐in‐water‐bill/>.

QUESTIONS?

a decision case study: effects of conservation management ...• impact on water supply and natural...

Documents