Table 1.

Model catchment details. WQ = Water Quality.

Catchment ID	County	Catchment area (ha)	Easement area (ha)	WQ wetland area (ha)	WQ wetland: catchment area (%)	Non-depressional corn/soy (%)	Depressional corn/soy (%)	Total depressional area (%)	Existing wetland area (%)
1	Emmet	322	7	3	0.9	82	9	9	0.6
2	Emmet	287	17	3	0.9	65	19	20	3.6
3	Emmet	250	16	4	1.7	83	3	4	0.9
4	Emmet	498	22	9	1.7	60	0	1	6.7
5	Emmet	184	15	6	3.4	86	3	3	2.1
6	Hancock/Kossuth	1144	16	4	0.4	79	9	9	1.2
7	Kossuth	664	12	8	1.2	76	16	17	2.1
8	Kossuth	732	18	6	0.8	79	14	15	0.5
9	Winnebago	448	11	6	1.3	80	5	5	3.6
10	Winnebago	527	40	13	2.5	72	17	17	2.8
11	Winnebago	242	8	3	1.1	77	2	3	4.2
12	Pocahontas	945	42	7	0.7	84	11	11	0.5
13	Calhoun	651	24	8	1.2	87	8	8	0.5
14	Calhoun	233	9	2	0.9	87	10	10	0.2
15	Humboldt	608	12	3	0.5	81	5	5	2.0
16	Humboldt	432	12	2	0.4	94	2	2	0.8
17	Webster	560	11	2	0.4	83	13	13	0.1
18	Webster	372	11	3	0.7	86	8	8	0.6
19	Wright	560	42	18	3.2	81	6	6	5.0
20	Hamilton	1219	35	15	1.2	75	16	17	0.5
21	Hamilton	388	20	10	2.6	84	3	3	5.8
22	Greene	290	13	4	1.5	92	1	1	0.1
23	Greene	284	15	5	1.6	75	0	0	1.4
24	Greene	281	6	1	0.5	84	8	8	0.4
25	Greene	407	11	3	0.7	90	5	5	0.4
26	Greene/Calhoun	854	18	7	0.8	91	3	3	0.9
27	Boone/Hamilton	1296	26	11	0.9	62	4	4	4.4
28	Boone	328	7	2	0.6	87	8	8	0.5
29	Boone	260	17	4	1.7	93	3	3	0.4
30	Boone	129	25	8	6.4	87	8	8	0.6
31	Story	349	15	4	1.1	91	2	2	0.5
32	Story	531	14	7	1.4	81	10	10	0.7
33	Dallas	274	8	2	0.8	51	1	2	1.7
34	Dallas	593	12	3	0.5	61	5	6	1.2
35	Dallas	508	23	7	1.4	72	8	8	0.4
36	Polk	936	18	7	0.8	85	1	1	0.6
37	Polk	241	9	2	1.0	88	4	4	0.2