Kirwin Lake WRAPS 9 Element Watershed Protection Plan Water Quality Impairments Directly Addressed: • Kirwin Lake Eutrophication TMDL (Medium Priority) Other Impairments Which Stand to Benefit from Watershed Plan Implementation: • Kirwin Lake Dissolved Oxygen TMDL (Medium Priority) • Bow Creek Near Stockton Total Phosphorous 303(d) listing • North Fork Solomon River Near Glade Total Phosphorous 303(d) listing • Logan City Lake Eutrophication 303(d) listing Determination of Priority Areas Information collected by the Graham, Norton and Phillips county NRCS offices was used by KSU in a SWAT model to identify priority HUC12s. Because of extremely low soil erosion rates, the SLT requested KDHE verify the SWAT model results. KDHE used the Cropland/Slope Analysis method to verify the SWAT model data. The results confirmed the SWAT results identifying nine HUC12s. This method also identified eleven additional HUC12s as significant potential sediment contributors. The SLT agreed to develop two priority area, Tiers 1 and 2, above Kirwin Lake to focus BMP implementation towards addressing nonpoint source impairment issues. Best Management Practice and Load Reduction Goals Phosphorus Load to Watershed Plan Kirwin Lake Current Meet Kirwin Lake Phosphorus Load Phosphorus Load EU TMDL (143,000 lbs/yr) Reduction Goal (48,400 lbs/yr) (94,600 lbs/yr) BMPs to be implemented in association Watershed Plan Duration and Costs with Watershed Plan: • Total plan length = 30 years • Cropland-related BMPs o Load reduction goal of plan met during year 30 o Permanent vegetation • o Grassed waterways Total plan cost = $25,802,172 Cropland BMP Implementation o No-till cropland production o . $15,638,153 o Terraces Livestock BMP Implementation o Nutrient management o . o Vegetative Buffers $1,072,359 Subsurface Fertilizer Application o Information and Education o • Livestock-related BMPs . $5,285,626 Technical Assistance o Vegetative filter strips o . o Relocate feeding pens $3,806,034 Relocate pasture feeding sites o o Alternative watering systems Rotational grazing o o Fence out streams and ponds o Grazing management plans Kirwin Lake WRAPS Approved April 30, 2013 Funding for the development of this plan was provided through EPA 319 grant 2009-W035 from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. 1 | Page Stakeholder Leadership Team Includes representatives from: Smoky Solomon Resource Enhancement, Inc. County Conservation Districts K-State Research and Extension Kansas Natural Resource Foundation (KNRF) North Central Prairie Weed Management Area (NCPWMA) Local Agriculture Producers Watershed Representatives: Phillips County: Bob Quanz, Rod Quanz, Melvin Schooler, Jean Stapel, Alan States, and Bruce Williams Norton County: Twila Dizmang K-State Research and Extension: Rachael Boyle, Phillips-Rooks District Prairie Dog Creek WRAPS: Lari Ann Nickell Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge: Brad Krohn, Clay Cole, Stephen Knowles, and Tony Ifland Kansas Department of Health and Environment Project Officer Doug Schneweis, Watershed Field Coordinator Additional Technical Assistance Provided by: Josh Roe, K-State Research and Extension Robert Wilson, K-State Research and Extension Larry Meili, Phillips County District Conservationist, NRCS James Molzahn, Rooks County District Conservationist, NRCS George Carter, Norton County District Conservationist, NRCS Brian Schulze, Graham County District Conservationist, NRCS Matt Palmquist, Sheridan County District Conservationist, NRCS Teresa Chrisler, Kirwin Lake WRAPS Coordinator and Smoky Solomon Resource Enhancement, Executive Director Cover: Aerial view of Kirwin Lake 2 | Page Table of Contents 1.0 Preface 5 2.0 Priority Issues and Goals of the Stakeholder Leadership Team 5 3.0 Watershed Review 7 3.1 Bureau of Reclamation Dam 11 3.2 Land Cover/Land Uses 14 3.3 Designated Uses 17 3.4 Special Aquatic Life Use Waters 18 3.5 Public Water Supply and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 21 3.6 Confined Animal Feeding Operations 24 3.7 Water Quality Impairments 25 3.8 TMDL Load Allocations 27 4.0 Determination of Priority Areas and BMP Needs 29 4.1 Priority Areas 29 4.2 BMP Needs 37 5.0 Load Reduction Estimate Methodology 38 5.1 Cropland BMPs and Pollutant Load Reductions to Address Kirwin Lake EU TMDL 39 5.2 Livestock BMPs and Pollutant Load Reductions to Address Kirwin Lake EU TMDL 44 5.3 Total Pollutant Load Reductions to Address Kirwin Lake EU TMDL 47 6.0 BMP Implementation Milestones 49 7.0 Costs of Implementing BMPs and Possible Funding Sources 51 7.1 Costs of Implementing Cropland BMPs 51 7.2 Cost of Implementing Livestock BMPs 53 7.3 Total Costs of Implementing BMPs 55 7.4 Service Provider Needs for BMP Implementation 56 7.5 BMP Technical Assistance Annual Cost 58 7.6 Potential BMP Funding Sources 59 8.0 Water Quality Milestones to Determine Improvements 60 8.1 Water Quality Milestones for Kirwin Lake WRAPS Project Area 60 8.2 Water Quality Milestones for Bow Creek and Upper North Fork Solomon River 61 8.3 Additional Water Quality Indictors 62 8.4 Monitoring Water Quality Progress 63 8.5 Volunteer Water Monitoring 63 8.6 Evaluation of Monitoring Data 64 9.0 Information /Education and Technical Assistance Plan 64 9.1 Information/Education and Technical Assistance Schedule with Cost 64 Estimates 9.2 Evaluation of Information and Education Activities 70 10.0 Total Annual Cost of Kirwin Lake WRAPS Plan 71 11.0 Review of the Watershed Plan 72 12.0 Appendix 72 12.1 Glossary of Terms 72 12.2 BMP Definitions 74 12.3 Service Providers 81 12.4 Sub-Watershed Implementation Table 86 3 | Page List of Figures Figure 1: Location of Solomon River Basin within the River Basins of Kansas 7 Figure 2: Location of the Kirwin Lake watershed in relation to the Waconda Lake watershed, Smoky Solomon Resource Enhancement, and the State of Kansas 8 Figure 3: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Area 9 Figure 4: Kirwin Lake Watershed with HUC 12 watersheds 10 Figure 5: Kirwin Lake watershed Land cover and Land Use 14 Figure 6: Common Sources of Nonpoint Water Pollution 16 Figure 7: Kirwin Lake watershed Wildlife Areas 19 Figure 8: Kirwin Lake watershed Public Water Supplies 23 Figure 9: Kirwin Lake watershed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems 24 Figure10: Kirwin Lake watershed Active CAFOs 25 Figure 11. Kirwin Lake watershed Classified Streams and Lakes 29 Figure 12: Kirwin Lake WRAPS - HUC 10260011 Phosphorous Loads, lbs/acre 34 Figure 13 .Kirwin Lake WRAPS - HUC 10260011 Sediment Loads, lbs/acre 35 Figure 14 .Kirwin Lake WRAPS - HUC 10260011 Nitrogen Loads, lbs/acre 35 Figure 15: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Priority areas for BMP Implementation 36 Figure 16. Monitoring Sites in Kirwin Watershed 63 List of Tables Table 1: Land Use and Land Cover Summary 15 Table 2: Kirwin Lake watershed Stream/River/Lake Designated Uses 17 Table 3: Public Water Supplies within Kirwin Lake watershed 21 Table 4: TMDL Development Cycle for Solomon River Basin 26 Table 5: Stream and Lake TMDLS for Upper North Fork Solomon 26 Table 6. 303(d) List for Upper North Fork Solomon 27 Table 7. Agricultural Management Operations Survey Information for portions of Phillips, Norton, and Graham Counties within the Kirwin Lake watershed. 31 Table 8: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Cropland BMPs, Cost, and Reduction Efficiencies 37 Table 9: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Livestock BMPs, Cost, and Reduction Efficiencies 38 Table 10: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Cropland BMPs Annual Adoption 39 Table 11: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Cropland Annual Phosphorus Load Reduction 40 Table 12: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Cropland Annual Nitrogen Reduction 41 Table 13: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Cropland Annual Soil Erosion Reduction 42 Table 14: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Cropland Annual Sediment Reduction 43 Table 15: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Livestock BMP Adoption 44 Table 16: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Livestock BMP Phosphorous Load Reduction 45 Table 17: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Livestock BMP Nitrogen load Reduction 46 Table 18: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Phosphorous load reduction totals 47 Table 19: Kirwin Lake WRAPS BMP % Phosphorous totals 48 Table 20: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Nitrogen Load Reduction totals 48 Table 21: Cropland BMP implementation milestones 49 Table 22: Livestock BMP implementation milestones 50 Table 23: Cropland BMP Annual Cost Before Cost-Share 51 Table 24: Cropland BMP Annual Cost After Cost-Share 52 Table 25: Livestock BMP Annual Cost Before Cost-Share 53 Table 26: Livestock BMP Annual Cost After Cost-Share 54 Table 27: BMP Annual Cost After Cost-Share by BMP Category 55 Table 28: Service Provider Needs for BMP Implementation 56 Table 29: BMP Technical Assistance Annual Cost 58 Table 30: Potential BMP funding sources 59 Table 31: Water Quality Milestones for Kirwin Lake 61 Table 32: Water Quality Milestones for Bow Creek and Upper North Fork Solomon River 62 Table 33: Information/Education and technical assistance schedule with cost estimates 65 Table 34: Total Annual cost of Kirwin Lake WRAPS Plan 71 4 | Page 1.0 Preface The purpose of this Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) watershed plan, for Kirwin Lake Watershed, is to outline a plan of restoration and protection goals and actions for the surface waters of the watershed. Watershed goals are characterized as “restoration” or “protection”. Watershed restoration is for surface waters that do not meet Kansas water quality standards, and for areas of the watershed that need improvement in habitat, land management, or other attributes. Watershed protection is needed for surface waters that currently meet water quality standards, but are in need of protection from future degradation. The WRAPS development process involves local communities and governmental agencies working together toward the common goal of a healthy environment. Local participants or stakeholders provide valuable grass roots leadership, responsibility and management of resources in the process. They have the most “at stake” in ensuring the water quality existing on their land is protected. Agencies bring science-based information, communication, and technical and financial assistance to the table. Together, several steps can be taken towards watershed restoration and protection.