Upper Wakarusa River WRAPS
9 Element Watershed Plan Overview Impairments to be addressed
Directly addressing High Priority TMDLs for:
Bacteria – Wakarusa River – Paulen Road Biology/Dissolved Oxygen – Wakarusa River – Paulen Road Biology/Sediment – Wakarusa River – Paulen Road Eutrophication – Clinton Reservoir
Additionally, the Upper Wakarusa River WRAPS has a sediment reduction goal of 175,917 tons/yr in order to meet the life expectancy of Clinton Reservoir.
Silver Lake Kiro Willard Grantville P erry Targeting Determinations Maple Hill Williamstown
Lecompton Tecumseh Top ek a Cropland BMP Targeted areas were identified Big Springs
Kanwaka Stull 102 701040108 Lawrence Pauline through SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Dover Keene Forbes FieldB erry ton
102 70 1040103 Clinton Tool) modeling to determine areas of high 1027 01 040106 Auburn 10 2701040 104
Wa ka rus a overland runoff contributing sediment and 102701 040101 1 0270104 01 02 102701040105 10 2701040 107
nutrients to the watershed and Clinton Ca rb on da le
Legend Harveyville Overbrook Reservoir. Scranton Upper Wakarusa Project Area HUC 12 Delineations Burlingam e Majo r Reservoirs County Boundary Cit ies and Towns Livestock BMP Targeted areas were identified Deer Creek M ich ig an Vall ey Rock Creek Elk Creek Vassar through analysis of aerial assessment data that Camp Creek Admire Osage City Lynn/Burys CreekMiller Lyndon Pom ona identified areas of high phosphorus runoff potential and the locations of existing bacteria impairments.
Streambank Targeted areas were identified through GIS analyses of the main stem of the Upper Wakarusa River.
Best Management Practices and Load Reduction Goals
Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address phosphorus, sediment, and bacteria in the watershed were chosen by the SLT based on local acceptance/adoption rate and amount of load reduction gained per dollar spent. 175,917 tons of sediment must be reduced annually to Sediment Reducing Cropland/Riparian BMPs: achieve the life expectancy of Clinton Reservoir.
Encouragement of Continuous No‐till 289,325 tons/yr 175,917 113,408 tons/yr sediment load tons/yr recommended Buffers into Clinton reduction in allowable Lake sediment sediment load Grassed Waterways required Tile outlet terraces and wetland retention Streambank Stabilization Streambank Restoration
Phosphorus Reducing Cropland, Streambank and Livestock BMPs:
Encouragement of Continuous No‐till 220,000 lbs of phosphorus must be reduced annually to achieve Tile outlet terraces and wetland retention High Priority Eutrophication TMDL for Clinton Reservoir. Buffers
Grassed Waterways 220,000 lbs/yr 120,000 lbs/yr 340,000 lbs/yr reduction in phosphorous phosphorous phosphorous Streambank Stabilization allowed under load into Clinton required to the TMDL Vegetative filter strips between small Lake meet TMDL feeding operations and streams Relocation of small feeding operations away from streams Pasture fencing Promotion of alternative watering sites away from streams Low water crossings Implement rotational grazing practices
Bacteria Reducing Livestock BMPs:
Vegetative filter strips between small feeding operations and streams Relocation of small feeding operations away from streams Pasture fencing Promotion of alternative watering sites away from streams Low water crossings Implement rotational grazing practices
UPPER WAKARUSA WATERSHED RESTORATION AND PROTECTION STRATEGY
Nine Element Plan
November 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) ...... 1 Geographic Setting ‐ HUC 8 ‐ 10270104, HUC 11 ‐ 10270104010 ...... 5 Clinton Lake ...... 5 Watershed Characteristics ...... 6 Manmade Factors ...... 13 Element 1. Identification of causes of impairment and pollutant sources or groups of similar sources that need to be controlled to achieve needed load reductions, and any other goals identified in the watershed plan...... 20 Causes of Impairments ...... 21 Pollutant Sources ...... 30 Element 2. An estimate of the load reductions expected from management measures...... 32 Load Reduction Requirements ...... 32 Unit Load Reductions ...... 39 Element 3. A description of the non point source management measures that will need to be implemented to achieve load reductions and a description for the critical areas in which those measures will be needed to implement the plan...... 42 Critical Areas for Implementation of Non Point Source Management Measures ...... 42 Description of Non Point Source Management Measures ...... 44 Land Use Assessment ...... 46 Element 4. Estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated costs, and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement this plan. .. 49 Technical Assistance to Implement Best Management Practices ...... 49 Projected Costs of Technical Assistance to Implement Best Management Practices ...... 50 Element 5. An information and education component used to enhance public understanding of the project and encourage their early and continued participation in selecting, designing, and implementing the nonpoint source management measures that will be implemented. . 52 Information and Education Activities ...... 52 Resources Associated with Information and Education Activities ...... 53 Evaluation of Information and Education Activities ...... 54 Technical Assistance and Costs for Watershed Assessment...... 55 Element 6. Schedule for Implementing the nonpoint source management measures identified in this plan that is reasonably expeditious ...... 56
PAGE I
Projected Load Reductions and Costs for Priority Areas Downstream of Paulen Road ...... 56 Opportunity Limitations ...... 57 Recommended Level of Effort to Meet Load Reduction Requirements ...... 61 Projected Load Reduction and Costs Upstream of Paulen Road ...... 62 Conservation Practices Needs Survey ...... 63 Stormwater Management Strategy to Meet Load Reduction Requirements for Clinton Lake ...... 67 Improved land management on croplands ...... 70 Annual Projections of Load Reduction and Costs ...... 72 Element 7. A description of interim measurable milestones for determining whether nonpoint source management measures or other control actions are being implemented. . 74 Water Quality Milestones to Determine Improvements ...... 74 Water Quality Milestones for Upper Wakarusa River ...... 74 Water Quality Milestones for Bacteria – Upper Wakarusa River ...... 76 Water Quality Milestones for Clinton Lake ...... 77 Additional Water Quality Indicators ...... 78 Element 8. A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved over time and substantial progress is being made toward attaining water quality standards...... 79 Comparing computed load reductions from all known BMPs over time ...... 79 Progress in establishing County and Urban development criteria to control stormwater and protect vulnerable areas ...... 79 Periodic surveys of BMP maintenance and sustainability ...... 79 Analysis of specific BMPs to measure actual load reductions and sustainability ...... 80 Use of monitoring results to confirm computed load reductions over time ...... 80 Element 9. A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts over time, measured against the criteria established under Element 8...... 81 Synoptic Surveys ...... 81 Fixed Station Monitoring of Water Quality Progress ...... 83 Evaluation of Monitoring Data ...... 84 Closing Statement ...... 85 References ...... 86 Appendix ...... 87 Appendix B. Conservation Needs Survey ...... 92 Appendix C. Yearly Projections ...... 94
PAGE II
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Clinton Reservoir Pool Elevation and Storage Summary ...... 5 Table 2. Upper Wakarusa Drainage Description ...... 6 Table 3. County Acres in UWW ...... 7 Table 4. Upper Wakarusa Watershed Land Use Inventory (Mankin and Koelliker, 2001) ...... 9 Table 5. Acres Needing Treatment by Land Use ...... 9 Table 6. Fishery Value Resource Evaluation ...... 11 Table 7. NPDES Permitted Facilities in the Upper Wakarusa Project Area ...... 14 Table 8. Public water supplies in the Upper Wakarusa watershed...... 16 Table 9. Estimated County Populations in Watershed ...... 17 Table 10. Distance to Population of Major Metropolitan Areas from Clinton Dam Site...... 17 Table 1. 1. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and 303d listed waterbody impairments for the Upper Wakarusa WRAPS project and review schedule...... 22 Table 1. 2. Designated uses of Classified Streams in the Upper Wakarusa WRAPS project area...... 24 Table 1. 3. Trophic State Classification of Aquatic Systems ...... 26 Table 1. 4. Summary of Fecal Coliform Bacteria Concentrations from Various Reports ...... 27 Table 1. 5. E‐coli Bacteria Standards ...... 28 Table 1. 6. E. coli bacteria samples from Wakarusa River near Topeka...... 29 Table 1. 7. Fecal and E. coli bacteria samples from Clinton Lake...... 30 Table 2. 1. Summary of model results for five watershed management scenarios ...... 33 (Mankin, 2003 Table 16) ...... 33 Table 2. 2. AGNPS results of contribution from each major Clinton Lake subwatershed. Shown are the percentages that each subwatershed contributes to the total watershed load for that category (Mankin, 2003 Table 14)...... 33 Table 2. 3. Computed load reductions...... 34 Table 2. 4. Upper Wakarusa subwatershed drainage, stream lengths, and density (Boyer, January 2010)...... 35 Table 2. 5. Load reduction estimates for each tributary based on Koelliker's 2001 model results...... 36 Table 2. 6. Clinton Lake Sedimentation Rates (KWO, 2010) ...... 38 Table 2. 7. Load Reduction Goals for the Upper Wakarusa WRAPS, November 2010. * ...... 39 Table 2.8 Unit load and unit cost estimates for typical conservation practices…………….……..41 Table 3. 1. Summary of potential contaminant sources identified in land use assessments.* ...... 47 Table 4. 1. Technical assistance to implement BMP's ...... 49 Table 4. 1. Technical assistance to implement BMP's (continued) ...... 50 Table 4. 2. Projected costs of technical assistance for BMP implementation...... 51 Table 5. 1. Technical assistance and projected costs to facilitate information and education programs...... 52 Table 5. 1. Technical assistance and projected costs to facilitate information and education programs. (continued) ...... 53 Table 5. 2. Associated costs of information and education (I&E) program activities...... 54
LIST OF TABLES PAGE I
Table 6. 1. Load reduction estimates or sites identified by land use assessments (Neel et al, EPA Region V model) ...... 58 Table 6. 2. Description of an annual unit of work...... 60 Table 6. 3. Summary of longer‐term load reductions from priority subwatersheds below Paulen Road...... 61 Table 6. 4. Description of an annual unit of work upstream of Paulen Road...... 65 Table 6. 5. Projected long‐term load reductions upstream of Paulen Road...... 66 Table 6. 7. Load reductions from improved tillage practices...... 71 Table 6. 6. Load reduction estimates for each tributary based on projected load reductions upstream and downstream of Paulen Road...... 73 Table 7. 1. Water quality milestones for the Upper Wakarusa River ...... 75 Table 7.2. Water quality milestones for Clinton Lake...... 77 APPENDIX A. TYPICAL PROJECT COST WORKSHEET ...... 88 Table C1 . Annual projected water quality management practices load reduction downstream of Paulen Rd...... 94 Table C2 . Annual projected water quality management practices load reduction upstream of Paulen Rd...... 107 Table C3. Annual projected costs for the Upper Wakarusa WRAPS Nine Element Plan ...... 120 Table C4. Interim Milestones ...... 122 Table C5. Projected WRAPS Costs for Upper Wakarusa Implementation of 9 Element Plan 123
PAGE II
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Watersheds that are developing watershed restoration and protection strategies in Kansas...... 2 Figure 2. WRAPS project phases...... 3 Figure 3. Location of significant drainage and roads in the Upper Wakarusa watershed...... 4 Figure 4. Land cover and use in the Upper Wakarusa watershed...... 8 Figure 5. Upper Wakarusa watershed drainage area and streams...... 10 Figure 6. Annual precipitation in Kansas with the Upper Wakarusa watershed outlined...... 12 Figure 7. Location of NPDES permitted facilities in the Upper Wakarusa watershed...... 15 Figure 8. Public water supply sources in the Upper Wakarusa watershed...... 16 Figure 9. Confined Animal Feeding Operations in the Upper Wakarusa WRAPS project area...... 18 Figure 1. 1. TMDLs and Impaired Waters in the Upper Wakarusa WRAPS project area...... 23 Figure 1.2. Special Aquatic Life Use Waters in the Upper Wakarusa WRAPS project area. .... 25 Figure 2. 1. Phosphorous load reduction required to meet TMDL for Clinton Lake...... 37 Figure 2. 2. Sediment load reduction requirement...... 38 Figure 2.3. E. coli bacteria index profile for the Upper Wakarusa River...... 39 Figure 3.1. Priority subwatersheds in the Upper Wakarusa watershed...... 43 Figure 6. 1. Priority subwatersheds downstream of Paulen Road...... 57 Figure 6. 2. Projected load reductions expected from implementation of BMP’s downstream of Paulen Road...... 62 Figure 6.3. Subwatershed areas in the Upper Wakarusa watershed upstream of Paulen Road...... 63 Figure 6.4. Project implementation timeline for 2 work units, 40 channel stabilization projects downstream, and 30 channel stabilization projects upstream of Paulen Road...... 68 Figure 6.5. Projected load reductions in Clinton Lake after 50 years of BMP implementation...... 69 Figure 7. 1. E coli bacteria index profile for the Upper Wakarusa River...... 76 Figure 9.1. Fixed station monitoring sites and priority areas in the Upper Wakarusa watershed...... 83
LIST OF FIGURES PAGE I
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Non point sources of pollution are an issue for the country. Section 319 of the Clean Water Act commits the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish programs with states that set water quality standards for streams and lakes that protect these resources from contamination. Water quality characteristics of receiving streams that exceed the standards must be improved by implementing conservation and other best management practices that decrease contaminant loads that enter receiving waters. States must identify impaired waters, define appropriate water management approaches, and initiate programs to address contaminant issues. A nine‐element watershed plan that describes the approach, methods, and measures of progress is required for each area targeted for protection from non point sources of contamination. The nine elements are listed in Appendix A. WATERSHED RESTORATION AND PROTECTION STRATEGY (WRAPS) WRAPS is the program in Kansas that addresses impairment of streams and lakes from non point sources of contamination. Its goal is to meet directly the requirements of the Clean Water Act regarding load reductions from non point sources of contamination. Total maximum daily load requirements have been determined for streams and lakes/reservoirs in the State. The State has also determined which contaminants have exceeded the daily load standards at selected sites on each of these streams and lakes. A strategy is being developed for watershed contributing to those sites that exceed the standards to reduce loads and improve water quality.
There are about 40 watersheds that are preparing a strategy (see Figure 1). Funding from EPA, the State Water Plan, and State Conservation Commission are available to implement the strategy in each watershed. The general structure of each watershed strategy is similar with specific water management practices planned that address specific water quality impairments found in the watershed. A local Leadership Team is convened for each watershed that typically represents about 10 of the various water quality interests in the area. The WRAPS has four phases shown in the chart in Figure 2. The development phase is the step that determines the most pressing water quality challenges and organizes the Leadership Team. The assessment phase identifies the sources of contamination and sets priorities on those areas and contaminants that will be targeted by the WRAPS. During the implementation phase conservation practices and best management practices will be installed that are expected to reduce contaminants to an extent that standards are met and the most important water resources in the watershed are protected. An evaluation phase will occur throughout all phases to measure progress, determine modifications to ongoing projects, and determine when standards have been met.
INTRODUCTION PAGE 1
Figure 1. Watersheds that are developing watershed restoration and protection strategies in Kansas.
INTRODUCTION PAGE 2
KS‐WRAPS Process
Development Stakeholder community building
AssessmentEvaluation Watershed conditions & behavior Planning Watershed goals & plan selection Implementation Carry out actions to achieve goals
Figure 2. WRAPS project phases.
The Upper Wakarusa Watershed is one of the watersheds identified by KDHE with impaired water resources that should be restored and protected. A WRAPS for the Upper Wakarusa Watershed was initiated in 2001 and is currently in the implementation phase. Water quality challenges have been determined, the most likely types of land use activities as sources of contaminant have been described, and the general conservation and best management approaches have been determined. A Leadership Team is in place that represents the major water interests in the watershed. Various public awareness activities have been conducted and some demonstration projects have been constructed. A detailed Nine Element Plan will describe the approach and suite of activities that are expected to reduce the contaminant loads sufficiently to meet the water quality standards in the watershed.
INTRODUCTION PAGE 3
Maple Hill Perry Williamstown 5 TS
7 4
t u
0
3 T S 70 Lecompton ¨¦§ 5 Tecum se h 40 7 ut tu Topeka
Big Springs
4 ¨¦§70
ST
1
Kanwaka 0 Stull 102701040108 Pauline Dover 4 Forbes Field ST Berryton Lawrence
102701040103 Clinton 102701040106 Auburn 102701040104 Wakarusa 102701040101 102701040102
102701040105 102701040107
Legend Carbondale
Upper Wakarusa Project Area
Harveyville HUC 12 DelineationsST
1 Overbrook
9 MajorST3 1Reservoirs 5 Scranton County Boundary
Local Roads Burlingame
5 5
3 7
Cities and Towns 3 t §¨¦ u Rivers and Streams Major Roads Road Class Michigan Valley Interstate
US 8
Vassar 6
56 3 T State ut Osage City S
Figure 3. Location of significant drainage and roads in the Upper Wakarusa watershed.
INTRODUCTION PAGE 4
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING ‐ HUC 8 ‐ 10270104, HUC 11 ‐ 10270104010 CLINTON LAKE Located in East‐Central Kansas, Clinton Lake is a multipurpose US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) reservoir. The 1¾ mile long, rolled earth fill dam, is located approximately four miles southwest of Lawrence, KS, at river mile 22.2 of the Wakarusa River, a right bank tributary of the Kansas River. Rising 85 feet above the valley, it protects 156 square miles of the Wakarusa Valley below the dam from flooding. Congress authorized Clinton Lake in 1962 (P.L. 87‐874) and funds were first appropriated for construction in 1971. Initial filling of the lake began in 1977. To improve fishing potential, the lake was filled slowly over a three‐year period and the multipurpose pool level was reached in 1980. The shoreline of the multipurpose pool is 85 miles around the perimeter.
Clinton Lake extends eight miles up the Wakarusa Valley from the dam (see Figure 3). The normal surface area of 7,000 ac can be expanded to a full pool of 12,795 ac for flood control purposes, and the lake would then extend 13 miles along the valley floor. The average depth is 5.12 meters. The average annual inflow is 176,863 ac feet, with a hydraulic residence time of 0.74 years. The future water supply yield projected to be available is 16.5 million gallons per day (MGD) or about 6 billion gallons per year. In 2001, the City of Lawrence customers consumed 4.4 billion gallons; this does not include the amount consumed by the Rural Water Districts. Table 1.1 presents volumes of water that are managed for various uses in the reservoir (Kaw Valley Heritage Alliance, 2003).
Table 1. Clinton Reservoir Pool Elevation and Storage Summary
Kansas Water Office Flood Control Multipurpose Water Marketing Water Assurance Water Quality Storage acre feet Storage acre feet Storage acre feet Storage acre feet Storage acre feet 269,000 125,000 101,0001 0 24,000 1 includes 40,400 acre‐feet of future use storage not yet called into service Benefits Primary benefits of Clinton Lake are flood control, drinking water supply, low flow augmentation, water quality, primary contact recreation, food procurement, and special aquatic life support. Secondary benefits are fish, wildlife, and recreation. While continuing to function for flood protection, the reservoir is also the primary drinking water source for almost all residents of Douglas County, KS, including Lawrence and Baldwin City. In addition, the cities of Wellsville, in Franklin County to the south, and Edgerton, in Johnson County to the east, obtain their drinking water from Clinton Lake, as do six rural water districts serving Osage, Shawnee and Franklin counties. Two water treatment plants, one owned by the City of Lawrence (LTP) and the other by the Tri‐District Rural Water District, treat and transport water to over 100,000 Kansas residents (LTP 84,500 residents, Tri‐District 17,000 residents). The City of Lawrence pumps up to 10 million gallons of water per day to its treatment plant. The most heavily used Federal reservoir for water supply in Kansas, the lake and surrounding area are
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING PAGE 5
also used by well over one million people annually for recreation, and this number is increasing every year (Smith et al, 2008) Classification Clinton Lake is a typical temperate lake of moderate size, which undergoes two periods of mixing, one in the spring, and one in the fall, and is therefore classified as dimictic. However, because it is an artificial impoundment and not a natural lake, parts of it, especially in the upper end from the dam and main arm, are more characteristic of river systems than of a natural lake. The lake occupies parts of both Douglas and Shawnee Counties and is classified by KDHE as a Special Aquatic Life Use Water (SALUW). WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS Natural Factors These factors are geographic in nature and may cover broad regions of the landscape. A watershed is the land area that drains to a given point in a river, stream, or lake, and is defined by natural rather than political boundaries. Location/Size The Upper Wakarusa Watershed covers 367 square miles. The Wakarusa River, draining 71% of the watershed, was dammed just below two major tributaries. The first, Deer Creek, drains 10% of the watershed, and the second, Rock Creek, drains 14%. The remaining 5% is accounted for by the area immediately surrounding the lake. Sizes of the three main subwatersheds are summarized in Table 2 and Figure 3 shows the locations of all of the main tributaries.
Table 2. Upper Wakarusa Drainage Description
Total Watershed Wakarusa River Deer Creek Rock Creek Acres 235,400 167,454 23,307 32,285 Square miles 367 262 36 50 % of Drainage 100 71 10 14
The Upper Wakarusa watershed extends about 40 miles west from the largely forested Lawrence‐Douglas County area out into the Tallgrass Prairie areas of western Shawnee, northeastern Osage and eastern Wabaunsee counties. The watershed originates at the eastern edge of the Flint Hills, at an elevation of approximately 1,200 feet, and Clinton Dam is at an elevation of 850 ft. Table 3 describes the percentage of each county contained within the UWW.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING PAGE 6
Table 3. County Acres in UWW
County Total Acres in Watershed % of County in Watershed Shawnee 94,364 40 Douglas 70,380 30 Osage 62,230 27 Wabaunsee 8,000 3 Geology and Physiography The eastern portion of the watershed lies in the Attenuated Drift Border of the dissected Till Plains physiographic area, an area of glacial deposition characterized by rocky topography. The topography has been modified considerably by erosion, but remnants of the original uneroded moraine, left upon retreat of glacial ice, are evident in the upland divide areas that have not been dissected by streams. Adjacent to the larger streams, the land is highly dissected and the topography is rough to hilly. The western part of the watershed, underlain by Pennsylvanian Age limestone and shale, is located in the Osage Cuestas, which extend from central Wabaunsee County eastward to western Shawnee County. Surface features are characterized by irregular east facing escarpments formed by erosion of alternating layers of hard limestone and soft shale, varying in height between 50 and 200 feet. The valleys between escarpments consist of flat to gently rolling plains. Surface geologic material consists of glacial drift, sedimentary rocks, and alluvium. The geology of the area includes thick, sandy to clayey shales, with relatively thin, inter‐bedded limestones. Topography and Soils Topography of the area varies from nearly level floodplain land to bluffs with slopes up to 30% along the south side of the valley. The north side of the valley is gentler, with slopes of two to ten percent common. In general, soils are rated as medium/high hazard for slope/erodability. The upland soils are deep to moderately deep silt loams to silty clay loams, and are nearly level to strongly sloping, well drained to moderately well drained. Bottom‐land soils are deep and friable with silty clay loam predominant. Lowland terraces and floodplains have deep, nearly level soils. The predominant soil is Mollisol, which is characteristically dark in color, often moist, and well drained. The average soil permeability is 0.6 inches/hour. Land Cover and Use The watershed is primarily grassland/rangeland (~ 56%) and cropland (~ 27%). Within 1/8 mile of most streams, these percentages change to 38% grassland and 37% cropland, reflecting the common practice of extending the boundaries of cultivated fields close to stream banks to maximize crop production in better soils. The distribution of land cover and use are shown in Figure 4.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING PAGE 7
Figure 4. Land cover and use in the Upper Wakarusa watershed.
Soil erosion since the onset of crop production in the watershed has resulted in a reduced moisture‐holding ability and, consequently, crop yields have been reduced. Production costs have increased due to fertility reduction and the greater need for fertilizer application. NRCS reports that most of the steeper cropland is currently terraced, however most of these terraces are in need of repair and maintenance. Terracing is an important practice for reducing loss of sediment. Corn (Zea mays), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), and soybeans (Glycine max) are the major crops grown in the UWW. The NRCS reports that currently only 30% of the producers in the watershed are maintaining at least 30% ground cover after planting, and less than half of the cropland producers are applying nutrients the most effective way, or in the proper amounts. According to the NRCS, rangeland is estimated to be producing about one‐half of its potential due to continued overgrazing. The NRCS also reports that currently most soil erosion problems on rangeland have been addressed; however, about one‐half of the rangeland does not have adequate brush, nutrient, and pest management. Non‐native pastures are predominantly smooth brome that requires fertilization to maintain productivity. Forestland is located in narrow belts along the Wakarusa River and its tributaries. Woodlands are moderately to highly dense, but tree quality and species composition are often poor.
The Clinton Lake Watershed Study by K‐State (Mankin and Koelliker, 2001) included a detailed field reconnaissance and “windshield survey” of the entire watershed where visual observation, maps, and written records were used to describe land use categories in the watershed. Results are summarized in Table 4, which presents land use classifications throughout the watershed.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING PAGE 8
Table 4. Upper Wakarusa Watershed Land Use Inventory (Mankin and Koelliker, 2001)
Area (acres) % of Total CROPLAND TOTAL 62,560 26.6 Terraced 34,720 14.7 Non‐terraced 27,840 11.8 GRASSLAND TOTAL 131,896 56 Pasture 83,480 35.4 Terraced 2,792 1.2 Hay 13,360 5.7 Terraced 3,368 1.4 CRP 4,096 1.7 Terraced 1,184 0.5 Misc. 30,960 13.1 OTHER TOTAL 41,072 17.4 Woodland 28,800 12.2 Water 8,656 3.7 Residential* 1,104 0.5 Alfalfa 920 0.4 Pavement* 800 0.3 Farmstead 528 0.2 Quarry 264 0.1 *These categories are probably underestimated due to minimum lot size requirements and the proliferation of rural sprawl in the area.
Table 5 identifies agricultural land treatment needs from the EQIP application (2002) submitted by the NRCS for the watershed. These indicate that approximately 60% of the cropland and 40% of the grassland in the watershed are still in need of conservation practices to minimize runoff and erosion.
Table 5. Acres Needing Treatment by Land Use
Land Use Non‐Federal Federal Cultivated Cropland 37,068 1,125 Non‐cultivated cropland 0 0 Forest 2,582 1,950 Pasture 15,755 750 Range 38,574 2,537 Urban 0 0 Other Rural 0 0 Totals 93,979 6,362
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING PAGE 9
Surface Hydrology and Stream Biology The North Branch, Middle Branch and South Branch of the Wakarusa River converge with the headwaters of the Wakarusa River (located in Wabaunsee County), in western Shawnee County, to form the mainstem of the River. In addition, there are eight larger subwatersheds draining into the river above Clinton Lake: Sixmile Creek, Towhead Creek, Burys Creek, Lynn Creek, Camp Creek, Deer Creek, Rock Creek, and Elk Creek subwatersheds (see Figure 5). There are also a number of small streams, mostly unnamed, that contribute flow directly to the mainstem of the Wakarusa River. Stream flow is dominated by surface runoff.
Figure 5. Upper Wakarusa watershed drainage area and streams.
The former Kansas Fish and Game Commission, now the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP), developed a rating system to evaluate fishery resources for nearly all the larger streams in Kansas. The six criteria used to evaluate each stream reach are listed in Table 6.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING PAGE 10
Table 6. Fishery Value Resource Evaluation
Criteria Emphasis Fishery Characteristics Fish species diversity, quantity, and types of game fish. Angling Use Types and amounts of utilization plus special “runs” of fishes. Water Quality Concentrations of suspended sediments, pollution, extremes in chemical variables. Stream Uniqueness Quality of surrounding setting coupled with amount of disturbance. Riparian Association Diversity and abundance of vegetation and associated terrestrial wildlife. Habitat Restoration, Reclamation or Sensitivity of the area to disturbance and Mitigation Potential ability to replace lost or altered resources.
In 1977, the Commission conducted a physical, chemical, and biological survey and rated a number of sample sites from the entire Kansas River Basin. The survey included 14 sampling sites from the UWW. Based on this evaluation, each stream reach was assigned to one of four fishery resource value classes: limited, moderate, high priority, highest priority. Streams in the UWW are in the moderate and high priority classes. Wetlands/Riparian Areas The riparian overstory of the main channel consists primarily of 13 varieties of trees. The understory is dominated by 21 plant varieties. The floodplain of the Wakarusa River varies from less than a mile in width, to several miles and is surrounded by gently rolling hills. It is cultivated intensively, except for the narrow band of woodland along the stream channel. Because of the width of the channel, total canopy closure over the river does not exist in most places. NRCS reports that existing wetlands are being protected. Two hundred acres of new wetlands have been developed in the upper end of Clinton Lake and are being managed by KDWP. An additional 100 acres in the same area have been planted as grass and tree buffers. Groundwater Most groundwater in the watershed is located in alluvial aquifers. Water quality in alluvial aquifers is generally good although nitrates, minerals, pesticides, and bacteria can be localized concerns. There are no KDHE groundwater monitoring sites in the watershed. Wildlife/Threatened and Endangered Species/Species in Need of Conservation Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species in the area are the Bald Eagle, Western Earth Snake, and the Northern Redbelly Snake. There are two Species in Need of Conservation (SINC) in the river: Lampsilis siliquoidea (fat mucket) and Truncilla donaciformis (fawnsfoot); both are unionid mussels. The KBS maintains a database of T&E and SINC species.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING PAGE 11
Precipitation Average annual rainfall increases across the watershed from 34 in/yr in Wabaunsee County on the western edge, to 38 in/yr in Douglas County on the eastern edge (see Figure 6). The area is subject to thunderstorms of relatively short duration but at times high intensity over relatively small areas, as well as general storms, which may cover thousands of square miles, last for several days, and result in large volumes of rainfall. Conversely, periods of little or no precipitation may occur at any time during the year and may last several consecutive months.
Figure 6. Annual precipitation in Kansas with the Upper Wakarusa watershed outlined.
Climate
The UWW is located in the relatively humid area of northeastern Kansas. Average temperatures are relatively uniform throughout the watershed. The highest and lowest temperatures ever recorded in the area are 118o F and ‐35o F respectively. The area has a seasonal variation in conditions typical of a continental climate. Above 100o F temperatures have occurred in each of the five months, May through September, and below zero temperatures have occurred in each of the five months, November through March.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING PAGE 12
MANMADE FACTORS The features in the above descriptions are geographic in nature and are part of larger regional patterns of natural systems. The features in this section are generally presented on a county, rather than watershed, basis. Farm Ponds, Impoundments, and Watershed Structures The most prevalent type of impoundment in the watershed is the farm pond, which is a small, privately owned body of water held behind an engineered dam. Farm ponds in the UWW typically have small drainage areas of less than 247 ac, and variable detention times heavily tied to rainfall events. They trap large amounts of sediments and have an important influence on nutrient dynamics in the Wakarusa River aquatic system (see discussion in the Problem Description Section). There are approximately 1,052 of these impoundments in the watershed, the majority of which are less than 4 acres in surface area. The largest impoundment in the watershed is the 273 surface acres Strowbridge Reservoir, which is the water supply for the City of Carbondale. Watershed structures are small private, semi‐private, or public reservoirs that have numerous functions, including floodwater detention/retardation, sediment trapping/storage, agricultural water supply, and recreation. The entire UWW is in the Wakarusa Watershed Joint District No. 35. Through the organization of this district, and as of 1986, 21 watershed structures have been constructed, and 11 are pending. The structures already in place influence the hydrology of about 25% of the UWW watershed and each drains an average of 4.07 mi2 (2,600 ac), with a range of 1.19 mi2 (760 ac) to 11.1 (7,082 ac) mi2. NRCS reports that many of the ponds and watershed structures need new outlet pipes because the old ones have seriously deteriorated. Irrigation There are at least three center pivot irrigation systems in Shawnee County: one draws water from the river and two from watershed structures. Irrigation is not prevalent as rainfall is typically sufficient for most crops grown in the area. Municipal/Institutional and Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges Wastewater treatment facilities are permitted and regulated through KDHE. They are considered point sources of pollutants. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits specify the maximum allowable amount of pollutants to be discharged into surface waters. Having theses point sources located on streams or rivers could impact water quality in the waterways. For example, municipal wastewater can contain suspended solids, biological pollutants that reduce oxygen in the water column, inorganic compounds or bacteria. Wastewater will be treated to remove solids and organic materials, disinfected to kill bacteria and viruses, and discharged to surface water. Treatment of municipal wastewater is similar across the country. Industrial point sources can contribute toxic chemicals or heavy metals. Treatment of industrial wastewater is specific to the industry and pollutant discharged. Any pollutant discharge from point sources that is allowed by the state is considered to be Wasteload Allocation.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING PAGE 13
There are fourteen National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or Kansas Water Pollution Control (KWPC) permitted wastewater dischargers in the Upper Wakarusa watershed. These include six municipal facilities, and three commercial sites serving various purposes. Also included are five industrial facilities, four of which serve limestone extraction operations monitored by the State Conservation Commission. Table 8 lists these permitted dischargers. The location of facilities with effluent discharge permits are shown in Figure 7.
Table 7. NPDES Permitted Facilities in the Upper Wakarusa Project Area
FACILITY NAME PERMITTYPE COUNTY HUC 12 HUC 12 NAME
Municipal Shawnee 102701040103 Six mile Creek‐Wakarusa River CITY OF AUBURN CAMP HAMMOND Commercial Shawnee 102701040108 Deer Creek‐Clinton Lake CARBONDALE (WATER Industrial Osage 102701040106 Elk Creek‐Clinton Lake TREATMENT PLANT) CARBONDALE, CITY OF Municipal Osage 102701040105 Burys Creek‐Wakarusa River
HAMM ‐ BUCHHEIM #69 Industrial Douglas 102701040108 Deer Creek‐Clinton Lake
HAMM ‐ HARRELL #53 Industrial Douglas 102701040107 Rock Creek‐Clinton Lake
HEARTLAND PARK TOPEKA Commercial Shawnee 102701040105 Burys Creek‐Wakarusa River HUNT MARTIN (BIG Industrial Shawnee 102701040108 Deer Creek‐Clinton Lake SPRINGS AREA QRY.) HUNT MARTIN MATERIALS Industrial Douglas 102701040108 Deer Creek‐Clinton Lake ‐ LAWRENCE KDWP ‐ CLINTON STATE PK Municipal Douglas 102701040108 Deer Creek‐Clinton Lake MINERAL SPRINGS PARK Commercial Osage 102701040105 Burys Creek‐Wakarusa River MHP OVERBROOK, CITY OF Municipal Osage 102701040106 Elk Creek‐Clinton Lake USD #450 BERRYTON Municipal Shawnee 102701040105 Burys Creek‐Wakarusa River ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WILLIAMSPORT TOWNSHIP Municipal Shawnee 102701040104 Lynn Creek‐Wakarusa River ‐ STORMWATER
Onsite Wastewater Systems
Onsite wastewater systems are privately owned, non‐discharging, soil absorption or lagoon systems, permitted by the counties. Almost all of them serve single‐family residences, with a few serving small businesses, located outside of municipal treatment plant service areas. All counties contributing to the drainage area of Clinton Lake have a Sanitary Code, enforced by county staff.
Installation of a new onsite system may require pre‐site inspections, design approval, and construction approval. Onsite systems that were installed before adoption of the County Sanitary Code are often failing due to lack of this oversight before code adoption. In the 2000 “Needs Survey” conducted by the SCC, Douglas County Health Department and Conservation
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING PAGE 14
District personnel estimated that of approximately 724 onsite systems which drain into Clinton Lake within Douglas County, approximately 295 (40%) were likely to be failing. Of these, about 74 are located within 100 meters of a perennial or intermittent stream. Failing systems may contribute bacteria and nutrients to the river. The small communities of Clinton and Stull are located in the watershed and have an estimated 2 and 9 failing systems respectively. The entire UWW is estimated to contain 1,057 failing systems, with a total repair cost of $4,829,433.
Figure 7. Location of NPDES permitted facilities in the Upper Wakarusa watershed.
Public Water Supply
Public drinking water is obtained from a number of sources in the watershed. Groundwater is a source for smaller communities and rural water districts. Major demands are met from surface water sources. Clinton Reservoir is the only surface water PWS in the watershed. All other water supply points are ground water wells. Table 9 lists the public water supplies in the Upper Wakarusa watershed. Even though the following PWS service customers in the watershed, not all intake wells are located within the watershed.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING PAGE 15
Table 8. Public water supplies in the Upper Wakarusa watershed.
POPULATION SYSTEM NAME TYPE WATER TYPE COUNTY HUC 12 HUC 12 NAME SERVED Overbrook, City of Well Ground Water Douglas 916 102701040107 Rock Creek
Carbondale, City of Intake Surface Water Osage 1378 102701040105 Burys Creek
Overbrook, City of Well Ground Water Douglas 916 102701040107 Rock Creek
Douglas County RWD 3 Intake Surface Water Douglas 3834 102701040106 Elk Creek
Clinton Lake is the primary drinking water source for almost all residents of Douglas County including Lawrence and Baldwin City. In addition, the cities of Wellsville in Franklin County and Edgerton in Johnson County obtain drinking water from Clinton Lake as do six rural water districts serving parts of Osage, Shawnee, and Franklin Counties. Two water treatment plants, one owned by the City of Lawrence and the other by the Tri‐District, treat and transport water to over 100,000 residents. The City of Lawrence pumps up to 10 million gallons of water per day to its treatment plant. The locations of water supply sources are shown in Figure 8.
A Public Water Supply (PWS) that draws its water from a surface water supply can be affected by sediment by removing excess sediment buildup at the water intake or performing additional treatment procedures for sediment removal prior to consumption. Nutrients and fecal coliform bacteria will also affect surface supplies causing excess cost in treatment prior to public water consumption.
Figure 8. Public water supply sources in the Upper Wakarusa watershed.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING PAGE 16
Economics
Most of the economic production in the watershed is derived from agricultural sources. Annual field crop production is estimated to be $19,993,499 and annual livestock/poultry production is estimated to be $9,750,317.
Demographics/Transportation
Incorporated cities within the UWW are: Auburn, population 1165, Carbondale, population 1353, and Overbrook, population 916, for a total population of 3,434. Unincorporated community centers within the area are Berryton, Richland, and Wakarusa. Population centers adjacent to the UWW include Topeka, Lawrence, and Burlingame. The road and highway system of the area is an essential part of the economy, as many rural residents hold jobs in the cities. Major traffic ways crossing the area are the Kansas Turnpike and U.S. Highway 75. Highways 40 and 56 generally parallel the drainage area along the north and south boundaries, respectively. The Atchison‐Topeka and Santa Fe and the Missouri Pacific railroads also serve the area. Table 10 describes the distribution of the population between un‐incorporated areas of the county and incorporated towns and cities and Table 11 lists the distance each major population center is from Clinton Lake.
Table 9. Estimated County Populations in Watershed
County Estimated Population* Douglas 7,714 Osage 3,221 Shawnee 21,657 Wabaunsee 345 Total population in un‐incorporated areas 24,959 (88%) Total population in incorporated areas 3,546 (12%)
*Populations of major cities in counties subtracted out, and then remainder multiplied by % of county in watershed, assuming even distribution. Data from Census Bureau estimates for 2009 for Counties and 2006 for Cities.
This is an average density of 68 people per square mile in the un‐incorporated areas of the watershed.
Table 10. Distance to Population of Major Metropolitan Areas from Clinton Dam Site.
Metropolitan Areas from Clinton Dam Site Metro Area Distance Population Lawrence 1 mile 88,605 Topeka 20 miles 122,113 Kansas City 45 miles 143,801 Manhattan 74 miles 50,737
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING PAGE 17
Livestock Production
It is challenging to determine exact numbers of total livestock in the watershed, and more so to break this down into numbers per type of livestock. Livestock facilities fall into two general categories: 1. Those permitted, certified, or registered with KDHE. 2. All other types, which are generally on small farms that have less than 300 animal units per facility. In these facilities, the livestock are usually grazed during the summer and confined to barnyards for feeding only a few months of the year, typically during the winter months.
There are 37 livestock operations that are registered, certified, or permitted by KDHE (see Figure 9). All permitted facilities have waste management systems designed to minimize runoff from entering operations, or detain runoff from leaving the operation, to handle the 25 year, 24 hour rainfall/runoff event. Field reconnaissance information (Mankin and Koelliker, 2001) found a total of 141 livestock confinement areas, most of which do not fall within the KDHE regulatory system. Some are located adjacent to main stem segments and tributaries, increasing the probability of contamination from runoff (Mankin and Koelliker, 2001). Further assessment using remote sensing identified 119 potential feeding operations in Deer, Lynn, Burys, and Rock Creeks (KAWS 2008 and 2010). Sites identified by remote sensing were primarily winter feeding operations near streams.
Tecum seh
Big Springs 7 To p ek a ¨¦§0 4 ¨¦§70
ST
1
Kanwaka 40 0 Stull tu 102701040108 Pauline Dover
ST4 Forbes Field Berryton Lawrence
102701040103 Clinton 102701040106 Auburn 102701040104 Wakarusa 102701040101 102701040102
102701040105 102701040107
Carbondale
Harveyville ST
1 Overbrook Legend 9 ST31 5 Scranton Confined Animal Feeding Operations
Upper Wakarusa Project Area Burlingame HUC 12 Delineations
5 5
3 7
3 u § t Major Reservoirs ¨¦
County Boundary
Cities and Towns Michigan Valley Rivers and Streams
Major Roads 8
Road Class Vassar 6
56 3 T ut S
8 268
Interstate 7 31 ST T
S ST Osage City Miller ST US 1 7 0 Pomona ST68 Lyndon State
Figure 9. Confined Animal Feeding Operations in the Upper Wakarusa WRAPS project area.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING PAGE 18
Based on county data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture, and assuming an even distribution over each County, up to 20,000 cattle and 400 swine are in the watershed. These are thought to be dispersed throughout the watershed in small family operations (unpermitted) on open grassland and small pastures. The Census shows about half of these numbers are calves that would most likely be sold. Land cover data shows about 70% of the 367 square miles of the watershed is pasture and woodlands. A uniform distribution of year around livestock numbers would be a grazing density of about 28 ‐ 39 animal units per square mile.
Recreation
Clinton State Park, acquired in 1973 and managed by KDWP, covers a total of 1,455 acres in Douglas and Shawnee Counties. The park is used for camping, picnicking, boating, swimming, hiking, biking, horseback riding, fishing, bird, and wildlife watching. There were about 2 million reported visits to Clinton Lake in 2007 (Smith et al, January 2008). Bloomington, Rockhaven, Woodridge, and Overlook Parks are managed by the Corps of Engineers. Bloomington Park is the largest and most developed with over 400 campsites located near the swimming beach, picnic area, boat ramps, and museum. Rockhaven Park has 50 campsites and access to over 30 miles of bridle and hiking trails. Woodridge Park has 450 acres for hiking and primitive walk‐in camping. The Overlook and Outlet Parks provide scenic picnic sites, adult and youth sports complexes and an 18 hole golf course. The Outlet Park is managed by the City of Lawrence. The Northshore trailhead, which provides access to over 15 miles of hiking and mountain biking trails, is located in Overlook Park. Fees are charged in most of the parks surrounding the lake and vary, depending on the season, and facilities and services provided. Over 9,000 acres of public hunting lands are available at Clinton Lake. Game species such as morning dove, quail, turkey, squirrel, rabbit, deer, and raccoon are plentiful around the lake. Waterfowl, such as Canada and snow geese, mallards, and teal are usually numerous on the lake late in the year. Crappie, walleye, white bass, channel catfish, largemouth and smallmouth bass and bluegill are abundant in the lake. Populations of some fish species have been enhanced by the KDWP stocking program. Visitors to Clinton Lake spent an estimated $19,300,000 in 2007 (Smith et al, January 2008).
Remediation Sites
There are no active remediation sites in the watershed.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING PAGE 19
ELEMENTElement 1.
ELEMENT 1. IDENTIFICATION OF CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT AND POLLUTANT SOURCES OR GROUPS OF SIMILAR SOURCES THAT NEED TO BE CONTROLLED TO ACHIEVE NEEDED LOAD REDUCTIONS, AND ANY OTHER GOALS IDENTIFIED IN THE WATERSHED PLAN.
Water quality impairment in the Upper Wakarusa watershed and their causes have been extensively discussed in a report completed in February of 2003 by Kaw Valley Heritage Alliance and Partners. The document was prepared as part of the planning and development phases of the Upper Wakarusa WRAPS. Information presented here is taken directly from this report with some updating and enhancements (Kaw Valley Heritage Alliance, Feb. 2003).
To some extent, the natural state of Midwestern rivers is muddy, considering they typically flow through erodible lowland soils. Alteration and poor management of the land can aggravate the problem. Historically, the prairie ecosystem produced moderate, steady, and prolonged runoff from storms. Due to an increasingly changing natural landscape, runoff from cultivated and grazed land occurs more quickly, frequently, and intensely. As a result, natural bank erosion has accelerated, and the volume of soil lost from the land has increased. There are now chemicals applied to agricultural lands that are transported to the river and lake that were never historically present.
Degradation of receiving streams, lakes, and reservoirs to the extent of impairment requires a response from EPA to establish water quality standards. A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) designation for a water body sets the maximum amount of pollutant that a specific body of water can receive without violating the surface water‐quality standards, resulting in failure to support their designated uses. TMDLs established by Kansas may be done on a watershed basis and may use a pollutant‐by‐pollutant approach or a biomonitoring approach or both as appropriate. TMDL establishment means a draft TMDL has been completed, there has been public comment, and necessary revisions to the TMDL have been made, and the TMDL has been submitted to EPA for approval. The desired outcome of the TMDL process is indicated, using the current situation as the baseline. Deviations from the water quality standards will be documented. The TMDL will state its objective in meeting the appropriate water quality standard by quantifying the degree of pollution reduction expected over time. Interim objectives will also be defined for midpoints in the implementation process. In summary, TMDLs provide a tool to target and reduce point and non‐point pollution sources. The goal of the WRAPS process is to address high priority TMDLs. KDHE reviews TMDLs assigned in each of the twelve basins of Kansas every five years on a rotational schedule.
The Upper Wakarusa WRAPS has an expectation that load reductions in the watershed will be sufficient to meet the water quality standards set forth by the TMDL for Clinton Lake as a drinking water supply and recreational resource. An additional expectation is that load reductions will also be sufficient to meet water quality standards set forth by the TMDL for the Wakarusa River.
ELEMENT 1 PAGE 20
CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENTS Taste and Odor Problems in Drinking Water- Clinton Lake continues to face input of contaminants from its watershed. Recent water quality issues dealing with the treatment of drinking water obtained from Clinton Lake suggest that the lake is undergoing changes that are adversely affecting both the chemical and biological quality of the water. For several years, there has been an annual build up of cyanobacterial (blue‐green algae) biomass, the cause of offensive tastes and odors in drinking water obtained from the lake. The City of Lawrence and the Tri‐District Water Treatment Facilities have received an increasing number of complaints regarding taste and odor in drinking water over the last decade. In December 1995, the volume of customer calls concerning taste and odor led to the shutdown of the City of Lawrence Clinton Reservoir Water Treatment Plant from December 12, 1995 through February 7, 1996.
These aesthetic problems are often among the first factors identified with the decline of water quality and lake conditions. The compound geosmin, a by‐product of decomposing blue‐green algae, was determined to be the source of the taste and odor that occurred in the drinking water, and has occasionally rendered it unsuitable for use. Excessive growth of blue‐green algae is in response to the increased loads and elevated concentrations of Nitrogen (N) and Phosphorus (P) entering the lake from the watershed. There is no known human health risk from the consumption of geosmin, but the additional treatment necessary to alleviate intolerable taste and odor, and the cost of shut down of the plant to solve problems, can result in increased cost to the consumer and limit access to drinking water.
Recent research indicates that algal toxins, particularly those from cyanobacterial decomposition, are an increasing concern in many water supply reservoirs, and some may be harmful to human health. Excessive algal decomposition and associated consumption of oxygen result in hypoxic conditions leading to impaired aquatic health or unnatural levels of aquatic species mortality.
Unified Watershed Assessment Classification and Total Maximum Daily Loads- In the Kansas Unified Watershed Assessment (KDHE, 1998), the Lower Kansas River Basin (containing the Wakarusa River) was identified as a “Watershed in Need of Restoration” (Category I Watershed). The assessment listed 77.3% of stream miles with water quality impairments and the KLR basin was ranked #1 in the “watershed restoration priority ranking.” Water quality is considered impaired when normal use of the water downstream, including, but not limited to, domestic water supply, fishing, and swimming, is severely limited or prevented. TMDLs have been established for the Upper Wakarusa watershed and Clinton Lake (see Table 1.1). Beneficial use of the Wakarusa River is limited by fecal coliform bacteria. Additional impairments include sediment, nutrients, and oxygen demand impact (hypoxia) on aquatic life, resulting from sediment and high levels of nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, ammonia) entering the river system. Water bodies and stream reaches that have some level of impairment are shown in Figure 1.1.
ELEMENT 1 PAGE 21
Table 1. 1. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and 303d listed waterbody impairments for the Upper Wakarusa WRAPS project and review schedule.
Waterbody Impairment Priority Station Approval Status Type UPPER WAKARUSA RIVER Bio‐DO High SB109 1/26/2000 TMDL UPPER WAKARUSA RIVER FCB High SC109 1/26/2000 TMDL UPPER WAKARUSA RIVER Bio‐Sed High SB109 1/26/2000 TMDL Modeled ‐ 12/18/08, Further UPPER WAKARUSA RIVER NH3 Cat 3 NPDES Permit Evaluation in 2012 TMDL CLINTON LAKE (EU) EU High LM030001 1/26/2000 TMDL LAKEVIEW ESTATES LAKE (EU) EU Low LM075301 1/26/2000 TMDL LAKEVIEW ESTATES LAKE (AP) AP Low LM075301 1/26/2000 TMDL
Review Schedule for TMDLs in Kansas Lower Republican Basin through 2020.
New TMDLs TMDL Activity Year Ending in Work in Basins Implementation Possible TMDLs TMDLs to Sept Period to Revise Evaluate 2010 Kansas Lower Republican 2011‐ 2020 1999 1999 2015 Kansas Lower Republican 2016‐2015 1999, 2007 1999, 2007 2020 Kansas Lower Republican 2012‐2030 1999,2007,2010 1999,2007,2010
The TMDLs highlighted in green in Table 1.1 will be directly addressed through this watershed plan. Implementation activities discussed in Element 6 will describe in detail the load reductions needed to meet water quality standards for these waterbodies.
ELEMENT 1 PAGE 22
Clinton Lake is designated a special aquatic life use area. Figure 1. 1. TMDLs and Impaired Waters in the Upper Wakarusa WRAPS project area.
Designated Uses and Special Aquatic Life Use-Surface waters in this watershed are generally used for aquatic life support (fish), human health purposes, domestic water supply, recreation (fishing, boating, and swimming), groundwater recharge, industrial water supply, irrigation, or livestock watering. These are commonly referred to as “designated uses” as stated in the Kansas Surface Water Register, 2010, issued by KDHE. Designated uses in the Upper Wakarusa WRAPS are shown in Table 1.2.
ELEMENT 1 PAGE 23
Table 1. 2. Designated uses of Classified Streams in the Upper Wakarusa WRAPS project area.
Lake/River Name County Name CLASS AL CR DS FP GR IW IR LW Clinton Lake Douglas GP S A X X X X X X Wakarusa River Shawnee/Douglas GP E B X X X X X X Wakarusa River Shawnee GP E C X X X X X X Burys Creek Osage/Shawnee GP E C X Rock Creek Osage/Douglas GP E B X X X X X X Unnamed Stream Shawnee GP E b Unnamed Stream Shawnee GP E b Wakarusa River, S Br Wabaunsee/Osage GP E b X X X X X X Wakarusa River, Middle Shawnee GP E b X X X X X X Sixmile Creek Shawnee GP E C X Camp Creek Osage/Shawnee GP E C X X X X X X Lynn Creek Shawnee GP E C X Elk Creek Osage/Douglas GP E C X X Deer Creek Shawnee/Douglas GP E C
AL = Aquatic Life Support GR = Groundwater Recharge CR = Contact Recreation IW = Industrial Water Supply DS = Domestic Water Supply IR = Irrigation Water Supply FP = Food Procurement LW = Livestock Water Supply
S = Special Aquatic Life Use Water ??? E = Expected Aquatic Life Use Water
A = Public drinking water ???? B = Primary contact recreation stream segment is by law or written permission of the landowner open to and accessible by the public. C = Primary contact recreation stream segment is not open to and accessible by the public under Kansas law. b = Secondary contact recreation stream segment is not open to and accessible by the public under Kansas law X = Referenced stream segment is assigned the indicated designated use O = Referenced stream segment does not support the indicated designated use Blank = Capacity of the referenced stream segment to support the indicated designated use has not been determined by use attainability analysis
Special aquatic life use waters are defined as “surface waters that contain combinations of habitat types and indigenous biota not found commonly in the state, or surface waters that contain representative populations of threatened or endangered species” (Reference: KDHE). Clinton Reservoir within the Upper Wakarusa WRAPS project is designated as a Special Aquatic Life Use (SALU) water as noted in Figure 1.2.
Pollutants that might threaten the health of these waters would be sediment or nutrient related. Sediment in Clinton Reservoir would destroy habitat for mussels and fish. Fertilizer or manure in the streams would concentrate nutrients and alter dissolved oxygen concentrations pH, and phosphorus concentrations. Clearly, nutrients are an issue within this watershed. Consequently, the Special Aquatic Use designation of Clinton Reservoir is in danger of being lost as the reservoir already has a High Priority Eutrophication TMDL.
ELEMENT 1 PAGE 24
Rossville
Silver Lake Kiro Willard Grantville Perry Maple Hill Williamstown
Lecompton Te c um se h Topeka
Big Springs
Kanwaka Stull 102701040108 Pauline Dover
Keene Forbes Field Berryton Lawrence
102701040103 Clinton 102701040106 Auburn 102701040104 Wakarusa 102701040101 102701040102
102701040105 102701040107
Carbondale
Legend Harveyville Overbrook Scranton Upper Wakarusa Project Area
HUC 12 Delineations Burlingame County Boundary
Cities and Towns
Special Aquatic Life Use Water
Rivers and Streams
Figure 10.2. Special Aquatic Life Use Waters in the Upper Wakarusa WRAPS project area.
Eutrophication and Trophic State- Trophic state classification is a measure of the nutrient richness of a lake or reservoir. Nutrient rich lakes have enhanced to an over abundance of aquatic plant life and are called eutrophic. Eutrophic lakes tend to have poor visual clarity and brown to green appearance through the water column and may have an over abundance of nutrients leading to impaired water quality that stresses aquatic life severely at times. In contrast, nutrient poor lakes have a visually clear appearance through the water column and are called oligotrophic. Oligotrophic lakes tend to have limited productivity for sustaining aquatic life. A mesotrophic lake is on a continuum between eutrophic and oligotrophic showing some nutrient enrichment but not to an extent that results in severe stress to aquatic life. Hypereutrophic lakes are those with consistently excessive nutrients and aquatic plants that result in severely limiting or toxic conditions for sustaining a healthy aquatic habitat. The transition from an oligotrophic to a eutrophic state is called eutrophication.
The KDHE Narrative Water Quality Standard for nutrients states: “The introduction of plant nutrients into streams, lakes, or wetlands from artificial sources shall be controlled to prevent the accelerated succession or replacement of aquatic biota or the production of undesirable quantities or kinds of aquatic life.”
The TMDL for Clinton Lake states that the beneficial uses are limited by eutrophication, biological community impacts, and excessive nutrient/organic loading. Eutrophic lakes and
ELEMENT 1 PAGE 25
reservoirs have both relatively high nutrient concentrations and high rates of primary productivity (algae growth). Total phosphorus (P) is closely related to the cause of eutrophication due to its role as an essential plant nutrient. Trophic State is an indication of the degree of eutrophication for a body of water. Chlorophyll a, a measure of level of plant material such as algae, is the most valuable biological criterion for trophic assessment because it provides not only an estimate of overall lake productivity, but also information regarding recreational desirability, water treatment cost, and suitability of water for livestock and irrigation. The simplest response model of chlorophyll a is the Trophic State Index (TSI). Because Water Quality Goals for the Upper Wakarusa watershed are based on Trophic State, a detailed description of the criteria is presented in Table 1.3.
Table 1. 3. Trophic State Classification of Aquatic Systems
Classification Phosphorus ug/L Nitrogen ug/L Chlorophyll a ug/L TSI
Oligotrophic <10 <350 <3.5 <40 Mesotrophic 10‐30 350‐650 3.5 – 9.0 40‐49.99 Eutrophic 31‐100 651‐1200 9.1‐25 50‐63.99 Hypereutrophic >100 >1200 >25 64‐69.99
According to the TMDL for Clinton Lake, the lake consistently has elevated chlorophyll a concentrations during summer months with an average of 18.1 ug/L, related to a Trophic State Index of 59, which characterizes eutrophic conditions. Chorophyll a found in July samples from Clinton Lake exceeded the standard of 10 ug/L every year from 1988 to 2009 except for 1996 and 1997. In four of those years, concentrations were more than double the standard. Concentrations of total phosphorus found in these samples are correlated with chlorophyll at which indicates that elevated concentrations of phosphorus result in higher chlorophyll a concentrations. It follows that focusing on phosophorus load reductions will improve the trohphic state of Clinton Lake.
Nutrients in the Wakarusa River- Water quality characteristics of the Wakarusa River at Paulin Road (downstream from HUC 102701040104) reflect some impairment when compared to other watersheds in the State such as Mill Creek that are considered to be the most pristine. Data indicate some increase in phosphorus concentrations in the past two decades while some improvements in suspended sediment concentrations in this same time frame. This would indicate that phosphorus sources other than those sorbed to the solid phase should be a focus and that successfully addressing the transport of sediment is not sufficient to reduce phosphorus loads. The presence of phosphorus and sediment in the stream environment are the reason for the Dissolved Oxygen and Biology TMDLs. The TMDLs for Biology‐Dissolved Oxygen and Biology‐Sediment in the Wakarusa River reflect the need to address potential phosphorus and sediment load reductions above Paulen Road.
ELEMENT 1 PAGE 26
Fecal Coliform Bacteria- Kansas Water Quality Standards (KAR 28‐16‐28) establish maximum allowable pollutant concentrations in surface water that will still support all beneficial uses of that water. The presence of fecal coliform bacteria (FCB) indicates that the water has come into contact with the bodily waste of warm‐blooded animals, and indicates that pathogenic organisms excreted by these animals may also be present. It has been found that some species of fecal coliform bacteria could originate from sources other than warm‐blooded animals. In response to this uncertainty, previous standards based on fecal coliform have changed from fecal coliform as an indicator to E‐coli bacteria, which does not have known sources other than warm‐blooded animals. Kansas has used E‐coli bacteria standards since 2003.
Previous fecal coliform standards had a geometric mean limit of 200 col/100 ml of sample water for primary contact recreation and a single value limit of 2000 col/100 ml for secondary, non‐contact recreation. Table 1.4 summarizes fecal coliform from various locations and dates in the lake and river prior to 2003.
Table 1. 4. Summary of Fecal Coliform Bacteria Concentrations from Various Reports
Date Source Location Concentration May 1993 COE Main Basin‐Swimming Areas 1‐100 cols/100 mL 1985 Wapora Main Basin >200 cols/100 mL in 3 of 16 Report stations in April; 1 of 15 stations in May; non exceeded 2000 cols/100 mL Watershed Sites 9 of 15 sites >200 cols/100 mL; 3 of these same sites >2000 cols/100 mL 1996‐1997 KBS Report Main Basin 0‐330 cols/100 mL Rock Creek 210 cols/100 mL Transitional sites Mean: 346 cols/100 mL Riverine sites Mean: 880 cols/100 mL Wakarusa River – April 1230 cols/100 mL Deer Creek – April 1200 cols/100 mL
Primary contact recreation is important in the Main Basin where Lake associated swimming and boating are dominant. Coliform bacteria concentrations prior to 2003 shown in Table 1.4 exceeded the standard in the Main Basin for several sampling events in the spring months indicating some concerns in the spring at some sites.
Secondary contact recreation is a reasonable criterion for streams in the watershed. Table 1.4 states that some sampling sites on streams in the watershed exceeded the standard for secondary contact recreation 1985‐97. Livestock management improvements in these reaches of streams in the watershed should address these issues. Elevated bacteria concentrations in streams immediately upstream from Clinton Lake may contribute to bacteria concentrations
ELEMENT 1 PAGE 27
that exceed standards for primary contact recreation even though concentrations are not exceeding standards for the stream. The presence of bacteria in the stream environment is the reason for the Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL. The TMDL for bacteria in the Wakarusa River above Paulen Road reflect the need to address potential bacteria sources in the watershed.
E-coli (Escherichia coli) bacteria- standards established since 2003 are shown in Table 1.5. Primary contact recreational uses are those which involve body emersion to an extent that ingestion of water is probable. Secondary contact recreational uses are those which involve body contact that is not likely to involve ingestion of water. Primary contact recreational standards are much more stringent during April 1‐ October 31 when recreational uses are most prominent.
Table 1. 5. E‐coli Bacteria Standards
Criteria For Classified Colony Forming Units (CFUs)/100mL Stream Segments PRIMARY CONTACT GEOMETRIC MEAN GEOMETRIC MEAN RECREATION APRIL 1‐OCT 31 NOV. 1‐MARCH 31 Class A 160 2358 Class B 262 2358 Class C 427 3843 SECONDARY CONTACT GEOMETRIC MEAN RECREATION JAN. 1‐DEC.31 Class a 2358 Class b 3843 Criteria For Classified Surface Waters Other Than Classified Colony Forming Units (CFUs)/100mL Stream Segments. SINGLE SAMPLE SINGLE SAMPLE PRIMARY CONTACT GEOMETRIC MEAN GEOMETRIC MEAN MAXIMUM MAXIMUM RECREATION APRIL 1‐ OCT. 31 NOV. 1‐MARCH 31 APRIL 1‐OCT. 21 NOV 1‐MARCH 31 Swimming Beach 160 800 732 3655 Public Access 262 1310 1198 6580 Restricted Access 427 2135 1950 9760 SECONDARY CONTACT GEOMETERIC MEAN SINGLE SAMPLE MAXIMM RECREATION JAN. 1‐DEC. 31 JAN. 1‐ DEC. 31 Public Access 2135 9760 Restricted Access 2135 9760
Data from the sampling site in Clinton Lake and the Upper Wakarusa near Topeka are shown in Tables 1.6 and 1.7. Bacteria concentrations did not exceed the geometric mean standard for primary public access of 262 CFU/100 ml during any sampling period at the site near Topeka. Samples collected from Clinton Lake seldom exceeded 10 CFU/100 ml, which would not exceed the standard at that site. A case can be made that the bacteria TMDL should be removed when reevaluated in 2012.
ELEMENT 1 PAGE 28
Table 1. 6. E. coli bacteria samples from Wakarusa River near Topeka.
STA 109 Wakarusa River Near Topeka, KS Geometric Mean for E. Coli County Road Bridge, 105 Miles South on US‐75 Highway, 5.0 Miles East, And 0.5 Mile South of Topeka Class Standard Station Date/Time Collected E coli (contact) (MPN) SC109 4/21/2010 13:45 86 SC109 4/28/2010 16:12 120 SC109 5/4/2010 13:40 109 SC109 5/10/2010 14:00 266 E. Coli GM SC109 5/12/2010 13:56 1467 213.051 B 262
Class Standard Station Date/Time Collected E coli Recalculated after averaging (contact) (MPN) SC109 6/28/2010 13:49 155 155 SC109 7/12/2010 12:54 573 573 SC109 7/14/2010 13:46 305 325 SC109 7/20/2010 14:19 169 169 E. Coli GM SC109 7/26/2010 15:55 160 160 239.0426 B 262 SC109 7/14/2010 13:51 345 6 sample geomean = 251.4406
Class Standard Station Date/Time Collected E coli Recalculated after averaging (contact) (MPN) SC109 8/3/2010 13:05 197 SC109 8/9/2010 14:44 75 SC109 8/11/2010 13:52 146 SC109 8/24/2010 13:49 246 E. Coli GM SC109 8/30/2010 12:47 20 101.1973 B 262
Class Standard Station Date/Time Collected E coli Recalculated after averaging (contact) (MPN) SC109 10/4/2010 13:04 345 SC109 10/7/2010 12:55 160 SC109 10/12/2010 16:11 512 SC109 10/20/2010 13:18 41 E. Coli GM SC109 10/27/2010 13:31 86 158.3792 B 262
ELEMENT 1 PAGE 29
Table 1. 7. Fecal and E. coli bacteria samples from Clinton Lake.
SITE_NAME COL_DATE FECCOLI ECOLI DEPTH LM030001 7/9/79 10 00.0 LM030001 7/14/81 10 00.0 LM030001 6/15/88 10 < 00.5 LM030001 6/15/88 10 < 00.5 LM030001 6/10/91 2 < 00.5 LM030001 6/10/91 26 00.5 LM030001 6/10/91 10 < 13.0 LM030001 6/10/91 10 < 13.0 LM030001 8/7/96 10 < 00.5 LM030001 8/7/96 10 00.5 LM030001 7/16/97 10 < 00.5 LM030001 7/16/97 10 < 00.5 LM030001 6/16/98 2 < 00.5 LM030001 6/16/98 2 < 00.5 LM030001 8/9/00 10 < 00.5 LM030001 8/9/00 10 < 00.5 LM030001 7/15/03 10 < 00.5 LM030001 7/15/03 10 < 00.5 LM030001 6/19/06 10 < 00.5 LM030001 6/19/06 10 < 00.5 LM030001 8/10/09 10 00.5 LM030001 8/10/09 10 < 00.5
Sediment‐ There is no numeric water quality standard for sediment. Eroded soil particles from the watershed contribute to stream and lake turbidity and sedimentation. These soil particles: • Contribute to accelerated lake eutrophication by making the lake more shallow. • Shorten the life expectancy and storage capacity of the lake for public water supply. • Impair fisheries quality through feeding interference, habitat degradation, fish behavior • modifications, and degradation of food supplies through impairment of the macro‐ invertebrate community. • Increase water treatment costs of municipal and industrial water use. • Nutrients and pesticides may also be attached to soil particles. These materials may be slowly released from sediment deposits and lead to impaired water quality conditions over an extended time period. POLLUTANT SOURCES While there are a few point sources in the watershed, KDHE has determined that most of the nutrients entering the river and lake system are coming from nonpoint sources (NPS). Agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution are the primary sources that influence physical, biological, and chemical conditions in Clinton Lake and the Wakarusa River and include
ELEMENT 1 PAGE 30
cropland, livestock feeding sites, farmstead activities, and onsite wastewater systems. These land uses are not capable of retaining storm runoff to the extent of native prairie resulting in excess storm runoff. It is not surprising that water quality standards are exceeded during runoff events and not during other times. Brief but intense rainstorms typical of the continental climate occur in the late spring and early summer when water quality standards are not met.
Primary sources of sediment and associated nutrients in the Upper Wakarusa are washoff from fields, pasture, construction sites, and other barren areas during storm events. Adequate vegetative cover or its residue are essential to retaining stormwater in place where it infiltrates or evaporates. Soil cultivation and foraging livestock can result in inadequate vegetative cover during some times of the year. Erosion from steeper land transports sediment and attached contaminants to waterways.
Excess runoff from lands without adequate vegetative cover reaches streams and waterways more frequently and in greater amounts. This stress on the streambed and banks does not allow the vegetation to establish and recover after a storm event leading to permanent instability of bed and banks. Streams and waterways become incised and expand laterally as they seek an adequate capacity to transport the excess stormwater. The unstable bed and bank materials are transported downstream as suspended sediment contaminant.
Primary sources of bacteria in the Upper Wakarusa watershed are waste from livestock in and near streams and waterways. Animals that are confined in pastures and winter feeding areas where they are frequently in direct contact with waterways and streams have the greatest impact on water quality. Management alternatives that encourage animals to spend most of their time away from streams improves water quality. Wildlife has some bearing on bacteria contaminants but is not a significant factor when they are present in sustainable numbers. Household waste from dysfunctional treatment systems has been found at some sites but is not considered a significant contributor to the watershed. An exception might be lakeshore sites where toilet and garbage facilities that serve visitors are close to primary contact recreation. Data collected to date has not shown this to be the case.
Improving water quality in the Upper Wakarusa watershed will require addressing the issue of excess runoff. Solutions will be those that retain runoff at or near the place, it falls as precipitation. Soil conservation and other stormwater best management practices that retain contaminant laden runoff and allow it to infiltrate, evaporate, or be taken up through plants will be necessary to reduce contaminant loads in receiving streams and Clinton Lake. Contaminants deposited in retention features or plant mass may require periodic maintenance when sediments accumulate and contaminants are not adequately biodegraded over time.
ELEMENT 1 PAGE 31
ELEMENT 2.
ELEMENT 2. AN ESTIMATE OF THE LOAD REDUCTIONS EXPECTED FROM MANAGEMENT MEASURES.
Load reduction goals that must be achieved to meet water quality standards are determined by comparing TMDL requirements with the current loads to receiving streams and Clinton Lake based on either watershed modeling results or water quality sampling records. These comparisons will be made at sampling sites at Clinton Lake and the Wakarusa River at Paulen Road. Current loads must be reduced sufficiently to meet the standard when they exceed the TMDL requirements. Watershed contaminant contributions above each of these sampling locations must meet the load reduction at that respective site. Unit load reductions from conservation practices described in Element 3 will be accumulated until a sufficient number of practices are implemented in each targeted tributary to meet the total load reduction goals. The efforts and the program described in this plan will initially highlight the TMDL requirements and load reductions below Paulen Road to ensure that water quality improvements are achieved in Clinton Lake early in the plan. Load reduction requirements will be addressed later in subwatersheds above Paulen Road. LOAD REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS Water quality standards define the TMDL requirements at two locations in the Upper Wakarusa. The primary focus will be Clinton Lake as an urban public water supply and major recreational destination. Standards for the Lake specify yearly load limits from the watershed into the Lake. Water quality data obtained from the Lake by KDHE over the past three decades reflect the current loads into the Lake. Watershed modeling results also provide insight into the loads expected under current land use conditions and for several simulated conditions including native prairie. Comparisons of loads under measured (sampling data) and model‐simulated conditions and the TMDL standard provide a load reduction estimate required to meet the standard and protect Clinton Lake. Target contaminants were found to be nutrients, primarily phosphorus, and sediment in the Lake. Standards for bacteria in the Wakarusa River near Topeka and in Clinton Lake were exceeded as reflected in monitoring data prior to 2003. More recent monitoring records since 2003 indicate bacteria standards may not have been exceeded in recent years.
Watershed modeling conducted by K‐State (Mankin and Koelliker, July 2001) computed expected loads for nutrients and sediment into the lake for current land use conditions and those for native prairie. Results are summarized in the Table 2.1. The distribution of contaminant sources from the three major drainages were also estimated and are shown in Table 2.2.
ELEMENT 2 PAGE 32
Table 2. 1. Summary of model results for five watershed management scenarios (Mankin, 2003 Table 16)
Scenario: 1 2 3 4 5 Description: Good All Pasture & All Current Native Cropland CRP to Terraces Conditions Prairie Terraced Cropland Removed
Inflows to Clinton Lake
Watershed area, sq km 953.8 953.8 953.8 953.8 953.8 Average surface inflow, mm/yr 216 174 198 219 243 Sediment in surface inflow, Mg/ha 1.31 0.52 1.27 1.41 1.6 N in surface inflow, kg/ha 3.71 1.63 3.69 4.01 4.12 P in surface inflow, kg/ha 1.84 0.78 1.89 2.01 2.19 2.2 lbs per kg; 2.47 ac per hectar; 1000 kg per Mg (mega grams)
Table 2. 2. AGNPS results of contribution from each major Clinton Lake subwatershed. Shown are the percentages that each subwatershed contributes to the total watershed load for that category (Mankin, 2003 Table 14).
Subwatershed Area Runoff Sediment Nitrogen Phosphorus
Deer Creek 8.1 7.4 8.3 7.1 6.6
Rock Creek 11.5 10.2 6.3 6 5.2
Wakarusa River 67.7 60.7 54.3 58 49.4
Subwatershed Total 87.2 78.3 68.9 71.1 61.2
Determining the difference in contaminant loads between current conditions and native prairie will set the most ambitious goal for load reductions that can be expected from each drainage area into the Lake. Computed differences in sediment, nitrate, and phosphorus loads between current conditions and native prairie are shown in Table 2.3.
ELEMENT 2 PAGE 33
Table 2. 3. Computed load reductions.
Scenario: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Description: Good Current Current All Pasture All Condition Condition Current Native Cropland & CRP to Terraces Minus Minus Conditions Prairie Terraced Cropland Removed Native Native Inflows to Clinton Lake (Metric) (English)
Watershed area, sq km 953.8 953.8 953.8 953.8 953.8 Average surface inflow, mm/yr 216 174 198 219 243 Sediment in surface inflow, Mg/ha 1.31 0.52 1.27 1.41 1.6 0.79 703.6437 N in surface inflow, kg/ha 3.71 1.63 3.69 4.01 4.12 2.08 1.852632 P in surface inflow, kg/ha 1.84 0.78 1.89 2.01 2.19 1.06 0.94413 2.2 lbs per kg; 2.47 ac per hectar; 1000 kg per Mg (mega grams)
Distribution of expected load reductions throughout the watershed is important so that efforts to implement best management practices are balanced with the potential sources. For this strategy, the distribution of load reduction is based on drainage area. It was also important to consider stream density since the most effective practices will likely be those that prevent contaminants from reaching the streams. Stream density was relatively consistent among subwatersheds below Paulen Road and among those below Paulen Road except for Lynn Creek (see Table 2.4). Thus, it was assumed that drainage area would be a reasonable approach. The fraction of the watershed area represented in each subwatershed is given in Table 2.5. The distribution of load reduction that might be expected from each subwatershed to restore constituent transport to that of native prairie is given in Table 2.5. It should be noted that drainage areas in Table 2.1 represent less than the total watershed and so are not consistent with the fractions given in Table 2.5.
ELEMENT 2 PAGE 34
Table 2. 4. Upper Wakarusa subwatershed drainage, stream lengths, and density (Boyer, January 2010).
HUC 14 Tributary Drainage Drainage Stream Stream (includes short reach of Wakarusa River between Area Area sq Length Density tributaries and some minor unnamed tributaries) acres miles miles mi/sq mi 1027010401001 0 Mid. and So. Br. Wakarusa R. 32,828 51 170 3.31 20 Wakarusa R. upper reach 24,132 38 116 3.08 30 Six Mile Creek and minor tribs 32,317 50 159 3.15
split 40 Portion upstream of Paulen Rd, Burys (Berry's) Creek 15,925 25 77 3.09
split 40 Portion downstream of Paulen Rd, Lynn Creek 18,314 29 92 3.22 50 Camp Creek 27,824 43 116 2.67 60 Elk Creek 16,548 26 71 2.75 70 Deer Creek 34,796 54 141 2.59 80 Rock Creek 32,160 50 124 2.47
Total for watershed 234,844 367 1066 26.32
Total 40 Lynn and Burys (Berry's) Creeks 34,239 53 170 3.18
Load reduction goals were described in the development plan prepared in 2003 (Upper Wakarusa Watershed Plan, 2003, page 29). Reductions of about 60% for nitrate and phosphorus were defined as endpoints for the watershed. Reductions of these magnitudes result in load reduction requirements for the subbasins below Paulen Road of 256,582 lbs/yr in nitrate and 126,694 lbs/yr of phosphorus. These are very similar to those determined by the modeling results shown in Table 2.5.
ELEMENT 2 PAGE 35
Table 2. 5. Load reduction estimates for each tributary based on Koelliker's 2001 model results.
Required Contaminant Load Reduction HUC Watershed Subarea Drainage Fraction Area of Total TSS N P sq mi lbs/yr lbs/yr lbs/yr Load per acre per year 704 1.853 0.944
1027010401100 Total Watershed 366 1 164820634 434047 221123 80 Rock Creek 50 0.137 22516480 59296 30208 70 Deer Creek 54 0.148 24317798 64040 32625
* Wakarusa lower reach 60 Elk Creek 26 0.071 11708570 30834 15708 50 Camp Creek 43 0.117 19364173 50995 25979 40 Lynn Creek 29 0.079 13059558 34392 17521
Subtotal Wakarusa below Paulen Road 202 0.552 90966579 239556 122040 ** Wakarusa upper reach 40 Burys (Berry's) Creek 25 0.068 11258240 29648 15104 30 Sixmile Creek 50 0.137 22516480 59296 30208 20 North Branch Wakarusa R. 38 0.104 17112525 45065 22958 10 So. and Mid. Br. Wakarusa R. 51 0.139 22966810 60482 30812 Subtotal Wakarusa above Paulen Road 164 0.448 73854054 194491 99082
* Modeling results for contaminants coming in to Clinton Lake from the mainstem of the Wakarusa River. ** Upper reach of the Wakarusa River has a TMDL requirement at Paulen Road.
Water quality data collected for the target contaminants compared to the TMDL standards will set the contaminant load reduction goals under the Clean Water Act requirements. Water quality monitoring records collected by KDHE document the amount of nutrient and sediment that is transported into Clinton Lake. Current transport rates exceed the standards required to meet the TMDLs in Clinton Lake.
The Eutrophication TMDL for Clinton Lake states that there is 340,000 lbs/yr (170 tons) of phosphorus entering the Lake. The TMDL states that in order for the lake to meet designated uses the annual load should be reduced by 60% to 140,000 lbs/yr (70 tons). This would be a total load reduction of 200,000 lbs/yr (100 tons) of phosphorus (KDHE, December 2010). However, a safety margin of error of 20,000 lbs/yr (10 tons) of phosphorous is also required which results in an overall load reduction requirement of 220,000 lbs/yr (110 tons). Implementation of load reduction practices to address eutorphication in Clinton Lake will also lead to load reductions in the Wakarusa River at Paulen Road. Therefore all the highlighted TMDL requirements in Table 1.1 will be addressed by load reductions in Clinton Lake.
There are several facilities in the watershed that contribute a regulated discharge of phosphorus in the project area. Discharging lagoon systems include Auburn, Carbondale, and The Mineral Springs Park. Wasteload allocations for lagoon systems are based on discharging at
ELEMENT 2 PAGE 36
design flows with a typical concentration of 2 mg/L total phosphorus. In addition, Jay Shideler School discharges up to 0.02 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) into Six Mile Creek from a 3 cell lagoon, with an average of 5.85 mg/l phosphorus during the school year and Washburn Rural HS discharges up to 0.08 MGD into Six Mile Creek from two small package plants with activated sludge, contributing 5.86 mg/l total phosphorus. Since these point sources are regulated and approved through the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, they cannot be subject to load reduction activities. The 220,000 lbs/yr of phosphorus reduction needed to meet the eutrophication TMDL for Clinton Lake must come from nonpoint sources of pollution. Figure 2.1 shows the phosphorous load reduction that must be addressed by BMPs to meet the TMDL in Clinton Lake.
220,000 lbs/yr 120,000 lbs/yr reduction in 340,000 lbs/yr phosphorous phosphorous phosphorous load allowed under required to meet into Clinton Lake the TMDL TMDL
Figure 2. 1. Phosphorous load reduction required to meet TMDL for Clinton Lake.
In order to meet the load reduction goal in Figure 2.1 there must be load reductions occurring throughout the Upper Wakarusa watershed. Since there will be load reductions occurring in each of the tributary drainages, the Upper Wakarusa River WRAPS will also succeed in meeting the load reduction goal for the Bio/DO TMDL on the Wakarusa River above Paulen Road. The load reduction requirement for this TMDL is a 6,433 lbs/yr load reduction needed to attain water quality standards.
Current sediment rates into Clinton Lake are determined by the Kansas Water Office in 2010 to be about 289,325 Tons/yr. KDHE has determined that sediment rates into Clinton Lake must be reduced to 113,408 Tons/yr to maintain the 100‐year design capacity of 110,171‐acre feet (see details in Table 2.6). This is a total sediment reduction requirement of 175,917 (61%). Figure 2.2 shows the sediment load reduction that must be addressed by BMPs to meet the recommended sediment reduction goal in Clinton Lake.
The load reduction goals for the Nine Element plan will use the reduction requirements determined by KDHE in November 2010. It should be noted that phosphorous load reductions from model results (Table 2.5) is 221,123 lbs/yr, which is similar to the 220,000 lbs/yr required by KDHE. Sediment load reductions from model results were 82,410 Tons/yr (164,820,634 lbs/yr) which is about half the load reduction requirements determined by KDHE.
ELEMENT 2 PAGE 37
Table 2. 6. Clinton Lake Sedimentation Rates (KWO, 2010)
Rate Sedimentation Cubic Yards of EST Tons/year Capacity after Rate (acre‐feet Sediment/Year 100 years / year) (acre‐feet) Design Sedimentation Rate 190 306,533 169,666 110,171 Estimated Current Sedimentation Rate 324 522,719 289,325 96,771 Future Rate Desired to meet 100 year 127 204,893 113,408 110,171 Design Life for Sediment Storage Reduction Necessary to meet 100 year 197 (61%) 317,826 (61%) 175,917 (61%) Design Rate
As discussed earlier, a portion of the total load reduction goal must be allocated to each of the tributary drainages. Best management practices to meet these allocations will be distributed among the tributary drainages to ensure that sufficient opportunities for projects are available to meet the reductions. It also balances the responsibility for load reductions among landowners. Load reduction efforts in this Plan will focus primarily on tributaries coming into the Lake or the Wakarusa River below Paulen Road. The load reduction goal allocated to these tributaries will not include the allocations to tributaries above Paulen Road. Load allocations based on KDHE requirements in November 2010 are shown in Table 2.7. Nitrate load reductions were not included in the TMDLs for Clinton Lake. Load reductions given in the table for nitrate are based on model results.
289,325 tons/yr 175,917 113,408 tons/yr sediment load tons/yr recommended into Clinton reduction in allowable Lake sediment sediment load required
Figure 2. 2. Sediment load reduction requirement.
Since there will be load reductions occurring in each of the tributary drainages, the Upper Wakarusa River WRAPS will also succeed in meeting the load reduction goal for the Bio/Sed TMDL on the Wakarusa River above Paulen Road. The load reduction requirement for this TMDL is a mere 4, 021 tons/yr load reduction needed to attain water quality standards.
ELEMENT 2 PAGE 38
Table 2. 7. Load Reduction Goals for the Upper Wakarusa WRAPS, November 2010. *
HUC Watershed Subarea Drainage Fraction Required Contaminant Load Reduction* Area of Total TSS N P Sq mi Tons/Yr Lbs/yr Lbs/yr Load per acre per year 1 1.85 0.989 1027010401100 Total Watershed 366 1 175917 434047 220000 80 Rock Creek 50 0.137 24032 59296 30055 70 Deer Creek 54 0.148 25955 64040 32459 ** Wakarusa lower reach 60 Elk Creek 26 0.071 12497 30834 15628 50 Camp Creek 43 0.117 20668 50995 25847 40 Lynn Creek 29 0.079 13030 34392 17432 Subtotal Wakarusa below Paulen Road 202 0.552 97091 239556 121421 *** Wakarusa Upper Reach 40 Bury’s (Berry’s) Creek 25 0.068 12016 29648 15027 30 Sixmile Creek 50 0.137 24032 59296 30055 20 North Branch Wakarusa R. 38 0.104 18265 45065 22842 10 So. And Mid Br. Wakarusa R. Subtotal Wakarusa above Paulen Road 164 0.448 78826 194491 98579
*Total sediment and phosphorus load reductions goals from KDHE, nitrate from model results Planned load reductions should equal or exceed goals from above and below Paulen Road **Estimated load reduction goal in to Clinton Lake from the mainstem of the Wakarusa River. ***Upper reach of the Wakarusa River has a TMDL requirement at Paulen Road.
Bacteria TMDL reductions are addressed with livestock management practices that also reduce phosphorous and sediment loads. When phosphorous and sediment load reductions are met, bacteria concentrations will also be reduced. This will meet the high priority Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL in the Wakarusa River above Paulen Road. Lowering bacteria concentrations will hopefully be shown in a decreasing bacteria index and ultimately reach the desired index endpoint shown in Figure 2.3 below.
E coli Bacteria Index Profile for Upper Wakarusa River
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
Index = ln(ECB)/ln(262) Index 0.4
0.2
0 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 0.99 Percentile of samples less than index value
Existing WQS Desired
Figure 2.3. E. coli bacteria index profile for the Upper Wakarusa River.
ELEMENT 2 PAGE 39
UNIT LOAD REDUCTIONS Various water quality management practices have been identified and described in Element 3 that have the potential to reduce contaminant transport and improve water quality in Clinton Lake and the Wakarusa River. Load reductions that could be expected from typical installations of these practices have been computed by KDHE using the EPA Region 5 load reduction model (see Appendix for further explanation). Most of the typical installations are similar to practices constructed or proposed in the Upper Wakarusa watershed in the past year to eighteen months.
Most practices listed in Element 3 are common to agricultural areas in the mid‐continent. Some of the practices have been constructed in the Upper Wakarusa for years. Conclusions from modeling results by K‐State noted that most vulnerable areas needing terraces currently have such practices and that it is now essential they be adequately maintained. It should be concluded that required load reductions would not be met solely by additional terraces but must have other practices such as stormwater retention and vegetative cover to meet further reductions. Therefore, there will be an effort to construct projects, which include wetland retention with sufficient capacity to store up to the 2‐year (50% probable) 24‐hour rainfall and allow it to infiltrate or transpire. Load reductions are projected for the next several years that reflect the proposed scope of work for the program.
Expected load reductions of each target contaminant for each water quality management practice listed in Element 3 are given in Table 2.7. Practices listed are those expected to be the most practical for the area and would have the most potential for improving water quality in the watershed. Load reductions in Table 2.7 are those expected from a typical project size and area treated in the Upper Wakarusa watershed. These characteristics are described in Table 2.7 for each practice. Typical project costs shown in Table 2.7 were estimated from WRAPS projects funded in the past three years. At least one project of each kind listed in Table 2.8 was funded over this timeframe. A summary of typical project costs is included in the Appendix.
ELEMENT 2 PAGE 40
Table 2.8. Unit load and unit cost estimates for typical conservation practices.
Contaminant Water Quality Management Practices 1 2 34 5 67 891011 Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Stream Bed and Banks
ft
1.5
200 acres
stream, is and 30
feet affected
affected feet to
outlet
field,or
.005
pasture 500 ft/yr
tile animals,
x 500
acres typical
acres
acres or
.2
affected
access
30
40 40
40 at with
site, terrace,
typical
typical terrace
acres at
stock buffer
typical of
typical
typical
30 acres
typical
erosion
40 watering
waterway site,
methods, acres
length methods,
structure
minimize
gulley,
buffer, and
crossing,
banks, vegetation
40
to methods, grass
typical
ft
feeding
repair 10
water
terraces, native animals
feeding
typical
retention
outlet, eroded fencing near
stabilization restoration and
vegetation 30 low cropping
planted
outlet till
‐ channel,
pasture Wetland terrace Native affected, Replace of Gravel Pasture typical Tile seeding acres No animals Improved Stream Alternate Stream Unit Reductions for Each Practice Unit Reductions for Each Practice Unit Reductions for Each Practice TSS (tons/yr) 0 3 0 12.8 43.5 71.2 32 98 106 31.9 31.9 N (lbs/yr) 0 11 0 25.5 78 171 69 245 280 63.8 63.8 P (lbs/yr) 172 5 172 185 55.5 86 34 122 140 31.9 31.9 Cost $1,107 $423 $2,879 $1,250 $423 $1,258 $8,854 $16,108 $1,100 $2,810 $2,810
ELEMENT 2 PAGE 41 ELEMENT 3.
ELEMENT 3. A DESCRIPTION OF THE NON POINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES THAT WILL NEED TO BE IMPLEMENTED TO ACHIEVE LOAD REDUCTIONS AND A DESCRIPTION FOR THE CRITICAL AREAS IN WHICH THOSE MEASURES WILL BE NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT THE PLAN.
Sources of contaminant that exceed the standards are primarily associated with excess runoff from rural landscape. Land uses that limit vegetative cover on agricultural lands deposit contaminants at or near streams and waterways are the most vulnerable to excess runoff because of the decreased ability to retain stormrunoff and associated contaminants. Therefore, nonpoint source management measures must be those that increase runoff retention and contaminant filtering capabilities at or near where precipitation occurs. Nonpoint source management measures must address modification of land uses on cropland and livestock areas to control the deposition of nutrients and bacteria near streams and to retain excess storm runoff. Specific crop and livestock management practices that limit runoff and transport of nutrients and animal wastes from washing off will be installed in those areas determined to be the most effective locations for reducing contaminant loads in the Wakarusa River and Clinton Lake. In general, the most effective locations will be those project sites at or near streams and waterways and those within subwatershed in close proximity to Clinton Lake. CRITICAL AREAS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF NON POINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES Water quality standards have been established at two locations within the Upper Wakarusa watershed. One is at Clinton Lake and the other is on the Wakarusa River at Paulen Road just upstream from the mouth of Lynn Creek. The most effective locations for reducing contaminant loads would be at sites where contaminant sources are dominant and in closer proximity to Clinton Lake or the Wakarusa River at Paulen Road. Contaminant sources from tributaries downstream from Paulen Road are a higher priority than those upstream from Paulen Road considering that Clinton Lake is a primary source of drinking water for more than 100,000 people and a contact recreational destination with about 800,000 visits per year.
Contaminant transport simulations for nutrients and bacteria into Clinton Lake compared loads from the three major streams directly into the Lake. Modeling results indicated the Deer Creek tributary contributed more nutrients into the Lake per unit area than either the Wakarusa River or Rock Creek (Mankin et al, July 2001). Considering these results, it will be most effective to have a primary focus on installing non point source management practices at dominant contaminant source sites in the Deer Creek drainage. Even though the Deer Creek drainage is contributing more per unit area the other tributaries flowing into the Lake, it should not be assumed load reductions in this drainage alone will be sufficient to meet the standards in Clinton Lake. Other tributaries flowing directly into the Lake or into the Wakarusa River downstream of Paulen Road to immediately upstream of the Lake should also be a primary focus. These would include Rock Creek, Elk Creek, Camp Creek, Lynn Creek, and the Wakarusa River downstream of the mouth of Lynn Creek. These priority tributary subwatersheds and corresponding HUC units are shown in Figure 3.1. Burys Creek is included in these priority areas because it is in the same HUC unit as Lynn Creek. Priority subwatersheds are generally located downstream from Paulen Road.
ELEMENT 3 PAGE 42
Water quality standards that must be met at Paulen Road reflect sources upstream in the watershed. Water quality characteristics of the Wakarusa River at Paulen Road (downstream from HUC 102701040104, see Figure 1.1) would indicate impairment from elevated phosphorus concentrations when compared to Mill Creek, one of the most pristine streams in the State. Results of sampling in the watershed would indicate bacteria issues in some streams upstream from Paulen Road.
The focus in the coming five years will be on improving water quality in Clinton Lake. Efforts in this regard will address load reductions in the Wakarusa River and Tributaries that flow into the Wakarusa River or Clinton Lake at or below the mouth of Lynn Creek, which is downstream from Paulen Road. An evaluation of progress in Clinton Lake after five years will determine if efforts should begin to address water quality improvements at and above Paulen Road. Efforts outside the WRAPS program that address water quality at Paulen Road within the next five years will not be discouraged unless it purposefully detracts from Clinton Lake.
Silver Lake Kiro Grantville Willard P erry Maple Hill Williamstown
Lecompton Tecumseh Top ek a
Big Springs
Kanwaka Stull 102701040108 Lawrence Pauline Dover
Keene Forbes FieldB erry ton
102701040103 Clinton 1027010401 06 Auburn 102701040104
Wa ka rus a 102701040101 102701040102
102701040105 102701040107
Ca rb on da le
Legend Harveyville Overbrook Scranton Upper Wakarusa Project Area HUC 12 Delineations Burlingam e M ajo r Reservoirs
County Boundary Cit ies an d Towns
Deer Creek M ich ig an Vall ey Rock Creek Elk Creek Vassar Camp Creek Admire Osage City Lynn/Burys CreekMiller Lyndon Pom ona
Figure 3.1. Priority subwatersheds in the Upper Wakarusa watershed.
ELEMENT 3 PAGE 43
DESCRIPTION OF NON POINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES Specific land and stormwater management practices have been selected as the most practical and effective measures to reduce nutrients, sediment, and bacteria in Clinton Lake and the Wakarusa River. Most of the selected practices have been available in the watershed for some time. Conservation Districts and NRCS are advocates of these measures and have been soliciting landowner participation. In many cases a combination of practices will be implemented at a given project site. WRAPS is committed to management practices that will include other funding sources and technical assistance primarily from Conservation Districts, NRCS/FSA, and K‐State Extension. The selected practices address nutrient, sediment and bacteria load reductions for livestock operations, croplands, and stream instability. Most of the practices are also adapted to suburban land where large animals and rural land uses are applied at a smaller scale. Landowners will be encouraged to select and install conservation projects that would be most effective on their land from the 11 described land and stormwater management practices.
LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT MEASURES Practice 1. Livestock management ‐ Alternative feeding and watering. Establish alternative feeding and watering site away from the stream. Relocate feed bunks, hay feeding, and minerals away from the stream. Construct alternative shading and cover away from the stream. Water pumps and frost‐free lines will move water to the site from the source using public power or solar energy. Planting stream corridors with less palatable cover will discourage livestock from grazing near streams. Install fencing to improve grazing efficiency and limit stream access in some situations.
Practice 2. Livestock management ‐ Native vegetation buffer. Improved native vegetation buffer between livestock feeding site and the stream bank. Seed a buffer strip of native grasses and plant native vegetative cover to establish a sustainable and ecologically functional filter strip along the stream. Use controlled burns and manual removal methods to control invasive species and strengthen a sustainable cover. It is assumed the establishment of a prairie setting or a woodland setting would have similar load reduction results.
Practice 3. Livestock management – Pasture fencing to minimize stock access to streams. Fencing and associated materials are installed to control livestock movement to and from forage and water that prevents access to streams and stream banks or limits the time animals are in contact with streams and stream banks.
Practice 4. Livestock management ‐ Gravel low water stock crossings. Gravel with permeable fabric underlayment will be used to establish a stable hard surface stream crossing. Gravel will be coarse aggregate that will stay in place and provide an uncomfortable but safe surface that livestock will cross but be reluctant to linger in the stream. Surrounding riparian vegetation will be less palatable than the adjacent pasture grasses.
ELEMENT 3 PAGE 44
CROPLAND CONSERVATION MEASURES Practice 5. Cropland conservation ‐ Native vegetation buffer strip. Seed native grasses and plant native vegetation along the stream corridor to filter out solids and capture nutrients. Vegetative mass detains excess runoff and removes nutrients in trapped sediments and taken up in biomass and transformed in biological processes. Vegetative vigor and control of invasive species is achieved through manual removal and controlled burns.
Practice 6. Cropland conservation ‐ No‐till cropping methods. Maintain vegetative cover and soil profile integrity without turning the soil. Minimal disturbance of the soil profile for planting and harvesting enhances infiltration and plant root development retaining excess storm runoff. Undisturbed land surface and prominent vegetative cover prevent soil erosion and washoff of phosphorus and sediment to the stream. Soil testing can be provided with improved nutrient management.
Practice 7. Cropland conservation ‐ Contour terraces with tile outlets. Construct terraces to limit washoff of stormwater and route excess runoff to pipe outlets then downgradient to the waterway. Prevents overland erosion and formation of gulleys decreasing transport of phosphorus and sediment to the stream.
Practice 8. Cropland conservation ‐ Replace grass waterway with tile outlet in existing terraced cropland and repair erosional gulley in waterway. Prevents formation of deep gulleys in the waterways and minimizes the maintenance requirements of a waterway. This practice must be used in conjunction with Practice 9.
Practice 9. Cropland conservation ‐ Wetland retention structure at outfall to terrace tile outlets, or at location of concentrated outflow from a non‐terraced field. Install a stable runoff retention feature at the outfall of tile outlets or point of concentrated outflow before it enters the stream that stores the 2‐year, 24‐hour storm event and allows it to dissipate not as decreased runoff but through infiltration and evapotranspiration. It will be established as an ecologically functional riparian wetland feature using native vegetative species that thrive and enhance the health of the stream corridor. Native landscapes within these features are adaptable to either prairie or woodland settings through proper selection of plants.
STREAM STABILIZATION MEASURES Practice 10. Stream stabilization ‐ Streambed and banks stabilization. Effective stabilization of stream channels requires re‐establishing meanders and installation of grade controls such as cross veins and bendway weirs that decrease the channel gradient. Decreased gradient slows flow velocities in the channel during runoff events, which decreases the stream power that moves bed sediments. In most unstable channels, the excessive movement of bed material over time has incised the low water channel so it is no longer connected to the flood plain. Effective stabilization methods require reshaping the channel to create a new floodplain bench at an elevation that allows larger runoff events to spread into
ELEMENT 3 PAGE 45
the floodplain and moderate flow velocities. Reseeding and planting native vegetation on stream banks and floodplains completes the stabilization practice.
Practice 11. Stream stabilization ‐ Restoration. In stream restoration practices the channel shaping and establishment of vegetation may be much more specific in speciation and distribution to ensure that the resulting habitat is ecologically similar to a native system. Load reductions may not be enhanced over a stabilization practice but it is expected that the result will be a more valuable habitat amenity. Costs may be substantial in these projects. LAND USE ASSESSMENT Land use assessments have been conducted in Deer Creek, Lynn Creek, Burys (Berry’s) Creek (Neel, February 2010) and Rock Creek (GISSAL et al, April and October 2010). Other land use assessments are planned for Rock Creek, Elk Creek, and Camp Creek. The land use assessment identifies sites adjacent to streams that may be potential sources of the target contaminants. Specific items that are identified are typically associated with cropland or pasture management such as: • Winter feeding sites in or very near streams and waterways • Ephemeral gullies • No terraces on lands with slopes exceeding 3% • Stream reaches of more than 500 feet where crops are planted up to the stream bank • Evidence of substantial stream bank erosion Wetland features or areas that are flat and appear to retain runoff were also identified as potential areas for enhancing runoff retention.
Sites that appear to include one or more of these items are located by GIS methods. Contact lists of landowners that may be contacted regarding these sites are developed. Owners on these lists are given first opportunity to express ideas about reducing contaminant loads and first access to benefits of cost share programs. A summary of results of the land use assessment for Deer Creek, Lynn Creek, and Burys (Berry’s) Creek are given in Table 3.1. The summary in Table 3.1 shows over 500 sites where effective contaminant load reductions may be possible. Load reduction associated with effective conservation practices at each of these sites will determine the overall potential load reduction that could be achieved. Load reduction requirements to meet the TMDL for Clinton Lake will determine the number of practices of a given type that will be needed. Specific types and numbers of practices to be installed over time at these sites and others in other subwatersheds will be defined in the following section of this plan. Reports documenting the results of land use assessments are found at this website: http://www.kaws.org/completed‐assessments.
ELEMENT 3 PAGE 46
Table 3. 1. Summary of potential contaminant sources identified in land use assessments.*
Potential Sources Number of Sites Identified Total Deer Lynn Burys Rock All Creek Creek Creek Creek Sites Streambank instability 5 17 14 18 54 Animal feeding operations 23 46 28 22 119 Ephemeral gullies 77 37 16 45 175 Non terraced cropland 70 31 41 19 161 Total number of sites 175 131 99 104 509
Channel Stability Studies The Watershed Institute conducted a bank stability study of Deer Creek that included field level assessments of two Deer Creek tributaries. Both tributaries, labeled subwatersheds B and G, flow into Deer Creek within the normal pool elevation of Clinton Lake so are directly discharging into Clinton Lake. Analysis of stream bank characteristics that contribute to instability indicated these were most likely to transport the most sediment to the lake. Field assessments were conducted at selected sites within these subwatersheds. The sites were given a stability evaluation that considered bank slope, vegetation health, and soils. Three areas of particular vulnerability in subwatershed B and three in subwatershed G were found. Some potential sites were not accessible as owners were reluctant to allow field observations. Even though subwatershed D was not an area of focus, a particularly unstable site was found by observation from a road crossing. Study results are fully described in the project publication (The Water Institute, 2005).
A streambank erosion assessment of stream channels in the Upper Wakarusa watershed was conducted by the Kansas Water Office to identify reaches with the most severe instability problems. Reaches were determined by comparing aerial photos from 1991 and 2008. A total of 28 streambank erosion sites were found covering 11,217 feet of unstable streambank. The reaches identified were those that covered a reach of 1500 feet or more. Other sites with shorter reaches were not documented in the assessment. Streambank gulley erosion sites were also identified. Gulley erosion sites had substantial head cuts into adjacent croplands or pastures from the stream channel and are major sources of sediment into the stream. Assessment results are fully described in the project report (Kansas Water Office, April 2011). It is likely many stream reaches identified by this approach would include those identified by the land use assessments as unstable reaches with no stream buffer. The streambank erosion assessment is a more rigorous approach than the land use assessment and would provide more reliable results. Four sites were selected for detailed geomorphological analysis and recommendations for best management practices. One location was on Lynn Creek, one on Rock Creek and two locations were on the main stem of the Wakarusa River. Results of the
ELEMENT 3 PAGE 47
detailed geomorphological analysis are found in the project report (Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District and Kansas Water Office, August 2011).
ELEMENT 3 PAGE 48
ELEMENT 4.
ELEMENT 4. ESTIMATE OF THE AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE NEEDED, ASSOCIATED COSTS, AND/OR THE SOURCES AND AUTHORITIES THAT WILL BE RELIED UPON TO IMPLEMENT THIS PLAN.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO IMPLEMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Various technical assistance services are required to ensure best management practices are effective in reducing contaminant transport to Clinton Lake. These services are obtained through service providers that are funded by the Upper Wakarusa WRAPS allocation and others are covered by services provided by other WRAPS collaborators. The SLT Team selected a suite of best management practices that it believed would be the most effective practices for the Upper Wakarusa watershed. Technical services that are required to ensure proper implementation of these practices are listed in Table 4.1. Landowners and farm operators will be contacted in targeted areas to solicit participation in the implementation of practices. Technical service providers listed for each practice will work with owners and operators to collectively determine the type of practice that would be most appropriate for addressing identified contaminant sources at each location. Technical service providers listed would assist in the design of structural practices and land management methods. Cost share programs will be identified that would decrease the cost for the landowner as an incentive to implement recommended practices.
Table 4. 1. Technical assistance to implement BMP's
BMP Technical Assistance
County Conservation Districts SCC Technical Assistance KRC River Friendly Farms 1. Alternate feeding and watering site K‐State Watershed Specialist K‐State Extension Agents Suburban Animal Management Specialist SCC Technical Assistance KRC River Friendly Farms 2. Improved native vegetation buffer or K‐State Watershed Specialist pasture seeding WRAPS Coordination Livestock Suburban Landscape Specialist SCC Technical Assistance 3. Pasture fencing to minimize stock access KRC River Friendly Farms to stream K‐State Watershed Specialist
SCC Technical Assistance 4. Gravel low water crossing K‐State Watershed Specialist
SCC Technical Assistance 6. No‐till cropping methods NRCS Design WRAPS Coordination Cropland
ELEMENT 4 PAGE 49
Table 4. 1. Technical assistance to implement BMP's (continued)
BMP Technical Assistance
SCC Technical Assistance 7. Tile outlet terraces NRCS Design WRAPS Coordination
NRCS Design 8. Replace eroded grass waterway with tile SCC Technical Assistance outlet terrace and repair gulley WRAPS Coordination
NRCS Design 9. Wetland retention structure at terrace SCC Technical Assistance field or pasture outlet WRAPS Coordination K‐State Watershed Specialist
KAWS Engineering Contractors Wildhorse Consulting‐ Phil Balsh 10. Stream stabilization methods WRAPS Coordination 11. Stream restoration methods Stream Norman Ecological restoration Kansas State Forest Service
PROJECTED COSTS OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO IMPLEMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Many technical service providers are associated with cost share programs available to landowners. Technical assistance is part of the implementation package and is not a cost to the landowner or to WRAPS when cost share programs are involved in practice implementation. Technical services that are not associated with cost share programs are typically covered by WRAPS and the landowner. Technical service costs in Table 4.2 are the annual costs to WRAPS. Annual costs could vary from year to year depending on the mix of practices needed to address the contaminant sources identified that year. The technical services that have no costs listed are those either provided as part of the cost share or other collaborative programs outside the Upper Wakarusa WRAPS project. Associated costs for construction of BMPs are discussed in Element 6.
ELEMENT 4 PAGE 50
Table 4. 2. Projected costs of technical assistance for BMP implementation.
Annual Cost Technical Assistance Services Prior to 2015‐ 2029‐ Comments 2015 2028 2058 Cost typically covered by SCC and 1. Conservation Practice Conservation Districts; must anticipate $0 $12,000 $8,000 Technician additional resources when demo project demands double in 2015 Statewide contract; must anticipate 2. K‐State Watershed Specialist $28,000 $40,000 $30,000 additional resources when demo project demands double in 2015
3. WRAPS Coordinator $16,500 $16,500 $16,500 Portion of time; currently part of KAWS
4. NRCS Design $0 $0 $0 Typically covered by NRCS/FSA programs Technicians/Engineers 5. Kansas Rural Center (KRC) River Friendly Farm Management $1,500 $3,000 $1,500 Sustainable farming practices Consultant 6. Suburban Large Animal‐Small May be partially covered by K‐State $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 Acreage Consultant Extension 7. Suburban Landscape Specialist $0 $0 $0 Cost typically covered by K‐State Extension 8. KAWS Engineering Design Typically part of a demonstration project Contractors for Channel $0 $0 $0 cost Stabilization 9. Wildhorse Consulting (Phil Typically part of a demonstration project Balch) for Channel and Bank $0 $0 $0 cost Construction 10. Norman Ecological for Native Typically part of a demonstration project Plant Establishment and $0 $0 $0 cost Maintenance 11. Kansas State Forest Service $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 Riparian woodlands
Total Annual Cost $49,000 $74,500 $59,000
Table 4.3. Projected costs of land use assessment and synoptic surveys to target contaminant sources in the watershed.
Assessment Services Annual Cost Comments KAWS Contractors for land use $33,000 Requires remote sensing, spatial assessment and synoptic surveys analysis, and field sampling methods. Total Annual Cost $33,000
ELEMENT 4 PAGE 51
ELEMENT 5.
ELEMENT 5. AN INFORMATION AND EDUCATION COMPONENT USED TO ENHANCE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT AND ENCOURAGE THEIR EARLY AND CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN SELECTING, DESIGNING, AND IMPLEMENTING THE NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES THAT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED.
INFORMATION AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES The SLT agreed on the information and education activities that would be needed in the watershed. These activities are important in providing the residents of the watershed with a higher awareness of watershed issues. This will lead to an increase in adoption rates of the most effective BMPs. Listed in Table 3 are the activities and events, potential sponsoring organizations and projected costs needed to facilitate the implementation of information and education in the watershed.
Table 5. 1. Technical assistance and projected costs to facilitate information and education programs.
Target Technical Sponsor/Responsible Annual Purpose Activity/Event Time Frame Audience Assistance Agency Cost Continuing education seminar, 1. Watershed KACEE, Friends Conservation Districts, Varies with Science field science of the KAW, KU WRAPS, K‐state opportunity and $3,500 teachers demonstrations, education Team Extension interests other hands on experiences Workshop, hydrology concepts, 2. Raingages and Landowners, Workshop every two gage location and KU Team, State records teachers, KAWS, WRAPS years (spring 2011), $3,500 installation, data Climatologist information families one on one ongoing recording and retrieval
Workshop every two 3. Owner Workshop, field years, may combine sampling and Landowners demonstration, one KU Team KAWS, WRAPS with raingage $3,500 monitoring on one contacts workshop, one on one ongoing Conservation Seminar on District As programs change, conservation Technicians, 4. Government Conservation Districts, possibly every 3 Landowners practices NRCS cost share NRCS,WRAPS(provide years; determined by $500 and operators opportunities for conservationist programs meal) Conservation government cost and technicians, Districts and NRCS share FSA Administrator K‐State Seminar addressing Extension, large animal‐small 5. Suburban land Watershed WRAPS, K‐State Homeowners acreage Every three years $1,500 management Specialist, Extension management Horticulture concepts and skills Specialist
ELEMENT 5 PAGE 52
Table 5. 1. Technical assistance and projected costs to facilitate information and education programs. (continued)
Target Technical Sponsor/Responsible Annual Purpose Activity/Event Time Frame Audience Assistance Agency Cost
Seminar, field demo KRC, K‐State 6. Livestock Landowners of livestock and Extension, KRC, K‐State Extension, As needed, possibly $1,500 management and operators pasture Watershed WRAPS every two years management Specialist KACEE, Conservation District Watershed science Technicians, Every two years, not School age oriented interactive NRCS Conservation Districts, the same year as 7. Water festival $3,000 children displays, field conservationist NRCS,WRAPS(bus rides) Water Science experiments and technicians, Education; start 2012 KU Team, Friends of the KAW Conservation District One on one Technicians, consultation NRCS 8. Land and WRAPS, Conservation An ongoing process Landowners, regarding rural and conservationist water Districts, K‐State using call lists, call $8,000 homeowners suburban erosion and technicians, management Extension ins, and site visits and contaminant Watershed controls specialist, KU Team, WRAPS Coordinator Shawnee, Douglas and Osage County Commissions Progress reports to 9. Land and WRAPS WRAPS, Conservation Annually and as Lawrence and City and County $1,500 water policy Coordinator Districts needed Topeka City Commissions Commissions Rural Water District Board Total Cost $26,500
RESOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH INFORMATION AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES Various resources associated with information and education regarding contaminant sources and transport are needed to encourage participation in load reduction measures. These resources must be provided on a continuing basis to remain responsive to the needs for public outreach and individual citizen motivation to contribute to solutions to issues currently defined or emerging over time. These resources and costs are described in Table 5.2.
ELEMENT 5 PAGE 53
Table 5. 2. Associated costs of information and education (I&E) program activities.
Annual Activity Resources Cost
Natural Resources Inventory and Assessment for KU Team County Planning and suburban development (Shawnee $12,000 WRAPS Coordinator and Douglas Counties)
Development of website materials, brochures, mailers, KU Team $5,000 education materials WRAPS Coordinator
Sponsorships for various events and activities that may include posters, meals, beverages, venues, brochures, KAWS/WRAPS $2,000 announcements, mailings
Leadership and coordination of all resources associated WRAPS Coordinator $16,500 with outreach KAWS Total Annual Cost $35,500
EVALUATION OF INFORMATION AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES All service providers conducting information and education (I&E) activities funded through the Upper Wakarusa WRAPS will be required to include an evaluation component in their project proposals and Project Implementation Plans. The evaluation methods will vary depending on the activity. At a minimum, all I&E projects must include participant learning objectives as the basis for the overall evaluation. Depending on the scope of the project, development of a basic work plan identifying long‐term and short‐term outcomes that are expected to result from the activity may be required.
Specific evaluation methods may include (but not limited to): • Feedback forms allowing participants to provide rankings of the content, presenters, useful of information and other appropriate feedback. • Pre and post surveys to determine amount of knowledge gained, anticipated behavior changes, need of further learning and other appropriate information. • Follow up interviews (one on one contacts, phone calls, emails) with selected participants to gather more in‐depth input regarding the effectiveness of the I&E activity.
ELEMENT 5 PAGE 54
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COSTS FOR WATERSHED ASSESSMENT Assessments are essential for identifying those areas where contaminant sources are most prominent or where best management practices will be most effective in reducing contaminant transport. Land use assessments that use remote sensing based on aerial photography are used to locate potential sites with specific erosion vulnerability near or adjacent to streams. Land use assessments are focused on HUC units that have tributary streams to the Wakarusa River downstream of Paulen Road, which is a reach of the Wakarusa River that is within the flood pool of Clinton Lake. Tributaries included in these HUC units are shown on the map in Figure 6.1. Land use assessments are completed for Deer Creek, Rock Creek, and Lynn and Burys Creeks. Elk Creek and Camp Creek assessments are planned.
Kansas Alliance for Wetlands and Streams (KAWS) has retained Blue Earth and Associates and they have conducted the assessments now completed and will complete the remaining two HUCs in the next two years. Results of the assessments show sites that appear from the photos to have one or more of the following erosion vulnerabilities: steep croplands without terraces, ephemeral gullies, areas of concentrated flow at fields’ edge, reaches of streams with no natural buffer, and livestock winter feeding areas near streams. KAWS has conducted these assessments for $33,000 per HUC unit and delivers a digital data set and a report on the results. Synoptic water quality sampling surveys may be conducted at times as follow up to land use assessment to further define the relative contributions of tributaries to the overall contaminant transport. These surveys would be conducted at selected times when contaminant transport is expected to be greatest. Results would be used to target drainage areas contributing to sites where sampling results indicate contaminant transport is most prominent.
Landowner contact lists can be developed from the sites identified by land use assessment and synoptic surveys. One on one consultation with landowners will be used to confirm erosion vulnerability at the site and to discuss ideas for addressing the specific contaminant sources.
ELEMENT 5 PAGE 55
ELEMENT 6.
ELEMENT 6. SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN THIS PLAN THAT IS REASONABLY EXPEDITIOUS
Estimated unit load reductions compared to TMDL load reduction requirements will determine the number of water quality management practices to be implemented. A balance between cost limitations and time will define the timeline for this program. Land use assessments have identified the number of sites where opportunities are most likely for water quality improvement in each priority subwatershed. The number of assessment sites is an indication of the limits on the number of practices that can be expected to be implemented in a given subwatershed. A completed master plan for public land will indicate limits on the number of practices that can be expected to be implemented on Corps property.
Long‐term projections beyond the next few years are computed given an annual number of practices to be implemented. Comparing the total load reductions necessary to meet the TMDL for Clinton Lake with annual projected load reductions will define an approximate timeline required given various levels of funding. Projections were computed for load reductions to Clinton Lake that would be expected to come from the portion of the watershed below Paulen Road. Similar projections from the portion of the watershed above Paulen Road are computed for load reduction that would be expected to come from the areas more removed yet contributing to load reductions to Clinton Lake. Implementation of best management practices in areas upstream of Paulen Road would be implemented at a later time, to meet water quality goals above Paulen Road and in turn Clinton Lake. PROJECTED LOAD REDUCTIONS AND COSTS FOR PRIORITY AREAS DOWNSTREAM OF PAULEN ROAD Reducing contaminant transport into Clinton Lake from the Upper Wakarusa Watershed will require implementing best management practices that are most effective in meeting the load reduction requirements. It is reasonable to assume that focusing on subwatersheds that drain directly into Clinton Lake would result in the most timely and effective reduction in contaminant loads. Modeling results discussed in previous sections in this plan have also shown that subwatersheds adjacent to Clinton Lake contribute the most. The initial efforts in reducing contaminants to meet the TMDL requirements for phosphorous (eutrophication) and recommended sediment load reductions will be focused on subwatersheds downstream from Paulen Road. These tributaries all drain either directly into Clinton Lake of the Wakarusa River reach that is within the flood pool of the Lake (See Figure 6.1).
ELEMENT 6 PAGE 56
Silver Lake Kiro Grantville Willard P erry Maple Hill Will ia ms to wn
Lecompton Tecumseh Top ek a
Big Springs
Kanwaka Stull 102701040108 Lawrence Pauline Dover Forbes Field Keene B erry ton
102701040103 Clinton 1027010401 06 Auburn 102701040104 Wa ka rus a 102701040101 102701040102
102701040105 102701040107
Ca rb on da le
Legend Harveyville Overbrook Scranton Upper Wakarusa Project Area HUC 12 Delineations Burlingam e M ajo r Reservoirs
County Boundary Cit ies an d Towns
Deer Creek M ich ig an Vall ey Rock Creek Elk Creek Vassar Camp Creek Admire Osage City Lynn/Burys CreekMiller Lyndon Pom ona
Figure 6. 1. Priority subwatersheds downstream of Paulen Road.
Opportunity Limitations
The opportunities to reduce contaminant loads are found at sites where contaminant sources are discharging to receiving streams or directly into Clinton Lake. Land use assessment results have identified the number of sites where contaminant sources are most likely in the priority subwatersheds of Deer Creek, Rock Creek, Lynn Creek, and Burys Creek. Numbers of sites have been extrapolated for other subwatersheds that discharge into Clinton Lake or the Wakarusa River below Paulen Road where land use assessments have not yet been completed. An effort was made to be thorough in identifying contaminant sources. It should be reasonable to assume that most of the load reduction must come from these sites. Unit load reductions for typical practices from Table 2.8 are applied to the number of sites that have sources that could be reduced by each practice are shown in Table 3.1. Assessment results show a sufficient number of sites are available to reduce the phosphorous load by 98,871 lbs/yr, which is nearly sufficient to meet the priority area’s estimated share of the total load reduction requirements for phosphorous below Paulen Road of 110,383 lbs/yr. It could be argued that some sites without terraces could also be in the same fields as the gulleys making the load reduction less than shown in Table 3.1. It is also assumed that each site has a typical treated acreage associated with it that is probably less than the actual size, which would mean the load
ELEMENT 6 PAGE 57
reduction for these sites should be more than is shown in Table 3.1. How these two uncertainties balance is not known but there is a reason to be optimistic that sufficient sources are available to meet the load reduction requirements for phosphorous.
Sediment load reductions from the sites identified by the assessment would reduce total sediment load by 55,152 lbs/yr, which is about half the priority area’s share of the recommended load reduction of 97,091 lbs/yr. Therefore, other sources of sediment must be identified. Unit load reductions used in Table 6.1 assume each site has an unstable channel reach of 500 feet. The assessment sites are those stream reaches of at least 500 feet so many sites would likely have unstable channel reaches greater than 500 feet. It is not unreasonable to assume the total unstable channel reaches are sufficient to meet the priority area’s share of the load reduction requirement below Paulen Road if the instabilities were addressed. It should be noted that channel instability is also as source of phosphorous so additional load reduction is also likely for this contaminant.
Table 6. 1. Load reduction estimates or sites identified by land use assessments (Neel et al, EPA Region V model) Number of Sites Practice (s) * Identified Tota Potential Sources Number (Table 16) l No. % of All Estimated Load Reduction Potential Load Reduction
Deer Creek Lynn Creek Burys Creek Rock Creek All Creeks Sites per Site (see Table 15) All Sites TSS N P TSS tons/yr lbs/yr lbs/yr tons/yr N lbs/yr P lbs/yr Streambank instability ** 10 or 11 5 17 14 18 54 11 31.9 63.8 31.9 1,723 3,445 1,723 Animal feeding operations 1 or 3 23 46 28 22 119 23 0 0 172 0 0 20,468 Ephemeral gullies 7 and 9 77 37 16 45 175 34 71.2 171 86 12,460 29,925 15,050 Non terraced cropland 7 and 9 70 31 41 19 161 32 138 349 174 22,218 56,189 28,014 Total current assessments 175 131 99 104 509 100 36,401 89,559 65,255 Add estimate for Elk and Camp Creeks *** 262 18,752 46,137 33,616 Total current assessments and estimates 771 55,152 135,696 98,871 Standard to Meet TMDL 97,091 239,556 110,383
* Note: Practice numbers and unit loads in Table 25 were combined for some potential sources. Some non‐terraced and ephemeral gulley tracts may overlap. ** Note stream bank instability reaches assumed to be about 500 feet, many could be longer. *** Note: Estimate based on extrapolation of drainage areas.
Corps of Engineers property boundaries are defined by the inundation pattern of the standard project flood elevation. About 50 crop fields are within this boundary and located adjacent to Clinton Lake or streams flowing into the Lake. The cropland is leased to farmers for corn,
ELEMENT 6 PAGE 58
soybeans, and sorghum. Most of the fields are not steep enough to benefit from terraces and have no prominent gullies but many have concentrated flow exiting the fields that are opportunities for wetland retention. These are opportunities for load reduction not documented by the assessment.
An inventory of these fields is underway to determine where wetland retention or other conservation practices would be effective.
Typical annual unit of work A practical estimate of the number and type of projects that would be a reasonable level of effort for a year is defined as a typical annual unit of work. The effort required for an annual unit of work is defined by the current limits on funds and a selected set of conservation practices or BMPs that are considered most effective in reducing contaminant loads and most likely to be implemented by land owners. Annual allocations of funds to the WRAPS program the past several years are about $50,000 ‐ $55,000. WRAPS projects have included resources from Conservation Districts and Federal cost share programs to fund nearly every project. Project funding from the Douglas and Shawnee County Conservation Districts has been about half their annual allocation or about $30,000‐$35,000 each. Technical assistance has been provided for each project as needed from both the Conservation Districts. It is appropriate to use the WRAPS funding limitations as constraints on the number of projects. If Conservation District funds were not contributing to each project, the WRAPS share must increase. The projects and associated WRAPS costs used in the projections have assumed added funds are available from these entities. Resource limitations from these entities are also reflected in defining the annual unit of work. Federal cost share programs and associated technical assistance is also reflected in the definition of an annual unit of work as most projects have some aspect of the project that relies on federal resources. Limitations of federal programs have always been much greater than either WRAPS, or Conservation District resources and has been assumed not to be a factor in defining the annual unit of work. It should be noted that technical assistance in project design has been the most common constraint on federal contributions not construction funding. Nearly all projects rely on a combination of all three of these resources to implement. A list of practices and associated WRAPS costs that define an annual unit of work is shown in Table 6.2. The annual cost constraint of $56,000 and the selection of conservation practices are reasonable given the most recent few years of funding allocation to BMP implementation and the success in finding willing landowners. Cost share constraints from Conservation Districts of about $35,000 each is consistent with their contributions to projects in the most recent few years.
ELEMENT 6 PAGE 59
Table 6. 2. Description of an annual unit of work.
% of Total Estimated Number Number Total Estimated Total Practice WRAPS of of WRAPS Cons. Cons. Potential Sources Selected Practices Number Cost Practices Practices Cost Dist. Cost Dist. Cost Stream stabilization 1 Stream instability methods 10 or 11 2810 7.7 $2,810 Animal feeding Alternate feeding and 2 operations watering 1 1107 $2,214 $500 $1,000 or maybe fencing or 3 2879 1 $2,879 $1,200 $1,200 Total animal feeding 3 23.1 Ephemeral gullies Tile outlet terraces 7 8854 1 $8,854 $5,824 $5,824 and wetland retention 1 structure and 9 1100 $1,100
Replace grass waterway 1 Ephemeral gullies with tile outlet terrace 8 16108 $16,108 $5,824 $5,824 and wetland retention 1 structure and 9 1100 $1,100 Wetland retention 1 Ephemeral gullies structure 9 1100 $1,100 Total Ephemeral gullies 5 38.5 No terraces on steep 2 land Tile outlet terraces 7 8854 $17,708 $5,824 $11,648 and wetland retention 2 structure and 9 1100 $2,200 Total no terraces on 4 steep land 30.8 Total 13 $56,073 $25,496
Projected load reductions. Annual load reductions based on multiples of the annual unit of work were projected into the future. The number of years required to meet the load reduction requirements and estimated associated costs were computed from unit load reductions and unit costs of selected typical projects. It was further assumed that funding levels would remain about sufficient to cover on annual work unit through 2014. Table 6.3 shows the results of the projections for selected multiples of the annual unit of work at 10‐year intervals. Shaded table entries are those where the combination of annual units of work and projected years result in sufficient load reduction to meet the requirement from subwatersheds below Paulen Road to meet the TMDL for Clinton Lake. It should be understood that additional practices must be implemented in subwatersheds above Paulen Road to meet the TMDL for Clinton Lake.
The priority area’s share of the load reduction requirements below Paulen Road for phosphorous would be very nearly met in 40 years if two units of work and $112,000 in WRAPS funding are committed to BMPs each year. Three annual units of work and $168,000 in WRAPS funding each year would meet the priority area’s share of the load reduction requirements for phosphorous in 30 years. More than four annual units of work are required each year to meet the priority areas share of the phosphorous load reduction requirements in 20 years. Current levels of WRAPS funding are about the amount required for one annual unit of work. At that
ELEMENT 6 PAGE 60
level of effort about two‐thirds (66%) of the priority area’s phosphorous load requirement would be met after 50 years.
The priority area share of the sediment load reduction requirements are more difficult to meet than phosphorous. Load reduction requirements can be met in 50 years at a commitment of three annual units of work. It would require four annual units of work to meet the load reduction requirements in 40 years. It was noted above that it was likely more stream bank stabilization reaches were longer than the 500 feet assumed for the available sites listed in Table 6.1. It would be reasonable to assume a sufficient unstable stream reaches are available for substantial additional stream stabilization projects that reflected in the assessment results. The priority area share of the sediment load reduction requirements below Paulen Road could be met in 40 years at a commitment of two annual units of work plus 40 additional stream bank stabilization reaches. Each additional practice to meet sediment load reduction requirements will also result in addition phosphorous load reductions that will increase the ability to meet the TMDL for phosphorous in Clinton Lake.
Table 6. 3. Summary of longer‐term load reductions from priority subwatersheds below Paulen Road.
Nitrate Load Reduction (239,556 Annual Annual Phos. Load Reduction (110,383 lbs/yr) lbs/yr) TSS Load Reduction (97,091 tons/yr) Project Number Projected Year Projected Year Projected Year Funding Practices 2040 2050 2060 2040 2050 2060 2040 2050 2060 (30 yrs) (40 yrs) (50 yrs) (30 yrs) (40 yrs) (50 yrs) (30 yrs) (40 yrs) (50 yrs) $56,000 13 44295 58774 73253 58577 77735 96893 23114 30673 38232 $112,000 26 79044 108002 136960 104556 142872 181188 41255 56373 71491 $168,000 39 113794 157231 200668 150536 208010 265484 59397 82074 104751 $224,000 52 148543 127533 96515 273147 77538 107774 $225,000 66 * 150596 184675 99161 2030 (20 yrs) $224,000 52 90627 Note: Contaminant load reduction goals obtained from Table 25. * Note: Contaminant load reduction by projecting two work units ($112,000) plus 40 additional channel stabilization projects ($113,000).
Recommended Level of Effort to Meet Load Reduction Requirements
About $56,000 in WRAPS funds and a similar amount of Conservation District funds are needed to sustain one unit of work. It is expected this level of funds would remain for the next few years through 2014. Any opportunity for an increased level of funds for this period would shorten the projected time to meet the load reduction requirement. After 2014, it is recommended that funding be committed at a level sufficient to sustain two annual units of work for 40 years. This would be about 26 projects at $112,000 per year during this period of time. Projections indicate phosphorous load reductions could be met at this level of effort. It is
ELEMENT 6 PAGE 61
recommended that 40 stream bank stabilization projects be added to the two annual units of work at an additional $113,000 (a total of $225,000) each year for 40 years. Projections indicate the additional stream bank projects are needed to meet the sediment load reduction requirements in 40 years. It should be noted from Figure 6.2 that some of the total load reduction required for Clinton Lake must be obtained from subwatersheds upstream of Paulen Road.
340,000 lbs/yr 150,596 lbs/yr 69,404 lbs/yr 120,000 lbs/yr phosphorous phosphorous phosphorous phosphorous load into Clinton reduced by not reduced by allowable Lake BMPs BMPs
289,325 tons/yr 99,161 tons/yr 76,756 tons/yr 113,408 tons/yr sediment load sediment sediment not sediment into Clinton reduced by reduced by allowable Lake BMP’s BMP’s
Figure 6. 2. Projected load reductions expected from implementation of BMP’s downstream of Paulen Road.
PROJECTED LOAD REDUCTION AND COSTS UPSTREAM OF PAULEN ROAD Conservation practices will be needed upstream of Paulen Road to contribute additional load reductions required to meet the TMDL in Clinton Lake and at Paulen Road. Conservation practices have been described in prior sections that will be implemented in the priority subwatersheds draining into Clinton Lake or the Wakarusa River downstream of Paulen Road (see Figure 3.1. Practices in the priority subwatersheds address more than half the load reduction needed to meet the TMDL in Clinton Lake. The remaining load reduction in Clinton Lake must be addressed by implementing conservation practices in subwatersheds upstream from Paulen Road (see Figure 6.3). The load reduction requirement for phosphorous to meet the TMDL in Clinton Lake is 220,000 lbs/yr. Conservation practices implemented in the next 40 years in the priority subwatersheds are expected to address 150,596 lbs/yr and the remaining 69,404 lbs/yr must be addressed in subwatersheds upstream of Paulen Road. Load reduction requirements for sediment to meet the TMDL in Clinton Lake is 175,917 tons/yr. Conservation practices in the priority subwatersheds in the next 40 years are expected to address 99,161 tons/yr and the remaining 76,756 tons/yr must be addressed in subwatersheds upstream of Paulen Road.
ELEMENT 6 PAGE 62
Figure 6.3. Subwatershed areas in the Upper Wakarusa watershed upstream of Paulen Road.
A strategy is described that will meet these requirements. The number and type of conservation practices that will be implemented upstream of Paulen Road will be determined using conservation practice needs surveys for the area as a guide. Unit load reduction for typical conservation practices have been computed by KDHE using the EPA Region V method. Projections will be made to determine the estimated cost and number of years required to meet the TMDL for Clinton Lake given a reasonable number of practices to be implemented each year.
Conservation Practices Needs Survey
In 2005, the Kansas Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) Work Group conducted a statewide survey of non‐point source treatment (BMP) needs. The last comprehensive survey of this type was the 1992 Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) thus the data needed to be updated. The purpose of this project was to provide baseline data for WRAPS projects, as they assess their non‐point pollution sources, and associated BMP needs.
ELEMENT 6 PAGE 63
For the Upper Wakarusa WRAPS project, the HUC 12 watersheds upstream of Paulen Road (Figure 6.3) had not had aerial assessments completed and therefore were in need of some method of needs assessment prior to the development of a BMP implementation schedule. KDHE gathered the county data collected through the 2005 non‐point source treatment needs survey for Shawnee and Osage counties (Wabaunsee County did not complete the survey) and then calculated the amount of the watershed/project area that lies within the county boundary. Tables containing the amount of cropland acreage needing nutrient management plans, terrace restoration, permanent vegetation, grassed waterways, etc. were developed (Tables D1 in appendix D). Additional tables were developed containing information regarding the amount of non‐confined livestock operations, pastureland, and rangeland needing BMP treatment (Table D2, Appendix D). The amount of need that was identified during this survey was considered when developing the following BMP implementation schedule for the watersheds upstream of Paulen Rd.
The treatment needs categories were matched with the appropriate typical projects from Table 2.8. The number of projects associated with the acres needing treatment were determined by dividing the affected acres by the total acres needing treatment. An estimate of the total number of each category of project required to meet the load reduction requirements was made by multiplying the unit load reduction by the number of projects (see Table D4 in Appendix D). The estimates show that load reduction requirements that must be met upstream of Paulen Road of 69,404 lbs/yr of phosphorous can be obtained from the potential sources defined by the need survey. However, the sediment load reduction requirements that must be met upstream of Paulen Road of 76,756 tons/yr cannot be obtained from the potential sources defined by the need survey. However, the need survey did not address channel instability reaches as a need. Other assessments conducted by Neel and others would indicate that channel instability is occurring and projects of this type must be included.
The fraction of the total projects needed for each practice were used to define an annual unit of work that was balanced according to the needs survey and was reasonably comparable to the annual funding allocation for projects (Table D4, Appendix D). Conservation needs surveys are reflected in the annual unit of work defined in Table 6.4 which indicates that 48% of the treatment needs are associated with pasture and rangeland improvements. Another 25% is a need to address erosion issues requiring terraces and associated practices. Livestock management to limit their access to streams and waterways was much less at 5%. Stream instability was not included in the needs survey even though others have indicated this is a source (Baker, 2003). In response to the survey results, the annual unit of work includes a substantial number of pasture or rangeland reseeding and improvement type projects. Wetland retention is also significant and associated with terrace projects to more thoroughly address contaminant transport from terraced lands. This WRAPS strategy is reluctant to support grass waterways because of the erosion and other instabilities experienced with these structures in the past. WRAPS supports projects that combine tile outlet terraces with wetland retention to address those areas needing terraces. Therefore, wetland retention is a significant portion of the annual unit of work than is reflected in the surveys. Unit costs for each typical project from Table 2.8 were used to determine the cost of the annual unit of work. An effort was made to
ELEMENT 6 PAGE 64
define the annual unit of work to be consistent with the past funding allocation as a way to define a reasonable unit of effort both for the WRAPS program and for the Conservation Districts whose participation is essential to success. Multiples of the units of work were used in the projections.
Table 6. 4. Description of an annual unit of work upstream of Paulen Road.
% of Total Total Estimated Number Total Estimated Practice Number Cons. Potential Sources Selected Practices WRAPS of WRAPS Cons. Dist. Number of Dist. Cost Practices Cost Cost Practices Cost Stream instability Stream stabilization 10 or 11 $2,810 0 0.0 $0 methods Concentrated Non confined Alternate feeding and 1 $1,107 1 4.8 $1,107 $500 $500 Livestock Operations watering or maybe fencing or 3 $2,879 0.0 $0 $1,200 $0 Acres of Pasture Needing Improved native 2 $423 10 47.6 $4,230 Treatment (or Rangeland) vegetation buffer or pasture seeding Acres Needing Conversion to Native vegetation buffer 5 $423 1 6.3 $423 Permanent Vegetation (steep slope)
Acres Needing New terraces Tile outlet terraces 7 $8,854 2 12.5 $17,708 $5,824 $11,648 and wetland retention and 9 $1,100 2 12.5 $2,200 structure Acres Needing Terrace Tile outlet terraces 7 $8,854 1 6.3 $8,854 Restoration and wetland retention and 9 $1,100 1 6.3 $1,100 structure Acres of Waterway Replace grass waterway 8 $16,108 1 6.3 $16,108 $5,824 $5,824 Restoration with tile outlet terrace and wetland retention and 9 $1,100 1 6.3 $1,100 structure Acres Needing Water and Wetland retention 9 $1,100 1 6.3 $1,100 Sediment Control Basin structure Total 21 $53,930 $17,972
PROJECTED LOAD REDUCTIONS FROM CONSERVATION PRACTICES UPSTREAM OF PAULEN ROAD A timeline for starting the implementation of conservation projects upstream from Paulen Road would follow by twenty years those currently underway downstream from Paulen Road. Projections shown in Table 6.5 reflect that load reductions would be sufficient after 30 years to meet the TMDL for Clinton Lake when combined with the 40 years of project implementation downstream from Paulen Road (see Figure 6.3). Table 6.5 indicates phosphorous loads are reduced by 70,485 lbs/yr when combined with 35 channel stabilization practices which is greater than the 69,404 lbs/yr shown in Figure 6.2 as needed to meet the TMDL for phosphorous (eutrophication standard). This option is not sufficient to meet the sediment reduction requirement. Projection computation summaries are provided in Appendix D.
ELEMENT 6 PAGE 65
Sediment load reduction upstream from Paulen Road must be greater than 76,756 tons/yr shown in Figure 6.2 to meet the recommended sediment load reductions in Clinton Lake. Compared to the opportunities for BMPs in this area of the watershed this load reduction is very challenging. Two options are shown that would result in substantial sediment reduction. One is one annual work unit and 45 channel stability projects see shading in Table 6.5, which is an uncomfortable number of channel projects. A channel stability project represents 500 feet of channel in the projections. Over thirty years this would be just less than 130 miles of channel projects. The best estimate of channel length in this area from Table 2.4 is 445 miles. A commitment to this option must result in channel stabilization of nearly 30% of all channel length, which is not likely to be achievable or is there likely to be sufficient impaired reaches to meet this expectation. The other option is two annual work units and 30 channel stability projects (shaded in Table 6.5). This option would require a challenging number of pasture or rangeland improvement projects. The conservation needs survey shows just less than 30,000 acres needing treatment. Twenty such projects each year, which are projected as 40 acres each, over 30 years is about 24,000 acres treated or about 80% of the total needing treatment. Even though challenging, it addresses a more certain number of contaminant sources, is projected to meet the recommended load reduction needed upstream of Paulen Road.
Table 6. 5. Projected long‐term load reductions upstream of Paulen Road.
Annual Units Annual Annual Phos. Load Nitrate Load TSS Load Reduction Cost of Number of Number of Reduction in lbs/yr Reduction in in tons/yr after 30 Work Conservation Channel after 30 years lbs/yr after 30 years Practices Practices years (goal 53,128 lbs/yr) (goal 64,405 lbs/yr) $53,590 1 21 0 36,990 63,540 25,230 $124,180 1 21 25 60,915 111,390 49,155 $152,280 1 21 35 70,485 130,530 58,725 $180,380 1 21 45 80,055 149,670 68,295 $192,160 2 42 25 97,905 151,005 74,385 $192,160 2 42 30 100,800 151,380 76,380
A TMDL addressing excessive bacteria on the Wakarusa River above Clinton Lake was developed and approved in January 2000. At the time, the bacteria indicator was fecal coliform bacteria and the desired endpoint was 900 colonies per 100 ml during the primary recreation season of April through October. During the off‐season between November and March, the criterion rose to 2000 colonies per 100 ml.
In 2003, the water quality standards for bacteria and recreation were changed. E coli bacteria became the indicator, the Wakarusa River was designated for Primary “B” recreation, and thus, the criterion was changed to 262 colonies per 100 ml for April through October and 2358 colonies per 100 ml during the winter. The criterion is assessed as a geometric mean of five samples taken within a 30‐day period.
ELEMENT 6 PAGE 66
Historic Bacteria Levels on Upper Wakarusa River
100000
10000
1000
100
10 Bacteria Counts in MPN/100 ml 1 2/1 8/1/822/1/838/1/832/1/848 2/1 8/1 2/1/868/1/862/1/878/1/872 8/1 2/1 8/1/892/1/908/1/902 8 2/1 8/1/ 2/1/938/1/932/1/948 2/ 8/1 2/1/ 8/1/962/1/978/1/972 8/1 2/1 8/1/992/1/008/1/002/1/018 2/1 8/1 2/1/038/1/032/1/048 2 8/1 2/1 8/1/062/1/078/1/072 8 2/1 8/1/ 2/1/108/1/10 /1/84 /1/88 /1/91/1/91 /1/941/95 /1/98 /1/01 /1/04/1/05 /1/08/1/08 /82 /85 /8 /88 /8 /92 9 /95 9 /98 /9 /02 /0 /05 /0 /09 0 5 9 2 6 9 2 6 9
Date
Historic FCB Current ECB FCB Endpoint ECB Endpoint
The above chart indicates bacteria levels seem to be in better compliance with water quality standards since 2003. Some of this may reflect the changes in the standard as well as ongoing water quality improvement efforts in Douglas and Shawnee counties.
In 2010, the upper Wakarusa River was sampled intensively in the manner prescribed by the water quality standards. On four occasions of differing weather and flow conditions, the river was sampled five (once six times) times within a 3‐4 week period. The geometric mean of the samples was computed for each sampling occasion and the river never exceeded the primary recreation season criteria, indicating compliance with the water quality standards. Individual samples may have exceeded the nominal value of the criterion (262 counts), but the water quality standards now discount the weight of any individual sample and looks for persistently high bacteria levels. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY TO MEET LOAD REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR CLINTON LAKE As noted previously, conservation projects must be implemented both downstream and upstream of Paulen Road to achieve the load reductions required to meet the eutrophication TMDL (phosphorous) and the recommended sediment load reductions for Clinton Lake. The initial few years through 2014 would continue at about the current level of effort. After 2014, the plan includes a 40‐year commitment to project implementation downstream from Pauline Road ending in 2058. An additional commitment to project implementation upstream of Paulen Road will be delayed twenty years and continue for 30 years. The 40‐year plan downstream of Paulen Road would be a commitment to two annual work units as described in Table 6.2 and 40 channel stability practices for 40 years. The plan upstream of Paulen Road would be a commitment to two annual work units as described in Table 6.4 and 6.5 channel stability practices for 30 years ending in 2058. A chart in Figure 6.4 (16) shows the combined load reductions highlighted in Table 6.3 and Table 6.5 over a 50‐year time frame will meet the required load reductions in Clinton Lake. Implementation of conservation practices in the
ELEMENT 6 PAGE 67
priority areas downstream of Paulen Road begin immediately. The focus on implementation of conservation practices upstream of Paulen Road would begin in 20 years.
40 year implementation period Priority Area Downstream of Paulen Rd 30 year implementation period Upstream of Paulen Rd next 14 years another 20 years last 10 years Implementation year 2009 2014 2028 2048 2058 Number of annual work units 1 1 1 1 1 1 2/yr 2/yr Number of typical practices 1013131313 13 26/yr 26/yr Number of channel stabilization practices 40 40 WRAPS Projected Annual Cost $56,000 $225,000 $225,000 Evaluation of strategy X Projected phosphorous load reduction in Clinton Lake from area downstream of 150,596 Paulen Rd. Projected sediment load reduction in Clinton Lake from area downstream of 99,161 Paulen Rd. Number of annual work units 22 Number of typical practices 42 42 Number of channel stabilization practices 30 30 WRAPS projected annual cost $192,160 $192,160 Projected phosphorous load reduction in 100,800 Clinton Lake from upstream of Paulen Rd Projected sediment load reduction in 76,830 Clinton Lake from upstream of Paulen Rd Total projected phosphorous load 251,396 reduction in Clinton Lake ** Total projected sediment load reduction in 175,991 Clinton Lake ** Total WRAPS annual cost * * * * * $56,000 $225,000 $417,160 $192,160
X An evaluation of progress will be conducted prior to initiating project implementation above Paulen Road. * Projects in 2009 were fewer in number and some more expensive than anticipated for future projections. * Projections through 2014 are for one annual work unit below Paulen Rd. which is approximately consistent with current funding. ** Total load reductions required to meet the TMDL in Clinton Lake are 220,000 lbs/yr phosphorous and 175,917 tons/yr sediment.
Figure 6.4. Project implementation timeline for 2 work units, 40 channel stabilization projects downstream, and 30 channel stabilization projects upstream of Paulen Road.
ELEMENT 6 PAGE 68
Combined load reductions for priority subwatersheds downstream of Paulen Road and subwatersheds upstream of Paulen Road will be greater than is required to meet the load reductions at Clinton Lake. Figure 6.5 shows the phosphorous load into Clinton Lake after 50 years to be 134,924 lbs/yr, which is less than the allowable amount of 140,000 lbs/yr. Figure 6.5 also shows the sediment load into Clinton Lake after 50 years to be 110,398 tons/yr after 50 years, which is less than the recommended amount of 113,408 tons/yr.
150,596 lbs/yr 88,604 lbs/yr 340,000 lbs/yr 100,800 lbs/yr phosphorous phosphorous load phosphorous phosphorous reduced by remaining WHICH load into Clinton reduced by BMP’s Lake BMP’s below IS LESS THAN above Paulen Rd Paulen Rd 120,000 lbs/yr allowed
99,161 tons/yr 76,830 tons/yr 113,334 tons/yr 289,325 tons/yr sediment sediment sediment load sediment load reduced by reduced by remaining WHICH into Clinton Lake BMP’s below BMP’s above IS LESS THAN Paulen Rd Paulen Rd 113,408 tons/yr allowed
Figure 6.5. Projected load reductions in Clinton Lake after 50 years of BMP implementation.
If the above load reductions are achieved the High Priority TMDLs for upstream of Paulen Road be met, as will the water quality goals for Clinton Lake. The TMDLs to be achieved upstream of Paulen Road include Biology‐Sediment, Dissolved Oxygen, and Fecal Coliform Bacteria. For Clinton Lake, a High Priority Eutrophication TMDL will be achieved as well as the Upper Wakarusa River WRAPS SLT sediment reduction goal.
A sense of the amount of reduction that must be achieved in each of the subwatersheds in the Upper Wakarusa Nine Element Plan is shown in Table 6.6. The distribution estimate is achieved by multiplying the total load reductions achieved by the 9 Element Plan at Clinton Lake by the fraction of the drainage area contributing to the total watershed. This approach is useful for long range planning purposes. It should be cautioned that the sources of contaminant and willing landowners and thus the opportunities for implementing BMPs in these areas may not be equally distributed throughout the watershed. Adjustments in expectations will be made for each subwatershed as the plan progresses but not relenting on the overall load reduction requirements for the entire watershed.
ELEMENT 6 PAGE 69
Additionally, in order to achieve the load reduction requirements, it is expected that the Upper Wakarusa River WRAPS project will rely not only on WRAPS funds but also the funding of partner organizations such as the Dept. of Agriculture’s Division of Conservation (DOC), the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the US Army Corps of Engineers USACE), the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and even KDHE’s State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF). These partner organizations have cost share programs that could potentially fund many of the needed BMPs in this plan. The Upper Wakarusa River WRAPS project will have to create strong partnerships and be very persuasive in order to leverage these additional funding sources and direct additional funds to complete its own BMP work schedule.
IMPROVED LAND MANAGEMENT ON CROPLANDS Significant improvements in contaminant load reductions have been shown from croplands that have been converted from minimum tillage to continuous no till practices. Detecting the cropland that is currently under various tillage practices is not achievable by the remote sensing methods used in the contaminant source assessments such as those in Deer and Rock Creek drainage. Computed estimates of the unit load reductions that may be achieved by converting minimum to no tillage can be significant. Most farmers now claim they are using minimum till practices but few actually use continuous no till methods. Confirmation of these claims is not available but estimates of cropland acres are available. The strategy for meeting the load reduction goals in this Plan relies on other practices that are reliable such as stream stabilization, which is a more acceptable practice for landowners, that addresses land damaged by channel changes. However, a sufficient number of stream stability project reaches to meet load reductions is somewhat uncertain and this uncertainty could be balanced by the knowledge that conversion of cropland acres to no till are not included in the Plan as landowners acceptance of continuous no till practices has not been widespread. This Plan will use conversion of minimum till acres to continuous no till practice as a contingency if insufficient stream stabilization projects are implemented. Increased acceptance of continuous no till practices with time would also accelerate the timeline for the Plan.
Table 6.7 shows estimated unit load reductions and cropland acres for each of the HUC units in the watershed. Also shown are the estimated potential load reductions that could be achieved assuming that all the croplands were currently in minimum till and were converted to continuous no till. Past experiences have indicated that farmers are reluctant to use no till practices, which require that no cultivation steps are used at anytime. Minimum tillage practices are reasonably well represented as the only method that meets the required residue management for cost share and subsidy payments. It would be unlikely that all cropland could be converted to no till but some effort to convert some land from minimum till to no till should be a reasonable expectation.
ELEMENT 6 PAGE 70
Table 6. 7. Load reductions from improved tillage practices.
Lynn‐ Above Deer Rock Camp Total Below Elk Creek Burys Paulen Creek Creek Creek Paulen Rd Tributary Drainage Unit Load Creek Rd Reductions HUC 12: 10270104010 8 7 6 5 4 4 thru 8 1,2, & 3 Cropland Acres 4242 5912 2090 7105 5154 24503 14493 CRP 567 650 121 508 952 2798 3190 Acres Cropped 3675 5262 1969 6597 4202 21705 11303
Load Reductions Conventional to Minimum Till Nitrogen lbs/ac 1.5 5512.5 7893 2953.5 9895.5 6303 32557.5 16954.5 Phosphorous lbs/ac 0.76 2793 3999.12 1496.44 5013.72 3193.52 16495.8 8590.28 TSS tons/ac 0.71 2609.25 3736.02 1397.99 4683.87 2983.42 15410.55 8025.13
Minimum to No Till Nitrogen lbs/ac 3.53 12972.75 18574.86 6950.57 23287.41 14833.06 76618.65 39899.59 Phosphorous lbs/ac 1.64 6027 8629.68 3229.16 10819.08 6891.28 35596.2 18536.92 TSS tons/ac 1.42 5218.5 7472.04 2795.98 9367.74 5966.84 30821.1 16050.26
Conventional to No Till Nitrogen lbs/ac 5.53 20322.75 29098.86 10888.57 36481.41 23237.06 120028.65 62505.59 Phosphorous lbs/ac 2.65 9738.75 13944.3 5217.85 17482.05 11135.3 57518.25 29952.95 TSS tons/ac 2.33 8562.75 12260.46 4587.77 15371.01 9790.66 50572.65 26335.99
Examples of the scope of load reduction that would result from various levels of minimum to no till conversions are listed below. It should be noted for comparison that about 43,000 lbs/yr of phosphorous load reduction is included in the Plan from stream stabilization below Paulen Road. Compared to practices in table 2.8 no till on a typical project of 30‐40 acres is more than twice the phosphorous load reduction of the typical 500‐foot stream bank stabilization project (71 lbs/yr vs 31 lbs/yr). The difference in no till load reduction in Table 2.8 (71 lbs/yr) and Table 6.7 (1.64 lbs/ac/yr times 40 acres or 65.6 lbs/yr) reflects some minor adjustments in modeling assumptions in scaling up from a unit load to a typical project size of 40 acres.
1. Load reduction resulting from conversion of 10‐15% of croplands (see acres cropped in Table 6.7) below Paulen Road from minimum till to no till could be 3,600‐5,300 lbs/yr of phosphorous and 3,100‐4,600 tons/yr sediment below Paulen Road. An additional load reduction of 1,900‐2,800 lbs/yr of phosphorous and 1,600 – 2,400 tons/yr sediment could be obtained from above Paulen Road. Load reductions of this magnitude represent the conversion of about 2,000‐3,000 acres to no till each year, which would require a substantial increase in acceptance of this practice by landowners. Estimates are derived from data in Table 6.7.
ELEMENT 6 PAGE 71
2. Half of the load reduction from the yearly stream stabilization projections in the plan achieved by conversion of minimum till to no till practices would require conversion of about 390 acres per year of minimum till to no till. Over the 34 years of the Plan below Paulen Road this would represent 13,260 acres of converted cropland. This would require a massive change in farming philosophy over this generational time frame.
3. An arbitrary but possibly reasonable conversion of 160 acres from minimum till to no till would result in about 260 lbs/yr reduction in phosphorous load. This is about 20% of the load reduction from the yearly stream stabilization projections in the Plan. Over the 34 years of the Plan below Paulen Road this would represent about 5,440 acres of converted cropland. Continued promotion of continuous no till concepts and some early successes may accelerate the conversions to no till.
Technical assistance and education programs required to achieve significant conversion to no till have not been made available. Past efforts to provide such assistance have generated some interest but few conversions. Significant one‐on‐one consultation and group dynamics are necessary to move this concept to more than experimentation. This level of effort has not been a commitment to date. ANNUAL PROJECTIONS OF LOAD REDUCTION AND COSTS Projections of load reductions required to meet TMDL standards and recommended sediment loads for Clinton Lake were the focus of the previous sections of the Plan. Yearly tabulations of the projected load reductions and construction costs of BMPs over the 50 year planning period are given in Appendix C. Also in Appendix C are yearly tabulations of technical assistance for BMP implementation, information and education programs, and associated costs (construction) for BMP implementation. The tabulations reflect a projected overall cost of the Plan at about $27 million over the 50‐year planning period.
ELEMENT 6 PAGE 72
Table 6. 6. Load reduction estimates for each tributary based on projected load reductions upstream and downstream of Paulen Road.
HUC Watershed Subarea Drainage Fraction Projected Contaminant Load Reduction Area of Total Timeline: 2028 Timeline: 2048 Timeline 2058 sq mi TSS P TSS P TSS P tons/yr lbs/yr tons/yr lbs/yr tons/yr lbs/yr 1027010401 08 Rock Creek 50 0.137 10744 16627 24545 37276 07 Deer Creek 54 0.148 11603 17957 26508 40258 06 Elk Creek 26 0.071 5587 8646 12763 19384 05 Camp Creek 43 0.117 9240 14299 21109 32058 04 Lynn Creek 29 0.079 6231 9644 14236 21620 Subtotal Wakarusa below Paulen Road 202 0.552 43405 67172 99161 150596 04 Burys (Berry's) Creek 25 0.068 7808 10245 11712 15366 03 Sixmile Creek 50 0.137 15616 20491 23424 30732 02 North Branch Wakarusa R. 38 0.104 11868 15573 17802 23356 01 So. and Mid. Br. Wakarusa R. 51 0.139 15928 20900 23892 31346 Subtotal Wakarusa above Paulen Road 164 0.448 51220 67209 76830 100800 Total watershed At Clinton Lake 366 1 43405 67172 150381 217805 175991 251396 Sediment and phosphorous reduction requirement 175,917 220,000
ELEMENT 6 PAGE 73
ELEMENT 7.
ELEMENT 7. A DESCRIPTION OF INTERIM MEASURABLE MILESTONES FOR DETERMINING WHETHER NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES OR OTHER CONTROL ACTIONS ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED. Stormwater management practices have been selected and describe in Element 3 that are expected to lead to reductions in target contaminants. Improvements in water quality should be measurable over time if these measures are successful in reducing contaminant loads. These expectations are defined by various water quality milestones that have been set for the Upper Wakarusa watershed. Some indicators of water quality improvement will also be used to determine the success of the selected management practices. WATER QUALITY MILESTONES TO DETERMINE IMPROVEMENTS The goal of the Upper Wakarusa WRAPS plan is to restore water quality for uses supportive of aquatic life, domestic water supply, and recreation for Wakarusa River and Clinton Lake Reservoir. The plan specifically addresses the high priority eutrophication TMDL for Clinton Lake and the high priority bacteria TMDL for the Upper Wakarusa River Watershed. The restoration plan includes separate BMP implementation schedules for the two water bodies. In order to reach the sediment and phosphorus reduction goals for Clinton Lake, a BMP implementation schedule spanning 50 years has been developed. For the Wakarusa River, a 30‐ year BMP implementation schedule has been developed in order to meet the water quality standard for bacteria, which will begin to be implemented 20 years into the plan.
Separate water quality milestones have been developed for both Clinton Lake and the Wakarusa River, along with additional indicators of water quality. The purpose of the milestones and indicators is to measure water quality improvements associated with the BMP implementation schedules contained in this plan. In addition to the water quality measures derived from the sampling data, the lake sedimentation rate will also be utilized to determine the effectiveness of the BMPs being implemented as part of this plan.
The estimated sedimentation rates and future desired rate to meet the 100‐year design life for sediment storage in Clinton Lake have been utilized in previous sections of this plan in order to calculate sediment load reduction goals. WATER QUALITY MILESTONES FOR UPPER WAKARUSA RIVER As previously stated, this plan estimates that it will take 30 years to implement the planned BMPs necessary to meet the load reduction goals for the impairments being addressed in the Upper Wakarusa watershed. Table 7.1 includes 10‐year and long term water quality goals for total phosphorus and percent Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT) for the Upper Wakarusa River.
ELEMENT 7 PAGE 74
Table 7. 1. Water quality milestones for the Upper Wakarusa River
Water Quality Milestones for Upper Wakarusa River
Current Current 10‐Year Long Term 10‐Year Goal* Long Term Goal Condition Condition Goal* Goal (2001 ‐ Improved Improved (2000 ‐ Improved Total Total Improved 2010) Condition Condition 2009) Condition Reduction Reduction Condition Median Median Median *% EPT > **% EPT > Needed Needed *% EPT > 50 TP TP TP 50 50 Sampling Total Phosphorus (median of data collected **Percent of Samples % EPT > 50 (data Site during indicated period), ppb collected during indicated period) Wakarusa At least 50% of River Near samples % EPT Topeka 107 100 7 80 27 37 42 > 50 and no SC109 & sample with SB109 % EPT < 30
*The 10‐year goal shown in the table represents the water quality goals to be attained 10 years into the BMP implementation schedule for the Upper Wakarusa River, which will begin to be implemented 20 years into the plan.
The percent EPT is the percent of aquatic taxa present within a stream belonging to pollution intolerant orders – Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies). Higher percentages of total taxa comprising these three groups indicate less pollutant stress and better water quality.
In addition to the water quality milestones listed in the table above, concurrent biological sampling in Upper Wakarusa River should show adequate macroinvertebrate index scores over the same time period. The Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI) is a biological monitoring metric that can be used to assess compliance with water quality standards.
The MBI values can be used to determine the extent to which the monitored water body can support aquatic life, as follows:
MBI ≤ 4.5 → fully supporting 4.5 < MBI < 5.4 → partially supporting MBI ≥ 5.4 → non‐supporting
Based on the biological data collected and sampled from 1990 to 2009, the historical MBI values average 4.37. Of the samples taken during the referenced period of record, 67% had MBI values below 4.5. The goal for the Upper Wakarusa is for 67% or more of the MBI values to be less than 4.5, and for no samples to be greater than 5.
ELEMENT 7 PAGE 75
WATER QUALITY MILESTONES FOR BACTERIA – UPPER WAKARUSA RIVER
As noted previously, this plan is addressing the high priority bacteria TMDL for the Upper Wakarusa River Watershed. The water quality goal associated with the bacteria impairment can be tied to the E. Coli Bacteria (ECB) Index values. ECB index values for individual samples are computed as the ratio of the sample count to the contact recreation criterion. The calculated index is the natural logarithm of each sample value taken during the primary recreation season (April through October), divided by the natural logarithm of the bacteria criteria. Plotting the ECB ratio against the percentile rank for each individual sample, within the data set for each sampling location illustrates the frequency and magnitude of the bacteria impairment for the sampling location. Higher bacteria frequencies are evident when the ECB ratio is over 1 for a large percentage of samples.
The water quality milestones associated with bacteria are based on the contact recreation designation of the impaired water body, as well as the proximity and designation of the downstream water body. Contact recreation is designated as either primary or secondary. Primary contact recreation designation is assigned to water bodies that have a high likelihood of ingestion based on public access, while secondary contact recreation designation is assigned to waters that are not as likely to be ingested due to restricted public access.
KDHE has stated that the water quality goal for the bacteria impairments in the Upper Wakarusa River is for at least 90% of the samples taken during April through October to be below the water quality criterion of 262 counts, or cfus/100 ml.
E coli Bacteria Index Profile for Upper Wakarusa River
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
Index = ln(ECB)/ln(262) Index 0.4
0.2
0 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 0.99 Percentile of samples less than index value
Existing WQS Desired
Figure 7. 1. E coli bacteria index profile for the Upper Wakarusa River.
ELEMENT 7 PAGE 76
Figure 7.1 shows the index profile for the Wakarusa River. While a majority of the samples are below the criterion, there are still a sufficient number of digressions to indicate that the water quality criterion was exceeded based some of the samples. In order to indicate improved water quality through reduced bacteria loading to the stream, a cumulative frequency curve developed from the bacteria index values of the collected samples should emulate the “Desired” curve shown in Figure 7.1. WATER QUALITY MILESTONES FOR CLINTON LAKE As previously stated, in order to reach the sediment and phosphorus reduction goals for Clinton Lake, a BMP implementation schedule spanning 50 years has been developed. Several water quality milestones and indicators have been developed for Clinton Lake, as included herein. In addition to water quality measures, such as concentrations of total phosphorus and secchi depth measurements, the lake sedimentation rate will be utilized to determine the effectiveness of the BMPs implemented as part of the sediment load reduction goals outlined in the plan.
The estimated sedimentation rates and future desired rate to meet the 100‐year design life for sediment storage in Clinton Lake have been utilized in previous sections of this plan in order to calculate sediment load reduction goals. The current sedimentation rate, as provided by the Kansas Water Office in 2010, is approximately 324 acre‐feet/year. As part of the water quality assessment, the sedimentation rate will continue to be analyzed throughout the life of this plan. A movement toward the desired sedimentation rate of 127 acre‐feet/year is considered a water quality goal associated with the sediment load reductions goals of this plan. Table 7.2 includes 10‐year water quality goals, as well as long‐term water quality goals for various parameters monitored in Clinton Lake.
Table 7.2. Water quality milestones for Clinton Lake.
Water Quality Milestones for Clinton Lake
10‐Year Goal Long Term Goal 10‐Year Goal Long Term Goal Current Current Condition Improved Condition Improved Total Improved Total Improved (1990 ‐ 2010) Condition (1990 ‐ 2010) Condition Reduction Condition Reduction Condition Average TP (2011 ‐ 2021) Secchi (Avg) (2011 ‐ 2021) Needed Average TP Needed Secchi (Avg) Average TP Secchi (Avg) Sampling Total Phosphorus (average of data collected Secchi (average of data collected Site during indicated period), ppb during indicated period), m Clinton Lake Secchi depth Maintain Secchi 66 48 18 40 26 1.10 LM030001 > 1.5 depth > 1.5
10‐Year Goal Long Term Goal Current Improved Condition Total Improved Total Condition (1990 ‐ 2010) Reduction Condition Reduction (2011 ‐ 2021) Chlorophyll a Needed Chlorophyll a Needed Chlorophyll a Sampling Chlorophyll a (average of data collected
Site during indicated period), ppb Clinton Lake 20 12 8 10 10 LM030001
ELEMENT 7 PAGE 77
ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY INDICATORS In addition to the monitoring data, other water quality indicators can be utilized by KDHE and the SLT. Such indicators may include anecdotal information from the SLT and other citizen groups within the watershed (skin rash outbreaks, fish kills, nuisance odors), which can be used to assess short‐term deviations from water quality standards. These additional indicators can act as trigger‐points that might initiate further revisions or modifications to the WRAPS plan by KDHE and the SLT. • Taste and odor issues in public water supply of City of Lawrence • Occurrence of algal blooms in watershed lakes and reservoirs • Visitor traffic to watershed lakes and reservoirs, including Clinton Lake • Boating traffic in watershed lakes and reservoirs, including Clinton Lake • Trends of quantity and quality of fishing in watershed lakes and reservoirs, including Clinton Lake
ELEMENT 7 PAGE 78
ELEMENT 8.
ELEMENT 8. A SET OF CRITERIA THAT CAN BE USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER LOADING REDUCTIONS ARE BEING ACHIEVED OVER TIME AND SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS IS BEING MADE TOWARD ATTAINING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.
Progress toward required load reductions will be evaluated by comparisons of computed and measured decreases in contaminant loads at selected locations in the watershed. Criteria for progress are based on a continuing reduction in contaminants that will lead to meeting the milestones set in Element 7. COMPARING COMPUTED LOAD REDUCTIONS FROM ALL KNOWN BMPS OVER TIME A fundamental approach to estimating load reductions is to apply the EPA Region V methods for computing load reductions for specific BMPs. Commitments to installing various conservation practices that are anticipated to be most effective in load reduction are described in Element 6. Records of the actual implementation of such practices will be used to compute the accumulated load reduction associated with these BMPs. The results will be compared to the required load reductions projected in Element 6 to determine that the pace of load reduction is sufficient to meet the goals set in Element 7. It is acknowledged that these results are reasonable estimates and that more rigorous measured results are necessary from time to time to confirm progress, particularly when it shows that current BMPs are not making sufficient progress. PROGRESS IN ESTABLISHING COUNTY AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA TO CONTROL STORMWATER AND PROTECT VULNERABLE AREAS Land uses change over time and cities and counties must take advantage of opportunities to improve land management practices. Planning departments in Topeka, Shawnee County and the Lawrence‐Douglas County Planning Department are aware of the significance of proactive approaches to stormwater management in controlling contaminant transport. Most of the Upper Wakarusa watershed is within Shawnee and Douglas Counties. A planning process that addresses stormwater management is essential to meeting the load reduction goals. Both County and municipal governments in the watershed must meet NPDES standards and have specific stormwater management criteria in place. Progress in this process will be evaluated over time. Planning departments will be encouraged to meet their milestones, support WRAPS initiatives and accept assistance offered as appropriate. PERIODIC SURVEYS OF BMP MAINTENANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY The effectiveness of installed BMPs will deteriorate over time when maintenance is neglected. Progress made by additional BMP implementation could be negated by lack of maintenance of existing practices. Periodic surveys or inspections of BMPs that have been installed will be made to determine that they remain effective. Landowners will be encouraged to enhance maintenance activities based on the survey results. In the past, there has been some reluctance to use enforcement options written in BMP cost share agreements. Some consideration of maintenance requirements in cost share agreements may be necessary should the survey indicate such measures would lead to improvement.
ELEMENT 8 PAGE 79
ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC BMPS TO MEASURE ACTUAL LOAD REDUCTIONS AND SUSTAINABILITY Success of the Plan relies on the assumption that selected BMPs are most effective in reducing contaminant loads. It will be important to confirm that specific BMPs are in fact achieving the unit load reductions. Measurements of hydrologic processes associated with some of these practices, is necessary to determine their effectiveness. Two primary concepts that are driving the Plan in the Upper Wakarusa are that stormwater retention wetlands (constructed or natural) and channel stabilization practices are most effective in load reductions.
Hydrologic measurements of the actual stormwater inflows, outflows, and retention storage of a select group of representative retention wetlands should be made to determine the capture of target contaminants. Design, maintenance, and site selection should be evaluated in these studies to ensure that load reduction expectations of these BMPs are met.
Actual reduction of bed and bank erosion must be measured at selected sites where channel stability projects have been implemented. These measurements must show that expected erosion reductions of these projects are in fact substantial. Design, maintenance, and site selection should be evaluated in these studies to ensure that load reduction expectations of these BMPs are met and that erosion has been substantially reduced. USE OF MONITORING RESULTS TO CONFIRM COMPUTED LOAD REDUCTIONS OVER TIME Synoptic surveys and long term water quality monitoring are described in Element 9 as part of the effort to document progress in meeting milestones in Element 7. Analysis of synoptic survey results for specific sites will determine if measurable load reductions are being achieved. These surveys are intended to define stormwater quality characteristics from areas where identified contaminant sources have been addressed by implementation of BMPs. Water quality data collected at fixed locations will be analyzed to determine if measurable reductions in contaminant load are found for broad areas of the watershed that impact TMDLs in the Wakarusa River and Clinton Lake. The results of the analysis will be used to determine if adequate progress has been made over time that will lead to achieving the objectives of the Plan.
ELEMENT 8 PAGE 80
ELEMENT 9.
ELEMENT 9. A MONITORING COMPONENT TO EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION EFFORTS OVER TIME, MEASURED AGAINST THE CRITERIA ESTABLISHED UNDER ELEMENT 8.
Direct measurements of water quality characteristics and stream discharge will be needed to determine that contaminant loads are in fact decreasing over time. Comparisons of measured contaminant loads and TMDLs will be made to monitor progress and determine when goals are met. Two monitoring approaches will be used; synoptic surveys and fixed station monitoring. Synoptic surveys measure water quality characteristics at several sites during the same hydrologic conditions at a selected point in time. Fixed station monitoring will collect a record of measurements made at the same site over an extended period of time. SYNOPTIC SURVEYS Synoptic surveys will be conducted that capture the status of water quality for a specific hydrologic condition at a specific time for a group of selected sites. The number of sites included in a synoptic survey would typically include long term monitoring sites and other sites where water quality data would better define the occurrence of contaminants from expected sources. It has been shown that contaminants exceed the standards or recommended levels during storm runoff events in the Upper Wakarusa watershed. It is a given that synoptic surveys would be conducted during specific storm events. Stream discharge and water quality parameters consistent with the TMDLs will be collected during the synoptic surveys. The sites will be those that reflect water quality characteristics downstream from areas that are expected to be sources of targeted contaminants or to measure actual reductions downstream from areas where BMPs have been installed. These sites are selected to compare relative contaminant loads from these sites or to document the collective contaminant loads from several areas. Special effort is made in a synoptic survey to collect samples at all sites during the defined hydrologic condition and time and may require concurrent sampling by a number of field personnel or the use of automatic samplers. End points of the anticipated variation in contaminant transport will be the targeted hydrologic conditions for synoptic surveys. Contaminants loads are anticipated to be the largest during larger storm events after application of fertilizers in the late spring or early summer or after winter feeding operations. Contaminant loads are anticipated to be the least during storm events in late summer or during base flow conditions.
A synoptic survey would be used to define baseline water quality from an area where contaminant sources are found. Follow up surveys would be conducted periodically (perhaps every 3‐4 years) as BMPs are implemented to define the trends in contaminant load in response to the BMPs. Long term monitoring sites operated by KDHE follow the standard TMDL protocol of a fixed sampling schedule that does not target specific hydrologic conditions. Synoptic surveys may be used to target specific hydrologic conditions that are under represented in the long term monitoring record such as samples during large storm events. Other examples would be to confirm that identified sources are in fact contributing significantly to the overall contaminant load and to compare the relative contributions among sources in a given area.
ELEMENT 9 PAGE 81
Two sites are currently of interest, one on a tributary in the Rock Creek drainage downstream from winter feeding operations and another on a tributary in the Deer Creek drainage downstream from a number of BMPs that have been recently installed. Other opportunities will be identified as the Plan progresses.
ELEMENT 9 PAGE 82
FIXED STATION MONITORING OF WATER QUALITY PROGRESS KDHE continues to monitor water quality in the Upper Wakarusa Watershed by maintaining the fixed monitoring stations located within the watershed. The map included in this section shows
Figure 9.1. Fixed station monitoring sites and priority areas in the Upper Wakarusa watershed. the monitoring stations located within the Upper Wakarusa Watershed. The map has been color‐coded to indicate the subwatersheds that have been targeted for BMP implementation and water quality monitoring by this plan. The map in Figure 9.1 indicates the locations of the monitoring sites located within the Upper Wakarusa watershed.
The map in Figure 9.1 shows the permanent KDHE monitoring stations located in streams and lakes, as well as two new monitoring stations located in Rock Creek and Deer Creek. The permanent monitoring sites are continuously sampled. The sites are sampled for nutrients, E.
ELEMENT 9 PAGE 83
Coli bacteria, chemicals, turbidity, alkalinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, ammonia and metals. The pollutant indicators tested for each site may vary depending on the season at collection time and other factors. Figure 9.1 also shows new KDHE monitoring stations that are part of a new initiative to directly monitor water quality in targeted HUC 12 watersheds. These new stations will be used to better understand the relationship between BMP implementation and improved water quality. EVALUATION OF MONITORING DATA Monitoring data in the Upper Wakarusa River watershed will be used to determine water quality progress, track water quality milestones, and to determine the effectiveness of the BMP implementation outlined in the plan. The schedule of review for the monitoring data will be tied to the water quality milestones that have been developed for each watershed, as well as the frequency of the sampling data.
The BMP implementation schedule and water quality milestones for the Upper Wakarusa watershed extend through a fifty‐year period from 2011 to 2061. As previously noted, the BMPs that will be implemented to address the bacteria impairment on the Wakarusa River will be implemented between years 20 through 50 of this plan. Throughout the plan period, KDHE will continue to analyze and evaluate the monitoring data collected. After the first ten years of monitoring and BMP implementation, KDHE will evaluate the available water quality data to determine whether the water quality milestones have been achieved. KDHE and the SLT can address any necessary modifications or revisions to the plan based on the data analysis. In 2061, at the end of the plan, a determination can be made as to whether the water quality standards have been attained.
In addition to the planned review of the monitoring data and water quality milestones, KDHE and the SLT may revisit the plan in shorter increments. This would allow KDHE and the SLT to evaluate newer available information, incorporate any revisions to applicable TMDLs, or address any potential water quality indicators that might trigger an immediate review.
ELEMENT 9 PAGE 84
CLOSING STATEMENT
CLOSING STATEMENT
This Nine Element Plan for the Upper Wakarusa Watershed sets in motion a set of objectives for non point source management that is expected to reduce contaminant loads sufficiently to meet the water quality standards in Clinton Lake. Clinton Lake, is a primary public water supply and major recreational destination. Eutrophic conditions in the Lake resulting from excess nutrients, primarily phosphorous, and bacteria in the main stem of the Wakarusa River have led to TMDL criteria and water quality standards for these contaminants.
A list of typical conservation practices or BMPs has been defined that will be implemented over several decades. The Plan describes a timeline to implement over 2500 conservation projects during the next 50 years. The first 20 years will focus on tributaries to the Wakarusa River and the main stem of the River downstream from Paulen Road. The following 30 years will continue efforts downstream of Paulen Road and add tributaries in the remainder of the watershed upstream of Paulen Road. Various assessments have been conducted to identify potential sources of the target contaminants and help focus efforts toward these source areas.
Cooperation from landowners and farm operators will be key to successful implementation of the plan. Some areas in the suburban fringe and others are experiencing the exurban transition from production agriculture to smaller exurban tracts. An established natural resource based process of development by City and County planning departments in Douglas and Shawnee County will be an important aspect of a successful Plan.
The Plan reflects an ambitious level of effort to meet the load reductions necessary to protect Clinton Lake as a water supply and recreational resource for the next generation. To adequately implement the Plan will also require a sustained commitment from the coming generation of residents and interest groups.
CLOSING STATEMENT PAGE 85
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
1. Upper Wakarusa Watershed, Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS), “A New Vision for the Protection of Clinton Lake”, Kaw Valley Heritage Alliance and Partners, February 2003.
2. Clinton Lake Water Quality Assessment Project Final Report, Kyle Mankin and James Koelliker, Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Cooperative Agreement between Kansas Department of Health and Environment and Kansas State University (KDHE Contract No. NPS 98‐059), July 31, 2003.
3. Economic Contributions of Recreation at Clinton Lake, Craig M. Smith, John C. Leatherman, and Will Boyer, Cooperative Agreement between Kansas Department of Health and Environment and Kansas State University, January 2008.
4. Wakarusa River Watershed Assessment: Deer Creek and Lynn‐Burys Creek HUC 12’s, Kansas Alliance for Wetlands and Streams and Blue Earth, Kansas Department of Environment grant to Kansas Alliance for Wetlands and Streams, July 2010.
5. Level 1 Watershed Assessment of Rock Creek Watershed, Kansas Alliance for Wetlands and Streams, Blue Earth, and the Geographic Information Systems Spatial Analysis Laboratory, Kansas Department of Health and Environment grant to Kansas Alliance for Wetlands and Streams, April 2010.
6. Level 2 Watershed Assessment of Rock Creek Watershed, Kansas Alliance for Wetlands and Streams, Blue Earth, and the Geographic Information Systems Spatial Analysis Laboratory, Kansas Department of Health and Environment grant to Kansas Alliance for Wetlands and Streams, October, 2010.
7. Contaminant Load Reduction Model, Environmental Protection Agency Region V.
8. Shawnee County Conservation Needs Survey.
9. Deer Creek Bank Stability Assessment, Upper Wakarusa WRAPS, The Watershed Institute, 1200 SW Executive Drive, Topeka, KS 66615, 2005.
10. Upper Wakarusa Watershed Streambank Erosion Assessment, Anna Powell, Environmental Scientist, Kansas Water Office, 901 S. Kansas Avenue, Topeka, KS 66612, February, 2011.
11. Kansas River Basin Regional Sediment Management Section 204 Stream and River Channel Assessment, Gulf South Research Corporation, 8081 ASRI Ave., Baton Rouge, LA 70820, prepared for U.S. Corps of Engineers‐ Kansas City and the Kansas Water Office, August 2011.
REFERENCES PAGE 86
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
A. Typical Project Costs
B. Conservation Needs Survey
C. Yearly Projections
1. Annual projected water quality management practices load reduction downstream of Paulen Rd.
2. Annual projected water quality management practices load reduction upstream of Paulen Rd.
3. Annual projected costs for the Upper Wakarusa WRAPS Nine Element Plan
4. Interim Milestones
5. Projected WRAPS Costs for Upper Wakarusa Implementation of 9 Element Plan
APPENDIX PAGE 87
A. TYPICAL PROJECT COSTS
APPENDIX A. TYPICAL PROJECT COST WORKSHEET
BASIN
IN AND
COUNTY
SHARE
FENCING WATERING TERRACES TILE WATER
SEEDING
FUNDS NO.
REQUEST
TERRACES STRIPS FARMING
DESCRIPTION
APPROVED
PROJECTED
COST
OWNER TREATED
SEDIMENT 14
TILL
FUNDS PROJECT HUC PARTNERS SHORT TOTAL COST LAND STATE FEDERAL FUNDS PRACTICE CHARACTERISTICS AREA ACRES PRACTICES PRACTICES SITE BUFFER PASTURE NO PRACTICES PRACTICES OUTLET PRACTICES AND PRACTICES CONSTRUCTED WETLAND STREAM STABILIZATION
This project will help develop 3100 feet of fencing to protect the riparian NRCS, K‐State area adjacent to Carbondale Lake. WKR 001 Osage Protects about 2000 R&&E, SCC, This project will be share between the 10270104 $6,479 $1,944 $2,000 $2,535 $2,535 ft of riparian area; 20 $6,479 Osage County, landowner (30%), County Extension 010050 fencing 3100 ft Landowner Funds (31%) and WRAPS funds (39%). This project is located above Carbondale and Clinton Lakes.
This project will develop perimeter and internal fence, two watering Treats about 40 NRCS, K‐State facilities and convert 6 ac of cropland WKR 003 Osage acres; Fencing 1700 ft R&&E, SCC, to grass for 20 head of bison. This will 10270104 $7,840 $2,342 $500 $4,998 $0 ; Waterer, line and 40 $3,740 $3,400 $500 Osage County, allow the bison to be moved between 010070 site ; 2‐3 acres Landowner several paddocks. The project is pasture seeding located above Clinton Lake in 12‐14‐ 15 about 5 miles south of Topeka.
The project would fence 55 acres of former CRP along with 25 acres of native grass to be used as pasture‐‐ WKR 004 Osage not farmed. The intent is to maintain WRAPS, Treats about 80 10270104 very good to excellent stand of native $10,406 $3,122 $7,284 $7,284 80 $10,406 Landowner acres; fencing 4730 ft 010070 grass. Project is about 11/2 miles north of Carbondale along east side of Hiway 75. SE part of CRP is about 700 from Burys Creek.
Construction of 1500 ft of terraces draining to a grass waterway established in summer of 2005. WKR 006 Osage Proposed terraces would add to Treats 15 acres; 1500 WRAPS, 10270104 existing terraces affecting about 15 $1,740 $796 $945 $945 ft of terraces to 15 $1,740 Landowner 010070 acres. Project is about 3 miles west waterway and 1 mile north of Overbrook and 1.5 miles from Strowbridge Reservoir‐ water supply to Carbondale.
WKR 356 treats about 40 acres; Cons. Dist., FSA, Rebuild terraces, replace grass Douglas 8149 ft tile outlet WRAPS, waterway with tile outlets, build $42,259 $3,024 $5,796 $11,648 $21,790 $21,791 40 $25,858 $16,400 10270104 terraces; 1 wetland Landowner wetland retention structure 010070 retention
APPENDIX A. TYPICAL PROJECT COSTS PAGE 88
BASIN
IN AND
COUNTY
SHARE
FENCING WATERING TERRACES TILE WATER
SEEDING
FUNDS NO.
REQUEST
TERRACES STRIPS FARMING
DESCRIPTION
APPROVED
PROJECTED
COST
OWNER TREATED
SEDIMENT 14
TILL
FUNDS AND PRACTICES CONSTRUCTED WETLAND STREAM STABILIZATION PROJECT HUC PARTNERS SHORT TOTAL COST LAND STATE FEDERAL FUNDS PRACTICE CHARACTERISTICS AREA ACRES PRACTICES PRACTICES SITE BUFFER PASTURE NO PRACTICES PRACTICES OUTLET PRACTICES
This project will improve an existing confined livestock operation involving about 300 animal units of cattle. Two About 50 acres NRCS, K‐State R&&E, waterers will be developed utilizing WKR 002 Shawnee treated; freeze proof SCC, Osage County, rural water hookup. The pen sizes will $3,267 $980 $2,287 $0 50 $2,267 $1,000 10270104 010040 water; 1085 ft Landowner be reduced to increase the size of the fencing grass buffer and protect the riparian area. The project is located 2 miles east of Berryton in 11‐13‐16.
Treats about 35 acres; 3548 ft tile WKR 355 Douglas Cons. Dist., WRAPS, Rebuild terraces and install tile $20,103 $2,189 $7,000 $10,122 $10,122 outlet terraces, 1 35 $18,786 $1,318 10270104 010070 Landowner outlets, build retention basin terrace sediment basin pipe and outlets
3,500 cubic yards sediment control basin (wetland retention) will save Treats about 14 App Shawnee Cons. Dist. WRAPS 280 tons of soil going into Lynn Creek, acres; sediment $8,575 $2,573 $6,003 0 14 $8,575 10270104 010070 Landowner high priority tributary of Wakarusa control basin River. Site is about 14 acres NE of 89th retention & Green Rd.
Treats about 30 Rebuild terraces and install tile acres; 3500 ft tile WKR 354 Douglas Cons. Dist. WRAPS outlets, build wetland retention $13,795 $2,601 $5,124 $6,070 $6,070 outlet terrace; 30 $9,325 $4,470 10270104 010070 Landowner structure; project masterplan sediment retention basin
Treats about 15 WKR 388 Shawnee Suburban stream channel (gulley) WRAPS, Landowner $5,620 $1,686 $3,934 $3,934 acres; 200 ft stream 15 $5,620 10270104 010040 stabilization stabilization (gulley)
Cons.Dist.(no Dam and shoreline rehab., erosion Treats about 15 WKR 391 Shawnee program funds), control, response to complaint to $1,503 $1,503 $1,503 acres; buffer along 15 $1,503 10270104 010040 WRAPS, Landowner DWR by downstream landowners shoreline of pond
Rebuild terraces and install tile outlets Treats about 30 (entire cost currently listed), build WKR 394 Shawnee acres; 4020 ft tile WRAPS, Landowner wetland retention structure; project $25,205 $3,972 $5,000 $5,837 $10,396 $10,396 30 $14,925 $3,315 10270104 010070 outlet terrace; 1 masterplan. Site is about 50 acres wetland retention south of 69th, east of Shadden Rd.
ELEMENT 9 PAGE 89
BASIN
IN AND
COUNTY
SHARE
FENCING WATERING TERRACES TILE WATER
SEEDING
FUNDS NO.
REQUEST
TERRACES STRIPS FARMING
DESCRIPTION
APPROVED
PROJECTED
COST
OWNER TREATED
SEDIMENT 14
TILL
FUNDS AND PRACTICES CONSTRUCTED WETLAND STREAM STABILIZATION PROJECT HUC PARTNERS SHORT TOTAL COST LAND STATE FEDERAL FUNDS PRACTICE CHARACTERISTICS AREA ACRES PRACTICES PRACTICES SITE BUFFER PASTURE NO PRACTICES PRACTICES OUTLET PRACTICES
1,000 feet of gradient terraces in 44.7 acre field that will save 80 tons of soil. Treats about 10 WKR 393 Shawnee Cons. Dist. WRAPS Erosion control for Lynn Creek a high $1,075 $322 $752 $752 acres; 1250 ft terrace 10 $1,075 10270104 010040 Landowner priority tributary to Wakarusa River. to waterway Site is NE of 69th and Croco Rd.
Two sediment control basins, erosion control, that will save 162 tons of soil. Treats about 40 WKR 390 Shawnee Cons.Dist., WRAPS, Site is in 27 acre field SW of 89th and acres; 2 water and $5,564 $1,669 $3,895 $3,895 40 $5,564 10270104 010040 Landowner Shawnee Heights Rd., directly above sediment retention Wakarusa River in Lynn Creek basins subwatershed.
Treats about 15 Water and sediment basin and seeded acres; water and WKR 396 Douglas Cons.Dist. WRAPS native vegetation to control erosion $8,120 $2,436 $5,684 $5,684 sediment retention 15 $520 $7,600 10270104 010010 Landowner and filter contaminants to improve basin; 4 ac native water quality into Clinton Lake. grass buffer
Treats about 10 WKR 391 Shawnee Cons. Dist. WRAPS Seed emergent wetland vegetation acres; seeding to $1,305 $0 $1,305 $1,305 10 10270104 010040 Landowner along shoreline buffer protect about 500 ft of shoreline
Rebuild terraces and install tile Treats about 35 WKR 401 Shawnee Cons. Dist. WRAPS outlets, build wetland retention acres; 5180 ft tile $29,228 $5,517 $5,000 $4,808 $13,902 $13,902 35 $20,076 $3,315 10270104 010070 Landowner struction. Site is about 50 acres south outlet terraces; 1 of 69th and east of Shadden Rd. wetland
Treats about 60 acres; 5000 ft tile WKR 402 Douglas Cons.Dist., WRAPS, Tile terraces, wetland retention $33,602 $4,776 $7,000 $10,680 $11,145 $11,145 outlet terraces; 1 60 $20,205 $13,397 10270104 010070 Landowner wetland retention structure
Waterway rehab, wetland retention.Grased waterway will save Treats about 100 App Shawnee Cons. Dist. WRAPS 500 tons of soil going into Deer Creek $8,077 $923 $5,000 $2,154 acres; 1 wetland 100 $8,077 10270104 010070 Landowner a tributary to Wakarusa River. Site is retention structure in 130 acres north of 69th between Shadden & Stubbs Rds.
ELEMENT 9 PAGE 90
BASIN
IN AND
COUNTY
SHARE
FENCING WATERING TERRACES TILE WATER
SEEDING
FUNDS NO.
REQUEST
TERRACES STRIPS FARMING
DESCRIPTION
APPROVED
PROJECTED
COST
OWNER TREATED
SEDIMENT 14
TILL
FUNDS AND PRACTICES CONSTRUCTED WETLAND STREAM STABILIZATION PROJECT HUC PARTNERS SHORT TOTAL COST LAND STATE FEDERAL FUNDS PRACTICE CHARACTERISTICS AREA ACRES PRACTICES PRACTICES SITE BUFFER PASTURE NO PRACTICES PRACTICES OUTLET PRACTICES
1,000 feet of tile terraces will save 56 tons of soil and slow drainage to decrease erosion potential to Six Mile Treats about 14 App Shawnee Cons. Dist. WRAPS Creek a tributary to Wakarusa River. $4,500 $1,350 $3,150 acres; 1000 ft tile 14 $4,500 10270104 010030 Landowner The site is in about 14 acres at the NW outlet terraces corner of 103rd and what would be Morrill Rd., easy public access.
Total Cost for all projects listed $238,263 $42,222 $42,420 $32,973 $119,855 668 $22,892 $4,400 $2,523 $2,500 $2,815 $109,175 $32,027 $44,504 $5,620 Average cost for all projects listed $11,913 $2,111 $2,121 $1,649 $5,993 33.4 $5,723 $2,200 $841 $2,500 $1,408 $18,196 $5,338 $8,901 $5,620 (ranges $1,305‐$42,300) WRAPS funds covered about 50% of all total project costs or $119,855/$238,263 which is .503 of $2,879 $1,107 $423 $1,258 $708 see below $2,685 use $1100 $2,827
average project cost to determine a typical unit project cost for WRAPS Average state or local cost for tile $5,820 terrace and waterway repairs Average cost for tile terraces without $15,778 waterway repair Average total cost for tile terraces requiring waterway (large gulley) $23,032
repair Federal wetland cost share is about 88‐90%, WRAPS cost estimated about $1,068
12% of cost Typical WRAPS cost of tile terrace without waterway repair is $15,778 ‐ $8,854
$5824 ‐ $1100 Typical WRAPS cost of tile terrace requiring waterway repair is $23,032 ‐ $16,108
$5824 ‐ $1100
ELEMENT 9 PAGE 91
B. CONSERVATION NEEDS SURVEY
APPENDIX B. CONSERVATION NEEDS SURVEY
Acres Needing Acres Acres Needing Conversion to Conversion to in Permanent Vegetation (Steep Wetland (swampy Acres in Ridge Acres in Conservation Acres Need Structural COUNTY HUC 8/12 Slope) areas) No‐Till Till Tillage Treatment OSAGE 10270104 500.00 375.00 6,080.00 0.00 10,560.00 23,766.00 102701040101 52 39 632 0 1098 2472 102701040102 76 57 924 0 1605 3612 102701040103 51 38 620 0 1077 2424 179 134 8508
Acres Needing Acres Acres Needing Conversion to Conversion to in Permanent Vegetation (Steep Wetland (swampy Acres in Ridge Acres in Conservation Acres Need Structural COUNTY HUC 8/12 Slope) areas) No‐Till Till Tillage Treatment SHAWNEE 10270104 333.00 80.00 4,233.00 0.00 9,885.00 8,797.00 102701040101 61.272 14.72 778.872 0 1818.84 1618.648 102701040102 49.284 11.84 626.484 0 1462.98 1301.956 102701040103 86.913 20.88 1104.813 0 2579.985 2296.017 197.47 47.44 5216.621 376.469 181.690 13725
Number of typical sites 9 5 343 total ac/40 ac
Acres Needing Acres of Acres Acres Needing Acres Needing Terrace Acres of New Waterway Needing Grade Water/Sediment COUNTY HUC 8/12 Acres Needing New Terraces Restoration Waterways Restoration Diversions Stabilization Control Basins OSAGE 10270104 10,695.00 8,318.00 10,695.00 14,260.00 1,188.00 2,377.00 475.00 102701040101 1112 865 1112 1483 124 247 49 102701040102 1626 1264 1626 2168 181 361 72 102701040103 1091 848 1091 1455 121 242 48 3829 2978 5105 170
APPENDIX B. CONSERVATION NEEDS SURVEY PAGE 92
Acres Needing Acres of Acres Acres Needing Acres Needing Terrace Acres of New Waterway Needing Grade Water/Sediment COUNTY HUC 8/12 Acres Needing New Terraces Restoration Waterways Restoration Diversions Stabilization Control Basins SHAWNEE 10270104 270.00 3,601.00 135.00 449.00 676.00 3,333.00 333.00 102701040101 50 663 25 83 124 613 61 102701040102 40 533 20 66 100 493 49 102701040103 70 940 35 117 176 870 87 160.11 2135 266.26 197.47 3988.92 5113 5222 367.519
Number of typical sites 100 128 131 9 total ac/40 ac
# Concentrated Non‐ Acres of Pasture Acres of Range Land # Permitted # Other Confined Confined Livestock Total Acres Needing Total Acres of Needing Treatment COUNTY HUC 8 CAFOs Livestock Facilities Operations of Pasture Treatment Range Land (2005) OSAGE 10270104 6.00 9.0 94.0 4512 3023 54420 36461 102701040101 0.9 9.8 469 314 5660 3792 102701040102 1.4 14.3 686 459 8272 5542 102701040103 0.9 9.6 460 308 5551 3719 33.7 1615 1082 19482 13053
# Concentrated Non‐ Acres of Pasture Acres of Range Land # Permitted # Other Confined Confined Livestock Total Acres Needing Total Acres of Needing Treatment COUNTY HUC 8 CAFOs Livestock Facilities Operations of Pasture Treatment Range Land (2005) SHAWNEE 10270104 0.00 8.0 55.0 17160 8580 36300 18150 102701040101 1.5 10.1 3157 1579 6679 3340 102701040102 1.2 8.1 2540 1270 5372 2686 102701040103 2.1 14.4 4479 2239 9474 4737 32.6 10176 5088 21526 10763 66.3 11791 6170 41008 23816 Typical number of sites (total ac/40 ac) 154 595
Note over 50% of pasture and range land needs treatment
APPENDIX B. CONSERVATION NEEDS SURVEY PAGE 93
C. YEARLY PROJECTIONS
APPENDIX C. YEARLY PROJECTIONS Table C1 . Annual projected water quality management practices load reduction downstream of Paulen Rd.
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
All
Bank
Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Stream Bed and Banks Total Practices Annual Reduction lbs Accum. Annual Totals Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and
and or
near
to outlet
tile
access
and
terrace,
buffer water terraces
with native
feeding
at
stock
te site
retention
i
grass d seeding fencing
s
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping terrace gulley
g
in outlet till
‐ stream
eed Replace waterway outlet repair Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Stream methods Alternate watering Improve vegetation pasture f Pasture minimize to Unit Reductions for Each Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Practice lbs/yr TSS 0 3 0 12.8 43.5 71.2 32 98 106 31.9 31.9 N 0 11 0 25.5 78 171 69 245 280 63.8 63.8 P 172 5 172 185 55.5 86 34 98 140 31.9 31.9 Cost $1,107 $423 $2,879 $1,250 $423 $1,258 $8,854 $16,108 $1,100 $2,810 $2,810 Year Total Reductions lbs/yr Total Reductions lbs/yr Total Reductions lbs/yr 2009 No. Practices 9 6 5 1 21 21 2 3 4 0 0 0 5 1 5 1 0 % of Total 43 29 24 5 % Accum TSS 828.9 828.9 0 9 0 0 0 0 160 98 530 31.9 0 N 2086.8 2086.8 0 33 0 0 0 0 345 245 1400 63.8 0 P 2046.9 2046.9 344 15 688 0 0 0 170 98 700 31.9 0 Cost $83,687 $83,687 $2,214 $1,269 $11,516 $0 $0 $0 $44,270 $16,108 $5,500 $2,810 $0 2010 11 11 7 2 No. Practices 2 5 2 1 10 31 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 % of Total 20 50 20 10 % Accum 35 35 23 6 TSS 523.6 1352.5 0 3 0 0 43.5 71.2 64 98 212 31.9 0 N 1266.8 3353.6 0 11 0 0 78 171 138 245 560 63.8 0 P 796.4 2843.3 172 5 0 0 55.5 86 68 98 280 31.9 0
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS DOWNSTREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 94
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
All
Bank
Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Stream Bed and Banks
Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Practices Annual Reduction lbs Accum. Annual Totals
and or
near
to outlet
tile
access
and
terrace,
buffer water terraces
with native
feeding
at
stock
te site
retention
i
grass d seeding fencing
s
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping terrace gulley
g
in outlet till
‐ stream
eed Replace waterway outlet repair Alternate watering Improve vegetation pasture f Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Practice lbs/yr Cost $57,545 $141,232 $1,107 $423 $0 $0 $423 $1,258 $17,708 $16,108 $17,708 $2,810 $0 2011 14 15 12 3 No. Practices 3 4 5 1 13 44 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 5 1 0 % of Total 23 31 38 8 % Accum 32 34 27 7 TSS 755.9 2108.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 98 530 31.9 0 N 1915.8 5269.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 207 245 1400 63.8 0 P 1447.9 4291.2 344 0 172 0 0 0 102 98 700 31.9 0 Cost $56,073 $197,305 $2,214 $0 $2,879 $0 $0 $0 $26,562 $16,108 $5,500 $2,810 $0 2012 17 19 17 4 No. Practices 3 4 5 1 13 57 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 5 1 0 % of Total 23 31 38 8 % Accum 30 33 30 7 TSS 755.9 2864.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 98 530 31.9 0 N 1915.8 7185.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 207 245 1400 63.8 0 P 1447.9 5739.1 344 0 172 0 0 0 102 98 700 31.9 0 Cost $56,073 $253,378 $2,214 $0 $2,879 $0 $0 $0 $26,562 $16,108 $5,500 $2,810 $0 2013 20 23 22 5 No. Practices 3 4 5 1 13 70 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 5 1 0 % of Total 23 31 38 8 % Accum 29 33 31 7 TSS 755.9 3620.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 98 530 31.9 0 N 1915.8 9101 0 0 0 0 0 0 207 245 1400 63.8 0 P 1447.9 7187 344 0 172 0 0 0 102 98 700 31.9 0 Cost $56,073 $309,451 $2,214 $0 $2,879 $0 $0 $0 $26,562 $16,108 $5,500 $2,810 $0 2014 23 27 27 6 No. Practices 3 4 5 1 13 83 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 5 1 0 APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS DOWNSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 95
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
All
Bank
Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Stream Bed and Banks
Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Practices Annual Reduction lbs Accum. Annual Totals
and or
near
to outlet
tile
access
and
terrace,
buffer water terraces
with native
feeding
at
stock
te site
retention
i
grass d seeding fencing
s
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping terrace gulley
g
in outlet till
‐ stream
eed Replace waterway outlet repair Alternate watering Improve vegetation pasture f Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Practice lbs/yr % of Total 23 31 38 8 % Accum 28 33 33 7 TSS 755.9 4376.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 98 530 31.9 0 N 1915.8 11016.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 207 245 1400 63.8 0 P 1447.9 8634.9 344 0 172 0 0 0 102 98 700 31.9 0 Cost $56,073 $365,524 $2,214 $0 $2,879 $0 $0 $0 $26,562 $16,108 $5,500 $2,810 $0 2015 29 35 37 48 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 149 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % Accum 19 23 25 32 TSS 2787.8 7163.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 17400.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 12806.7 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $590,070 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2016 35 43 47 90
No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 215 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 16 20 22 42 TSS 2787.8 9951.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 23784 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 16978.5 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $814,616 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2017 41 51 57 132 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 281 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 15 18 20 47 TSS 2787.8 12739.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS DOWNSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 96
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
All
Bank
Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Stream Bed and Banks
Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Practices Annual Reduction lbs Accum. Annual Totals
and or
near
to outlet
tile
access
and
terrace,
buffer water terraces
with native
feeding
at
stock
te site
retention
i
grass d seeding fencing
s
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping terrace gulley
g
in outlet till
‐ stream
eed Replace waterway outlet repair Alternate watering Improve vegetation pasture f Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Practice lbs/yr N 6383.6 30167.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4304 21282.5 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 196 1276 Cost $224,546 $1,039,162 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2018 47 59 67 174 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 347 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 14 17 19 50 TSS 2787.8 15527.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 36551.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 25454.3 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $1,263,708 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2019 53 67 77 216 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 413 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 13 16 19 52 TSS 2787.8 18315.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 42934.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 29626.1 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $1,488,254 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2020 59 75 87 258 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 479 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 12 16 18 54 TSS 2787.8 21102.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 49318.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 33797.9 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $1,712,800 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS DOWNSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 97
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
All
Bank
Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Stream Bed and Banks
Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Practices Annual Reduction lbs Accum. Annual Totals
and or
near
to outlet
tile
access
and
terrace,
buffer water terraces
with native
feeding
at
stock
te site
retention
i
grass d seeding fencing
s
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping terrace gulley
g
in outlet till
‐ stream
eed Replace waterway outlet repair Alternate watering Improve vegetation pasture f Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Practice lbs/yr 2021 65 83 97 300 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 545 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 12 15 18 55 TSS 2787.8 23890.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 55702 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 37969.7 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $1,937,346 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2022 71 91 107 342 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 611 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 12 15 18 56 TSS 2787.8 26678.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 62085.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 42141.5 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $2,161,892 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2023 77 99 117 384 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 677 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 11 15 17 57 TSS 2787.8 29466.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 68469.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 46313.3 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $2,386,438 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2024 83 107 127 426 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 743 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS DOWNSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 98
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
All
Bank
Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Stream Bed and Banks
Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Practices Annual Reduction lbs Accum. Annual Totals
and or
near
to outlet
tile
access
and
terrace,
buffer water terraces
with native
feeding
at
stock
te site
retention
i
grass d seeding fencing
s
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping terrace gulley
g
in outlet till
‐ stream
eed Replace waterway outlet repair Alternate watering Improve vegetation pasture f Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Practice lbs/yr % Accum 11 14 17 57 TSS 2787.8 32254.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 74852.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 50485.1 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $2,610,984 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2025 89 115 137 468 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 809 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 11 14 17 58 TSS 2787.8 35041.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 81236.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 54656.9 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $2,835,530 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400
2026 95 123 147 510 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 875 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 11 14 17 58 TSS 2787.8 37829.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 87620 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 58828.7 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $3,060,076 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2027 101 131 157 552 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 941 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 11 14 17 59 TSS 2787.8 40617.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS DOWNSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 99
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
All
Bank
Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Stream Bed and Banks
Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Practices Annual Reduction lbs Accum. Annual Totals
and or
near
to outlet
tile
access
and
terrace,
buffer water terraces
with native
feeding
at
stock
te site
retention
i
grass d seeding fencing
s
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping terrace gulley
g
in outlet till
‐ stream
eed Replace waterway outlet repair Alternate watering Improve vegetation pasture f Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Practice lbs/yr N 6383.6 94003.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 63000.5 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $3,284,622 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2028 107 139 167 594 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 1007 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 11 14 17 59 TSS 2787.8 43405.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 100387.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 67172.3 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $3,509,168 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2029 113 147 177 636 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 1073 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 11 14 16 59 TSS 2787.8 46193.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 106770.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 71344.1 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $3,733,714 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2030 119 155 187 678 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 1139 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 10 14 16 60 TSS 2787.8 48980.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 113154.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 75515.9 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $3,958,260 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS DOWNSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 100
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
All
Bank
Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Stream Bed and Banks
Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Practices Annual Reduction lbs Accum. Annual Totals
and or
near
to outlet
tile
access
and
terrace,
buffer water terraces
with native
feeding
at
stock
te site
retention
i
grass d seeding fencing
s
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping terrace gulley
g
in outlet till
‐ stream
eed Replace waterway outlet repair Alternate watering Improve vegetation pasture f Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Practice lbs/yr 2031 125 163 197 720 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 1205 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 10 14 16 60 TSS 2787.8 51768.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 119538 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 79687.7 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $4,182,806 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2032 131 171 207 762 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 1271 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 10 13 16 60 TSS 2787.8 54556.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 125921.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 83859.5 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $4,407,352 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2033 137 179 217 804 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 1337 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 10 13 16 60 TSS 2787.8 57344.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 132305.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 88031.3 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $4,631,898 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2034 143 187 227 846 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 1403 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS DOWNSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 101
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
All
Bank
Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Stream Bed and Banks
Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Practices Annual Reduction lbs Accum. Annual Totals
and or
near
to outlet
tile
access
and
terrace,
buffer water terraces
with native
feeding
at
stock
te site
retention
i
grass d seeding fencing
s
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping terrace gulley
g
in outlet till
‐ stream
eed Replace waterway outlet repair Alternate watering Improve vegetation pasture f Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Practice lbs/yr % Accum 10 13 16 60 TSS 2787.8 60132.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 138688.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 92203.1 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $4,856,444 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2035 149 195 237 888 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 1469 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 10 13 16 60 TSS 2787.8 62919.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 145072.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 96374.9 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $5,080,990 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2036 155 203 247 930 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 1535 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 10 13 16 61 TSS 2787.8 65707.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 151456 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 100546.7 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $5,305,536 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2037 161 211 257 972 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 1601 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 10 13 16 61 TSS 2787.8 68495.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 157839.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS DOWNSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 102
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
All
Bank
Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Stream Bed and Banks
Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Practices Annual Reduction lbs Accum. Annual Totals
and or
near
to outlet
tile
access
and
terrace,
buffer water terraces
with native
feeding
at
stock
te site
retention
i
grass d seeding fencing
s
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping terrace gulley
g
in outlet till
‐ stream
eed Replace waterway outlet repair Alternate watering Improve vegetation pasture f Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Practice lbs/yr P 4171.8 104718.5 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $5,530,082 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2038 167 219 267 1014 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 1667 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 10 13 16 61 TSS 2787.8 71283.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 164223.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 108890.3 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $5,754,628 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2039 173 227 277 1056 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 1733 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 10 13 16 61 TSS 2787.8 74071.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 170606.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 113062.1 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $5,979,174 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2040 179 235 287 1098 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 1799 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 10 13 16 61 TSS 2787.8 76858.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 176990.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 117233.9 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $6,203,720 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2041 185 243 297 1140
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS DOWNSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 103
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
All
Bank
Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Stream Bed and Banks
Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Practices Annual Reduction lbs Accum. Annual Totals
and or
near
to outlet
tile
access
and
terrace,
buffer water terraces
with native
feeding
at
stock
te site
retention
i
grass d seeding fencing
s
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping terrace gulley
g
in outlet till
‐ stream
eed Replace waterway outlet repair Alternate watering Improve vegetation pasture f Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Practice lbs/yr No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 1865 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 10 13 16 61 TSS 2787.8 79646.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 183374 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 121405.7 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $6,428,266 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2042 191 251 307 1182 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 1931 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 10 13 16 61 TSS 2787.8 82434.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 189757.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 125577.5 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $6,652,812 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2043 197 259 317 1224 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 1997 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 10 13 16 61 TSS 2787.8 85222.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 196141.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 129749.3 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $6,877,358 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2044 203 267 327 1266 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 2063 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 10 13 16 61
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS DOWNSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 104
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
All
Bank
Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Stream Bed and Banks
Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Practices Annual Reduction lbs Accum. Annual Totals
and or
near
to outlet
tile
access
and
terrace,
buffer water terraces
with native
feeding
at
stock
te site
retention
i
grass d seeding fencing
s
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping terrace gulley
g
in outlet till
‐ stream
eed Replace waterway outlet repair Alternate watering Improve vegetation pasture f Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Practice lbs/yr TSS 2787.8 88010.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 202524.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 133921.1 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $7,101,904 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2045 209 275 337 1308 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 2129 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 10 13 16 61 TSS 2787.8 90797.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 208908.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 138092.9 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $7,326,450 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2046 215 283 347 1350 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 2195 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 10 13 16 62 TSS 2787.8 93585.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 215292 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 142264.7 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $7,550,996 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2047 221 291 357 1392 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 2261 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 10 13 16 62 TSS 2787.8 96373.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 221675.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 146436.5 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS DOWNSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 105
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
All
Bank
Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Stream Bed and Banks
Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Practices Annual Reduction lbs Accum. Annual Totals
and or
near
to outlet
tile
access
and
terrace,
buffer water terraces
with native
feeding
at
stock
te site
retention
i
grass d seeding fencing
s
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping terrace gulley
g
in outlet till
‐ stream
eed Replace waterway outlet repair Alternate watering Improve vegetation pasture f Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Practice lbs/yr Cost $224,546 $7,775,542 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400 2048 227 299 367 1434 No. Practices 6 8 10 42 66 2327 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 10 2 40 % of Total 9 12 15 64 % Accum 10 13 16 62 TSS 2787.8 99161.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 196 1060 63.8 1276 N 6383.6 228059.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 414 490 2800 127.6 2552 P 4171.8 150608.3 688 0 344 0 0 0 204 196 1400 63.8 1276 Cost $224,546 $8,000,088 $4,428 $0 $5,758 $0 $0 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $5,620 $112,400
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS DOWNSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 106
C. YEARLY PROJECTIONS
Table C2 . Annual projected water quality management practices load reduction upstream of Paulen Rd.
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
lbs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Annual
All
Number Bank
Practices Stream Bed and Practices Annual Reduction Accum. Totals and of Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Banks
and or
near
to outlet
access terrace
waterway
terrace,
buffer water gulley terraces
native
feeding at
stock
site
retention
outlet
grass
seeding fencing
site
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping
tile
repair outlet
till
‐ stream
Native buffer No methods Tile Replace with and Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Stream methods Alternate watering Improved vegetation pasture feeding Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Unit Reductions for Each Practice Unit Reductions for lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Each Practice lbs/yr TSS 0 3 0 12.8 43.5 71.2 32 98 106 31.9 32.2 N 0 11 0 25.5 78 171 69 245 280 63.8 63.8 P 172 5 172 185 55.5 86 34 122 140 31.9 31.9 Cos $1,10 t 7 $423 $2,879 $1,250 $423 $1,258 $8,854 $16,108 $1,100 $2,810 $2,810 Total Reductions Year Total Reductions lbs/yr Total Reductions lbs/yr lbs/yr 2029 No. Pra ctic es 22 10 10 30 72 72 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Tot al 31 14 14 42 % Acc um TSS 2561 2561 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5046 5046 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 966 P 3360 3360 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cos $192,160 $192,160 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS UPSTREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 107
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
lbs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Annual
All
Number Bank
Practices Stream Bed and Practices Annual Reduction Accum. Totals and of Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Banks
and or
near
to outlet
access terrace
waterway
terrace,
buffer water gulley terraces
native
feeding at
stock
site
retention
outlet
grass
seeding fencing
site
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping
tile
repair outlet
till
‐ stream
Stream methods Alternate watering Improved vegetation pasture feeding Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Replace with and Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Practice Unit Reductions for lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Each Practice lbs/yr t 2030 44 20 20 60 No. Pra ctic es 22 10 10 30 72 144 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Tot al 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 5122 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 11040 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 6720 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $234,284 $426,444 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $53,124 $0 $84,300 2031 66 30 30 90 No. Practic es 22 10 10 30 72 216 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 7683 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 17034 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 10080 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS UPSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 108
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
lbs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Annual
All
Number Bank
Practices Stream Bed and Practices Annual Reduction Accum. Totals and of Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Banks
and or
near
to outlet
access terrace
waterway
terrace,
buffer water gulley terraces
native
feeding at
stock
site
retention
outlet
grass
seeding fencing
site
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping
tile
repair outlet
till
‐ stream
Stream methods Alternate watering Improved vegetation pasture feeding Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Replace with and Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Practice Unit Reductions for lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Each Practice lbs/yr Cost $192,160 $618,604 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2032 88 40 40 120 No. Practic es 22 10 10 30 72 288 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 10244 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 23028 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 13440 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $810,764 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2033 110 50 50 150 No. Practices 22 10 10 30 72 360 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 12805 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 29022 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 16800 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $1,002,924 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2034 132 60 60 180 No. Practices 22 10 10 30 72 432 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of 31 14 14 42
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS UPSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 109
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
lbs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Annual
All
Number Bank
Practices Stream Bed and Practices Annual Reduction Accum. Totals and of Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Banks
and or
near
to outlet
access terrace
waterway
terrace,
buffer water gulley terraces
native
feeding at
stock
site
retention
outlet
grass
seeding fencing
site
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping
tile
repair outlet
till
‐ stream
Stream methods Alternate watering Improved vegetation pasture feeding Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Replace with and Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Practice Unit Reductions for lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Each Practice lbs/yr Total % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 15366 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 35016 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 20160 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $1,195,084 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2035 154 70 70 210 No. Practices 22 10 10 30 72 504 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 17927 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 41010 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3369 23529 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 966 Cost $192,160 $1,387,244 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2036 176 80 80 240 No. Practic es 22 10 10 30 72 576 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 20488 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 47004 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 26889 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS UPSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 110
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
lbs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Annual
All
Number Bank
Practices Stream Bed and Practices Annual Reduction Accum. Totals and of Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Banks
and or
near
to outlet
access terrace
waterway
terrace,
buffer water gulley terraces
native
feeding at
stock
site
retention
outlet
grass
seeding fencing
site
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping
tile
repair outlet
till
‐ stream
Stream methods Alternate watering Improved vegetation pasture feeding Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Replace with and Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Practice Unit Reductions for lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Each Practice lbs/yr Cost $192,160 $1,579,404 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2037 198 90 90 270 No. Practic es 22 10 10 30 72 648 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 23049 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 52998 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 30249 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $1,771,564 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2038 220 100 100 300 No. Practic es 22 10 10 30 72 720 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 25610 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 58992 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 33609 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $1,963,724 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2039 242 110 110 330 No. 22 10 10 30 72 792 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS UPSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 111
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
lbs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Annual
All
Number Bank
Practices Stream Bed and Practices Annual Reduction Accum. Totals and of Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Banks
and or
near
to outlet
access terrace
waterway
terrace,
buffer water gulley terraces
native
feeding at
stock
site
retention
outlet
grass
seeding fencing
site
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping
tile
repair outlet
till
‐ stream
Stream methods Alternate watering Improved vegetation pasture feeding Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Replace with and Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Practice Unit Reductions for lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Each Practice lbs/yr Practices % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 28171 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 64986 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 36969 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $2,155,884 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2040 264 120 120 360 No. Practices 22 10 10 30 72 864 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 30732 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 70980 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 40329 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $2,348,044 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2041 286 130 130 390 No. Practices 22 10 10 30 72 936 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 33293 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 76974 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 43689 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS UPSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 112
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
lbs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Annual
All
Number Bank
Practices Stream Bed and Practices Annual Reduction Accum. Totals and of Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Banks
and or
near
to outlet
access terrace
waterway
terrace,
buffer water gulley terraces
native
feeding at
stock
site
retention
outlet
grass
seeding fencing
site
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping
tile
repair outlet
till
‐ stream
Stream methods Alternate watering Improved vegetation pasture feeding Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Replace with and Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Practice Unit Reductions for lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Each Practice lbs/yr Cost $192,160 $2,540,204 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2042 308 140 140 420 No. Practices 22 10 10 30 72 1008 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 35854 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 82968 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 47049 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $2,732,364 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2423 330 150 150 450 No. Practices 22 10 10 30 72 1080 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 38415 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 88962 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 50409 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $2,924,524 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2044 352 160 160 480 No. Practices 22 10 10 30 72 1152 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS UPSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 113
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
lbs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Annual
All
Number Bank
Practices Stream Bed and Practices Annual Reduction Accum. Totals and of Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Banks
and or
near
to outlet
access terrace
waterway
terrace,
buffer water gulley terraces
native
feeding at
stock
site
retention
outlet
grass
seeding fencing
site
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping
tile
repair outlet
till
‐ stream
Stream methods Alternate watering Improved vegetation pasture feeding Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Replace with and Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Practice Unit Reductions for lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Each Practice lbs/yr TSS 2561 40976 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 94956 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 53769 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $3,116,684 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2045 374 170 170 510 No. Practices 22 10 10 30 72 1224 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 43537 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 100950 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 57129 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $3,308,844 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2046 396 180 180 540 No. Practices 22 10 10 30 72 1296 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 46098 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 106944 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 60489 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $3,501,004 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2047 418 190 190 570 No. Practices 22 10 10 30 72 1368 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS UPSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 114
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
lbs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Annual
All
Number Bank
Practices Stream Bed and Practices Annual Reduction Accum. Totals and of Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Banks
and or
near
to outlet
access terrace
waterway
terrace,
buffer water gulley terraces
native
feeding at
stock
site
retention
outlet
grass
seeding fencing
site
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping
tile
repair outlet
till
‐ stream
Stream methods Alternate watering Improved vegetation pasture feeding Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Replace with and Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Practice Unit Reductions for lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Each Practice lbs/yr % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 48659 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 112938 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 63849 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $3,693,164 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2048 440 200 200 600 No. Practices 22 10 10 30 72 1440 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 51220 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 118932 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 67209 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $3,885,324 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2049 462 210 210 630 No. Practices 22 10 10 30 72 1512 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 53781 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 124926 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 70569 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $4,077,484 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS UPSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 115
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
lbs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Annual
All
Number Bank
Practices Stream Bed and Practices Annual Reduction Accum. Totals and of Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Banks
and or
near
to outlet
access terrace
waterway
terrace,
buffer water gulley terraces
native
feeding at
stock
site
retention
outlet
grass
seeding fencing
site
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping
tile
repair outlet
till
‐ stream
Stream methods Alternate watering Improved vegetation pasture feeding Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Replace with and Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Practice Unit Reductions for lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Each Practice lbs/yr 2050 484 220 220 660 No. Practices 22 10 10 30 72 1584 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 56342 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 130920 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 73929 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $4,269,644 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2051 506 230 230 690 No. Practices 22 10 10 30 72 1656 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 58903 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 136914 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 77289 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $4,461,804 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2052 528 240 240 720 No. Practices 22 10 10 30 72 1728 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 61464 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS UPSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 116
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
lbs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Annual
All
Number Bank
Practices Stream Bed and Practices Annual Reduction Accum. Totals and of Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Banks
and or
near
to outlet
access terrace
waterway
terrace,
buffer water gulley terraces
native
feeding at
stock
site
retention
outlet
grass
seeding fencing
site
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping
tile
repair outlet
till
‐ stream
Stream methods Alternate watering Improved vegetation pasture feeding Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Replace with and Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Practice Unit Reductions for lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Each Practice lbs/yr N 5994 142908 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 80649 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $4,653,964 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2053 550 250 250 750 No. Practices 22 10 10 30 72 1800 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 64025 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 148902 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 84009 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $4,846,124 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2054 572 260 260 780 No. Practices 22 10 10 30 72 1872 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 66586 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 154896 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 87369 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $5,038,284 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2055 594 270 270 810 No. Practices 22 10 10 30 72 1944 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of 31 14 14 42
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS UPSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 117
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
lbs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Annual
All
Number Bank
Practices Stream Bed and Practices Annual Reduction Accum. Totals and of Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Banks
and or
near
to outlet
access terrace
waterway
terrace,
buffer water gulley terraces
native
feeding at
stock
site
retention
outlet
grass
seeding fencing
site
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping
tile
repair outlet
till
‐ stream
Stream methods Alternate watering Improved vegetation pasture feeding Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Replace with and Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Practice Unit Reductions for lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Each Practice lbs/yr Total % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 69147 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 160890 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 90729 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $5,230,444 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2056 616 280 280 840 No. Practices 22 10 10 30 72 2016 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 71708 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 166884 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 94089 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $5,422,604 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2057 638 290 290 870 No. Practices 22 10 10 30 72 2088 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 74269 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 172878 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 97449 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $5,614,764 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300 2058 660 300 300 900
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS UPSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 118
Annual Number of Practices Water Quality Management Practices
lbs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Annual
All
Number Bank
Practices Stream Bed and Practices Annual Reduction Accum. Totals and of Livestock Cropland Wetland Streambed and Total Livestock Management Practices Cropland Management Practices Banks
and or
near
to outlet
access terrace
waterway
terrace,
buffer water gulley terraces
native
feeding at
stock
site
retention
outlet
grass
seeding fencing
site
restoration pasture stabilization
vegetation low cropping
tile
repair outlet
till
‐ stream
Stream methods Alternate watering Improved vegetation pasture feeding Pasture minimize to Gravel crossing Native buffer No methods Tile Replace with and Wetland structure field,or Stream methods Unit Reductions for Each Practice Unit Reductions for lbs/yr Unit Reductions for Each Practice lbs/yr Each Practice lbs/yr No. Practices 22 10 10 30 72 2160 2 20 0 0 2 0 6 2 10 0 30 % of Total 31 14 14 42 % Accum 31 14 14 42 TSS 2561 76830 0 60 0 0 87 0 192 196 1060 0 966 N 5994 178872 0 220 0 0 156 0 414 490 2800 0 1914 P 3360 100809 344 100 0 0 111 0 204 244 1400 0 957 Cost $192,160 $5,806,924 $2,214 $8,460 $0 $0 $846 $0 $53,124 $32,216 $11,000 $0 $84,300
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LOAD REDUCTIONS UPSTREAM STREAM OF PAULEN ROAD PAGE 119
Table C3. Annual projected costs for the Upper Wakarusa WRAPS Nine Element Plan
Total Calendar Year Projected Costs Projected Year Annual Cost Land Use Technical BMP I&E I&E Assessment Assistance Construction Technical Associated and/or for BMP and Other Assistance Resources Synoptic Implementa Associated Surveys tion Resources 1 2009 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $49,000 $56,000 $200,000 2 2010 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $49,000 $56,000 $200,000 3 2011 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $49,000 $56,000 $200,000 4 2012 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $49,000 $56,000 $200,000 5 2013 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $49,000 $56,000 $200,000 6 2014 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $49,000 $56,000 $200,000 7 2015 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $74,500 $224,000 $393,500 8 2016 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $74,500 $224,000 $393,500 9 2017 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $74,500 $224,000 $393,500 10 2018 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $74,500 $224,000 $393,500 11 2019 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $74,500 $224,000 $393,500 12 2020 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $74,500 $224,000 $393,500 13 2021 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $74,500 $224,000 $393,500 14 2022 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $74,500 $224,000 $393,500 15 2023 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $74,500 $224,000 $393,500 16 2024 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $74,500 $224,000 $393,500 17 2025 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $74,500 $224,000 $393,500 18 2026 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $74,500 $224,000 $393,500 19 2027 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $74,500 $224,000 $393,500 20 2028 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $74,500 $224,000 $393,500 21 2029 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 22 2030 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 23 2031 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 24 2032 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 25 2033 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 26 2034 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 27 2035 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 28 2036 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 29 2037 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 30 2038 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 31 2039 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 32 2040 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 33 2041 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160
APPENDIX C. ANNUAL PROJECTED COSTS FOR UPPER WAKARUSA NINE ELEMENT PLAN PAGE 120
Total Calendar Year Projected Costs Projected Year Annual Cost Land Use Technical BMP I&E I&E Assessment Assistance Construction Technical Associated and/or for BMP and Other Assistance Resources Synoptic Implementa Associated Surveys tion Resources 34 2042 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 35 2043 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 36 2044 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 37 2045 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 38 2046 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 39 2047 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 40 2048 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 41 2049 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 42 2050 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 43 2051 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 44 2052 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 45 2053 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 46 2054 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 47 2055 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 48 2056 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 49 2057 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 50 2058 $26,500 $35,500 $33,000 $59,000 $416,160 $570,160 51 2059 $24,500 $28,000 $33,000 $57,500 $192,160 $335,160 52 2060 $24,500 $28,000 $33,000 $57,500 $192,160 $335,160 53 2061 $24,500 $28,000 $33,000 $57,500 $192,160 $335,160 54 2062 $24,500 $28,000 $33,000 $57,500 $192,160 $335,160 55 2063 $24,500 $28,000 $33,000 $57,500 $192,160 $335,160 56 2064 $24,500 $28,000 $33,000 $57,500 $192,160 $335,160 57 2065 $24,500 $28,000 $33,000 $57,500 $192,160 $335,160 58 2066 $24,500 $28,000 $33,000 $57,500 $192,160 $335,160 59 2067 $24,500 $28,000 $33,000 $57,500 $192,160 $335,160 60 2058 $24,500 $28,000 $33,000 $57,500 $192,160 $335,160 Total $1,570,000 $2,055,000 $1,980,000 $3,682,000 $17,878,400 $27,165,400
APPENDIX C. YEARLY PROJECTIONS PAGE 121
Table C4. Interim Milestones
Estimated Estimated Percent Sediment Timeline Number Sediment Phosphorous Percent of Estimated Phosphorous Projected of Reduction from of Load Load phosphorous WRAPS Reduction Year sediment Goal 2009 Projects Reduction Reduction goal Cost Goal (lbs/yr) goal (tons/yr) (tons/yr) (lbs/yr) 5 2014 83 4376 4.41 8635 5.73 $365,524 10 2019 413 18315 18.5 29626 19.7 $1,488,254 19 2028 1007 43405 43.8 67172 44.6 $3,509,168 39 2048 below Paulen Rd 2327 99161 100 150608 100.0 $8,000,088 99161 150596 above Paulen Rd 1440 51220 66.7 67209 66.7 $3,885,324 49 2058 above Paulen Rd 2160 76830 100 100809 100.0 $5,806,924 76830 100800
APPENDIX C. INTERIM MILESTONES PAGE 122
Table C5. Projected WRAPS Costs for Upper Wakarusa Implementation of 9 Element Plan
2009‐2014 2015‐2028 2029‐2058 2059‐2058 Projected Projected Cost Elements First 6 years Next 14 years Another 20 years Last 10 years Cost by Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Element Implementation of BMP's Downstream from Paulen Rd $56,000 $336,000 $225,000 $3,150,000 $225,000 $4,500,000 $8,492,000 Upstream from Paulen Rd $192,160 $3,843,200 $192,160 $1,921,600 $6,149,120 Technical Assistance/Coordination $49,000 $294,000 $74,500 $1,043,000 $59,000 $1,180,000 $59,000 $590,000 $3,348,500 Associated Costs $26,500 $159,000 $26,500 $371,000 $26,500 $530,000 $26,500 $265,000 $1,431,000 Informaiton and Education $35,000 $210,000 $35,000 $490,000 $35,000 $700,000 $35,000 $350,000 $1,890,000 Total Projected Cost each Period $166,500 $999,000 $361,000 $5,054,000 $537,660 $10,753,200 $312,660 $3,126,600 Total Projected Cost $21,144,120
Data taken from 9 Element Plan Tables 4.2, 5.1, 5.2 and 6.4
Total WRAPS Projected Cost First Five Years 2011‐2015 is $1,027,000: $666,000 from 2011‐2014 plus $361,000 for 2015 Other entities such as the Conservation Districts and Federal Programs among others must add another 40% to the BMP costs which would be another $179,000: $89,000 from 2011‐2014 plus $90,000 for 2015
APPENDIX C. PROJECTED WRAPS COSTS FOR UPPER WAKARUSA IMPLEMENTATION OF 9 ELEMENT PLAN PAGE 123