Twin Lakes WRAPS – 9 Element Watershed Plan

Transcription

Twin Lakes WRAPS – 9 Element Watershed Plan SummaryFlint Hills RC&D
•
Impairments to be addressed
Directly addressing:
Council Grove Lake – Eutrophication
Neosho River - Bacteria
•
Positively Effecting:
Council Grove Lake - Siltation
Munkers Creek near Council Grove – DO
Cropland Targeted areas were
identified after reviewing the Council
Grove Watershed STEPL and gaining local
knowledge, the Twin Lakes SLT choose
three priority areas for Cropland and BMP
Implementation
Livestock Targeted areas were identified
after reviewing KDHE monitoring data
and the Twin Lakes 303 d-listed waters.
Then after reviewing a Twin Lakes
watershed CAFO map three
subwatersheds were identified.
Neosho River near Parkerville – TP
Prioritized Critical Areas for Targeting
BMPs
Best Management Practices and Load
Reduction Goals
Best Management Practices (BMPs) to
address phosphorus and sediment in the
watershed where chosen by the SLT based on
local acceptance/adoptability and the amount
of load reduction gained per dollar spent.
Phosphorus Reducing Cropland BMPs
Targeting Considerations:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Vegetative Buffers
Grassed Waterway
No-Till
Terraces
Nutrient Management Plan
Permanent Vegetation
Grade Stabilization Structures
Phosphorus Reducing Livestock BMPs
•
•
•
•
•
Vegetative Filter Strip
Relocate Feeding Pens
Relocate Pasture Feeding Sites
Alternative (Off-Stream) Watering System
Rotational Grazing
Twin Lakes WRAPS – 9 Element Watershed Plan SummaryFlint Hills RC&D
Load reduction needed
•
•
The focus of the Twin Lakes 9 element
plan will be the phosphorus load
reduction. Implementing BMP’s directed
at the phosphorus load reduction should
also reduce nitrogen loads entering
Council Grove Reservior.
Based on the KWO bathymetric Council
Grove is filling (sediment) in at a designed
rate. The SLT’s goal is to maintain the
siltation rate entering the reservior.
TWIN LAKES
WRAPS
9-ELEMENT PLAN
OUR WORLD, OUR
WATER, OUR
RESPONSIBILITY
2012
116 Fox Street
620-767-5111
Angela Beavers:
angela.beavers@ks.usda.gov
Angela Anderson:
mystery_barnowl@yahoo.com
Input for this plan was provided by the Twin Lakes
WRAPS Stakeholder Leadership Team , KDHE and
Kansas State University.
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment has provided
financial assistance for this project through an EPA Section 319
Non-Point Source Pollution Control Grant.
Page 1
TWIN LAKES WRAPS 9-ELEMENT PLAN
2012
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This plan was completed with extensive assistance from Kansas State University. Many
thanks must be given to the following people:
K-State Research and Extension Project (KSRE) Staff
Robert Wilson, Watershed Planner, Office of Local Government
Josh Roe, Watershed Economist, Department of Agricultural Economics
Susan Brown, Kansas Center for Agricultural Resources and the Environment
Aleksey Sheshukov, Watershed Modeler, Department of Biological and Agricultural
Engineering
Twin Lakes Watershed Stakeholder Leadership Team
Watershed Representatives: Angela Beavers, Joe Hecht, Laura Marks, Chris
McAfee, Katie Miller, Cindy Mullen, Angelina Zimmerman, Billy Colvin, Leland Parker
Agency Members
Morris County: JoBea Titus-Hutchinson, Conservation District Manager; Joe
Hecht, NRCS; Laura Marks, KSRE
Kansas Department of Health and Environment Project Officer: Ann D’Alfonso,
Watershed Management Section
Additional Technical Assistance Provided by: Rich Basore, Kansas Department of
Health and Environment; Bobbi Wendt, Kansas Water Office; Chris GNau, Kansas
Water Office
Flint Hills RC&D: Angela Beavers, WRAPS Coordinator; Angela Anderson, WRAPS
Coordinator
Kansas Rural Center: Lyle Kohlmeier, Field Organizer
Page 2
2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………….………2
1.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..........6
1.1 History……………………………………………………………………….........6
1.2 Development of the WRAPS Project……………………………………………..8
1.3 Preface……………………………………………………………………….........8
2.0 Watershed Characteristics…………………………………………………………………9
2.1 Drainage Area……………………………………………………………………..9
2.2 Watershed Review…………………………………………………….………….10
3.0 Land Use…………………………………………………………………………..……..12
3.1 Rangeland………………………………………………………………………..12
3.2 Cropland………………………………………………………………………….12
3.3 Developed Land………………………………………………………………….13
3.4 Public Water Supplies……………………………………………………………13
3.5 NPDES and CAFO Facilities……………………………………………………13
3.5.1 Confined Livestock…………………………………………………..14
3.5.2 Unconfined Concentrated Animal Areas…………………………….14
4.0 Designated Uses for Council Grove Reservoir…………………………………………..16
5.0 Water Quality Data…..…………………………………………………………………..18
5.1 Total Daily Maximum Loads…………………………………………………….18
5.2 Eutrophication……………………………………………………………………21
5.3 Current Conditions………………………………………………………….........21
5.3.1 Eutrophication ……………………………………………………….21
5.3.2 Phosphorus………………………………………………………….21
5.3.3 Sediment..……………………………………………………….........21
5.3.4 Bacteria..……………………………………………………………...21
5.4 Assessment Data…..……………………………………………………………..23
5.4.1 Step L Model…………………………………………………………23
5.4.2 Cropland and Livestock Targeted Areas……………………………..24
6.0 Cropland and Livestock Best Management Practices…………………………………….26
6.1 Cropland Best Management Practices……………………………………..…….26
6.1.1 Vegetative Buffer……….………………………………….…………26
6.1.2 Grassed Waterway………………………………………….…..…….27
6.1.3 No-Till………………………………………………………….…….27
6.1.4 Terraces…………………………………………………….….……..27
6.1.5 Permanent Vegetation………………………………………….…….27
6.1.6 Nutrient Management Plan………………………………….……….27
6.2 Livestock Best Management Practices…………………………………………..27
6.2.1 Vegetative Filter Strip………………………………………………..27
6.2.2 Relocate Feeding Sites………………………………………………..28
6.2.3 Alternative (Off Stream) Watering Systems………………………….28
6.2.4 Rotational Grazing……………………………………………………28
6.3 Cropland and Livestock “Needs” ……………………………………….…….....28
7.0 Contaminant Sources…...…………………………………………………………….…..28
8.0 TMDL Load Allocations………………………………………………………………….33
9.0 Best Management Practices, Costs and Efficiencies……………………………..…...36-90
10.0 Information and Education…………………………………………………..……….....91
11.0 Twin Lakes Water Quality Milestones to Determine Improvement……………..……..97
11.1 Water Quality Milestones for Council Grove Lake………………………….....97
Page 3
2012
11.2 Water Quality Milestones for Munkers Creek, Lairds Creek & Neosho River……..99
11.3 Water Quality Milestones for Bacteria……………………………………………100
11.4 Additional Water Quality Indicators………………………………………………103
11.5 Monitoring and Water Quality Progress…………………………………………..103
11.6 Evaluation of Monitoring Data……………………………………………….103-104
12.0 Glossary of Terms…………………………………………………………………………119
13.0 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………120
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Photos of a Flooded Street and the Neosho River Bridge in Council Grove, 1951…….……………6
2 DEM& Location of Water Quality Sampling Sites of C.G. Lake Watershed………...........................9
3 Neosho Basin, SLT Areas, 2011………………………………………………………................….10
4 Twin Lakes WRAPS Watershed, July 2011……………………………………………...............…11
5 Land Cover Map of the Twin Lakes Watershed………………………………………...............…..12
6 T.L. Confined Animal Feeding Operations, March 2011……………………………...............……15
7 Impaired Water Bodies……………………………………………………………...............………18
8 Impaired Waters to Be Addressed…………..……………………………………...............………20
9 Neosho Headwaters Bacteria Index…….………………………………………...............…………22
10 Total Phosphorus Load………………………………………………………...............………….24
11 Priority HUC 12 Watersheds……………………………………………………...............…….....25
12 Monitoring Sites in the Twin Lakes Watershed…………………………………...............……….26
13 Possible BMPs for Phosphorus.……………………………………………… ...............………...29
14 Possible BMPs for Sediment……………………………………………………...............………..30
15 Possible BMPs for Bacteria………..……………………………………………...............………..31
16 Possible BMPs for Nitrogen………………………………………………………..............………32
17 Total Phosphorus Load Reduction…………………………………………………...............……34
18 Total Nitrogen Load Reduction……………………………………………………...............……..35
19 Neosho Headwaters Bacteria Index…………………………………………………...............…..101
20 SC637 Neosho River 2007 and 2011 Intensive Sampling Events…………………...............……102
LIST OF TABLES
1 USGS Data from the 1951 Flood………………………………..…………………...............………7
2 Lake & Stream Designation…………………………………………..……………...............……..17
3 2009 TMDLs in the Watershed…………………………………………..………...............……….19
4 2010 303d Listed Impaired Waters in Twin Lakes Watershed………………..…...............……….19
5 TMDL Review Schedule for the Neosho Basin………………………………….................………20
6 Watershed Runoff Loads and Ranking……………………………………………...............…..…..23
7 Twin Lakes BMP Adoption Rates and Gully Erosion……………………………...............………36
8 Cropland BMPs, Costs & Reduction Efficiencies…………………………………...............………36
9 Annual Adoption (treated acres) Cropland BMPs…………………………………...............………37
10 Annual Soil Erosion Reduction, Cropland BMPs…………………………………...............……..38
11 Annual Phosphorus Reduction, Cropland BMPs…………………………………...............………39
12 Annual Nitrogen Reduction………………………………………………………...………………40
13 Cropland BMP Implementation Milestones…………………………………..................…………41
14 Annual Cost Before Cost Share BMPs…………………………………………..................………42
15 Annual Cost Before Cost Share Cropland BMPs………………………………..................………43
16 Annual Livestock BMP Adoption……………………………………………………….................44
17 Livestock BMP Adoption Milestones…………………………………………………...................45
18 Annual Cost Before Cost Share of Implemented Livestock BMPs……………………..................46
19 Annual Cost After Cost Share of Implemented Livestock BMPs………………………................47
20 Annual Phosphorus Load Reductions………………………………………………….................48
21 Annual Nitrogen Load Reductions……………………………………………………...................49
Page 4
2012
22 Combined Soil Erosion Reduction of Cropland and Livestock BMPS…….………….....................50
23 Combination of Cropland and Livestock BMP to Meet the Council Grove Lake Phosphorus
TMDL…….……………………………………………………………....................................................51
24 Combined Nitrogen Reduction of Cropland and Livestock BMPs….…………………...................52
25 Total Annual Cost After Cost Share by BMP Category……………………………..…....................53
26 Phosphorus TMDL Summary…………………………………………………………....................54
27 Sub-Watershed #0101 Annual Adoption Cropland BMPs……………………………......................55
30 Sub-Watershed #0101 Annual Soil Erosion Reduction Cropland BMPs………………....................58
33 Sub-Watershed #0101 Annual Phosphorus Reduction Cropland BMPs………………...................61
36 Sub-Watershed #0101 Annual Nitrogen Reduction Cropland BMPs………………….....................64
39 Sub-Watershed #0101 Annual Adoption Cropland BMPs…………………………….....................67
40 Sub-Watershed #0102 Annual Adoption Cropland BMPs……………..………………...................68
42 Sub-Watershed #0101 Annual Cost Before Cost Share Cropland BMPs………………...................70
45 Sub-Watershed #0101 Annual Cost After Cost-Share Cropland BMPs……………..…...................73
46 Sub-Watershed #0102 Annual Cost After Cost-Share Cropland BMPs……………….....................74
47 Sub-Watershed #0104 Annual Cost After Cost-Share Cropland BMPs……………….....................75
48 Sub-Watershed #0101 Annual Livestock BMP Adoption……………………………......................76
49 Sub-Watershed #0102 Annual Livestock BMP Adoption……………………………......................77
50 Sub-Watershed #0104 Annual Livestock BMP Adoption…………………………….......................78
51 Sub-Watershed #0101 Annual Cost Before Cost Share of Implementing Livestock BMPs………..79
54 Sub-Watershed #0101 Annual Cost After Cost Share of Implementing Livestock BMPs………….82
55 Sub-Watershed #0102 Annual Cost After Cost Share of Implementing Livestock BMPs………….83
56 Sub-Watershed #0104 Annual Cost After Cost Share of Implementing Livestock BMPs…………84
57 Sub-Watershed #0101 Annual Phosphorus Load Reductions…………………................................85
58 Sub-Watershed #0102 Annual Phosphorus Load Reductions……………........................................86
59 Sub-Watershed #0104 Annual Phosphorus Load Reductions…………............................................87
60 Sub-Watershed #0101 Annual Nitrogen Load Reductions………………..........................................88
61 Sub-Watershed #0102 Annual Nitrogen Load Reductions…………..................................................89
62 Sub-Watershed #0104 Annual Nitrogen Load Reductions………………..........................................90
63 Cropland BMP Implementation Information and Education……………………….....................92-93
64 Livestock BMP Implementation Information and Education………………………....................94-96
65 Water Quality Milestones for Council Grove Lake………………....................................................98
66 Water Quality Milestones for KDHE Stream Stations in the Twin Lakes Watershed…………….99
67 TMDL Review Schedule for the Neosho Basin…………………………………............................104
68 Watershed Wide Information and Education……………………………………....................105-107
69 Technical Assistance Needed to Implement BMPs………………………………...................108-109
70 Total Annual Cost for I&E if All Events are Implemented…………………………..................…109
71 Organization’s Contact Information………………………………………………..................110-118
Page 5
2012
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 HISTORY
Twin Lakes is the name used to describe the two reservoirs that lie in the headwater of the
Neosho River. The two impoundments that are located in the watershed are the Council Grove
City Lake and the Council Grove Lake.
The City Reservoir was constructed in 1942 as the primary water supply for the city of Council
Grove. In the City Reservoir good water quality had been maintained and protection efforts for
that body of water are discussed in the attached Source Water Protection Plan compiled by Katie
Miller of the Kansas Rural Water Association.
Eastern Kansas suffered through a series of droughts in the late 1940s and the early 1950s. By
1951, farmers and ranchers in the area were praying for spring rains to save their crops and water
the grass of the expansive Flint Hills needed to graze their livestock. Their earnest requests were
answered and a series of much needed rains arrived in March and April. The problem was, the
downpours never stopped. By May, some of the rivers in the western part of the state were
reaching flood stage. On May 22, a flash flood west of Hays rushed down Big Creek and
swallowed most of the southern part of the town, killing six people, three of whom were
teenagers returning from a night out at a dance in nearby Ellis.
Cloud bursts and flash floods moved eastward and by early July, the Kansas, Arkansas, Neosho,
Marais des Cygnes and the Verdigris rivers all left their banks causing tremendous amounts of
property damage and human suffering. The worst flooding occurred after the rains of July 9th
when five to seventeen inches fell over a 72 hour period in eastern Kansas. The rivers crested in
a few days, but the flood waters did not fully recede for weeks.
Figure 1: Photos of a flooded street and the
Neosho River Bridge in Council Grove, KS
July 1951.
Page 6
2012
Table 1: USGS data from the 1951 flood.
Neosho River
City
Emporia
Neosho
Rapids
Leroy
Burlington
River
crest
33.4 ft.
Height above flood
Date of
stage
measurement
13.4 ft.
July 11, 1951
34.3 ft.
12.3 ft.
July 11, 1951
34.48 ft.
41.53 ft.
11.48 ft.
14.53 ft.
July 12, 1951
July 12, 1951
On July 13, a total of 1,074,000 acres (4346 km²) in Kansas were
flooded.
After seeing the devastation that the floods left in their wake, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
was able to rally increased support for a system of levees and reservoirs in eastern Kansas.
Proposals for such a system of structures had been around since the 1930s, but local opposition
had successfully blocked construction of all but a few. In the aftermath of the 1951 floods, the
support for the federal flood control system overcame the dissenters and site selection began.
Construction began on the Council Grove Reservoir, in 1962 to help with flood control in the
region.
Although its beginnings were as a flood control project, the Council Grove Reservoir has
become much more during the now nearly 50 years since its completion. A portion of the
storage in the lake is held in reserve as a water source for Council Grove, Emporia and Iola
which can be obtained for use through releases to the Neosho River. It is a very popular
recreation spot for visitors from all over the country. The Reservoir and its surrounding public
and private lands have become important aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat. Thus,
protecting and restoring this important water body is important both ecologically and
economically.
Restoration of the water quality in the Council Grove Reservoir will be the focus of this
document. The Twin Lakes WRAPS Stakeholder Leadership Team, SLT, has worked with Josh
Roe of Kansas State University and with staff from the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment to put together this Plan. Over the next 30 years, the actions outlined in this
document will help to maintain and improve the water quality in the Reservoir.
Page 7
2012
1.2 Development of the WRAPS project
The Twin Lakes Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy project began in 2005 at the
urging of the Morris County Conservation District. The Flint Hills Resource Conservation and
Development, RC&D, Council was contacted and agreed to serve as the project sponsor. A
project manager, Katie Miller, was hired and a stakeholder leadership team made up of local
landowners and agency personnel was recruited. During the intervening years, the make-up of
the SLT and the project manager have changed, but the goal of the group has always been to
compile a 9-Element Plan that could set forth concrete actions that would lead to the
improvement and protection of the water quality in the Council Grove Reservoir. Also assisting
in the implementation of this plan will be the Morris County Conservation District Board of
Supervisors and staff members that will serve as the Project Management Team, PMT.
The goals that the Twin Lakes SLT has adopted are as follows;
1. Reduce the amount of total phosphorus flowing into the reservoir as detected by the
KDHE monitoring stations located up in the watershed.
2. Reduce the amount of sediment entering the reservoir.
3. Reduce the amount of E.Coli bacteria entering the surface waters of the watershed as
measured by the Bacteria Index used by KDHE.
Accomplishment of these goals will involve both an educational component as well as the
implementation of Best Management Practices on both public and private lands within the entire
watershed. Efforts will be focused on the Target Watersheds discussed later in this plan.
These efforts will also aide in the reduction of other non-point source pollutants such as nitrogen
that enter the Reservoir and degrade its water quality.
1.3 Preface
The purpose of this Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) report for the
Twin Lakes Watershed is to outline a plan of restoration and protection goals and actions for the
surface waters of the watershed. Watershed goals are characterized as “restoration” or
“protection”. Watershed restoration is for surface waters that do not meet Kansas water quality
standards, and for areas of the watershed that need improvement in habitat, land management or
other attributes. Watershed protection is needed for surface waters that currently meet water
quality standards, but are in need of protection from future degradation.
This report is intended to serve as an overall strategy to guide watershed restoration and
protection efforts by individuals, local, state and federal agencies and organizations. At the end
of the WRAPS process, the Stakeholder Leadership Team (SLT) will have the capability,
capacity and confidence to make decisions that will restore and protect the water quality and
watershed conditions of the Twin Lakes Watershed.
Page 8
2012
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS
2.1 Drainage Area
A watershed is an area of land that catches precipitation and funnels it to a particular creek,
stream and river and so on, until the water drains into an ocean. A watershed has distinct
elevation boundaries that do not follow political “lines” such as county, state and international
borders. Watersheds come in all shapes and sizes, with some covering an area of a few acres
while others are thousands of square miles across. Below is a map of the Council Grove
watershed.
Figure 2: DEM and location of water quality
sampling sites of Council Grove Lake Watershed.
Page 9
2012
2.2 Watershed Review
There are twelve river basins located in Kansas. The scope of this WRAPS project is a portion
of the Neosho Basin. The entire basin drains the Neosho River and its tributaries into Oklahoma
and eventually empties into the Gulf of Mexico.
Figure 3: Neosho Basin, SLT Areas,
KDHE, July 2011.
Page 10
2012
The entire Neosho Basin is covered by WRAPS projects. The scope of this plan will focus on
the Council Grove (Twin Lakes) watershed located in the northern point of the Neosho Basin.
A HUC is an acronym for Hydrologic Unit Code. HUCs are an identification system for
watersheds. Each watershed has a unique HUC in addition to a common name. As watersheds
become smaller in geographic size, the HUC number will become larger. For example, the
Neosho Basin is one of twelve basins in the state of Kansas. Within the Neosho Basin there are
seven HUC 8 classifications. HUC 8’s can further be split into smaller watersheds that are given
HUC 10 numbers and HUC 10 watersheds can be further divided into smaller HUC 12’s. The
HUC 8 number for the Neosho Headwaters watershed is 11070201. The HUC 10 for the Twin
Lakes watershed is 1107020101. The HUC 12 numbers for the subwatersheds are listed below.
Figure 4. Twin Lakes WRAPS
Watershed, KDHE, July 2011.
The Council Grove Reservoir watershed covers 259 square miles, 165,760 acres, and is located
at the headwaters of the Neosho River in the Flint Hills Eco region. The lake itself covers 2589
acres with a maximum depth of 36’. The Reservoir is managed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers out of the Tulsa District.
Page 11
2012
Authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1950, the project was designed and built by the Tulsa
District, Corps of Engineers, at a cost of $11.5 million. Construction began in 1962, and the
project was placed in full flood control operation in October 1964. The project is one of seven
reservoirs authorized for full development of the Neosho River Basin in Kansas and Oklahoma.
The four In Kansas are Council Grove and John Redmond on the Neosho River and Marion and
Cedar Point on the Cottonwood River, a tributary of the Neosho. The three in Oklahoma are Fort
Gibson, Markham Ferry, and Pensacola. Cedar Point Dam has been de-authorized by the US
Congress and will not be constructed.
3.0 LAND USE
3.1 Rangeland
Due to its location in the Flint Hills, 67% of the land use in the watershed is native tallgrass
prairie. These lush grasslands are used primarily to graze cattle for three to six months of the
year.
3.2 Cropland
Another 21% of the land use is for crop production. Common crops produced in the area include
wheat, corn, soybeans, alfalfa or other forage crop which are mainly grown in some type of
rotation. As indicated on the map below, the cropland is widely distributed throughout the
watershed with more concentration in the valley along the main stem of the Neosho River.
Figure 5: Land Cover Map of the Twin Lakes
Watershed.
Page 12
2012
3.3 Developed Land
There are three communities located partially or totally within the watershed, White City,
Dwight and Alta Vista. A developed area is also located on the western edge on the grounds of
the Herington Municipal Airport. The airfield was built as a bomber staging area during World
War II and now the runways are home to the largest Confined Animal Feeding Operation in the
watershed, the Tiffany Cattle Company. These developed areas account for less than 1% of the
total land use in the watershed.
3.4 Public Water Supplies
Each of the three communities, White City, Dwight and Alta Vista use groundwater sources for
their public water supply. At least part of the wells in each of the cities is located within the Twin
Lakes watershed. The largest public water supply is the Council Grove City Reservoir which
provides water for the City of Council Grove. The Council Grove Federal Reservoir is a backup
water supply for the cities of Council Grove, Emporia and Iola. The communities would most
likely access the water supply through releases from the Lake into the Neosho River.
Most of the population in the watershed obtains their water through private groundwater wells.
White City and Dwight have both recently updated their water supply and waste water systems
with grant funds obtained through State and Federal sources.
3.5 NPDES and CAFO Facilities
There are three permitted NPDES facilities in the Twin Lakes Watershed. Dwight MWTP
seldom discharges effluent into Munkers Creek while Alta Vista and White City MWTPs
consistently discharge below their design flow. The construction of a three-cell lagoon was
considered to remove wastewater from the septic systems around the Council Grove City
Reservoir by the City of Council Grove. Ultimately, this wastewater treatment system was not
constructed due to insufficient financial support. In compliance with their NPDES permits,
White City samples for biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, pH, and ammonia,
but nitrogen and phosphorus data are not available for either of the waste treatment plants. For
typical lagoon systems in Kansas, average effluent TN and TP concentrations are 7 mg/L and 2
mg/L, respectively.
Watershed.
NPDES Permit Facility
KS-0096733 Alta Vista
KS-0051675 Dwight
KS-0096873 White City
Name
MWTP
MWTP
MWTP
Type
Design Flow
Four-Cell Lagoon 0.054 MGD
Three-Cell Lagoon 0.070 MGD
Three-Cell Lagoon 0.094 MGD
Reach
Munkers Creek
Lairds Creek
Neosho River
Permit Expires
4/30/2013
6/30/2013
4/30/2013
Page 13
2012
3.5.1 Confined Livestock
Any livestock facility with an animal unit capacity of 300 or more or a facility with a daily
discharge regardless of size must register with the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment (KDHE). Any facility, no matter what animal capacity, is required to register if
KDHE’s investigates them due to a complaint and the facility is found to pose a significant
pollution potential. Facilities which register with KDHE will be site inspected for significant
pollution potential, if deemed not a significant pollution potential by KDHE, they can be
certified if they follow BMPs as recommended by the technical service provider and
approved by KDHE. These include but are not limited to: regular cleaning of stalls,
managing manure storage areas, etc. Facilities with 300 animal units up to 999 (known as
Confined Feeding Facilities (CFFs) identified to have a significant pollution potential must
obtain a State of Kansas Livestock Waste Management Permit. Facilities 1,000 or more must
obtain an NPDES Livestock Waste Management Permit (Federal) known as Confined Animal
Feeding Operations (CAFOs). Operations with a daily discharge, such as a dairy operation that
generates an outflow from the milking barn on a daily basis, are required to have a permit. (See
www.kdheks.gov/feedlots) for more information.
3.5.2 Unconfined Concentrated Animal Areas
Unconfined areas of animal concentration – e.g. watering areas, loafing areas or feeding areas
can also pose a pollution potential if not managed properly. These are potential sources of
nutrients, sediment, bacteria and aquatic impacts from manure and leftover feed. Best
Management Practices for these areas can include proper manure application from a cleaning of
these areas. This would be especially important when addressing cropland target areas. Other
practices such as alternative water supplies, rotational grazing are for grazing type of activities,
alternative watering or loafing areas, mineral and feed location rotation etc. will not likely
address any type of “regulated” livestock pollution control need.
There are 10 registered confined animal feedlot operations (CAFOs) that are either certified (8)
or permitted (2), which are primarily located in the central portion of the watershed. One of two
permitted facilities is of sufficient size (beef, 15,500 animal units) to warrant NPDES permitting
(KS0117218 or ANEMR- C001). All the permitted and certified livestock facilities (2 dairy, 5
beef, and 3 swine) have waste management systems designed to minimize runoff entering their
operation or detaining runoff emanating from their facilities. In addition, they are designed to
retain a 25- year, 24-hr rainfall/runoff event as well as an anticipated two weeks of normal
wastewater from their operations. Typically, this rainfall event coincides with stream flow that is
occurs than 1-5% of the time. Though the total potential number of animals is 18,088 head in the
watershed, the actual number of animals at the feedlot operations is typically less than the
allowable number.
Page 14
2012
Figure 6. Twin Lakes Confined Animal
Feeding Operations. March 2011.
The sediment and nutrient loads found in the watershed streams and in the Council Grove
reservoir are derived from many non-point sources in the watershed. The previously discussed
NPDES and permitted CAFOs are some of the obvious potential sources as are the many
unpermitted small animal feeding operations located throughout the area. No manufacturing or
industrial sites are located in the Twin Lakes watershed. Therefore, livestock and crop
production areas are the main contributors to the pollutant loads in the watershed. Streambank
erosion, mainly along the main stem of the Neosho River is a major contributor to the sediment
load and also will contribute to the nutrients found in the stream as well.
Page 15
2012
4.0 DESIGNATED USES FOR COUNCIL GROVE RESERVOIR
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 and livestock watering. These are commonly
referred to as “designated uses” as stated in the Kansas Surface Water Register, 2004, issued by
KDHE. Surface waters are given certain “designated uses” based on what the waters will be
used for. For example, waters that will come into contact with human skin should be of higher
quality than waters used for watering livestock. Therefore, each “designated use” category has a
different water quality standard associated with it. When water does not meet its “designated
use” water quality standard then that water is considered impaired.
Page 16
2012
Table 2. Lake & stream designation.
CLASS
AL
CR
DS
FP
GR
IW
IR
LW
1107020127
110702019023
GP
GP
E
E
C
b
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1107020132
GP
E
C
X
O
X
X
X
X
1107020135
GP
E
b
X
X
X
X
X
X
1107020129
GP
E
C
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lairds Creek
1107020130
Neosho River, West Fork
1107020128
Lanos Creek
1107020121
Munkers Creek, East Branch 1107020131
Munkers Creek
1107020118
Neosho River
1107020123
Council Grove Lake
N/A
Council Grove City Lake
N/A
CUSEGA = channel unit segment
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
b
b
b
C
C
C
A
A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
X
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lake/Stream Name
Parkers Creek
Level Creek
Munkers Creek, Middle
Branch
Crooked Creek
Haun Creek
CUSEGA
CLASS
=
anti-degradation category
GP
=
general purpose waters
AL
=
designated for aquatic life use
E
=
expected aquatic life use water
CR
=
A
=
C
=
b
=
designated for contact recreational use
Primary contact recreation stream segment/lake that is a public
swimming area/has a posted public swimming area
Primary contact recreation stream segment/lake that is not open to
and accessible by the public under Kansas law
Secondary contact recreation stream segment/lake that is not open
to and accessible by the public under Kansas law
FP
=
designated for food procurement use
DS
=
designated for domestic water supply
GR
=
designated for ground water recharge
IW
=
designated for industrial water supply use
IR
=
designated for irrigation use
LW
=
designated for livestock watering use
X
=
O
=
blank
=
referenced stream segment/lake is assigned the indicated
designated use
referenced stream segment/lake does not support the indicated
designated use
capacity of the referenced stream segment/lake to support the
indicated designated use has not been determined by use
attainability analysis
Page 17
2012
5.0 WATER QUALITY DATA
5.1 Total Daily Maximum Loads (TMDL)
Based on the Clean Water Act, a water body that does not meet water quality standards is
considered “impaired”. The Clean Water Act requires States to develop a clean-up plan for
impairments. The cleanup plan and the process used to develop it is the Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL). A TMDL designation 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.
Figure 7. Impaired Water Bodies.
KDHE.
Pollutants are assigned “categories” depending on stage of TMDL development:
Category 5 – Waters needing TMDL(s)
Category 4a – Waters that have a TMDL(s) developed for them and remain impaired
Category 3 – Waters that are indeterminate and need more data or information
Page 18
2012
TMDLs in the Watershed
The TMDLs that are highlighted in blue will be directly targeted by this WRAPS plan.
Table 3. 2009 TMDLs in the
Watershed.
Category
4a - Has TMDL
and remains
impaired
4a - Has TMDL
and remains
impaired
4a - Has TMDL
and remains
impaired
4a - Has TMDL
and remains
impaired
2009 TMDLs in the Watershed
Water Segment
TMDL Pollutant
Priority
Sampling Station
Council Grove
Lake
Eutrophication
High
LM022001
Council Grove
Lake
Siltation
High
LM022001
Neosho River
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
Medium
SC637
Neosho River
(Parkerville)
Copper
Low
SC637
Table 4. 2010 303d listed impaired waters
in the Twin Lakes watershed.
303d Listed Waters in the Watershed
5 – Waters needing
TMDL
2010 303d listed impaired Waters in the Twin Lakes Watershed
Water Segment
TMDL Pollutant
Priority
Sampling Station
* Munkers Creek
Near Council
Grove
Dissolved Oxygen Low
SC631
Four Mile Creek
Near Council
Grove
Zinc
Low
SC630
5 - Waters needing
TMDL
Lairds Creek near
Kelso
5 - Waters needing
TMDL
3- Waters with
insufficient data
for listing decision
* Neosho River
near Parkerville
Four Mile Creek
near Council
Grove
3 - Waters with
insufficient data
for listing decision
Munkers Creek
Near Council
Grove
Category
5 - Waters needing
TMDL
Zinc
Low
SC632
Total Phosphorus
Low
SC637
Atrazine
SC630
Copper
SC631
* TMDLs highlighted in blue will be directly targeted by this plan. Waters highlighted in orange will be
positively impacted by BMP implementation from this plan.
Page 19
2012
Table 5. TMDL Review Schedule for the
Neosho Basin.
TMDL Review Schedule for the Neosho Basin
Year Ending in
September
2013
Implementation
Period
2014-2023
Possible TMDL to
Revise
2002, 2004, 2005
TMDL to Evaluate
2002, 2004, 2005
2018
2019-2028
2000, 2004, 2005,
2008
2000, 2004, 2005,
2008
Figure 8. Impaired Waters to be
Addressed. KDHE.
Page 20
2012
5.3 Current Conditions
5.3.1 Eutrophication
The Council Grove Reservoir has been on the TMDL 303d list since 1998. The impairment
listed for the lake is eutrophication. Eutrophication is the super-saturation of the water with
nutrients, mainly nitrogen and phosphorus. Further classified as argillotrophic, this water could
support growth of potentially harmful blue-green algae if conducive environmental conditions
are present.
The impairments in this watershed mainly stem from non-point pollution sources (NPS). This
means that there is not one specific outlet where the contaminants are entering the water course,
but rather multiple sites contributing to the overall pollutant loads.
5.3.2 Phosphorus
Water quality data collected from 2000 to 2007 reveals that Council Grove Reservoir ranks third
for total phosphorus (TP) concentration of 24 federal reservoirs in the state. The average
concentration is 198 μg/L (ppb), which is 10 times greater than the reference value (19 μg/L)
suggested for the Flint Hills region and nearly twice that of the national average (100 μg/L) as
indicated within the EPA’s Survey of Nation’s Lake in recent years.
5.3.3 Sedimentation
Similar to TP, the total suspended solids (TSS) concentration, indicative of turbid condition, is
high and averages about 21 mg/L (ppm). Based on the 2008 bathymetric survey of Council
Grove Reservoir conducted by the Kansas Biological Survey and funded by the Kansas Water
Office, Council Grove is silting in at a rate of 194 ac-ft./yr. This rate of siltation is below the
designed sedimentation rate of 206 ac-ft./yr. Therefore in communication with the Kansas Water
Office it was agreed that high priority TMDL for Siltation was less of a priority than the high
priority TMDL for Eutrophication.
5.3.4 Bacteria
Bacteria Load reductions should result in less frequent exceedance of the nominal E. Coli
Bacteria (ECB) criterion (427 Colony Forming Units (cfu/100mL) for the KDHE sampling site
SC637 near Parkerville, KS.
In order to assess the impact of BMPs addressing bacteria impairments the relative frequency
and magnitude of bacteria concentrations seen in the receiving streams monitored by KDHE on a
routine or rotational basis, must be measured to determine if water quality improvements are
being achieved. The bacteria index is utilized by KDHE to assess the relative frequency and
magnitude of the bacteria concentrations at KDHE monitoring sites.
Page 21
2012
The calculated bacteria index for the Neosho River sampling station SC637 is the natural
logarithm of each sample value taken during the April-October Primary Recreation season,
divided by the natural logarithm of the bacteria criteria for Primary Recreation Class C [ln(427)].
Index = ln(ECB Count)/ln(427)
The indicator will be the Upper Decile of those index values; with the target being that the index
is below 1.0 at the upper decile (90th percentile).
KDHE sampling station SC637 on the Neosho River was sampled in accordance with the water
quality standard for three different intensive sampling events in 2007 and one intensive sampling
event in 2011. Each intensive sampling event consisted of five ECB samples collected in a 30day period. The calculated geometric mean of the five samples for each event was under the
recreational use criterion of 427 cfu/100mL for all of the sampling events.
Neosho Headwaters -- Bacteria Index
Primary Contact Recreation 'C' Index
1.8
1.6
1.4
Index
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
Target is for the Neosho River Index to be
below 1 at 90%
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentile
Neosho River SC637
Figure 9. Neosho Headwaters Bacteria
Index. Primary Contact Recreation ‘C’
Index. KDHE.
Page 22
2012
5.4 Assessment Data
5.4.1 STEPL Model
STEPL is a simple watershed model that provides both agricultural and urban annual
average sediment and nutrient simulations as well as implementation evaluation of various best
management practices. The STEPL model calculates nutrient loading based on the runoff
volume and the pollutant concentrations in the runoff water as it is influenced by factors such as
the land use distribution and management practices. The results of STEPL for the Council Grove
Reservoir watershed as included within the table below.
Table 6. Watershed runoff loads and
ranking.
STEPL Simulated annual average watershed and sub watershed runoff nutrient loads
Sub watershed (HUC 12)
Area (ac)
TN (ton)
TP (ton)
Basin 110702010101
27,931
118.06
22.61
Basin 110702010102
27521
83.58
15.41
Basin 110702010103
19555
83.55
15.64
Basin 110702010104
36,578
158.22
25.72
Basin 110702010105
19,348
61.21
11.02
Basin 110702010106
30,834
89.89
14.89
Total
161,767
594.51
105.29
Watershed ranking of annual runoff TN and TP loads per unit of area
Ranking
TN (lbs./ac)
Ranking
TP (lbs./ac)
Basin 110702010104
8.65
Basin 11070201010010
1.62
Basin 110702010103
8.54
Basin 11070201010030
1.6
Basin 110702010101
8.45
Basin 11070201010040
1.41
Basin 110702010105
6.33
Basin 11070201010050
1.14
Basin 110702010102
6.07
Basin 11070201010020
1.12
Basin 110702010106
5.83
Basin 11070201010060
0.97
Page 23
2012
Total Phosphorus Load (lbs./ac/yr.).
Figure 10. Total Phosphorus Load
5.4.2 Cropland & Livestock
Targeted areas
After reviewing the STEPL modeling data and comparing that data with where the impaired
waters are located in the watershed/ monitoring data, the SLT chose three HUC 12’s to target
cropland & livestock BMP’s. These three HUC 12s were broken down into two different
priority levels, Tier 1 & Tier 2. BMP implementation for the first 10 years will be focused in
Tier 1 targeted areas, HUC 110702010101 and 110702010102. After ten years of BMP
implementation, the Twin Lakes WRAPS will then include HUC 110702010104 in the BMP
targeted areas.
The watershed modeling shows that sub-watersheds #0103, #0105, #0106, have the potential to
contribute a significant amount of total phosphorus to this system. However, after discussion
with the representatives from Kansas State University and KDHE, the SLT decided to focus the
Page 24
2012
WRAPS efforts on sub watershed # 0104. This decision was made based on the fact that #0104
has more acres of cropland and those acres are mainly adjacent to the Munker’s creek. Thus, the
SLT felt that in all actuality, they would be contributing the greater load of P.
Cropland & Livestock Targeted Areas:
Tier 1
HUC 110702010101
HUC 110702010102
Tier 2
HUC 110702010104
Figure 11. Priority HUC 12 Watersheds.
KDHE.
Page 25
2012
Figure 12. Monitoring Sites in Twin
Lakes Watershed.
The SLT would like to implement one additional KDHE monitoring site: below the #0102
watershed. In 2010, KDHE funded an additional water quality monitoring sites (SC637) below
#0101 that would collect four routine water chemistry samples between March and October and
one additional high follow event. This monitoring would continue for a period that would not
exceed five years. KDHE will update the Twin Lakes SLT on the monitoring results. This data
will help the SLT gage water quality success and assist in more detailed targeting of BMPs
6.0 CROPLAND AND LIVESTOCK BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Listed below are the cropland & livestock BMP’s that the Twin Lakes SLT chose based on
adoptability within the targeted areas.
6.1 Cropland Best Management Practices
6.1.1 Vegetative Buffer
-Area of field maintained in permanent vegetation to help reduce nutrient and sediment loss from
agricultural fields, improve runoff water quality, and provide habitat for wildlife.
-On average for Kansas fields, 1 acre buffer treats 15 acres of cropland.
Page 26
2012
-50% erosion reduction efficiency, 50% phosphorus reduction efficiency
-Approx. $1,000/acre, 90% cost-share available from NRCS.
6.1.2 Grassed Waterway
-Grassed strip used as an outlet to prevent silt and gully formation.
-Can also be used as outlets for water from terraces.
-On average for Kansas fields, 1 acre waterway will treat 10 acres of cropland.
-40% erosion reduction efficiency, 40% phosphorus reduction efficiency.
-$1,600 an acre, 50% cost-share available from NRCS.
6.1.3 No-Till
-A management system in which chemicals may be used for weed control and seedbed
preparation.
-The soil surface is never disturbed except for planting or drilling operations in a 100% no-till
system.
-WRAPS groups and KSU Ag Economists have decided $10 an acre for 10 years is an adequate
payment to entice producers to convert, 50% cost-share available from NRCS.
6.1.4 Terraces
-Earth embankment and/or channel constructed across the slope to intercept runoff water and
trap soil.
-One of the oldest/most common BMPs
-30% Erosion Reduction Efficiency, 30% phosphorus reduction efficiency
-$1.02 per linear foot, 50% cost-share available from NRCS
6.1.5 Permanent Vegetation
-Planting a portion of or an entire field to grass.
-$150 an acre, 50% cost-share available from NRCS.
6.1.6 Nutrient Management Plan
-Managing the amount, source, placement, form and timing of the application of nutrients and
soil amendments.
-Intensive soil testing
-25% erosion and 25% P reduction efficiency.
-WRAPS groups and KSU Ag Economists have decided $7.30 an acre for 10 years is an
adequate payment to entice producers to convert, 50% cost-share is available from NRCS.
6.2 Livestock Best Management Practices
6.2.1 Vegetative Filter Strip
-A vegetated area that receives runoff during rainfall from an animal feeding operation.
-Often require a land area equal to or greater than the drainage area (needs to be as large as the
feedlot).
-10 year lifespan, requires periodic mowing or haying, average P reduction: 50%.
Page 27
2012
-$714 an acre
6.2.2 Relocate Feeding Sites
-Feeding Pens- Move feedlot or pens away from a stream, waterway, or body of water to
increase filtration and waste removal of manure. Highly variable in price, average of $6,600 per
unit.
-Pasture- Move feeding site that is in a pasture away from a stream, waterway, or body of water
to increase the filtration and waste removal (e.g. move bale feeders away from stream). Highly
variable in price, average of $2,203 per unit.
-Average P reduction: 30-80%
6.2.3 Alternative (Off-Stream) Watering System
-Watering system so that livestock do not enter stream or body of water.
-Studies show cattle will drink from tank over a stream or pond 80% of the time.
-10-25 year lifespan, average P reduction: 30-98% with greater efficiencies for limited stream
access.
-$3,795 installed for solar system, including present value of maintenance costs.
6.2.4 Rotational Grazing
-Rotating livestock within a pasture to spread manure more uniformly and allow grass to
regenerate.
-May involve significant cross fencing and additional watering sites.
-50-75% P Reduction.
-Approximately $7,000 with complex systems significantly more expensive.
6.3 Cropland & Livestock ”Needs”
Once the SLT decided on where to target cropland BMP implementation and what BMP would
be implemented, the next step was to make sure there was a “need” in the watershed for these
types and quantities of BMPs within the targeted area. KDHE surveyed the county conservation
districts for land treatment “needs” in 2005. KDHE, K-State and the watershed coordinators did
a follow-up, “ground-truthing” in 2012. The districts completed a spreadsheet indicating the
number of acres for each land use type that were in need of structural and/or nonstructural land
treatment. Please view the data developed in chapter 9 on page 37 of the plan.
7.0 CONTAMINANT SOURCES
The tables on the following three pages illustrate some of the sources of these contaminants. As
demonstrated, the relationship between the pollutants and their sources is very complex and often
times each source contributes more than one pollutant to the watershed. This is one of the
factors that make NPS contaminants very difficult to manage.
Page 28
Pollutant
Source
2011
Possible Best Management Practices
Alternate watering
source
Ponds
Spring
Development
Animal feeding/watering
facilities
Replace or repair
system
Tanks
On-site waste water
systems
Native Grass
Buffers or conversion to
permanent vegetation
Riparian Forest
Gully erosion
Feeding Site
Relocation
Phosphorus
Diversions
Terraces
Cropland
Rangeland
Structural Practices
Grade
Stabilization
Waterways
No-Till
Soil Testing
Grazing
Management Plans
& Practices
Nutrient
Management
Planning
Figure 13. Possible BMPs for
Phosphorus.
Page 29
Pollutant
Source
2011
Alternate watering
source
Ponds
Spring
Development
facilities
Plug well
Tanks
Native Grass
Abandoned wells
Buffers
Riparian Forest
Streambank erosion
Feeding Site
Relocation
Sediment
Diversions
Terraces
Cropland
Rangeland
Streambank
Stabilization
Waterways
No-Till
Soil Testing
Brush Control and
Pasture Burning
Sediment.
Page 30
Pollutant
Source
2011
Alternate watering
source
Ponds
Spring
Development
facilities
Repair or replace
system, Plug well
Tanks
Native Grass
Onsite waste water
systems, Abandoned wells
Buffers
Riparian Forest
Bacteria
Feeding Site
Relocation
Streambank erosion
Diversions
Rangeland
Streambank
Stabilization
Brush Control and
Pasture Burning
bacteria.
Page 31
Pollutant
Source
Gully Erosion
2012
Buffers or
Conversion to
Permanent
Vegetation
Native Grass
Riparian Forest
Feeding Site Relocation or
Alternate watering sources
Diversions
Cropland
Terraces
Nitrogen
Waterways
Grade Stabilization
Rangeland
No-Till
Grazing Management
plans and practices
Soil Testing
Nutrient
Management
Planning
Nitrogen.
Page 32
2011
8.0 TMDL LOAD ALLOCATIONS
TMDL loading is based on several factors. A total load is derived from the TMDL. Part of this
total load is waste load allocation. This portion comes from point sources in the watershed:
NPDES facilities, CAFOs or other regulated sites. Some TMDLs will have a natural or
background load allocation, which might be atmospheric deposition or natural mineral content in
the water. After removing all the point source and natural contributions, the amount of load left
is the TMDL Load Allocation that originates from nonpoint sources (pollutants originating from
diffuse areas, such as agricultural or urban areas that have no specific point of discharge) and is
the amount that this WRAPS project is directed to address. All BMPs derived by the SLT will
be directed at this Load Allocation to address nonpoint sources pollution within the WRAPS
project area.
The focus of the Council Grove 9 element plan will be a nonpoint source total phosphorus load
reduction of 68,767 lbs./year. In communication with the KDHE TMDL Section, it was agreed
that implementation of BMP’s to address the TP load reduction goal should also reduce nitrogen
loads entering Council Grove Reservoir. When the TMDLs for the Neosho Basin have been
reviewed in 2013, KDHE will update the Council Grove SLT on current monitoring data for the
purpose of evaluating implementation progress and the need for any plan revisions.
According to the KWO bathymetric, the Reservoir is filling in at a designed rate. Therefore,
there is no TSS load reduction. The SLT goal is to maintain the siltation rate entering the
reservoir.
In the Twin Lakes watershed, there is a TMDL in sub-watershed #0102 for bacteria which is
more than likely related to the various livestock operations located in the area. In working with
KDHE, the SLT has decided to make the main focus of this plan the eutrophication TMDL for
the Council Grove Reservoir and not the bacteria levels. Bacteria loads are difficult to quantify
and there are no load reductions available for this contaminant. It is anticipated that the livestock
BMPs that will be installed through this plan to reduce P and N will also have a positive effect
on the bacteria loads as well.
Page 33
2012
Figure 17. Total Phosphorus load
reduction.
Page 34
2012
Figure 18. Total Nitrogen load
reduction.
Page 35
2012
9.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, COSTS AND EFFICIENCIES
The following tables were developed by Josh Roe of Kansas State University based off of a
spring 2012 “ground-truthing session” where it was determined the BMPs most needed with
significant efficiency included grassed waterways, terraces and gully erosion. In consultation
with the Twin Lakes SLT, the SLT agreed to the list of BMPs which they also felt would be the
most readily adopted by landowners and which would be the most efficient at reducing sediment
and nutrient loads in the watershed.
In order to achieve the load reduction goals, this plan is based on a 30 year implementation
schedule. The focus of the first ten years will be on the nutrient (mainly phosphorus) component
and at that point, bacteria loads will be addressed.
Table 7. Twin Lakes BMP Adoption Rates and
Gully Erosion
Sub
Watershed
0101
0102
0104
Overall
Twin Lakes BMP Adoption Rates and Gully Erosion
Grassed
No- Perm
Contour Grade
Gully
Waterway Terraces Till Veg
Buffer Farmed Stab
Erosion
44%
32%
9%
0%
0%
0%
0%
44%
36%
82% 27%
0%
0%
0%
0%
73%
47%
68% 68%
0%
5%
0%
0%
53%
44%
52% 30%
0%
2%
0%
0%
52%
Table 8. Twin Lakes Cropland BMPs, Costs
and Reduction Efficiencies
Twin Lakes WRAPS Cropland BMPs, Costs, and Reduction Efficiencies
Best Management Practice
Permanent Vegetation
No-Till
Terraces
Waterways
Vegetative Buffers
Nutrient Management Plan
Grade Stabilization/Sediment
Basin
Cost
per
Acre
Available
CostShare
Erosion
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Reduction
Reduction
Reduction
Efficiency
Efficiency
Efficiency
$150
$78
$102
$160
$100
$57
50%
39%
50%
50%
90%
50%
95%
75%
30%
40%
50%
25%
95%
40%
30%
40%
50%
25%
95%
25%
30%
40%
25%
25%
$300
50%
50%
50%
25%
Page 36
2012
Table 9. Annual Adoption (treated acres),
Cropland BMPs.
Annual Adoption (treated acres), Cropland BMPs
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Total
Permanent
Vegetation
Nutrient
Grade
Vegetative Management Stabilization Total
No-Till Terraces Waterways Buffers
Plan
Structures
Adoption
36
144
36
144
36
144
36
144
36
144
36
144
36
144
36
144
36
144
36
144
37
148
37
148
37
148
37
148
37
148
37
148
37
148
37
148
37
148
37
148
37
148
37
148
37
148
37
148
37
148
37
148
37
148
37
148
37
148
37
148
1,101 4,405
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
2,203
108
108
108
108
108
108
108
108
108
108
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
3,304
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
2,203
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
2,203
108
108
108
108
108
108
108
108
108
108
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
3,304
612
612
612
612
612
612
612
612
612
612
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
18,721
Page 37
2012
Table 10. Annual Soil Erosion Reduction
(tons), Cropland BMPs.
Annual Soil Erosion Reduction (tons), Cropland BMPs
Permanent
Year Vegetation No-Till Terraces Waterways
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
36
71
107
142
178
213
249
285
320
356
389
422
455
488
521
554
587
620
653
686
719
752
785
818
851
884
917
950
983
1,016
112
225
337
449
562
674
787
899
1,011
1,124
1,228
1,332
1,436
1,541
1,645
1,749
1,853
1,957
2,062
2,166
2,270
2,374
2,478
2,583
2,687
2,791
2,895
2,999
3,104
3,208
22
45
67
90
112
135
157
180
202
225
246
266
287
308
329
350
371
391
412
433
454
475
496
517
537
558
579
600
621
642
45
90
135
180
225
270
315
360
405
449
491
533
575
616
658
700
741
783
825
866
908
950
991
1,033
1,075
1,116
1,158
1,200
1,241
1,283
Vegetative
Buffers
37
75
112
150
187
225
262
300
337
375
409
444
479
514
548
583
618
652
687
722
757
791
826
861
896
930
965
1,000
1,035
1,069
Nutrient
Management
Plan
19
37
56
75
94
112
131
150
169
187
205
222
239
257
274
291
309
326
344
361
378
396
413
430
448
465
483
500
517
535
Grade
Total
Stabilization Load
Structures
Reduction
56
112
169
225
281
337
393
449
506
562
614
666
718
770
822
874
927
979
1,031
1,083
1,135
1,187
1,239
1,291
1,343
1,396
1,448
1,500
1,552
1,604
328
655
983
1,311
1,639
1,966
2,294
2,622
2,950
3,277
3,581
3,885
4,189
4,493
4,797
5,101
5,405
5,709
6,013
6,317
6,621
6,925
7,229
7,533
7,837
8,141
8,445
8,749
9,052
9,356
Page 38
2012
Table 11. Annual Phosphorus Reduction
(lbs.), Cropland BMPs.
Annual Phosphorus Reduction (lbs.), Cropland BMPs
Permanent
Vegetative
Year Vegetation No-Till Terraces Waterways Buffers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
92
184
277
369
461
553
645
738
830
922
1,008
1,094
1,181
1,267
1,353
1,439
1,526
1,612
1,698
1,784
1,871
1,957
2,043
2,129
2,216
2,302
2,388
2,475
2,561
2,647
155
311
466
621
776
932
1,087
1,242
1,397
1,553
1,698
1,843
1,988
2,134
2,279
2,424
2,570
2,715
2,860
3,005
3,151
3,296
3,441
3,587
3,732
3,877
4,022
4,168
4,313
4,458
58
116
175
233
291
349
408
466
524
582
637
691
746
800
855
909
964
1,018
1,073
1,127
1,182
1,236
1,290
1,345
1,399
1,454
1,508
1,563
1,617
1,672
116
233
349
466
582
699
815
932
1,048
1,164
1,273
1,382
1,491
1,600
1,709
1,818
1,927
2,036
2,145
2,254
2,363
2,472
2,581
2,690
2,799
2,908
3,017
3,126
3,235
3,344
97
194
291
388
485
582
679
776
873
970
1,061
1,152
1,243
1,334
1,424
1,515
1,606
1,697
1,788
1,878
1,969
2,060
2,151
2,242
2,332
2,423
2,514
2,605
2,696
2,786
Nutrient
Management
Plan
49
97
146
194
243
291
340
388
437
485
531
576
621
667
712
758
803
848
894
939
985
1,030
1,075
1,121
1,166
1,212
1,257
1,302
1,348
1,393
Grade
Total
Stabilization Load
Structures
Reduction
146
291
437
582
728
873
1,019
1,164
1,310
1,456
1,592
1,728
1,864
2,000
2,137
2,273
2,409
2,545
2,681
2,818
2,954
3,090
3,226
3,362
3,499
3,635
3,771
3,907
4,043
4,180
713
1,427
2,140
2,853
3,566
4,280
4,993
5,706
6,419
7,133
7,800
8,467
9,135
9,802
10,469
11,137
11,804
12,471
13,139
13,806
14,473
15,141
15,808
16,476
17,143
17,810
18,478
19,145
19,812
20,480
Page 39
2012
Table 12. Annual Nitrogen Reduction
(lbs.) Cropland BMPs.
Annual Nitrogen Reduction (lbs.), Cropland BMPs
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Nutrient
Grade
Permanent
Vegetative
Total Load
Management
Stabilization
Vegetation
No-Till Terraces
Waterways
Buffers
Plan
Structures
Reduction
389
410
246
492
205
205
307
2,254
778
819
492
983
410
410
615
4,507
1,168
1,229
738
1,475
615
615
922
6,761
1,557
1,639
983
1,967
819
819
1,229
9,014
1,946
2,049
1,229
2,458
1,024
1,024
1,537
11,268
2,335
2,458
1,475
2,950
1,229
1,229
1,844
13,521
2,725
2,868
1,721
3,442
1,434
1,434
2,151
15,775
3,114
3,278
1,967
3,933
1,639
1,639
2,458
18,028
3,503
3,688
2,213
4,425
1,844
1,844
2,766
20,282
3,892
4,097
2,458
4,917
2,049
2,049
3,073
22,535
4,280
4,505
2,703
5,406
2,253
2,253
3,379
24,779
4,667
4,913
2,948
5,896
2,457
2,457
3,685
27,022
5,055
5,321
3,193
6,385
2,661
2,661
3,991
29,266
5,443
5,729
3,437
6,875
2,864
2,864
4,297
31,509
5,830
6,137
3,682
7,364
3,068
3,068
4,603
33,753
6,218
6,545
3,927
7,854
3,272
3,272
4,909
35,996
6,605
6,953
4,172
8,343
3,476
3,476
5,215
38,240
6,993
7,361
4,416
8,833
3,680
3,680
5,520
40,483
7,380
7,768
4,661
9,322
3,884
3,884
5,826
42,727
7,768
8,176
4,906
9,812
4,088
4,088
6,132
44,970
8,155
8,584
5,151
10,301
4,292
4,292
6,438
47,214
8,543
8,992
5,395
10,791
4,496
4,496
6,744
49,457
8,930
9,400
5,640
11,280
4,700
4,700
7,050
51,701
9,318
9,808
5,885
11,770
4,904
4,904
7,356
53,944
9,705 10,216
6,130
12,259
5,108
5,108
7,662
56,188
10,093 10,624
6,374
12,749
5,312
5,312
7,968
58,431
10,480 11,032
6,619
13,238
5,516
5,516
8,274
60,675
10,868 11,440
6,864
13,728
5,720
5,720
8,580
62,918
11,255 11,848
7,109
14,217
5,924
5,924
8,886
65,162
11,643 12,255
7,353
14,707
6,128
6,128
9,192
67,405
Page 40
2012
Table 13. Cropland BMP Implementation
Milestones
Cropland BMP Implementation Milestones
Permanent
Vegetation
Long-Term
MediumTerm
Short-Term
Year
NoTill
1
2
3
4
5
36
36
36
36
36
Total
6
7
8
9
10
Terraces
144
144
144
144
144
72
72
72
72
72
180
720
36
36
36
36
36
144
144
144
144
144
Total
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Total
Waterways
Vegetative
Buffers
Nutrient
Management
Plan
Grade
Stabilization
Structures
108
108
108
108
108
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
360
540
360
72
72
72
72
72
108
108
108
108
108
72
72
72
72
72
360 1,440
720
1,080
37 148
37 148
37 148
37 148
37 148
37 148
37 148
37 148
37 148
37 148
37 148
37 148
37 148
37 148
37 148
37 148
37 148
37 148
37 148
37 148
1,101 4,405
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
2,203
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
3,304
Total
Adoption
108
108
108
108
108
612
612
612
612
612
360
540
3,060
72
72
72
72
72
108
108
108
108
108
612
612
612
612
612
720
720
1,080
6,120
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
2,203
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
2,203
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
3,304
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
18,721
Page 41
2012
Table 14. Annual Cost Before Cost-Share,
Cropland BMPs.
Annual Cost* Before Cost-Share, Cropland BMPs
Permanent
Year Vegetation No-Till
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
$5,400
$5,562
$5,729
$5,901
$6,078
$6,261
$6,448
$6,642
$6,841
$7,046
$4,951
$7,695
$7,926
$8,164
$8,409
$8,661
$8,921
$9,188
$9,464
$9,748
$10,041
$10,342
$10,652
$10,972
$11,301
$11,640
$11,989
$12,349
$12,719
$13,101
$11,188
$11,524
$11,869
$12,226
$12,592
$12,970
$13,359
$13,760
$14,173
$14,598
$10,258
$15,942
$16,421
$16,913
$17,421
$17,943
$18,482
$19,036
$19,607
$20,195
$20,801
$21,425
$22,068
$22,730
$23,412
$24,114
$24,838
$25,583
$26,350
$27,141
Nutrient
Grade
Vegetative Management Stabilization
Terraces Waterways Buffers
Plan
Structures
Total Cost
$7,345
$7,565
$7,792
$8,026
$8,266
$8,514
$8,770
$9,033
$9,304
$9,583
$6,734
$10,465
$10,779
$11,103
$11,436
$11,779
$12,132
$12,496
$12,871
$13,257
$13,655
$14,065
$14,487
$14,921
$15,369
$15,830
$16,305
$16,794
$17,298
$17,817
$84,900
$87,447
$90,071
$92,773
$95,556
$98,423
$101,375
$104,417
$107,549
$110,776
$77,839
$120,978
$124,607
$128,346
$132,196
$136,162
$140,247
$144,454
$148,788
$153,251
$157,849
$162,584
$167,462
$172,486
$177,660
$182,990
$188,480
$194,134
$199,958
$205,957
$17,281
$17,800
$18,334
$18,884
$19,450
$20,034
$20,635
$21,254
$21,891
$22,548
$15,844
$24,625
$25,363
$26,124
$26,908
$27,715
$28,547
$29,403
$30,285
$31,194
$32,130
$33,094
$34,086
$35,109
$36,162
$37,247
$38,364
$39,515
$40,701
$41,922
$7,201
$7,417
$7,639
$7,868
$8,104
$8,347
$8,598
$8,856
$9,121
$9,395
$6,602
$10,260
$10,568
$10,885
$11,212
$11,548
$11,894
$12,251
$12,619
$12,997
$13,387
$13,789
$14,203
$14,629
$15,068
$15,520
$15,985
$16,465
$16,959
$17,467
$4,083
$4,206
$4,332
$4,462
$4,596
$4,734
$4,876
$5,022
$5,173
$5,328
$3,744
$5,819
$5,993
$6,173
$6,358
$6,549
$6,745
$6,948
$7,156
$7,371
$7,592
$7,820
$8,054
$8,296
$8,545
$8,801
$9,065
$9,337
$9,617
$9,906
$32,402
$33,374
$34,376
$35,407
$36,469
$37,563
$38,690
$39,851
$41,046
$42,278
$29,707
$46,171
$47,556
$48,983
$50,453
$51,966
$53,525
$55,131
$56,785
$58,488
$60,243
$62,050
$63,912
$65,829
$67,804
$69,838
$71,933
$74,091
$76,314
$78,604
*3% Inflation
Page 42
2012
Cropland BMPs.
Annual Cost* Before Cost-Share, Cropland BMPs
Permanent
Year Vegetation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
$2,700
$2,781
$2,865
$2,951
$3,039
$3,130
$3,224
$3,321
$3,421
$3,523
$2,476
$3,848
$3,963
$4,082
$4,204
$4,331
$4,460
$4,594
$4,732
$4,874
$5,020
$5,171
$5,326
$5,486
$5,650
$5,820
$5,994
$6,174
$6,360
$6,550
No-Till
$6,825
$7,030
$7,240
$7,458
$7,681
$7,912
$8,149
$8,394
$8,645
$8,905
$6,257
$9,725
$10,017
$10,317
$10,627
$10,945
$11,274
$11,612
$11,960
$12,319
$12,689
$13,069
$13,462
$13,865
$14,281
$14,710
$15,151
$15,606
$16,074
$16,556
Vegetative
Terraces Waterways Buffers
$3,672
$3,782
$3,896
$4,013
$4,133
$4,257
$4,385
$4,516
$4,652
$4,791
$3,367
$5,233
$5,390
$5,551
$5,718
$5,890
$6,066
$6,248
$6,436
$6,629
$6,828
$7,032
$7,243
$7,461
$7,684
$7,915
$8,152
$8,397
$8,649
$8,908
$8,641
$8,900
$9,167
$9,442
$9,725
$10,017
$10,317
$10,627
$10,946
$11,274
$7,922
$12,312
$12,682
$13,062
$13,454
$13,858
$14,273
$14,702
$15,143
$15,597
$16,065
$16,547
$17,043
$17,554
$18,081
$18,624
$19,182
$19,758
$20,350
$20,961
$720
$742
$764
$787
$810
$835
$860
$886
$912
$940
$660
$1,026
$1,057
$1,089
$1,121
$1,155
$1,189
$1,225
$1,262
$1,300
$1,339
$1,379
$1,420
$1,463
$1,507
$1,552
$1,599
$1,646
$1,696
$1,747
Grade
Nutrient
Stabilization
Management Plan Structures
$2,042
$2,103
$2,166
$2,231
$2,298
$2,367
$2,438
$2,511
$2,586
$2,664
$1,872
$2,909
$2,997
$3,086
$3,179
$3,274
$3,373
$3,474
$3,578
$3,685
$3,796
$3,910
$4,027
$4,148
$4,272
$4,401
$4,533
$4,669
$4,809
$4,953
$16,201
$16,687
$17,188
$17,703
$18,235
$18,782
$19,345
$19,925
$20,523
$21,139
$14,854
$23,086
$23,778
$24,492
$25,226
$25,983
$26,763
$27,565
$28,392
$29,244
$30,122
$31,025
$31,956
$32,915
$33,902
$34,919
$35,967
$37,046
$38,157
$39,302
*3% Inflation
Page 43
Total
Cost
$40,801
$42,025
$43,285
$44,584
$45,922
$47,299
$48,718
$50,180
$51,685
$53,236
$37,407
$58,139
$59,883
$61,679
$63,530
$65,435
$67,399
$69,420
$71,503
$73,648
$75,858
$78,133
$80,477
$82,892
$85,378
$87,940
$90,578
$93,295
$96,094
$98,977
2012
Table 16. Annual Livestock BMP
Adoption.
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Total
Annual Livestock BMP Adoption
Relocate
Vegetative Relocate
Pasture
Off Stream
Filter
Feeding
Feeding
Watering
Rotational
Strip
Pens
Site
System
Grazing
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
30
15
30
90
15
Page 44
2012
Short-Term
Table 17. Livestock BMP Adoption
Milestones
Year
1
2
3
4
5
MediumTerm
Total
6
7
8
9
10
Long-Term
Total
Total
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Livestock BMP Adoption Milestones
Relocate
Vegetative Relocate
Pasture
Off Stream
Filter
Feeding
Feeding
Watering
Rotational
Strip
Pens
Site
System
Grazing
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
5
3
5
15
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
10
5
10
30
5
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
30
15
30
90
15
Page 45
2012
of Implementing Livestock BMPs.
Annual Cost* Before Cost-Share of Implementing Livestock BMPs
Relocate
Vegetative Relocate
Pasture
Off Stream
Filter
Feeding
Feeding
Watering
Rotational
Annual
Year Strip
Pens
Site
System
Grazing
Cost
1
$714
$6,621
$2,203
$11,385
$0 $20,923
2
$735
$0
$2,269
$11,727
$7,210 $21,941
3
$757
$7,024
$2,337
$12,078
$0 $22,197
4
$780
$0
$2,407
$12,441
$7,649 $23,277
5
$804
$7,452
$2,479
$12,814
$0 $23,549
6
$828
$0
$2,554
$13,198
$8,115 $24,695
7
$853
$7,906
$2,630
$13,594
$0 $24,983
8
$878
$0
$2,709
$14,002
$8,609 $26,199
9
$904
$8,387
$2,791
$14,422
$0 $26,505
10
$932
$0
$2,874
$14,855
$9,133 $27,794
11
$960
$8,898
$2,961
$15,300
$0 $28,119
12
$988
$0
$3,049
$15,760
$9,690 $29,487
13
$1,018
$9,440
$3,141
$16,232
$0 $29,831
14
$1,049
$0
$3,235
$16,719
$10,280 $31,283
15
$1,080 $10,015
$3,332
$17,221
$0 $31,648
16
$1,112
$0
$3,432
$17,737
$10,906 $33,188
17
$1,146 $10,625
$3,535
$18,270
$0 $33,575
18
$1,180
$0
$3,641
$18,818
$11,570 $35,209
19
$1,216 $11,272
$3,750
$19,382
$0 $35,620
20
$1,252
$0
$3,863
$19,964
$12,275 $37,353
21
$1,290 $11,958
$3,979
$20,563
$0 $37,789
22
$1,328
$0
$4,098
$21,179
$13,022 $39,628
23
$1,368 $12,687
$4,221
$21,815
$0 $40,091
24
$1,409
$0
$4,348
$22,469
$13,815 $42,041
25
$1,451 $13,459
$4,478
$23,143
$0 $42,532
26
$1,495
$0
$4,613
$23,838
$14,656 $44,602
27
$1,540 $14,279
$4,751
$24,553
$0 $45,122
28
$1,586
$0
$4,893
$25,289
$15,549 $47,318
29
$1,634 $15,148
$5,040
$26,048
$0 $47,870
30
$1,683
$0
$5,192
$26,829
$16,496 $50,200
3% Annual Cost Inflation
Page 46
2012
Table 19. Annual Cost After Cost-Share
of Implementing Livestock BMPs.
Annual Cost* After Cost-Share of Implementing Livestock BMPs
Relocate
Vegetative Relocate
Pasture
Off Stream
Filter
Feeding
Feeding
Watering
Rotational
Year Strip
Pens
Site
System
Grazing
1
$357
$3,311
$1,102
$5,693
$0
2
$368
$0
$1,135
$5,863
$3,605
3
$379
$3,512
$1,169
$6,039
$0
4
$390
$0
$1,204
$6,220
$3,825
5
$402
$3,726
$1,240
$6,407
$0
6
$414
$0
$1,277
$6,599
$4,057
7
$426
$3,953
$1,315
$6,797
$0
8
$439
$0
$1,355
$7,001
$4,305
9
$452
$4,194
$1,395
$7,211
$0
10
$466
$0
$1,437
$7,427
$4,567
11
$480
$4,449
$1,480
$7,650
$0
12
$494
$0
$1,525
$7,880
$4,845
13
$509
$4,720
$1,570
$8,116
$0
14
$524
$0
$1,618
$8,360
$5,140
15
$540
$5,007
$1,666
$8,610
$0
16
$556
$0
$1,716
$8,869
$5,453
17
$573
$5,312
$1,768
$9,135
$0
18
$590
$0
$1,821
$9,409
$5,785
19
$608
$5,636
$1,875
$9,691
$0
20
$626
$0
$1,931
$9,982
$6,137
21
$645
$5,979
$1,989
$10,281
$0
22
$664
$0
$2,049
$10,590
$6,511
23
$684
$6,343
$2,111
$10,907
$0
24
$705
$0
$2,174
$11,235
$6,908
25
$726
$6,730
$2,239
$11,572
$0
26
$747
$0
$2,306
$11,919
$7,328
27
$770
$7,139
$2,375
$12,276
$0
28
$793
$0
$2,447
$12,645
$7,775
29
$817
$7,574
$2,520
$13,024
$0
30
$841
$0
$2,596
$13,415
$8,248
Annual
Cost
$10,462
$10,971
$11,099
$11,639
$11,775
$12,347
$12,492
$13,099
$13,252
$13,897
$14,059
$14,743
$14,916
$15,641
$15,824
$16,594
$16,788
$17,604
$17,810
$18,677
$18,895
$19,814
$20,045
$21,021
$21,266
$22,301
$22,561
$23,659
$23,935
$25,100
Page 47
2012
Table 20. Annual Phosphorus Load
Reductions (lbs.)
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Annual Phosphorus Load Reductions (lbs.)
Relocate
Off
Vegetative Relocate Pasture
Stream
Annual
Filter
Feeding Feeding Watering Rotational
Load
Strip
Pens
Site
System
Grazing Reduction
797
1,196
63
189
0
2,246
1,595
1,196
126
378
63
3,358
2,392
2,392
189
568
63
5,604
3,189
2,392
252
757
126
6,716
3,987
3,588
315
946
126
8,962
4,784
3,588
378
1,135
189
10,075
5,581
4,784
441
1,324
189
12,320
6,379
4,784
504
1,513
252
13,433
7,176
5,980
568
1,703
252
15,679
7,973
5,980
631
1,892
315
16,791
8,771
7,176
694
2,081
315
19,037
9,568
7,176
757
2,270
378
20,149
10,365
8,372
820
2,459
378
22,395
11,163
8,372
883
2,649
441
23,508
11,960
9,568
946
2,838
441
25,753
12,758
9,568
1,009
3,027
504
26,866
13,555
10,764
1,072
3,216
504
29,112
14,352
10,764
1,135
3,405
568
30,224
15,150
11,960
1,198
3,594
568
32,470
15,947
11,960
1,261
3,784
631
33,582
16,744
13,156
1,324
3,973
631
35,828
17,542
13,156
1,387
4,162
694
36,941
18,339
14,352
1,450
4,351
694
39,186
19,136
14,352
1,513
4,540
757
40,299
19,934
15,548
1,577
4,730
757
42,545
20,731
15,548
1,640
4,919
820
43,657
21,528
16,744
1,703
5,108
820
45,903
22,326
16,744
1,766
5,297
883
47,015
23,123
17,940
1,829
5,486
883
49,261
23,920
17,940
1,892
5,675
946
50,374
Page 48
2012
Table 21. Annual Nitrogen Load
Reductions (lbs.)
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Annual Nitrogen Load Reductions (lbs.)
Relocate
Off
Stream
Annual
Filter
Load
Strip
Pens
Site
System
Grazing Reduction
1,502
2,253
119
356
0
4,230
3,004
2,253
238
713
119
6,325
4,505
4,505
356
1,069
119
10,555
6,007
4,505
475
1,425
238
12,651
7,509
6,758
594
1,782
238
16,880
9,011
6,758
713
2,138
356
18,976
10,513
9,011
831
2,494
356
23,205
12,014
9,011
950
2,851
475
25,301
13,516
11,263
1,069
3,207
475
29,531
15,018
11,263
1,188
3,563
594
31,626
16,520
13,516
1,307
3,920
594
35,856
18,022
13,516
1,425
4,276
713
37,952
19,523
15,769
1,544
4,632
713
42,181
21,025
15,769
1,663
4,989
831
44,277
22,527
18,022
1,782
5,345
831
48,506
24,029
18,022
1,900
5,701
950
50,602
25,531
20,274
2,019
6,058
950
54,832
27,032
20,274
2,138
6,414
1,069
56,927
28,534
22,527
2,257
6,770
1,069
61,157
30,036
22,527
2,375
7,126
1,188
63,253
31,538
24,780
2,494
7,483
1,188
67,482
33,040
24,780
2,613
7,839
1,307
69,578
34,541
27,032
2,732
8,195
1,307
73,807
36,043
27,032
2,851
8,552
1,425
75,903
37,545
29,285
2,969
8,908
1,425
80,133
39,047
29,285
3,088
9,264
1,544
82,228
40,549
31,538
3,207
9,621
1,544
86,458
42,050
31,538
3,326
9,977
1,663
88,554
43,552
33,790
3,444
10,333
1,663
92,783
45,054
33,790
3,563
10,690
1,782
94,879
Page 49
2012
Table 22. Combined Soil Erosion
Reduction of Cropland and Livestock
BMPs.
Sediment
Combined Soil Erosion Reduction of
Cropland and Livestock BMPs
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Livestock Cropland
Total
Reduction Reduction Reduction
(tons/yr.) (tons/yr.) (tons/yr.)
759
328
1,087
1,518
655
2,173
2,277
983
3,260
3,036
1,311
4,347
3,795
1,639
5,434
4,554
1,966
6,520
5,313
2,294
7,607
6,072
2,622
8,694
6,831
2,950
9,781
7,590
3,277
10,867
8,349
3,581
11,930
9,108
3,885
12,993
9,867
4,189
14,056
10,626
4,493
15,119
11,385
4,797
16,182
12,144
5,101
17,245
12,903
5,405
18,308
13,662
5,709
19,371
14,421
6,013
20,434
15,180
6,317
21,497
15,939
6,621
22,560
16,698
6,925
23,623
17,457
7,229
24,686
18,216
7,533
25,749
18,975
7,837
26,812
19,734
8,141
27,875
20,493
8,445
28,938
21,252
8,749
30,001
22,011
9,052
31,063
22,770
9,356
32,126
Page 50
2012
Table 23. Combination of Cropland and
Livestock BMPs to Meet the Council Grove
Lake Phosphorus TMDL
Phosphorus
Combination of Cropland and Livestock BMPs to
Meet the Council Grove Lake Phosphorus TMDL
Cropland Livestock
Total
% of
Year
(lbs./yr.)
(lbs./yr.)
(lbs./yr.) TMDL
1
713
2,246
2,959
4.3%
2
1,427
3,358
4,785
7.0%
3
2,140
5,604
7,744 11.3%
4
2,853
6,716
9,570 13.9%
5
3,566
8,962
12,528 18.2%
6
4,280
10,075
14,354 20.9%
7
4,993
12,320
17,313 25.2%
8
5,706
13,433
19,139 27.8%
9
6,419
15,679
22,098 32.1%
10
7,133
16,791
23,924 34.8%
11
7,800
19,037
26,837 39.0%
12
8,467
20,149
28,617 41.6%
13
9,135
22,395
31,530 45.9%
14
9,802
23,508
33,310 48.4%
15
10,469
25,753
36,223 52.7%
16
11,137
26,866
38,003 55.3%
17
11,804
29,112
40,916 59.5%
18
12,471
30,224
42,696 62.1%
19
13,139
32,470
45,609 66.3%
20
13,806
33,582
47,389 68.9%
21
14,473
35,828
50,302 73.1%
22
15,141
36,941
52,082 75.7%
23
15,808
39,186
54,995 80.0%
24
16,476
40,299
56,775 82.6%
25
17,143
42,545
59,688 86.8%
26
17,810
43,657
61,468 89.4%
27
18,478
45,903
64,380 93.6%
28
19,145
47,015
66,160 96.2%
29
19,812
49,261
69,073 100.4%
30
20,480
50,374
70,853 103.0%
TMDL for
Phosphorus
Met
Council Grove Lake Phosphorus TMDL: 68,767
Pounds Reduced per Year
Page 51
2012
Table 24. Combined Nitrogen Reduction
of Cropland and Livestock BMPs
Nitrogen
Combined Nitrogen Reduction of
Cropland and Livestock BMPs
Cropland Livestock
Total
Year
(lbs./yr.)
(lbs./yr.)
(lbs./yr.)
1
2,254
3,478
5,731
2
4,507
5,216
9,723
3
6,761
8,693
15,454
4
9,014
10,432
19,446
5
11,268
13,909
25,177
6
13,521
15,647
29,169
7
15,775
19,125
34,900
8
18,028
20,863
38,892
9
20,282
24,341
44,623
10
22,535
26,079
48,615
11
24,779
29,557
54,336
12
27,022
31,295
58,317
13
29,266
34,773
64,038
14
31,509
36,511
68,020
15
33,753
39,988
73,741
16
35,996
41,727
77,723
17
38,240
45,204
83,444
18
40,483
46,942
87,426
19
42,727
50,420
93,147
20
44,970
52,158
97,129
21
47,214
55,636
102,850
22
49,457
57,374
106,831
23
51,701
60,852
112,552
24
53,944
62,590
116,534
25
56,188
66,067
122,255
26
58,431
67,806
126,237
27
60,675
71,283
131,958
28
62,918
73,022
135,940
29
65,162
76,499
141,661
30
67,405
78,237
145,642
Page 52
2012
Table 25. Total Annual Cost after CostShare by BMP Category
Total Annual Cost after Cost-Share by
BMP Category
Total
Year Cropland Livestock
Cost
1
$40,801
$10,462 $51,262
2
$42,025
$10,971 $52,995
3
$43,285
$11,099 $54,384
4
$44,584
$11,639 $56,223
5
$45,922
$11,775 $57,696
6
$47,299
$12,347 $59,647
7
$48,718
$12,492 $61,210
8
$50,180
$13,099 $63,279
9
$51,685
$13,252 $64,937
10
$53,236
$13,897 $67,133
11
$37,407
$14,059 $51,467
12
$58,139
$14,743 $72,882
13
$59,883
$14,916 $74,798
14
$61,679
$15,641 $77,321
15
$63,530
$15,824 $79,354
16
$65,435
$16,594 $82,029
17
$67,399
$16,788 $84,186
18
$69,420
$17,604 $87,025
19
$71,503
$17,810 $89,313
20
$73,648
$18,677 $92,325
21
$75,858
$18,895 $94,752
22
$78,133
$19,814 $97,947
23
$80,477
$20,045 $100,523
24
$82,892
$21,021 $103,912
25
$85,378
$21,266 $106,645
26
$87,940
$22,301 $110,241
27
$90,578
$22,561 $113,139
28
$93,295
$23,659 $116,954
29
$96,094
$23,935 $120,029
30
$98,977
$25,100 $124,077
Page 53
2012
Table 26. Phosphorus TMDL Summary
Phosphorus TMDL Summary
Best
Total
Management
Load
% of
Practice Reduction Phosphorus
Category
(pounds)
TMDL
Cropland
20,480
29.8%
Livestock
50,374
73.3%
Total
70,853
103.0%
Page 54
2012
Table 27. Sub-Watershed #0101 Annual
Adoption (treated acres), Cropland BMPs
Sub-Watershed #0101 Annual Adoption (treated acres), Cropland BMPs
Nutrient
Grade
Permanent NoVegetative Management Stabilization Total
Year Vegetation Till Terraces Waterways Buffers
Plan
Structures Adoption
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
389
389
389
389
389
389
389
389
389
389
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
Page 55
2012
Nutrient
Grade
Plan
Structures Adoption
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
223
223
223
223
223
223
223
223
223
223
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
Page 56
2012
Nutrient
Grade
Plan
Structures Adoption
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
Page 57
2012
Soil Erosion Reduction (tons), Cropland
BMPs
Sub-Watershed #0101 Annual Soil Erosion Reduction (tons), Cropland BMPs
Permanent
Year Vegetation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
19
38
57
77
96
115
134
153
172
191
201
210
220
230
239
249
258
268
277
287
297
306
316
325
335
344
354
363
373
383
No-Till Terraces
60
121
181
242
302
362
423
483
544
604
634
665
695
725
755
785
816
846
876
906
936
967
997
1,027
1,057
1,087
1,118
1,148
1,178
1,208
12
24
36
48
60
72
85
97
109
121
127
133
139
145
151
157
163
169
175
181
187
193
199
205
211
217
224
230
236
242
Waterways
24
48
72
97
121
145
169
193
217
242
254
266
278
290
302
314
326
338
350
362
375
387
399
411
423
435
447
459
471
483
Vegetative
Buffers
20
40
60
81
101
121
141
161
181
201
211
222
232
242
252
262
272
282
292
302
312
322
332
342
352
362
373
383
393
403
Nutrient
Management
Plan
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
81
91
101
106
111
116
121
126
131
136
141
146
151
156
161
166
171
176
181
186
191
196
201
Grade
Stabilization
Structures
Total Load
Reduction
30
60
91
121
151
181
211
242
272
302
317
332
347
362
378
393
408
423
438
453
468
483
498
513
529
544
559
574
589
604
Page 58
176
352
529
705
881
1,057
1,233
1,410
1,586
1,762
1,850
1,938
2,026
2,114
2,202
2,291
2,379
2,467
2,555
2,643
2,731
2,819
2,907
2,995
3,083
3,172
3,260
3,348
3,436
3,524
2012
BMPs
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Permanent
Vegetation
16
33
49
66
82
99
115
132
148
165
173
181
189
197
206
214
222
230
239
247
255
263
271
280
288
296
304
313
321
329
No-Till Terraces
52
104
156
208
260
312
364
416
468
520
546
572
597
623
649
675
701
727
753
779
805
831
857
883
909
935
961
987
1,013
1,039
10
21
31
42
52
62
73
83
94
104
109
114
119
125
130
135
140
145
151
156
161
166
171
177
182
187
192
197
203
208
Waterways
21
42
62
83
104
125
145
166
187
208
218
229
239
249
260
270
281
291
301
312
322
333
343
353
364
374
384
395
405
416
Vegetative
Buffers
17
35
52
69
87
104
121
139
156
173
182
191
199
208
216
225
234
242
251
260
268
277
286
294
303
312
320
329
338
346
Nutrient
Management
Plan
9
17
26
35
43
52
61
69
78
87
91
95
100
104
108
113
117
121
126
130
134
139
143
147
152
156
160
165
169
173
Grade
Stabilization
Structures
Total Load
Reduction
26
52
78
104
130
156
182
208
234
260
273
286
299
312
325
338
351
364
377
390
403
416
429
442
455
468
481
494
507
520
Page 59
152
303
455
606
758
909
1,061
1,212
1,364
1,515
1,591
1,667
1,743
1,818
1,894
1,970
2,046
2,122
2,197
2,273
2,349
2,425
2,500
2,576
2,652
2,728
2,803
2,879
2,955
3,031
2012
BMPs
Permanent
Year Vegetation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
30
46
61
76
91
106
122
137
152
167
183
198
213
228
243
259
274
289
304
No-Till Terraces
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
96
144
192
240
288
336
384
432
480
528
576
624
672
720
768
817
865
913
961
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
19
29
38
48
58
67
77
86
96
106
115
125
134
144
154
163
173
183
192
Waterways
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
38
58
77
96
115
134
154
173
192
211
231
250
269
288
307
327
346
365
384
Vegetative
Buffers
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
32
48
64
80
96
112
128
144
160
176
192
208
224
240
256
272
288
304
320
Nutrient
Management
Plan
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
16
24
32
40
48
56
64
72
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144
152
160
Grade
Stabilization
Structures
Total Load
Reduction
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
288
312
336
360
384
408
432
456
480
Page 60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
140
280
420
560
700
841
981
1,121
1,261
1,401
1,541
1,681
1,821
1,961
2,101
2,241
2,382
2,522
2,662
2,802
2012
Phosphorus Reduction (lbs.), Cropland
BMPs
Sub-Watershed #0101 Annual Phosphorus Reduction (lbs.), Cropland BMPs
Year
Permanent
Vegetation
NoTill
Terraces
Waterways
Vegetative
Buffers
Nutrient
Management
Plan
Grade
Stabilization
Structures
Total Load
Reduction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
50
101
151
201
252
302
353
403
453
504
529
554
579
85
170
255
339
424
509
594
679
764
848
891
933
976
32
64
95
127
159
191
223
255
286
318
334
350
366
64
127
191
255
318
382
445
509
573
636
668
700
732
53
106
159
212
265
318
371
424
477
530
557
583
610
27
53
80
106
133
159
186
212
239
265
278
292
305
80
159
239
318
398
477
557
636
716
795
835
875
915
390
779
1,169
1,559
1,949
2,338
2,728
3,118
3,507
3,897
4,092
4,287
4,482
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
604
630
655
680
705
730
756
781
806
831
856
882
907
932
957
982
1,007
1,018
1,060
1,103
1,145
1,188
1,230
1,273
1,315
1,357
1,400
1,442
1,485
1,527
1,569
1,612
1,654
1,697
382
398
414
429
445
461
477
493
509
525
541
557
573
589
604
620
636
764
795
827
859
891
923
954
986
1,018
1,050
1,082
1,113
1,145
1,177
1,209
1,241
1,273
636
663
689
716
742
769
795
822
848
875
901
928
954
981
1,007
1,034
1,060
318
331
345
358
371
384
398
411
424
437
451
464
477
490
504
517
530
954
994
1,034
1,074
1,113
1,153
1,193
1,233
1,273
1,312
1,352
1,392
1,432
1,471
1,511
1,551
1,591
4,677
4,871
5,066
5,261
5,456
5,651
5,846
6,041
6,235
6,430
6,625
6,820
7,015
7,210
7,405
7,600
7,794
Page 61
2012
BMPs
Year
Permanent
Vegetation
NoTill
Terraces
Waterways
Vegetative
Buffers
Nutrient
Management
Plan
Grade
Stabilization
Structures
Total Load
Reduction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
42
84
125
167
209
251
293
335
376
418
439
460
481
502
523
544
565
585
70
141
211
282
352
423
493
563
634
704
740
775
810
845
880
916
951
986
26
53
79
106
132
158
185
211
238
264
277
291
304
317
330
343
357
370
53
106
158
211
264
317
370
423
475
528
555
581
607
634
660
687
713
740
44
88
132
176
220
264
308
352
396
440
462
484
506
528
550
572
594
616
22
44
66
88
110
132
154
176
198
220
231
242
253
264
275
286
297
308
66
132
198
264
330
396
462
528
594
660
693
726
759
792
825
858
891
924
324
647
971
1,294
1,618
1,941
2,265
2,588
2,912
3,235
3,397
3,559
3,721
3,882
4,044
4,206
4,368
4,530
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
606
627
648
669
690
711
732
753
774
795
815
836
1,021
1,056
1,092
1,127
1,162
1,197
1,233
1,268
1,303
1,338
1,373
1,409
383
396
409
423
436
449
462
475
489
502
515
528
766
792
819
845
872
898
924
951
977
1,004
1,030
1,056
638
660
682
704
726
748
770
792
814
836
858
880
319
330
341
352
363
374
385
396
407
418
429
440
957
990
1,023
1,056
1,089
1,122
1,155
1,189
1,222
1,255
1,288
1,321
4,691
4,853
5,015
5,177
5,338
5,500
5,662
5,824
5,985
6,147
6,309
6,471
Page 62
2012
BMPs
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Permanent
Vegetation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
80
120
161
201
241
281
321
361
402
442
482
522
562
602
643
683
723
763
803
NoTill
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68
135
203
271
338
406
473
541
609
676
744
812
879
947
1,015
1,082
1,150
1,218
1,285
1,353
Terraces
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
51
76
101
127
152
178
203
228
254
279
304
330
355
380
406
431
457
482
507
Waterways
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
51
101
152
203
254
304
355
406
457
507
558
609
660
710
761
812
862
913
964
1,015
Vegetative
Buffers
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42
85
127
169
211
254
296
338
380
423
465
507
550
592
634
676
719
761
803
846
Nutrient
Management
Plan
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
42
63
85
106
127
148
169
190
211
233
254
275
296
317
338
359
380
402
423
Grade
Stabilization
Structures
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
127
190
254
317
380
444
507
571
634
698
761
824
888
951
1,015
1,078
1,141
1,205
1,268
Page 63
Total Load
Reduction
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
311
621
932
1,243
1,554
1,864
2,175
2,486
2,797
3,107
3,418
3,729
4,039
4,350
4,661
4,972
5,282
5,593
5,904
6,215
2012
Nitrogen Reduction (lbs.), Cropland BMPs
Sub-Watershed #0101 Annual Nitrogen Reduction (lbs.), Cropland BMPs
Permanent
Year Vegetation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
230
460
691
921
1,151
1,381
1,612
1,842
2,072
2,302
2,418
2,533
2,648
2,763
2,878
2,993
3,108
3,223
3,339
3,454
3,569
3,684
3,799
3,914
4,029
4,144
4,260
4,375
4,490
4,605
No-Till Terraces Waterways
242
485
727
969
1,212
1,454
1,697
1,939
2,181
2,424
2,545
2,666
2,787
2,908
3,030
3,151
3,272
3,393
3,514
3,635
3,757
3,878
3,999
4,120
4,241
4,363
4,484
4,605
4,726
4,847
145
291
436
582
727
873
1,018
1,163
1,309
1,454
1,527
1,600
1,672
1,745
1,818
1,890
1,963
2,036
2,109
2,181
2,254
2,327
2,399
2,472
2,545
2,618
2,690
2,763
2,836
2,908
291
582
873
1,163
1,454
1,745
2,036
2,327
2,618
2,908
3,054
3,199
3,345
3,490
3,635
3,781
3,926
4,072
4,217
4,363
4,508
4,653
4,799
4,944
5,090
5,235
5,381
5,526
5,671
5,817
Vegetative
Buffers
121
242
364
485
606
727
848
969
1,091
1,212
1,272
1,333
1,394
1,454
1,515
1,575
1,636
1,697
1,757
1,818
1,878
1,939
2,000
2,060
2,121
2,181
2,242
2,302
2,363
2,424
Nutrient
Management
Plan
121
242
364
485
606
727
848
969
1,091
1,212
1,272
1,333
1,394
1,454
1,515
1,575
1,636
1,697
1,757
1,818
1,878
1,939
2,000
2,060
2,121
2,181
2,242
2,302
2,363
2,424
Grade
Stabilization Total Load
Structures
Reduction
182
364
545
727
909
1,091
1,272
1,454
1,636
1,818
1,909
2,000
2,090
2,181
2,272
2,363
2,454
2,545
2,636
2,727
2,818
2,908
2,999
3,090
3,181
3,272
3,363
3,454
3,545
3,635
1,333
2,666
3,999
5,332
6,665
7,998
9,331
10,664
11,997
13,330
13,997
14,663
15,330
15,996
16,663
17,329
17,996
18,662
19,329
19,995
20,662
21,328
21,995
22,661
23,328
23,994
24,661
25,327
25,994
26,660
Page 64
2012
Nitrogen Reduction (lbs.), Cropland BMPs
Permanent
Year Vegetation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
159
318
477
636
795
954
1,113
1,272
1,431
1,590
1,670
1,749
1,829
1,908
1,988
2,067
2,147
2,226
2,306
2,385
2,465
2,544
2,624
2,703
2,783
2,862
2,942
3,021
3,101
3,180
167
335
502
669
837
1,004
1,172
1,339
1,506
1,674
1,757
1,841
1,925
2,008
2,092
2,176
2,259
2,343
2,427
2,511
2,594
2,678
2,762
2,845
2,929
3,013
3,096
3,180
3,264
3,347
100
201
301
402
502
603
703
803
904
1,004
1,054
1,105
1,155
1,205
1,255
1,305
1,356
1,406
1,456
1,506
1,557
1,607
1,657
1,707
1,757
1,808
1,858
1,908
1,958
2,008
201
402
603
803
1,004
1,205
1,406
1,607
1,808
2,008
2,109
2,209
2,310
2,410
2,511
2,611
2,711
2,812
2,912
3,013
3,113
3,213
3,314
3,414
3,515
3,615
3,716
3,816
3,916
4,017
Vegetative
Buffers
84
167
251
335
418
502
586
669
753
837
879
921
962
1,004
1,046
1,088
1,130
1,172
1,213
1,255
1,297
1,339
1,381
1,423
1,464
1,506
1,548
1,590
1,632
1,674
Nutrient
Management
Plan
84
167
251
335
418
502
586
669
753
837
879
921
962
1,004
1,046
1,088
1,130
1,172
1,213
1,255
1,297
1,339
1,381
1,423
1,464
1,506
1,548
1,590
1,632
1,674
Grade
Structures
Reduction
126
251
377
502
628
753
879
1,004
1,130
1,255
1,318
1,381
1,444
1,506
1,569
1,632
1,695
1,757
1,820
1,883
1,946
2,008
2,071
2,134
2,197
2,259
2,322
2,385
2,448
2,511
921
1,841
2,762
3,682
4,603
5,523
6,444
7,364
8,285
9,205
9,666
10,126
10,586
11,046
11,507
11,967
12,427
12,887
13,348
13,808
14,268
14,728
15,189
15,649
16,109
16,569
17,030
17,490
17,950
18,411
Page 65
2012
Nitrogen Reduction (lbs.), Cropland BMPS
Permanent
Year Vegetation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
193
386
579
772
964
1,157
1,350
1,543
1,736
1,929
2,122
2,315
2,508
2,700
2,893
3,086
3,279
3,472
3,665
3,858
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
203
406
609
812
1,015
1,218
1,421
1,624
1,827
2,030
2,233
2,436
2,640
2,843
3,046
3,249
3,452
3,655
3,858
4,061
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
122
244
365
487
609
731
853
975
1,096
1,218
1,340
1,462
1,584
1,706
1,827
1,949
2,071
2,193
2,315
2,436
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
244
487
731
975
1,218
1,462
1,706
1,949
2,193
2,436
2,680
2,924
3,167
3,411
3,655
3,898
4,142
4,386
4,629
4,873
Vegetative
Buffers
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
102
203
305
406
508
609
711
812
914
1,015
1,117
1,218
1,320
1,421
1,523
1,624
1,726
1,827
1,929
2,030
Nutrient
Management
Plan
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
102
203
305
406
508
609
711
812
914
1,015
1,117
1,218
1,320
1,421
1,523
1,624
1,726
1,827
1,929
2,030
Grade
Structures
Reduction
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
152
305
457
609
761
914
1,066
1,218
1,371
1,523
1,675
1,827
1,980
2,132
2,284
2,436
2,589
2,741
2,893
3,046
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,117
2,233
3,350
4,467
5,584
6,700
7,817
8,934
10,050
11,167
12,284
13,401
14,517
15,634
16,751
17,867
18,984
20,101
21,218
22,334
Page 66
2012
Long-Term
MediumTerm
Short-Term
Permanent
Year Vegetation No-Till Terraces
Nutrient
Grade
Waterways Buffers
Plan
Structures
Adoption
1
2
3
4
5
23
23
23
23
23
92
92
92
92
92
46
46
46
46
46
69
69
69
69
69
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
69
69
69
69
69
389
389
389
389
389
Total
114
458
229
343
229
229
343
1,945
6
7
8
9
10
23
23
23
23
23
92
92
92
92
92
46
46
46
46
46
69
69
69
69
69
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
69
69
69
69
69
389
389
389
389
389
Total
229
915
458
686
458
458
686
3,890
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
458 1,831
915
1,373
915
915
1,373
7,780
Total
Page 67
2012
Adoption (treated Acres), Cropland BMPs
MediumTerm
Short-Term
Nutrient
Grade
Permanent
Plan
Structures Adoption
1
2
3
4
5
13
13
13
13
13
52
52
52
52
52
26
26
26
26
26
39
39
39
39
39
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
39
39
39
39
39
223
223
223
223
223
Total
66
262
131
197
131
131
197
1,115
13
52
13
52
13
52
13
52
13
52
131 525
7
26
7
26
7
26
7
26
7
26
7
26
7
26
7
26
7
26
7
26
7
26
7
26
7
26
7
26
7
26
7
26
7
26
7
26
7
26
7
26
262 1,050
26
26
26
26
26
262
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
525
39
39
39
39
39
394
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
787
26
26
26
26
26
262
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
525
26
26
26
26
26
262
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
525
39
39
39
39
39
394
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
787
223
223
223
223
223
2,230
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
4,461
6
7
8
9
10
Long-Term
Total
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Total
Page 68
2012
Short-Term
Nutrient
Grade
Permanent
Plan
Structures Adoption
1
2
3
4
5
MediumTerm
Total
6
7
8
9
10
Long-Term
Total
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
76
19
76
19
76
19
76
19
76
19
76
19
76
19
76
19
76
19
76
19
76
19
76
19
76
19
76
19
76
19
76
19
76
19
76
19
76
19
76
381 1,525
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
762
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
1,144
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
762
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
762
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
1,144
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
324
6,480
Page 69
2012
Cost* Before Cost-Share, Cropland BMPS
Sub-Watershed #0101 Annual Cost* Before Cost-Share, Cropland BMPs
Permanent
Year Vegetation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
$3,432
$3,535
$3,641
$3,751
$3,863
$3,979
$4,098
$4,221
$4,348
$4,478
$2,306
$2,376
$2,447
$2,520
$2,596
$2,674
$2,754
$2,837
$2,922
$3,009
$3,100
$3,193
$3,288
$3,387
$3,489
$3,593
$3,701
$3,812
$3,927
$4,044
Vegetative
$7,111
$7,324
$7,544
$7,770
$8,003
$8,244
$8,491
$8,746
$9,008
$9,278
$4,778
$4,922
$5,069
$5,221
$5,378
$5,539
$5,706
$5,877
$6,053
$6,235
$6,422
$6,614
$6,813
$7,017
$7,228
$7,444
$7,668
$7,898
$8,135
$8,379
$4,668
$4,808
$4,952
$5,101
$5,254
$5,412
$5,574
$5,741
$5,913
$6,091
$3,137
$3,231
$3,328
$3,428
$3,530
$3,636
$3,745
$3,858
$3,974
$4,093
$4,215
$4,342
$4,472
$4,606
$4,745
$4,887
$5,034
$5,185
$5,340
$5,500
$10,984
$11,313
$11,653
$12,002
$12,362
$12,733
$13,115
$13,508
$13,914
$14,331
$7,381
$7,602
$7,830
$8,065
$8,307
$8,556
$8,813
$9,077
$9,349
$9,630
$9,919
$10,216
$10,523
$10,839
$11,164
$11,499
$11,844
$12,199
$12,565
$12,942
$4,577
$4,714
$4,855
$5,001
$5,151
$5,305
$5,465
$5,629
$5,797
$5,971
$3,075
$3,167
$3,262
$3,360
$3,461
$3,565
$3,672
$3,782
$3,896
$4,012
$4,133
$4,257
$4,385
$4,516
$4,652
$4,791
$4,935
$5,083
$5,235
$5,392
Nutrient
Grade Stabilization Total
Cost
$2,595
$2,673
$2,753
$2,836
$2,921
$3,009
$3,099
$3,192
$3,288
$3,386
$1,744
$1,796
$1,850
$1,906
$1,963
$2,022
$2,082
$2,145
$2,209
$2,275
$2,344
$2,414
$2,486
$2,561
$2,638
$2,717
$2,799
$2,882
$2,969
$3,058
$20,594
$21,212
$21,848
$22,504
$23,179
$23,874
$24,591
$25,328
$26,088
$26,871
$13,838
$14,254
$14,681
$15,122
$15,575
$16,043
$16,524
$17,020
$17,530
$18,056
$18,598
$19,156
$19,730
$20,322
$20,932
$21,560
$22,207
$22,873
$23,559
$24,266
*3% Inflation
Page 70
$53,961
$55,580
$57,247
$58,965
$60,734
$62,556
$64,432
$66,365
$68,356
$70,407
$36,260
$37,347
$38,468
$39,622
$40,810
$42,035
$43,296
$44,595
$45,933
$47,311
$48,730
$50,192
$51,697
$53,248
$54,846
$56,491
$58,186
$59,932
$61,729
$63,581
2012
Table 43. Sub-Watershed #0102Annual
Cost* Before Cost-Share, Cropland BMPs
Permanent
Year Vegetation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
$1,968
$2,027
$2,088
$2,150
$2,215
$2,281
$2,350
$2,420
$2,493
$2,568
$2,645
$1,362
$1,403
$1,445
$1,488
$1,533
$1,579
$1,626
$1,675
$1,725
$1,777
$1,831
$1,885
$1,942
$2,000
$2,060
$2,122
$2,186
$2,251
$2,319
Vegetative
$4,077
$4,199
$4,325
$4,455
$4,589
$4,727
$4,868
$5,014
$5,165
$5,320
$5,479
$2,822
$2,907
$2,994
$3,084
$3,176
$3,271
$3,369
$3,471
$3,575
$3,682
$3,792
$3,906
$4,023
$4,144
$4,268
$4,396
$4,528
$4,664
$4,804
$2,676
$2,757
$2,839
$2,925
$3,012
$3,103
$3,196
$3,292
$3,390
$3,492
$3,597
$1,852
$1,908
$1,965
$2,024
$2,085
$2,147
$2,212
$2,278
$2,347
$2,417
$2,490
$2,564
$2,641
$2,720
$2,802
$2,886
$2,973
$3,062
$3,154
$6,298
$6,487
$6,681
$6,882
$7,088
$7,301
$7,520
$7,745
$7,978
$8,217
$8,463
$4,359
$4,489
$4,624
$4,763
$4,906
$5,053
$5,204
$5,361
$5,521
$5,687
$5,858
$6,033
$6,214
$6,401
$6,593
$6,791
$6,994
$7,204
$7,420
$2,624
$2,703
$2,784
$2,867
$2,953
$3,042
$3,133
$3,227
$3,324
$3,424
$3,526
$1,816
$1,871
$1,927
$1,985
$2,044
$2,105
$2,169
$2,234
$2,301
$2,370
$2,441
$2,514
$2,589
$2,667
$2,747
$2,829
$2,914
$3,002
$3,092
Nutrient
Grade Stabilization Total
Cost
$1,488
$1,533
$1,579
$1,626
$1,675
$1,725
$1,777
$1,830
$1,885
$1,942
$2,000
$1,030
$1,061
$1,093
$1,125
$1,159
$1,194
$1,230
$1,267
$1,305
$1,344
$1,384
$1,426
$1,468
$1,512
$1,558
$1,605
$1,653
$1,702
$1,753
$11,808
$12,162
$12,527
$12,903
$13,290
$13,689
$14,099
$14,522
$14,958
$15,407
$15,869
$8,173
$8,418
$8,670
$8,930
$9,198
$9,474
$9,758
$10,051
$10,353
$10,663
$10,983
$11,313
$11,652
$12,002
$12,362
$12,733
$13,114
$13,508
$13,913
*3% Inflation
Page 71
$30,939
$31,868
$32,824
$33,808
$34,822
$35,867
$36,943
$38,051
$39,193
$40,369
$41,580
$21,414
$22,056
$22,718
$23,399
$24,101
$24,824
$25,569
$26,336
$27,126
$27,940
$28,778
$29,641
$30,531
$31,447
$32,390
$33,362
$34,363
$35,393
$36,455
2012
Cost* Before Cost-Share, Cropland BMPS
Permanent
Year Vegetation
1
$0
2
$0
3
$0
4
$0
5
$0
6
$0
7
$0
8
$0
9
$0
10
$0
11
$0
12
$3,958
13
$4,076
14
$4,199
15
$4,324
16
$4,454
17
$4,588
18
$4,725
19
$4,867
20
$5,013
21
$5,164
22
$5,319
23
$5,478
24
$5,642
25
$5,812
26
$5,986
27
$6,166
28
$6,351
29
$6,541
30
$6,737
No-Till Terraces
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8,199
$5,382
$8,445
$5,544
$8,698
$5,710
$8,959
$5,881
$9,228
$6,058
$9,505
$6,239
$9,790
$6,427
$10,084
$6,619
$10,386
$6,818
$10,698
$7,023
$11,019
$7,233
$11,349
$7,450
$11,690
$7,674
$12,040
$7,904
$12,402
$8,141
$12,774
$8,385
$13,157
$8,637
$13,552
$8,896
$13,958
$9,163
Grade
Vegetative
Nutrient
Stabilization
Waterways Buffers
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12,664
$5,277
$2,992
$23,745
$13,044
$5,435
$3,082
$24,458
$13,435
$5,598
$3,175
$25,191
$13,838
$5,766
$3,270
$25,947
$14,254
$5,939
$3,368
$26,725
$14,681
$6,117
$3,469
$27,527
$15,122
$6,301
$3,573
$28,353
$15,575
$6,490
$3,680
$29,204
$16,042
$6,684
$3,791
$30,080
$16,524
$6,885
$3,904
$30,982
$17,019
$7,091
$4,022
$31,911
$17,530
$7,304
$4,142
$32,869
$18,056
$7,523
$4,266
$33,855
$18,598
$7,749
$4,394
$34,871
$19,156
$7,981
$4,526
$35,917
$19,730
$8,221
$4,662
$36,994
$20,322
$8,468
$4,802
$38,104
$20,932
$8,722
$4,946
$39,247
$21,560
$8,983
$5,094
$40,425
*3% Inflation
Page 72
Total
Cost
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$62,217
$64,084
$66,006
$67,986
$70,026
$72,127
$74,290
$76,519
$78,815
$81,179
$83,614
$86,123
$88,707
$91,368
$94,109
$96,932
$99,840
$102,835
$105,920
2012
Cost* After Cost-Share, Cropland BMPs
Sub-Watershed #0101 Annual Cost* After Cost-Share, Cropland BMPs
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Permanent
Vegetation
$1,716
$1,768
$1,821
$1,875
$1,932
$1,990
$2,049
$2,111
$2,174
$2,239
$1,153
$1,188
$1,223
$1,260
$1,298
$1,337
$1,377
$1,418
$1,461
$1,505
$1,550
$1,596
$1,644
$1,694
$1,744
$1,797
$1,851
$1,906
$1,963
$2,022
No-Till
$4,338
$4,468
$4,602
$4,740
$4,882
$5,029
$5,179
$5,335
$5,495
$5,660
$2,915
$3,002
$3,092
$3,185
$3,281
$3,379
$3,480
$3,585
$3,692
$3,803
$3,917
$4,035
$4,156
$4,280
$4,409
$4,541
$4,677
$4,818
$4,962
$5,111
Terrace
$2,334
$2,404
$2,476
$2,550
$2,627
$2,706
$2,787
$2,871
$2,957
$3,045
$1,568
$1,615
$1,664
$1,714
$1,765
$1,818
$1,873
$1,929
$1,987
$2,046
$2,108
$2,171
$2,236
$2,303
$2,372
$2,443
$2,517
$2,592
$2,670
$2,750
Waterway
$5,492
$5,657
$5,826
$6,001
$6,181
$6,367
$6,557
$6,754
$6,957
$7,166
$3,690
$3,801
$3,915
$4,032
$4,153
$4,278
$4,406
$4,539
$4,675
$4,815
$4,959
$5,108
$5,261
$5,419
$5,582
$5,749
$5,922
$6,099
$6,282
$6,471
Vegetative
Buffers
$458
$471
$486
$500
$515
$531
$546
$563
$580
$597
$308
$317
$326
$336
$346
$357
$367
$378
$390
$401
$413
$426
$438
$452
$465
$479
$493
$508
$524
$539
Nutrient
Management
Plan
$1,298
$1,337
$1,377
$1,418
$1,461
$1,504
$1,549
$1,596
$1,644
$1,693
$872
$898
$925
$953
$981
$1,011
$1,041
$1,072
$1,105
$1,138
$1,172
$1,207
$1,243
$1,281
$1,319
$1,359
$1,399
$1,441
$1,484
$1,529
Grade
Stabilization
Structures
$10,297
$10,606
$10,924
$11,252
$11,590
$11,937
$12,295
$12,664
$13,044
$13,435
$6,919
$7,127
$7,341
$7,561
$7,788
$8,021
$8,262
$8,510
$8,765
$9,028
$9,299
$9,578
$9,865
$10,161
$10,466
$10,780
$11,103
$11,436
$11,780
$12,133
*3% Inflation
Page 73
Total
Cost
$25,932
$26,710
$27,511
$28,337
$29,187
$30,062
$30,964
$31,893
$32,850
$33,836
$17,425
$17,948
$18,487
$19,041
$19,612
$20,201
$20,807
$21,431
$22,074
$22,736
$23,418
$24,121
$24,844
$25,590
$26,357
$27,148
$27,963
$28,801
$29,665
$30,555
2012
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Permanent
Vegetation
$984
$1,014
$1,044
$1,075
$1,108
$1,141
$1,175
$1,210
$1,247
$1,284
$1,322
$681
$701
$723
$744
$767
$790
$813
$838
$863
$889
$915
$943
$971
$1,000
$1,030
$1,061
$1,093
$1,126
$1,159
No-Till
$2,487
$2,562
$2,639
$2,718
$2,799
$2,883
$2,970
$3,059
$3,151
$3,245
$3,342
$1,721
$1,773
$1,826
$1,881
$1,937
$1,996
$2,055
$2,117
$2,181
$2,246
$2,313
$2,383
$2,454
$2,528
$2,604
$2,682
$2,762
$2,845
$2,930
Terraces
$1,338
$1,378
$1,420
$1,462
$1,506
$1,551
$1,598
$1,646
$1,695
$1,746
$1,798
$926
$954
$983
$1,012
$1,042
$1,074
$1,106
$1,139
$1,173
$1,209
$1,245
$1,282
$1,321
$1,360
$1,401
$1,443
$1,486
$1,531
$1,577
Waterways
$3,149
$3,243
$3,341
$3,441
$3,544
$3,650
$3,760
$3,873
$3,989
$4,108
$4,232
$2,179
$2,245
$2,312
$2,381
$2,453
$2,526
$2,602
$2,680
$2,761
$2,844
$2,929
$3,017
$3,107
$3,200
$3,296
$3,395
$3,497
$3,602
$3,710
Nutrient
Vegetative Management
Buffers
Plan
$262
$744
$270
$766
$278
$789
$287
$813
$295
$837
$304
$863
$313
$888
$323
$915
$332
$943
$342
$971
$353
$1,000
$182
$515
$187
$530
$193
$546
$198
$563
$204
$580
$211
$597
$217
$615
$223
$633
$230
$652
$237
$672
$244
$692
$251
$713
$259
$734
$267
$756
$275
$779
$283
$802
$291
$826
$300
$851
$309
$877
Grade
Stabilization
Structures
$5,904
$6,081
$6,264
$6,451
$6,645
$6,844
$7,050
$7,261
$7,479
$7,703
$7,934
$4,086
$4,209
$4,335
$4,465
$4,599
$4,737
$4,879
$5,026
$5,176
$5,332
$5,492
$5,656
$5,826
$6,001
$6,181
$6,366
$6,557
$6,754
$6,957
*3% Inflation
Page 74
Total
Cost
$14,869
$15,315
$15,774
$16,247
$16,735
$17,237
$17,754
$18,286
$18,835
$19,400
$19,982
$10,291
$10,599
$10,917
$11,245
$11,582
$11,930
$12,288
$12,656
$13,036
$13,427
$13,830
$14,245
$14,672
$15,112
$15,566
$16,033
$16,514
$17,009
$17,519
2012
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Permanent
Vegetation
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,979
$2,038
$2,099
$2,162
$2,227
$2,294
$2,363
$2,434
$2,507
$2,582
$2,659
$2,739
$2,821
$2,906
$2,993
$3,083
$3,175
$3,271
$3,369
No-Till
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,001
$5,151
$5,306
$5,465
$5,629
$5,798
$5,972
$6,151
$6,336
$6,526
$6,721
$6,923
$7,131
$7,345
$7,565
$7,792
$8,026
$8,266
$8,514
Terraces
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,691
$2,772
$2,855
$2,941
$3,029
$3,120
$3,213
$3,310
$3,409
$3,511
$3,617
$3,725
$3,837
$3,952
$4,071
$4,193
$4,318
$4,448
$4,581
Waterways
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6,332
$6,522
$6,718
$6,919
$7,127
$7,341
$7,561
$7,788
$8,021
$8,262
$8,510
$8,765
$9,028
$9,299
$9,578
$9,865
$10,161
$10,466
$10,780
*3% Inflation
Vegetative
Buffers
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$528
$544
$560
$577
$594
$612
$630
$649
$668
$688
$709
$730
$752
$775
$798
$822
$847
$872
$898
Nutrient
Management
Plan
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,496
$1,541
$1,587
$1,635
$1,684
$1,735
$1,787
$1,840
$1,895
$1,952
$2,011
$2,071
$2,133
$2,197
$2,263
$2,331
$2,401
$2,473
$2,547
Grade
Stabilization
Structures
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,873
$12,229
$12,596
$12,973
$13,363
$13,764
$14,176
$14,602
$15,040
$15,491
$15,956
$16,434
$16,927
$17,435
$17,958
$18,497
$19,052
$19,624
$20,212
Page 75
Total
Cost
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$29,900
$30,797
$31,721
$32,672
$33,652
$34,662
$35,702
$36,773
$37,876
$39,012
$40,183
$41,388
$42,630
$43,909
$45,226
$46,583
$47,980
$49,420
$50,902
2012
Livestock BMP Adoption
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Total
Sub Watershed #0101 Annual Livestock BMP Adoption
Relocate
Vegetative Relocate
Pasture
Off Stream
Filter
Feeding
Feeding
Watering
Rotational
Strip
Pens
Site
System
Grazing
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
10
5
10
30
5
Page 76
2012
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Total
Relocate
Vegetative Relocate
Pasture
Off Stream
Filter
Feeding
Feeding
Watering
Rotational
Strip
Pens
Site
System
Grazing
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
10
5
10
30
5
Page 77
2012
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Total
Relocate
Vegetative Relocate
Pasture
Off Stream
Filter
Feeding
Feeding
Watering
Rotational
Strip
Pens
Site
System
Grazing
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
10
5
10
30
5
Page 78
2012
Cost* Before Cost-Share of Implementing
Livestock BMPs
Sub-Watershed #0101 Annual Cost* Before Cost-Share of Implementing
Livestock BMPs
Relocate
Vegetative Relocate
Pasture
Off Stream
Filter
Feeding
Feeding
Watering
Rotational
Annual
Year Strip
Pens
Site
System
Grazing
Cost
1
$714
$6,621
$0
$7,590
$0 $14,925
2
$0
$0
$2,269
$3,909
$0 $6,178
3
$757
$0
$0
$8,052
$7,426 $16,236
4
$0
$0
$2,407
$4,147
$0 $6,554
5
$804
$7,452
$0
$8,543
$0 $16,798
6
$0
$0
$2,554
$4,399
$0 $6,953
7
$853
$0
$0
$9,063
$8,358 $18,274
8
$0
$0
$2,709
$4,667
$0 $7,377
9
$904
$8,387
$0
$9,615
$0 $18,907
10
$0
$0
$2,874
$4,952
$0 $7,826
11
$0
$0
$0
$5,100
$0 $5,100
12
$988
$0
$0
$5,253
$0 $6,242
13
$0
$9,440
$0
$5,411
$0 $14,851
14
$0
$0
$3,235
$5,573
$0 $8,808
15
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
16
$1,112
$0
$0
$5,912
$0 $7,025
17
$0
$0
$0
$6,090
$11,233 $17,323
18
$0
$0
$3,641
$6,273
$0 $9,914
19
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
20
$1,252
$0
$0
$6,655
$0 $7,907
21
$0 $11,958
$0
$6,854
$0 $18,812
22
$0
$0
$4,098
$7,060
$0 $11,158
23
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
24
$1,409
$0
$0
$7,490
$0 $8,899
25
$0
$0
$0
$7,714
$14,230 $21,944
26
$0
$0
$4,613
$7,946
$0 $12,558
27
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
28
$1,586
$0
$0
$8,430
$0 $10,016
29
$0
$0
$0
$8,683
$16,015 $24,698
30
$0
$0
$5,192
$0
$0 $5,192
Page 79
2012
Livestock BMPs
Livestock BMPs
Relocate
Vegetative Relocate
Pasture
Off Stream
Filter
Feeding
Feeding
Watering
Rotational
Annual
Year Strip
Pens
Site
System
Grazing
Cost
1
$0
$0
$2,203
$3,795
$7,000 $12,998
2
$735
$0
$0
$7,818
$0 $8,553
3
$0
$7,024
$2,337
$4,026
$0 $13,387
4
$780
$0
$0
$8,294
$0 $9,074
5
$0
$0
$2,479
$4,271
$7,879 $14,629
6
$828
$0
$0
$8,799
$0 $9,627
7
$0
$7,906
$2,630
$4,531
$0 $15,068
8
$878
$0
$0
$9,335
$0 $10,213
9
$0
$0
$2,791
$4,807
$8,867 $16,465
10
$932
$0
$0
$9,903
$0 $10,835
11
$0
$0
$0
$5,100
$0 $5,100
12
$0
$0
$3,049
$5,253
$0 $8,303
13
$0
$0
$0
$5,411
$9,980 $15,391
14
$1,049
$0
$0
$0
$0 $1,049
15
$0
$0
$0
$5,740
$0 $5,740
16
$0
$0
$3,432
$5,912
$0 $9,345
17
$0 $10,625
$0
$6,090
$0 $16,715
18
$1,180
$0
$0
$0
$0 $1,180
19
$0
$0
$0
$6,461
$0 $6,461
20
$0
$0
$3,863
$6,655
$0 $10,518
21
$0
$0
$0
$6,854
$12,643 $19,497
22
$1,328
$0
$0
$0
$0 $1,328
23
$0
$0
$0
$7,272
$0 $7,272
24
$0
$0
$4,348
$7,490
$0 $11,838
25
$0 $13,459
$0
$7,714
$0 $21,174
26
$1,495
$0
$0
$0
$0 $1,495
27
$0
$0
$0
$8,184
$0 $8,184
28
$0
$0
$4,893
$8,430
$0 $13,323
29
$0 $15,148
$0
$0
$0 $15,148
30
$1,683
$0
$0
$8,943
$0 $10,626
Page 80
2012
Livestock BMPs
Livestock BMPs
Relocate
Vegetative Relocate
Pasture
Off Stream
Filter
Feeding
Feeding
Watering
Rotational
Annual
Year Strip
Pens
Site
System
Grazing
Cost
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
3
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
4
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
5
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
6
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
7
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
8
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
9
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
10
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
11
$960
$8,898
$2,961
$10,200
$9,407 $32,426
12
$0
$0
$0
$5,253
$0 $5,253
13
$1,018
$0
$3,141
$10,822
$0 $14,980
14
$0
$0
$0
$5,573
$0 $5,573
15
$1,080 $10,015
$3,332
$11,481
$10,588 $36,496
16
$0
$0
$0
$5,912
$0 $5,912
17
$1,146
$0
$3,535
$12,180
$0 $16,861
18
$0
$0
$0
$6,273
$0 $6,273
19
$1,216 $11,272
$3,750
$12,921
$11,917 $41,076
20
$0
$0
$0
$6,655
$0 $6,655
21
$1,290
$0
$3,979
$13,708
$0 $18,977
22
$0
$0
$0
$7,060
$0 $7,060
23
$1,368 $12,687
$4,221
$14,543
$13,413 $46,232
24
$0
$0
$0
$7,490
$0 $7,490
25
$1,451
$0
$4,478
$15,429
$0 $21,359
26
$0
$0
$0
$7,946
$0 $7,946
27
$1,540 $14,279
$4,751
$16,369
$15,096 $52,034
28
$0
$0
$0
$8,430
$0 $8,430
29
$1,634
$0
$5,040
$17,365
$0 $24,039
30
$0
$0
$0
$8,943
$0 $8,943
Page 81
2012
Cost* After Cost-Share of Implementing
Livestock BMPs.
Sub-Watershed #0101 Annual Cost* After Cost-Share of Implementing Livestock
BMPs
Relocate
Vegetative Relocate
Pasture
Off Stream
Filter
Feeding
Feeding
Watering
Rotational
Annual
Year Strip
Pens
Site
System
Grazing
Cost
1
$357
$3,311
$0
$3,795
$0 $7,463
2
$0
$0
$1,135
$1,954
$0 $3,089
3
$379
$0
$0
$4,026
$3,713 $8,118
4
$0
$0
$1,204
$2,073
$0 $3,277
5
$402
$3,726
$0
$4,271
$0 $8,399
6
$0
$0
$1,277
$2,200
$0 $3,477
7
$426
$0
$0
$4,531
$4,179 $9,137
8
$0
$0
$1,355
$2,334
$0 $3,688
9
$452
$4,194
$0
$4,807
$0 $9,453
10
$0
$0
$1,437
$2,476
$0 $3,913
11
$0
$0
$0
$2,550
$0 $2,550
12
$494
$0
$0
$2,627
$0 $3,121
13
$0
$4,720
$0
$2,705
$0 $7,425
14
$0
$0
$1,618
$2,787
$0 $4,404
15
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
16
$556
$0
$0
$2,956
$0 $3,512
17
$0
$0
$0
$3,045
$5,616 $8,661
18
$0
$0
$1,821
$3,136
$0 $4,957
19
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
20
$626
$0
$0
$3,327
$0 $3,953
21
$0
$5,979
$0
$3,427
$0 $9,406
22
$0
$0
$2,049
$3,530
$0 $5,579
23
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
24
$705
$0
$0
$3,745
$0 $4,449
25
$0
$0
$0
$3,857
$7,115 $10,972
26
$0
$0
$2,306
$3,973
$0 $6,279
27
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
28
$793
$0
$0
$4,215
$0 $5,008
29
$0
$0
$0
$4,341
$8,008 $12,349
30
$0
$0
$2,596
$0
$0 $2,596
Page 82
2012
Livestock BMPs
BMPs
Relocate
Vegetative Relocate
Pasture
Off Stream
Filter
Feeding
Feeding
Watering
Rotational
Annual
Year Strip
Pens
Site
System
Grazing
Cost
1
$0
$0
$1,102
$1,898
$3,500 $6,499
2
$368
$0
$0
$3,909
$0 $4,277
3
$0
$3,512
$1,169
$2,013
$0 $6,694
4
$390
$0
$0
$4,147
$0 $4,537
5
$0
$0
$1,240
$2,136
$3,939 $7,315
6
$414
$0
$0
$4,399
$0 $4,813
7
$0
$3,953
$1,315
$2,266
$0 $7,534
8
$439
$0
$0
$4,667
$0 $5,106
9
$0
$0
$1,395
$2,404
$4,434 $8,233
10
$466
$0
$0
$4,952
$0 $5,417
11
$0
$0
$0
$2,550
$0 $2,550
12
$0
$0
$1,525
$2,627
$0 $4,151
13
$0
$0
$0
$2,705
$4,990 $7,696
14
$524
$0
$0
$0
$0
$524
15
$0
$0
$0
$2,870
$0 $2,870
16
$0
$0
$1,716
$2,956
$0 $4,672
17
$0
$5,312
$0
$3,045
$0 $8,357
18
$590
$0
$0
$0
$0
$590
19
$0
$0
$0
$3,230
$0 $3,230
20
$0
$0
$1,931
$3,327
$0 $5,259
21
$0
$0
$0
$3,427
$6,321 $9,748
22
$664
$0
$0
$0
$0
$664
23
$0
$0
$0
$3,636
$0 $3,636
24
$0
$0
$2,174
$3,745
$0 $5,919
25
$0
$6,730
$0
$3,857
$0 $10,587
26
$747
$0
$0
$0
$0
$747
27
$0
$0
$0
$4,092
$0 $4,092
28
$0
$0
$2,447
$4,215
$0 $6,662
29
$0
$7,574
$0
$0
$0 $7,574
30
$841
$0
$0
$4,472
$0 $5,313
Page 83
2012
Livestock BMPS.
BMPs
Relocate
Vegetative Relocate
Pasture
Off Stream
Filter
Feeding
Feeding
Watering
Rotational
Annual
Year Strip
Pens
Site
System
Grazing
Cost
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
3
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
4
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
5
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
6
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
7
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
8
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
9
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
10
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
11
$480
$4,449
$1,480
$5,100
$4,704 $16,213
12
$0
$0
$0
$2,627
$0 $2,627
13
$509
$0
$1,570
$5,411
$0 $7,490
14
$0
$0
$0
$2,787
$0 $2,787
15
$540
$5,007
$1,666
$5,740
$5,294 $18,248
16
$0
$0
$0
$2,956
$0 $2,956
17
$573
$0
$1,768
$6,090
$0 $8,430
18
$0
$0
$0
$3,136
$0 $3,136
19
$608
$5,636
$1,875
$6,461
$5,959 $20,538
20
$0
$0
$0
$3,327
$0 $3,327
21
$645
$0
$1,989
$6,854
$0 $9,488
22
$0
$0
$0
$3,530
$0 $3,530
23
$684
$6,343
$2,111
$7,272
$6,706 $23,116
24
$0
$0
$0
$3,745
$0 $3,745
25
$726
$0
$2,239
$7,714
$0 $10,679
26
$0
$0
$0
$3,973
$0 $3,973
27
$770
$7,139
$2,375
$8,184
$7,548 $26,017
28
$0
$0
$0
$4,215
$0 $4,215
29
$817
$0
$2,520
$8,683
$0 $12,020
30
$0
$0
$0
$4,472
$0 $4,472
Page 84
2012
Phosphorus Load Reductions (lbs.)
Sub-Watershed #0101 Annual Phosphorus Load Reductions (lbs.)
Relocate
Off
Stream
Annual
Filter
Load
Year
Strip
Pens
Site
System
Grazing Reduction
1
797
1,196
0
126
0
2,119
2
797
1,196
63
189
0
2,246
3
1,595
1,196
63
315
63
3,232
4
1,595
1,196
126
378
63
3,358
5
2,392
2,392
126
504
63
5,478
6
2,392
2,392
189
568
63
5,604
7
3,189
2,392
189
694
126
6,590
8
3,189
2,392
252
757
126
6,716
9
3,987
3,588
252
883
126
8,836
10
3,987
3,588
315
946
126
8,962
11
3,987
3,588
315
1,009
126
9,025
12
4,784
3,588
315
1,072
126
9,885
13
4,784
4,784
315
1,135
126
11,145
14
4,784
4,784
378
1,198
126
11,271
15
4,784
4,784
378
1,198
126
11,271
16
5,581
4,784
378
1,261
126
12,131
17
5,581
4,784
378
1,324
189
12,257
18
5,581
4,784
441
1,387
189
12,383
19
5,581
4,784
441
1,387
189
12,383
20
6,379
4,784
441
1,450
189
13,244
21
6,379
5,980
441
1,513
189
14,503
22
6,379
5,980
504
1,577
189
14,629
23
6,379
5,980
504
1,577
189
14,629
24
7,176
5,980
504
1,640
189
15,489
25
7,176
5,980
504
1,703
252
15,615
26
7,176
5,980
568
1,766
252
15,741
27
7,176
5,980
568
1,766
252
15,741
28
7,973
5,980
568
1,829
252
16,602
29
7,973
5,980
568
1,892
315
16,728
30
7,973
5,980
631
1,892
315
16,791
Page 85
2012
Relocate
Off
Stream
Annual
Filter
Load
Year
Strip
Pens
Site
System
Grazing Reduction
1
0
0
63
63
63
189
2
797
0
63
189
63
1,113
3
797
1,196
126
252
63
2,435
4
1,595
1,196
126
378
63
3,358
5
1,595
1,196
189
441
126
3,547
6
2,392
1,196
189
568
126
4,471
7
2,392
2,392
252
631
126
5,793
8
3,189
2,392
252
757
126
6,716
9
3,189
2,392
315
820
189
6,905
10
3,987
2,392
315
946
189
7,829
11
3,987
2,392
315
1,009
189
7,892
12
3,987
2,392
378
1,072
189
8,018
13
3,987
2,392
378
1,135
252
8,144
14
4,784
2,392
378
1,135
252
8,942
15
4,784
2,392
378
1,198
252
9,005
16
4,784
2,392
441
1,261
252
9,131
17
4,784
3,588
441
1,324
252
10,390
18
5,581
3,588
441
1,324
252
11,187
19
5,581
3,588
441
1,387
252
11,250
20
5,581
3,588
504
1,450
252
11,376
21
5,581
3,588
504
1,513
315
11,502
22
6,379
3,588
504
1,513
315
12,300
23
6,379
3,588
504
1,577
315
12,363
24
6,379
3,588
568
1,640
315
12,489
25
6,379
4,784
568
1,703
315
13,748
26
7,176
4,784
568
1,703
315
14,545
27
7,176
4,784
568
1,766
315
14,608
28
7,176
4,784
631
1,829
315
14,735
29
7,176
5,980
631
1,829
315
15,931
30
7,973
5,980
631
1,892
315
16,791
Page 86
2012
Relocate
Off
Stream
Annual
Filter
Load
Year
Strip
Pens
Site
System
Grazing Reduction
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
797
1,196
63
126
63
2,246
12
797
1,196
63
189
63
2,309
13
1,595
1,196
126
315
63
3,295
14
1,595
1,196
126
378
63
3,358
15
2,392
2,392
189
504
126
5,604
16
2,392
2,392
189
568
126
5,667
17
3,189
2,392
252
694
126
6,653
18
3,189
2,392
252
757
126
6,716
19
3,987
3,588
315
883
189
8,962
20
3,987
3,588
315
946
189
9,025
21
4,784
3,588
378
1,072
189
10,012
22
4,784
3,588
378
1,135
189
10,075
23
5,581
4,784
441
1,261
252
12,320
24
5,581
4,784
441
1,324
252
12,383
25
6,379
4,784
504
1,450
252
13,370
26
6,379
4,784
504
1,513
252
13,433
27
7,176
5,980
568
1,640
315
15,678
28
7,176
5,980
568
1,703
315
15,741
29
7,973
5,980
631
1,829
315
16,728
30
7,973
5,980
631
1,892
315
16,791
Page 87
2012
Nitrogen Load Reductions (lbs.)
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Sub Watershed #0101 Annual Nitrogen Load Reductions (lbs.)
Relocate
Off
Stream
Annual
Filter
Load
Strip
Pens
Site
System
Grazing Reduction
1,502
2,253
0
238
0
3,992
1,502
2,253
119
356
0
4,230
3,004
2,253
119
594
119
6,088
3,004
2,253
238
713
119
6,325
4,505
4,505
238
950
119
10,317
4,505
4,505
356
1,069
119
10,555
6,007
4,505
356
1,307
237
12,413
6,007
4,505
475
1,425
237
12,650
7,509
6,758
475
1,663
237
16,642
7,509
6,758
594
1,782
237
16,880
7,509
6,758
594
1,900
237
16,999
9,011
6,758
594
2,019
237
18,619
9,011
9,011
594
2,138
237
20,991
9,011
9,011
713
2,257
237
21,228
9,011
9,011
713
2,257
237
21,228
10,513
9,011
713
2,375
237
22,849
10,513
9,011
713
2,494
356
23,086
10,513
9,011
831
2,613
356
23,324
10,513
9,011
831
2,613
356
23,324
12,014
9,011
831
2,732
356
24,944
12,014
11,263
831
2,851
356
27,316
12,014
11,263
950
2,969
356
27,553
12,014
11,263
950
2,969
356
27,553
13,516
11,263
950
3,088
356
29,174
13,516
11,263
950
3,207
475
29,411
13,516
11,263
1,069
3,326
475
29,649
13,516
11,263
1,069
3,326
475
29,649
15,018
11,263
1,069
3,444
475
31,270
15,018
11,263
1,069
3,563
593
31,507
15,018
11,263
1,188
3,563
593
31,626
Page 88
2012
Nitrogen Load Reductions (lbs.)
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Relocate
Off
Stream
Annual
Filter
Load
Strip
Pens
Site
System
Grazing Reduction
0
0
119
119
119
356
1,502
0
119
356
119
2,096
1,502
2,253
238
475
119
4,586
3,004
2,253
238
713
119
6,325
3,004
2,253
356
831
237
6,681
4,505
2,253
356
1,069
237
8,421
4,505
4,505
475
1,188
237
10,911
6,007
4,505
475
1,425
237
12,650
6,007
4,505
594
1,544
356
13,007
7,509
4,505
594
1,782
356
14,746
7,509
4,505
594
1,900
356
14,865
7,509
4,505
713
2,019
356
15,102
7,509
4,505
713
2,138
475
15,340
9,011
4,505
713
2,138
475
16,841
9,011
4,505
713
2,257
475
16,960
9,011
4,505
831
2,375
475
17,198
9,011
6,758
831
2,494
475
19,569
10,513
6,758
831
2,494
475
21,071
10,513
6,758
831
2,613
475
21,190
10,513
6,758
950
2,732
475
21,427
10,513
6,758
950
2,851
593
21,665
12,014
6,758
950
2,851
593
23,167
12,014
6,758
950
2,969
593
23,285
12,014
6,758
1,069
3,088
593
23,523
12,014
9,011
1,069
3,207
593
25,894
13,516
9,011
1,069
3,207
593
27,396
13,516
9,011
1,069
3,326
593
27,515
13,516
9,011
1,188
3,444
593
27,752
13,516
11,263
1,188
3,444
593
30,005
15,018
11,263
1,188
3,563
593
31,626
Page 89
2012
Nitrogen Load Reductions (lbs.).
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Relocate
Off
Stream
Annual
Filter
Load
Strip
Pens
Site
System
Grazing Reduction
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,502
2,253
119
238
119
4,229
1,502
2,253
119
356
119
4,348
3,004
2,253
238
594
119
6,206
3,004
2,253
238
713
119
6,325
4,505
4,505
356
950
237
10,555
4,505
4,505
356
1,069
237
10,673
6,007
4,505
475
1,307
237
12,532
6,007
4,505
475
1,425
237
12,650
7,509
6,758
594
1,663
356
16,880
7,509
6,758
594
1,782
356
16,999
9,011
6,758
713
2,019
356
18,857
9,011
6,758
713
2,138
356
18,975
10,513
9,011
831
2,375
475
23,205
10,513
9,011
831
2,494
475
23,324
12,014
9,011
950
2,732
475
25,182
12,014
9,011
950
2,851
475
25,301
13,516
11,263
1,069
3,088
593
29,530
13,516
11,263
1,069
3,207
593
29,649
15,018
11,263
1,188
3,444
593
31,507
15,018
11,263
1,188
3,563
593
31,626
Page 90
2012
10.0 INFORMATION AND EDUCATION
A major component of this project is the dissemination of information about the causes of the
watershed surface water impairments and the education of both rural and urban landowners as to
the actions that they can undertake to reduce their water impacts. The Twin Lakes project is one
of eight WRAPS that are sponsored by the Flint Hills RC&D and the Information and Education
plans have been developed for all eight projects as a whole.
Some of the projects will be targeted when a specific problem is identified in one of the
watershed and some of the information will be disseminated on more of a regional basis.
Efforts will be made to provide educational opportunities for all segments of the population in
the watersheds. Some activities will be geared more toward adult education and some more
toward youth. Some will be focused on the agricultural population and some more toward the
more urban landowners.
The following tables demonstrate the timing of each of the activities, the population it will focus
on, the technical services provides that will be asked to work with the WRAPS and the cost of
each of the programs.
Page 91
Table 63. Cropland BMP
Implementation I&E.
BMP
Target Audience
2011
Information/Education
Time Frame
Activity/Event
Cropland BMP Implementation
Estimated Costs
Demonstration Project
Annual
$5,000 per
demonstration
project
Tour/Field Day to
Highlight Buffers
Annual
$500 per tour or
field day
Newspaper Articles
Annual –
Ongoing
No Charge
Newsletter Article
Quarterly
$500
One on One Meetings
with Producers
Annual –
Ongoing
$2,500
Soil Testing
Ongoing
$500
Buffers
GrassWaterways
New Terraces
Landowners and
Farmers
Permanent
Vegetation
Sponsor/Responsible
Agency
Kansas Rural Center
Buffer Coordinator
NRCS
Kansas Forest Service
Flint Hills RC&D
Buffer Coordinator
Conservation District
NRCS
Conservation Districts
NRCS
Flint Hills RC&D
Kansas Research and
Extension
NRCS
Flint Hills RC&D
Conservation Districts,
Kansas Research and
Extension and Buffer
Coordinators
NRCS
Kansas Research and
Extension
Page 92
No-Till Workshop
Newsletter Article
No-till/Cover
Crop
Annual
$1,000 per
meeting
$500
Farmers and Rental
Operators
Flint Hills RC&D
Kansas Research and
Extension
No-Till on the Plains
Flint Hills RC&D
Kansas State Research
and Extension
NRCS
One on One Meetings
with Producers
Annual Ongoing
$2,500
Scholarships for
producers to attend NoTill Winter Conference
Annual – Winter
$150 per person
No-till on the Plains
DOC
$500
Conservation District and
and Extension
NRCS
Cost Share for Soil
Tests
Nutrient
Management
Annual - Spring
Flint Hills RC&D
2012
and Extension
NRCS
Annual Ongoing
Newsletter Article
Annual
$500
One on One Meetings
with Producers
Annual Ongoing
$10,000
Farmers
Flint Hills RC&D
Kansas Research and
Extension
Flint Hills RC&D
NRCS
and Extension
Watershed Specialist
Kansas Rural Center
Page 93
2012
Table 64. Livestock BMP
Implementation. I&E
BMP
Vegetative
Filter Strips
Target Audience
Time Frame
Activity/Event
Livestock BMP Implementation
Estimated Costs
Annual
$2,500 per project
Tour/Field Day
Annual
$1,000 per tour
Workshop/Tour
Annual
$500 per
workshop
Annual
$300 per
demonstration or
tour
Landowners and
Ranchers
Livestock Filter Strip
and Feedlot Relocation
Demonstration/Tour
Sponsor/Responsible
Agency
Flint Hills RC&D
Kansas Rural Center
Buffer Coordinator
and Extension
Flint Hills RC&D
Kansas Rural Center
Buffer Coordinator
and Extension
Flint Hills RC&D
Kansas Rural Center
Buffer Coordinator
and Extension
NCRS
Page 94
Relocated
Feedlot
Relocate
Pasture Feeding
Site
Landowners and
Small Feedlot
Operators
2012
Annual
$5,000 per
demonstration
project
Tour/Field Day
Annual
$500 per tour or
field day
Cost-Share Program
Promotion
Annual
No Charge
Annual –
Spring
$5,000 per
demonstration
project
Tour/Field Day
Annual Summer
$1,000 per tour or
field day
Grazing Informational
Meeting
Annual - Fall
$250 per meeting
Ranchers
Flint Hills RC&D
Kansas Rural Center
Buffer Coordinator
and Extension
Flint Hills RC&D
Kansas Rural Center
Buffer Coordinator
and Extension
Flint Hills RC&D
Kansas Rural Center
Buffer Coordinator
and Extension
Kansas Rural Center
NRCS
DOC
Kansas State Watershed
Specialist
Kansas Rural Center
NRCS
DOC
Specialist
Kansas Rural Center
Page 95
Grazing and
Rangeland
Management
Alternative
Watering
System
2012
Annual –
Ongoing
$1,000 per event
Tour/Field Day
Annual Ongoing
$1,000 per event
Annual –
Spring
$5,000 per
demonstration
project
Tour/Field Day
Annual Summer
$1000 per tour or
field day
Grazing Informational
Meeting
Annual - Fall
Combined with
relocating pasture
feeding site
meeting
Demonstration project
for pond construction
and spring
developments
Annual - Fall
$10,000 per
project
Ranchers
Ranchers
Kansas Rural Center
NRCS
DOC
Specialist
Kansas Rural Center
NRCS
DOC
Specialist
Kansas Rural Center
NRCS
DOC
Specialist
Kansas Rural Center
NRCS
DOC
Specialist
Kansas Rural Center
NRCS
DOC
Specialist
Kansas Rural Center
NRCS
DOC
Specialist
Page 96
2012
11.0 TWIN LAKES WATER QUALITY MILESTONES TO DETERMINE IMPROVEMENT
The goal of the Twin Lakes WRAPS plan is to restore water quality for uses supportive of aquatic life, domestic water supply, and
recreation for Council Grove Lake and the Neosho River. The plan specifically addresses the high priority Eutrophication TMDL for
Council Grove Lake along with the medium priority Bacteria TMDL for the Neosho River at KDHE sampling station SC637. The
restoration plan includes separate BMP implementation scheduled for the two water bodies, which spans over 30 years for Council
Grove Lake and 30 years for the Neosho River. Water quality milestones are established to enable KDHE and the Twin Lakes
WRAPS to measure water quality improvements within the watershed of their WRAPS area.
Separate water quality milestones have been developed for both Council Grove Lake and the Neosho River, along with additional
indicators of water quality. Water quality improvements associated with the BMP implementation schedules contained in this plan
will be measured against the established milestones and indicators.
11.1 Water Quality Milestones for Council Grove Lake
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 Twin Lakes watershed. The table below includes 10-year and long term water quality goals for
Council Grove Lake.
Page 97
2012
Table 65. Water Quality Milestones for Council Grove
Lake. KDHE.
Water Quality Milestones for Council Grove Lake
Sampling
Site
Council
Grove Lake
LM022001
10-Year Goal
Long Term Goal
10-Year Goal
Long Term Goal
Current
Current
Improved
Condition
Improved
Condition*
Improved
Condition
Improved
(1996Condition
Total
Total
Total
Total
(1990 Condition
(2011 –
Condition
(2012 –
Reduction
Reduction 2011)
Reduction
Reduction
2011)
Average
2021)
Average
Needed
Needed Average
Needed
Needed
2021)
Average TP
TP
Average
TN
TN
Average TP
TN
Total Phosphorus (average of data collected
Total Nitrogen (average of data collected
during indicated period), ppb
during indicated period), ppm
191
151
40
100
91
1.01
0.87
0.14
0.8
0.21
10-Year Goal
Long Term Goal
10-Year Goal
Long Term Goal
Current
Current
Improved
Condition*
Condition
Condition
(1990 –
(1990 - Improved Condition
Total
(2012 Improved Condition
Improved Condition
2011)
2011)
Reduction
(2011 - 2021)
2021)
Chlorophyll a
Secchi (Avg.)
Chlorophyll
Secchi
Needed
Secchi (Avg.)
Chlorophyll
a
(Avg.)
a
Sampling
Chlorophyll a (average of data collected
Secchi (average of data collected
Site
during indicated period), m
Council
Maintain Average
Maintain Secchi
Grove Lake
6.6
6
0.43
0.6
Secchi depth >0.7
Chlorophyll a ≤ 10
depth
> 1.0
LM022001
Page 98
2012
11.2 Water Quality Milestones for Munkers Creek, Lairds Creek and Neosho River
While the primary focus is on achieving improvements in the lake, there will be water quality improvements resulting from BMP
implementation within the watershed at the three KDHE stream chemistry sampling sites located on Munkers Creek near Council
Grove (SC631) and the Neosho River near Parkerville (SC637). The following table details the 10-year and long term water quality
goals for Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Nitrogen (TN) at these sampling locations.
Table 66. Water Quality Milestones for KDHE Stream Stations
in the Twin Lakes Watershed. KDHE.
Water Quality Milestones for KDHE Stream Stations in the Twin Lakes Watershed
10-Year Goal
Long Term Goal
10-Year Goal
Long Term Goal
Current
Current
Improved
Improved
Condition*
Condition
Condition
Improved
Condition
Total
Improved
Total
(1992 (2000Total
Total
(2012 –
Condition
(2011 – Reduction Condition Reduction
2008)
Reduction
Reduction 2008)
2021)
Average
2021)
Needed Average Needed
Average
Needed
Needed Average
Average
TP
Average
(7%)
TN
(19%)
TP
TN
TP
TN
Sampling
Total Phosphorus (average of data collected
Total Nitrogen (average of data collected
Site
during indicated period), ppm
Munkers
Cr SC631
141
113
28
96
45
1.06
0.98
0.08
0.86
0.2
Neosho
River
SC637
269
200
69
100
169
1.21
1.12
0.09
0.98
0.23
Page 99
2012
11.3 Water Quality Milestones for Bacteria
The plan is addressing the bacteria TMDL for the Neosho River within the Twin Lakes watershed above KDHE station SC637. The
water quality goal associated with the bacteria impairment can be tied to the E.Coli Bacteria (ECB) Index values.
Bacteria Load reductions should result in less frequent exceedance of the nominal E. Coli Bacteria (ECB) criterion (427 Colony
Forming Units (cfu/100mL) for the KDHE sampling site SC637 near Parkerville, KS.
In order to assess the impact of BMPs addressing bacteria impairments the relative frequency and magnitude of bacteria
concentrations seen in the receiving streams monitored by KDHE on a routine or rotational basis, must be measured to determine if
water quality improvements are being achieved. The bacteria index is utilized by KDHE to assess the relative frequency and
magnitude of the bacteria concentrations at KDHE monitoring sites.
The calculated bacteria index for the Neosho River sampling station SC637 is the natural logarithm of each sample value taken during
the April-October Primary Recreation season, divided by the natural logarithm of the bacteria criteria for Primary Recreation Class C
[ln(427)].
Index = ln(ECB Count)/ln(427)
The indicator will be the Upper Decile of those index values; with the target being that the index is below 1.0 at the upper decile (90th
percentile).
KDHE sampling station SC637 on the Neosho River was sampled in accordance with the water quality standard for three different
intensive sampling events in 2007 and one intensive sampling event in 2011. Each intensive sampling event consisted of five ECB
samples collected in a 30-day period. The calculated geometric mean of the five samples for each event was under the recreational
use criterion of 427 cfu/100mL for all of the sampling events.
KDHE has stated that the water quality goal for the bacteria impairments in the Neosho River at SC637 is for at least 90% of the
samples taken during the April through October period to be below the water quality criterion of 427 cfus/100ml, which corresponds
to 90% of the samples being below the index value of one.
Page 100
2012
Neosho Headwaters -- Bacteria Index
Primary Contact Recreation 'C' Index
1.8
1.6
1.4
Index
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
Target is for the Neosho River Index to be
below 1 at 90%
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentile
Neosho River SC637
Figure 19. Neosho Headwaters – Bacteria Index;
Primary Contact Recreation ‘C’ Index. KDHE.
Page 101
2012
SC637 -- Neosho River
2007 & 2011 Intensive Sampling Events
10000
ECB (cfu/100mL)
Event 1
Samples 1 thru 5
Geomean = 331
Event 2
Samples 6 thru 10
Geomean = 171
Event 4
Samples 16 thru 20
Geomean = 136
100
Event 3
Samples 11 thru 15
Geomean = 67.9
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Sample
4/10/07 to 4/24/07
6/20/07 to 7/10/07
8/14/07 to 9/4/07
4/6/11 to 5/4/11
Primary 'C' (427 cfu/100mL)
Figure 20. SC637, Neosho River 2007 & 2011 Intensive
Sampling Events. KDHE.
Page 102
2012
11.4 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 from Council Grove Lake
Occurrence of algal blooms in Council Grove Lake
Visitor traffic to Council Grove Lake
Boating traffic in Council Grove Lake
Trends of quantity and quality of fishing in Council Grove Lake
Beach closings at Council Grove Lake
No fish kills on streams within the Council Grove Lake watershed
11.5 Monitoring and Water Quality Progress
KDHE continues to monitor water quality in the Twin Lakes watershed by maintaining three stream chemistry stations and one lake
monitoring station. The three KDHE stream chemistry stations (SC631, SC632, and SC637) in the watershed will continue to be
sampled on a rotational basis every four years. These stations are sampled on a quarterly basis during the year they are sampled and
the next scheduled sampling year for these stations is in 2012. The KDHE lake monitoring station at Council Grove Lake,
LM022001, will be sampled by KDHE every three years with the next sampling year scheduled for 2014.
11.6 Evaluation of Monitoring Data
Monitoring data in the Twin Lakes 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 sub watershed, as well as the frequency of the sampling data.
The BMP implementation schedule and water quality milestones for the Twin Lakes watershed extend through a 30 year period from
2012-2042. Throughout that period, KDHE will continue to analyze and evaluate the monitoring data collected. After the first ten
Page 103
2012
year 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 2042, 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.
Table 67. TMDL Review Schedule for the
Neosho Basin.
TMDL Review Schedule for the Neosho Basin
Year Ending in
September
2013
Implementation
Period
2014-2023
2018
2019-2028
Possible TMDL
TMDL to
to Revise
Evaluate
2002, 2004, 2005 2002, 2004, 2005
2000, 2004,
2000, 2004,
2005, 2008
2005, 2008
Page 104
2012
Table 68. Watershed Wide Information and
Education.
BMP
Target Audience
Time Frame
Estimated Costs
Activity/Event
Watershed Wide Information and Education
Day on the Farm
Education of
Youth
Educators, K-12
Students
Poster, essay and
speech contests
Envirothon
Curriculum workshop
for K-12 educators
Envirofest/Water
Festival
Sponsor/Responsible
Agency
Annual – Spring
$500 per event
Kansas Farm Bureaus
Kansas FFA
and Extension
Annual – Spring
$200
Annual - Spring
Annual –
Summer
$250
$2,000 per
workshop
Annual – Fall
$700
KACEE
NRCS
and Extension
Flinthills RC & D
Page 105
Newsletter
Presentation at annual
meeting
Education of
Adults
Educators, Adult
Education
River Friendly Farms
producer notebook
Media campaign to
promote healthy
watersheds (brochures,
news releases, TV,
radio, web-based)
Educational campaign
about leaking/failing
septic systems
2012
Quarterly
$2,000 per
quarter
Flint Hills RC&D
Annual – Winter
No charge
Annual –
Ongoing
$250 per
notebook
Flint Hills RC&D
and Extension
Flint Hills RC&D
Kansas Rural Center
Ongoing
$1,000 per year
Flint Hills RC&D
Ongoing
$1,500 per year
Local Environmental
Protection Programs
Page 106
Watershed Wide
Information and
Education
2012
Meeting with Soil and
Grassland Awards
Annual –
Ongoing
No charge
Media campaign to
promote healthy
watersheds (brochures,
news releases, TV,
radio, web-based)
Ongoing
$1,000 per year
Flint Hills RC&D
Media campaign to
address urban nutrient
runoff (flyers or
handouts addressing
phosphate and nitrate
pollution from urban
areas)
Annual –
Ongoing
$500 per
campaign
Local Environmental
Protection Program
Watershed display for
area events
Annual –
Ongoing
$1,000 per event
Flint Hills RC&D
and Extension
Page 107
2012
Table 69. Technical Assistance needed to
Implement BMP.
Technical Assistance Needed to Implement BMPs.
BMP
No-till
CROPLAND
Min-till
Terrace
Waterway
Buffer
Personnel Needed to Implement BMP
Technical Assistance
WRAPS Coordinator
DOC Buffer Technician
KRC River Friendly Farms Technician
NRCS
WRAPS Coordinator
SCC Buffer Technician
NRCS
WRAPS Coordinator
NRCS
WRAPS Coordinator
NRCS
WRAPS Coordinator
NRCS
Projected Annual Cost
NRCS
District Conservationist
No Charge
Conservation
District Soil
Technician
No Charge
DOC Buffer
Technician
No Charge
WRAPS
Coordinator
$36,000
Watershed
Specialist
$4,000
KRC River Friendly
Farms Technician
$9,000
Page 108
Personnel Needed to Implement BMP
BMP
Permanent Cover
Strategic fencing
LIVESTOCK
2012
Alternative Water
Relocate Feed
Area
Vegetative Filter
Strip
WRAPS Coordinator
NRCS
WRAPS Coordinator
WRAPS Coordinator
WRAPS Coordinator
WRAPS Coordinator
Projected Annual Cost
Kansas State
Forester
No charge
Table 70. Total annual cost for
information and education if all events are
implemented.
Total annual cost for Information and Education if all events are implemented
Total
$49,000
Page 109
2012
Table 71. Organizations Contact
Information
Organization
Programs
Purpose
Technical
or
Financial
Assistance
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Program
Provides low cost loans to
communities for water pollution
control activities.
Watershed
Protection
To conduct holistic strategies for
restoring and protecting aquatic
resources based on hydrology
rather than political boundaries.
Flint Hills
RC&D
Natural resource
development and
protection
Plan and Implement projects and
programs that improve
environmental quality of life.
Kansas
Alliance for
Wetlands and
Streams
Streambank
Stabilization
The Kansas Alliance for Wetlands
and Streams (KAWS) organized in
1996 to promote the protection,
enhancement, restoration and
establishment wetlands and streams
in Kansas.
Technical
Available for watershed districts
and multipurpose small lakes
development.
Technical
and
Financial
Environment
al Protection
Agency
Wetland Restoration
Cost share programs
Kansas Dept.
of Agriculture
Watershed
structures
permitting.
Phone
913-551-7003
Website address
www.epa.gov
Financial
913-551-7003
www.flinthillsrcd.com
Technical
620-340-0113
ext. 9
785-463-5804
www.kaws.org
NE Chapter
785-296-2933
www.ksda.gov
Page 110
Organization
Kansas Dept.
of Health and
Environment
Programs and
Technical
Assistance
Purpose
Nonpoint Source
Pollution Program
Provide funds for projects that will
reduce nonpoint source pollution.
2012
Technical
or
Financial
Assistance
Phone
785-296-5500
Website address
www.kdheks.gov
Municipal and
livestock waste
Compliance monitoring.
Livestock waste
Municipal waste
State Revolving
Loan Fund
Makes low interest loans for
projects to improve and protect
water quality.
Technical
and
Financial
Page 111
Kansas
Department of
Wildlife and
Parks
Land and Water
Conservation Funds
Conservation
Easements for
Riparian and Wetland
Areas
Provides funds to preserve develop
and assure access to outdoor
recreation.
620-672-5911
To provide easements to secure and
enhance quality areas in the state.
785-296-2780
To provide limited assistance for
development of wildlife habitat.
North American
Waterfowl
Conservation Act
To provide up to 50 percent cost share
for the purchase and/or development
of wetlands and wildlife habitat.
MARSH program in
coordination with
Ducks Unlimited
May provide up to 100 percent of
funding for small wetland projects.
Walk In Hunting
Program
F.I.S.H. Program
www.kdwp.state.ks.us
620-672-5911
Wildlife Habitat
Improvement Program
Chickadee Checkoff
2012
620-342-0658
Technical
and Financial
620-672-5911
Projects help with eagles, songbirds,
threatened and endangered species,
turtles, lizards, butterflies and stream
darters. Funding is an optional
donation line item on the KS Income
Tax form.
Landowners receive a payment
incentive to allow public hunting on
their property.
Landowners receive a payment
incentive to allow public fishing
access to their ponds and streams.
Page 112
Organization
Programs and
Technical
Assistance
Kansas Forest
Service
Conservation Tree
Planting Program
Provides low cost trees and shrubs
for conservation plantings.
Riparian and
Wetland Protection
Program
Work closely with other agencies to
promote and assist with
establishment of riparian forestland
and manage existing stands.
Kansas Rural
Center
The Heartland
Network
Clean Water FarmsRiver Friendly
Farms
Purpose
The Center is committed to
economically viable,
environmentally sound and socially
sustainable rural culture.
Sustainable Food
Systems Project
2012
Technical
or
Financial
Assistance
Phone
Website address
785-532-3312
www.kansasforests.org
Technical
785-532-3310
785-873-3431
http://www.kansasrural
center.org
785-336-3760
http://www.krwa.net
Technical
and
Financial
Cost share programs
Kansas Rural
Water
Association
Technical assistance
for Water Systems
with Source Water
Protection Planning.
Provide education, technical
assistance and leadership to public
water and wastewater utilities to
enhance the public health and to
sustain Kansas’ communities
Technical
Page 113
Kansas State
Research and
Extension
Water Quality
Programs, Waste
Management
Programs
Kansas Center for
Agricultural
Resources and
Environment
(KCARE)
Provide programs, expertise and
educational materials that relate to
minimizing the impact of rural and
urban activities on water quality.
Kansas Environmental
Leadership Program
(KELP)
2012
785-532-7108
www.kcare.ksu.edu
Educational program to develop
leadership for improved water quality.
785-532-5813
www.ksre.ksu.edu/kelp
Kansas Local
Government Water
Quality Planning and
Management
Provide guidance to local governments
on water protection programs.
785-532-2643
www.ksre.ksu.edu/olg
Rangeland and
Natural Area Services
(RNAS)
Reduce non-point source pollution
emanating from Kansas grasslands.
785-532-0416
WaterLINK
Service-learning projects available to
college and university faculty and
community watersheds in Kansas.
785-532-2732
www.kstate.edu/waterlink/
785-532-3039
http://www.kansaspridepr
ogram.ksu.edu/pride/
785-532-1443
www.ksre.ksu.edu/kswat
er/
Technical
Kansas Pride: Healthy
Ecosystems/Healthy
Communities
Citizen Science
Help citizens appraise their local
natural resources and develop short
and long term plans and activities to
protect, sustain and restore their
resources for the future.
Education combined with volunteer
soil and water testing for enhanced
natural resource stewardship.
Page 114
Organization
Programs and
Technical
Assistance
2012
Purpose
Technical
or
Financial
Assistance
Technical
and
Financial
Kansas Water
Office
Public Information
and Education
Provide information and education
to the public on Kansas Water
Resources
No-Till on the
Plains
Field days, seasonal
meetings, tours and
technical consulting.
Provide information and assistance
concerning continuous no-till
farming practices.
Phone
Website address
785-296-3185
www.kwo.org
888-330-5142
www.notill.org
Technical
Page 115
Organization
NRCS,
FSA,
State
Conservation
Commission,
and
Conservation
Districts
Programs and
Water Resources
Cost Share
Purpose
2012
Technical or
Financial
Assistance
Phone
Website address
Geary
Provide cost share assistance to
landowners for establishment of
water conservation practices.
Morris
www.nrcs.usda.gov
Lyon
Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control
Fund
Riparian and
Wetland Protection
Program
Stream
Rehabilitation
Program
Kansas Water
Quality Buffer
Initiative
Watershed district
and multipurpose
lakes
Chase
Provides financial assistance for
nonpoint pollution control projects
which help restore water quality.
Marion
Osage
http://www.kacdnet.org/
Coffey
Funds to assist with wetland and
riparian development and
enhancement.
Assist with streams that have been
adversely altered by channel
modifications.
www.scc.ks.gov
Greenwood
www.fsa.usda.gov
McPherson
Technical
and
Financial
Wabaunsee
Butler
Compliments Conservation
Reserve Program by offering
additional financial incentives for
grass filters and riparian forest
buffers.
Programs are available for
watershed district and multipurpose
small lakes.
Page 116
Organization
US Army
Corps of
Engineers
US Fish and
Wildlife
Service
Programs and
Technical
Assistance
Planning Assistance
to States
Purpose
Assistance in development of plans
for development, utilization and
conservation of water and related
land resources of drainage
Environmental
Restoration
Funding assistance for aquatic
ecosystem restoration.
Fish and Wildlife
Enhancement
Program
Supports field operations which
include technical assistance on
wetland design.
Private Lands
Program
Contracts to restore, enhance, or
create wetlands.
2012
Technical
or
Financial
Assistance
Phone
816-983-3157
Website address
www.usace.army.mil
Technical
816-983-3157
785-539-3474
www.fws.gov
Technical
785-539-3474
Page 117
USDANatural
Resources
Conservation
Service and
Farm Service
Agency
Conservation
Compliance
Conservation
Operations
Watershed Planning
and Operations
Wetland Reserve
Program
Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program
Grassland Reserve
Program, EQIP, and
Conservation
Reserve Program
2012
Clay Co 785632-3550
Primarily for the technical
assistance to develop conservation
plans on cropland.
Marshall Co
785-562-5343
To provide technical assistance on
private land for development and
application of Resource
Management Plans.
Primarily focused on high priority
areas where agricultural
improvements will meet water
quality objectives.
Cost share and easements to restore
wetlands.
Nemaha Co
785-336-2164
Pottawatomie
Co 785-4573661
Technical
and
Financial
Riley Co 785776-7582
Washington
Co 785-3252253
Cost share to establish wildlife
habitat which includes wetlands
and riparian areas.
Improve and protect rangeland
resources with cost-sharing
practices, rental agreements, and
easement purchases.
Page 118
2011
12.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Best Management Practices (BMP): Environmental protection practices used to control
pollutants, such as sediment or nutrients, from common agricultural or urban land use activities.
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD): Measure of the amount of oxygen removed from aquatic
environments by aerobic microorganisms for their metabolic requirements.
Biota: Plant and animal life of a particular region.
Chlorophyll a: Common pigment found in algae and other aquatic plants that is used in
photosynthesis
Dissolved Oxygen (DO): The amount of oxygen dissolved in water.
E. coli bacteria: Bacteria normally found in gastrointestinal tracts of animals. Some strains
cause diarrheal diseases.
Eutrophication (E): Excess of mineral and organic nutrients that promote a proliferation of
plant life in lakes and ponds.
Fecal coliform bacteria (FCB): Bacteria that originate in the intestines of all warm-blooded
animals.
Municipal Water System: Water system that serves at least 25 people or has more than 15
service connections.
NPDES Permit: Required by Federal law for all point source discharges into waters.
Nitrates: Final product of ammonia’s biochemical oxidation. It is the primary source of
nitrogen for plants and is contained in manure and fertilizers.
Nitrogen(N or TN): Element that is essential for plants and animals. TN or total nitrogen is a
chemical measurement of all nitrogen forms in a water sample.
Nutrients: Nitrogen and phosphorus in water source.
Phosphorus (P or TP): Element in water that, in excess, can lead to increased biological
activity.
Riparian Zone: Margin of vegetation within approximately 100 feet of waterway.
Sedimentation: Deposition of slit, clay or sand in slow moving waters.
Secchi Disk: Circular plate 10-12” in diameter with alternating black and white quarters used to
measure water clarity by measuring the depth at which it can be seen.
Stakeholder Leadership Team (SLT): Organization of watershed residents, landowners,
farmers, ranchers, agency personnel and all persons with an interest in water quality.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS): Measure of the suspended organic and inorganic solids in
water. Used as an indicator of sediment or silt.
Page 119
2012
13.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
www.corpslakes.usace.army.mil/visitors/projects.cfm?Id=M504100
2. Council Grove City Lake Association; cgclakeassoc.org
3. EPA’s Neosho River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load. Water Body: Council Grove
Lake Water Quality Impairment: Eutrophication
www.epa.gov/Region7/water/pdf/council_grove_lake_ks_tmdl_200909.pdf
4. KDHE’s Neosho River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load Council Grove Lake Water
Quality Impairment of Eutrophication;
www.kdheks.gov/tmdl/ne/CouncilGroveTMDL.pdf
5. Kansas City InfoZine. www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/42104
6. KDHE’s Neosho River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load Water Body: Council Grove
Lake Water Quality Impairment: Siltation;
www.kdheks.gov/tmdl/ne/CouncilGroveSILT.pdf
7. Council Grove Lake: Water Quality Status, Trends and Management;
http://www.kdheks.gov/tmdl/download/eval_assessment/Council_Grove_Fact_Sheet.pdf
8. Letter from the United States Environmental Protection Agency;
http://www.kdheks.gov/tmdl/download/EPA_approval_9_30_09.pdf
9. KDHE’s Neosho River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load. Water Body: John
Redmond Reservoir; Water Quality Impairment: Siltation.
http://www.kdheks.gov/tmdl/ne/RedmondSILT.pdf
10. KDHE’s Neosho River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load. Water Body: Neosho River
Headwaters; Water Quality: Fecal Coliform Bacteria.
http://www.kdheks.gov/tmdl/ne/NeoshoRHdwtrs_FCB.pdf
11. KDHE’s Neosho River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load. Water Body: John
Redmond Reservoir; Water Quality Impairment: Eutrophication.
http://www.kdheks.gov/tmdl/ne/RedmondE.pdf
12. KDHE’s Neosho River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load. Water Body: Neosho River
Parkerville; Water Quality Impairment: Copper.
http://www.kdheks.gov/tmdl/ne/NeoshoRvParkerville_Cu.pdf
13. EPA letter responding to the submissions by Kansas to the submissions by Kansas of
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLS) for water bodies located in the Walnut River
Basin, the Verdigris River Basin, and the Neosho River Basin.
http://www.kdheks.gov/tmdl/download/EPAapprov_NVW.pdf
14. A Watershed Conditions Report for the State of Kansas HUC 11070204 (Upper Neosho)
Watershed http://www.kdheks.gov/nps/wc_reports/11070204.pdf
15. Bathymetric and Sediment Survey of Council Grove City Lake, Morris County, Kansas.
http://astra.ku.edu/documents/reports/Council_Grove_City_Lake_final_report.pdf
Page 120
2012
Page 121
2012
Page 122
2012
Page 123
2012
Page 124
2012
Page 125
2012
Page 126
2012
Page 127

Twin Lakes WRAPS – 9 Element Watershed Plan

Transcription

Similar documents

Kirwin WRAPS 9 Element Watershed Plan w