YaharaWINsStrategicPlanningWorkgroup

April 29, 2013madsewer.org

Welcome• Approval of Minutes from December 17

Adaptive Management-Brief Recap

Enabling regulatory language for AM is in NR 217

Watershed focus-AM is what allows us to work together

Yahara WINS goal meet phosphorus and TSS reduction requirements in the Rock River TMDL from all sources-satisfy permit requirements

TMDL focus is on streams and rivers

MMSD will submit an AM plan to DNR at time of permit reissuance

Specific requirements will placed in MMSD permit, including monitoring Per NR 217: Monitoring in the receiving water at locations and times established in the

permit to assess phosphorus loading and to document progress toward achieving the applicable phosphorus criterion in s. NR 102.06.

Need a scientifically-defensible monitoring plan

Phosphorus Reductions Since 2008

Should reduce lbs that need to be addressed through AM

Some issues: How to account for updated

modeling Translating between models How to account for and credit

new practices

Need to experts agreement

Recalculating Phosphorus Load Reductions

r

Account for reductionsbetween 2008-2012

?

?

Lbs, distribution and total cost may change

??

?

Mississippi River Basin Initiative (MRBI)

• Waunakee Marsh = 23,734 acres

• Pheasant Branch = 14,442 acres

• 46 EQIP contracts totaling $1,115,838

• Practices contracted– Nutrient Management– Cover Crops– Diversions– Grassed Waterways– Etc…

Waunakee Marsh

Pheasant Branch

Community Digesters

• Waunakee (2012)– Treated 31,000,000 gallons

of manure– Removed 67,000 pounds of

phosphorus from watershed– Reduced average PI on fields

from 3.2 to 2.9• Middleton (Predictions)

– Treat 26,000,000 gallons of manure

– Remove 44,000 pounds of phosphorus from watershed

– Reduce average PI on fields from 3.9 to 2.9

Waunakee Marsh

Pheasant Branch

Six Mile Creek

Phosphorus Reductions Since 2008

• Agriculture• USDA• State• County• Landowner/Producer• Total phosphorus =

11,084 pounds• Urban

• Urban Water Quality Grant

• Total phosphorus = 3,325 pounds

• Total sediment = 945 tons

MRBI 2 - Six Mile Creek

Six Mile Creek = 15,770 acres

2012 9 EQIP contracts totaling

$103,416

2013 5 applications received

Waunakee & Pheasant branch had 15 applications

Practices Nutrient Management

Cover Crops

Six Mile Creek

2013 Goals

Contact 100% of the producers

Inventory 70% of the land base

Develop a data record system

Reduce phosphorus loadings by 3,100 pounds Develop conservation plans

Implement practices

Provide outreach and educational meetings

2013 Accomplishments

• Contacted 48 producers (100%) Mailings Phone calls One-on-one meetings

• Inventoried 13 producers = 45%

Promoted 2 EQIP signups

Held farmer information meetings, meetings with UW-Madison, DNR, and MMSD.

Developing an additional county based cost share program

Developing record keeping system

Projected 2013 MOU Costs

Inventories 25 producers

Practices 15-20 practices

available

Total projected cost = $70,000

Six Mile Creek

Water-Quality Monitoring UpdateApril 29, 2013

Todd StuntebeckUS Geological Survey

Good news…• The drought is officially over!

• Precipitation ~5” above normal since Jan 1

• Winter snowfall >70” through March

• Through 4/28, 2nd

wettest on record

Source: National Weather Service, through April 28

Bad news…

• Lots of runoff!

~2” Rain/Snowmelt~5” Rain

Snowmelt

~1.5” Rain/Snowmelt

Snowmelt 2013

~ 2200 pounds of P

Daily Loads

Dorn@Q – Summary(through April 7)

Event Start Event End Description Duration (Days)

TP Load (lbs)

1/29/2013 1/31/2013 ~2” Rain on Snow

3 1,100

3/10/2013 3/14/2013 ~1.5” Rain on Snow

5 2,300

3/26/2013 4/1/2013 Snowmelt 7 2,200

“Winter” Total 5,600

7/4/2013 4/7/2013 All data 278 6,600

Some PerspectiveTP Load, Pounds

WY2012 (Dry) WY1993 (Wet)Pheasant Branch at

Middleton (18 sq. miles) 1,350 26,350

Yahara River at Windsor(37 sq. miles) 6,300 38,700

• Dorn @ Q (10 sq. miles): ~6,600 pounds through April 7

In a nutshell…• 3 relatively large winter runoff events (15

days)• At Hwy Q, streamflow for those 3 events

represented about 45% of the total for the entire monitoring period, but about 85% of the TP load.

• Relatively low sediment concentrations, coupled with relatively high ammonium and organic N concentrations, indicates that livestock manure was an important source of TP in winter/spring runoff at all sites.

Water Quality Monitoring-Pilot Project

Primarily focused on USGS gaging stations

Water Quality Monitoring-Full Scale Project

Purpose-demonstrate compliance with TMDL and AM requirements

Focus on streams and Yahara River

Things to consider: Locations and frequency

Parameters

Chemistry & biology

Flow, concentrations or both

Who does what

Etc.

Discussions with DNR, USGS, etc.

A work in progress-share with SPW

What have we heard so far?

More frequent monitoring early on to establish baseline

Bugs and fish less frequent than water chemistry

Monitoring in all stream reaches identified in TMDL

Consider supplemental targeted monitoring to demonstrate progress

Concentration may be more important than load

Gaging stations may not be needed at all locations

Water Resources Management Practicum

Mitigating the Export of Transient Phosphorus-Laden Sediment in an Agricultural Watershed

Samuel T. ChristelNicholas Funk

University of Wisconsin – Madison

Project Motivation TMDL mandated for TP in Rock River Basin (2011)

Transient phosphorus-laden sediment complicates compliance with downstream water quality standards

Management solutions for transient sediment will help meet TMDL

Project Goals1. Research management

practices for the reduction of transient stream sediment (and associated phosphorus) in select wetlands and surrounding agricultural drainage ditches.

2. Create basin-wide recommendations.

Madsewer.org

Project Rationale

Sixmile Creek

Dorn Creek

1) Rogers et al. 20082) Lathrop et al. 2002-2006

Six Mile Creek

Upper and Lower Dorn Creek Wetland

Rogers et al. 2008

• Two largest storms 96% of exported sediment • Sediment was 2x what entered the wetland

0 – 800800 – 1,0001,000 – 1,2001,200 – 1,8001,800 – 2,600

TP, 0-1 cm (mg/kg DW) Dorn Creek

= Wetland areas

Lathrop et al. 2002-2006 also point to wetlands, flat reach channels, and ditches

Figure Courtesy of Dr. Michael Penn

Upper Dorn Creek Wetland•Focus of study

a. Previous research confirms it is a net source of P-laden sediment under high flows

b. Ease of sampling and dredging accessc. Surrounding drainage ditches

Project Objectives

1. Quantify Sediment & Phosphorus Upper Dorn Creek Wetland Other depositional locations-ditches Characterize sediment Estimate residence time Flux over observation period

2. Research management options Investigate wetland modification to trap sediment Estimate cost per lb/P- dredging trapped sediment Returning sediment to field Basin-wide recommendations

Landowner Permissions Field work requires access to sites from private property

Communication with landowners directly, mail, and email

Meeting at Rex’s Innkeeper May 2nd from 6:30-7:30p

Keeping landowners informed

Permissions secured

Quantify Sediment• Measure depth of sediment

• Locate sites of significant deposition

• Determine residence time- Pb-210

• Characterize wetland stratigraphy

• Install scour chains to measure flux before/after large events

Phosphorus Measurements Bray P1 Soil Test Phosphorus Correlates with plant uptake of P; measures “plant

available P” for soil fertilizer recommendations Extracts 30% of NaOH-P

Total Phosphorus Persulfate digestion of sediment followed by ascorbic acid

photometric method TP is used for TMDL; concern in wastewater

NaOH-P Non-apatite inorganic P = Bioavailable P Readily taken up by algae

Phosphorus MeasurementsSite specific TP – BAP correlation

Total P (mg/kg)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

BA

P (m

g/kg

)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Site 1Site 2Site 3 ASite 3 BSite 4Site 5Site 6Site 7Site 8Site 9

Hoffman (2008)

Management Options Potential wetland modification trap sediment

Periodic removal of trapped sediment

Reapplication to nearby fields (Contingent on WI P-Index)

Estimate cost per lb. P for dredging and transporting

Modeling Efforts

2008 SWAT MODEL

P8 SEDIMENTATION

MODELING

DREDGING COSTS

Sediment and P flowing into wetland in an average year

Sedimentation calculations, wetland trap efficiency under varying designs

Hydraulic/mechanical dredging cost estimates

Cost per lb-P estimate

Sub-projects DITCH MANAGEMENT

PUBLIC OUTREACH Brochure- feel free to pick one up!

VEGETATION SURVEYS Restoration potential

LOWER DORN CREEK WETLAND Channel migration

Questions?

Contact info:

Water Resources Management Program – 2013 University of Wisconsin – MadisonNelson Institute of Environmental Studies

email: wrmproject2013@gmail.com

YaharaPrideUpdate

AgendaItem5‐ Budget

YaharaWINSCashStatement(ForApril29,2013meeting)

YaharaWINSCashStatement(ForApril29,2013meeting)

2013ApprovedBudgetIncome 2012 2013Sand County Foundation $85,000 $74,000Annual Assessment to Other MOU Participants $0 $431,200Carryover of Sand County Foundation 2012 Contributions $2,700

Total Income $85,000 $507,900

ExpendituresUSGS/DNR/COM Leaf Study $20,000Water Resource Management Practicum $9,000Manure Digester Reverse Osmosis Feasibility Study $30,000USGS gaging stations‐Installation/O&M $55,300 $61,000USGS gaging stations‐utilities $12,000 $500MMSD Laboratory Services for Water Quality Analysis $15,000 $20,000Phosphorus Reduction Practices and Management $309,000Phosphorus Reduction Demonstration or Research Projects $53,400Miscellaneous $5,000

Total Expenditures $82,300 $507,900

Note: This budget only addresses revenue generated under the MOU and resulting expenditures.  It does not reflect funds associated with the Mississippi River Basin Initiative Grant for 2012 and 2013, nor does it reflect other funding sources such as Dane County Funds.

BUDGET – KEVIN CONNORS

Dane County Staffing

Six full time staff 1-County

Conservationist 2-Conservation

Specialist 2-Soil & Water

Conservationists 1-Conservation

Engineer

Staff Responsibilities

Responsibilities include: Farm inventories

Plan development

Scheduling implementation

Estimating practice costs

Engineering/Design

Cost share administration

Verification of standards

Quality assurance/Reporting

Cost Share Resources for 2013

Federal EQIP $750,000 - MRBI $350,000 – Six Mile

Pilot

State LWRM - $60,000 590 - $30,000

County $750,000 –

$1,000,000

Adaptive Management

FundingProposals• Rock River Coalition – Citizen Monitoring

• ~$20k for 3‐years

• Yahara Pride Farms – Innovative Practices• $40k for 2013• Budget 

To educate and provide opportunities for people of diverse interests to work together to improve the environmental, recreational, cultural, and economic resources of the Rock River Basin.

Our Mission

A basin‐wide, not‐for‐profit organization founded in 1994 with two staff and an active all‐volunteer board. 

Who we are 

The Wisconsin Shoreland Restoration Initiative Project

Citizen Stream Monitoring

Citizen Wetland Monitoring

Water Star Wisconsin

Member of Rock River Stormwater Group

53

• Initiated in 2003

• Grounded in science

• Rooted in partnership

• Powered by volunteers…62 citizen stream monitors and growing

Engaging and Educating

Citizen Stream  Monitoring Program

http://studentgis.uww.edu/fall2012/RRC/index_demo.html

54

Proposal Request 

Year 1$20,005.60

Year 2$20,583.40

Year 3$21,160.40 

Building a Robust Citizen Science Stream Monitoring Program

GOALS

1. to generate high quality data for enhanced management decision‐making; 

2. to build awareness of the threats to water quality in the Yahara River Watershed; and

3. to strengthen networks among Yahara WINs partners and non‐profit organizations actively engaged in water quality projects. 

Level 3Nutrient Sampling

LEVEL 2Continuous temperature, pH, DO, 

Transparency

LEVEL 1Temperature, Transparency, DO, Biotic Index, Flow, 

Habitat

Year One 5 NEW SITES

5 NEW SITES

10 NEW SITES

4 NEW  SITES

10 NEW  SITES

5 NEW  SITES

3 NEW  SITES

4 NEW  SITES

10 NEW  SITES

Year Two

Year Three

A Nested Monitoring Strategy

Level 312 new sites

Level 215 new sites

Level 130 new sites

Proposed Monitoring Strategy

By 2015

Equipping, Recruiting, Training, and Supporting Volunteers 

57

LEVEL 1

BASELINE5 ParametersTemperatures, 

Dissolved Oxygen, Stream Flow, 

Transparency, and Biotic Index

WAV Database

Watershed‐wide

LEVEL 2

TRENDS 4 ParametersContinuous 

Temperature, pH, Dissolved Oxygen, Transparency

WDNR SWIMS Database

Watershed‐Wide

LEVEL 3

NUTRIENT SAMPLING7 PARAMETERS

Total Phosphorus, Total SuspendedSolids, Total Kieldahl Nitrogen, 

Ammonia, Nitrate, Nitrite, Ortho‐phosphorus

WDNR SWIMS Database

Targeted Sites

A Nested Monitoring Strategy

58

Identifying Priorities and 

Current ActivitiesPre‐meeting survey

RRC and River Alliance of Wisconsin

Collaborative Meeting

Dane County OLW, RRC and River 

Alliance of Wisconsin

Identification of how best to work togetherPost ‐meeting  summaryRRC and River  Alliance of 

Wisconsin

Collaborative Meeting

Dane County OLW, RRC and River 

Alliance of Wisconsin

Enhancing Collaboration among Friends groups

Proposed Collaborative Meetings 

2013ApprovedBudgetIncome 2012 2013Sand County Foundation $85,000 $74,000Annual Assessment to Other MOU Participants $0 $431,200Carryover of Sand County Foundation 2012 Contributions $2,700

Total Income $85,000 $507,900

ExpendituresUSGS/DNR/COM Leaf Study $20,000Water Resource Management Practicum $9,000Manure Digester Reverse Osmosis Feasibility Study $30,000USGS gaging stations‐Installation/O&M $55,300 $61,000USGS gaging stations‐utilities $12,000 $500MMSD Laboratory Services for Water Quality Analysis $15,000 $20,000Phosphorus Reduction Practices and Management $309,000Phosphorus Reduction Demonstration or Research Projects $53,400Miscellaneous $5,000

Total Expenditures $82,300 $507,900

Note: This budget only addresses revenue generated under the MOU and resulting expenditures.  It does not reflect funds associated with the Mississippi River Basin Initiative Grant for 2012 and 2013, nor does it reflect other funding sources such as Dane County Funds.

StrategicPlanningWorkgroup• Other Updates? • Future Agendas? 

• UW‐Soils• Leaf Management Project• ?

• Other Business? • Executive Committee begins in 5‐minutes