VIEWS: 75 PAGES: 100 POSTED ON: 7/10/2011
Cedar Bluff Reservoir Watershed Restoration And Protection Strategy Smoky Hill Resource Conservation and Development Area Inc. Final Report 2006-2008; Development Phase Colby Kanorado Goodland § ¨ ¦ 70 Brewster Menlo Hoxie t u 24 Morland Hill City Bogue Sherman Thomas Thomas S h e r ii d a n She man ! ( 27 ! ( 25 Sher dan Graham G aham Oakley Grinnell Grainfield Park Winona Quinter t u 40 Collyer Wakeeney Gove City W a ll ll a c e Wa ace Sharon Springs Wallace Logan Logan Russell Springs t u 83 Gove Gove ! ( 23 Trego Trego t u 283 Cedar Bluff Smo k y Hil Lake l Riv er Utica ! ( 4 Ransom Brownell W ii c h i tt a W h a S c o tt tt Sco Lane Lane Ness G r e e ll e y Gree ey N s HoraceTribune Leoti Scott City Dighton Ness City Bazine 0 12.5 25 50 Miles Kansas Product of the Cedar Bluff Reservoir WRAPS September 2008 Smoky Hills RC&D Area Inc. 1515 Oak St. La Crosse, KS 67548 2 Table of Contents Page Section 1------- 4 --------Executive Summary Section 2------ 17 ------- Introduction Section 3------ 19 -------WRAPS Development phase -Education Activities -Stakeholders -Stakeholder Interest -Issue and Concerns Section 4------ 26 --------Quarterly Reports -May-July 2006 -Aug – Oct 2006 -Nov – Jan 2007 -Feb – Apr 2007 -May – July 2007 -Aug – Oct 2007 -Nov – Jan 2008 -Feb – Apr 2008 -May – July 2008 -Final Report Section 5------ 66 --------Financial Report Section 6------ 69 --------Work Products -News articles -Brochures -Town Hall Conversation I -Leadership team meeting -Town Hall Conversation II Section 7------- 89 --------Partners -letters of support -Leadership Team Section 8--------99---------References 3 Section 1 Executive Summary 4 Executive Summary A. Location The Cedar Bluff Watershed is a large watershed located in western Kansas. This watershed covers portions of Sherman, Thomas, Wallace, Logan, Gove, Trego, Greeley, Wichita, Scott, Lane and Ness Counties for a total of 2,754,958 acres or roughly 4,304 square miles. The Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) included in this watershed are: 10260002, 10260001, 10260004, 10260005, 10260003. According to the U.S. Geological Survey the United States is divided and sub-divided into successively smaller hydrologic units which are classified into four levels: regions, sub-regions, accounting units, and cataloging units. The hydrologic units are arranged within each other, from the smallest (cataloging units) to the largest (regions). Each hydrologic unit is identified by a unique hydrologic unit code (HUC) consisting of two to eight digits based on the four levels of classification in the hydrologic unit system. Map 1.1 shows the Cedar Bluff Watershed as it sits in the state of Kansas boundaries. This watershed actually extends outside the state. However, WRAPS only covers the portion within the state. Map 1.1 5 Executive Summary B. Population, land and water use Approximately 25,976 people live in the counties that contain the watershed with an average population density of 3.3 per square mile. The average population density for the state of Kansas is 32.9*(3). The watershed consists mostly of pasture/grassland at 47.58%. Forty-three percent is cropland and minor parts are wetland and urban areas. This is a heavily agricultural part of the state and approximately 710,000 head of cattle are fed at feedlots and farming operations throughout the area. Figure 1.1 shows the distribution of cattle within the watershed. The Cedar Bluff Reservoir is used for domestic water supplies, livestock watering, wild life watering and supporting aquatic life. The following entites have water rights in the reservoir: Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, Kansas Water Office, and the cities of Russell and Hays have reserve rights. This reservoir also serves as a recreation source for a large portion of Western Kansas. Figure1.1 Cedar Bluff Watershed Livestock Population 41.9% Wallace Logan 6.9% Gove Trego 5.4% Greeley Wichita Scott Lane Ness 6.1% 11.2% Sherman Thomas 6.5% 14.1% 3.2 % 4.7% ***Information from Wichita and Lane counties was not available at the time of press. *(2) All population data from the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau. 6 Executive Summary The Upper Smoky Hill River Cedar Bluff Reservoir Watershed is 47.58% grassland and 43.55% cropland. The grassland provides for excellent water filtration and with proper tillage practices in place, the crop land could add minimal runoff to the watershed. Map 1.3 below shows the full watershed as it extends into Colorado and also the land use within the watershed. Cedar Bluff Reservoir Watershed Land Use Map: Map 1.3 7 Executive Summary The development phase of the Cedar Figure 1.2: Town Hall News Article Bluff reservoir WRAPS took place from June 2006-August 2008. During that time frame many activities took place including public meetings, the building of the leadership team, increasing awareness of WRAPS, and general public education about water and its use. In December 2006 and January 2007 public meetings were held in Sharon Spring, Healy, Oakley and WaKeeney to allow the public to voice issues and concerns dealing with water in the watershed. These meeting were advertised through newspaper ads (see figure 1.2), postcards sent to individuals, radio announcements, TV announcements and flyers placed in businesses. Individuals were also given the opportunity to volunteer for the WRAPS leadership team at these meetings. After the meetings, a full list of issues and concerns was compiled and surveys were mailed to those who attended the meetings to rank their top concerns. 8 Executive Summary Several businesses and organizations donated money to help defer the cost of the Town Hall Conversations. After the meetings were held, each donating entity was sent a donation statement, figure 1.3 found below. Those who donated include: Sharp Bros Seed - $250 Trego Co. Farm Bureau - $50 Midwest Cooperative - $100 Farmers State Bank, Oakley - $150 Figure 1.3: Town Hall Conversation Donation Statement 9 Executive Summary Figure 1.4 is the letter sent to those who attended the public meetings held in December 2006 and January 2007. Enclosed with the letter was a postcard listing the issues and concerns brainstormed at those public meetings. Individuals were instructed to select their top concerns and return the postcard. Figure 1.4: summary of Town Hall Conversations letter Summary of Town Hall Conversations; December 2006 and January 2007 I hope this letter finds everyone enjoying the recent “spring – like” weather that we’ve been having. Please take a few minutes to review the summary from the discussions at the four Town Hall Conversations held in Sharon Springs, Healy and Oakley in December of 2006 and in Wakeeney in January of 2007. The WRAPS (Watershed Restoration And Protection Strategy) meetings were a great success and I appreciate all of you who attended and shared your valuable input. Please understand that it is not too late to give us your input. From the list below, you can quickly tell that we had great discussions which provided a detailed list of watershed issues, possible solutions and best management practices that could be implemented. Please review the list and give us your opinion. I have enclosed a self addressed postcard for you to return circling what you feel are the top 5 watershed issues. We have left a blank for you to note what you feel are the best recommended possible solutions and best management practices to be implemented. Please return this by March 31st, 2007. Once again, thank you for your time, energy and efforts in helping to protect and preserve your watershed. Please call me at my office at (785) 346-2128 Ext. 304 or my cell at (785)346-4706 if you have any questions or contact me by email at firstname.lastname@example.org. Sincerely, Carolyn Nichols WRAPS Coordinator 10 Executive Summary This is the complied list of concerns and possible solutions brought up by those who attended the Town Hall Meetings in December 2006 and January 2007. Photos 1.1 and 1.2 show patrons at the Oakley Town Hall Conversation in December 2006. Concerns within the watershed A. Functioning Watershed; hydrologic cycle B. Percolation C. Landfill placement/ runoff D. Chemical and fertilizer use 1. Regulate official city use 2. Golf course runoff 3. Urban and rural use and runoff 4. Nitrates leaching into water E. Roadway runoff 1. Runoff from parking lots 2. Road and bridge issues 3. Runoff from Highways; ice treatment 4. Ditch maintenance; not reseeding after construction F. Channel Flow Photo 1.1 Town Hall Conversation, Oakley, KS 1. Dead vegetation 2. Log jams G. Water use by invasive weeds and trees H. Overall water use 1. Irrigation 2. Farm use 3. Human use in homes; urban and rural 4. Over pumping of wells 5. Unplugged abandoned wells I. Recreation 1. Wildlife use 2. Wildlife waste runoff 3. Boating / swimming / fishing / hunting J. Erosion 1. Not keeping up terraces 2. Promoting no-till 3. Sediment loading 4. Pasture overgrazing 5. Stream bank erosion 6. CRP not properly managed 7. Farming the ditch K. Livestock waste management L. Pet waste management 11 Executive Summary M. Drought 1. Rural water districts not accepting new farmers 2. Rural water districts sending water outside watershed 3. Pollution / chemical concentration higher because of little or no water to dilute it. 4. Radars N. Irrigation 1. Allotment needs to be re-evaluated 2. Chemigation 3. Irrigation takes too much blame O. Contamination 1. Urban sprawl 2. Dilapidated septic systems P. Hazardous waste disposal Q. Dumping of trash in old silos, cisterns, abandoned wells, creek, river and/or reservoir R. Ethanol / Fuel Production 1. Water use during production S. Industrial contamination T. Lower crop yield without irrigation U. Water Treatment Facilities 1. Can’t deal with salt added from water softeners V. Oil wells Photo 1.2: Town Hall Conversation, Oakley, KS 1. Pumping salt water down into the oil wells Possible Solutions A. Functioning Watershed; hydrologic cycle 1. Keep balance in hydrologic cycle B. Percolation C. Landfill placement/ runoff 1. Education on landfill monitoring D. Chemical and fertilizer use 1. Soil sample to apply the correct amount of fertilizer 2. Spot spray ditches 3. Go organic 4. Chemical license to buy / use chemical for urban use 12 Executive Summary E. Roadway runoff 1. Promote riparian areas and waterways 2. Education to proper officials 3. Parking lot runoff – regulation on city buffer easement F. Channel flow G. Water use by invasive weeds and trees 1. Wood alcohol plant to convert trees to alcohol 2. Prescribed burns in CRP to control invasive species 3. Limit trees in streams and creeks 4. Promote control of Salt Cedar trees H. Overall water use 1. Different landscaping – drought tolerant 2. Rain barrels 3. Work at grassroots level 4. Be a good steward of the land – self policing 5. Plant drought resistant crops 6. Plant drought resistant grass; Buffalo vs. Fescue 7. Education to the public a. TMDLs in watershed b. Personal use / misuse of water 8. Plug abandoned wells I. Recreation 1. Raise conservation pool – will enhance recreation 2. Stabilization of wildlife numbers – keep it in proportion J. Erosion 1. Go back to tall grass 2. Rebuild terraces 3. Minimum till farming 4. No till farming K. Livestock waste management 1. Remove cattle feeding facilities from stream / river sites 2. Relocate feeding sites, calving areas, wintering sites, haul excess waste away from site – encourage cost share usage L. Pet waste management M. Drought 13 Executive Summary N. Irrigation 1. Work with irrigators to voluntarily reduce irrigation and be compensated 2. More efficient irrigation – underground or drop nozzles on pivot 3. Voluntary water right buyout for irrigator 4. Get rid of “Use it or Lose it” on irrigation water rights 5. Restricted and/or enforced regulation on irrigation 6. Revise water rights 7. Contact congress person, governor, KDHE concerning irrigation issues 8. Amount pumped from irrigation wells needs to be limited 9. Amount of rainfall received counted as part of irrigation total allotment 10. Irrigate only one crop per year instead of double cropping O. Contamination P. Hazardous waste disposal 1. Provide collection days a. For hazardous waste b. For oil and antifreeze Q. Dumping of trash in old silos, cisterns, abandoned wells, creek, river and/or reservoir R. Ethanol / Fuel Production 1. Recycle water from Ethanol plants 2. Set and enforce government regulations and no government subsidies S. Industrial contamination 1. More containment, placement and storage T. Yield U. Water Treatment Facilities V. Oil Wells 1. Plug unused test holes W. Education 1. Educate public on GMO – Genetically modified organisms 2. Educate public on chemical use advantages and disadvantages 3. Take charge of our situation before the government steps in 4. Hold training classes / sessions to teach farmers and urban residents the proper way to calibrate sprayers and apply the correct amount of chemical and fertilizer. 14 Executive Summary In April the leadership team met for the first time and narrowed the list of issues and concerns to a list of the top 6. 1. Overall water use 2. Contamination 3. Chemical and fertilizer use 4. Livestock waste 5. Erosion 6. Playa lakes Tom Stiles of KDHE also presented information found throughout the watershed from water tests done by the KDHE in 2006. 2006 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) listing include: Lake Scott: Flouride Smoky Hill River at Gove: Dissolved Oxygen Smoky Hill River at Trego: Cadmium, E. Coli Bacteria Willow Creek: Dissolved Oxygen 15 Executive Summary A second public meeting or Town Hall Conversations II, was held October 30th, 2007 to discuss the finding from a Rapid Watershed Assessment completed by NRCS on HUCs 10260001 and 10260003 in the Cedar Bluff Watershed. Also at this meeting, the general public was informed of the decisions made by the leadership team regarding the narrowed list of issues and concerns and the basic focus of the next phase of the Cedar Bluff Reservoir WRAPS. Figure 1.5, found below, was sent to over 1750 people individually inviting them to attend the meeting. This was public meeting with the leadership team in attendance as well as the general public. Figure 1.5: Town Hall Conversation II invitation postcard Since January 1st, 2008 minimal time has been spent on the Cedar Bluff WRAPS for reason of lack of funding available. Time spent was used to complete the project implementation plan for the assessment / planning phase and completing the final report for the development phase. 16 Section 2 Introduction 17 Introduction Chart 2.1 Cedar Bluff Watershed Livestock vs. Human Population 250000 200000 150000 Amount Cedar Bluff Watershed Livestock Cedar Bluff Watershed Humans 100000 50000 0 ey an t ne e o s an ce ta as ot es ov eg hi el g om la Sc La m N G Lo ic Tr re al er W Th W G Sh County One of the main concerns with the Cedar Bluff reservoir is the large number of confined feeding operations and head of cattle being fed within the watershed. Approximately 710,000 head are fed in counties within the watershed. There are only small communities found within its boundaries. Approximately 25,976 people live in the counties that contain the watershed with an average population density of 3.3 persons per square mile(3). Cattle numbers greatly out weigh the human population as demonstrated in chart 2.1. There is a ratio of 27 head of cattle per one person living within the counties of the watershed(2). Many of the issues and concerns brought forth by the public and leadership team reflect this ratio difference between water dedicated to livestock use and water dedicated to human use. Another concern from the public dealt with the sedimentation and soil erosion running into the reservoir. As sedimentation fills the reservoir, it depletes the storage capacity, making less water available for municipal use and unavailable to those who hold the water rights. 2007 USDA cattle estimates. *(2) Data from the 2000 U.S. census *(3) ***Not all data was available at time of press. 18 Section 3 WRAPS Development 19 WRAPS Development Education Activities The Cedar Bluff Reservoir Watershed Restoration And Protection Strategy began during the Summer of 2006. During this initial phase several opportunities were taken to get the word out about WRAPS including presentations at County Conservation District meetings, Farm Bureau Board Meeting, Rotary Clubs, county fairs and many more local events. Photo 3.1 shows the WRAPS booth at the Gove County Fair. Newspaper and newsletter articles appeared in several publications. Planning also got underway for the public meetings to be held across the watershed. Photo 3.1: Fair Booth, Gove County Kansas 20 WRAPS Development Educational Activities Figure 3.1: Farm Bureau Program, Scott County, KS A presentation was given to a large group at the Scott County annual Farm Bureau meeting. Figure 3.1 was the program passed out at the meeting. There was a lot of interest in Watershed Restoration And Protection Strategy. Scott County has some of the largest feedlots in the watershed so water is an extremely important issue there. 21 WRAPS Development Educational Activities On October 20th, 2007 a water festival at the mall in Hays showcased several different aspects of water including the Cedar Bluff WRAPS booth about stream buffers. Kids and adults had the opportunity to make t- shirts designed with puff paints, stamps and the phrase, “Buffers Work” for free. Photo 3.2 shows community members painting on t-shirts. Many who stopped by the booth had never heard of a buffer strip and didn’t know the value and benefits that it offers. Each participant was given a lesson on buffers before they made the t-shirts. This allowed them to draw more relevant designs on the shirts, as well as made them more informed on simple steps toward improving water quality. Photo 3.2: Water Festival, Hays, KS 22 WRAPS Development Stakeholders and Stakeholders Interest Stakeholders The stakeholders of the Cedar Bluff watershed include everyone from urban and rural residents to business owners, laborers, and agriculture producers. The economic backbone of this region is agriculture. Agriculture throughout the state has the highest water use at 87% for irrigation and 2% for livestock. Industry and mining make up 2% of the water use and 9% goes to public supply for domestic use.*(1) The stakeholders are genuinely concerned about water and its use in this watershed. For many, the concern comes down to domestic use verses agriculture use. Agriculture use is pertinent for the economy, however water is still needed for domestic use. Both uses are needed in order for the current population to continue living in the area. This is where WRAPS and the leadership team can work to define a common goal and solution. Stakeholder Interest There is a lot of interest in WRAPS through out the Cedar Bluff Watershed. In December of 2006 and January of 2007 public meetings were held to inform everyone about the WRAPS program but also to get the opinions from the public on their biggest issues and concerns. General information was presented first, then stakeholders could voice their concerns. A total of 144 people attended from across the watershed. This proves a large interest in the program. The further west traveled in the state of Kansas and particularly the watershed, the population dwindles. The largest community by far is Oakley with lies on the edge of the watershed and has a population of 2,173*. The next largest community within the watershed is Sharon Springs with 835*. There are several other smaller communities that dot the landscape in the Cedar Bluff Watershed. Even with the small population in this part of the state, there is a great interest in the water and how it is used. *(3)Data from the 2000 U.S. census. *(1) Facts from USGS 23 WRAPS Development Issues and Concerns In April the leadership team met for the first time and narrowed the results from the survey from the top 10 to 6 main concerns to focus on. The team is made up of a variety of individuals representing production agriculture, city and county employees, agency individual and many more. Throughout the phase various presentations have been made to different organizations such as the county conservations districts, Farm Bureau, schools students, Rotary and other community organizations. The leadership team also decided what direction to head with the Cedar Bluff WRAPS by deciding upon projects, activities and programs to enhance or develop. The issues and concerns decided upon by the leadership team are as follows: 1. Overall water use A. General education B. irrigation C. Drought D. Ethanol and Fuel Production 2. Contamination A. Illegal dumping of trash B. Oil Wells 3. Chemical and Fertilizer Use A. Creek Sampling B. Ground water sampling C. Best Management Practice (BMP) education D. Water test kits for in home/on farm use E. Organic lawn fertilizer Such as Revive F. Place Chemical and Fertilizer brochures at the place of purchase G. Education of proper lawn chemical use 4. Livestock waste A. Find out what is causing the bacteria contamination B. Education C. Partner with already existing organizations; KLA 5. Erosion A. Causes include water and wind B. Erosion will lead to sedimentation C. Delayed minimum tillage – demo/field day D. No-till – education – demo/field day E. Promote conservation programs F. Additional wraps incentives program G. Combo of no-til and minimum til 6. Playa lakes A. Educate public of importance and how to identify B. Playa Lake joint venture program 24 WRAPS Development Issues and Concerns The focus for the next phase of WRAPS was also discussed at the first leadership team meeting held in April 2007. Several ideas including demonstrations and public education were brought forth. As shown in Photo 3.3, team members worked together to brainstorm ideas for the next phase of WRAPS. Since Assessment will be the next phase for the Cedar Bluff watershed, water testing was a main issue of concern for the leadership team. Personal use water tests as well as random water testing throughout the watershed was planned. Photo 3.3: Leadership team working in Gove, Kansas 25 Section 4 Quarterly Reports And Final Report 26 Quarterly Reports 27 Quarterly Reports 28 Quarterly Reports 29 Quarterly Reports 30 Quarterly Reports 31 Quarterly Reports 32 Quarterly Reports 33 Quarterly Reports 34 Quarterly Reports 35 Quarterly Reports 36 Quarterly Reports 37 Quarterly Reports 38 Quarterly Reports 39 Quarterly Reports 40 Quarterly Reports 41 Quarterly Reports 42 Quarterly Reports 43 Quarterly Reports 44 Quarterly Reports 45 Quarterly Reports 46 Quarterly Reports 47 Quarterly Reports 48 Quarterly Reports 49 Quarterly Reports 50 Quarterly Reports 51 Quarterly Reports 52 Quarterly Reports 53 Quarterly Reports 54 Quarterly Reports 55 Quarterly Reports 56 Quarterly Reports 57 Quarterly Reports 58 Quarterly Reports 59 Quarterly Reports 60 Quarterly Reports 61 Quarterly Reports 62 Final Report 63 Final Report 64 Final Report 65 Section 5 Financial Report 66 Financial Report Chart 5.1 This chart shows the revised grant payment log amounts. Grant money spent and reported for reimbursement on each quarterly report are correct and are listed the same on the quarterly reports as they are on this log. The match amounts were incorrectly reported on some of the quarterly reports therefore the correct match amounts can be found in this payment log and NOT in the quarterly reports. 67 Financial Report During the course of the development phase, the WRAPS coordinator as well as others involved in the quarterly reporting process learned better techniques of tracking and reporting grant match. After completion of the development phase, it was clearly evident that the Cedar Bluff WRAPS had double reported some match and also miscounted some of the match. This is the reason that the reported match on each quarterly report is different from the amount shown on the REVISED Grant Payment log (Chart 5.1). Grant money spent each quarter is correct on the quarterly report and also on the REVISED Grant Payment log (Chart 5.1) however the quarterly reported match amounts are not correct. The correct grant match amounts can be found on the REVISED Grant Payment Log (Chart 5.1) The Cedar Bluff Watershed used development phase grant money and provided match in four basic categories: personnel, travel, supplies and other categories. Below is a break down of how each category was spent and match was received. Personnel – Reimbursement was made each quarter for the WRAPS Coordinator and administrative assistant. Personnel contribution is supplied by stakeholder involvement in the WRAPS process. The Smoky Hill Resource Conservation and Development Area, Inc. has also been very instrumental in publicizing WRAPS. Board members tended fair booths, gave presentations to city and county officials and several one-on-one events. Travel – Mileage and lodging paid to the WRAPS coordinator for travel throughout the watershed. The travel match is supplied by Stakeholders attending WRAPS meetings. Because of the large size of this watershed and thin spread population base, individuals have to travel several miles to attend a meeting. This also proves there is dedicated stakeholder interest with the cost of time and fuel to travel to the WRAPS meetings. Supplies and Other – Funding in the supplies category were spent on the purchase of a laptop computer, printer, printer supplies and office materials. Supply monies were also spent on printing brochures, postage, envelopes, paper, survey postage, survey envelopes and paper and public meeting supplies. Four different Town Hall Conversations were held in December of 2006 and January 2007. Over 2300 postcards with personal invitations were sent to land owner and residents of the watershed. A follow-up Town Hall Conversations II meeting was held in October 2007. This was a public meeting and over 1750 postcards were sent out. Monies from this category were spent on building rent, meals and advertisement for the public meeting. Also included in the other category are the cost of internet service, phone service, trainings and advertisement to originally hire a coordinator. This match came from donations and discounts received while holding the public meetings in December 2006 and January 2007. 68 Section 6 Work Products Brochures News articles Town Hall Conversations I Leadership Team Meeting Town Hall Conversation II 69 Work Products Brochures These brochures created by the NRCS were distributed at the Town Hall Conversations and several other booths through out the development phase. 70 Work Products Brochures These WRAPS brochures were created to describe WRAPS to the general public. They have been distributed throughout the development phase across the watershed. 71 Work Products Newspaper Articles Spring 2007 This article was placed in every newspaper in the watershed covering 22,950 households. It also ran in the Solomon Valley RC&D newsletter as well as several Conservation District newsletters. 72 Work Products Town Hall Conversations I Several ads just like this one appeared in newspapers across the watershed to advertise the Town Hall Conversations in December 2006 and January 2007. 73 Work Products Town Hall Conversations I The postcard above was sent to individuals throughout the watershed to personally invite them to attend the Town Hall Conversations held in December 2006 and January 2007. Citizens are more likely to attend if he or she has been individually invited. Over 2,300 postcards were sent out. Even for those who couldn’t attend the meeting, this was an excellent source of getting the word out about WRAPS. 74 Work Products Town Hall Conversations I Radio Advertisement for the Town Hall Conversations held in December 2006. Watershed Restoration And Protection Strategy, WRAPS! Water is important to everyone, whether you live in the city or in the country. Let your voice and opinions be heard. Attend one of the Town Hall Conversations in your area for the Upper Smoky River Basin. Monday, December 18, at 11:30 am at the Oak Tree Inn in Sharon Springs, and at 6 pm at the Healy High School Commons area, Healy. Tuesday, December 19 at 11:30 at the Colonial Steak House, Oakley and at 6 PM at the Western Electric Coop Community Room in Wakeeney. Meals provided at no cost. Television Advertisement for the Town Hall Conversations held in December 2006. Watershed Restoration And Protection Strategy, WRAPS! Let your voice and opinions be heard. Attend one of the Town Hall Conversations in your area for the Upper Smoky River Basin. Monday, December 18, at 6 pm at the Healy High School Commons area, Healy. Tuesday, December 19 at 11:30 at the Colonial Steak House, Oakley. Meals provided at no cost. RSVP to Carolyn at 785-346-2128 Ext. 304 Both of the ads above ran before the Town Hall Conversations held in December 2006 and January 2007. 75 Work Products Town Hall Conversations I This is the Agenda from the Town Hall Conversation (December 2006/January 2007). Each meeting lasted from 1.5 to 2 hours. During the facilitation, attendees were divided into groups of 5-10 people with one facilitator assigned to each group. Then patrons could brainstorm concerns and possible solutions for water issues within the watershed. Town Hall Conversation Agenda Agenda 1. Meal 2. Introductions 3. Overview of Watershed Restoration And Protection Strategy (WRAPS) 4. Slide Show 5. Facilitation 6. What’s next?? 7. Pledge of Support 8. Leadership Team 76 Work Products Town Hall Conversations I Town Hall Conversation After Meeting Survey Town Hall Conversation December 18th and 19th, 2006 1. Please circle which meeting you attended: Sharon Springs Oakley Healy Wakeeney 2. Please rate the presentation by circling the appropriate number. (1 = Poor and 5 = Excellent) 1 2 3 4 5 3. Did you learn something as a result of this meeting? Yes No 4. Please list at least one thing you learned as a result of this meeting. 5. Please list at least one thing you will change/do as a result of what you heard at the Town Hall Conversation. Two surveys were handed out during the Town Hall Conversations (December 2006/January 2007), one before the meal/meeting began and one at the end. The first survey was to get the name and contact information of everyone in attendance. The final survey allowed for patrons to volunteer for the leadership team. 77 Work Products Town Hall Conversations I Compiled list of brainstormed issues and concerns from Town Hall Conversations in Cedar Bluff Watershed. Provide cost share funds Control overuse of surface water Monitor water quality Make us aware of potential problems Buffer strips Educate county about herbicide use Increase water flow Support ideas of non traditional ag practices Equal treatment by politicians and law makers Education Creative and safe ways to deal with weeds and pests Use less pesticide Stop irrigation Restoration of water wells high in nitrates Soil erosion Better water quality in the rivers Plug abandon wells – cost share More iformation as to the effect of irrigation wells depleting our ground water More education about Sharon Springs Public awareness Watering yards Most economical option for farming Make ag producers a priority when proceeding 78 Work Products Town Hall Conversations I Compiled list of possible solutions to issues and concerns in the Cedar Bluff Watershed. Educate local individuals on water law and clean air act Limit irrigation of golf courses and fields Quality and conservation Quantity of subsurface water and how to increase Abandon wells Livestock waste Water quality Move cattle away from draws and streams Irrigation Water quantity Organic farming / sustainable ag Increase water flow Local education to improve water quality Limit irrigation Education and conserve Chemical application Soil conservation Livestock waste systems Rangeland Cropland – erosion, nutrient and pest mgt Education through extension Soil erosion Protect landowners’ rights Educate people on the ramification of a failing water supply Science based research Local water quality assessment Promotion of EQIP Work with legislators to control water rights Visit with people in the community Each does the best environmental practices Education Find ways to limit and eventually stop pumping water from stream aquifer Lead by example Limit water rights Work at grass roots level Help with no-till Look for support to pass new KS law 79 Work Products Town Hall Conversations I Town Hall Conversations Important Water Meeting, EVERYONE needs to attend!!! What’s in Your Water???? The Smoky Hills Conservation and Development Area, Inc invite all rural and urban residents to attend the Town Hall Conversations Monday, December 18, 2006 • Oak Tree Inn / Penny’s Diner 11:30 AM 801 N Hwy 27, Sharon Springs, KS • Healy High School Commons Area 6:00 PM 5006 N Dodge Rd, Healy, KS Tuesday, December 19, 2006 • Colonial Steak House 11:30 AM 464 Hwy 83, Oakley, KS • Western Electric Coop Community Room 6:00 PM 635 S. 13th St., Wakeeney, KS The Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) process is your opportunity to voice concerns about the Smoky Hill River Watershed. We will be divided into smaller discussion groups so your voice, opinion and suggestions will be heard. Plan to make it a point to attend one of these sessions to see how you can protect our water resources. Meals provided at no charge, RSVP’s appreciated by December 7th, 2006; please call Carolyn at (785)346-2128 Ext. 304 or Teresa (785)425-6647 Meals and meetings provided by: KDHE EPA 319 Funds Smoky Hills RC&D Area, Inc. Oak Tree Inn, Sharon Springs, KS Penny’s Diner, Sharon Springs, KS USDA is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. This flyer was placed in several newspapers and in business windows to advertise the Town Hall Conversations. 80 Work Products Town Hall Conversations I Pledge of Support On this____ ________– _________________________finds that the (DATE) (NAME) health and welfare of ourselves and our community is inextricably linked to the condition and health of the Cedar Bluff Reservoir watershed and pledge to: Support development and implementation of a watershed restoration and protection plan for Cedar Bluff Reservoir watershed and Encourage friends, clients and colleagues to support this endeavor. COUNT ON ME! NAME: _____________________ ADDRESS: __________________ ___________________________ PHONE: ____________________ EMAIL: ____________________ At each public meeting patron also had the chance to sign the Pledge of Support to the WRAPS program. Many individuals are already doing their part to conserve/restore water so for them this was a simple pledge. It is truly a pledge to the future of Upper Smoky Hill River Watershed. 81 Work Products Town Hall Conversations I Those who signed the Pledge of Support. Matt Palmquist – Gove, KS Robert Perris – Dighton, KS Larry Dearden – Scott City, KS David Coltrain – LaCrosse, KS V. Haliger – Dighton, KS Ed Habiger – Dighton, KS John Beaton – Scott City, KS Aaron Beaton – Scott City, KS Steve Heath – Dighton, KS Bill Maughlin – Dighton, KS Megan Tuttle – Gove, KS Judy Burgess Thomas Bennett – Healy, KS Pamela Jennison – Healy, KS Forrest York Steven Unruh – Scott City, KS Phebe Unruh – Scott City, KS Leon Scheck – Dighton, KS Sandy Renner – Dighton, KS Cliff Magie – Healy, KS Larry Russell – Scott City, KS Rhonda Russell – Scott City, KS Dean Wilson – Dighton, KS Gary Wilson – Dighton, KS Jim Bennett – Dighton, KS Debbie Bennett – Dighton, KS Thomas Bussen – Wallace, KS Ronald Blaesi – Sharon Springs, KS Sheila Gebhards – Sharon Springs, KS Dwight Blaesi – Sharon Springs, KS Elizabeth Blaesi – Sharon Springs, KS Dale Johnson – Sharon Springs, KS Karli Springsteel – Sharon Springs, KS Cheri Rhea – Sharon Springs, KS Patsy Miller – Sharon Spring, KS Julie Samuelson – Sharon Springs, KS Aaron Feist – Sharon Springs, KS Dennis Shank – Goodland, KS Fred Wedel – Goodland, KS Fred Staker – Sharon Springs, KS Kayle Robben – Manhattan, KS Dan Larson – Sharon Springs, KS Sharon Olson – Byer, CO Ben Johnson – Wallace, KS Art Mai – Sharon Springs, KS Matthew Pearce – Wallace, KS Work Products Town Hall Conversations I 82 Mike Dart – Sharon Springs, KS Danielle Freeman – Colby, KS Greg Anderson – Oakley, KS M. Anderson – Oakley, KS Mary Anderson – Oakley, KS Larry Dinkel – Oakley, KS Dina Dinkel – Oakley, KS Judy Kreutzer – WaKeeney, KS Mike Grogan – WaKeeney, KS Kenneth Schoenthaler – Ogallah, KS Evay Deines – WaKeeney, KS Larry Hixson – WaKeeney, KS Dan Wells – Hays, KS Janet Geist – WaKeeney, KS Donald Geist – WaKeeney, KS Mary Hendricks – WaKeeney, KS Larry Richmeier – WaKeeney, KS Bill Scott – Ranson, KS David Hendricks – WaKeeney, KS Gale Scanlon – WaKeeney, KS Tanya Gerstberger – Oakley, KS Dana Charles – Oakley, KS Georgetta Schoenfield – Oakley, KS Raecine Boeger – Grinnell, KS Dan Boeger – Grinnell, KS Richard Ohmart – Oakley, KS Carol Ohmart – Oakley, KS Sharon Hauschild – Oakley, KS Carl Uhrich – Oakley, KS C. Beamer – Oakley, KS Wilfred Engel – Oakley, KS Eugene Wilson – Dighton, KS Lori Ostmeyer – Oakley, KS George Ladenburger – Oakley, KS Mary Arlington – Oakley, KS Douglas Zeigler – Grainfield, KS Dale Suter – Oakley, KS Connie Zeigler – Grainfield, KS Frank Kaiser – Oakley, KS Brent Dutoit – Dighton, KS Jamie Bell – Oakley, KS Virginia Beamer – Oakley, KS M. E. McCafferty – Oakley, KS Fred Wassemiller – Monument, KS Sylvanna Avila D.J. Lundgren – Gove, KS 83 Work Products Leadership Team meeting Below is a news article about the first meeting of the leadership team. This ran is every newspaper in the watershed covering 22,950 households. Cedar Bluff Watershed WRAPS Up Issues and Concerns Gove, KS – On April 24th the Watershed Restoration And Protection Strategy (WRAPS) Leadership team for the Cedar Bluff watershed met in Gove, KS. At this meeting we had a chance to hear from Tom Stiles, from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. He spoke to us about Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) going into our surface waters here in the Cedar Bluff watershed and what needs our focus at this point. The water at Lake Scott is impared by high phosphorus, however since this is a fairly stagnant lake, there is not much that can be done to remove the this nutrient, however, we can prevent more from entering the lake. High phosphorus levels will cause eutrophication which is when the phosphosous, a fertilizer, causes the algae to bloom and when it is dying and rotting it uses the oxygen out of the water leaving little for the fish and other aquatic life. Tom also showed us a location on Arnold Creek with an E. Coli impairment. He suggested that we should aim for protecting Cedar Bluff from the above stated issues, restore Lake Scott, find the source for the E. Coli impairment on Arnold Creek and work to improve the situation and decrease the amount of E. Coli in the stream and promote source water protection. After hearing Tom the team worked together to narrow our list from 26 issues and concerns brought up at the December Town Hall Concersations, held across the watershed, to our top 6 concerns. They are: 1. General Water Education; 2. Contamination; 3. Chemical and Fertilizer Use; 4. Livestock Waste; 5. Erosion; 6. Playa Lakes. Along with the concerns, possible solutions were also generated so that we are able to ask for adequate funding for the next phase of WRAPS. The leadership team is the backbone of the WRAPS program and basically decides what direction the program will head in its next phase. The leadership team is comprised of individuals who volunteered to serve on the team at the December and January Town Hall Conversations and some agency individuals. The WRAPS program is open to the public and if you have issues or concerns regarding water and the Cedar Bluff Watershed or would like to serve on our leadership team please contact me at 785-346-2128 Ext 304 or at email@example.com. WRAPS is a completely VOLUNTARY program funded by the Kansas Water Plan. This WRAPS program is sponsored by the Smoky Hills RC&D. 84 Work Products Leadership Team Meeting A postcard above) was sent to everyone who attended the Town Hall Conversations with the compiled list of issues and concerns determined at the four meeting. Each patron then had the opportunity to vote on their top concerns and mail the postcard back. The top concerns were: 1. Overall water use 2. Chemical and fertilizer use 3. Irrigation 4. Erosion 5. Drought 6. Livestock waste mgt. 7. Ethanol\fuel production 8. Illegal dumping of trash 9. Contamination 10. Industrial contamination 11. Oil wells 85 Work Products Town Hall Conversations II October 30th, 2007 a second public meeting was held in Oakley, KS for the Cedar Bluff Watershed. Individuals were invited by postcards, newspaper ads (see ad 6.3) and business flyers. There were 58 attendees at the meeting to be informed about what is coming in the assessment phase of WRAPS. Dean Krehbiel was there from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) to present information about the Rapid Watershed Assessment being done on portions of the watershed. Citizens were also asked to volunteer to take water samples for water testing to be done during the assessment phase. Several individuals took interest and gave their names as potential volunteers. Ad 6.3 86 Work Products Town Hall Conversation II Below is the agenda and after survey for the Town Hall Conversation II. The after survey was used to collect information from individuals willing to collect water samples during the assessment phase. 87 Work Products Town Hall Conversations II A pre-meeting survey, shown above, was given to those who attended the public meeting in Oakley on October 30th, 2007. It was used to get the name and contact information of everyone at the meeting. The questions on the survey were chosen because of questions received and the response given from school age children when asked the same questions. The correct answers will vary greatly by location however a majority of the time when school children are asked these questions their response is that ground water is 10 feet deep and it only takes 30 minutes to two hours to recharge. In the Cedar Bluff watershed, much of the water used is ground water and it is much, much deeper with a recharge rate of several years. 88 Section 7 Partners and Leadership Team Letters of Support Leadership Team 89 Partners and Leadership Team Letters of Support 90 Partners and Leadership Team Letters of Support 91 Partners and Leadership Team Letters of Support 92 Partners and Leadership Team Letters of Support 93 Partners and Leadership Team Letters of Support 94 Partners and Leadership Team Letters of Support 95 Partners and Leadership Team Letters of Support 96 Partners and Leadership Team Leadership team 97 Partners and Leadership Team Leadership team 98 Section 8 References 99 References *(1) Kenny, J.F. “Water use in Kansas, 1990 and 1995.” Kansas Water Office. April 1999. 11 December 2007. http://ks.water.usgs.gov/ Kansas/pubs/fact-sheets/fs.090- 99.html *(2) “Kansas Department of Agriculture.” 15 August 2006. 11 December 2007. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Kansas /index.asp *(3) “U.S. Census Bureau.” Population Finder. 9 July 2007. 11 December 2007. http://www.census.gov/ 100
"Cedar Bluff Reservoir Watershed Restoration And Protection Strategy"