Cedar Bluff Reservoir Watershed Restoration And Protection Strategy by fdh56iuoui

VIEWS: 75 PAGES: 100

									                           Cedar Bluff Reservoir Watershed
                          Restoration And Protection Strategy
              Smoky Hill Resource Conservation and Development Area Inc.

                                                                                  Final Report
                                                        2006-2008; Development Phase


Kanorado                      Goodland
                                                         Brewster                                                                 Menlo                     Hoxie          t
                                                                                                                                                                           24                     Morland
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Hill City         Bogue

                        Sherman                                     Thomas
                                                                    Thomas                                                                           S h e r ii d a n
                        She man
                                                                                            25                                                       Sher dan                                               Graham
                                                                                                                                                                                                            G aham

                                                                                                            Oakley                        Grinnell
                                                                                                                                                       Grainfield   Park

                                                                        Winona                                                                                                  Quinter


                                                                                                                                                     Gove City

     W a ll ll a c e
     Wa ace             Sharon Springs
                                         Wallace        Logan
                                                        Logan             Russell Springs                   t
                                                                                                            83                     Gove
                                                                                                                                   Gove              !
                                                                                                                                                     23                                            Trego
                                                                                                                                                                                                   Trego        t

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Cedar Bluff
                                                                                                            k     y Hil                                                                                                 Lake
                                                                                                                          l Riv

                                                                                                                                                                                                   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

Product of the Cedar Bluff Reservoir
         September 2008

       Smoky Hills RC&D Area Inc.
             1515 Oak St.
         La Crosse, KS 67548

                    Table of Contents
Section 1------- 4 --------Executive Summary

Section 2------ 17 ------- Introduction

Section 3------ 19 -------WRAPS Development phase
                              -Education Activities
                              -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
                               -Town Hall Conversation I
                               -Leadership team meeting
                               -Town Hall Conversation II

Section 7------- 89 --------Partners
                                -letters of support
                                -Leadership Team

Section 8--------99---------References

    Section 1

Executive Summary

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

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
                                                                    6.9%                    Gove
                                                                         5.4%               Greeley
                                 6.1%                                    11.2%              Sherman
                                        6.5%        14.1%

                                                                      3.2 %

***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.

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

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

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.

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

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

Carolyn Nichols
WRAPS Coordinator

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

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
       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
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
      2. Spot spray ditches
      3. Go organic
      4. Chemical license to buy / use chemical for urban use

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

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
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.

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

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.

 Section 2



Chart 2.1                                     Cedar Bluff Watershed
                                          Livestock vs. Human Population



                                                                                                                 Cedar Bluff Watershed Livestock
                                                                                                                 Cedar Bluff Watershed Humans

























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.

   Data from the 2000 U.S. census

***Not all data was available at time of press.

    Section 3

WRAPS Development

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

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.

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

WRAPS Development                     Stakeholders and Stakeholders Interest


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

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

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

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

    Section 4

Quarterly Reports
  Final Report

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Quarterly Reports

Final Report

Final Report

Final Report

   Section 5

Financial Report

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.

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

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.

     Section 6

Work Products
     News articles
Town Hall Conversations I
Leadership Team Meeting
Town Hall Conversation II

Work Products           Brochures

                These brochures
                created by the
                NRCS were
                distributed at the
                Town Hall
                Conversations and
                several other
                booths through out
                the development

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

1.    Meal

2.    Introductions

3.   Overview of Watershed Restoration And Protection Strategy

4.    Slide Show

5.    Facilitation

6.    What’s next??

7.    Pledge of Support

8.    Leadership Team

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

  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.

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
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
More education about Sharon Springs
Public awareness
Watering yards
Most economical option for farming
Make ag producers a priority when proceeding

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
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
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
Find ways to limit and eventually stop pumping water from stream
Lead by example
Limit water rights
Work at grass roots level
Help with no-till
Look for support to pass new KS law

Work Products                                                  Town Hall Conversations I

  Town Hall Conversations
   Important Water Meeting, EVERYONE needs to
                      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.

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
                             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.

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

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

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

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 carolyn.nichols@ks.nacdnet.net.
WRAPS is a completely VOLUNTARY program funded by the Kansas
Water Plan. This WRAPS program is sponsored by the Smoky Hills

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

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

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.

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.

          Section 7

Partners and Leadership Team
         Letters of Support
         Leadership Team

Partners and Leadership Team   Letters of Support

Partners and Leadership Team   Letters of Support

Partners and Leadership Team   Letters of Support

Partners and Leadership Team   Letters of Support

Partners and Leadership Team   Letters of Support

Partners and Leadership Team   Letters of Support

Partners and Leadership Team   Letters of Support

Partners and Leadership Team   Leadership team

Partners and Leadership Team   Leadership team

 Section 8



*(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-

*(2)   “Kansas Department of Agriculture.” 15 August 2006. 11 December
           2007. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Kansas

*(3)   “U.S. Census Bureau.” Population Finder. 9 July 2007. 11
            December 2007. http://www.census.gov/


To top