Deer Creek Sugar Creek Planning and Implementation

rapidcrimsonMechanics

Feb 22, 2014 (3 years and 6 months ago)

75 views

Deer Creek


Sugar Creek Planning and Implementation

Deer Creek
-
Sugar Creek WMP 25 Sept 2013


Presen
t: Rhonda Hicks, Rick Parsons, Evan Smith, Lynn Corson
, Kathy Mylet
, Don Shockley, Joe O’Donnell, Becca
Perry
-
Hill, Leanne Whitesell, Sara Peel, Talia
Tittelfitz


Distribution of Nina Mason Pulliam Grant funds via The Nature Conservancy for Cover Crops

A map of
areas eligible for The Nature Conservancy Nina Mason Pulliam cover crop funding

and funding amounts
by county was distributed. Paperwork is being

finalized and reimbursement checks will be in the mail as soon
as
funds are received from TNC.


Finalizing DCSC WMP Critical Areas

A
map was distributed

that displays

the preliminary critical areas determined during the July steering committee
meeting. Th
e sub watersheds that have the most problems were identified using data (water quality and mapped).
These are considered preliminary until the plan is approved. Talia reminded everyone that the critical areas cannot
include the enti
re watershed and that an
y funding

that moves through the 319 program can only be spent within
the critical areas.


WREC will review the data set from Purdue when it becomes available in the next week to ensure that the data
used previously are correctly ranked.


There was s
ome
discussion of including the SF Deer Creek and Deer Creek subwatersheds or just
Delphi to

include
urban areas. The balance of getting the biggest bang for the buck and excluding areas were individuals

will be
interested. Consensus
was to add the Headwaters
and Deer Creek sub watersheds.


Writing Draft Goals

Draft goals were distributed for review by the committee. The statements in bold are draft language that is
completely up for discussion. The numbers were calculated by using L
-
THIA then inserting the ta
rget
concentrations that the steering committee previously selected. There are two associated questions
-

1) do these
goals cover all facets of what we have discussed and 2) are these numbers realistic and by what date are they
"achievable".


Goals fit exa
ctly what we have been discussing however the goal reductions are huge.
The Committee would like
to c
onsider a 1.5
-
2% reduction in N, P and S per year goal or select a 10 year goal.
C
ollected data

should

be
examined
to
consider potential reduction and at least compared to
L
-
THIA data. Discussion of how the data will be
reviewed during implementation to make sure that the plan goals are in the correct direction. Region 5 model is
one option as well as tracking of implemen
tation activities (meeting attendance, workshops, etc). Leanne
reminded the committee that you will not see a change in water quali
ty within five years; progress takes time.


NRCS can provide producer installed practice data by 12

digit HUC to allow us to
better scale goals in the future
with the idea that we use these data to create a 10 year goal. The Purdue data will be reviewed to provide another
idea of current loading levels.


Social Indicator Surveys

Two surveys were passed around
-

one the RGBWR fin
al agricultural survey and the draft survey for DCSC. Purdue
has geocoded ad
dresses from their FSA database
resulting in 700 producer names. Unfortunately, there are likely
producers that may be missed. Individuals that are not producers will not be survey
ed
meaning non
-
producers
who
recreate on the water may not be surveyed.


Process of mailing the survey was reviewed
-

aiming to start mailing in November following harvest but finish
before Christmas. It is a five wave mailing
: recipients will

get an adva
nce letter with an online address, a letter with
the survey, postcard, another survey copy and another postcard. Each mailing list removes those that previously
responded. Targeting a 30% response rate (acceptable).


The committee discussed the need to interview CFO/CAFO producers as they might not be willing to reply to this
survey and interviews may need to
be
conducted with this population.
Consider contacting the Carroll County Ag
Association to encourage producers

to know that the survey is coming and request that they respond. Check
with other counties to see if they have a similar ag association. Consider including it in the Carroll County Comet
(and other newspapers) and mention it at the public meeting
.


Respon
se bias as also discussed
-

those individuals that are really positive towards conservation and those that are
really negative toward government tend to answer surveys as well. People can be called to check their
responses if
this
is a concern.


Next meeti
ng date:
Thursday, November 14
,

3 pm Flora Library.

Public Meeting: October 23
rd

6
-
8pm
Delphi United Methodist Church
Public Concern

Problems



Agriculture run
-
off is contributing to the high nutrient concentrations and
sedimentation (turbidity) within
the Deer Creek Sugar Creek watershed.



Flood prone ground is farmed causing additional sediment and nutrient loading to
waterbodies in the Deer Creek
-
Sugar Creek watershed.



Manure is being applied to throughout the watershed.



Nitrogen concentrations exceed
suggested levels.



Phosphorus concentrations exceed suggested levels.



There are limited buffers along Buck Creek which are contributing to poor water
quality, and instable banks.

Area streams have nutrient levels exceeding the suggested target
levels of 1.0

mg/L for nitrate
-
nitrogen and 0.3 mg/L of total
phosphorus.



Agriculture run
-
off is contributing to the high nutrient concentrations and
sedimentation (turbidity) within the Deer Creek Sugar Creek watershed.



Flood prone ground is farmed causing additional

sediment and nutrient loading to
waterbodies in the Deer Creek
-
Sugar Creek watershed.



Livestock is negatively impacting water quality.



There are unregulated animal farms within the watershed.



Turbidity/sediment exceeds recommended levels by USEPA.



Poor so
il quality is present throughout the watershed.



Stream bank erosion occurs along the waterbodies within the watershed.



There are limited buffers along Buck Creek which are contributing to poor water
quality, and instable banks

Turbidities exceed target sta
ndards of 10.4 NTU.



Livestock are negatively impacting water quality.



There are unregulated animal farms within the watershed.

Livestock have access to the stream.



Fish populations have been negatively affected by the water quality.



Macroinvertebrate

populations have been negatively affected by the water quality.

Impaired biotic communities occur within the watershed.



Fish populations have been negatively affected by the water quality.



Macroinvertebrate populations have been negatively affected by th
e water quality.



Nitrogen concentrations exceed suggested levels.



Phosphorus concentrations exceed suggested levels.



E. coli

concentrations exceed the state of Indiana’s suggested level.

Area streams are listed by IDEM as impaired



Educational programs
addressing conservation practices, recycling, climate change,
and disposing of chemicals need to be developed.

Individuals lack knowledge of their impact on the watershed.





Too few agricultural best management practices are located in the Deer Creek
-
Suga
r
Creek watershed.



There are limited buffers along Buck Creek which are contributing to poor water
quality, and instable banks.



Stream bank erosion occurs along the waterbodies within the watershed.

Limited agricultural best management practices