Complete Version of Management Plan

Transcription

Li le Blue River Basin Water Management Plan
For
Li le Blue Natural Resources District
and
Tri‐Basin Natural Resources District
September 4, 2015 Prepared by: 221 Sun Valley Blvd, Suite D Lincoln, Nebraska 68528 Little Blue River Basin Water Management Plan
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
1.1
BASIN OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 1
1.2
PLAN OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................... 1
1.3
HISTORY AND FUNCTION OF NRDS ............................................................................ 3
1.4
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY ..................................................................................... 4
1.5
WATER QUALITY ......................................................................................................... 7
1.6
WATER QUANTITY ...................................................................................................... 8
1.7
PLAN PURPOSE AND FUNCTION ................................................................................. 8
1.8
BASIN PLAN LONG-TERM GOALS ................................................................................ 9
GENERAL BASIN INVENTORY ............................................................................. 13
2.1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 13
2.2
WATER RESOURCES AND BENEFICIAL USES ............................................................. 14
2.3
WATER QUALITY CONCERNS .................................................................................... 24
2.4
SURFACE WATER QUANTITY CONCERNS.................................................................. 34
2.5
GROUNDWATER QUANTITY CONCERNS .................................................................. 38
2.6
LITTLE BLUE BASIN WATER BUDGET ........................................................................ 41
2.7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................................ 45
TARGET POLLUTANTS AND SOURCES ................................................................ 46
3.1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 46
3.2
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION .............................................................................. 46
3.3
SOURCES OF NONPOINT POLLUTANTS .................................................................... 47
3.4
SURFACE WATER POLLUTANT LOADS FOR THE ENTIRE BASIN ................................ 55
3.5
NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION IN THE SIX SUB-BASINS ....................................... 60
3.6
POLLUTANT LOAD REDUCTIONS .............................................................................. 68
3.7
GROUNDWATER POLLUTANT LOADS ....................................................................... 73
AREAS OF INTEREST DELINEATION .................................................................... 77
4.1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 77
4.2
PRIORITY ISSUES ....................................................................................................... 77
4.3
AREAS OF INTEREST .................................................................................................. 78
4.4
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................................ 87
i
Little Blue River Basin Water Management Plan
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ............................................................................... 88
5.1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 88
5.2
CONJUNCTIVE MANAGEMENT ................................................................................. 88
5.3
WATERSHED BASED PROGRAMS .............................................................................. 89
5.4
URBAN CONSERVATION PRACTICES ......................................................................... 96
5.5
IN-LAKE BASED PRACTICES ....................................................................................... 97
5.6
GROUNDWATER QUALITY PRACTICES ...................................................................... 99
5.7
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE PRACTICES ................................................................ 100
5.8
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................. 101
IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH ........................................................................103
6.1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 103
6.2
PROJECT PRIORITIES ............................................................................................... 104
6.3
CURRENT REGULATORY APPROACH....................................................................... 105
6.4
CURRENT NON-REGULATORY APPROACH.............................................................. 107
6.5
GROUNDWATER PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS ........................................................ 112
6.6
SURFACE WATER PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS ....................................................... 120
6.7
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND MAINTENANCE .................................................... 127
6.8
HIGH QUALITY RESOURCES .................................................................................... 127
6.9
ADDITIONAL STUDIES AND ASSESSMENT .............................................................. 128
6.10 STAFFING ................................................................................................................ 129
MONITORING AND EVALUATION .....................................................................130
7.1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 130
7.2
MONITORING GOALS .............................................................................................. 130
7.3
CURRENT MONITORING NETWORKS ..................................................................... 131
7.4
WATER QUANTITY NETWORKS............................................................................... 134
7.5
SURFACE WATER QUALITY NETWORKS .................................................................. 136
7.6
GROUNDWATER QUALITY NETWORKS .................................................................. 138
7.7
FISH KILLS, SPILLS, AND CITIZEN COMPLAINTS....................................................... 140
7.8
AGRONOMIC SOIL SAMPLING ................................................................................ 140
7.9
QUALITY ASSURANCE, DATA MANAGEMENT, ANALYSIS, AND ASSESSMENT ....... 141
7.10 REPORTING AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION ................................................ 141
ii
Table of Contents
7.11 PROGRAM EVALUATION......................................................................................... 142
7.12 GENERAL SUPPORT FOR MONITORING ACTIVITIES ............................................... 142
7.13 MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................... 142
7.14 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................. 145
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ...............................146
8.1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 146
8.2
STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT............. 146
8.3
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT STRATEGY .......................................................................... 149
SCHEDULES AND MILESTONES .........................................................................153
9.1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 153
9.2
SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................... 153
9.3
MILESTONES ........................................................................................................... 154
BUDGET AND RESOURCES ..............................................................................156
10.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 156
10.2 PLANNING COSTS ................................................................................................... 156
10.3 LAND CONSERVATION MEASURES ......................................................................... 156
10.4 COST OF TARGETED PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES .................................................... 157
10.5 MONITORING COSTS .............................................................................................. 158
10.6 RESEARCH COSTS .................................................................................................... 158
10.7 STAFF ...................................................................................................................... 159
10.8 OUTSIDE FUNDING SOURCES ................................................................................. 159
10.9 NDNR’S WATER SUSTAINABILITY FUND ................................................................. 159
10.10 NEBRASKA ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST ..................................................................... 160
10.11 NDEQ NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ......................................... 160
10.12 USDA FUNDING ...................................................................................................... 160
10.13 TECHNICAL PARTNERS ............................................................................................ 162
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Action Plan
Stream Assessment
Comment Matrix and Open House Attendance List
iii
List of Tables and Figures
LIST OF TABLES
Number
Table 1-1
Table 1-2
Table 1-3
Table 1-4
Table 2-1
Table 2-2
Table 2-3
Table 2-4
Table 2-5
Table 2-6
Table 2-7
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Table 3-3
Table 3-4
Table 3-5
Table 3-6
Table 3-7
Table 3-8
Table 3-9
Table 3-10
Table 3-11
Table 3-12
Table 3-13
Table 3-14
Table 3-15
Table 3-16
Table 3-17
Table 3-18
Table 3-19
Table 4-1
Table 5-1
Table 5-2
Table 5-3
Table 6-1
Table 6-2
Table 6-3
Title
Little Blue River Basin Characteristics
Land Cover 2013
2010 Community Populations
USEPA 9-Element Plan Location
Designated Beneficial Uses for Lakes and Impoundments in the Basin
Basin Stream and River Segments Designated with NDEQ Water Quality
Standards for Beneficial Uses
Stream Assessment Summary
Beneficial Use Support for Reservoirs in the LBNRD
Beneficial Use Support for Stream and River Segments in the Basin
Annual Average Values for Partitioning of Incoming Precipitation for the
Basin from 1988-2012
Annual Average Consumptive use by Category, for the Little Blue
Basin from 1988-2012
List of Priority Pollutants and Nonpoint Sources in the Basin Developed
with this Plan
Little Blue River Sub-basin Loads of Sediment, Total Phosphorus, and
Total Nitrogen
Little Blue River Sub-basin Loads of Sediment within the Stream Channel
E. Coli Concentrations in Impaired Stream Segments in the Basin
Atrazine Concentrations in Impaired Stream Segments in the Basin
Sub-basin Characteristics and Impaired Stream Segments
Sub-basin CAFO and Land Use Characteristics
Impaired Lakes and Reservoirs by Sub-basin Identified by EPA Category
Sub-basin Sediment Loads, Delivery Rates and Sources
Sub-basin Total Nitrogen Loads, Delivery Rates and Sources
Sub-basin Phosphorus Loads, Delivery Rates and Sources
Basin and Sub-basin Stream Sediment Reduction Goals
Atrazine Reductions for Impaired Stream Segments in the Basin
Basin and Sub-basin Stream Phosphorus Reduction Goals
Basin and Sub-basin Stream Nitrogen Reduction Goals
Lake and Reservoir Phosphorus Reduction Goals by Sub-basin for
all Assessed Waterbodies
Lake and Reservoir Nitrogen Reduction Goals by Sub-basin for all
Assessed Waterbodies
E. Coli Reductions for Impaired Stream Segments in the Basin
Little Blue River Basin Annual Nitrate Loading
Wellhead Protection Area Priority Level
Pollutant Removal Efficiencies for Targeted Watershed Based Practices
Practices for Reducing Atrazine Runoff from Dryland and Irrigated
Corn Ground
Effectiveness of Traditional Management Practices in Reducing Pesticides
Conservation Measure Adoption in the Little Blue River Basin
Groundwater Policy Recommendations
LBNRD Dams Considered for Maintenance and Upgrades
iv
Table 6-4
Table 6-5
Table 7-1
Table 7-2
Table 7-3
Table 8-1
Table 8-2
Table 8-3
Table 9-1
Table 9-2
Table 10-1
Table 10-2
Table 10-3
Table 10-4
Table 10-5
Table 10-6
Dams Planned for Assessments
Additional Studies or Research
Current Monitoring Activities in the Little Blue River Basin
Water Monitoring Goals and Possible Support from Current Networks
Parameters Sampled Under NDEQ’s Basin Rotation Monitoring Networks
Steering Committee Members
Steering Committee Meeting Summary
Technical Advisory Team
Implementation Schedule
Plan Milestones Phase One and Two
Estimated Five Year Planning Budget
Estimated Five Financial Needs for Conservation Measures
Priority Water Projects and Estimated Costs
Estimated Five Year Monitoring Costs
Financial Partners
Technical Partners
LIST OF FIGURES
Number
Figure 1-1
Figure 2-1
Figure 2-2
Figure 2-3
Figure 2-4
Figure 2-5
Figure 2-6
Figure 2-7
Figure 2-8
Figure 2-9
Figure 2-10
Figure 2-11
Figure 2-12
Figure 2-13
Figure 2-14
Figure 2-15
Figure 2-16
Figure 2-17
Figure 2-18
Figure 2-19
Figure 2-20
Figure 2-21
Figure 2-22
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-3
Title
Vicinity Map
Little Blue Sub-basin
Little Blue River Sub-Basin 1
Little Blue River Sub-Basin 2
Average Buffer Width
Current Annual Groundwater use in the Little Blue Basin
by Category (NDNR 2014)
High Capacity Irrigation Wells
Little Blue Basin Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPAs)
Beneficial Use Support for Reservoirs in the Basin
Percent of Total Lake and Reservoir Acres Impaired in the Basin
Beneficial Use Support for Streams Segments in the Basin
Most Common Impairments for Stream Segments in the Basin
Rainwater Basin Complex Location
Composite Nitrate Map
Stream Gage Location Map
Yearly Flow Volumes
Perennial Stream Length Changes 1894-2005
Little Blue Basin Synoptic Stream Study Data
Aquifer Risk Map
Long-term Groundwater Declines
Seasonal Groundwater Declines
Groundwater Irrigation Use
Percentage of Available Water Utilized
Sediment Source Contributions in the Basin
Stream Channel Sediment Loading by Stream Reach
Percentage of Most Common Pesticides Applied to Corn
v
Figure 3-4
Figure 3-5
Figure 3-6
Figure 3-7
Figure 3-8
Figure 3-9
Figure 4-1
Figure 4-2
Figure 4-3
Figure 4-4
Figure 4-5
Figure 4-6
Figure 4-7
Figure 6-1
Figure 6-2
Figure 6-3
Figure 6-4
Figure 7-1
Figure 7-2
Figure 7-3
Figure 7-4
Figure 7-5
In Nebraska (1993-2003)
Percent Contribution of Total Nitrogen Sources in the Basin
Percent Contribution of Total Phosphorus Sources in the Basin
NDEQ Livestock Waste Control Facility Locations in the Little
Blue River Basin
NDEQ Livestock Waste Control Facility Density in the Little
Blue River Basin
E. Coli Bacteria Concentrations in the Basin by Flow Class
E. Coli Bacteria Reductions in the Basin by Flow Class
Groundwater Management Areas
Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment
Short-term Groundwater Declines
Municipal Groundwater Issues
Groundwater Quantity and Stay Areas
Bacterial and Biological Community AOIs
Impaired Surface Water AOIs
Process for Determining Project Priorities
Project Target Areas
Artificial Recharge Potential Assessment
Synoptic Stream Assessment
Water Monitoring Approach for the Little Blue River Basin
Existing Monitoring Locations
NeRAIN Precipitation Measurement Sites within the Little Blue Basin
Stream Height and Discharge Monitoring Network
Proposed Stream Gaging Locations
vi
List of Acronyms & Abbreviations
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AF
AMA
AOI
acre per feet
Agricultural Management Assistance
Area of interest
BMP
Best Management Practices
CAFO
CFR
cfs
CRP
CSD
Concentrated Animal Feed Operations
Code of Federal Regulations
cubic feet per second
Conservation Reserve Program
Conservation and Survey Division
EA
EPA
EQIP
ET
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Quality Incentive Program
evapotranspiration
ft
FOTG
FWS
foot/feet
Field Office Technical Guide
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
GIS
GWMA
Geographic Information System
Groundwater Management Area
ILCA
IMP
INSIGHT
Inter-local Cooperative Agreement
Integrated Management Plan
Integrated Network of Scientific Information and Geohydrologic Tools
LB
LBNRD
LWCF
Legislative Bill
Little Blue Natural Resources District
Livestock Waste Control Facility
MCL
mg
Maximum contaminant level
milligrams
NASS
NDEQ
NDNR
NET
NGPC
NPDES
NRD
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
Nebraska Environmental Trust
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Natural Resources District
ppb
ppm
parts per billion
parts per million
vii
List of Acronyms & Abbreviations
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (con’t)
PWSS
Public Water Supply Systems
QAPP
Quality Assurance Project Plans
RWB
Rainwater Basin Complex
SBMP
SPARROW
SRW
STORET
Stream Biological Monitoring Program
Spatially Referenced Regression On Watershed
State Resource Waters
STOrage and RETrieval
TAT
TBNRD
TMDL
TVWMA
Tri-Basin Natural Resources District
Total Maximum Daily Load
Twin Valley Weed Management Area
UNL
USACE
USDA
USGS
University of Nebraska – Lincoln
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Agriculture
United States Geological Service
V-IMP
Voluntary Integrated Management Plan
WHIP
WHPA
WQI
WSF
WWA
WWB
WWTF
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program
Wellhead Protection Area
Water Quality Initiative
Water Sustainability Fund
Warm Water A
Warm Water B
Waste Water Treatment Facility
yr
year
viii
Basin Overview
Section 1 - Introduction
INTRODUCTION
The Little Blue River Basin (Basin) is located primarily in south-central Nebraska, with a small portion
existing in north-east Kansas. It includes 43 incorporated cities and villages, as well as parts of the
Nebraska counties of Adams, Clay, Fillmore, Franklin, Jefferson, Kearney, Nuckolls, Thayer, and Webster.
Nearly the entire Basin exists within the boundaries of, and is managed by, the Little Blue Natural
Resources District (LBNRD), Figure 1. The portion of the Basin located in Kearney County, Nebraska is
managed by the Tri-Basin Natural Resources District (TBNRD).
There are increasing water quantity and water quality challenges within the Basin. Use of water for
human activities, exacerbated by periodic droughts, has reduced both stream flows and groundwater
levels in parts of the Basin. Meanwhile, demands for domestic water supplies, irrigation development,
recreation and aquatic habitat needs have increased. Human activities, such as agriculture and
infrastructure development, have impacted water quality.
Currently, nine communities within the Basin area are taking measures to protect consumers from
excess nitrate contamination in drinking water supplies. High nitrate levels detected in water sources
for 15 other communities are producing concerns about the future viability of those sources and the
resulting effects on domestic water supplies. Of the 13 reservoirs in the Basin that have assigned
designated uses, 10 are impaired for recreation or aquatic life primarily due to excess nutrients,
Escherichia coli (E. coli) and/or toxic algae. Nine of the 38 designated stream segments are impaired for
recreation or aquatic life use, primarily because of E. coli and/or atrazine. One of the stream segments
is impaired for public water supply.
The Basin includes part of the Rainwater Basin wetlands complex; an internationally important resting
and rearing area for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds, such as whooping cranes (Grus americana). It
is estimated that more than 90 percent of the acreage of the historical Rainwater Basin has been lost to
development and agricultural conversion. Primary threats include draining and filling, sedimentation,
conversion to cropland, diversion of water away from the wetlands, and infestation by invasive plant
species.
Plan Overview
In 2014, LBNRD and TBNRD began work on the Little Blue River Basin Water Management Plan (Plan) to
establish a comprehensive strategy to manage surface water and groundwater quality and quantity in
the portions of the Basin that exist within Nebraska (1,702,393 acres) over the next 30-years. This Plan
provides a single coordinated strategy to identify water quality and quantity threats and needs,
prioritize watersheds and areas for improvement, and identify practices and activities appropriate to
address the known deficiencies in water quality and quantity in the Basin.
The intent of the Plan is to make management action recommendations that will: reduce pollutant
loading; help protect the quality of source-water aquifers; stop or reverse groundwater level declines;
maintain surface water flows; establish conservation practices; and encourage property owners and
agricultural producers to participate in plan development and plan implementation.
Both NRDs have been proactive in assessing and addressing human impacts on the water resources in
the Basin. A network of groundwater monitoring wells provides data on groundwater contamination
1
and guides decision making. The LBNRD’s recent hydro-geologic study quantified and mapped the
groundwater resources in the majority of the basin and is an important source of information used in
development of the plan.
The Plan utilizes an adaptive management framework, which allows for easy modifications to the plan
based upon the experiences gained from initial management strategies. EPA describes adaptive
management as a tool used to improve implementation strategies. Adaptive management involves
assessing, planning, action, monitoring, evaluation and adjusting according to knowledge gained. When
adaptive management works, decision-making improves over time as more information is gathered.
Adaptive management in the Basin will include the implementation of practicable controls in targeted
sub-basins while additional data collection and analysis are conducted. Monitoring addresses the
uncertainty in the efficacy of implementation actions and can provide assurance that implementation
measures are succeeding in attaining water quality standards. The cost-effectiveness of the
recommendations in this Plan will need to be tested early during implementation so the overall strategy
can be adapted to emphasize those measures which are working best. This strategy can then be applied
to other sub-basins in the watershed. The advantage of this approach is that it will avoid major up-front
expenditures for untested strategies, but it will also require a sustained investment in monitoring and
follow-up communication.
Plan development was overseen by a steering committee consisting of 25 stakeholders from across the
Basin, including citizens, agricultural producers, and technical members from resource agencies. This
committee provided input to NRD staff and the project team responsible for writing this Plan. During
Plan development, the stakeholders met four times to provide input on the planning process. A group
of technical representatives including members of the project team and resource agencies also met on
several occasions and provided input.
The Plan is intended to be dynamic and is based upon an adaptive management approach that will make
it convenient to update and modify based on changing needs and priorities, new information, and new
approaches to address water resource quality and quantity challenges.
Moving forward, the Plan will guide continued collaboration and interaction between municipal, state,
and federal levels of government, as well as between local stakeholders. Management approaches
provided in this Plan will support goals of several other programs, such as the Nebraska Department of
Natural Resources (NDNR) Water Sustainability Fund, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality’s
(NDEQ) Nonpoint Source Management Program, and the United States Department of AgricultureNatural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Nine Elements for Watershed Plans (Nine Elements) has also been addressed in this Plan. The
document chapters include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: General Basin Inventory
Chapter 3: Target Pollutants and Sources
Chapter 4: Areas of Interest
Chapter 5: Management Practices
Chapter 6: Implementation Approach
Chapter 7: Monitoring and Evaluation
2
•
•
•
Chapter 8: Education and Outreach
Chapter 9: Milestones
Chapter 10: Technical and Financial Resources
History and Function of NRDs
In 1972, Legislative Bill (LB) 1357 was enacted to combine Nebraska’s 154 special purpose entities into
24 NRDs (later changed to 23). NRDs were created to address natural resources issues such as flood
control, soil erosion, irrigation run-off, and groundwater quantity and quality issues. The boundaries of
the original NRDs were based on Nebraska’s major river basins to enable the application of appropriate
management practices to areas with similar topography. Nebraska's NRDs are involved in a wide variety
of projects and programs to conserve and protect the state's natural resources.
Water management responsibilities for NRDs are outlined under Nebraska State Law. These
responsibilities pertain to human health and safety, resource protection and enhancement, and
recreation. Specific NRD responsibilities related to water management and how they apply to the Plan
are listed below:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reduce runoff and control erosion.
Protect human health and property damage from floodwaters and sediment.
Develop and protect water supplies for beneficial users.
Promote the wise development, management, conservation, and use of ground and surface
water.
Control pollution to water resources.
Coordinate drainage improvement and channel rectification.
Develop and manage fish and wildlife habitat.
Develop and manage water based recreational facilities.
This Plan was developed to assist the NRDs in meeting their management responsibilities by:







Providing an inventory of water resources in the basin
Identifying water management issues and concerns
Identifying water management barriers and opportunities
Evaluating current monitoring activities and identifying data gaps
Establishing water management priorities
Evaluating current water management efforts, and
Providing recommendations for future actions.
Each NRD is governed locally by a Board of Directors elected by the public for a 4-year term. The Board
of Directors is responsible for establishing annual budgets, priorities, regulations, and oversight of NRD
staff. Each NRD has its own staff and work with NRCS Field Office secretarial staff in each District
county.
Funding operations and NRD programs are derived from levied property taxes, a uniqueness to NRDs.
Property taxes are often used to match other local, state, and federal funding. This Plan was developed
through a combination of NRD local funds, NDEQ 319 funding, and funds received from the Nebraska
Environmental Trust.
3
Figure 1-1: Vicinity Map
Planning Area Boundary
The Basin has two formally recognized basin delineations. The Department of Water Resources (DWR)
boundary—created by NDNR in cooperation with NRCS, USGS, NDEQ, and the NGPC for purposes of
conducting the State Water Planning and Review Process in 1973—will be recognized as the official
planning area for this Plan
A second boundary delineated by hydrologic unit boundaries, also called Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs),
is slightly larger and is commonly used by NDEQ, USEPA, and USGS for various purposes, including
watershed planning. The HUC boundary was used for pollutant modeling associated with this Plan.
Furthermore, small segments of the LBNRD lie outside of the DWR planning boundary for the Basin. It is
recognized that these portions of the LBNRD are to be included within this planning document.
Specifically, these portions include Lake Hastings, Heartwell Lake, and other associated watersheds
which contribute to a water body of interest listed in this Plan.
Part of the Big Blue River Basin, the Little Blue River flows generally from the northwest to the southeast
into Kansas. The Little Blue River crosses the Nebraska-Kansas border north of Hollenberg, Kansas. The
Little Blue River joins the Big Blue River near Blue Rapids, Kansas, where approximately 15 miles
downstream the Big Blue flows into Tuttle Creek Reservoir near Manhattan, Kansas.
Table 1-1:
Little Blue River Basin Characteristics
Characteristic
8 Digit Hydrologic Unit Codes
Little Blue River Basin
Upper Little Blue (10270206); the upper portion of the
Lower Little Blue (10270207)
4
Location (Nebraska)
Population
Latitude/Longitude
Stream Name
Basin Area within Nebraska (HUC
Boundary)
Additional Major Streams
Watershed Length
Major River Watershed
Minor River Watershed
Major Economic Activity
Major Crops
Major Livestock
Number of Beneficial Use Designated
Stream Segments
Number of Beneficial Use Designated
Lakes/Reservoirs
Stream Miles (designated)
EPA Region
TMDL Pollutants
Stream Segment Designated Uses
Adams, Clay, Fillmore, Franklin, Jefferson, Kearney,
Nuckolls, Thayer, and Webster Counties
50,000
40.313067 / -97.811415
Little Blue River
1,722,222 acres
Big Sandy Creek, Spring Creek, Rose Creek
approximately 125 miles west to east and
approximately 30 miles north to south
Missouri River
Big Blue River
Agriculture
Corn, soybeans, alfalfa
Cattle and swine
38
13
545 miles
VII
Fecal coliform and E. coli Bacteria, Atrazine
Primary Contact Recreation
Aquatic Life – Warmwater Class A (14 reaches) Class B
(24 reaches)
Water Supply – Public Drinking Water (1 reach)
Agriculture Class A (38 reaches)
Aesthetics – (38 reaches)
Impaired Uses
1.4.1
Primary Contact Recreation, Aquatic Life - Atrazine,
Public Drinking Water Supply
Topography
The Basin land surface generally slopes from the west-northwest to east-southeast, with a maximum
elevation of approximately 2,100 feet above mean sea level in Adams and Webster counties, to 1,200
feet in Jefferson County. The topography is characterized as relatively flat uplands and gently rolling
hills, with narrow valley regions of low relief found along the major streams and rivers (LBNRD HydroGeologic Study 2011).
1.4.2
Soils
The Basin is located entirely within the Central Loess Plains Land Resources Area. Geologic materials in
the Basin occur as unconsolidated deposits of Pleistocene (Quaternary) Age overlaying either semiconsolidated bedrock of the Ogallala formations of the Tertiary Age or consolidated bedrock of
Cretaceous and Permian Age. The unconsolidated materials are principally windblown clayey silts and
loess, overlying sands and gravels of alluvial origin.
5
These loess deposits and fine grained alluvial materials range in thickness from a few feet to about 100
feet, with the greatest thickness occurring in Adams County. Some of the major tributaries of the Little
Blue River have cut into underlying sand and gravel, especially in western Adams County where dune
type topography is present. Surficial materials along the nearly level floodplain of the river are
predominately silts and clays in the upper reaches, becoming progressively sandier eastward as the sand
carrying tributaries join from the northern basins. Surficial materials of terraces adjacent to the river are
generally finer in texture.
A small area of glacial till, covered by a thin loess mantle is present in Jefferson County east of the Little
Blue River. Outcrops of various rock formations can be found at numerous locations in LBNRD (LBNRD
Master Plan 2009).
1.4.3
Hydrogeologic Setting
The Basin overlaps portions of 3 of the 13 groundwater regions defined in Nebraska (Flowerday, C.A. et.
al, 1998). The three regions include: the Republican River Valley and Dissected Plains in the west and
southwest; the South Central Plains in the north and central; and, the Nebraska Glacial Drift (Till) in the
east. The groundwater regions of Nebraska are defined by groundwater having similar chemical
characteristics, the age and depositional history of geologic formations, and by the presence of the
major water-bearing formations. The regions include the overlying unconsolidated aquifers and any
significant water-bearing bedrock formation. Boundaries between these regions represent zones of
gradual change (LBNRD Hydro-Geologic Study 2011).
1.4.4
Climate
The climate of the Basin is typical of the plains region, with warm summers and cold winters. There are
wide seasonal variations in temperature, as well as in the amount of rainfall. The average annual total
precipitation across the LBNRD ranges from approximately 25 inches in the west to 31 inches in the east.
Based on climate data reported by Thayer County, rainfall is generally light in early spring and fall with
over 60 percent of the mean annual precipitation occurring during May through September.
Widespread, severe drought conditions occur throughout the Basin, such as severe drought in 19341936 and 2012 (LBNRD Hydro-Geologic Study 2011).
1.4.5
Land Cover
Land cover throughout the Basin is dominated by agricultural production. Over 70 percent of the entire
Basin was cropped into agriculture as of 2013. A complete land cover analysis is provided in Chapter 2.
Below is a Basin-wide summary of land cover from 2013 based upon the HUC boundary.
Table 1-2: Land Cover 2013
Category
Corn
Sorghum
Category
Soybeans
Winter Wheat
Other Hay/Non Alfalfa
Acreage
702,781
8729
Acreage
370,453
59,943
10,120
Percent Total
40.8%
0.5%
Percent Total
21.5%
3.5%
0.6%
6
Table 1-2: Land Cover 2013
Popcorn
Alfalfa
Fallow/Idle Cropland
Deciduous Forest
Woody Wetlands
Developed
Open Water
Grass/Pasture
Total Area
1,403
18,918
1,461
43,083
5,825
81,780
5,144
412,582
1,722,222
0.1%
1.1%
0.1%
2.5%
0.3%
4.7%
0.3%
24.0%
100%
Source: NASS 2014
1.4.6
Demographics
There are a total of 43 communities within the Basin each listed below with their 2010 census
population. By using information from both NRDs, the total population of the planning area, including
rural areas, was estimated at just below 50,000. Note, the * highlights that the city of Hastings lies
within two basins, and as such, some of the population lives outside of the Little Blue River Basin
boundary.
Table 1-3: 2010 Community Populations
City
Ong
Glenvil
Fairfield
Edgar
Deweese
Clay Center
Hubbell
Hebron
Gilead
Deshler
Davenport
Chester
Carleton
Byron
Bruning
Belvidere
Alexandria
Tobias
Blue Hill
Bladen
Ruskin
Oak
Population
63
310
387
498
67
760
68
1,579
39
747
294
232
91
83
279
48
177
106
936
237
123
66
City
Nora
Nelson
Lawrence
Norman
Minden
Heartwell
Steele City
Reynolds
Fairbury
Endicott
Daykin
Roseland
Kenesaw
Juniata
Holstein
Hastings*
Ayr
Campbell
Strang
Shickley
Ohiowa
Total
Population
21
488
304
43
2,923
71
61
69
3942
132
166
235
880
755
214
24,907
94
347
29
341
115
43,327
Water Quality
7
1.5.1
EPA Nine Elements for Watershed Plans
This Plan has been guided by the Nebraska Nonpoint Source Program and was based upon EPA’s Nine
Elements; therefore, the management strategies listed in the Plan are eligible for funding under NDEQ’s
Nonpoint Source 319 grant funding program. Names of major sections mirror the Nine Elements
structure to make the review process convenient for NDEQ and EPA reviewers. In addition, the
implementation strategy has been drafted to correspond with requirements requested as part of
NDEQ’s 319 applications. For each concept listed in the Plan, general information required in NDEQ’s
grant application has been included, such as: project description; ownership; site selection criteria;
project summary; maintenance; estimated cost; water quality benefits; and estimated annual pollutant
load reductions. Table 1-4 provides a summary of the location in the Plan where one of the 9-elements
has been addressed.
Table 1-4: USEPA 9-Element Plan Location
Element
Pollutant Sources/Impairments
Pollutant Load Reduction
Management Practices
Information and Education
Implementation Schedule
Milestones
Evaluation Criteria
Monitoring
Technical and Financial
Resources
Location in Plan
Section 3
Section 3
Section 5
Section 8
Section 6 and Action
Plan
Section 9
Section 6
Section 7
Section 10
Water Quantity
The interaction and relationship between surface and groundwater quantity in the Basin has been
assessed to proactively identify opportunities for improved resource management. The first step of the
assessment process was to review available information on the water budget for the Basin to establish
water quantity goals based on current and future water needs. The hydrology review included an
understanding of historical flows and compliance with the Blue River Compact Agreement with the State
of Kansas. Water quantity goals established for surface and groundwater will be the driver for storage,
recharge, stream augmentation and related projects intended to provide a sustainable supply of water
for multiple beneficial uses. This water quantity assessment identifies issues/overlap/integration with
water quality management as described above. The Plan has identified implementation approaches for
both water quality and quantity issues that are effective and socially accepted, as well as the cost and
general timeline of implementing those approaches and program/project evaluation measures.
Plan Purpose and Function
There are numerous water resource management challenges. The Basin has exhibited groundwater
level declines; surface water degradation from sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and bacteria; and
increased demands for domestic water supply, irrigation development, and water-based recreation.
Several communities within the LBNRD—including Edgar, Prosser, Steele City, Hastings, Fairbury,
Hebron, Chester, Hubbell, and Glenvil—are battling contaminated drinking water supplies. Another 15
communities have elevated nitrates between 5 and 8 parts per million (ppm); the maximum
8
contaminant level is 10 ppm, set by the drinking water standard. The NRDs recognize that human
activities on the land surface have impacts on both surface water and, ultimately, groundwater
resources. To effectively meet these challenges a collaborative approach, using science and stakeholder
input, must be taken.
The NRDs strive for a comprehensive and balanced resource management approach which considers
resource needs and priorities, available funding, and specific methodologies to reach the goal of
providing quality water in quantities that are sufficient to meet all future beneficial uses. This Plan will
be used to drive short- and long-term water management decisions, and will guide programs, projects,
practices and activities that will maximize public benefits and most efficiently use other sources of
funding to achieve water quantity and quality goals.
Basin Plan Long-term Goals
The Plan’s overall goals, objectives, and tasks have been established to guide decision makers on
management actions for water resources over the next 20 to 30 years. The Plan goals consider the
desire to address several topics including the following, listed by priority: nitrates; groundwater
recharge; nonpoint source pollution; monitoring; maintaining stream flows; enhancing watersheds;
multi-benefit projects; implementation; and public involvement and outreach. These goals have been
written with consideration of the NRDs’ overall responsibilities, the EPA’s 9-Elements of Watershed
Planning, and consideration of the desire to work towards sustainability of water resources throughout
the Basin.
Goal #1: Develop a better understanding of the Basin’s nitrate contamination levels and how to
reduce nitrate loading to groundwater to maintain a quality water supply.
Objective: The NRDs’ staff and Board of Directors will adopt recommendations within the Plan
to guide management actions related to fertilizer management, irrigation management,
installation of BMPs, and other nitrate reduction actions.
Task 1: Collect additional data necessary to evaluate and address nitrate threats to community
groundwater supplies.
Task 2: Continue to assist communities with data collection and assessment of water resources
within Wellhead Protection Areas to support sound decision making.
Task 3: Provide cost-share and incentives to property owners and producers to increase
implementation of management practices to reduce nitrate loading.
Goal #2: The NRDs will achieve sustainability of water resources in the Basin with a better
understanding of groundwater and surface water quantities, and by facilitating the implementation of
projects that utilize both resources to recharge groundwater aquifers and maintain flows.
Objective: The NRDs will manage water resources in a manner that will further enhance
capabilities for agricultural development while maintaining necessary stream flows in the Little
Blue River.
9
Task 1: Reduce impacts to surface water irrigators by implementing programs, projects, and
actions that will increase perennial stream flows during dry periods.
Task 2: Utilize the excessive Little Blue River surface water flows and potential surface water
irrigation project discharges to recharge groundwater aquifers within the Basin to support
sustainability of irrigation and the local economy.
Task 3: Facilitate the construction of in-stream structural groundwater recharge practices.
Task 4: Recharge groundwater by utilizing excess flows by diverting water to adjacent wetlands,
oxbows, and other features.
Goal #3: The NRDs will utilize the Plan as a comprehensive and collaborative program guide that
efficiently and effectively implements actions to restore and protect water resources from
impairment by nonpoint source pollution.
Objectives: Implement conservation practices, install structural projects, and perform
environmental restoration measures to improve water quality of streams, lakes, and wetlands
within the Basin while also increasing the biodiversity of aquatic species, increasing wildlife
habitat, and restoring vegetation along riparian corridors.
Task 1: Promote practices that will enhance riparian areas along perennial streams to improve
wildlife habitat, filter pollutants, and encourage development of aquatic habitat.
Task 2: Reduce the threat of bacterial contamination to recreational water by upgrading onsite
wastewater treatment systems and installing vegetative treatment systems at animal feeding
operations.
Task 3: Facilitate the stabilization of eroding streambanks and lake shorelines.
Goal #4: The NRDs will continuously improve resource management through monitoring by acquiring
adequate data and information to make educated management decisions.
Objectives: The Plan’s monitoring and evaluation strategy will guide actions for obtaining data
and information to fill data gaps.
Task 1: The NRDs will follow sound, defensible monitoring strategies and networks, properly
manage data, and disseminate information to decision makers and other stakeholders.
Task 2: Continue to monitor in-stream water quality and groundwater to understand changes in
concentrations and the relationship between water quality improvements and management
practices.
Task 3: Utilize monitoring as a key tool in the adaptive management approach to support
management decisions.
Tasks 4: Enhance the existing monitoring network as recommended in the monitoring strategy to
increase the understanding and relationship of stream flows throughout the Basin.
10
Goal #5: The NRDs will utilize beneficial management practices, which benefit surface and
groundwater quality and quantity, when making decisions regarding future water programs, projects,
or activities.
Objective: Strong working partnerships and collaboration with neighboring NRDs and other
resource agencies will maximize opportunity for multi-benefit projects that can have local and
state-wide significance.
Task 1: Develop projects with comprehensive scope and consider groundwater benefits when
planning surface water projects.
Task 2: Incorporate bio-engineering techniques into traditional methods of shoreline and
streambank stabilization to increase habitat for aquatic and terrestrial species.
Task 3: Take into consideration flood benefits of projects that are primarily associated with
improving water quality, such as small dams, flow diversion to riparian wetlands, and
conservation practices that ‘slow the flow’ (e.g., no-till, buffers, terracing, etc.).
Task 4: The NRDs will enhance the scope of the Basin’s recommended projects and actions by
leveraging available local funding as match towards grants such as 319 Nonpoint Source,
Nebraska Environmental Trust, Water Sustainability Funds, and others.
Goal #6: The NRDs will educate property owners, agricultural producers, and other watershed
stakeholders on the importance of watershed stewardship.
Objectives: Provide outreach and education opportunities to Basin stakeholders that emphasize
the importance of responsibility, on an individual level, for improving the health of the
watershed. Ensure stakeholders feel engaged by providing opportunities to share ideas and
assist with Plan implementation.
Task 1: Utilize outreach tools listed in the Plan, such as mailings, advertisements, signage, field
tours and workshops, to update and educate property owners, agribusiness, and the public on
opportunities the Plan presents them to reduce pollutant loading and/or help maintain water
supplies.
Task 2: Utilize the coordinator position to work with producers one-on-one to identify project
and program implementation opportunities.
Task 3: Support youth environmental programs and activities such as Water and Earth
Jamboree, Rainwater Basin Conservation Day, and Environthon.
Task 4: Work with other agencies, such as NDEQ and University of Nebraska – Lincoln (UNL)
Extension to educate rural property owners and agricultural producers on water resources
management subjects.
11
Task 5: Create a program or public outreach campaign for ‘Groundwater Recharge Awareness
Areas’ (GRAA) to increase knowledge on the importance of conserving groundwater within
target areas listed in the Five Year Implementation Plan.
Task 6: Identify and install a variety of demonstration projects to showcase specific land
treatment practices, stream restoration techniques, and other similar actions.
12
Section 2 – General Basin Inventory
GENERAL BASIN INVENTORY
Introduction
Management strategies to improve water quality and ensure existing water supplies are sustainable rely
upon understanding the current conditions of surface water and groundwater in the Basin. Existing
information was collected from a variety of sources and included NDEQ water quality information, landuse and land-cover data, and several studies including the LBNRD Hydro-geologic Study. A
comprehensive inventory of data sources was compiled and was provided to the NRDs. This information
was reviewed and studied through a desktop review.
For planning purposes, the project team divided the Basin into six sub-basins. The sub-basins were
delineated using HUC boundaries as well as three segments of the Little Blue River. The sub-basins
include: Upper, Middle, and Lower Little Blue River; Big Sandy Creek; Spring Creek; and Rose Creek
(Figure 2-1).
The following sections summarize key water resources identified during the basin inventory, beneficial
uses of these water resources, and concerns related to water quality and water quantity.
Figure 2-1: Little Blue Sub-basins
Note: NDEQ has defined sub-basins per Title 117 and the sub-basins used in this plan are different and for planning purposes
only.
13
Water Resources and Beneficial Uses
Beneficial uses for surface waters are designated under the Clean Water Act §303 in accordance with
regulations contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 131. Nebraska is required to specify
appropriate water uses to be protected, which is achieved through Title 117 – Nebraska Surface Water
Quality Standards (NDEQ 2012). Beneficial use designations must take into consideration: the use and
value of water for public water supplies; protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife;
recreation in and on the water; aesthetics; and agricultural, industrial and other purposes including
navigation. Sub-sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.5 outline the NDEQ accepted beneficial water quality uses
within the Basin.
2.2.1
Lakes and Impoundments
Nebraska Water Quality Standards identify 526 publicly owned lakes and impoundments in Nebraska; of
which 15 are included in this Plan. Within the Basin: sub-basin LB1 contains two impoundments and
three sandpit lakes; and sub-basin LB2 contains five impoundments, two sandpit lakes, and one oxbow
lake. Two impoundments lie partially within the Basin (located in BB3) and were included in the Plan.
The total surface area of the reservoirs and lakes in these three sub-basins is approximately 602 acres,
with an average size of 40 acres. The largest public impoundment in the Basin is Bruning Dam with a
surface area of 234 acres (Table 2-1).
The reservoirs in the Basin are fairly shallow and well mixed. Most are turbid, stemming from clay
particles that have a slow settling velocity. These ‘brown’ lakes tend to have high concentrations of
nutrients with lower algal productivity because of limited light penetration. Some of the larger
reservoirs (such as the recently renovated Lone Star Reservoir) do have better water clarity and can be
prone to algal blooms. While a majority of the reservoirs are used for non-body contact recreational
activities such as fishing, Lone Star Reservoir does have a designated swimming beach. Sandpit lakes in
the Basin are typically deeper and stratified. The sandpit lakes are also exhibiting water quality
symptoms associated with excessive algae.
Nebraska Water Quality Standards identify four beneficial uses that apply to all impoundments and
lakes: primary contact recreation, aquatic life, aesthetics, and agricultural water supplies. The
additional beneficial use of public drinking water supply also applies to three lakes within the Plan
boundary (Table 2-1). General water quality criteria protect public drinking water supplies, including
impoundments and lakes, against wastes or toxic substances that are introduced directly or indirectly by
human activity in concentrations that would degrade the use (i.e., would produce undesirable
physiological effects in humans). These waters must be treated (e.g., coagulation, sedimentation,
filtration, chlorination) before the water is suitable for human consumption. After treatment, these
waters are suitable for drinking water, food processing, and similar uses.
The primary contact recreation use applies to surface waters that are used, or have a high potential to
be used, for contact recreation activities. Primary contact recreation includes activities where the body
may come into prolonged or intimate contact with water, such that water may be accidentally ingested
and sensitive body organs (e.g., eyes, ears, nose, and etc.) may be exposed. These waters may be used
for swimming, water skiing, canoeing, and similar activities. Primary contact recreation criteria apply to
the period of May 1 through September 30. The recreation standard applies to all reservoirs in the Basin
due to their primary contact designations and the potential for recreational activity use.
14
Water Quality Standards for the protection of aquatic life apply to all surface waters in Nebraska, with
most criteria being applicable throughout the year. The aquatic life use for lakes can be classified as
either Lake Cold Water B or Lake Warm Water A. All the impoundments and lakes in the Basin are
classified as WWA, meaning no cold water species of aquatic biota are supported throughout the year.
General water quality criteria protect agricultural water supplies, including lakes, against wastes or toxic
substances that are introduced directly or indirectly by human activity in concentrations that would
degrade the use (i.e., would produce undesirable physiological effects in crops or livestock). Agricultural
water supplies are waters used for general agricultural purposes (e.g., irrigation and livestock watering)
without treatment. This use applies to all reservoirs in the Basin.
The aesthetics use applies to all surface waters of the state. To be aesthetically acceptable, waters must
be free from human-induced pollution that causes: 1) noxious odors; 2) floating, suspended, colloidal, or
settle-able materials that produce objectionable films, colors, turbidity, or deposits; and 3) the
occurrence of undesirable or nuisance aquatic life (e.g., algal blooms). To meet this designated use,
surface waters need to be free of junk, refuse, and discarded dead animals.
Table 2-1: Designated Beneficial Uses for Lakes and Impoundments in the Basin
Beneficial Uses
Waterbody Name
WQ Standard ID Surface
PCR
AL
DWS AWS
Acres



Buckley
LB1-L0010
18




Crystal Springs NW
LB1-L0020
6




Crystal Springs Center
LB1-L0030
7




Crystal Springs East
LB1-L0040
8



Lone Star
LB1-L0050
55



Alexandria #1 &2
LB2-L0010
22



Alexandria #3
LB2-L0030
32



Bruning Dam
LB2-L0040
234



Liberty Cove
LB2-L0050
30



Brick Yard Park Pond
LB2-L0060
1



Crystal
LB2-L0070
5



Prairie
LB2-L0080
59



Roseland
LB2-L0090
46



Lake Hastings*
BB3-L0050
76



Heartwell*
BB3-L0070
3
AE















Notes:
*Lake Hastings and Heartwell are located in the Big Blue River Basin; however, they are included in this management plan.
Also, Fairbury receives its water from groundwater sources that are under the influence of surface water.
PCR = Primary contact recreation
AL = Aquatic life
DWS = Drinking water supply
AWS = Agricultural water supply
AE = Aesthetics
2.2.2
Streams and Rivers
15
Nebraska’s Surface Water Quality Standards sub-divide the Basin into two sub-basins. The Basin
encompasses streams and rivers from sub-basins LB1 and LB2 (Figures 2-2 and 2-3). A total of 38 stream
segments within the Basin are identified in Nebraska’s Water Quality Standards (Table 2-2).
Sub-basin LB1 contains one segment of the Little Blue River (LB1-10000) that extends from the
Nebraska-Kansas border to the confluence of the Little Blue River and Big Sandy Creek (approximately 5
miles southeast of Alexandria, Nebraska). This section of the Little Blue River is fed by the Rose Creek
system. In LB1 there are a total of 15 stream segments recognized by Nebraska’s standards, 11 of which
are in the Rose Creek system.
Sub-basin LB2 contains three EPA defined segments of the Little Blue River (LB2-10000, LB2-20000, LB230000), which extend from the confluence of the Little Blue River and Big Sandy Creek to the
headwaters of the Little Blue River (approximately 5 miles south of Roseland, Nebraska). This section of
the Little Blue River is fed by the Big Sandy Creek system, the Spring Creek system, the Elk Creek system,
and the Liberty Creek system. There are a total of 13 stream segments recognized by Nebraska’s
standards in LB2. Six of stream segments are in the Big Sandy Creek system, three are in the Spring
Creek system, two are in the Elk Creek system, and two are in the Liberty Creek system.
State Resource Waters (SRW) are surface waters, whether or not they are designated in Nebraska’s
standards, that constitute an outstanding State or National resource; such as waters within national or
state parks, national forests or wildlife refuges, and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological
significance. SRWs also possess an existing quality which exceeds levels necessary to maintain
recreational and/or aquatic life uses. The 2014 NDEQ (IR) has Rose Creek segment LB1-10400 as a high
quality stream identified for protection management actions in the 2015 State Nonpoint Source
Management Plan.
Nebraska Water Quality Standards identify five beneficial uses that can apply to the rivers and streams
in the Basin: primary contact recreation, aquatic life, aesthetics, agricultural water supplies, and public
drinking water. The standards for the protection of aquatic life apply to all 38 stream segments in the
Basin. While aquatic life standards may differ for cold water and warm water habitats, there are no
flowing waters in the Basin that have a cold water classification. Streams and rivers in the basin do
encompass both Warm Water A (WWA) (14 segments) and Warm Water B (WWB) (24 segments)
classifications in Nebraska’s standards. The difference between Stream WWA and Stream WWB is the
ability of WWA waters to maintain year-round populations of a variety of warm water fish, associated
vertebrate and invertebrate organisms, and plants where WWB waters are only capable of maintaining
year-round populations of tolerant warm water biota, and key species cannot be maintained year round.
The aesthetic and agricultural water supply uses also apply to all 38 stream segments in the basin.
Three stream segments within the Basin have a recreation use designation; two segments in the Little
Blue River, and a tributary of the Little Blue River named Rock Creek.
The industrial water supply use can be applied to waters used for commercial or industrial purposes
such as cooling water, hydroelectric power generation, or nonfood processing water; with or without
treatment. Site specific water quality criteria to protect this use vary with the type of industry involved.
There are no stream or river segments in the Basin with this designation. Descriptions of the primary
contact recreation, aesthetics, agricultural water supply and public drinking water designations are
found in Sub-section 2.2.1.
16
Figure 2-2: Little Blue River Sub-Basin 1
Source: NDEQ Title 117
17
Figure 2-3: Little Blue River Sub-Basin 2
Source: NDEQ Title 117
Table 2-2: Basin Stream and River Segments Designated with NDEQ Water Quality Standards for
Beneficial Uses
Stream Name
Little Blue River – Big Sandy Creek to NE/KS
Border (Sec 31-1N-4E)
Coon Creek
Rock Creek
Smith Creek
Rose Creek – Buckley Creek to Little Blue
River
Dry Branch
Silver Creek
Buckley Creek
Rose Creek – Spring Branch to Buckley Creek
Wiley Creek
Balls Branch
Spring Branch
Rose Creek – NE/KS Border (Sec 35-1N-2W)
to Spring Branch
Segment
LB1-10000
LB1-10100
LB1-10200
LB1-10300
LB1-10400
LB1-10410
LB1-10420
LB1-10430
LB1-10500
LB1-10510
LB1-10520
LB1-10530
LB1-10600
Beneficial Uses
PCR
AL
DWS


WWA
AWS

AE

WWA
WWA
WWB
WWA








WWA
WWA
WWB
WWA
WWA
WWB
WWA
WWB

















18
Table 2-2: Basin Stream and River Segments Designated with NDEQ Water Quality Standards for
Beneficial Uses
Stream Name
Whisky Run
Little Sandy Creek
Little Blue River – Spring Creek to Big Sandy
Creek
Big Sandy Creek – Dry Creek to Little Blue
River
Dry Sandy Creek
Big Sandy Creek – Little Sandy Creek to Dry
Sandy Creek
South Fork Big Sandy Creek
Little Sandy Creek
Big Sandy Creek – Headwaters to Little Sandy
Creek
Dry Creek
Spring Creek – Unnamed Creek (Sec 2-1N4W) to Little Blue River
Unnamed Creek (Sec 2-1N-4W)
Spring Creek – Headwaters to Unnamed
Creek (Sec 2-1N-4W)
Little Blue River – Liberty Creek to Spring
Creek
Elk Creek – Unnamed Creek (Sec 15-3N-6W)
to Little Blue River
Elk Creek – Headwaters to Unnamed Creek
(Sec 15-3N-6W)
Ox Bow Creek
Walnut Creek
Liberty Creek
Little Blue River – Thirty-two Mile Creek to
Liberty Creek
Pawnee Creek
Ash Creek
Thirty-two Mile Creek
Little Blue River – Headwaters to Thirty-two
Mile Creek
Scott Creek
Beneficial Uses
PCR
AL
DWS
WWA
WWB

WWA*
AWS



AE



WWA


LB2-10110
LB2-10200
WWB
WWB




LB2-10210
LB2-10220
LB2-10300
WWB
WWB
WWB






LB2-10400
LB2-10500
WWB
WWB




LB2-10510
LB2-10600
WWB
WWB




WWA


LB2-20100
WWB


LB2-20200
WWB


LB2-20300
LB2-20400
LB2-20500
LB2-30000
WWB
WWB
WWB
WWA








LB2-30100
LB2-30200
LB2-30300
LB2-40000
WWB
WWB
WWB
WWB








LB2-40100
WWB


Segment
LB1-10700
LB1-10800
LB2-10000
LB2-10100
LB2-20000
Notes:
*Site-specific water quality criteria for ammonia are assigned
PCR = Primary contact recreation
AL = Aquatic life (WWA and WWB)
DWS = Drinking water supply
AWS = Agricultural water supply
AE = Aesthetics



19
2.2.3
Stream Assessment
To understand the general conditions of streams and drainages contributing to reservoirs, a basic
stream assessment was conducted by LBNRD with support from LakeTech Consulting (LakeTech). Both a
field inventory from stream crossings and a GIS desktop assessment were employed to understand fieldscale stream and riparian corridor conditions. Findings from the stream assessment were used to
identify areas where conservation practices are needed to improve water quality and to establish an
understanding of existing aquatic habitat and riparian corridor conditions. Table 2-3 presents which
areas were assessed, and Figure 2-4 shows the average riparian buffer widths. The full stream
assessment summary is provided in Appendix B.
Table 2-3: Stream Assessment Summary
PRIORITY AREA
Main Stem
Lower Little Blue River
Upper Little Blue River
Major Tributaries
Big Sandy Creek
Rock Creek
Rose Creek
Spring Creek
Small Tributaries Above Lakes
Bruning Dam Watershed
Buckley Creek Reservoir Watershed
Liberty Cove Watershed
Lone Star Watershed
Prairie Lake
TOTALS
DESKTOP
CROSS
SECTIONS
FIELD
INVENTORY
AT BRIDGES
STREAM
MILES
107
62
15
10
60.6
28.9
83
34
148
93
19
8
12
15
43.9
17.1
53.6
57.1
57
11
19
85
48
16
1
No bridges
14
No bridges
27.6
2.5
7.4
22.5
23.4
747
110
344.6
20
Figure 2-4: Average Buffer Width
2.2.4
Wetlands
The regulatory definition of a wetland is an area or areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal conditions do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (EPA 2013).
Wetlands (such as swamps, marshes, and bogs) play an important role in the environment and can
diminish the impacts of flooding and soil erosion, stabilize stream flows, improve water quality, and
provide a diverse habitat for multiple species of plants and wildlife. Wetlands found in the Basin can be
classified into two groups; Eastern Floodplain Wetlands and Eastern Great Plains Wet-Meadows (KSU
2010).
NDEQ regulates wetlands under the State's Water Quality Standards (Title 117) and their § 401 Water
Quality Certification Authority (Title 120) (NDEQ 1987). Title 117 designates four beneficial uses that
apply to all wetlands (unless exempt in Title 117): aquatic life, wildlife, agricultural water supply and
aesthetics.
The Rainwater Basin Complex (RWB) is a unique wetland resource that is located in the Basin (Figure 25). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for managing the RWB and has a full time staff in
place to do so. Landowners, conservation organizations, and government agencies also work together
through the RWB Joint Venture program to achieve habitat conservation through cooperation and
sound science (RWBJV 2015). Both LBNRD and TBNRD are active participants in the RWB Joint Venture.
2.2.5
Groundwater
The Basin overlies a portion of the High Plains Regional Aquifer. Groundwater resources are heavily
used throughout the Basin for municipal water supplies, domestic wells, and irrigation; with irrigation
constituting the largest use category. Groundwater is one of the most valuable water resources in
21
Nebraska, and has been a primary factor in the success of the regional, agriculturally-driven economy.
Maintaining a high-quality groundwater supply within the Basin is of paramount importance for the
long-term viability of the local economy.
Groundwater supports the following beneficial uses within the Basin (Figure 2-5 provides approximate
percent of use by category):
• Irrigation for crop production
• Drinking water supply for community water systems
• Drinking water supply for individual residential households
• Industrial uses
• Agricultural water supply for livestock
• Baseflow for perennial streams.
Figure 2-5: Current annual groundwater use in the Little Blue Basin by category (NDNR 2014).
Groundwater Use By Category
Irrigation
Municipal
Industrial
As shown in Figure 2-5, irrigation for agricultural production is 99 percent of the entire water use within
the Basin. Groundwater is the primary source of irrigation water. Average annual precipitation in the
Basin is 27 inches per year, with an average precipitation of 11.5 inches during the growing season.
Supplemental water supply through irrigation has greatly increased crop production over dryland crop
production (NDNR 2014). Figure 2-6, illustrates the location of high capacity irrigation wells within the
Basin.
22
Figure 2-6: High Capacity Irrigation Wells
Many communities within the Little Blue Basin use groundwater as their municipal drinking water
supply. A total of 41 Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPAs) have been established to help protect drinking
water supplies. WHPAs are shown in Figure 2-7.
23
Figure 2-7: Little Blue Basin Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPAs)
Water Quality Concerns
2.3.1
Lakes and Impoundments
Water quality data have been collected by the NRDs or NDEQ on 14 of the 15 lakes and impoundments
within the Plan boundary (there are no water quality data for Brick Yard Park Pond). All data have been
assessed and the results have been reported in the most recent Integrated Report prepared by NDEQ
(NDEQ 2014). All beneficial uses have been assessed at 5 of the 14 monitored lakes and impoundments,
an at least one use has been assessed the remaining 9 (Table 2-4). While historical data on Lone Star
Reservoir are available, a recently completed watershed protection and reservoir renovation project will
require new data for beneficial use support assessments. Agricultural water supply and aesthetics are
the most assessed beneficial uses in the Basin with 99.8 percent of the total waterbody surface acres
being assessed for each use. The aquatic life use has been assessed on 99.3 percent of the total surface
water acres, and the recreation use has been assessed on 27.4 percent of the total surface water acres.
The aquatic life use is the most frequently impaired, with 46.5 percent of the total reservoir surface
acres listed as impaired (Figure 2-8). Of the 13 waterbodies assessed for the aquatic life use, 2 (Bruning
Dam and Roseland) were determined to be supporting the aquatic life use and the remaining 11 were
determined to be impaired from excessive nutrients, excessive algae, pH, low dissolved oxygen and/or
mercury contamination.
The recreation use has been assessed at eight waterbodies, and is considered impaired at two: Crystal
Springs East was determined to be impaired due to high concentrations of E.coli bacteria, and
24
Alexandria #3 is impaired due to pH. All 13 lakes and impoundments assessed for the agricultural water
supply use were determined to be fully supporting the use. Of the 14 reservoirs assessed for the
aesthetic use, 2 were impaired: Lake Hastings for sedimentation, and Heartwell Lake for algal blooms.
This plan does not assess the public drinking water beneficial use for lakes in the Basin. (Table 2-4).
Table 2-4: Beneficial Use Support for Reservoirs in the LBNRD
Impoundment
Name
Buckley
Crystal Springs NW
Crystal Springs
Center
Lone Star
Alexandria #1 and 2
Alexandria #3
Bruning Dam
Liberty Cove
Brick Yard Park
Pond
Crystal
Prairie
Roseland
Lake Hastingsb
Heartwell Lakeb
PCR
LB1-L0010
LB1-L0020
LB1-L0030
Surface
Acres
18
6
7
NA
S
S
Applicable Beneficial Uses
AL DWS AW AE
Overall
S
Assessment
I
S
S
I
I
NA
S
S
I
I
NA
S
S
I
LB1-L0040
LB1-L0050
LB2-L0010
LB2-L0030
LB2-L0040
LB2-L0050
LB2-L0060
8
55
22
32
234
30
1
I
S
S
I
NA
S
NA
I
I
I
I
S
I
NA
LB2-L0070
LB2-L0080
LB2-L0090
BB3-L0050
BB3-L0070
5
59
46
76
3
S
NA
NA
NA
NA
I
I
S
I
NA
WQ Standard ID
NA
S
S
S
S
S
S
NA
S
S
S
S
S
S
NA
I
NAa
I
I
S
I
NA
S
S
S
S
NA
S
S
S
I
I
I
I
S
I
I
Notes:
PCR=Primary Contact Recreation, AL=Aquatic Life, DWS=Drinking Water Supply,
AWS=Agricultural Water Supply, AE=Aesthetics
NA = Not Assessed, S = Supporting the Beneficial Use, I = Impaired Beneficial Use
a) Reservoir renovated – 2014 listing not applicable at the time this plan was prepared.
b) Located in the Big Blue River Basin, but included in this management plan.
Currently, 87 percent of the total lake acres in the Basin are impaired by excess nutrients (Figure 2-9).
Surface water acres are also impaired by heavy metals in fish tissue (18 percent of surface water acres),
high pH (27 percent), excessive amounts of algae (15 percent), and algal toxins (5 percent). Sediments,
Hazard Index Compounds and Cancer Risk Compounds are each impairing 13 percent of the total surface
water acres; however, each is of these three impairments are found only in Lake Hastings.
There are no lakes or reservoirs in the Basin that are currently listed as impaired from atrazine.
Although atrazine is missing from the list of impairments on the 303(d) list, it should be a parameter of
concern given its widespread use in the Basin, impairments to streams in the Basin, and its documented
presence in all of the lakes and reservoirs that have been monitored.
25
Figure 2-8: Beneficial Use Support for Reservoirs in the Basin
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Recreation
Acres Impacted
Aquatic Life
Ag. Water Supply
Acres Supporting Use
Aesthetics
Acres Not Assessed
Figure 2-9: Percent of Total Lake and Reservoir Acres Impaired in the Basin
Nutrients
pH
Metals in Fish Tissue
Excessive Algae
Sediment
Algal Toxins
Bacteria
Dissolved Oxygen
0
2.3.2
20
40
60
80
100
Streams and Rivers
There are a total of 38 stream segments within the Basin that are listed in Nebraska’s Water Quality
Standards. Of these, 7 segments have had all beneficial uses assessed, 12 segments have had at least
one use assessed, and 19 segments have had no uses assessed. Of the 19 segments assessed, 10 were
determined to be fully supporting all the assigned beneficial uses and 9 were found to be impaired
(Table 2-5).
Six stream segments in the Basin have the primary contact recreation designation. The recreation
designation has been assessed at all six segments, with Little Blue River (LB1-10000) being the only
26
segment supporting recreation. The other five stream segments assessed were determined to be
impaired by E. coli bacteria.
Nineteen of the 38 stream segments designated for the aquatic life use have been assessed. Of these,
12 have been assessed as fully supporting the use while 7 were determined to be impaired. Four of the
seven impaired segments were impacted by atrazine, and two were impaired by selenium. Aquatic
community degradation was reported for two segments, and fish tissue concerns (mercury) were found
in one segment. Of the 38 stream segments, only 7 have been assessed for the agricultural water supply
use, and 18 have been assessed for the aesthetic use; all segments assessed for these uses were
determined to be fully supporting of their designated beneficial uses. (Figures 2-10 and 2-11).
Table 2-5: Beneficial Use Support for Stream and River Segments in the Basin
Stream Name
Little Blue River
Coon Creek
Rock Creek
Smith Creek
Rose Creek
Dry Branch
Silver Creek
Buckley Creek
Rose Creek
Wiley Creek
Balls Branch
Spring Branch
Rose Creek
Whisky Run
Little Sandy Creek
Little Blue River
Big Sandy Creek
Dry Sandy Creek
Big Sandy Creek
South Fork Big Sandy Creek
Little Sandy Creek
Big Sandy Creek
Dry Creek
Spring Creek
Unnamed Creek
Spring Creek
Little Blue River
Elk Creek
Elk Creek
Ox Bow Creek
Walnut Creek
Liberty Creek
Segment
LB1-10000
LB1-10100
LB1-10200
LB1-10300
LB1-10400
LB1-10410
LB1-10420
LB1-10430
LB1-10500
LB1-10510
LB1-10520
LB1-10530
LB1-10600
LB1-10700
LB1-10800
LB2-10000
LB2-10100
LB2-10110
LB2-10200
LB2-10210
LB2-10220
LB2-10300
LB2-10400
LB2-10500
LB2-10510
LB2-10600
LB2-20000
LB2-20100
LB2-20200
LB2-20300
LB2-20400
LB2-20500
PCR
AL
S
I
S
S
NA
S
S
NA
S
S
NA
NA
S
NA
NA
NA
I
I
NA
I
NA
NA
NA
S
I
NA
I
I
NA
S
NA
NA
S
I
I
I
I
DWS AWS
AE
I
S
NA
S
NA
S
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
S
S
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
S
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
S
S
S
NA
S
S
NA
S
S
NA
NA
S
NA
NA
NA
S
S
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
S
S
NA
S
S
NA
S
NA
NA
S
Overall
Assessment
I
S
I
NA
S
S
NA
S
S
NA
NA
S
NA
NA
NA
I
I
NA
I
NA
NA
NA
S
I
NA
I
I
NA
S
NA
NA
S
27
Stream Name
Little Blue River
Pawnee Creek
Ash Creek
Thirty-two Mile Creek
Little Blue River
Scott Creek
Segment
LB2-30000
LB2-30100
LB2-30200
LB2-30300
LB2-40000
LB2-40100
PCR
AL
I
S
NA
NA
NA
S
NA
DWS AWS
AE
S
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
S
NA
NA
NA
S
NA
Overall
Assessment
I
NA
NA
NA
S
NA
Notes:
PCR=Primary Contact Recreation, AL=Aquatic Life (WWA and WWB), DWS=Drinking Water Supply,
AWS=Agricultural Water Supply, AE=Aesthetics
NA = Not Assessed, S = Supporting the Beneficial Use, I = Impaired Beneficial Use
28
Figure 2-10: Beneficial Use Support for Streams Segments in the Basin
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Recreation
Aquatic Life
Segments Impacted
Ag. Water Supply
Segments Supporting Use
Aesthetics
Segments Not Assessed
Figure 2-11: Most Common Impairments for Stream Segments in the Basin.
7%
14%
36%
14%
29%
Bacteria
Atrazine
Biological Community
Metals in Fish Tissue
Selenium
Note: Numerous stream segments have multiple impairments. Each impairment was counted, even if it occurred on a segment
with multiple impairments.
29
2.3.3
Wetlands
The degradation and removal of wetlands is a considerable issue throughout the Basin. The RWB is
located within both the tall and mixed grass ecosystems. Flora and fauna that historically existed in the
area were the product of natural ecological processes: wildfire, grazing, drought, and flooding. In the
early 1900s, a variety of techniques were used to convert large, flat wetlands into fields suitable for crop
production. Conversion techniques included digging drainage ditches, building dikes or berms around
wetlands, digging deep pits to concentrate the water, and diverting runoff down road ditches to pits or
streams (FWS 2015).
The management goal of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within the RWB is to restore, as much as
possible, the natural hydrologic and ecological function of wetlands for the benefit of migratory birds
and resident wildlife (FWS 2015). Figure 2-12 shows the location of the RWB wetlands within the
planning area.
30
Figure 2-12: Rainwater Basin Complex Location
31
2.3.4
Groundwater
Groundwater contaminants, particularly nitrogen, are a concern throughout the Basin. Domestic wells
that pump and deliver groundwater with nitrate concentrations greater than 10 parts per million (ppm)
exceed the drinking water standard maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate. The majority of
domestic water supplies in the Basin are untreated prior to delivery to customers. Several communities
are currently implementing measures to protect consumers from excess nitrate contamination in
drinking water supplies. Water sources for 15 other communities currently have nitrate concentrations
ranging from 5-8 ppm; causing concern about the future viability of those supplies without significant
treatment options. The nitrogen contamination of these potable groundwater supplies is largely driven
by leaching of agricultural fertilizer. Poor or old well construction standards and borehole vulnerability
further add to the likeliness of contaminants reaching and moving through groundwater.
Sampling efforts over the last few decades show a gradual but steady increase in nitrate levels for
numerous Basin areas. The Clay-Nuckolls and Fairbury management areas show an average annual
nitrate concentration increase of 0.20-0.25 milligrams nitrogen per year (mg N/L/yr) over a recent 10
year study-period, while management areas within Fillmore and Thayer counties show nitrate
concentrations averaging 14 mg N/L (Exner et al. 2014). Figure 2-13 represents recent groundwater
sampling data obtained from the Little Blue NRD, and other sources, currently stored in the QualityAssessed Agrichemical Contaminant Database for Nebraska Ground Water. Nitrate concentrations of 38
mg N/L were recorded just south of Edgar, Nebraska in Clay County in 2014. The use of nitrogen in
agricultural practices has only been regulated for approximately 15 years in the Basin and it’s possible
that the impacted leachates have not yet reached the principal aquifer (Exner et al. 2014).
The Vadose Zone Assessment Report increased the understanding of nitrate through the soil profile to
groundwater. The assessment consisted of field sampling and analysis of various points through the
LBNRD. Sampling locations were based on priority areas that included Water Quality Sub-Areas, WHPAs,
and groundwater study areas. Assessment results showed that land-use correlates with nitrate
concentrations. Samples collected in pasture/grassland settings typically had the lowest nitrate
concentrations, while the highest concentrations were sampled in cornfields. Samples collected in
cornfields did show the greatest variability in sampling.
Groundwater contaminants such as sodium and uranium are not widespread within the Basin.
However, University researchers have documented changes in soil chemistry due to agronomic
fertilizers and chemical uses, which in turn cause releases of these elements into the soil. More
research is necessary to document origins, transport, and interactions of these contaminants with the
environment as they pose new potential threats to groundwater supplies. Research should be closely
followed to determine if and when monitoring of these types of contaminants should be undertaken by
the Basin NRDs. Typically little is known about emerging contaminants in terms of origins, transport,
and interactions with the environment. Research should be closely monitored to determine if and when
Basin NRDs should begin monitoring for these types of contaminants.
32
Figure 2-13: Composite Nitrate Map
33
Surface Water Quantity Concerns
The quantity of surface water in the streams and rivers is important to support the designated uses.
Several concerns include meeting flow requirements in the Little Blue River for compact compliance,
loss of perennial stream length, water supply for irrigation, and excessive flows during flooding.
There are four stream gages located in the Basin, three are on the mainstem of the Little Blue River
(Deweese, Fairbury, and Hollenberg, Nebraska) and fourth is on the Big Sandy Creek (near Alexandria,
Nebraska). Figure 2-14 shows the gage locations.
Figure 2-14: Stream Gage Location Map
In 1971, the Kansas-Nebraska Big Blue River Compact (Compact) established minimum flow
requirements on the Little Blue River. The flow requirements are 45 cubic feet per second (cfs) in May
and June, 75 cfs in July, 80 cfs in August, and 60 cfs in September. There are no minimum flow
requirements for October through April. The Hollenberg stream gauge is the measuring point. If stream
flows fall below the Compact minimum flow requirements, the NDNR implements water rights
administration actions regarding surface water irrigators within the Basin. There are 244 water rights
for surface water irrigation and 129 storage water rights within the Basin; 111 of the water rights and all
of the storage water rights are administered for Compact compliance. Figure 2-15 illustrates yearly flow
volumes that have exceeded Compact minimum flow requirements, and yearly flow volumes below the
Compact minimum flow requirements from 1974 to 2014.
Daily flow requirements were met at the Hollenberg gauge during the compliance period (May 1st to
September 30th) in all but 4 years between 1971 and 2002. However, during the period of 2002-2014, 8
of the 14 years had flows falling below the compliance requirements, and an increase in the frequency
34
of water rights administration. The increase in administration necessary for Compact compliance is
highlighted in the gauge results from 2012. Stream flows were unusually low during 2012, as shown in
Figure 2-15. The daily mean flow of 24 cfs on 12 September 2012 was the lowest in the 38 years of
record. On 20 July 2012 the flows of the Little Blue at Hollenberg gauge fell below the compact target,
and 111 junior irrigation rights and 129 storage rights in the Basin were closed. The 133 senior irrigators
in the Basin were allowed to continue operating but were closely regulated. On 8 August 2012, the
junior irrigation rights and the storage rights were closed again and they remained closed through
September 30th which is the end of the compact period for target flows (Kansas-Nebraska Blue River
Compact Annual Report 2013). In 2012, the Little Blue River was below the minimum mean daily flows
for 69 days.
35
Figure 2-15: Yearly Flow Volumes
Annual flow volumes above and below that required for compliance for the Kansas-Nebraska Big Blue
River Basin Compact. This compact contains delivery requirements for Little Blue River streamflows
during certain portions of the year.
Several streams have experienced a decrease in flows throughout the Basin. According to a UNL study
released in 2007, several things could be contributing to the decreased flow, including changing land
uses, increased vegetation along stream corridors, and increased irrigation pumping. According to the
study, it is possible that semi-perched water in the shallower, finer-grained sediments in the RWB ‘driedup‘ because of land use changes that occurred after Euramerican settlement. Seepage from these
36
sediments to Big Sandy Creek may also have ceased over time. Vegetation increases evident along
Spring Creek and Dry Sandy Creek could be partly responsible for the observed changes (UNL 2007).
Additionally, a transition to highly-efficient pivot irrigations systems from furrow irrigation has
decreased the quantity of return flows to streams from groundwater oriented systems over the last 20
years. Areas that have shown significant decreases in perennial length include portions of the
Cottonwood Creek (7 miles) and Sand Creek (6 miles) south of Holstein, Scott Creek (3 miles) west of
Ayr, and Big Sandy Creek (35-miles) from west of Edgar to east of Belvidere. A portion of Spring Creek
(19 miles) has also dried up, but in an area where groundwater levels have not significantly declined
(UNL 2007).
Increases in perennial length have also been observed since the study time period of 1894. These
increases are attributed to streambed degradation, such as that seen on the Little Blue River, and that
such adjustment has caused streams to erode their beds down to the water table sometime after 1894.
Through this erosion, streams could have changed from intermittent to perennial flow conditions (UNL
2007). Figure 2-16 shows these increases and decreases in perennial stream length since 1894.
Figure 2-16: Perennial Stream Length Changes 1894-2005
Data from NDNR seepage runs provide another source of information to determine whether streams in
the Basin are increasing or decreasing in flow. NDNR seepage runs are synoptic stream studies that
measure flow at various ungauged points along both the mainstem and tributaries of the river. The
dataset also includes points referenced as ‘no flow’, which identify the stream head, or point at which
water begins flowing. Changes in the stream head location indicate losses or gains in number of stream
37
segments and miles. Figure 2-17 shows that for several Basin tributary streams, significant loss of
stream miles has occurred.
Figure 2-17: Little Blue Basin Synoptic Stream Study Data
Groundwater Quantity Concerns
The groundwater aquifer is relatively thick and productive beneath a large portion of the Basin;
however, areas have been identified where the primary aquifer is much more limited. The LBNRD
conducted a Hydrogeologic Study in 2011 and identified areas where the aquifer was believed to be less
than 10 feet thick, and an Aquifer Risk Map was developed to identify areas with limited aquifer
productivity (Figure 2-18). LBNRD has established additional Rules and Regulations regarding water
quantity in these areas and in Groundwater Quantity Subarea 8.
38
Figure 2-18: Aquifer Risk Map
Groundwater levels throughout the Basin have fluctuated over the years in response to groundwater
development and natural recharge use but groundwater level declines are evident. Groundwater
declines largely result from groundwater pumping for irrigation purposes (NDNR 2013).
Long-term groundwater declines are shown in Figure 2-19. Since pre-development, sections of south
Fillmore, north and southcentral Thayer, southern Clay and the majority of Adams counties have
experienced water table declines of up to 30 feet, with some of these counties seeing declines of 5 to 10
feet in just the past 2 years.
39
Figure 2-19: Long-term Groundwater Declines
Seasonal groundwater declines are also a concern. Seasonal declines occur during the irrigation season,
with water levels generally returning to similar levels as prior to the irrigation season. The seasonal
declines are a concern due to potential dewatering of shallow and deep wells for a portion of the year.
Figure 2-20 illustrates seasonal declines for 2012-2013.
40
Figure 2-20: Seasonal Groundwater Declines
Little Blue Basin Water Budget
Water budgets provide a starting point for understanding Basin water resources, as they provide useful
summaries of water supply and water demand information. Simple water budgets are often limited by
timeframes and mathematical assumptions, but other methods are now available that address many of
the shortcomings of the water budget approach to setting water management objectives. One of these
methods is the NDNR Integrated Network of Scientific Information and Geohydrologic Tools (INSIGHT)
initiative, which provides a basic starting assessment point for water managers to set management
targets and monitor the associated progress.
Utilizing INSIGHT: Use and Limitations
INSIGHT is a web-based portal to sub-basin- and basin-level water quantity information for Nebraska.
INSIGHT inventories the water supplies and water demands within each basin for three distinct
timeframes: peak season use, non-peak season use, and annual use. INSIGHT is meant to provide water
managers with a basis for water planning and monitoring. Strengths of INSIGHT include detailed
assessment of water demands throughout a basin and consideration of various hydrologic components
that function at different timescales. One limitation of INSIGHT is that the associated evaluation of
supply and demand may not provide a proactive approach for many basins, as a supply minus demands
of greater than or equal to 0 indicates significant utilization of storage water to meet water demands.
This is due to an INSIGHT methodology assumption that every single drop of water is available and
methods are in place to capture that water for use, including all streamflow. Use of a balance line of 0 is
not practical if a basin goal is to maintain certain streamflow levels. Additionally, it is not practical to
assume that 100 percent capture of water resources is possible.
41
Another major limitation of INSIGHT is that the assessment is still completed at a fairly rough timescale,
which does not identify particular instances of water shortages, such as daily or weekly events. These
shortages can be masked by flood events or sufficient water during lower use periods. The third
limitation of INSIGHT regards the Compact. INSIGHT does not include an instream flow volume for
Compact compliance within the calculations, but it does consider surface water diverters administered
for Compact compliance. Therefore, a water management entity may want to choose another point or
line to designate balance, set water management targets, or chose to further refine the timescale to
adequately address management objectives.
Assessing Basin Water Supplies and Water Demands
INSIGHT provides useful water quantity related information, including the amount of water available for
use, or the basin water supply. Table 2-5 shows at the coarsest scale, the amount of water entering the
Basin. Precipitation and groundwater aquifer storage are the two sources of water for the Basin, while
the Basin water demands consist of surface water irrigation, groundwater irrigation, groundwater
municipal, and groundwater industrial uses. All water demand calculations are based upon the quantity
of water needed in addition to precipitation.
Table 2-5: Annual average values for the partitioning of incoming precipitation for the Basin from
1988-2012
Water Budget Component
Precipitation
Recharge
Run-off
Evapotranspiration (ET)
Annual Average Volume
4,073,000 AF
172,000 AF
191,000 AF
3,710,000 AF
Annual Average %
4%
5%
91%
Notes:
-ET includes grassland, pasture, and cropland without additional irrigation water applied.
-Annual average percent refers to the percentage of annual precipitation that goes to either recharge, run-off, or ET.
The amount of water available for use in agricultural, industrial, and municipal settings is the sum of the
recharge and run-off components. Total precipitation-based water supply available for utilization
averages 363,000 acre-feet of water per year (AF/yr), streamflow averages 234,000 AF/yr, with a
remaining 129,000 AF/yr to replenish the aquifer. Table 2-6, illustrates the average annual consumptive
demands for the Basin. Note that that consumptive demands include the amount of water pumped for
irrigation, commercial, or municipal uses and is not the value for annual stream depletions.
Table 2-6: Annual average consumptive use, by category, for the Little Blue River Basin from 19882012
Water Demand
Surface Water Irrigation
Groundwater Irrigation
Groundwater Municipal
Groundwater Industrial
Total
Average Annual Consumption
17,800 AF
233,800 AF
5,500 AF
500 AF
257,600 AF
Annual Average %
7%
91%
2%
-
For the past 25 years, the distribution of water uses throughout the basin has changed little. Figure 2-21
contrasts the distribution of water uses in 1988 with 2012, which shows little change for water
42
utilization in the basin. Irrigation constitutes over 98 percent of total water use in the Little Blue River
Basin during the previous 25 years.
Figure 2-21: The two pie charts show the similarity in water use between 1988 and 2012. While subtle,
2012 does have an increase in the percentage of water use for irrigation compared to 1988. Another
way to view the information available within INSIGHT is to compare the percentage of available water
utilized within a given year. Years that exceed 100% utilization require borrowing water from either
surface water storage reservoirs or groundwater storage.
1988 GW Irrigation
Use
2012 GW Irrigation Use
by Category
Irrigation
Irrigation
Municipal
Municipal
Industrial
Industrial
Figure 2-22: Percentage of Available Water Utilized
Shows the percentage of the annual available water supply that is utilized through either surface or
groundwater use throughout the year. Years in which demand surpasses the available supply, or those
that show utilization of greater than 100 percent are years that water is taken from surface or
groundwater storage to meet those demands. The near-term line represents the immediate effects of
water use on the water supply, while the long-term line represents the lag effects that will eventually
manifest as a result of water consumption. This graph also illustrates that many of the effects of
previous groundwater pumping have yet to fully manifest as either decreases in streamflow or
groundwater levels.
Percentage of Available Water
Utilized
Percent Utilized
200%
150%
100%
Near
50%
0%
1985
Long
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
43
The information presented above shows that Basin water use, particularly, groundwater use, frequently
exceeds the rate of which precipitation recharges the aquifer and streams. This implies that additional,
or enhanced recharge necessary to mitigate groundwater uses is substantial. To determine the amount
of additional Basin recharge necessary to prevent further groundwater declines or decreased baseflow
contributions to streamflow, two independent methods were utilized. The first method calculated the
average volume of water removed from the aquifer, based on groundwater decline contours from CSD.
The second method utilized precipitation, groundwater pumping, and groundwater depletion
information found within INSIGHT. Both methods resulted in a range of 30,000 to 50,000 AF of
additional recharge necessary to maintain current levels of consumption while maintaining current
aquifer levels and streamflow.
INSIGHT for Planning
Different components of the hydrologic system respond to perturbations at varying timescales; some
responses are immediate (e.g., minutes, hours, or days) while others are protracted (e.g., years,
decades, or centuries). Water planning aims to work with the different system responses to re-time
water through the hydrologic system by storing surface water or groundwater supplies and releasing
available water during peak usage. This type of water management is often referred to as conjunctive
management. Conjunctive management typically consists of three main components:
•
Utilizing both surface and groundwater sources by relying upon surface water when those
supplies are plentiful and then switching to groundwater use when surface water shortages
occur
•
Building re-timing or recharge projects that utilize the aquifer as an underground reservoir
•
Diverting flood or excess flows as storage for later use.
INSIGHT provides necessary information to assess the potential for all three components of conjunctive
management strategies. The near- and long-term assessments within INSIGHT show the difference in
the timing of impacts for surface and groundwater sources, illustrating when surface water or
groundwater use may be preferential. Flood or excess flow periods are evident when the water supply
greatly surpasses the near- or long-term demands, of which water can be diverted during these times as
either reservoir storage or groundwater recharge. With the presence of excesses for a particular basin
or sub-basin, managers may evaluate their current structural and legal mechanisms to divert this water
for storage. Conversely, if longer-term surpluses do not exist within a basin, the potential benefit of
these types of projects is quite limited. However, the balance for the Little Blue Basin does show times
of extended excesses that could be diverted for either surface or groundwater storage.
Further refinement of the INSIGHT methodology, either temporal or spatial, may increase understanding
for improved water management in the basin. Spatial or geographic refinements would break the Little
Blue Basin into smaller sub-basins, allowing managers to determine if certain areas of the Basin require
different management strategies. This type of refinement is only possible with the addition of long-term
stream gages in the basin. The NRD would benefit from discussions with the NDNR to determine new
stream-gage locations that subdivide the basin into sub-basins of the greatest concern.
44
Summary and Conclusions
Based upon the general Basin inventory of both surface water and groundwater resources, it is apparent
that the quality of water resources within the Basin have been impacted by nonpoint source pollutants.
This is typical for areas that support intensive agricultural practices and also typically for other portions
of Nebraska with similar soil types and geology.
The primary concern for lakes and reservoirs are poor water quality resulting from excess nutrients,
sedimentation, and bacteria. Public health and safety is a priority, therefore reduction of bacteria in
recreational lakes and reservoirs is important.
The primary concern for streams is levels of bacteria above the current standard. It is important to note
that the current standard is relatively low for a stream that carries runoff from an agricultural landscape.
However, management practices can reduce loading of bacteria and other surface water pollutants.
The primary issue for groundwater quality is nitrate contamination. The Basin is vulnerable to pollutant
loading of nitrates to groundwater due to geology and agricultural land uses. Nitrate contamination of
groundwater aquifers will continue as nitrogen travels through the vadose zone to the groundwater
aquifer.
The quantities of surface water and groundwater are interrelated concerns. Trends of decreasing
stream flow will continue to reduce effectiveness in supporting beneficial uses and Compact
requirements. Long-term and seasonal groundwater declines are evident, and some areas within the
basin are particularly sensitive to these declines.
45
Section 3 – Target Pollutants and Sources
TARGET POLLUTANTS AND SOURCES
Introduction
The identification of pollutant sources and the quantification of loads from those sources are critical
data needs for water quality management planning. Once sources and loads are determined, potential
solutions and practices that reduce pollutant loading and improve and/or protect water quality
conditions can be evaluated. Building off the history of the water quality conditions in the Basin
provided in Section 2, this section specifies the pollutant sources and loads and establishes pollutant
reduction goals to meet water quality standards.
Concentrated Animal Feed Operations (CAFO) are mentioned throughout this chapter to bring attention
to their densities and locations. For purposes of this document, estimates of loads from point sources
such as CAFOs and NPDES permitted locations are not calculated or included, as these are regulated and
permitted by NDEQ and are out of the NRDs jurisdiction. It is assumed that CAFOs and other point
source contributions to pollutant loads are minimized by the local BMPs required by NDEQ’s permitting
process and requirements.
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Nonpoint source pollution—pollution from multiple diffuse sources within the watershed—can impact
the chemical, physical, and/or biological condition of water resources. Mobile through rainfall,
snowmelt, or irrigation water moving over or into the ground, pollution from nonpoint sources
eventually deposits in lakes, streams, wetlands, and underground aquifers. The resulting pollutant loads
are often large and episodic. Land development/use, the primary cause of nonpoint source pollution,
can fall into several categories, including urbanization, construction, hydromodification, mineral
extraction, and industrial and agricultural activities. Less commonly recognized causes of nonpoint
source pollution include channel, streambank and shoreline erosion; atmospheric deposition; and the
re-suspension or leaching of pollutants from the bottom of a waterbody. Nonpoint source pollutants
can include:
•
•
•
•
Fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides from agricultural lands and residential areas
Oil, grease, and toxic chemicals from urban runoff and energy production
Sediment from construction sites, crop and forest lands, and eroding stream banks
Bacteria and nutrients from livestock, pet wastes, and faulty onsite wastewater systems.
Nonpoint source pollution in the Basin is primarily the result of agricultural activities (Table 3-1).
Primary pollutants from cropland are sediment, nutrients, and pesticides. Runoff and percolation from
feedlots, animal management areas, and intensively grazed pasture and rangeland can contribute
nutrients, organic matter (impacting oxygen demand), ammonia, and fecal bacteria to receiving surface
waters and underlying groundwater. Livestock within stream riparian areas can destabilize stream
banks and shorelines through compaction, and damage riparian vegetation; increasing the likelihood of
erosion and in-stream/lake sedimentation problems (NDEQ 2000). Internal sources of pollutants (e.g.,
re-suspension of phosphorus from the lakebed and bacteria) are often less studied and recognized, but
are also important sources in the Basin.
46
Table 3-1: List of Priority Pollutants and Nonpoint Sources in the Basin Developed with this Plan
Priority Pollutants
Sources
Sediment Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Bacteria
Atrazine
Urban Runoff
Pet Waste
•
•
•
Commercial Fertilizer
Rural Domestic
Septic Systems
Agriculture
Tillage
•
Livestock Production
Commercial Fertilizer
Natural Fertilizer
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pesticides
Natural
Channel Erosion
•
Wildlife
Shoreline Erosion
•
Atmospheric Deposition
a
Internal Loading
•
•
•
Notes:
aWhile internal phosphorus loading in reservoirs is a natural event, loads will increase with increased nonpoint source loads
from the watershed.
The United State Geological Survey’s (USGS’) SPAtially Referenced Regression On Watershed attributes
(SPARROW) model was used to define pollutant sources, loads, load delivery rates, and loading
reductions for sediment, total nitrogen and total phosphorus within the Basin. SPARROW is a watershed
modeling tool that utilizes a mass-balance approach to estimate the excess amounts (i.e., amounts
beyond assimilative capacity) of sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus exported from watersheds and
delivered to downstream waterbodies. The model relates measured in-stream-concentrations to
spatially referenced attributes of the corresponding watershed, such as nutrient sources and
environmental factors that affect rates of delivery to streams. The model also accounts for in-stream
processing of nutrients. Discussions of the pollutant sources and load contributions for the entire Basin
(sub-sections 3.3 and 3.4) and each of the six sub-basins (Sub-section 3.5) are presented.
Sources of Nonpoint Pollutants
3.3.1
Sediment
Erosion and sedimentation can cause water quality degradation and can have significant economic
impacts. While some erosion and sedimentation is natural, excessive sedimentation in receiving waters
can bury benthic invertebrate communities, limit macrophyte production, and cover spawning/sensitive
47
habitats. Deposited sediment can release pollutants into overlying water, potentially causing health
risks. While sedimentation significantly impacts water resources in the Basin, there are no state water
quality standards for sediment volume. NDEQ does have sedimentation assessment methodologies in
place for impounded waters, but not for streams and rivers. Nonpoint sources of sediment include
urban runoff, agricultural runoff, streambank and gully erosion, and reservoir shoreline erosion.
3.3.1.1. Sediment Sources in the Basin
Cropland
Based on the results of the USGS’ SPARROW model for the Basin, the major contributor (62 percent of
the total sediment load) of upland sediment is agricultural practices on croplands (Figure 3-1). Soil
erosion rates from croplands can vary highly given characteristics of soil types, land slope gradients, land
management decisions, tilling practices, and rainfall intensity/duration (e.g., heavy spring rains produce
higher sediment and nutrient loads when vegetation is lacking than when crop canopy has been
established).
Stream Bed/Bank Erosion
Sediment and phosphorus contributions from stream bank erosion have, historically, gone unrecognized
as significant nonpoint sources of pollution to water bodies in Nebraska. For example, recent research
within the Wagon Train Reservoir near Lincoln, Nebraska shows that the sediment and phosphorous
pollutant reduction targets for the reservoir have not been met even after implementation of BMPs on
the field-scale of the 9,988-acre Wagon Train Watershed (UNL 2008). The study found that stream bank
and stream bed erosion were key contributors of continuing sedimentation after BMPs were
implemented. UNL found that stream bank/bed erosion contributed 26 percent and 21 percent of the
annual sediment and phosphorus load, respectively.
SPARROW results estimate stream channel erosion at 7 percent of the total Basin load, with localized
impacts that can be even greater (Figure 3-1). SPARROW model estimates for sediment contributions
from stream channels in the Basin are provided in Figure 3-2. Given the findings of UNL’s Wagon Train
Watershed study and the importance of stream-derived sediment sources in the Basin, this Plan focuses
on stream bank and channel erosion as well as sediment sources within the upland area. LBNRD has
already recognized the importance of this source, and maintains an ongoing cost share program focused
on assisting landowners with stream erosion issues on their property.
48
Figure 3-1: Sediment Source Contributions in the Basin
3%
7%
Crop/Pasture
Other
12%
Urban
16%
62%
Channel Load
Federal
Forest - <1%
Source: USGS SPARROW Model
Figure 3-2: Stream Channel Sediment Loading by Stream Reach
3.3.2
Pesticides
The impacts on surface water and groundwater quality by the influx of pesticides from agricultural
practices are cause for growing concern. Although both herbicides and insecticides are used in
Nebraska, the quantity of herbicides applied is much greater (NDA 1996). Herbicides also tend to be
active in the environment for longer periods of time than currently used insecticides. The five most
commonly applied herbicides in Nebraska are atrazine, metolachlor, cyanazine, alachlor, and acetochlor
(NDEQ 2000) (Figure 3-3). Contamination from pesticide pollutants can cause both short-and long-term
concerns for human health and aquatic life.
49
Figure 3-3: Percentage of Most Common Pesticides Applied to Corn in Nebraska (1993-2003)*
Atrazine
15%
Alachlor
46%
21%
Cyanazine
Metolachlor
7%
11%
Acetochlor
Source: USDA Agricultural Statistics Service 2009
* Based on pounds applied.
3.3.2.1. Pesticide Sources in the Basin
The presence of pesticide pollutants in Nebraska’s waters reflects the magnitude of pesticide application
and the local conditions of where and when they are applied. Past water quality monitoring has shown
pesticide levels in surface waters to be elevated in late spring and early summer, with the highest levels
associated with runoff events from intense spring rains shortly after the pesticide application. Levels
typically decrease through early- and mid-summer until they stabilize at residual levels by late summer
(NDEQ 2000).
The highest instream pesticide concentrations have been found to occur in small, headwater streams
flowing through cropland where the pesticide is applied (e.g., areas of corn and sorghum production).
Instream pesticide concentrations tend to decrease as stream size and flow increase down gradient in a
watershed (i.e., dilution effect) (NDEQ 2000).
The direct relationship between elevated pesticide concentrations and agricultural applications suggests
agricultural applications are the sole contributors to pesticide pollution in Nebraska’s surface waters.
Pesticides do not occur naturally in the environment and therefore the allocation for natural background
is zero (NDEQ 2007).
Of the 15 reservoirs in the Basin, 10 have been tested for pesticides: Alexandria Lake #3; Bruning Dam;
Buckley; Crystal Lake; Crystal Springs; Liberty Cove; Lone Star; Prairie; Roseland; and Lake Hastings
(NDEQ 2011). While none of the reservoirs tested were determined to be impaired for pesticides, the
presence of pesticides was documented. Detectable concentrations of atrazine, alachlor, cyanazine,
metolachlor and acetochlor were found at all 10 reservoirs. Water quality impairment from atrazine has
been documented on four stream segments in the Basin. Those include three segments of the Little
Blue River (LB1-10000, LB2-10000, LB2-20000) and one segment of Big Sandy Creek (LB2-10100).
Atrazine is by far the most common pesticide applied in the Basin. Across Nebraska, atrazine comprises
nearly 50 percent of the total pounds of pesticides applied (Figure 3-3). Atrazine is a nonselective
triazine herbicide that is widely used on corn and sorghum because of its low price and effective control
of grasses and broad-leaved plants. It is generally applied pre-plant or pre-emergence; which benefits
50
producers who have a limited application time after planting because of moisture and crop growth.
Atrazine has a relatively long half-life of 60 days (Wauchope et al. 1992). This provides effective longterm weed control, but can also result in water quality problems when it enters surface waters through
runoff. Because of its high water solubility and relatively long persistence, atrazine is commonly
detected in surface waters in areas where it is used. It has been detected in surface waters throughout
the Midwest and cropland areas of Nebraska (NDEQ 2000). Atrazine has also been detected in Sandhill
reservoirs indicating possible atmospheric deposition on a statewide basis (NDEQ 2011).
3.3.3
Nutrients
Nutrient pollution is one of the most widespread, costly, and challenging environmental problems (EPA
2014). Nitrogen and phosphorus are nutrients that naturally occur and are important in aquatic
ecosystems. Nitrogen and phosphorus support the growth of algae and aquatic plants; which provide
food and habitat for fish, shellfish, and other smaller aquatic organisms (EPA 2014). When excessive
amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus enter the environment—usually through human activities—the air
and water can become polluted. Nutrient pollution has impacted many streams, rivers, lakes, bays and
coastal waters for the past several decades, resulting in serious environmental and human health issues,
and impacting the economy (EPA 2014).
Too much nitrogen and phosphorus in the water causes nuisance algal growth and can harm water
quality, food resources, habitats, and decrease the oxygen that fish and other aquatic life need to
survive. Large growths of algae, called algal blooms, can severely reduce or eliminate oxygen in the
water, leading to illnesses in fish and the death of large numbers of fish. Some algal blooms are harmful
to humans because they produce elevated toxins and bacterial growth that can sicken people through
contact with polluted water, and consumption of tainted fish or contaminated water (EPA 2014).
3.3.3.1. Nutrient Sources in the Basin
Farming operations can contribute to nutrient pollution, particularly when improperly managed.
Synthetic fertilizers and animal manure, which are both rich in nitrogen and phosphorus, are the primary
sources of nutrient pollution from agricultural activities. Nutrients can impact water quality when water
and soil containing nitrogen and phosphorus wash into nearby waters, or the excess nutrients leach into
ground water (EPA 2014). Fertilized soils and livestock can be significant sources of gaseous, nitrogenbased compounds like ammonia and nitrogen oxides. Ammonia can harm aquatic life if large amounts
are deposited to surface waters (EPA 2014).
Nitrates are a cause of groundwater contamination in agricultural settings. Common sources of nitrates
include commercial fertilizers, animal feeding operations, and onsite wastewater systems. Groundwater
nitrate levels are a growing concern across many areas of Nebraska. Over application of nitrogen
fertilizers, irrigation runoff water, crop failure due to climatic failures, and livestock waste are all
contributing factors in the leaching of nitrates into our groundwater.
There are currently no nutrient standards in place for flowing waters, which means nutrients will not be
shown as a stream pollutant on the Section 303(d) list. While excessive nutrient concentrations are
typically associated with harmful algal blooms in lakes and reservoirs, streams serve as the conduit for
nutrient delivery from the watershed. Phosphorus loading from nonpoint sources typically coincides
with sediment loads given the high affinity of phosphorus to clay soil particles. This affinity also
increases background levels of phosphorus in soils. As with sediment, the most prevalent source of
51
nutrients to surface waters in the Basin is agricultural activity. Specific watershed sources of nutrients
(nitrogen and phosphorus) include commercial fertilizers, livestock waste, urban runoff, channel erosion
and atmospheric deposition (Figures 3-4 and 3-5).
Figure 3-4: Percent Contribution of Total Nitrogen Sources in the Basin
6%
16%
15%
Atmosphere
Manure
Farm Fertilizers
Developed Land
Point Sources - <1%
63%
Figure 3-5: Percent Contribution of Total Phosphorus Sources in the Basin
2%
8%
22%
Maure
16%
Farm Fertilizers
Channel Erosion
Developed Land
Point Sources
52%
Internal nutrient release from lake or reservoir bottom sediments (i.e., internal nutrient cycling) can
hinder lake restoration efforts, particularly for reservoirs that contain high nutrient concentrations in
the surface sediments (Sondergaard et al. 2003). The primary mechanism for internal nutrient cycling is
the chemical release of nutrients (particularly dissolved phosphorus) from lakebed sediments. These
chemical release events are highest during periods of low or no dissolved oxygen conditions at the
sediment/water interface (mid- to late-summer) (Cooke et al. 1993, Sondergaard et al. 2003). High
52
levels of internal nutrient cycling can mask potential water quality improvements related to external
nutrient load reductions, which has been the case for several Nebraska reservoirs (NDEQ 2013). Wind
mixing/sediment re-suspension can effectively increase the availability of phosphorus in lakes for algal
uptake (Cooke et al. 1993, Sondergaard et al. 2003).
3.3.4
Bacteria
Microorganisms are present in all terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. While many types are beneficial—
functioning as agents for chemical decomposition, as food sources for larger animals, and as essential
components of the nutrient cycle—they can also cause illness if ingested by humans. Unfortunately,
several sources can contribute bacteria (sanitary wastewater, stormwater, livestock, wildlife, etc.)
making it difficult to differentiate between individual contributions. Detecting disease-causing bacteria
and other pathogens in water is also expensive. Due to cost constraints, the contamination of surface
waters by bacteria is typically indicated by measuring a surrogate organism. The surrogate organism
used by EPA and NDEQ is Escherichia coli (E. coli), which is typically found in the gut of warm-blooded
organisms.
Bacterial survival is highly dependent on environmental conditions such as soil moisture and
temperature. Variability in the environment makes the bacterial concentrations in natural water
difficult to predict at any one time. In general, loading of E. coli in waterways beyond accepted
concentrations occurs during times of heavy rainfall (Collins and Rutherford 2004, Collins et al. 2005),
and can be from both external and internal sources (Staley 2012). In addition to rainfall patterns, E.coli
concentrations have been found to be correlated with suspended sediment loads, turbidity, aquatic
vegetation, impervious surfaces, livestock density, residential density, and the density of domestic pets
in the watershed (Faust et al. 1975, Sayler et al. 1976, Gerba and McLeod 1976, Matson et al. 1978,
Stephenson and Rychert 1982, Young and Thackston 1999).
3.3.4.1. Bacterial Sources in the Basin
Failing septic systems, presumably, are the primary unpermitted human source of bacteria. Individual
septic systems are common within the Basin due to its rural population. When properly designed,
installed, and maintained, septic systems can act as an effective means of wastewater treatment.
However, poorly maintained or ‘failing’ septic systems can leach pollutants into nearby surface waters
and groundwater. While the exact number of failing septic systems within the Basin is unknown, all can
be considered a potential bacterial source.
Most of the bacteria of concern within Basin surface waters have animal sources. These sources include
livestock, domesticated animals, and wildlife found in the Basin. In Nebraska, CAFOs with more than
300 animal units must register with NDEQ (NDEQ 2011). The locations of these operations are shown in
Figure 3-6, and their densities per square mile are shown in Figure 3-7 (NDEQ 2015). Note that waste
disposal practices and wastewater effluent quality are closely monitored by NDEQ for these registered
CAFOs to determine the need for runoff control practices or structural measures. NRDs do not have
authority to regulate CAFOs; however, producers with registered CAFOs can still be encouraged to
participate in voluntary programs that will compliment, enhance, or improve measures required under
their permits. A portion of Nebraska’s livestock population exists on small unregistered farms. These
small, unregistered livestock operations may contribute significant amounts of bacteria and nutrients,
depending on the presence and condition of waste management systems and proximity to water
resources. Three areas of focus in the Basin are:
53
•
•
•
Livestock manure applied to fields as fertilizer
Livestock grazing in pastures
Livestock that have direct access to water bodies.
Figure 3-6: NDEQ Livestock Waste Control Facility Locations in the Little Blue River Basin
54
Figure 3-7: NDEQ Livestock Waste Control Facility Density in the Little Blue River Basin
Many species of wildlife are naturally attracted to riparian corridors of streams and rivers. With access
to stream channels, the direct deposition of wildlife waste can be a concentrated source of bacteria to a
water body. Bacteria from wildlife waste are also deposited onto land surfaces, where they may be
washed into nearby streams by rainfall runoff. Additionally, during seasonal migrations, concentrations
of waterfowl can add significant amounts of bacteria and nutrients to surface water resources in a short
period of time. Currently there are insufficient data available to estimate populations and spatial
distribution of wildlife and avian species by watershed. Consequently, it is difficult to assess the
magnitude of indicator bacteria contributions from wildlife species.
Fecal matter from dogs and cats is transported to streams by runoff from urban and suburban areas and
can be a significant source of bacteria. Nationally, there is an average of 0.58 dogs per household and
0.66 cats per household (American Veterinary Medical Association 2004). While pet waste is most likely
not a large contributor of bacteria to the Little Blue River, local impacts can be seen in urbanized
streams and drainages that are highly accessible to the public.
Surface Water Pollutant Loads for the Entire Basin
The ‘load’ is a required piece of information for nonpoint source planning as it defines the magnitude of
the pollutant problem. Pollutant loads can be estimated using a number of methodologies, including
calculations from water quality and quantity data, export coefficients, water quality models, and
appropriate literature. Areas targeted for water related projects in the Basin will require more detailed
loading assessments given their small drainage areas and potentially localized problems.
55
3.4.1
Sediment and Nutrient Loads
Excess sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus loads impact not only local waters, but also downstream
waterbodies, including coastal systems. Loads of sediment, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus from
the entire basin and the six sub-basins were estimated using the USGS’ SPARROW model (EPA 2013)
(Table 3-2). The following sediment, total nitrogen, and total phosphorous numbers result from the
SPARROW modeling efforts.
Table 3-2: Little Blue River Sub-basin Loads of Sediment, Total Phosphorus, and Total Nitrogen
Total
Total
Total
Total
Sediment Sediment
Sub Basin
Phosphorous Phosphorous Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Delivery
Load
Name
Delivery
Load
Delivery
Load
(t/ac/yr)
(t/yr)
(lbs/ac/yr)
(lbs/yr)
(lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/yr)
Lower
0.73
215,730
0.74
220,645
4.80
1,423,882
Little Blue
Middle
0.86
186,324
0.63
136,346
6.15
1,326,165
Little Blue
Upper
0.47
277,122
0.46
270,636
4.35
2,571,736
Little Blue
Big Sandy
0.67
270,160
0.85
339,379
5.06
2,032,896
Creek
Spring
0.68
79,256
0.61
71,222
7.51
881,564
Creek
Rose Creek
0.74
142,970
0.66
127,589
5.95
1,143,512
Total Load
-1,171,563
-1,165,816
-9,379,757
The annual delivery rate of stream channel derived sediment per mile of stream was also determined for
the sub-basins (Table 3-3). The results of the SPARROW model differ from previous studies, suggesting
further study to determine actual in-channel contributions to stream sediment loads.
Table 3-3: Little Blue River Sub-basin Loads of Sediment within the Stream Channel
(Stream Channel and Stream Bed Sources)
In-Channel Sediment Delivery
(t/ mile/yr)
In-Channel Sediment Load
(t/yr)
Lower Little Blue
Middle Little Blue
Upper Little Blue
159
135
111
16,689
9,005
28,424
Big Sandy Creek
99
15,648
Spring Creek
125
4,099
Rose Creek
130
7,473
Total Load
--
81,337
Sub Basin Name
56
3.4.2 Bacteria
Since bacteria are biological organisms, loadings and loading reductions are typically concentration
based, and a load determination is not appropriate. The original total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)
drafted by Nebraska for the Little Blue River (LB1-10000, LB2010000) were based on 2002 data (NDEQ
2005). In 2013, NDEQ prepared a single E.coli TMDL for four sites on the Little Blue River, one site on Big
Sandy Creek, and one site on Rock Creek. NDEQ based the TMDL on data collected from 2001 through
2009. All six segments have geometric mean concentrations above the water quality standard of 126
bacterial colonies (col) per 100 milliliters (ml) of stream water and were determined to be impaired
(Table 3-4).
Segment
LB1-10000
LB1-10200
LB2-10000
LB2-10100
LB2-20000
LB2-30000
Table 3-4: E.coli Concentrations in Impaired Stream Segments in the Basin
2007 Seasonal
Reduction Need Percent Reduction
Waterbody Name Geometric Mean
(col/100 ml)
Need (col/100ml)**
(col/100 ml)*
Little Blue River
254
128
50.3%
Rock Creek
379
253
66.7%
Little Blue River
342
216
63.1%
Big Sandy Creek
428
302
70.5%
Little Blue River
959
833
86.8%
Little Blue River
643
517
80.4%
Source: NDEQ 2013
Notes:
*Bacterial colonies per 100 milliliters of stream water
**Reduction required to meet the water quality standard of 126 col/ml
Since the Nebraska Water Quality Standard for E.coli bacteria applies to all stream flow conditions, all
samples are typically pooled for comparisons to the standard. To provide a 'condition’ based
assessment, samples collected in 2007 and 2012 were delineated by flow. Samples collected under low,
medium, and high flows were defined by the 33rd and 66th percentiles in measured stream flows
(Figure 3-8). While sample size does not allow for a statistically valid assessment, some general
conclusions can be drawn from this exercise. Except for segment LB1-10000, the geometric mean
concentration was exceeded for all flow classes at all sampling locations. Except for segment LB210200, concentrations increased with an increase in flow volume. As stream flow decreases to near
baseflow, point source contributions, illicit discharges, failing septic systems, and natural background
become a greater influence on stream bacteria concentrations.
57
Figure 3-8: E.coli Bacteria Concentrations in the Basin by Flow Class
EPA encourages using the adaptive management approach in the implementation of bacteria TMDLs
(EPA2012). In the case of bacteria, adaptive management is appropriate due to uncertainty regarding
source contributions, necessary load reductions, and the effectiveness of implementation activities in
reducing stream and reservoir concentrations. The NRDs will employ an adaptive management
approach to implementation, specifically to address bacteria problems.
3.4.3
Pesticides
The pollutant load capacity of a waterbody refers to the amount of a pollutant a waterbody can receive
and still meet water quality standards or targets. Waterbody pollutant loading capacity implies
continuous, non-varying inputs; however, pesticide loadings are dynamic and can vary with stream flow.
Stream flows enter the spring period with a slight decrease between March and April. Major runoff
events typically take place in May, June, and July. Flows begin decreasing in August and continue to
decline through autumn and winter. The three runoff months (May, June, and July) demarcate the
period of highest risk in applying herbicides on land surfaces.
Three segments of the Little Blue River and one segment of Big Sandy Creek have been identified as
being impaired from atrazine. In 2012, the NDEQ revised the TMDL for segments LB1-10000 and LB210000 on the Little Blue River, and included segments LB2-10100 (Big Sandy Creek) and LB2-20000 (Little
Blue River) (NDEQ 2013). The TMDL quantifies atrazine concentrations by flow class for the four
impaired segments (Table 3-5). In all cases, atrazine loads were variable and significantly influenced by
stream flow. The TMDL bases necessary reductions on concentrations rather than loads.
58
Table 3-5: Atrazine Concentrations in Impaired Stream Segments in the Basin
Flow Class
Flow Exceedance Range
Maximum Atrazine Concentration (µg/L)
LB1-10000 Little Blue River
Atrazine Target = 3µg/L
High Flows
0-10%
45.7
Moist Conditions
10%-40%
111.7
Mid-Range Flows
40%-60%
8.9
60-90%
8.0
90%-100%
3.9
Dry Conditions
Low Flows
High Flows
0-10%
35.0
Moist Conditions
10%-40%
36.3
Mid-Range Flows
40%-60%
13.4
60-90%
8.5
90%-100%
No Observations
Dry Conditions
Low Flows
LB2-10100 Big Sandy Creek
High Flows
0-10%
75.4
Moist Conditions
10%-40%
169.3
Mid-Range Flows
40%-60%
13.3
60-90%
34.2
90%-100%
7.3
Dry Conditions
Low Flows
High Flows
0-10%
46.4
Moist Conditions
10%-40%
37.3
Mid-Range Flows
40%-60%
25.2
60-90%
26.5
90%-100%
27.3
Dry Conditions
Low Flows
Source: NDEQ 2013
Notes:
µg/L =microgram(s) per liter
59
Non-point Source Pollution in the Six Sub-basins
The following tables summarize the characteristics, uses, and SPARROW model results for the Basin and
each sub-basin. These characteristics include stream impairments, lake impairments, land-use
information, and pollutants.
60
Table 3-6: Sub-Basin Characteristics and Impaired Stream Segments
Sub-Basina
Drainage
Area
(Acres)a
Reach
Length
(miles)a
Stream
Flow
(ft3/sec)a
No. of Title 117
Assessed
Stream
Segmentsb
Lower Little Blue
296,944
105
316
9
Impaired Stream Segmentsb
NDEQ ID
LB1-10000
LB1-10200
LB2-10000
LB2-20000
Middle Little
Blue
215,643
Upper Little Blue
591,225
256.9
Big Sandy Creek
401,370
Spring Creek
Rose Creek
Entire Basin
70
139
7
LB2-20000
53
6
LB2-30000
LB2-30000
158
44
6
LB2-10100
117,362
32.7
26
3
192,103
1,814,647
58
680.6
46
--
9
40
Impairments
Aquatic Life – Atrazine
Public Drinking Water – Atrazine
Recreation – Bacteria
Aquatic Life – Atrazine
Aquatic Life – Atrazine and Selenium
Aquatic Life – Selenium and Atrazine
Aquatic Life – Selenium and Atrazine
Aquatic Life – Mercury
Aquatic Life – Pollutant Unknown
Aquatic Life – Pollutant Unknown
LB2-10200
LB2-10500
LB2-10600
None
Impaired Stream Segments in Basin: 11
Sources: aUSDA SPARROW model; bNDEQ 2014
61
Table 3-7: Sub-Basin CAFO and Land Use Characteristics
Sub-Basin
No. of CAFOsa
Lower Little Blue
Middle Little Blue
Upper Little Blue
Big Sandy Creek
Spring Creek
Rose Creek
Entire Basin
78
93
178
145
41
32
567
CAFO Density
(per square mile)a
0.17
0.28
0.19
0.23
0.22
0.11
Row Crops
46
43
71
75
67
44
58
Major Land Use Cover Categories (Percent)b
Pasture
Wheat
Forest
35
4
6
38
6
4
3
1
17
16
1
1
18
7
1
9
6
35
5
3
27
Urban
5
4
5
5
5
4
5
Sources:
a NDEQ 2015
b USDA 2015
Notes: Minor land use categories are not shown so percentages do not equal 100%.
62
Table 3-8: Impaired Lakes and Reservoirs by Sub-Basin Identified by EPA Category
Name
NDEQ ID
Impaired Lakes and Reservoirs
Impairments
Crystal Springs West
LB1-L0020
Aquatic Life – Nutrients, Chlorophyll a, pH
Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorous
LB1-L0030
LB1-L0040
Middle Little
Blue
Liberty Cove
LB2-L0050
Upper Little Blue
Lake Hastings
BB3-L0050
Heartwell Lake
Crystal Lake
Prairie
BB3-L0070
LB2-L0070
LB2-L0080
LB1-L0050
E. coli, Total Nitrogen, Total
Phosphorous
Hazardous Index Compounds,
Mercury, Total Nitrogen, Total
Phosphorous
Hazardous Index Compounds,
Cancer Risk Compounds, Sediment,
Unknown
Unknown
Sub-Basin
Lower Little Blue
Big Sandy Creek
Lone Star
Alexandria #3
Alexandria #1 and #2
Spring Creek
Rose Creek
None
Buckley
LB2-L0010
LB2-L0030
--LB1-L0010
Aquatic Life – Nutrients, Chlorophyll a, pH, Fish
Consumption Advisory
Aquatic Life – Nutrients, Chlorophyll a, Fish
Consumption Advisory
Aesthetics – Sedimentation
Aesthetics – Algae Blooms
Aquatic Life – pH, Chlorophyll a, Dissolved Oxygen
Aquatic Life – pH
Aquatic Life – Nutrients, Chlorophyll a, Dissolved
Oxygen
Aquatic Life – pH
Recreation – Algae Toxins
Aquatic Life – Nutrients, Chlorophyll a
--Aquatic Life – Nutrients
Pollutants
Unknown
Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorous,
Microcystin
--Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorous
63
3.5.1
Sub-basin Sediment and Nutrient Loads and Delivery Rates
SPARROW was used to determine the loads and load delivery rates of sediment, total phosphorous, and
total nitrogen (in tons per watershed acre per year) for the six sub-basins covering the designated
stream segments in the Basin (Tables 3-9 through 3-11). Note that the estimated loads and delivery
rates are specific to each sub-basin. Only loads that originate from within a given sub-basin are
considered in the model estimate. Loads from sub-basins higher in the watershed are not included in a
lower sub-basin’s estimate. The annual delivery rate of stream channel derived sediment per mile of
stream was also determined for each of the six sub-basins (Table 3-9).
64
Table 3-9: Sub-basin Sediment Loads, Delivery Rates and Sources
Average
Slope
(Percent)
Sub-Basin
Lower Little Blue
Middle Little Blue
Upper Little Blue
Big Sandy Creek
Spring Creek
Rose Creek
Entire Basin
4.3
3.9
2.2
1.5
3.0
5.0
--
Sediment Load
(t/yr)
Rank
215,730
3
186,324
4
277,122
1
270,160
2
79,256
6
142,970
5
1,171,563
Sediment
Delivery Rate
(t/ac/yr)
Rank
0.73
0.86
0.47
0.67
0.68
0.74
3
1
6
5
4
2
--
In-channel Sediment
Load and Rate
Load
Delivery
(t/yr)
(t/mile/yr)
16,689
159
9,005
135
28,424
111
15,648
99
4,099
125
7,473
130
81,337
--
Sediment Source Contributions (Percent)
Crop/
Pasture
58
55
66
67
70
56
62
Other
Urban
21
27
12
7
12
27
16
13
12
12
12
13
12
12
Channel
Load
8
5
10
5
5
5
7
Federal
Forest
0
1
0
9
0
0
3
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Sources: USDA SPARROW model
Table 3-10: Sub-basin Total Nitrogen Loads, Delivery Rates and Sources
Total Nitrogen
Sub-Basin
Lower Little Blue
Middle Little Blue
Upper Little Blue
Big Sandy Creek
Spring Creek
Rose Creek
Entire Basin
Load
Rank
(lbs/yr)
1,423,882
3
1,326,165
4
2,571,736
1
2,032,896
2
881,564
6
1,143,512
5
9,379,757
Total Nitrogen
Delivery Rate
Total Nitrogen Source Contributions (Percent)
(lbs/ac/yr)
Rank
Atmosphere
Manure
4.80
6.15
4.35
5.06
7.51
5.95
5
2
6
4
1
3
7
8
5
6
6
9
6
15
17
17
14
12
16
15
--
Farm
Fertilizers
62
65
57
64
71
60
63
Developed
Land
14
10
20
16
11
15
16
Point Sources
2
<1
1
6
<1
<1
<1
65
Table 3-11: Sub-basin Phosphorus Loads, Delivery Rates and Sources
Sub-Basin
Total
Phosphorous Load
(lbs/yr)
Lower Little Blue
Middle Little Blue
Upper Little Blue
Big Sandy Creek
Spring Creek
Rose Creek
Entire Basin
Rank
220,645
3
136,346
4
270,636
2
339,379
1
71,222
6
127,589
5
1,165,816
Total Phosphorous
Delivery Rate
(lbs/ac/yr)
Rank
0.74
0.63
0.46
0.85
0.61
0.66
2
4
6
1
5
3
--
Total Phosphorous Source Contributions
(Percent)
Farm
Channel Developed
Point
Manure
Fertilizers Erosion
Land
Sources
17
34
35
7
7
20
46
27
7
<1
24
53
13
9
1
25
60
8
7
<1
21
70
0
9
<1
23
52
14
11
<1
22
52
16
8
2
66
3.5.1.1. Observations
The individual sub-basin loads of sediment, total phosphorous, total nitrogen and stream channel
sediment were generally correlated with sub-basin size. The Spring Creek sub-basin is the smallest in
size and produced the lowest total loads for sediment, total phosphorous, total nitrogen and stream
channel sediment. The largest total loads for sediment, total phosphorous, total nitrogen, and stream
channel sediment were found in the two largest sub-basins (Upper Little Blue and Big Sandy).
Pollutant yields did not always correlate with sub-basin area and/or number of stream miles, indicating
that some basins are contributing higher loads relative to their size. For example, the fourth largest subbasin (Middle Little Blue) has the highest sediment yield and second highest total nitrogen yield. The
smallest sub-basin (Spring Creek) had the highest total nitrogen yield. The largest sub-basin (Upper
Little Blue) had the lowest yields for sediment, total phosphorous, and total nitrogen, and the second
lowest yield for stream channel sediment. The second largest sub-basin (Big Sandy Creek) had the
largest total phosphorous yield, but the lowest stream channel sediment yield.
Smaller areas, such as reservoir watersheds, that are targeted for nonpoint source projects will require
an even more detailed nutrient and sediment loading budget. Projects involving reservoirs should also
include internal loading estimates in the nutrient budgets. Additionally, the influence of internal lake
processes such as mixing should be part of the assessment and planning.
Observations for each sub-basin are presented below:
Lower Little Blue— Relative to the other sub-basins, the lower contributions of sediment, phosphorous
and nitrogen from crops and farm fertilizers in the Lower Little Blue are likely correlated with the lower
percentage of row crop land use and the higher percentage of pasture land use. Stream and gully
erosion appears to be more of a concern in the Lower Little Blue sub-basin compared to the other subbasins. The load of stream derived sediment ranks second highest of the sub-basins, and the delivery
rate of the stream sediment (159 t/mi/yr) is considerably higher than all of the other sub-basins.
Middle Little Blue— The high pollutant delivery rates per acre for sediment, phosphorous, and nitrogen
combined with the low row crop/high pasture land use percentages suggests that pollutant loads and
delivery rates could be improved with targeted BMPs in the Middle Little Blue sub-basin. Stream and
gully erosion appears to be a concern in the Middle Little Blue sub-basin. Although the load of stream
derived sediment ranks fourth for the Basin, the delivery rate of the stream sediment (135 t/mi/yr)
ranks second among sub-basins.
Upper Little Blue —Despite the high percentage of lands used for row crops, and the low percentage of
lands used for pasture, the pollutant delivery rates per acre for sediment, phosphorous, and nitrogen
are low. This suggests that the pollutant trapping efficiency is high in the Upper Little Blue sub-basin
relative to the other sub-basins. Stream and gully erosion is a concern in the Upper Little Blue sub-basin
because of the high load of stream derived sediment (highest load of the six sub-basins). However, the
delivery rate of the stream sediment (111 t/mi/yr) ranks fifth among sub-basins. The percent
contribution of phosphorous from stream channels (13 percent) ranks fourth (Figure 3-2), and the
average slope (2.2 percent) ranks fifth among the six sub-basins. These results indicate that the stream
derived sediment is high due to the high number of stream miles, but the contribution per mile of
stream channel is relatively low.
67
Big Sandy Creek —This sub-basin has the highest percentage of row crop and lowest percentage of
pasture land use. The pollutant delivery rates per acre for sediment, phosphorous and nitrogen are
relatively high (especially for phosphorous), suggesting that the watershed pollutant trapping efficiency
is low relative to the other sub-basins. Stream and gully erosion is a concern in the Big Sandy Creek subbasin because of the high load of stream derived sediment (third highest load in the Basin). However
the delivery rate of the stream sediment (99 t/mi/yr) is the lowest among sub-basins (Table 3-9) (Figure
3-X). The percent contribution of phosphorous from stream channels ranks fifth, and the average slope
(1.5 percent) is the lowest among sub-basins. These results indicate that the stream derived sediment is
high, but the contribution per mile of stream channel is relatively low.
Spring Creek —The high pollutant delivery rates per acre for sediment, phosphorous and nitrogen,
combined with the high row crop/low pasture land use, suggests that improved watershed pollutant
trapping efficiency should be a priority in this sub-basin. Although stream and gully erosion is a priority
across the Basin, the Spring Creek sub-basin appears to be in relatively good shape compared to the
other sub-basins. The stream derived sediment load is the lowest of the sub-basins, and the delivery
rate of the stream sediment (125 t/mi/yr) ranks fourth among sub-basins.
Rose Creek—The pollutant delivery rates for sediment, phosphorus, and nitrogen are a moderate
concern, as is stream and gully erosion in the Rose Creek sub-basin.
Pollutant Load Reductions
3.6.1
Sediment
There are currently no sediment criteria for streams or lakes in Nebraska. Stream sediment reduction
goals were established by setting a practical reduction goal of 20 percent for streams and lakes in the
Basin and its sub-basins (Table 3-12). Sediment reduction quantities were not determined for lakes and
reservoirs due to a lack of sedimentation data for these waterbodies in the Basin. The collection of
these data has been identified as a need in the monitoring section of the Plan.
Table 3-12: Basin and Sub-basin Stream Sediment Reduction Goals
Sub-basin
Current Sediment Load (t/yr)
Reduction Goals
Reduction Quantities (t/yr)
Lower Little Blue
215,730
43,146
Middle Little Blue
186,324
20%
20%
Upper Little Blue
Big Sandy Creek
Spring Creek
Rose Creek
277,122
270,160
79,256
142,970
20%
20%
20%
20%
55,424
54,032
15,851
28,594
1,171,563
20%
234,313
Total Basin Load
3.6.2
37,265
Pesticides
Atrazine load reduction targets for the Little Blue River and Big Sandy Creek are documented in the Little
Blue River TMDL prepared by NDEQ (NDEQ 2013). The targets, developed for May and June, were based
on data from 1991 through 2011. The TMDL identifies necessary reductions in concentrations to meet
68
water quality standards rather than quantifying a reduction in loads. Concentration reductions are
considered more direct and easier for resource managers to work with from both a tracking and
educational standpoint. Current and target concentrations from the TMDL are provided for the Little
Blue River and Big Sandy Creek (Table 3-13). There are no impairments for pesticides in the
lakes/reservoirs of the Basin.
Table 3-13: Atrazine Reductions for Impaired Stream Segments in the Basin (NDEQ 2013)
Flow Class
Flow Exceedance
Range
Maximum Atrazine
Concentration (µg/L)
Required Reduction (%)
High Flows
0-10%
45.7
93.4
Moist
Conditions
10%-40%
111.7
97.3
Mid-Range
Flows
40%-60%
8.9
66.3
60-90%
8.0
62.7
90%-100%
3.9
22.9
Dry Conditions
Low Flows
High Flows
0-10%
35.0
65.7
Moist
Conditions
Mid-Range
Flows
Dry Conditions
10%-40%
36.3
66.9
40%-60%
13.4
10.7
60-90%
8.5
--
Low Flows
90%-100%
No Observations
No Observations
LB2-10100 Big Sandy Creek
High Flows
0-10%
75.4
84.1
Moist
Conditions
Mid-Range
Flows
Dry Conditions
10%-40%
169.3
92.9
40%-60%
13.3
9.5
60-90%
34.2
64.9
Low Flows
90%-100%
7.3
--
69
Flow Exceedance
Range
0-10%
Maximum Atrazine
Concentration (µg/L)
46.4
Moist
Conditions
Mid-Range
Flows
Dry Conditions
10%-40%
37.3
67.8
40%-60%
25.2
52.4
60-90%
26.5
54.7
Low Flows
90%-100%
27.3
56.0
Flow Class
High Flows
3.6.3
Required Reduction (%)
74.1
Nutrients
NDEQ currently has nutrient standards in place for nutrients in lakes and reservoirs (total phosphorous =
50 ppb; total nitrogen = 1,000 ppb), but not for streams and rivers (NDEQ 2014). Therefore, practical
and achievable nutrient reduction goals for phosphorus and nitrogen were established at 20 percent for
streams in the Basin (as suggested by NDEQ). The estimated nutrient loads, reduction goals and
resulting quantities for streams are shown in tables 3-14 and 3-15 for stream phosphorus and nitrogen,
respectively. The reservoir and lake nutrient loads and reduction goals are listed in tables 3-16 and 3-17
for phosphorus and nitrogen for all NDEQ assessed waterbodies in the Basin.
Table 3-14: Basin and Sub-basin Stream Phosphorus Reduction Goals
Sub-basin
Current Phosphorus Load
(lb/yr)
Lower Little Blue
220,645
Middle Little Blue
136,346
Upper Little Blue
Big Sandy Creek
270,636
339,379
Spring Creek
Rose Creek
Total Basin Load
71,222
127,589
1,165,816
Reduction Goals
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
Reduction Quantities
(lb/yr)
44,129
27,269
54,127
67,876
14,244
25,518
233,163
70
Table 3-15: Basin and Sub-basin Stream Nitrogen Reduction Goals
Sub-basin
Current Nitrogen Load (lb/yr)
Reduction Goals
1,423,882
1,326,165
2,571,736
2,032,896
881,564
1,143,512
9,379,757
20%
20%
Lower Little Blue
Middle Little Blue
Upper Little Blue
Big Sandy Creek
Spring Creek
Rose Creek
Total Basin Load
Reduction Quantities
(lb/yr)
84,776
265,233
514,347
406,579
176,313
228,702
1,875,951
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
Table 3-16: Lake and Reservoir Phosphorus Reduction Goals by Sub-basin for all Assessed
Waterbodies
Date Range
P
Required Required
P Range
Lake Name
Sub-basin
(No. of
Mean Reduction Reduction
(ppb)
samples)
(ppb)
(ppb)
(%)
Lower LB
2009 (5)
128-816
373
323
87
Lower LB
2009 (5)
170-599
319
269
84
Lower LB
2009 (5)
112-191
1449
99
66
Liberty Cove
Middle LB
1995-10 (20)
130-830
401
351
88
Lake Hastings
Upper LB
2009 (5)
111-286
200
150
75
Crystal Lake
Upper LB
2009 (5)
41-497
212
162
76
Prairie
Upper LB
2002 (5)
288-611
435
385
89
Roseland
Upper LB
2002 (5)
180-990
501
451
90
Lone Star
Big Sandy
2007-10 (20)
130-1350
790
740
94
Bruning
Big Sandy
2002 (5)
1049-2010
1430
1380
97
Alexandria #1 & #2
Big Sandy
2009 (5)
61-197
108
58
54
Alexandria #3
Big Sandy
2009 (5)
171-670
333
283
85
Buckley
Rose
1997-98 (10)
530-880
690
640
93
Table 3-17: Lake and Reservoir Nitrogen Reduction Goals by Sub-basin for all Assessed Waterbodies
Date Range
N
Required Required
N Range
Lake Name
Sub-basin
(No. of
Mean Reduction Reduction
(ppb)
samples)
(ppb)
(ppb)
(%)
Lower LB
2009 (5)
2028-6425
3893
2893
79
Lower LB
2009 (5)
2539-5008
3734
2734
74
Lower LB
2009 (5)
1538-4837
2273
1273
56
Liberty Cove
Middle LB
1995-10 (23)
550-6950
2350
1350
57
Lake Hastings
Upper LB
71
Crystal Lake
Upper LB
Date Range
(No. of
samples)
2009 (5)
Prairie
Upper LB
NA
Roseland
Upper LB
NA
Lone Star
Big Sandy
2007-10 (20)
Bruning
Big Sandy
NA
Alexandria #1 & #2
Big Sandy
2009 (5)
1294-3043
1898
898
47
Alexandria #3
Big Sandy
2009 (15)
887-4974
2569
1569
61
Buckley
Rose
1997-98 (10)
2790-5670
4740
3740
79
Lake Name
3.6.4
Sub-basin
N
Mean
(ppb)
1858
Required
Reduction
(ppb)
858
Required
Reduction
(%)
46
121010360
2220
1220
55
N Range
(ppb)
829-3546
Bacteria
E. coli reduction targets for the six segments of Little Blue River, Big Sandy Creek, and Rock Creek have
been documented in the Little Blue River TMDL prepared by NDEQ (NDEQ 2013). Required E.coli
reductions for each segment are provided in the TMDL (Table 3-18). To provide a further assessment,
necessary reductions were calculated for stream flow categories (low, medium, high) (Figure 3-9).
Results indicate that in most cases significant reductions are required for all flow classes in order to
meet standards.
Table 3-18: E. coli Reductions for Impaired Stream Segments in the Basin (NDEQ 2013)
2007 Seasonal
Reduction Need
Required
Segment
Waterbody Name Geometric Mean
(col/100 mls)
Reduction (%)
(col/100 mls)
LB1-10000
Little Blue River
254
128
56
LB1-10200
Rock Creek
379
253
70
LB2-10000
Little Blue River
342
216
67
LB2-10100
Big Sandy Creek
428
302
74
LB2-20000
Little Blue River
959
833
88
LB2-30000
Little Blue River
643
517
83
72
Figure 3-9: E.coli Bacteria Reductions in the Basin by Flow Class
Groundwater Pollutant Loads
3.7.1
Nitrates
Based on sampling and analysis for the Vadose Assessment Report in Support of the Little Blue River
Basin Water Management Plan (2015), average basin nitrate loading is 40.5 million lbs/year. The
assessment concluded that both elevated groundwater and vadose zone nitrate levels are present
throughout the district. Recent groundwater nitrate concentrates vary across the basin from 0-38 mg/l
(Figure 2-13). Table 3-19 summarizes the vadose assessment results by annual loading rates for major
basin land-use categories. Sampling sites with long-term land-use of grass, pasture, CRP, or alfalfa
typically had nitrate levels that approximated background levels. Sites where producers indicated that
crop-rotations were utilized tended to show lower nitrate levels than sites that utilized continuous corn
cultivation.
The sampling results suggest a nitrate transport rate through the soil profile of 2.5 ft/year.
Groundwater nitrate levels in many areas will continue to increase as nitrogen application from previous
years continues to slowly migrate through the soil profile to groundwater. This implies that it may take
many years before management actions have significant impacts on lowering groundwater nitrate
levels. These lag effects, combined with the management levels necessary to prevent several
communities from reaching the MCL may be challenging to implement; necessitating an incremental
approach towards nitrate reduction based upon feasible actions.
73
Table 3-19: Little Blue River Basin Annual Nitrate Loading
Land Use
Irrigated Corn
Dryland Corn
Irrigated Soybean
Dryland Soybean
Alfalfa/Wheat/Grass/Pasture
Other
Area
(%)
24
16
12.9
8.6
28.6
9.9
Approximate Area
Avg. N Load
(ac)
(lb/ac/ft)
408,574
15.7
272,383
8.2
219,609
12.2
146,406
6.6
486,884
6.3
168,537
5.0
Total Yearly Nitrate Load (lb/yr)
Annual N Loading
Rate (million lb/yr)
16.0
5.58
6.69
2.41
7.67
2.11
40.5
74
REFERENCES
American Veterinary Medical Association 2002. U.S. Pet Ownership and Demographics Sourcebook
(2002 Edition). Schaumberg, Illinois.
Collins, R, S Elliott, R Adams. 2005. Overland flow delivery of fecal bacteria to a headwater pastoral
stream. J. Appl. Microbiol. 99:126-132.
Collins R, K Rutherford. 2004. Modeling bacterial water quality in streams draining pastoral land. Wat.
Res. 38:700-712.
Cooke, G, E Welch, S Peterson, P Newroth. 1993. Restoration and management of lakes and reservoirs,
2nd edition. Lewis publishers, New York. 547p.
Faust, MA, AE Aotaky, MT Hargodon. 1975. Effects of physical parameters on In situ survival of
Eschereria coli MC-6 in an estuarine environment. Appl. Microbiol. 30:800-806.
Gerba, CP, JS McCleod. 1976. Effect of sediments on the survival of Eschereria coli in marine waters.
Appl. Environ. Microbial. 32:114-120.
Kelton, N. and P. Chow-Fraser. 2005. A simplified assessment of factors controlling phosphorus loading
from oxygenated sediments in a very shallow eutrophic lake. Lake and Reservoir Management
21:223-230.
Matson, EA, SG Hornor, JD Buck. 1978. Pollution indicators and other microorganisms in river sediment.
J. Wat. Poll. Contrl. Fed. 50:13-19.
NDA. 1996. 1995-96 Nebraska Department of Agricultural Statistics. Nebraska Agricultural Statistics
Service, Nebraska Dept. of Agriculture, Lincoln, Nebraska.
NDEQ. 2000. Strategic Plan and Guidance for Implementing the Nebraska Nonpoint Source
Management Program – 2000 through 2015.
NDEQ. 2005. Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Little Blue River Basin. Water Quality Planning Unit,
Water Quality Division, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, Lincoln, Nebraska.
NDEQ. 2007. Total Maximum Daily Loads for Shell Creek: LP1-20700, Atrazine. Water Quality Planning
Unit, Water Quality Division, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, Lincoln, Nebraska.
NDEQ. 2011. Occurrence and Trends of Pesticides in Nebraska Lakes and Reservoirs 1993-2008.
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, Lincoln, Nebraska.
NDEQ. 2013. Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Little Blue River. Water Quality Planning Unit, Water
Quality Division, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, Lincoln, Nebraska.
NDEQ. 2013. Determining Internal Phosphorus Loads To Wagon Train Reservoir, Lancaster County.
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division. Lincoln, Nebraska.
75
NDEQ. 2014. Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, Title 117 – Nebraska Surface Water
Quality Standards, Water Quality Division, Lincoln, Nebraska.
NDEQ 2015. http://deq.ne.gov/NDEQProg.nsf/OnWeb/MapsData. Accessed 3/15/15
Sayler, GS, JD Nelson, A Justice, RR Colwell. 1976. Distribution and significance of fecal indicator
organisms in the Upper Chesapeake Bay. Appl. Microbiol. 30:625-638.
Sondergaard, Martin , J. Peder Jensen & Erik Jeppesen. 2003. Role of sediment and internal loading of
phosphorus in shallow lakes. Hydrobiologia 506–509
Staley, C, KH Reckhow, J Lukasik, VJ Harwood. 2012. Assessment of sources of human pathogens and
fecal contamination in a Florida freshwater lake.
Stephenson, GR, RC Rychert. 1982. Bottom sediment: a reservoir of Eschereria coli in rangeland
streams. J. Range Manag. 35:119-123. Water Research 46:5799-5812.
UNL. 2008. Assessment of Stream Banks: Erosion Processes and Sediment Contributions to Wagon
Train Lake in Eastern Nebraska. Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of
Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska.
USEPA. 2012. Collaborative Adaptive Management Implementation Schedule And Agreement For
Hinkson Creek TMDL. April 2012. United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources. Curators of the University of Missouri, City of Columbia
Missouri.
USEPA. 2014. http://www2.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/sources-and-solutions-agriculture accessed
4/17/2014.
USEPA. 2013. USGS Sparrow Model Decision Support Tool. United States Environmental Protection
Agency.
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/nutrients/dataset_sparrow.cfm
Wauchope, R. D., Buttler, T. M., Hornsby A. G., Augustijn-Beckers, P. W. M. and Burt, J. P. SCS/ARS/CES
Pesticide properties database for environmental decisionmaking. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 123: 1157, 1992.8-21
Young, KD, EL Thackston. 1999. Housing density and bacterial loading in urban streams. J. Environ.
Engineer. 1177-1180.
76
Section 4 – Areas of Interest Delineation
AREAS OF INTEREST DELINEATION
Introduction
While basic water management efforts are continually carried out basin wide, more costly efforts
needed to address large scale water quantity and quality concerns need to be approached through
targeting. Targeting consists of focusing available resources in areas that will provide the most benefits
to the public and natural resources. For this plan, areas defined as “Areas of Interest” (AOIs) are those
areas which are either high-quality resources, or resources that require mitigation measures to achieve
a desired state. AOIs are points or geographic regions within the Basin where actions for resource
management will be considered. AOIs were determined from issues and concerns such as:
•
•
•
•
Existing groundwater or surface water quality impairment,
Presence of a source water aquifer,
Groundwater level declines, and
High quality resources.
Priority Issues
As pointed out in previous sections, there are numerous water related issues and concerns in the Basin.
In order to properly target resources, priority issues need to be identified. The steering committee
discussed the priority areas and ranked the priorities through a voting exercise. The prioritized surface
and groundwater water issues as determined by the steering committee are:
Higher Priority
Long Term Groundwater Level Declines (16 votes)
Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater (13 votes)
Streambank Erosion (13 votes)
Loss of Perennial Stream Flow (13 votes)
Irrigation Development/Land Use Expansion (13 votes)
Pesticides in Surface Water (10 votes)
Poor Biological Communities (10 votes)
Protecting Wetlands and High Quality Water Resources (6 votes)
Meeting Water Needs in Areas with Limited Groundwater Capacity (5 votes)
Short Term Groundwater Declines (4 votes)
Historical Well Construction Practices (3 votes)
Flood Control (2 votes)
Bacteria in Lakes and Streams (2 votes)
Seasonal Groundwater Drawdown (2 votes)
Nutrients and Toxic Algae in Lakes (2 votes)
Blue River Compact in Water Short Years (2 votes)
Education and Additional Training (0 votes)
Point Sources (0 votes)
Lower Priority
While these general priorities will play into project development, many other factors will be considered
to determine what individual projects are moved forward for planning and implementation. Those
include but are not limited to social factors, funding availability, and technical feasibility.
77
Areas of Interest
AOIs were organized into four categories: groundwater quality, groundwater quantity, surface water
quality, and surface water quality. In many cases one AOI fits into several categories, establishing AOIs
with potential for implementation of multi-beneficial actions.
4.3.1
Groundwater Quality Areas of Interest
Wellhead Protection Areas
NDEQ is responsible for administration of the State’s Wellhead Protection Program. Individual Public
Water Supply Systems (PWSSs) are responsible for developing wellhead protection plans under that
program. The NRDs have been proactive in assisting communities with source water protection efforts.
Groundwater quality AOIs include all areas within the Basin delineated as a WHPA, as explained in
Section 2. Priorities for WHPA AOIs have been defined further by known areas of nitrate contamination
or other issues. Table 4-1 shows each community with a WHPA within the Basin and the level of nitrate.
Priority level is based upon nitrate levels. It is important to recognize that management actions should
be considered in areas where high quality groundwater currently exists, and that maintaining a high
quality is equally important to mitigating threats from aquifers that are already contaminated.
Approximately 65% of the basin population relies upon water supplies with nitrate levels at or exceeding
7 ppm.
Table 4-1: Wellhead Protection Area Priority Level
PWS Name
Steele City
Edgar
Prosser
Roseland
Ohiowa
Hubbell
Bladen
Glenvil
Shickley
Ong
Hastings
Ruskin
Hebron
Fairbury
Chester
Bruning North
Deshler
Blue Hill
Lawrence
Clay Center
Byron
Kenesaw
Deweese
Reynolds
NRD
LB
LB
LB & CP
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB & UBB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB & UBB
LB
LB
LB
LB
County
Jefferson
Clay
Adams & Hall
Adams
Fillmore
Thayer
Webster
Clay
Fillmore
Clay
Adams
Nuckolls
Thayer
Jefferson
Thayer
Thayer
Thayer
Webster & Adams
Adams
Clay
Thayer
Adams
Clay & Nuckolls
Jefferson
NO3 Levels
Over 10 ppm (AO)
Over 10 ppm (AO)
Over 10 ppm (AO)
Over 7 ppm
Over 7 ppm
Over 7 ppm
Over 7 ppm
Over 7 ppm
Over 7 ppm
Over 7 ppm
Over 7 ppm
Over 7 ppm
Over 7 ppm
Over 7 ppm
Over 7 ppm
Over 7 ppm
Between 5 and 7 ppm
Between 5 and 7 ppm
Between 5 and 7 ppm
Between 5 and 7 ppm
Between 5 and 7 ppm
Between 5 and 7 ppm
Between 5 and 7 ppm
Between 5 and 7 ppm
Priority Level
Very High
Very High
Very High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
78
PWS Name
Juniata
Tobias
Alexandria
Minden
Endicott
Carleton
Campbell
Davenport
Nelson
Holstein
Fairfield
Belvidere
Bruning South
Daykin
NRD
LB
LBB & LB
LB
TB
LB
LB
LR
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LBB & LB
County
Adams
Saline & Jefferson
Thayer
Kearney
Jefferson
Thayer
Franklin
Nuckolls & Thayer
Nuckolls
Adams
Clay
Thayer
Thayer
Jefferson
NO3 Levels
Between 5 and 7 ppm
Between 5 and 7 ppm
Less than 5 ppm
Less than 5 ppm
Less than 5 ppm
Less than 5 ppm
Less than 5 ppm
Less than 5 ppm
Less than 5 ppm
Less than 5 ppm
Less than 5 ppm
Less than 5 ppm
Less than 5 ppm
Less than 5 ppm
Priority Level
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Groundwater Management Areas
Groundwater management areas are an existing regulatory tool used by both NRDs. Management areas
are determined by the NRD Boards and put into place additional requirements for producers such as
nitrogen application certification and training, education, and other requirements aimed to reduce the
quantity of nitrogen within areas that are experiencing elevated nitrate levels in aquifers. TBNRD does
not have GWMAs within the Basin, but is adjacent to LBNRD’s Kenesaw/Prosser GWMAs. In total,
LBNRD has eight GWMAs where management actions are in place. For purposes of this Plan, any
current Phase II or higher GWMA is defined as a groundwater quality AOI. GWMAs are displayed in
Figure 4-1.
79
Figure 4-1: Groundwater Management Areas
Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment
A preliminary assessment was conducted to determine if areas within the Basin had significantly
different levels of vulnerability to nitrate contamination. Several combinations of factors were
considered in the assessment. The GIS data sets for the various factors were obtained from the
Hydrogeologic Study conducted by the LBNRD; therefore, the assessment was limited to the boundary
of the LBNRD.
The results of the preliminary aquifer vulnerability assessment are provided in Figure 4-2, based on two
factors: unsaturated thickness of clay above primary aquifer and land use. One of the primary
conclusions is that the vulnerability to nitrate contamination is relatively widespread, including difficult
to assess areas where the principle aquifer is less than 10 ft thick. This conclusion is supported by the
wide spread distribution of elevated nitrate levels across the LBNRD.
80
Figure 4-2: Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment
4.3.2
Groundwater Quantity Areas of Interest
Groundwater Level Declines (Short-term)
The water table fluctuates over time in response to changes in precipitation-based recharge or
groundwater pumping. Water table drawdown occurs when more water leaves the groundwater
system than is recharged. Nebraska experienced a period of significant drought from approximately
2000 to 2005 and groundwater levels across the state, especially within the Basin, decreased in
response. AOIs for short-term groundwater level declines were based on areas that exhibited a 5 feet or
greater change in groundwater levels between 2000 and 2005. Information from UNL-CSD has been
used to define this area as seen in Figure 4-3.
81
Figure 4-3: Short-term Groundwater declines
On a regional scale, water levels across the Basin responded similarly to the drought and no significant
change in the configuration of the water table and flow directions occurred. Groundwater levels
decreased over most areas where the principal aquifer exists, and were concentrated in areas of
Nuckolls, Thayer, Fillmore, Clay, and Adams Counties. Water levels appeared to increase in one isolated
area in north-central Webster County.
Groundwater Level Declines (Long-term)
Changes in groundwater levels across the Basin were evaluated by UNL-CSD by mapping the change in
groundwater levels from predevelopment to 2012. For purposes of this Plan, a long-term groundwater
level AOI is defined as an area with a groundwater decline of 10 feet or greater since pre-development
(Figure 2-17).
Seasonal Drawdown and Other Issues
Seven communities have been identified as having potential groundwater quantity or other issues for
their municipal source water supply, including: Bladen, Blue Hill, Deweese, Ohiowa, Tobias, Fairbury,
and Steele City. The primary concern is well-development surrounding public supply wells in areas
where the groundwater supply may not be sustainable. The Fairbury water supply well field has current
capacity issues that prevent LBNRD from expanding the rural water system. These communities are
identified on Figure 4-4.
82
Figure 4-4: Municipal Groundwater Issues
Principal Aquifer Less than 10 Feet
The principal aquifer is defined as the major water-bearing, undifferentiated sands and gravels that are
present above bedrock. This area has been defined within the LBNRD Hydrogeologic study and covers
about 433,000 acres, or 24 percent of LBNRD land area. Similar data are unavailable for the TBNRD.
The majority of the principal aquifer area is regulated by LBNRD, including one quantity sub-area (Subarea 8) and six stay areas as presented in Figure 4-5. A permanent stay has been implemented within
the six stay areas, and irrigated acre expansion is not allowed in Sub-area 8. TBNRD currently does not
allow for any new irrigation development in their district without a variance or transfer permit.
For purposes of this Plan, a region with a limited principal aquifer is considered an AOI.
83
Figure 4-5: Groundwater Quantity and Stay Areas
4.3.3
Surface Water Quality Areas of Interest
E.coli Bacteria
In-stream monitoring data from NDEQ was used to determine hotspot areas for bacteria, as discussed in
Section 3. E.coli bacteria has not been monitored throughout the Basin; therefore, information from six
stream segments in the Basin (Rose Creek, Big Sandy Creek, Rock Creek, and three segments of the Little
Blue River) were evaluated. Concentrations measured in 2007 and 2012 were above the Nebraska
Surface Water Quality Standard in all stream segments monitored (NDEQ 2012). Since bacteria are a
concern Basin-wide, a rotating sub-basin approach will be taken for implementation activities. Of the
three sub-basins monitored, Rose Creek had the highest bacteria concentrations making it the initial
AOI. Future sub-basin priorities and AOIs for bacteria can be evaluated as more data become available.
Bacteria data gaps have been included in the Monitoring and Evaluation Section of this plan.
Biological Communities
Similar to bacteria, biological monitoring data from NDEQ were evaluated to determine which of the
sub-basins appears as a hotspot for biological impairments. Biological community AOIs are defined as
those with an impairment to aquatic life. According to the NDEQ 2014 Water Quality Integrated Report
(IR), only two stream segments are impaired for aquatic life, both are on Spring Creek (LB2-10500 and
LB2-10600). Both of these segments are shown on Figure 4-6, along with the bacteria AOI sub-basin,
Rose Creek. The pollutant of concern is listed as unknown and a recommended action for an aquatic
community assessment is listed by NDEQ in the IR.
84
Figure 4-6: Bacterial and Biological Community AOI
Reservoirs
Surface water reservoir AOIs are defined as those on NDEQ’s 303(d) list of impaired waters. As
discussed in Section 3, 10 of the Basin’s reservoirs are categorized as impaired for known pollutants.
Each of the reservoirs listed as a Category 5 impaired waterbody is considered an AOI and is shown on
Figure 4-7.
85
Figure 4-7: Impaired Surface Water AOIs
Rainwater Basin (RWB) Wetlands
The rainwater basin wetland complex covers most of the Basin north of the Little Blue River, as
presented in Figure 2-12. There are approximately 20 RWB waterfowl production areas, and 14 RWB
wildlife management areas in the Basin. The complex as a whole is considered a high quality resource
and therefore an AOI. NGPC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manage the wetlands. Both NRDs are
actively involved in restoration and enhancement of RWB wetlands.
4.3.4
Surface Water Quantity Areas of Interest
Perennial Stream Reach Losses
Perennial streams are typically supplied by groundwater and maintain a continuous flow regardless of
the quantity of surface water runoff. According to a 2007 study completed by the UNL-School of Natural
Resources, there are several areas where perennial flow in streams no longer exists. It is important to
note that conditions may have changed since this report was conducted and that additional stream flow
monitoring and site assessment may be necessary to determine current conditions.
For purposes of this Plan, the areas where perennial flow has ‘dried up’ during UNL’s study period have
been identified as AOIs and are shown on Figure 2-16.
Water Short Years – Rose Creek and the Lower Little Blue Sub-watersheds
One of the Plan’s goals is to ensure agricultural producers do not need to shut down surface water
irrigation during dry years to increase stream flows for purposes of Compact compliance. The Plan will
identify solutions that can augment flows through recharge, retiming, or storage. To be efficient in
86
augmenting surface water flows to Kansas, development of projects would need to be located in the
lower end of the Basin, or either within the Rose Creek or Lower Little Blue sub-basins. Therefore, these
sub-basins are considered AOIs for flow augmentation.
In general, groundwater quality, long term groundwater declines, loss of perennial streams, and
irrigation development are the top concerns in the basin. Sixteen communities have nitrate-nitrogen
concentrations greater than 7 mg/L. In addition, several counties including Fillmore, Thayer, Clay,
Nuckolls, and Adams, have experienced groundwater declines from 10 to 20 feet while perennial flow
has been lost in several miles of streams across the basin.
AOIs, which are based on issues and concerns, will be used to focus water resource management actions
to achieve the maximum benefit from available funding. Within each AOI, target areas have been
further delineated whereby specific management measures and/or programmatic recommendations
can be implemented. While issues and concerns drove this process, high quality surface and
groundwater resources should be targeted for protective actions. Additional data and information
related to the AOIs presented in this plan will allow for a better understanding of the issues at hand and
enhance the effectiveness of implementation strategies.
87
Section 5 – Management Practices
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Introduction
The intent of Section 5 is to present practical tools that can be used to address the problems and
concerns identified in previous chapters. This section outlines management practices and structural
alternatives that are available to achieve the water management goals and objectives for the Basin.
Specific practices were highlighted in this section because of landowner preference, practice suitability
based on management goals, and practice effectiveness. Included are site specific structural practices
such as in-stream weirs and water quality basins, and non-structural practices such as no-till and
nutrient management.
Landowners and producers will be encouraged to implement structural projects and non-structural
management practices. In many cases, producers will take on the role of project sponsor, receive
mutual benefits, and will voluntarily pay a share of the cost in constructing or adopting these practices.
NRDs will be responsible for implementing water management projects in conjunction with other
resource agencies. Water management projects will primarily be structural and will address water
management priorities in the Basin.
While the impacts of short-term and immediate actions are easier to visualize, it is important to consider
long-term issues, such as climate change, when planning future programs and projects. Climate change
is projected to complicate food production in the world's semi-arid regions, which already have high
climate variability (Molles et al. 1992, IPCC 2008). Regardless of land conservation practices, extreme
climate events will likely convert apparently sustainable systems to unsustainable systems (Chang et al.
2014). Large structural projects will be needed in conjunction with sweeping adoption of watershed
practices to manage, and when possible take advantage of opportunities provided by, these extremes.
Large-scale projects, such as dams or in-stream check dams, can have multiple benefits and for purposes
of this Plan may be labeled as multi-beneficial projects. Benefits may include, but are not limited to,
flood control, bank stabilization, groundwater recharge, increase in aquatic habitat, reduction in
sedimentation, and capturing and infiltrating stormwater.
Conjunctive Management
Conjunctive management practices are those that coordinate combined management of surface water
and groundwater to improve the available water supply throughout a region or basin and promote the
sustainability of that supply. Conjunctive management, according to NDNR, recognizes that surface
water and groundwater resources are hydrologically connected, and decisions to improve the
management of one cannot be made properly without considering the other.
Specific to this Basin, conjunctive management can be accomplished by storing, re-timing, or recharging
groundwater aquifers with excess surface water flows. Conjunctive management will alter the location
and timing of water so it can be utilized more efficiently. According to NDNR, there are three
components of conjunctive management:
1) Dual Water Source: Encouraging producers that have access to both surface and groundwater
supplies to utilize surface water during years of sufficient streamflow and groundwater during
88
water-short years. This approach minimizes impacts to streamflow during drought years, while
minimizing groundwater depletions during other periods.
2) Passive Retiming: Allowing water to seep into the aquifer to restore groundwater levels and
increase baseflow to streams. This can be achieved through such mechanisms as surface water
spreading, additional canal use, or injection wells.
3) Active Retiming: Using mechanical means, such as pipes, pumps, tanks, or reservoirs to store
and release water as needed. These methods are often more costly than the other conjunctive
management options.
Watershed Based Programs
SPARROW modeling and impairment listings provided in this Plan indicate that a majority of the
nonpoint source problems in the Basin are tied to the system’s response to agricultural activities.
According to the results of the Vadose Zone Assessment Report, agricultural sources are causing an
increase in nutrient leaching to groundwater aquifers, with the main concern being nitrate
contamination of the groundwater.
The NRDs have been working with local agricultural producers to improve their operations by
implementing land treatment and management practices. Most practices implemented through
watershed programs reduce multiple pollutants, but some are more effective than others. While it is
logical to promote practices that will provide the greatest benefit, landowners and producers typically
construct/adopt practices that they are familiar with (conventional) and best fit their current operation.
Most conventional practices are aimed at maintaining soil health and reducing runoff impacts to surface
water quality. Local barriers to management practice adoption should continually be identified and
addressed.
The NRDs encourage adoption/installation of practices eligible under USDA landscape conservation
initiatives such as the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), Agricultural Management
Assistance (AMA) Program, Water Quality Initiative (WQI), and Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program
(WHIP). Conservation practices targeted for local, state, and federal funding include those covered
under the NRCS Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG) (USDA 2003) and new, innovative practices
developed at the local, state, or federal level.
Of the practices listed in the FOTG, those most commonly adopted/installed by producers in the Basin
include: constructed wetlands; critical area planting; fencing; filter strips; grade stabilization; integrated
pest management; nutrient management; residue management; ponds and sediment basins; terraces;
tree and shrub planting; and stream channel stabilization. While encouraging implementation and
incentives for most of the conventional practices will be offered Basin-wide, specific practices
appropriate for the management goals in a given area may be promoted through increased education,
cost-share, and/or incentives. Coordination between the NRDs and NRCS on efforts can benefit actions
within target areas identified in this Plan. Collaboration with all resource agencies can enhance funding
opportunities for the implementation of management practices.
89
5.3.1
Conservation Practices
While there are a host of practices available to producers to address specific or multiple issues, there
are core practices that have either been widely accepted in the Basin or have a high potential to benefit
water resources. The core practices are as follows.
Crop to Grass/Alfalfa Conversion
Grasslands provide valuable environmental services. Globally, the amount of semi-arid grassland
converted to cropland is unknown; however, in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, and
Minnesota alone it has been estimated that over 1.3 million acres of grassland were converted to row
crop production between 2006 and 2011(Wright and Wimberly 2013). This conversion is driven by
many factors including high grain prices, increasing global food demand (Tilman et al. 2011), the
development of more drought resistant maize cultivars (Zea mays) (Chang et al. 2014), policy changes
designed to produce economic development, and equipment improvements.
Significant environmental gains can be achieved in the Basin by 1) reducing the amount of current
grassland put into crop production and 2) restoring current cropland to grass/alfalfa. Crop ground to
grass conversions are considered by producers for multiple reasons including economic gains, wildlife
enhancement, and pastureland establishment. The need for economic development and improved food
production must be balanced with agricultural long-term sustainability and the services provided by
grasslands (Global Food Security 2014).
Pasture Management
Healthy grasslands provide extensive environmental benefits. Grasslands used for livestock production
can constitute upland pastures or riparian areas. While surface water can improve forage production
throughout the growing season, it also creates additional management challenges such as periodic
flooding of the adjacent riparian pasture, wet soils that may be prone to compaction damage, stream
banks that are vulnerable to erosion, and fencing issues. The boundaries of a riparian pasture can be
established to exclude these areas so that livestock can be easily managed to minimize disturbance
during high-water periods and to allow appropriate grazing management during drier soil conditions.
Livestock find their own favorite areas to graze, drink, congregate, and rest within a riparian area.
Without management, some areas will be overused and the resulting impacts will impair or destroy the
riparian system. Management strategies that address livestock distribution, timing of grazing, access to
water, supplemental feeding locations, and intensity and duration of use will protect wet soils and
riparian vegetation during vulnerable periods (UWEX 2011). A combination of seasonal riparian
management strategies can be used to develop a plan that best fits each farm’s riparian resources and
livestock forage needs; these combinations can increases management flexibility across the farm.
Grazing management principles that are familiar to livestock producers practicing managed grazing can
also be applied to riparian pastures.
Continuous No-Till and Other Low-Tillage Farming Practices
One conventional practice that will help address most of the surface and groundwater priorities in the
Basin is no-till or limited tillage farming. By reducing soil erosion, conservation tillage practices and notill acreage can significantly improve soil, water and air quality. No-till farming can reduce soil erosion
by 90 to 95 percent or more compared to conventional tillage practices, and continuous no-till can make
the soil more resistant to erosion over time (CTIC 2010). In fact, Baker and Laflen (1983) documented a
97 percent reduction in sediment loss in a no-till system as compared with conventional tillage practices.
90
Fawcett et al. (1994) summarized natural rainfall studies covering more than 32 site-years of data and
found that, on average, no-till resulted in 70 percent less herbicide runoff, 93 percent less erosion and
69 percent less water runoff than moldboard plowing, in which the soil is completely inverted.
Additional benefits from conservation tillage adoption are increased carbon storage, increased plant
available water, and reduced water evaporation from the soil surface (Smika 1983; Hatfield et al. 2000;
Pryor 2006; Su et al. 2007; Triplett and Dick 2008; Salado-Navarro and Sinclair 2009; Klocke et al. 2009;
Baumhardt et al. 2010; Clay et al. 2012; and Mitchell et al. 2012). In addition to providing
environmental benefits, the use of no-till practices can result in as much as a 52 percent higher producer
profit than conventional till methods (UNL 2015).
Nutrient Management
Crops are not efficient at removing fertilizer and manure nitrogen from the soil during the growing cycle.
Unused or residual nitrogen is vulnerable to leaching prior to the start of the next production year;
especially during the fall and winter months if precipitation occurs when fields lay fallow.
The potential exists for accelerated nutrient loss when essential nutrient amounts exceed crop uptake
needs. Nutrient reactions and pathways in the soil-water system are complex. Nutrient flow to surface
water and groundwater vary from nutrient to nutrient as do the threats to water quality. Potential
surface water impacts include sedimentation, eutrophication, and overall water quality degradation.
Groundwater concerns center around the potential migration of pesticides and nitrates in recharge
waters, and the resulting degradation to drinking water quality. Groundwater contributes to surface
water as baseflow discharge, furthering the extent of groundwater contamination (Alfera and Weismiller
2002).
Nutrient management utilizes farm practices that permit efficient crop production while controlling
nutrient runoff and percolation. Nutrient management plans must be tailored to specific soils and crop
production systems. The goal of the Plan is to minimize detrimental environmental effects (primarily on
water quality), while optimizing farm profits. Nutrient losses still occur with plans, but are controlled to
an environmentally acceptable level. Nutrient management programs emphasize how proper planning
and implementation will improve water quality and enhance farm profitability through reduced input
costs. Nutrient management plans incorporate soil test results, manure test results, yield goals and
estimates of residual nitrogen to generate field-by-field recommendations (Alfera and Weismiller 2002).
Cover Crops
A cover crop is grown to benefit topsoil and/or other crops intended for harvest. If the length of the
growing season permits, cover crops can also be harvested prior to planting a summer crop, but they are
not planted for the sole purpose of being harvested. Typical cover crops include cereal rye, oats, sweet
clover, winter barley, and winter wheat. Cover crops serve two main purposes, 1) to decrease runoff,
erosion and leaching between cropping seasons, and 2) to provide nitrogen to succeeding crops. They
may also be used to extract surplus nutrients, reduce pest problems, and decrease runoff. The cover
crop maintains these functions by keeping the ground covered, adding organic matter to the soil,
trapping nutrients, improving soil tilth, and reducing weed competition. Cover cropping is a short-term
practice, not exceeding one crop-year. When properly grown, cover crops or green manure may contain
1-2 percent nitrogen, 0.5-0.75 percent of phosphorus, and 3-5 percent potassium; equivalent to lowanalysis fertilizing materials. Legumes are usually used as green manure (Michigan State University
1998). Crop covers can reduce soil erosion by 70 percent and runoff by 11 to 96 percent (Dillaha 1990).
91
Terraces and Diversions
Terraces consist of an earthen embankment, channel, or a combined ridge and channel built across the
slope of the field (USEPA 1993). They may reduce the topsoil erosion rate as well as the sediment load
and content of associated pollutants in surface water runoff. They have been reported to reduce soil
loss by 94 to 95 percent, nutrient losses by 56 to 92 percent, and runoff by 73 to 88 percent (Dillaha
1990). Terraces intercept and store surface runoff, trapping sediments and pollutants. Underground
drainage outlets are used to collect soluble nutrient and pesticide leachates, reducing the risk of
movement of pollutants into the groundwater, and improving field drainage.
A diversion is very similar to a terrace, but its purpose is to direct or divert surface water runoff away
from an area, or to collect and direct water to a pond. When built at the base of a slope, the diversion
diverts runoff away from the bottomlands. Filter strips should be installed above the diversion channel
to trap sediments and protect the diversion. Similarly, vegetative cover should be maintained in the
diversion ridge. The outlet should be kept clear of debris and animals.
This practice stabilizes the drainage network and reduces soil erosion on lowlands by catching runoff
water and preventing it from reaching farmland. In addition, the vegetation in the diversion channel
filters runoff water, thereby improving the water quality. The diversion also serves to provide cover for
small birds and animals. An additional benefit to producers includes improved crop growth on
bottomlands.
Water Quality Basins
Two types of water quality basins are often used for flood control and stormwater runoff treatment:
wet ponds and dry ponds. Both basins function to settle suspended sediments and other pollutants
typically present in stormwater runoff. Wet ponds are also called retention ponds and they hold back
water similar to a dam. The retention pond has a permanent pool of water that fluctuates in response
to precipitation and runoff from the contributing areas. Maintaining a pool discourages re-suspension
and keeps deposited sediments at the bottom of the holding area.
Detention ponds can serve as flood control features. They are usually dry except during or after rain or
snow melt. Their purpose is to slow down water flow and hold it for a short period of time (e.g., 24
hours). These structures will reduce peak runoff rates associated with storms, decreasing flood damage.
Dry ponds can be designed for a variety of storm events and purposes. The land area available for
construction, slope of the site, and contributing area are all factors to be considered.
Seasonal Wetland Habitat Improvement Projects
Seasonal Habitat Improvement Projects (SHIP) are designed for drained and cropped wetlands within
the RWB. The land remains in production during the growing season, but serves as migratory bird
habitat during the non-growing season, when water is allowed to pond in the wetland soil area. They
involve constructing a shallow berm with a stop log outlet at the low end of a field. The boards are
installed after harvest so the lower end of the field floods in the fall. The boards are removed in the
spring before planting to dewater the field. SHIP structures can also contribute to ground water
recharge and to sediment and nutrient load reductions to streams.
Tree Planting
Riparian buffer strips consist of an area of trees, usually accompanied by shrubs and other vegetation
down slope of fields and pastures that are adjacent to a body of water. They reduce the impact of nonpoint pollution sources by trapping and filtering sediments, nutrients, and other chemicals. When
92
vegetated buffers are located at the edges of the crop fields, they absorb nutrients and trap
phosphorus-laden sediments that otherwise would runoff of the fields.
Streambank Stabilization
Streambank protection consists of restoring and protecting banks of streams and excavated channels
against scour and erosion by using vegetative plantings, soil bioengineering, and structures. Streambank
erosion is a process that occurs when the forces exerted by flowing water exceed the resisting forces of
bank materials and vegetation. Stream erosion refers to the active erosion within a stream channel or
adjacent floodplain. The erosion can be the result of lateral instability (bank erosion) or vertical
instability (gullying).
Eroding stream banks can be a major contributor of sediment and other pollutants to rivers, lakes, and
streams. The principal causes of bank erosion may be classed as geologic, climatic, vegetative,
hydrologic/hydraulic, or human induced. These causes may act independently, but normally work in an
interrelated manner. Erosion occurs in many natural streams that have vegetated banks; however, land
use changes or natural disturbances can cause the frequency and magnitude of water forces to increase.
Loss of streamside vegetation leads to reduced resistance; making stream banks more susceptible to
erosion. Benefits of streambank protection include, but are not limited to, the following:
Prevent the loss of land, soil, and vegetation adjacent to a watercourse
Minimize damage to utilities, roads, buildings or other facilities adjacent to a watercourse
Reduce sediment loads to streams
Maintain the capacity of the stream channel and control unwanted meander of a river or
stream
 Improve the stream for recreational use or as habitat for fish and wildlife.




Undesirable/Invasive Species Removal
Several invasive vegetation species, such as eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), honey locust
(Gleditsia triacanthos), and mulberry (Morus), have created a dense cover surrounding the Little Blue
River and its tributaries. Dense vegetation limits the diversity of native plants growing in the riparian
corridor often resulting in barren soils during the non-growing season. This leads to a sediment
pollutant source, limitation of wildlife habitat, obstructions in the waterway, and evapotranspiration.
Removal of vegetation, including physical removal of trees and disking of the river bed, has several
benefits:
 Water conveyance efficiency through removal of blockages, which will maintain and
enhance stream flows in the river system.
 Higher river base flows and reduced flood damage resulting from the elimination of noxious
plants and in‐channel vegetation blocking river flow.
 Riparian forest health is improved through selective cutting of undesirable eastern red cedar
and other invasive species.
 Re‐establishment of natural landscapes to promote native plants, aquatic habitat for game
and fish species through removal of non‐beneficial plant species.
93
 Livestock grazing and haying by restoring riparian areas and suppressing invasive plants
after treatment.
 Long-term control of invasive plants within and adjacent to stream channels to prevent
wasteful consumptive use of water and help mitigate degradation of water supply.
In the past these undesirable/invasive species management efforts have been led by the Twin Valley
Weed Management Area (TVWMA) through LBNRD (LBNRD 2013).
Soil Sampling
As determined by the Steering Committee, soil sampling is one of the most important practices to
address groundwater nitrate contamination. The primary objectives of soil sampling are to determine
the average nutrient status and degree of variability in a field in order to allow for applying fertilizer at
calculated agronomic rates. Correct fertilizer use, based on accurate information about soil fertility
levels in fields, can result in increased crop yield, reduced cost, and minimized environmental impact.
Knowing a field’s nutrient status variability means fertilizer application can be adjusted to more closely
meet the supplemental nutrient needs of a crop for specific field areas. Soil sampling is beneficial when
applied with management practices that reduce nitrate application, and therefore reduce loading to
surface and groundwater resources.
On-site Wastewater System Improvements
Inadequate on-site wastewater systems can contribute to bacteria loading and has been identified as a
concern. Although no data were collected as part of the planning effort on the locations or conditions of
systems, it is important to consider a cost-share program for upgrading inadequate systems. Within
target areas, the NRDs should consider addressing problems with systems through Basin-wide education
and voluntary repair/upgrades with possible cost-share assistance.
5.3.2
Pollutant Reduction Efficiencies
It is very difficult to categorize the effectiveness of any given management practice. Effectiveness is
often a function of local conditions, including soils, topography, climate, and crop management. Other
factors such as proper site selection, installation, maintenance, and degree of implementation are also
critical to how well a practice performs. In addition, most practices are used not alone, but in
conjunction with one or more complimentary practices.
Pollutant removal efficiencies for several watershed-based practices have been well documented by EPA
and are provided in Tables 5-X, 5-Y, and 5-Z. While these performance estimates can be used for
planning purposes, actual performance may be much different than documented in the literature.
Whenever possible, management practice performance should be measured locally and documented for
future planning purposes.
Because data on bacteria removal are limited, both in the number of data points and the
representativeness of the data, rigorous statistical conclusions cannot be drawn based on available data.
Significantly more studies are needed for all BMP types to increase the confidence of performance
estimates with regard to bacteria (Jones 2012).
94
Table 5-1: Pollutant Removal Efficiencies for Targeted Watershed Based Practices
Practice\Pollutant and Removal
Sediment (%)
Phosphorus (%)
Nitrogen (%)
Terraces
85
70
20
Reduced Tillage1
75
45
55
35
30
10
Streambank Stabilization & Fencing
75
-
-
Wetlands1
78
44
20
Wet Detention1
86
69
55
Filter Strips/Buffers1
65
75
70
Dry Detention1
58
26
30
-
35
15
Cover Crops3
70
-
-
Average Reduction
70
49
34
1
Diversions1
1
Nutrient Management2
Note: Pollutant trapping efficiencies were taken from: 1) Statistical Tool for the Estimation of Pollutant Load (STEPL) model
(TetraTech 2003), 2) Pennsylvania University 1991, and 3) Dillaha 1990.
Table 5-2: Practices for Reducing Atrazine Runoff from Dryland and Irrigated Corn Ground (Franti
1997)
Management Practice
Potential Percent
Mulch Till
Ridge Till
No-Till
Alternative Herbicides
Crop Rotation
Herbicide Rotation
Band Application
Soil Incorporation
Post Application
Early Pre-plant
Split Application or Split Application
with Post Alternatives
100
50-66
50-66
50-66
35-66
50
50
33-50
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Reduced Rates and Combination
Products
33-50
Yes
Yes
Yes
(a)
Reduction
(a) Percent reduction is based on potential reduction in atrazine runoff compared to 100% surface spray applied to each crop.
Table 5-3: Effectiveness of Traditional Management Practices in Reducing Pesticides
Management Practice
Potential Percent Reduction(a)
Terrace
0 - 20%
Contouring
0 - 20%
Conservation tillage
-40% - 20%
95
Grassed waterways
0 - 10%
Sediment basins
0 - 10%
Filter strips
0 - 10%
Cover crops
-20% - 10%
Optimal application techniques
40% - 80%
Crop rotation
0 - 20%
Source: World Bank 2003
Urban Conservation Practices
Urban conservation practices have been included within the Plan to allow Cities and Villages an
opportunity to install small scale practices that can reduce pollutant loading from stormwater runoff,
conserve water, and provide an opportunity for education. In many cases urban conservation practices
can be utilized in public places, such as parks, and serve as demonstration sites for educational purposes.
Below are several urban conservation practices commonly used within municipalities.
Bioretention Cells
Bioretention is the capturing and facilitating of stormwater runoff infiltration from impervious surfaces to
reduce water pollution and reduce stream flows. Bioretention cells have an engineered and constructed
subgrade to ensure adequate percolation and infiltration of captured runoff. Bioretention cells can be
used in most settings including parking lots and residential areas where soils don’t adequately percolate.
They use plants that can tolerate a wide range of moisture conditions. Native plants are encouraged
because they are deep-rooted, maintain soil quality, and provide percolation of rainwater. A limiting
factor for placement of a bioretention cell may be the lack of an outlet for the subdrain. An outlet is
necessary to ensure proper drainage. The subdrain often outlets into the storm sewer or can discharge
down-gradient of the bioretention cell.
Bioswales
Bioswales are vegetated paths installed as an alternative to underground storm sewers. The bioswale is
engineered so runoff from frequent, small rains infiltrate into the soil below. When larger storms occur,
bioswales slow the flow of runoff while using above ground vegetation to filter and clean the runoff before
it ends up in the local stream. For example, if a low-flow concrete liner needs an expensive repair, and
alternative would be to install a vegetated bioswale.
Native Landscaping/Turf
Native vegetation enhances a landscape’s ability to manage stormwater, and also require less water to
survive. Diversified habitats with native vegetation encourages use by birds, butterflies, and other
wildlife. In most cases, native vegetation doesn’t require fertilizer or pesticides for survival. Native
landscaping and turf can replace bluegrass and other non-native water sensitive species commonly used
in communities.
No-phosphorus Fertilizers
Nutrients are essential for plant growth, especially nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Fertilizers,
pesticides, animal waste, and detergents commonly include nutrients. Excessive phosphorus loading is a
96
leading contributor to algae growth, which lowers water quality and causes several issues in community
lakes.
Rain Gardens
Bioretention features, often referred to as ‘rain gardens’, are a small-scale structural conservation practice
commonly used for stormwater quality improvement in urban areas. When properly designed and
maintained, they can offer highly efficient reduction of phosphorus, as well as other pollutants, and are
highly aesthetic.
A rule of thumb for sizing rain gardens is to use 10 percent of the impervious area (e.g., rooftops) to
determine the size of the rain garden. Rain gardens are usually sized to temporarily pond runoff generated
by a 1.25 inch rainfall event. Ponded water should infiltrate into the soil within 24 hours. Soils can be
amended with sand and compost if topsoil quality is questionable. Plants with deep roots are encouraged
to help maintain soil quality and increase percolation rates.
Urban Soil Quality Restoration
Healthy soil is the key to preventing polluted runoff. As buildings and houses are built, top soil is removed
and the remaining sub-soil is compacted by grading and construction activity. The owner is left with
heavily compacted subsoil, usually with high clay content and little organic matter. Soil quality restoration
is simple - start by reducing soil compaction and increasing organic matter content with the addition of
compost. Soil quality restoration can be completed on any existing yard, making this one of the easiest
water quality conservation practices to implement.
Urban Wildlife Management
Bird droppings below bridges, underpasses, and on shorelines can be a significant source of E. coli, as well
as phosphorus, in all watersheds. Several methods are available to either control the wildlife population or
discourage wildlife from using sensitive areas. Bird activity under bridges and overpasses can be limited by
retrofitting older bridges and overpasses crossing streams to modify habitat to reduce feeding, watering,
roosting, and nesting sites for birds. Other visible perching sites, such as light posts, could be considered
for placing mechanisms to discourage perching. Waterfowl can be discouraged from using shorelines by
establishing tall grass buffer zones with controlled access areas. Trained dogs can also be used to control
nuisance Canadian geese.
In-lake Based Practices
Several in-lake improvement alternatives have been identified that improve both water quality and restore
aquatic habitat. These actions are intended to improve recreational amenities within the Basin by
protecting or renovating existing facilities. Lakes targeted for improvements, listed in the
Implementation Strategy, may each utilize some of the following lake renovation management
practices.
Wetland Enhancement/Creation
Opportunities are available to enhance existing wetlands in the inlet area of several Basin reservoirs.
Wetland enhancements can benefit water clarity by removing nutrients and sediments, and reducing
bacteria through attenuation. Phosphorus reductions are a priority, and water quality benefits can
improve fisheries. In addition, the inlet area of reservoirs service as a location for bird watching, fishing,
and hiking. Secondary benefits of wetland enhancements include aesthetics, wildlife habitat creation,
and restoration of the ecosystem’s natural functionality.
97
Fish Renovation and Fishery Aquatic Habitat Features
Fisheries renovation and the restoration and enhancement of in-lake fish habitat can help decrease sediment
and nutrient re-suspension and restore healthy ecosystem functions, including riparian and littoral
vegetation. A focus of fishery renovation oftentimes involves removing rough fish, such as common carp. NGPC
often leads fishery renovations with funding through their Aquatic Habitat Stamp program, and have
plans for improvements at several of the Basin reservoirs. Potential in-lake restoration components
might include shoreline stabilization, shoals, scallops, spawning beds, etc. Each lake is often unique in
its fishery strengths and weaknesses. Specific combinations of habitat improvement techniques can
help to improve fisheries at targeted lakes.
Shoreline Stabilization
As reservoirs age, they lose depth due to sediment deposition from the watershed. Shoreline/bank
erosion processes can add additional sediment to the reservoir while affecting the depth and habitat
diversity of shorelines. Physical factors, such as bank height, prevailing winds, fetch, and the amount of
vegetation on the banks and in the water, can dictate the extent of shoreline erosion. Bank stabilization
practices should be recommended based on a reconnaissance survey of each waterbody. A combination
of rip rap (hard armor) and tall grass management or tall grass buffers are common for stabilization of
shoreline. Operation and maintenance changes can also support a more stable shoreline by limiting
mowing and allowing a healthy stand of vegetation to support the banks along shorelines.
In-lake Sediment Forebays
Utilizing a portion of an existing reservoir, adding additional reservoir area above the existing reservoir,
or a combination of both as a sediment/water quality basin is another means of minimizing the
potential for materials to enter the main basin of a lake. Forebays, are commonly created at the
headwaters of the reservoir to serve as an initial ‘trap’ for sediment and other pollutants. Forebays are
multi-beneficial and can be comprised of soil or rock which can serve additional purposes (e.g., fishing
jetty). In-lake sediment forebays can reduce sedimentation to the reservoir, capture nutrients, and
promote establishment of wetlands as a natural filter. The layout of forebays allows for easier access of
equipment to remove sediment when excavation efforts are necessary.
Sediment Management - Targeted Dredging
Removal of sediment in targeted areas can help improve water quality. The following is a summary of
water quality benefits resulting from targeted dredging:
•
Increased depth in shallow areas reduces sediment re-suspension and increases water clarity
•
Targeted dredging is likely to improve fish habitat, thereby increasing the water quality
benefits associated with fishery renovation.
Sediment Management - Whole Lake Dredging
Whole lake dredging involves draining the reservoir and physically removing sediment from the lake
bottom. Similar to the benefits of targeted dredging discussed above, dredging in general increases the
depth and storage capacity of a lake. When done correctly, depth diversity and habitat improvement
designed into the dredging plan usually results in overall water-quality improvement when considering
clarity, habitat, and overall aquatic function.
98
In-lake Nutrient Management Practices
The amount of nutrients entering a lake system and the timing of those loads are important in algal
production, and thus, lake nutrient management. In-lake nutrient management alternatives include
phosphorus inactivation, aeriation, and bottom sealing. Aeration and phosphorus inactivation address
hypolimnetic phosphorus release by minimizing the low oxygen conditions that allow for bottom
sediments to release phosphorus into the water column. Phosphorus inactivation typically involves the
addition of alum, which adheres to the phosphorus; thus preventing phosphorus from entering the
water column. In-lake tools should be considered if internal sources of phosphorus (e.g., lakebed
sediments) are found to be a significant portion of the overall nutrient budget.
Bottom sealing may be a useful management practice in systems such as Crystal Lake, which is a former
Little Blue River oxbow that is dependent upon groundwater. When groundwater levels significantly
decline during the irrigation season, the water quality of Crystal Lake declines.
Groundwater Quality Practices
Well Abandonment
Unsealed or improperly sealed wells may threaten public health and safety, and the quality of the
groundwater resources. Therefore, the proper abandonment (decommissioning) of a well is a critical
final step in its service life. Proper well abandonment accomplishes the following:
 Eliminates the physical hazard of the well (the hole in the ground),
 Eliminates a pathway for migration of contamination, and
 Prevents hydrologic changes in the aquifer system, such as the changes in hydraulic
head and the mixing of water between aquifers.
Stay On Irrigated Acres
Irrigation is the largest user of groundwater resources, as well as the largest contributor of nitrate in the
Basin. Of the land-use categories, grass and pasture land are the most effective at preventing nitrate
leaching and lowering water consumption, and are extremely efficient management tools. Limiting the
number of acres that convert from pasture or grassland to irrigated cropland will not necessarily
decrease current levels of consumptive use or nitrate loading, but it will prevent increases or worsening
of current conditions. Irrigated acre stays initiated for the purpose of achieving nitrate goals should
focus on areas within or surrounding Wellhead Protection Areas (Figure 2-7), while stays initiated for
maintaining groundwater levels should focus on areas with the greatest groundwater level declines
(Figure 2-19).
Targeted Nitrogen Application
Targeted nitrogen application has the basic goal of reducing the total amount of nitrogen applied
through sampling measures. Over-application of nitrogen fertilizers can occur in production agriculture
settings. Crop consultants and soil sampling can benefit nitrate leaching goals when the use of these
products leads to decreases in application rates and volumes. Targeted application may also decrease
the timeframes for fertilizer application to months that the crops can effectively uptake the nutrients.
Research also suggests that producers should consider the amount of nitrate applied to the crops that
originates from groundwater. In areas with elevated groundwater nitrogen levels, groundwater
irrigators could be applying significant quantities of nitrogen without additional fertilizers. Producers
and crop consultants should consider groundwater nitrate levels due to irrigation water when
calculating fertilizer rates for fields.
99
Cover Crops
Cover crops reduce nutrient leaching and runoff. Cover crops have longer growing seasons and are able
to utilize nutrients for months outside of the traditional growing season. The amount of nitrate that
cover crops prevent from leaching into surface or groundwater resources is highly variable. The
effectiveness of cover crops depends upon the plant or plant mix chosen for the cover crop, as well as
other field-scale management practices. Proper monitoring programs are necessary to quantify the
amount of nitrate reduction that results from cover crops.
Crop Rotation
Fields planted with continuous corn tend to show the highest vadose nitrate levels. Rotating corn with
other crops tends to lower nitrate leaching, and demonstrates other benefits including improving soil
health and reducing pesticide/herbicide resistance. Any crop can be used in rotations. Three-crop
rotations are the most beneficial in terms of reducing nitrate loads.
Crop Selection
Planting crops other than corn reduces the level of nitrate loading through the soil profile and to
groundwater. Alfalfa, or similar crops, are particularly efficient at reducing soil nitrate loading.
Programs designed to encourage planting of alfalfa could be either district-wide or focus within
Wellhead Protection Areas, depending upon the goal of the program.
Groundwater Recharge Practices
In recent years, a movement toward non-structural and small-scale solutions are preferred by
permitting agencies and advocates for the environment. Non-structural measures that take advantage
of the natural environment and processes can provide other benefits such as aesthetics and some
habitat function. Therefore, the best alternatives are often a function of the collective project benefits
desired and the programs available to help fund the project.
The groundwater recharge practices described below include non-structural practices, small-scale
structures, and large-scale structures.
Any conservation practice that promotes soil moisture retention will provide some recharge benefits.
Practices like no-till farming can play a significant role in reducing runoff; resulting in more available
water for recharge and reduced needs for irrigation. Given that no-till farming can reduce runoff by
69 percent from fields currently tilled, wide-spread adoption of this practice across the Basin would
provide substantial recharge benefits.
Modifications to Existing Structures
The Basin has an extensive, existing impoundment infrastructure, including many small dams and
reservoirs. If these structures can be modified or enhanced to provide new or increased recharge
benefits, recharge goals may be achieved more quickly and at a reduced cost than is possible through
construction of new structures. The extent of modifications needed often depends on whether the
structure will be utilized for conjunctive management purposes.
In-stream Weirs
In-stream weirs are small-scalestructures located within stream banks which can be used to impede
stream flow; creating shallow pools for increased recharge. These pools can increase water infiltration
100
to the underlying aquifer. The weirs may be equipped to slowly allow flow to pass through the
structure, while temporarily detaining additional water during larger rainfall events. Excess flow from
larger rainfall events would pass over the weirs. In-stream weirs can also provide benefits to biological
communities, and if placed properly can provide grade control for the streambed. In general, in-stream
weirs are effective because they take advantage of the proximity of available aquifer storage to the
source of the water. Low-head solutions,which do not have to meet dam safety requirements, can
provide environmental and stream health benefits as well. In-stream weirs are small-scale conjunctive
management projects.
Off-Channel Diversions
Off-channel diversions, including temporary off-season water storage, include structures located along
or within a stream channel that allow diversion of water into off-channel areas during periods of excess
flows from heavy rainfall events. The diverted water is stored and allowed to spread out and soak
through the unsaturated zone to the underlying aquifer. Off-channel areas are large low-lying areas that
can include former sandpits, old oxbows, existing wetland areas, or water quality basins. The effects
and implementation of off-channel diversions are similar to diversions for surface water canal systems,
but are typically active only during large flow events.
Large-Scale Structures
Dams or major canals are examples of large-scale structures. Recharge at dams takes place in the areas
directly below the impounded pool, and through controlled water releases to promote downstream
recharge in the channel. Most of the larger structures detain flood water, which can be released at a
rate that matches the capacity for infiltration into underlying aquifers, thereby significantly enhancing
recharge. These controlled releases can also be used to supplement stream flows during critical periods.
Water can recharge through the canal structure, and canals can also deliver water to recharge basins at
locations further from the point of diversion.
When large-scale water quality and water quantity improvements are desired, projects capable of
providing benefits associated with water quality and quantity (sediment/nutrient reduction,
groundwater recharge, etc.) usually follow the same economic principal that other systems realize; the
benefits are often maximized by taking advantage of economies of.
It is recognized that large, structural projects may offer a desirable benefit to cost ratio, but may face
other challenges including public acceptance, water rights, legal considerations, and permitting.
Given the comprehensive nature of this Plan a wide variety of management practices should be
considered and used in combination to enhance the project’s benefits. Prior to project planning, it will
be important to coordinate efforts with other agencies, such as NRCS, NDEQ, NDNR, NGPC, RWB
Venture, and neighboring NRDs. Discussion with property owners and Basin stakeholders to determine
the level of cost-share or financial incentive necessary to trigger wide-spread implementation will be
necessary prior to selecting management practices. When project planning begins, a variety of
management practices will need to be utilized. For example, when planning for a recharge project using
in-stream weirs, incentives for soil health initiatives within the project area should also be offered.
101
REFERENCES
CTIC, 2010. Facilitating Conservation Farming Practices and Enhancing Environmental Sustainability with
Agricultural Biotechnology. Center Technology Information Center, Purdue University. www.ctic.org.
UNL, 2015. Yields From a Long-term Tillage Comparison Study, University of Nebraska Web Site:
http://cropwatch.unl.edu/tillage/rmfyields
UWEX.2011. Publications GWQ058 - This publication is available at http://learningstore.uwex.edu, from
Cooperative Extension Publications 1-877-947-7827 and from county UW-Extension offices. This
publication can also be viewed or printed from pdf format available on the Web at http://cleanwater.uwex.edu/pubs/pastures-strategies
The World Bank, 2003. AGRICULTURE NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL GOOD MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES - CHESAPEAKE BAY EXPERIENCE. Environmentally & Socially Development Unit
Europe and Central Asia, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Heartland Regional Water Coordination Initiative. 2006. Nitrogen Management for Water Quality
Protection in the Mid West. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.
USEPA. 1993a. Chesapeake Bay Program Nutrient Reduction Strategy Reevaluation. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; Report No. 8; EPA-903-R-93-005. Internet Edition:
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/claritgw?op-Display&document=clserv:epacinn:
5858;&rank=4&template=epa
USEPA. 1993b. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Non-Point Pollution
in Coastal Waters. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C.;
January. Internet Edition: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/MMGI/Chapter2/index.html
Pennsylvania State University. 1991. Stream Bank Fencing. College of Agricultural Sciences;
Extension Circular 397.
Dillaha, T. A. 1990. “Role of Best Management Practices in Restoring the Health of Chesapeake Bay:
Assessment of the Effectiveness” Chesapeake Bay Program. Perspectives on the Chesapeake Bay, 1990,
Advances in Estuarine Sciences.
Jones, J, J. Clary, E. Strecker, M. Quigley, and J. Moeller. 2012. BMP Effectiveness for Nutrients, Bacteria,
Solids, Metals, and Runoff Volume. Stormwater Journal, March 1, 2012.
102
Section 6 – Implementation Approach
IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH
Introduction
The intent of this Section is to provide general strategies for addressing water quality and quantity
issues. This Section supports the use of the ’tools’ presented in Section 5. This Section describes which
tools are most applicable to the problems based on effectiveness, costs, social acceptability, and impact
in achieving localized or Basin-wide improvements through implementation of projects, programs, and
actions.
Details on projects, programs, monitoring, and studies/research are included in the Action Plan in
Appendix A. The intent of the Action Plan is to identify specific projects and activities within each
strategy that are important to the NRDs and the public. The Action Plan is strictly for the benefit of the
NRDs, is not a nine-element requirement, and should help direct the NRDs’ efforts and funding for the
next 5 to 10 years. It should be used as a guide and updated/revised as the NRDs see fit. If the NRDs
desire, this Plan could be used to gauge funding source interest in specific projects/activities prior to
moving forward with planning and fund acquisition.
Achieving water quantity and quality goals for surface and groundwater will require both regulatory and
non-regulatory approaches. While this Plan describes current regulatory actions, non-regulatory efforts
are the primary focus. Implementing projects to achieve water sustainability will require close
coordination with numerous local, state, and federal entities. Some water quality issues, such as
groundwater nitrate contamination and excessive bacteria in the Little Blue River, can only be addressed
through long-term management strategies.
Proposed strategies should comprehensively emphasize implementation in the following areas:
 Reduce Pollutants at the Source
Reduced pollutant inputs constitute a reduction of the pollutant at the source. In the case of
nitrates, this would encompass fertilizer application reductions that could result from a number of
activities ranging from soil testing or improved seed genetics. In the case of bacteria, a range of
pasture management and animal waste management activities could result in pollutant reductions
at the source. There are numerous watershed based programs that offer cost share and
incentives for practices that are targeted at source reductions.
 Increase Nutrient Utilization
The more effective plants are in utilizing soil nutrients the less is transported below the plants root
zone. More effective nutrient utilization can be achieved in several ways including nutrient and
irrigation scheduling, no-till farming, and the use of cover crops.
 Increase Pollutant Filtration
In most cases, the contribution of pollutants to waterways can be significantly reduced through
structural and nonstructural measures. These include measures such as grassed waterways,
buffer strips, and wetlands.
103
 Enhance Natural Processing
Natural systems are very effective in processing pollutants. For instance nitrate removal
efficiencies from healthy riparian areas are significant. Therefore, protecting and enhancing
natural systems such as stream courses is a key component.
To successfully implement this plan it is imperative that resource managers, decision makers, and
general public understand the resource, issues, and management tools. This can only be achieved
through continuous communication, education, information transfer, monitoring and assessment, and
research.
Project Priorities
The process followed in developing this plan allowed for the identification of basin-wide issues and
concerns, a prioritization of those issues and concerns, and identification of target areas based on level
of impact or project need (Figure 6-1). Different factors will drive final priorities and site selection for
each project type. As an example, site selection for a recharge structure will be based on factors such as
local hydrology and geology, cost benefit ratios, and social acceptability, while site selection for
streambank stabilization projects will be driven by landowner interest and available funding.
Recommendations provided in this section are at various levels of detail based on the type of project or
activity proposed.
NRDs must balance long term improvement goals for larger receiving waterbodies (e.g., Groundwater
Aquifers) with short term improvement goals for smaller waterbodies or watersheds that may exhibit
localized impacts (e.g., reservoir watersheds). Projects that rely on outside funding should take funding
source eligibility requirements and prioritization mechanisms into consideration early in the planning
process. This is particularly true due to the competitive nature of funding that would be sought.
Projects targeted for Nonpoint Source Management Program funding should follow guidelines in the
Nebraska Management Plan and be in areas identified as a priority in the Action Plan (Appendix A).
To help increase the likelihood of project funding from competitive sources, project ranking criteria
should be addressed in the project design as much as possible. In general, most funding sources will
give higher scores to projects that provide multi benefits and have larger areas of impact.
104
Figure 6-1: Process for Determining Project Priorities
Current Regulatory Approach
The regulatory framework surrounding water resources in the Basin, in regards to the NRDs
responsibility, mainly includes groundwater. However there are several other regulatory controls that
aim to improve water quality and ensure that the groundwater reservoir life be extended to the greatest
extent practicable.
105
6.3.1
Regulatory Actions & Responsibilities
Groundwater Management and Protection Act
The state legislature, through the Groundwater Management and Protection Act (GWMA), has granted
NRDs the authority to administer and enforce rules and regulations necessary to enforce GWMA. NRDs
are tasked to cooperate and collaborate with NDNR on the identification and implementation of
management solutions to conflicts between groundwater users and surface water appropriators or to
water supply shortages in fully appropriated or over appropriated river basins, sub-basins, and reaches
(GWMA 2011).
The NRDs have rules and regulations intended to stabilize, reduce, and prevent the increase or spread of
groundwater contamination and/or the prevention of groundwater storage depletion in portions of the
Basin where available data, evidence, and other information indicates that present or potential
groundwater conditions dictate such actions. It is the responsibility of the Board of Directors to make
enforcement decisions.
Groundwater Management Sub-Areas for Quality and Quantity (NRD Program)
NRD Boards of Directors have the authority to adopt programs that emphasize proactive protection of
groundwater, rather than a reactive and likely expensive corrective approach. Currently, LBNRD has
Water Quality Level I Management regulations throughout the entire district and seven Quality SubAreas and one Quantity sub-area. Tri-Basin has phase one groundwater quality and quantity
management regulations district-wide, two townships in higher levels of groundwater quantity
management and substantial portions of the district subject to higher levels of groundwater quality
regulation (sub-areas). Quality sub-areas have more restrictive rules related to fertilizer management
and quantity sub-areas regulate withdraw of groundwater.
Both the Little Blue and Tri-Basin NRDs have restrictions on fertilizer application dates in their districts.
The Little Blue NRD also requires a fertilizer permit for liquid and dry fertilizer applications made prior to
March 1st and an inhibitor is required when applications exceed 20# of active nitrogen in such
applications. The intent is to limit leaching of nitrogen into the groundwater aquifer.
Erosion and Sediment Control Act
NRDs are responsible for implementing erosion and sediment control programs through cooperation
with NDNR, Nebraska Natural Resources Commission, counties, municipalities, other local governments,
and political subdivisions of the state, public, and private entities. The programs under this act should
address land-disturbing activities that cause excessive wind and water erosion and subsequent sediment
deposition. The NRDs have authority, through this act, to promulgate rules and regulations to address
erosion related water quality issues.
Water Quality Standards (NRD, State, & Federal)
As discussed in Section 3, NDEQ is responsible for enforcement of Title 117 – Nebraska Surface Water
Quality Standards for all surface waters of the State. Water quality criteria are intended to protect
beneficial uses of surfaces waters, including downstream uses.
Compliance Inspections (State & Federal)
The NRD performs compliance inspections to ensure the functions assigned by their groundwater rules
and regulations are being applied in the field. Other compliance inspections are completed by NDEQ
staff and would not be related to any recommendations in this Plan. NDEQ is responsible for rules and
106
regulations to protect the environmental quality include onsite wastewater systems, permitted
agricultural facilities, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (communities and point
sources).
NPDES Permits (State & Federal)
The NPDES program, administered by NDEQ, is intended to place limits on the amount of pollutants that
may be discharged to waters of the U.S. from facilities, or point sources. The NPDES program would
apply mostly to discharges from community waste water treatment systems to the Little Blue River or its
tributaries. Compliance with NPDES permits could have a direct effect on water quality in the Basin.
Chemigation Permits (State)
The NRDs, in conjunction with NDEQ, are responsible for enforcement of the Nebraska Chemigation Act,
adopted in 1986 by the Nebraska Legislature. The program provides the authority to document,
monitor, regulate and enforce chemigation practices in Nebraska. NRDs are responsible for inspections
of equipment and issuing permits. While chemigation is a potential pollutant source to groundwater, it
is also recognized as a BMP to reduce nitrate leaching by applying fertilizer to crops during the growing
season when the plant will fully utilize nutrients.
Well Construction Permits (NRD)
Anyone installing a new well, or replacement, with over 50 gallons per minute must obtain a well permit
from the NRD before construction can begin. The well owner is responsible for registering the well with
NDNR within 30 days of installation.
Integrated Management Plan Actions
Voluntary Integrated Management Plans (IMP) are joint water planning documents between NDNR and
an NRD, as NDNR administers surface water and the NRDs manage groundwater. This approach allows
for management of hydrologically connected waters as a single resource to avoid over-allocation of the
basin water resources. The NRD and NDNR, through a stakeholder-based process, develop water goals
and objectives to guide management and monitor progress towards achieving those goals. Statutory
IMP requirements include; clear goals and objectives, map outlining the area subject to the IMP, one
surface water control, one groundwater control, a monitoring program, and stakeholder input. IMPs
developed for other basins have increased collaboration between the NRDs and NDNR beyond
regulatory management, such as pursuing studies or structural projects.
Voluntary IMPs, in either the TBNRD or LBNRD, do not currently exist for the Basin. Many aspects of this
plan would easily transition or could provide the basis for an IMP. In the event the Basin reaches fully
appropriated status through the annual determination process, the voluntary IMP will easily transition
into a required IMP through a joint re-evaluation process. The IMP provides other benefits to the NRD
as well, such as available funding. The recent funding opportunities through the Water Sustainability
Fund require that an NRD either have an IMP in place or be in the process of developing an IMP to be
eligible for this funding.
Current Non-regulatory Approach
6.4.1
District Wide Surface and Groundwater Management Practices
Water quality assessments and impairment listings provided in this plan indicate a majority of the
nonpoint source problems in the Basin can be tied to agricultural activities. Conventional land
107
treatment and management practices can significantly reduce the loss of soil, nutrients, pesticides, and
bacteria from agricultural areas. Since its formation, the NRDs have worked with local producers to
improve their operations by implementing these measures. Table 6-1 provides a core set of
conservation practices that are supported financially through NRD programs and their estimated annual
water quality benefits. Also, included in Table 6-1 are projected annual benefits from no-till farming.
The benefits are based on a 65 percent participation rate. A survey to determine the Basin participation
in no-till farming practices that species the acreage and details regarding the types of practices would
provide useful information towards quantifying the benefits of different conservation practices. On an
annual basis these practices are reducing basin wide sediment loads by an estimated 10 percent while
annual phosphorus and nitrogen reductions account for 20 and 11 percent respectively. While these
numbers represent the importance of basin wide conservation practice implementation the full benefits
of these practices to all water resources are not practical to quantify.
The NRDs currently make significant efforts to properly abandon wells, addressing more than 175 wells
the past three years. While groundwater quality benefits from these practices and others such as the
use of cover crops have not been quantified, they should continue to be a focus of financial and nonfinancial incentive programs. Anytime landowner needs for financial incentives for conservation
practices exceeds baseline NRD funding, supplemental funds should be pursued from sources like the
USDA, NDEQ Section 319, and the Nebraska Environmental Trust.
108
Table 6-1: Conservation Measure Adoption in the Little Blue River Basin
Area Treated or
Sediment
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Controlled
Reduction
Reduction
Reduction
(tons/year)
(pounds/year)
(pounds/year)
Terrace Systems
27 ac/yr
12.2
9.9
22.8
Terrace
97 ac/yr
53.6
43.5
100.3
Underground
Outlets
Water
73 ac/yr
37.3
29.4
189.6
Impoundment
Dams
Diversions
220 ac/yr
45.5
38.4
103.4
Grassed
6 ac/yr
2.2
2.5
18.6
Waterways
Water and
348 ac/yr
177.0
139.8
900.4
Sediment Control
Basins
Conservation
Measure
Pasture Planting
and Range Seeding
Critical Area
Planting
Windbreaks
Planned Grazing
Systems
Windbreak
Renovation
Streambank
Protection
No-Till (and
associated
practice surveys)
TOTAL Reduction
Total Basin Load
Percent Reduction
14 ac/yr
5.7
3.9
22.1
12 ac/yr
4.8
3.3
18.5
92 ac/yr
2,229 ac/yr
37.9
922.1
26.1
635.6
146.5
3,562.5
1.4 ac/yr
0.6
0.4
2.3
15,715 ac/yr
2,003.6
4,928.224
2,7623.8
697,602 ac.
(current level)
11,3319
229,204
1,056,151
116,622
1,171,563
10.0
235,065
1,165,816
20.2
1,088,862
937,9757
11.6
(a) Pollutant reductions were determined from a combination of SPARROW and STEPL model
outputs.
(b) Additionally, a survey to quantify the current level of participation in conservation measures,
with a follow-up survey to determine the changes due to programs from this plan would provide
monitoring metrics to gage effectiveness of these conservation programs.
The NRDs will continue to facilitate the adoption/installation of practices eligible under USDA landscape
conservation initiatives such as the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), Agricultural
Management Assistance (AMA) Program, Water Quality Initiative (WQI), and Wildlife Habitat Incentive
Program (WHIP). Practices eligible for federal funding will include those covered under the NRCS Field
109
Office Technical Guide (FOTG) (USDA, 2003). When possible these “conventional conservation
practices” should be supplemented with innovative approaches developed by local and state resource
managers and experts.
6.4.2
Targeted Surface and Groundwater Management Practices
Targeted surface and groundwater management practices will entail the same practices offered Basinwide, however, selected practices may have options for financial and non-financial incentives offered to
landowners/operators. Targeted practices will be based on the concern addressed, practice efficiency,
and Areas of Interest for implementation. Expanded cost share and incentives may be provided by a
combination of local, state, and federal funds including the USDA Environmental Quality Incentive
Program, USDA Water Quality Initiative, NDEQ Nonpoint Source Management Program, and Nebraska
Environmental Trust. Areas recommended for targeted practices should align with larger sub-basin
efforts to address water quality. Nutrient management practices will be emphasized in wellhead areas
where critical nitrate issues have been documented. Nutrient management practices that should be
considered for promotion include soil testing, timing of fertilizer applications, and uses of nitrogen
inhibitors.
Targeting areas small than the entire planning area are important, as successfully focusing and
improving water quality within smaller areas is more achievable than basin-scale efforts. Areas that are
20 percent of less of the basin are more likely to reduce nonpoint pollutant loads of the plan lifetime.
Therefore, several priority areas have been identified and are described below.
Priority Sub-watersheds
In order to identify priority sub-watersheds, the HUC12 level was used based upon priorities identified
during the planning process. Priority sub-watersheds include those with a proposed project that targets
an impaired waterbody and is scheduled to be completed in the first two phases of plan
implementation, or within approximately 10 years. Priorities are identified and ranked, on a scale of 1
through 5, in Figure 6-2. Priority sub-watershed actions are in addition to any other basin-wide or other
target area recommendations.
110
Figure 6-2: Project Target Areas
111
Basin-wide Practices
Certain site-specific conditions contributing to the on-going degradation of the Little Blue River, or its
tributaries, occur widely throughout the Basin. Resolution of these conditions is driven by opportunity
and cannot be effectively implemented through a restricted sub-watershed approach. However,
corrective actions would have a collective water quality benefit to the impaired Little Blue River or
groundwater aquifers.
These conditions will be addressed through a limited suite of practices offered basin-wide on an ongoing
basis. Eligible basin-wide practices include: 1) upgrade of an onsite wastewater system; 2)
decommissioning of abandoned wells; 3) runoff control at small animal feeding operations; 4) exclusion
fencing and similar supporting practices; 5) installation or renovation of riparian zones to improve
stream bank stability; 6) stream bank and grade control structures to protect public facilities, utilities,
and structures; and 7) removal of invasive vegetative species. The Districts will also engage in
information, education, monitoring, and evaluation activities to assess successful implementation of
basin-wide practices.
Stream Channel Renovation and Reconnection
Several areas were identified during the desktop stream assessment and by the LBNRD staff where
reconnection of the Little Blue River, or its tributaries, to a flood plain was most feasible. Installation of
practices on an on-going basis within these areas will be limited to wetland enhancement through reconnection or high-flow diversion to relic oxbows, riparian zone restoration, and development of
aquatic habitat utilizing bendway weirs with bank shaping and plantings.
Wellhead Protection Areas
Groundwater nitrate contamination from nonpoint source pollution is a growing concern throughout
the Basin and can have significant implications for communities. The implementation of practices
through a restricted sub-watershed approach, does not address the needs of all communities with
elevated or upward trending nitrate levels or those with high quality water resources. All WHPAs are
also included in the plan as target areas (Table 4-1). WHPA practices will be limited to nutrient and
irrigation management, or other supporting practices.
Groundwater Projects and Programs
6.5.1
Groundwater Recharge
Groundwater recharge projects and programs are targeted to increase the amount of water supply
available in the basin by increasing the amount of water recharging the aquifer. The strategy to increase
recharge in the basin addresses five areas:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Increased adoption of no-till farming
Evaluation of current structures to determine current recharge contributions
Utilization of existing infrastructure and landscape features
Pilot projects to evaluate recharge concepts
Building new structures.
As presented in Chapter 2, the estimated average annual decrease in groundwater within the Basin is
35,000 AF. Therefore, the long-term target for groundwater recharge with the basin is to provide
35,000 AF of water annually to offset further groundwater declines. The annual volume of groundwater
112
recharge provided by a project or a program should be evaluated against this target. This target
assumes that groundwater consumption does not increase.
Continuous No-Till and Low-Tillage Farming Practices
No-till farming is an agricultural production growing practice for raising crops that does not disturb the
soil through tillage, while low-tillage practice limit the amount of soil disturbed during agricultural
production. From a public taxpayer standpoint, no-till or high-residue practices may be the least
expensive way to decrease runoff and subsequently irrigation requirements. In addition to making
economic sense, no-till is highly effective at decreasing runoff, improving soil structure, and thus
potentially leading to increases in recharge. According to NASS land cover data, there are approximately
1.073 million acres of corn and soybean ground in the Basin that comprises more than 62 percent of the
land area. The estimated use of no-till, based upon input from LBNRD, in the Basin is around 65 percent
or 697,000 acres. Accomplishing no-till on the remaining 35 percent, or 376,000 acres may provide
significant benefits.
There is an estimated runoff volume of 131,526 acre feet per year from corn and bean ground not
currently utilize no-till. Increasing field residue could capture a large percentage of this water. Some
studies suggest more than 90 percent when going from moldboard plow and having no residue to no-till
with 93 percent residue (Purdue University 1995). Soil moisture saving practices should be promoted
basin-wide through intensive education, workshops, testimonies from other farmers, and non-financial
incentives.
Evaluation of Existing Structures
Very little is known about the recharge efficiency of various types of structures. In order to develop the
most cost effective recharge approach several questions need to be answered. The recommended
approach to answering these questions is to first gain a better understanding of the effectiveness of the
recharge efficiencies by the project types recommended. Therefore, the proposed initial
implementation step is to gain a better understanding of recharge dynamics at a relatively low
investment. That can be achieved by using existing facilities and by pairing existing information with
some additional information to be collected; primarily flow data to develop a more accurate water
budget.
Existing structures that could be targeted for this approach are structures similar to the MARC Recharge
structure Dam Site #40, the Sand Creek Recharge Structure, and structures near Minden, NE. The MARC
recharge structure was built in June 1982 for the purposes of recharge, flood control and wildlife
habitat. The MARC in-stream weirs were constructed in 2014 for the purpose of recharge, wetland
mitigation, stream stabilization, erosion reduction, wildlife habitat creation, and water supply using
treated groundwater from the Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot groundwater cleanup project,
operated by the USACE. These MARC facilities (dam and in-stream weirs) have a considerable amount
of information available with them, including detailed design information, past recharge measurements
and some previously measured effects on the local groundwater levels. By adding some flow
measurement and additional groundwater monitoring infrastructure, more detailed information can be
obtained and paired with the existing information to begin developing a better understanding of the
true benefit of the facilities to groundwater recharge and the expected design life of the recharge
structure.
Improved measurement, monitoring and recording of data would also benefit the NRDs to help
document the progress of Basin-wide goals established within the Plan. An implementation plan to
113
improve the monitoring network and the collection and processing of the water quality and quantity
data would benefit the NRDs. Collectively, this project along with the proposed MARC dam and MARC
in-stream weir modifications would serve as a valuable first step in developing a more detailed longterm implementation plan for groundwater recharge in the Basin.
Utilization of Existing Structures and Landscape Features
Existing infrastructure and natural stream features can provide cost-effective avenues when
implementing projects, especially projects for recharge and flow augmentation. A focus should be on
utilizing existing infrastructure where possible to maximize basin flow capture, creating opportunities
for flow augmentation, and maximizing groundwater recharge at a relatively lower cost compared to
constructing new facilities. This Basin has a wealth of existing infrastructure including over 100 small
dams or reservoirs of varying size, countless water resource features associated with the Rainwater
Basin and other in-stream features such as the grade stabilization weirs constructed by the USACE above
the MARC dam. Irrigation canals, wells and even farming practices are all part of the existing
infrastructure that can play some part in attaining the water sustainability goals associated with this
Plan.
If the infrastructure described above can be modified or re-purposed to perform its current function
while providing additional benefits related to water sustainability goals, Basin sustainability goals may
be able to be achieved much faster at a reduced cost than new facility construction. A pre-feasibility
study is recommended to screen the complete list of existing infrastructure to identify structures that
would be the best candidates for being modified to enhance recharge or provide augmentation. Criteria
for the screening may include proximity to the Hollenberg, KS flow gauge, recharge potential for the
location of the structure, types of modifications necessary, permitting requirements, ownership, and
site access restrictions.
Sandpit lakes should also be evaluated through this process. Sandpits tend to have high connectivity to
aquifers and streams, increasing chances for recharge. Directing more surface water to these types of
facilities may offer a relatively inexpensive way to increase groundwater recharge to the area while
improving wildlife habitat and wetlands, and possibly reducing stream erosion and flooding.
Pilot Projects to Evaluate Recharge Concepts
It is recommended that the NRDs implement several pilot projects of the most promising recharge
concepts. These pilot recharge projects would have multiple purposes:
• Provide groundwater recharge;
• Allow for data collection to evaluate the effectiveness of the concept, quantify recharge
benefits, identify operation and maintenance issues; test alternate designs;
• Serve as demonstration projects for public outreach and education;
• Provide direct comparison to different recharge concepts to identify which concepts work best
within the Basin for future recharge projects;
• Provide direct comparison of recharge rates to the monitoring results at existing structures;
• Identify potential water quality issues related to recharge concepts;
• Results from the pilot projects could be shared with other NRDs considering recharge.
Pilot projects are recommended for the following recharge concepts.
• Dam Concept: The pilot project for this concept would be to evaluate the effectiveness of a
new dam for recharge. The TBNRD is in the final stages of design of the Upper Sand Creek Dam
114
•
•
•
proposed about six miles east of Minden, NE. Since the design is nearly complete the pilot
project would only include additional monitoring and evaluate related to recharge. Key issues
to evaluate are the amount of recharge achieved, decreasing in recharge rate over time, and
construction cost.
Modify Existing Structure to Improve Recharge Concept: The pilot project for this concept
would be at an existing small dam or reservoir that could be modified or enhanced to improve
recharge function. Monitoring could be conducted before the enhancement to establish
baseline conductions. Once the enhancement is complete, the monitoring results could be
compared to the baseline to determine effectiveness. Key issues to evaluate are amount of
additional recharge achieved, longevity of the increased recharge rate due to the modification,
permitting, options to also include flow augmentation, and construction cost of the
enhancement.
In-Stream Weir Concept: The pilot project for this concept would include multiple structures in
a series over a short segment of stream. This concept may also provide the additional benefit of
grade control. A possible location would be along the upper segment of the Little Blue River, in
the vicinity of Holstein and Ayr. Key issues to evaluate are amount of recharge achieved,
sedimentation, maintenance, and components that allow release of flows and provide ability to
drawdown water levels, protection from downstream erosion, permitting, and construction
cost.
Off-Channel Diversion Concept: The pilot project for this concept would include a structure
located along a stream channel that would allow diversion of high flows from heavy rainfall
events into large low-lying areas off-channel. Possible locations may include former sandpits,
old oxbows, or existing wetland areas. Key issues to evaluate are amount of recharge achieved,
sedimentation (particularly minimizing sediment into wetland areas), maintenance, number of
events per year that can be diverted, amount of water diverted, components that allow release
of flow for augmentation, permitting, and construction cost.
The pilot projects would be good candidates for grant funding sources such as WSF, Section 319, and
NET.
New Recharge Structures
As some of the monitoring results from the existing structures and pilot projects for recharge concepts
becomes available, the benefits of new structures can be more accurately planned. There are several
factors that come into play when selecting types, sizes, and locations for new structures and the more
past performance available, the better.
Recharge Potential Map
A preliminary assessment was conducted to identify different areas within the Basin that have higher
potential for recharge. The purpose of the Recharge Potential map is to provide a general screening tool
to identify areas within the basin that have potential to be better candidates for structural and nonstructural recharge practices. A site-specific feasibility study will still be necessary to determine if a
particular site is truly a good location for a structural recharge project; however, this map is intended to
serve as a guide to help identify possible sites.
Several different combinations of factors were considered in the assessment. The GIS data sets for the
various factors were obtained from the Hydrogeologic Study conducted by the LBNRD and
supplemented from outside sources; therefore, the assessment was limited to the boundary of the
LBNRD. Soils information was obtained through the Web Soil Survey provided by the NRCS.
115
The results of the preliminary assessment of artificial recharge potential are provided in Figure 6-3. The
results are based on three factors: depth to the top of the principal aquifer, unsaturated thickness of
clay above principal aquifer and soil Hydrologic Soil Group.
Figure 6-3: Artificial Recharge Potential Assessment
Based on the results shown in the Artificial Recharge Potential Map, areas along the main stem of the
Little Blue River, Big Sandy Creek, Spring Creek have higher potential for recharge than other areas
within the Basin. Areas in the western edge of the LBNRD and likely into the TBNRD appear to have
higher potential due to soils types.
6.5.2 Groundwater Policy Recommendations
Both NRDs have rules and regulations in place for groundwater management. Below in Table 6-2 are
considerations to strengthen the existing rules and recommendations. These policies are based upon
input during the planning process and would target priority issues, such as groundwater declines and
nitrogen contamination.
116
Table 6-2: Groundwater Policy Recommendations
Activity Description
Location
Voluntary IMP
District-wide or Hydrologically Connected Area
Irrigated Area Stay
District-wide or sub-basin or sub-area
Groundwater Allocations
District-wide or sub-basin or sub-area
Transition WHPAs to GW Quality Subareas,
WHPA
Phase II, or Phase III
Increase District Phase II Area
Phase II GWMAs
Soil Sampling and Reporting Requirement
District-wide
Expand Groundwater Monitoring Program
District-wide
Alternative Crop Management Programs
District-wide, GWMAs, WHPAs
Vadose Zone Monitoring Program
District-wide, GWMAs, WHPAs
Voluntary IMP
The NRDs should individually send a letter to NDNR to initiate the voluntary IMP process. This will allow
the NRD to work with NDNR to manage surface and groundwater quantity. NRD will be able to discuss
new monitoring programs, such as additional streamgages and projects with NDNR’s assistance.
Discussions with NDNR would determine the plan area, surface water controls, and groundwater
controls. Initiation of the voluntary IMP would allow potential for utilizing the Water Sustainability
Fund.
Irrigated Acres Stay
TBNRD has implemented irrigated acres stays within that District since 2006. That stay covers portions
of the Basin. Implementation of stays requires several other decisions, such as variance processes,
transfer processes, and area. Irrigated acres stays could apply by sub-basin, sub-area, WHPA area, or be
District-wide. Variance processes would need to be determined, such as annual number of acres
allowed for development each year. Transfer processes can allow for retirement of acres in exchange
for the addition of new acres. Transfers can be limited within sub-basins or within a given radius of the
retired acres.
Groundwater Allocations
Implementation of groundwater allocations requires decisions regarding area and volume of water
extracted. The area could focus on groundwater decline regions, certain sub-basins, or hydrologically
connected areas. The LBNRD would need to determine the annual amount and whether that amount
would be averaged over several years, i.e. 36 inches over 3 years. Several Districts use 3 or 5 year
accounting periods that allow a certain amount of carry-over into the subsequent period.
Transition WHPAs to GW Quality Subareas, Phase II, or Phase III
At the request of local communities, expand or transition WHPAs to Phase II management areas
requires communication with local communities to discuss the impacts of these transitions. WHPAs may
transition to a Phase II, or some may elevate to a Phase III, dependent upon current nitrate levels.
Agreements such as Inter-local Cooperative Agreements (ILCAs) may increase cooperation and pool
resources of NRDs and municipalities for the additional monitoring and implementation required of a
Phase II or Phase III.
117
Soil Sampling and Reporting Requirement
Implementation of required soil sampling (future potential for plant sensing) and reporting requires the
NRD to set certain requirements, such as area subject to reporting, annual or rotating reporting,
reporting enforcement, reporting processes, and records management. Reporting could be
implemented District-wide, by sub-basin, or by WHPAs. The District would need to determine if
producers within the designated area would need to report results annually, by what date, and in what
format. The additional data requires new methodologies for retainage and analysis of that new
information. The NRDs could provide non-financial incentives for those who report soil results or report
results below certain levels by waiving certain training requirements.
Implementation of programs that encourage alternatives to current crop management would be
beneficial across the basin, but particularly in GWMA’s and WHPA. Examples of alternative crop
management practices include cover crops, conversion of row crop to alfalfa or grass, crop rotation
(instead of continuous corn), etc. Crop rotation is most effective when it consists of at least 3 crops.
Changing crop management practices may be challenging and would likely require financial incentives
and non-financial incentives for implementation. Non-financial incentives include providing evidence of
economic detriments to over-application of fertilizers, encouragement of stewardship mentalities, and
reduced training requirements.
Increase the groundwater level and contaminant monitoring networks to better understand changes in
nitrate and groundwater levels. These could include additional sites near WHPAs, or near projects that
result from this plan to determine project effectiveness. These could be both short-term and long-term
monitoring efforts. The short-term network expansion could result from a particular study or project,
with a decrease in the monitoring network upon study completion. The long-term efforts would focus
on non-data rich areas to increase the evenness in spatial distribution of sampling sites.
Implementation of a vadose zone monitoring program requires the NRD to determine the areas and
frequency for sampling. The program could focus on WHPAs, areas with elevated nitrate
concentrations, and distributed sites throughout the Basin. The program would include a combination
of deep vadose sampling (ground surface to aquifer) and shallow vadose sampling (ground surface to a
depth of 15 feet), using similar methods and procedures utilized during the Vadose Zone Assessment.
The deep vadose sampling would be done at the same locations each time, with a frequency of sampling
once every 10 years. This sampling interval is more practical as nitrates move slowly through the soil
profile, lessening the value of annual sampling at the same site. The deep sampling would be used to
track long-term trends of nitrate leaching from the surface to the saturated zone. Two to three shallow
sampling events would occur between the 10-year deep vadose sampling. Analyses would be
completed to establish trends between the shallow and deep nitrate loads to determine effectiveness of
management practices. Detailed production information from each sampling site is necessary to make
accurate comparisons between nitrate management practices. This will require detailed reporting
forms, completed by the producers, to track nitrate application, inhibitor application, crop type, and use
of a crop consultant. Collection of this information will greatly increase the value of a vadose zone
monitoring program. A non-financial incentive to encourage participation in the program could be to
waive training requirements for fields that sample below certain limits.
118
6.5.3
Source Water Protection
As mentioned in Section 4, a survey was completed by 27 municipalities in order to formulate a strategy
for source water protection actions. Based upon the survey, the most commonly implemented
conservation practices ranked by total responses, are well abandonment (11), onsite wastewater system
upgrades (9), household hazardous waste collections (8), grass buffers around wells (5), conservation
incentives (4), residential soil sampling (4), and water meters (2). Annual agronomic soil sampling
should be a top choice when assisting a community with source water protection practices.
NRD funding can be leveraged through NDEQ’s Nonpoint Source and Source Water Protection annual
funding. The funds focus on proactive solutions, particularly long-term programs, to protect drinking
water supplies. These funds provide financial assistance to identify contaminant sources, contaminant
removal, pathway removal, contaminant management, and outreach efforts. These programs would
require the NRDs to work with local municipalities to implement and monitor measure to reduce nitrate
leaching to potable supplies. Current programs could be enhanced by:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
6.5.4
Initiate a public relations campaign to gauge interest of individual communities for level of
interest in a partnership to address source water nitrate issues.
Expanding current actions to assist communities with installation of nutrient reducing BMPs
both within and upgradient of WHPAs. Incentives for installation of BMPs such as crop to grass
conversion, cover crops, three-crop rotations, or row crop to alfalfa conversion should be
considered in for all WHPAs.
Utilize the existing funding allotment as match for Section 319 and NET grant applications in
order to expand the existing program capabilities.
Open up funding to include shallow and deep vadose zone soil sampling.
Open up funding to include additional groundwater monitoring and installation of monitoring
wells.
Submit funding applications to NET and DEQ for a 5-Year Pilot Program.
Conduct performance monitoring to quantify benefits.
Detailed Hydrogeologic and Nitrate Assessment
As stated in Section 2.5 of the Plan, a preliminary assessment of aquifer vulnerability to nitrate
contamination was conducted. The resulting aquifer vulnerability map suggests wide-spread nitrate
vulnerability. Recent nitrate levels from monitoring activities, previously shown in Figure 2-13, and the
list of communities with elevated nitrate levels supports the conclusion the elevated nitrate levels are a
widespread issue. However, it may beneficial to conduct a more detailed hydrologic and nitrate
assessment. Information detailed in these assessments could be modified and used for public outreach
efforts.
There are two approaches to a more detailed hydrogeologic assessment, one from a regional stand
point, and the second by focusing on priority target areas. Each of these approaches are detailed below.
In addition, an assessment of the relationship between well screen depth and nitrate concentrations is
detailed.
Regional Approach
The approach to a refined project would be to utilize the hydrogeologic information gathered from the
hydrogeologic study for the purpose of identifying areas across the District that have distinct differences
119
in quality and to identify the potential causes for these. After these have been addressed, areas
considered to be “poor” quality as well as those with “good” quality will be identified for the in-depth
studies. These studies will focus on identifying the cause for the variations from a hydrogeologic
perspective by evaluating the geology from well logs in more detail, well construction, sample depths,
etc.
Additional information would be collected from these target areas to supplement the data included in
the previous Hydrogeologic Study. Data that will be collected as will include, but not limited to, nitrate
concentrations, static water levels, monitoring and irrigation well data, soil types, and the geology above
and below the water table or top of principal aquifer. Information would also be compiled on potential
sources of nitrate contamination, such as location of CAFOs, manure applications, onsite wastewater
systems, etc.
Targeted Area (WHPA) Approach
The approach for target areas is similar, however the area to be evaluated would be scaled down to only
previously delineated WHPA and areas adjacent or upgradient to groundwater flow. Tasks would
include an investigation into the existing modeling and potentially a new model, followed by a detailed
vulnerability assessment. If it is determined that a refined model is necessary a new time-of-travel
delineation would be completed using a model such as MOD-FLOW and the particle tracking module
MODPATH to delineate the WHPA. The new WHPA would then be further evaluated as stated in the
regional approach to determine vulnerability to nitrate contamination to the community’s water supply
wells. It is important to note that all WHPAs in Nebraska must be approved by NDEQ, therefore
coordination with NDEQ is required. Communities that have expressed interest in a detailed
vulnerability study, or other similar assessment, are listed in the Action Plan in Appendix A.
Well Screen Depth Assessment
The current groundwater nitrate sampling program utilizes existing wells for collection of samples.
Many of these wells are irrigation wells. This approach has the advantage of providing a broad
geographic coverage because of the high density of irrigation wells throughout much of the basin. One
disadvantage is the well construction, in particular the depth of the well screens, are not consistently
reported. The inconsistent reporting and description makes comparisons and analyses extremely
difficult. The distribution of groundwater nitrate concentrations, previously illustrated in Figure 2-13,
indicated that nitrate levels are highly variable, sometime even in close proximity. One potential
explanation for the high level of variability is the depth of the well screen relative to the static water
level.
It is recommended that an assessment be completed to determine if a strong relationship exists
between the depth of the screened interval and the observed nitrate concentrations. If a strong
relationship is found, the NRDs may want to consider altering their approach for selection of wells to be
included in the nitrate monitoring program.
Surface Water Projects and Programs
Improvement of surface water quality, both lakes and streams, is a priority for the project sponsors and
the steering committee. Below is a summary of overall plan recommendations including an
enhancement of the existing LBNRD Streambank Stabilization Program and discussion on lake
renovation priorities.
120
6.6.1
Bank Stabilization
Streambank and shoreline protection consists of restoring and protecting banks of streams, lakes,
estuaries, and excavated channels against scour and erosion by using vegetative plantings, soil
bioengineering, bend-way weirs, and structural systems. Streambank erosion is a concern on any
perennial stream segment, particularly when infrastructure may be compromised. LBNRD recently
established a streambank stabilization cost-share program for landowners. This program has been
launched with good interest and has cost-share funds provided by the LBNRD.
Whenever possible, the NRDs will utilize stabilization approaches that maximizes habitat and recharge
benefits. Incorporating additional benefits into these projects will expand funding opportunities, as the
NRDs will continue to seek these opportunities to help fund these projects. Priorities and streambank
stabilization needs will be determined on a case-by-case basis as landowners apply to the program.
6.6.2
Lake and Reservoir Water Quality Improvement
The strategy to improve lake and reservoir water quality will fall into two primary areas; 1) improving
watershed conditions, and 2) in-lake improvements. For applicable situations, watershed impacts will
be addressed to the extent possible to minimize pollutant loadings. The second area of focus will be inlake improvements. In-lake improvements will typically be targeted at reversing eutrophication which
may include sediment removal, shoreline stabilization, wetland or sediment basin construction, water
source alteration/treatment, and sealing.
From a management standpoint, lakes and reservoirs will fall into three categories based on ownership
and authority; 1) State Lakes, 2) Community Lakes, and 3) NRD Lakes. Management decisions for State
and community lakes will fall with those entities; however, the NRD may be involved from either a
technical or financial standpoint.
Priorities for lake and reservoir improvement projects are determined from several factors including;
level of impairment, likelihood of project success, extent of public benefits, NRD priorities, NGPC
priorities, and community support. Three projects have been earmarked for funding from the NGPC;
Alexandria Lakes (State Managed), Crystal Lake (Community Managed), and Lake Hastings (Community
Managed). The NRD may provide support for these as requested by the sponsor at a level determined
by the NRD Board of Directors.
Based on the priority factors listed above, reservoirs managed by the NRDs that will be considered for
restoration and protection activities include Liberty Cove, Prairie Lake, and Roseland Lake. It should be
noted that all lakes and reservoirs with significant impairments will be considered for water quality
improvement.
6.6.3
Stream and River Water Quality Improvement
In order to improve the physical, chemical, and biological condition of perennial streams and rivers in
the basin, the surface water practices and programs highlighted in this plan must be successfully
implemented. Those include widespread conservation measure adoption in urban and rural areas,
streambank stabilization, in and near stream structural measures such as weirs and dams, and grade
control structures. Public outreach efforts for private septic tank owners should be included to reduce
E. coli, particularly if septic tanks discharge directly into streams.
121
E.coli bacteria concentrations in segments of the Little Blue River are a special concern given the Section
303(d) listings. While NDEQ collected an adequate data set to assess the Recreation Use in the Little
Blue River this data set is inadequate to evaluate bacteria sources, quantify loads, develop future
management recommendations, or evaluate short term progress in managing bacteria sources. Most
States, including Nebraska, have taken an adaptive management approach to reducing bacteria
concentrations in receiving streams. This approach consists of implementing management measures,
monitoring their effectiveness, and repeating successful treatment combinations in new areas or subwatersheds. Pasture management practices are popular in the basin. These practices can result in
immediate improvements to streambanks, near and in-stream habitat, and water quality. The NRDs will
continue to promote these programs district wide.
In the case of the Little Blue River, human sources are related to municipal Waste Water Treatment
Facilities (WWTF) and non-permitted private onsite wastewater systems. A total of 10 WWTF contribute
to Segment LB-10000. Private on-site wastewater systems typically do not provide a large contribution
of bacteria when compared to livestock, but human to human transfer of pathogens is a concern.
Private septic systems will be targeted district wide through educational programs with upgrades and
improvements being done on a voluntary basis.
Bacteria contributions from wildlife and range livestock are largely undocumented mainly because of
the difficulty. While these sources may not be a priority for control, their contribution plays a
potentially important role in monitoring, evaluation, and the assessment of implementation programs.
In general, bacteria concentrations in streams tend to rise as storm water runoff carries pollutants into
the stream and flow increases. To effectively address E.coli bacteria in impaired stream segments,
monitoring and implementation should be based on stream flow. Stream bacteria concentrations are
highly influenced by point source discharges under low flow conditions. Decreasing bacteria
concentrations under low flow conditions may rely on addressing sources such as permitted discharges,
illicit discharges, and private onsite wastewater systems. Permitted and illicit discharges should be
addressed by NDEQ while private onsite wastewater systems can be addressed through watershed
education and cost-share assistance.
Although nonpoint sources dominate bacteria concentrations during runoff conditions, most traditional
practices have limited effectiveness beyond certain size storms. Traditional practices will reduce
bacteria inputs under smaller runoff events. These management measures are a priority for funding
under several sources including NDEQ Section 319, Nebraska Environmental Trust, Nebraska Soil and
Water Conservation Fund, and several USDA programs including Water Quality Initiative (WQI) and
Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP).
Reducing bacteria concentrations under high flow conditions will require large scale alterations to
stream processes. This may include a significant amount of stream corridor improvements involving
riparian and wetland development, large dams, large scale recharge projects, and activities that
influence stream and groundwater interaction.
6.6.4
Stream Corridor Restoration
Riparian areas are vital to supporting structural and biological diversity in Nebraska’s landscapes. They
offer important habitat for upland and aquatic species, and have a direct impact on water quality by
stabilizing stream banks. Currently, LBNRD has been proactive in maintaining quality riparian corridors
122
along the Little Blue River working in conjunction with the Twin Valley Management Authority. This
partnership is important and should continue. Consideration should be given to monitoring restoration
areas for reoccurrence of invasive and unwanted species. When necessary, resources should be made
available to ensure stream corridors which have been restored remain in good health. Benefits include
improved habitat, decreased water consumption through evapotranspiration, and improved natural
functionality of floodplains, among others.
Priorities for stream corridor restoration include maintaining previously restored areas of the Little Blue
River, diversifying native vegetation along streams, monitoring regrowth of unwanted vegetation, and
identifying new areas along major tributaries for restoration. For water quantity purposes, and to work
towards maintaining a strong perennial flow across the border for compact purposes, priority should be
given to the lower end of the Basin when identifying new restoration target areas, such as the Rose
Creek sub-area. For water quality purposes, the Spring Creek sub-area, which is impaired for biological
communities, due to limited aquatic habitat, should also be a priority target area for re-establishing a
healthy stream corridor.
The NRDs and the Rainwater Basin Join Venture (RWBJV) have worked on similar projects in the past
and intend to further promote the use of SHIP projects in the future to benefit wildlife, water quality,
and groundwater recharge. The landowner, in consultation with RWBJV partners, determines an
acceptable pool level, based on topography, which thus determines the number of acres covered by the
annual land-use payment. A ten-year agreement provides for installation of a water control structure
and associated dirt work.
Project target locations are identified using a geospatial prioritization product that identified currently
functioning wetlands with water concentration pits (pit drains) inside the historic wetland footprint.
Three base layers, developed by the RWBJV, were used in GIS to create this prioritization: 1) Functional
(ponding or hydrophytic vegetation) areas at least 25% of the survey years from the RWBJV Annual
Habitat Surveys 2004-2012, 2) Historic Wetland Footprints, and 3) Irrigation re-use/concentration pits.
Final SHIP priority properties have been identified by the RWBJV and this database will be used to locate
future projects within the ‘wetland restoration’ target layer as shown on the Project Target Area figure
6-2.
6.6.5
Rangeland Management
According to the 2013 NASS land cover database, less than one quarter of the Basin is grass or pasture.
Maintenance of these grass and pasture areas should be an ecological function rather than an
agronomic one. Maintaining a healthy pasture through rangeland management can have significant
water quality benefits including reduced sediment, nutrients, and bacteria runoff into local streams.
The use of valid resource inventories and resource monitoring are a basic requirement for planning and
management of rangeland resources. Management strategies to consider include: livestock grazing
management such as cross-fencing, multiple watering sources, livestock exclusion and access control,
removal of noxious and invasive vegetation (Eastern Red Cedar, honey locust, etc), fire management,
and utilizing the CRP program. Objectives are to limit erosion and runoff from overgrazing and from
areas where native vegetation is lacking due to invasive species, and to stabilize stream banks naturally
through establishment of native vegetation.
123
Priorities for rangeland management include obtaining necessary equipment to remove invasive
vegetation, or making equipment available to rangeland managers. Targets areas should include subwatersheds contributing to reservoirs, specifically Lone Star, Prairie Lake, and Liberty Cove. Other target
areas for rangeland management are grass and pasture which is directly adjacent to both major and
small streams throughout the Basin.
6.6.6
Augmentation
Opportunities to capture excess water for future use exist within the Basin. These opportunities include
modifications to existing infrastructure, as well as development of new facilities. One example of a new
facility would be a reservoir located on Rose Creek,near the Kansas border. Excess water from Rose
Creek could be utilized to support downstream flows during critical periods or potentially used for
recharge purposes. An analysis of the USGS gage at Hollenberg, KS shows only 252 days in 15 years that
have not met compact requirements. The size of a reservoir required to store and release flows to meet
compact requirements on these shortage days would be minimal and more than likely, determined by
other potential benefits such as aquatic habitat creation, flood control, recharge, and recreation.
As previously described for recharge, if infrastructure described above can be modified or re-purposed
to perform its current function while providing additional benefits related to augmentation, the Basin
sustainability goals may be able to be achieved much faster and at lower cost than new facility
construction. A pre-feasibility study is recommended to screen the complete list of existing
infrastructure to identify structures that would be the best candidates for being modified to enhance
recharge or provide augmentation. Criteria for the screening may include proximity to the Hollenberg,
Kansas flow gauge, recharge potential for the location of the structure, types of modifications necessary,
permitting requirements, ownership, and site access restrictions.
6.6.7
Stream Flow Measurement
Streamflow measurements are the most accurate way to monitor effects of projects on either runoff or
baseflow to the streams. The few streamgages within the Basin are long-term, which allows for analyses
to compare the effects of implemented projects with historical observations. Joint efforts with NDNR
would prove useful, as NDNR maintains several gages in the Basin.
Additional Stream Gauges
Cooperation with NDNR, such as through a voluntary IMP, would allow discussions to deploy additional
stream gages throughout the Basin. Tributary streams are largely un-gaged in the Basin, as such, larger
tributaries are likely targets to install new gages. These new gages may collect data at less frequent
intervals or be maintained in less rigorous standards than gages used for surface water administration
purposes. This would allow the NRDs to gather additional streamflow data that meets monitoring
needs, while reducing the cost of maintaining additional gages.
Stream flow Assessment
Synoptic stream studies, often referred to as seepage runs, provide information regarding baseflow to
the entire Basin system at a given point in time. NDNR collected synoptic stream information from
1950-2012. Assessment of this information would allow the NRDs better understanding of
gaining/losing stream stretches and whether those stretches changed through time. Synoptic stream
studies are also effective monitoring tools to determine loss of stream miles. Figure 2-17 illustrates the
number of non-gage streamflow measurements taken during synoptic studies from 1950-2012. The
124
amount of data presents opportunities for additional analysis of tributary and mainstem streamflow.
One example of additional analysis is Figure 6-4 that shows the changes in location of where streams
begin. Through a voluntary IMP, the NRDs may set up a 5-year synoptic monitoring system to determine
management action effects on streamflow.
125
Figure 6-4: Synoptic Stream Assessment
6.6.8
Urban Conservation Practices
These practices consist of small-scale projects that can alleviate local concerns or issues, but are unlikely
to have large impacts on Basin consumption or nitrate levels. These types of practices are excellent
education opportunities to present water quality and quantity concerns to the public, particularly if the
demonstration projects are within publically accessible land. Implementation of any urban conservation
practices requires cooperation with the municipality and any other relevant regulatory agencies.
Facilities, such as, bioretention cells and bioswales allow greater water infiltration at the site, which
increases recharge while decreasing the amount of runoff to stormwater sewers. LBNRD and TBNRD
could work with the larger communities in the Basin to identify parks, parking lots, road ditches, etc.,
that would be conducive to building these types of structures.
Practices to reduce nitrate from municipal sources include native landscaping and application of nophosphorus fertilizers. Implementation of these practices would reduce the nitrate and phosphorus
that leach and runoff from municipal land-uses. Due to the small percentage of the Basin that is
municipal and the volume of fertilizers applied, implementation of these practices will not significantly
impact Basin nutrient levels. Adoption of these practices will not significantly reduce nitrate levels, but
construction and implantation will provide public outreach and education opportunities to discuss larger
Basin pollutant issues, such as source water nitrate levels, with the public.
126
Water Infrastructure and Maintenance
There are a total of 31 dams in the Little Blue NRD (Table 6-3). These include PL-566 structures
implemented by NRCS (formerly SCS), structures which were initiated by the NRD without Federal
assistance, and several joint projects between the NRD and counties. These figures do not account for
nearly 100 smaller private structures the district provided cost-share assistance on since 1972.
Aging structures typically require maintenance or rehabilitations. Most maintenance projects involve
fixing or replacing outlet components, removing vegetation, and re-shaping slopes. Rehabilitation
projects may be prompted by dam inspections and/or classification changes and may include increasing
sediment storage and infrastructure replacement. In these cases, design and permitting would be
required. In some cases additional land rights may be needed which can significantly increase project
costs. Work to be completed on priority structures identified in Table Y. can only be accomplished with
outside funding assistance. Design, construction, and implementation are more likely if done in
cooperation or conjunction with other projects and priorities.
Table 6-3: LBNRD Dams Considered for Maintenance and Upgrades
Structure
Number
Year Constructed
Category
PL566
19
1968-1976
NRD
8
1982-2012
NRD and County
4
1968-1982
Table 6-4: Dams Planned for Assessments
Structure
Activity Needed
Thirty-Two Mile Creek K
Flood Plain and Breach Route Assessment
(NE00173)
Bowman Springs Branch 1A
Dam Rehabilitation Assessment
Bowman Springs 1B
Buckley Creek 3C
Buckley Creek 4A
Buckley Creek 4B
Thirty-Two Mile Creek H
Thirty-Two Mile Creek K
Bowman Springs 2A
Buckley Creek 3D
High Quality Resources
Management actions should consider high quality resources, such as non-contaminated aquifers or
areas with plentiful groundwater supplies. Similarly for surface water, actions should focus on problem
areas, but also consider preventative maintenance actions in order to maintain high quality resources
such as RWB wetlands.
The Rainwater Basin Wetlands are unique and very important high quality resources and should remain
as a top priority. An emphasis should be placed on wetland restoration in areas where recharge from
wetlands can benefit aquifers experiencing a permanent decline. Monitoring would be necessary to
determine the effectiveness of groundwater recharge from wetlands.
127
To maximize protection efforts the TBNRD and LBNRD will collaborate with the RWBJV on any potential
action within the RWB that can bring multiple-benefits towards goals within this Plan. At some point,
regulatory actions may be considered to protect high quality aquifers from nitrate contamination and
groundwater declines.
Additional Studies and Assessment
Like all large scale planning efforts, a number of questions were discussed that were beyond the scope
of the Plan. Therefore, a running list of additional studies and/or research was established to be
included as recommendations. Following is a list of additional studies that would help answer questions
related to water resources management in the Basin. The short increment would be within 5-years of
plan adoption, while the intermediate increment would be 6-10 years. In many cases, UNL should be
considered in leading research activities listed in Table 6-5.
Activity Description
Table 6-5: Additional Studies or Research
Location
Increment
Evaluation of emerging technologies on Nitrogen
leaching
Evaluation of the influence of well screen depth for
municipal water supplies
Crop Water Use Research
Basin-wide
Short
Target Areas
Short
Basin-wide
Short & Intermediate
Quantifying crop rotation relationship N-loading
N-Uptake by Native Plants
Groundwater nitrate contaminant migration into
WHPAs
Variation in Nitrate Levels due to High-capacity Well
Pumping and its Effect on Municipal Wells
Basin-wide
Basin-wide
Target Areas
Short
Short
Target Areas
Short
Community Detailed Groundwater Vulnerability
Assessment
Target Areas
Short
Determination of the extent and nature of Basin that
utilizes no-till growing practices
Basin-wide
Short
Determine the ability of different soil types to retain
water under different tillage practices
Basin-wide
Determine effectiveness of cover crops within
concentrated flow areas of cropped lands
Basin-wide
Intermediate
Evaluate ability of clay lenses to impact horizontal and
vertical nitrate movement through the soil profile
Basin-wide
Evaluate the effects of bedrock on nitrate levels and
movement throughout the Basin
Target Areas
Evaluate the effectiveness and practicality of utilizing
ion exchange capacities to set nitrate application
limits
Evaluate effectiveness of installation of rock-weir
dams to slow water flow in pastures
Basin-wide
Basin-wide
128
Staffing
A watershed coordinator would be beneficial to help manage the implementation of this Basin plan and
meet its goals, and to foster the relationships with property owners, producers, and other stakeholders.
This position would be responsible for coordinating implementation activities, information and
education, and to provide technical assistance to property owners. This position will also focus on
source water protection, monitoring activities, and working with other agencies on program
implementation, such as NRCS, NDNR, and NDEQ.
129
Section 7 – Monitoring and Evaluation
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Introduction
Successful resource management can only be achieved if adequate data and information are available to
make educated management decisions. Monitoring and data collection allows for the assessment of
resource health and condition, identification of specific resource concerns, the development of sound
projects, and the tracking of water quality and quantity trends over time.
The NRDs will follow appropriate planning approaches in order to ensure the most efficient and
effective use of district funding for monitoring. This includes developing sound, defensible monitoring
strategies and networks, properly managing data, and disseminating information to decision makers and
other stakeholders (Figure 7-1). Monitoring goals can only be achieved through NRD coordinated
monitoring, monitoring partnerships, and other available data that meets the desired quality. Steps will
be taken to ensure the collection scientifically valid data which may include the development of Quality
Assurance Plans and Monitoring Plans for state and federal review.
This strategy was designed to address a broad range of water resource management activities that
pertain to basin-wide and localized water planning, project development, and implementation. This
strategy provides an overall monitoring framework for project sponsors but may not provide the detail
necessary to satisfy requirements for individual monitoring plans.
Monitoring Goals
The establishment of monitoring goals is critical to adequately design monitoring networks to facilitate
water resource management. Twelve primary water monitoring goals, which track the progress of the
overarching document goals, were identified for this strategy. They are:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
Evaluate current water quality conditions.
Provide water quality safety information to water users.
Maintain long term data sets for trend assessments.
Support water project or activity development.
Identify causes and sources of water quality problems.
Estimate pollutant transport.
Evaluate water management effectiveness.
Quantify short & long term water quantity goals.
Support future hydrological modeling.
Provide flood safety information to the public.
Ensure compliance with state and federal standards.
Evaluate water infrastructure for maintenance & repair.
130
Figure 7-1. Water Monitoring Approach for the Little Blue River Basin
Current Monitoring Networks
Monitoring networks should be periodically evaluated individually and collectively to ensure the best
possible use of all data and information. This will entail close coordination between NRDs and other
entities involved in monitoring within the Basin (Table 7-1). While individual water monitoring networks
are designed to meet specific objectives of coordinating and funding agencies, many times the data and
information can also be used to meet other important objectives. Current monitoring activities and the
objectives they could potential support are provided in Table 7-2. Data gaps and deficiencies should be
identified and addressed in order to stay on top of changing environments and water policies. A spatial
representation of all the current monitoring networks that have “fixed” sites are provided in Figure 7-2.
Several networks utilize a “rotational” site approach meaning monitoring site locations change annually.
A description of all current monitoring networks is provided in subsequent sections of this strategy.
131
Figure 7-2: Existing Monitoring Locations
132
Table 7-1: Current Monitoring Activities in the Little Blue River Basin
Monitoring Networks
Rainfall
NRDs
NDEQ
NDNR
NGPC
UNL
X
X
Surface Water - Ambient Water Quality
X
Surface Water - Beach Water Quality
X
Surface Water - Stream Biological
X
X
Surface Water - Flow/Discharge
X
X
Surface Water - Volume Impounded
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Groundwater - Livestock Facilities
County
Municipality
or
Facility
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Groundwater – Observation Wells
X
Groundwater - Well Metering
X
Groundwater – Sub Area Nitrate Monitoring
X
Fish Kills/Spills/Citizen Complaints
X
Soil Sampling
X
Landowner/
Producer/Public
X
Surface Water – Specialized
Surface Water - NPDES Permit
USGS
X
Surface Water - Basin Rotation
Groundwater - Ambient Quality
DHHS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
133
Table 7-2: Water Monitoring Goals and Possible Support from Current Networks
Little Blue Natural Resource District A-L Monitoring Goals
(Primary Monitoring Goals in Blue)
Monitoring Networks
A
B
C
D
E
F
G H I
J K
Rainfall
X
X
X
X
X X X X
Surface Water - Basin Rotation
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface Water - Ambient Water
Quality
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface Water - Beach Water Quality
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface Water - Stream Biological
X
X
X
Surface Water - Specialized
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface Water - Flow/Discharge
X
X
X
X X X X X
Surface Water - Volume Impounded
X X X
Surface Water - NPDES Permit
X
X
X
X
Groundwater - Ambient Quality
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X
Groundwater - Livestock Facilities
X
X
X
X
Groundwater – Observation Wells
X
X
X
X
X X X
Groundwater - Well Metering
X
X
X X X
Groundwater – Sub Area Nitrate
Monitoring
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fish Kills/Spills/Complaints
X
X
Soil Sampling
X
X
X
X
Water Quantity Networks
7.4.1 Precipitation
Precipitation data plays an important role in water quality and quantity management as it is the source
of all surface water runoff and groundwater recharge. Natural precipitation cycles lead to complicated
water management decisions, whether it be battling a drought or reducing impacts from floods. The
intensity, duration, and amount of precipitation during any single event can define extent of water
issues such as pollutant transport or having the necessary storage to impound excessive runoff.
The High Plains Climate Center collects, analyzes, and stores information from weather stations across
the region. These weather stations differ in the type of instrumentation and measurement types, but
provide a broader network of precipitation and temperature data than stations used for forecasting
purposes. Combining these networks with precipitation measurements obtained through volunteer
monitoring networks such as NeRAIN provides useful information regarding the volume and spatial
distribution of precipitation through the Basin. NeRain sites within the Basin boundary are listed in
Figure 7-3.
134
L
X
Figure 7-3: NeRAIN Precipitation Measurement Sites within the Little Blue Basin
7.4.2 Surface Water
Surface water gages are the most direct method to monitor the effect of management strategies on
surface water volume. These include effects of groundwater pumping, induced recharge, or future
development on baseflows to streams. Currently, the USGS and NDNR maintain continuous, real time
stream monitoring for stream height and discharge at four locations in the Little Blue River Basin, each
are listed in Figure 7-4. These sites include:
•
•
•
•
Little Blue River near Deweese, NE, USGS, (Site 06883000)
Big Sandy Creek (Thayer/Jefferson County Line, NDNR, (06883940)
Little Blue River near Fairbury, NE, USGS, (Site 06884000)
Little Blue River near Hollenburg, KS, USGS, (Site 06884025)
135
Figure 7-4: Stream Height and Discharge Monitoring Network
Surface Water Quality Networks
A combination of fixed and rotating site monitoring will be used to evaluate water quality on streams,
rivers, and impounded waters across the Basin. Core indicators and stressors will be used in conjunction
with supplemental data collection that may be needed to address a specific management decision or
support project development. Monitoring categories have been defined to address monitoring goals.
Each category is supported by a specific network design that includes monitoring objectives,
parameters, methodologies, and quality assurance. A majority of the surface water quality monitoring
in the Basin is conducted either by NDEQ or USGS through a variety of surface water monitoring and
assessment programs. NDEQ’s monitoring program locations within the Basin are shown in Figure 7-2.
Information from past surface water quality monitoring can potentially be used as a pre-project
benchmark for tracking water quality improvements and trends in the Basin as the Plan is implemented.
Project coordination with agencies such as NDEQ will be vital before moving forward with a program or
project targeted to improve surface water.
7.5.1
Ambient Stream Monitoring
The NDEQ maintains an “Ambient” monitoring network across the state for streams and rivers. Ambient
monitoring consists of fixed sites that are sampled each year. In addition to being able to assess current
conditions, consistent monitoring at the same location allows for the establishment of long term data
sets for trend assessments. There are 97 fixed ambient stream sites across the state with two being
located within the Basin. Ambient monitoring is conducted at one site on the Little Blue River near
136
Deweese and at one site on Big Sandy Creek near Alexandria (Figure 7-2). These sites are monitored
monthly for the following parameters: water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity, total
suspended solids, ammonia, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, total chlorides, pesticides (April through
September only), and metals (Quarterly). Data collected through this network is available to resource
managers and the general public EPA’s STORET (STOrage and RETrieval) data management system
(www.epa.gov/storet). Information from past basin rotation monitoring can be used as a pre-project
benchmark for water quality improvement tracking in the Basin.
7.5.2
Basin Rotation Monitoring
Each year the NDEQ selects “Basin Rotation” monitoring sites on flowing and impounded waters which
are focused on specific basins across the state. Each basin in the state is targeted for sampling every six
years. The Little Blue River Basin was monitored in 2012, setting the next the next rotation for 2018.
From the months of May through September streams and rivers are sampled weekly while lakes and
reservoirs are sampled monthly. Sample parameters are provided in Table 7-3. Data collected through
this network is available to resource managers and the general public EPA’s STORET (STOrage and
RETrieval) data management system (www.epa.gov/storet).
7.5.3
Table 7-3: Parameters Sampled Under NDEQ’s Basin Rotation Monitoring Networks
Parameter
Streams & Rivers
Impounded Waters
Ammonia
X
Nitrate-nitrogen
X
X
Kjeldahl nitrogen
X
Total nitrogen
X
Total phosphorus
X
X
Total dissolved phosphorus
X
Total chlorides
X
Total suspended solids
X
X
Turbidity
X
pH
X
X
Temperature
X
X
Conductivity
X
X
Dissolved oxygen
X
X
E.coli bacteria
X
X
Pesticides
X
X
Water Clarity
X
Microcystin (algae toxin)
X
Beach Monitoring
NDEQ conducts water quality monitoring at selected swimming beaches across the state to determine
the suitability for full body contact. Beach monitoring for E.coli bacteria and the microcystin toxin
produced by blue green algae is conducted during the recreation season (May 1 – Sep 30). Monitoring
results are posted on the NDEQ website on a weekly basis (www.deq.state.ne.us). Lonestar Reservoir is
the only Basin site currently monitored under this network.
137
7.5.4
Biological Monitoring
The Basin’s streams and rivers contain a rich diversity of aquatic life including aquatic insects, fish,
amphibians, and mammals. Since aquatic communities are in constant contact with the water, the
health of these communities can provide insight on stressors that may not show up through traditional
water monitoring. NDEQ’s Stream Biological Monitoring Program (SBMP) uses fish and aquatic insect
communities to provide statewide assessments of the biological conditions of Nebraska’s streams. In
1997, the Department added a probabilistic monitoring design that involved the sampling of randomly
selected sites to its SBMP in order to address statewide and regional questions about water quality.
Monitoring sites are generated by a computer program that randomly chooses sites on streams
throughout Nebraska. From 1997-2011, the biological communities of 33 randomly selected stream
sites were sampled in the Basin. Each year 34-40 randomly selected wadeable stream sites (i.e. streams
that are shallow enough to sample without boats) are chosen for study in two or three river basins
throughout Nebraska (NDEQ 2012).
7.5.5
Fish Tissue Monitoring
Since the 1970s, NDEQ has monitored fish from flowing and impounded waters to determine the
suitability for human consumption. In cases where contaminants are a concern, a fish consumption
advisory is issued. Fish tissue monitoring sites are determined annually but are generally located where
the most fishing occurs. To date, 14 sites in the Little Blue River Basin have been monitored including
seven sites on the Little Blue River, six lakes, and one site on Big Sandy Creek. Information on fish tissue
monitoring results are provided via an annual report prepared by NDEQ.
Specialized Monitoring
While “routine” and “ambient” monitoring networks are in place to evaluate existing water quality
conditions, expanded monitoring efforts may be needed to facilitate the development of water quality
planning documents such as TMDLs and Project Implementation Plans. Additionally, more intensive
monitoring networks may be necessary to estimate pollutant loads, evaluate watershed protection and
restoration measures, or to establish a pre- project comparative database for targeted parameters. This
may include monitoring additional parameters, conducting bathymetric surveys, monitoring baseflow
and runoff conditions in smaller tributaries, or collecting reservoir sediment cores to estimate internal
phosphorus loads.
Groundwater Quality Networks
7.6.1
Groundwater Levels
Dedicated Observation Well Network
Each NRD measures groundwater levels biannually using a monitoring network deep wells. LBNRD has
installed a 48-well network of dedicated monitoring wells equipped with data loggers for continuous
recordings of water fluctuations. Data is collected by NRD staff in accordance to standardized
procedures. Data is stored on a database maintained by the NRD. Water level information is used by
the NRD to track current conditions, evaluate short & long-term trends, and make management
decisions. Information gathered through this network is made available to the general public through
the NRD website, public meetings, and NRD publications. The static water-level information is supplied
to a USGS database, while water quality information is supplied to a DEQ database.
138
High Capacity Well Metering
LBNRD began to require flow meters on all high capacity water wells with the installation of flow meters
set to begin January 1, 2014. Groundwater Rules and Regulations were updated to include a phased
plan for flow meter installation on all high capacity wells by March 31, 2017. TBNRD requires
flowmeters and water use reporting for identified eligible water wells within that District.
7.6.2
Ambient Groundwater Monitoring Network
NDEQ analyzes groundwater data collected for the purpose of determining whether or not ground water
quality is degrading or improving and presents the results to the Natural Resources Committee of the
Legislature beginning December 1 of each year. Additionally, both NRDs use the data to make decisions
on the management of groundwater, including the establishment of Groundwater Management Areas
or tracking trends in groundwater quality, mainly nitrates.
The Little Blue River Basin is part of the Statewide Groundwater Quality Monitoring Network which
identifies localized areas across the state that have nitrate concentrations that measure over 20 mg/L
(20 ppm). A majority of wells sampled are irrigation wells.
7.6.3
Vadose Monitoring
The ability to verify the occurrence of nitrate concentrations in shallow groundwater and the vadose
(unsaturated) zone allows for a more accurate assessment of potential problems that may occur in the
future. This is very important to human health because domestic drinking water wells often utilize the
shallow groundwater and are typically not required to be tested for nitrates or other agricultural related
chemicals.
In 2014, LBNRD conducted a district-wide vadose study to learn more about the effectiveness of current
fertilizer management practices in and out of GWMAs. Vadose monitoring is a valuable tool for
communities to learn about nitrate loading to source water aquifers. Deep soil sampling should be
repeated in the exact same location at least every 5-years to track effectiveness of management
practices. The vadose monitoring program should also gather historical land-use information that
details crops, fertilizer application practices, use of nitrogen-inhibitors, and other relevant information.
Shallow vadose sampling should occur annually, in between the 5- year deep vadose sampling intervals.
7.6.4
Livestock Facility Monitoring
Nebraska’s groundwater may be negatively impacted by leakage from holding ponds at livestock waste
control facilities (LWCFs). The liquid waste in the holding ponds has elevated levels of nitrate-nitrogen,
ammonia, and chloride ions. NDEQ requires monitoring of these chemical parameters to document any
impact to groundwater. The contaminated groundwater may negatively impact public water supply and
domestic wells (NDEQ 2012).
NDEQ’s Groundwater Unit began reviewing permitting plans for LWCFs in October 1997. The sitespecific hydrogeology, soils, depth to water, and use of the groundwater are reviewed to determine the
vulnerability of the groundwater. The Groundwater Unit has reviewed 73 LWCFs (as of the beginning of
November 2012), recommending monitoring at 19 of them. Currently in the Little Blue NRD, there are
eight approved groundwater monitoring plans with five operations where semi-annual monitoring is
conducted.
139
Groundwater samples are collected from monitoring wells installed around the lagoons or holding
ponds and analyzed at a laboratory for nitrate-nitrogen, ammonia, and chloride concentrations.
Additionally, depth to water, pH, temperature, and specific conductivity are collected from each
monitoring well. The groundwater quality and the flow direction are monitored in the Spring (before
irrigation season) and the Fall (after irrigation season).
7.6.5
Sub-Area Nitrate Monitoring
In certain areas of the district nitrate levels have already exceeded EPA’s health standard of 10 parts per
million and in other areas contamination continues to rise. Both the LBNRD and TBNRD utilize a subarea approach for groundwater quality management, meaning that current contaminant levels
determine the regulations and monitoring for that area. LBNRD has 8 water quality sub-areas and one
water quantity sub-area, while TBNRD has the entire district in a water quality area. Section 4.3.2
discusses these areas in greater detail. The purpose of establishing a sub-area is to focus management
efforts and education in an attempt to halt and/or reverse contaminant trends. LBNRD currently has
seven sub-areas within its boundary, TBNRD has several GWMAs, all out of the Basin planning area. The
entire LBNRD was declared a Water Quality Level I Management Area on July 1, 1996, which emphasizes
education on water and fertilizer management. When sampling results show 70% of MCL has been
reached for any sampled water constituent in 60% or more of at least five sampled wells within an area,
the NRD board will take actions to further identify the problem area, establish sub-area boundaries and
determine the controls to be implemented. A sub-area for Quality controls is defined as an area
containing at least five sampled wells within the LBNRD’s well sampling program around which a logical
boundary can be drawn.
Fish Kills, Spills, and Citizen Complaints
Chemical spills can have significant impacts to both surface and groundwater. A host of local, state, and
federal entities may be involved in a spill depending on the nature of the chemical, the amount spilled,
and the potential for downstream impacts. In most cases, spill monitoring is conducted by regulatory
agencies, however, NRDs have and will continue to provide monitoring assistance and support to lead
agencies. Sampling protocol for these activities will be defined by the lead or coordinating agencies.
Fish kills can be either related to “natural conditions” or anthropogenic events. Fish kills are
investigated by the NDEQ and NGPC. Monitoring associated with these kills are typically conducted by
these two agencies.
NRDs routinely receives citizen complaints. Some of these complaints require monitoring. Depending
on the nature of the complaint and required monitoring, NRDs will either conduct the monitoring
themselves or provide support to coordinating agencies. Citizen complaints related to groundwater
quantity should be mapped and included into a GIS layer in order to track trends across the Basin to
delineate problem areas.
Agronomic Soil Sampling
Monitoring residual nutrients in soils can directly lead to pollutant loading reductions by producers
accounting for the “N Credit” when estimating fertilizer needs. These reductions will benefit both
surface and groundwater quality. While soil sampling is typically the responsibility of the
landowner/operator, NRDs utilize this information to provide recommendations on fertilizer use.
140
Agronomic soil sampling is likely one of the simplest solutions to reducing nitrate pollutant loading
without a significant expense or change in farming procedures. Agronomic soil sampling should be
promoted through outreach efforts with an emphasis on the financial gains to an operation along with
the environmental benefits. During plan development, the steering committee identified agronomic soil
sampling as one of the top actions to begin reducing nitrate levels in groundwater.
Quality Assurance, Data Management, Analysis, and Assessment
There are a variety of monitoring methods and different levels of technology that range from
inexpensive to very expensive. There is no single method that can apply to all situations. Managers
need to use a blend of methodologies specific for the situation and intent of the data. Traditionally,
water-sampling operations include in situ measurements, sampling of appropriate media (water, biota
and particulate matter), sample pre-treatment and preservation, identification and shipment. In most
cases, quality assurance responsibilities will fall within the entity coordinating the monitoring network.
When appropriate, Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) should be prepared to ensure the scientific
validity of monitoring and laboratory activities.
Any NRD efforts that result in the collection of data and/or information should be identified for proper
data management activities. NRDs maintain several databases that pertain to some type of water
monitoring activity and takes the steps necessary to ensure data quality control. NRD databases are
considered public information and can be obtained at any point through the NRD. Data collected by
other agencies, such as the NDNR and NDEQ, will not be managed by the NRD unless specific
arrangements to do so have been made. In most cases, data collected by state agencies are entered
into public accessible databases such as EPA’s STORET (STOrage and RETrieval) data management
system (www.epa.gov/storet).
Reporting and Information Dissemination
NRDs will utilize all pertinent data and information to make informed resource decisions. Ultimately
resource decisions within the NRD are made by the Board of Directors. The NRD staff has in place a set
of processes that are used to disseminate such data and information to the board. Some of these
processes include: monthly board meetings, subcommittee updates, special meetings, presentations by
consultants and professionals.
The NRD is continually disseminating data and information to the general public. Dissemination
processes in place for the general public include: NRD Newsletters, NRD websites, public meetings, and
special events.
Raw data, reports, and other information gathered by entities outside the NRD may not be made
directly available to the NRD. Data collected by NDEQ can be found in many different reports. The
Federal Clean Water Act requires the State to provide certain reports and lists, including the Section
305(b) Water Quality Inventory Report and Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. In some cases data
and information will be reported in other documents such as standards revisions, water quality based
permits, total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), and nonpoint source watershed plans. Data from the
groundwater level monitoring well network is currently available to anyone through UNL CSD. The
information provided includes well location and construction information, aquifer designation, and all of
the water level measurements for the well.
141
Program Evaluation
The Basin NRDs will conduct periodic reviews of each aspect of the Plan monitoring programs to
determine how well the program serves its water decision needs for the Basin. This should involve
evaluating and determining how needed changes and additions are incorporated into future monitoring
cycles. This evaluation will take into consideration the effects of funding shortfalls on its monitoring
program strategy. Since water quality monitoring programs are effective only when they meet the
information needs of water quality resource managers, the NRDs will have a feedback mechanism for
reporting useful information to water managers and incorporating their input on future data needs.
Information needs may include site-specific criteria modification studies, support for enforcement
actions, validation of the success of control measures, modeling for TMDLs, monitoring unassessed
waters, and other activities. Decision-makers at the national, regional, State, and local levels should be
considered in this process.
General Support for Monitoring Activities
Each NRD will, separately and as a Basin, annually evaluate current and future monitoring resources it
needs to fully implement this monitoring strategy. This would include staff and training, travel,
equipment and supplies, laboratory resources, and funding. Estimates of annual costs for current NRD
monitoring programs is provided in Section 10. Also provided are estimated costs of expanded
monitoring networks which have been proposed in the recommendations section of this strategy.
Monitoring Recommendations
7.13.1 Monitoring Recharge Effectiveness
Recharge projects retime water by using either surface water reservoirs or aquifers as underground
storage. Determining the amount of water recharged is difficult, requiring numerous measurements to
calculate the amount of actual recharge. Initial monitoring should measure the amount of water
diverted from the stream into the structure, the amount of water returned to the stream, and an
estimate of ET. These measurements and studies allow for an assessment of the amount of recharge
possible for a given structure or set of structures.
The high level of interconnectivity of the hydrologic system suggests that much of the groundwater
recharge will return to streams as baseflow; structural projects designed to increase recharge or effect
streamflows should consider additional surface gages as part of the long-term monitoring protocol in
determining the hydrologic effects of the project. Cost savings are possible if the monitoring efforts rely
on gaging techniques that provide useful volume measurements, but are not as accurate as gages used
for administration purposes.
7.13.2 Expand Continuous Stream Gaging Sites
Stream gaging in the Basin is currently limited and needs to be expanded. Data on surface water flows
are needed to assist with planning, designing, and operating existing and future water resources
infrastructure. Data from stream gaging networks are used by a large number of public and private
users, including government agencies responsible for water management and emergency response,
142
utilities, environmental agencies, universities, colleges, consulting firms, and recreational interests
(USGS 2006).
Locations where existing and future stream gages are located are also commonly locations where
additional water quality data is collected. There are currently four continuous stream gaging sites in the
Little Blue River Basin, one on Big Sandy Creek, and three on the Little Blue River. In order to better
understand the hydrology of the Basin, it is recommended that at least three additional gaging sites be
added to the current network in order to monitoring Spring, Rose, and Little Sandy Creeks. Stream gage
measurements are necessary for proper design and construction of dams above a certain size,
particularly to determine if sufficient flow exists to fill the structure. Discussion with USGS and NDNR
should occur prior to installation of any new stream gaging equipment to determine optimal locations
and type of equipment necessary to meet measurement purposes. If the Basin NRDs wish to include
water quality measurements as well, discussions should also occur with NDEQ prior to choosing
locations and equipment. Additional gages or stream height measurements should also occur at
locations where specific projects are built as a result of these planning efforts. Figure 7-5 shows the
recommended sites for stream gaging.
Figure 7-5: Proposed Stream Gaging Locations
7.13.3 Expand Sub-basin Chemical & Biological Monitoring
Conducting chemical and biological monitoring at the lower end of sub-basins will allow for pollutant
load quantification, critical area identification, and the evaluation of water quality programs
implemented in the Basin. Additional monitoring sites are not yet identified, but should be located both
above and below proposed project sites. For example, if a project is planned to increase aquatic habitat
143
in a stream, first perform biological monitoring in order to establish a pre-project baseline. Any
biological monitoring efforts should be coordinated with NDEQ’s Surface Water Section.
7.13.4 E.coli Monitoring to Determine Natural Background
There is a lack of information present on the natural background load of bacteria that results from nonanthropogenic sources, mainly from wildlife. The lack of local or even national studies surrounding this
issue has hindered understanding the problem and has maybe led resource managers to establish
unrealistic goals and expectations from management practice implementation.
By starting to define these contributions locally, resource managers can at least set realistic goals and
expectations for management. In doing so, background concentrations (baseflow) would need to be
quantified along with runoff influenced concentrations. While the effort would be focused
on watersheds/sub-watersheds that have no anthropogenic sources it may be advantageous to
include watersheds/sub-watersheds under multiple land uses (urban, general agriculture, livestock)
to evaluate differences.
7.13.5 Develop Infrastructure Monitoring Priority System and Standardized Procedures
There are over 100 water impoundment structures within the Basin. A majority of these structures were
in place prior to the 1980’s. In order to provide adequate maintenance on these structures,
standardized assessment procedures should be developed and implemented. Given the large number of
structures in the Basin, it is recommended that a GIS based prioritization system be developed in order
to best utilize NRD funding. Structures should be evaluated for outlet replacement and repair needs in
addition to evaluating structure classification and deficiencies needed to be addressed to meet the new
classification. Collaboration with NDNR to utilize the agencies dam inventory and inspection
information. This type of collaboration would prevent duplication of efforts and provide cost savings to
the Basin NRDs.
7.13.6 Expand Dedicated Observation Well Network
Current and future groundwater quantity concerns in the Basin include groundwater system response to
climate change, increased water consumption, and changes in hydrologic and ecologic systems.
The current Basin groundwater monitoring network consists of approximately 831 for chemical
monitoring and 376 for groundwater level measurements. One NRD goal is to increase the number and
density of wells in the groundwater level monitoring network.
The NRD should evaluate annually the number of additional wells to add to the monitoring network.
This should include identification of well construction costs, well priorities, construction schedules,
partners, and funding options be defined and incorporated into a planning document. This expansion
will increase understanding of groundwater changes in areas with spatially spare monitoring data.
Many areas of the basin are underlain by multiple aquifers, all of which must be considered in
developing the long-term network that will provide adequate data to understand and manage this
resource.
7.13.7 Establish Routine Vadose Monitoring Network
144
The contamination of groundwater from nitrogen sources is a growing concern throughout the Basin.
Information gathered in the vadose zone of soils provides information necessary to assess contaminant
migration and mitigation. It is recommended a routine vadose monitoring network be established in the
NRD every 5-years. Vadose zone monitoring should be used to support decisions related to new or
expanded GWMA, wellhead protection and source water planning, and evaluation of the effectiveness
of regulations targeted to reduce the loading of nitrate to groundwater.
Increased monitoring throughout the Basin is needed, especially for nitrate levels and stream flows.
Due to varying levels of stream flow throughout each sub-basin, additional stream gaging will be
important, especially when planning and implementing projects and programs aimed at increasing
stream flow, surface water storage for augmentation, and recharge in the future.
References
Benefits of Stream Gaging Program, USGS, March 2006, National Hydrologic Warning Council
145
Section 8 – Information, Education, and Public Participation
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Introduction
One mission of the NRDs is to inform and educate the general public about the resources in their district
and how to protect these resources for future generations. The NRD’s staff and Boards should be well
informed of current data, studies, and other information that may influence management decisions. The
capability to transfer the same level of information to the public and/or target audience will enhance their
feedback and input to decision makers, which can streamline the implementation process.
Water resources information and education efforts will generally fall into four areas;
1)
2)
3)
4)
Activities targeted at informing and educating resource decision makers,
Activities targeted at informing or educating the public Basin-wide,
Project specific activities relating to localized problems, and
Involvement in community functions that promote the improvement and protection of
water resources.
Informational material, educational efforts, and the level of public participation will vary depending on if
the action is a basin-wide effort or if the effort is a priority watershed or target area. Residents in
watersheds that are targeted for enhanced watershed programs or water projects will be offered a more
intense program specifically related to their watershed and issues to be addressed. For larger projects,
stakeholder groups may be formed and used during project planning and implementation.
The “open door” policy allows NRDs to provide one-on-one assistance to all district residents at any point
in time. One-on-one contact with watershed residents, particularly owners/operators, is critical for
implementing successful projects. For example, the NRDs require mandatory operating training every few
years. The NRD’s strives to develop and maintain an open line of communication with the general public
as well as other agencies and organizations involved in the management of resources in the basin. In
addition to one-on-one contact with the public the NRDs will use several delivery mechanisms including
the web site, newsletter, local news media, fliers, tours, workshops, demonstrations, and public meetings
to facilitate communication with the public.
Stakeholder Participation in Management Plan Development
Below is a summary of the level of participation from the public, steering committee, and technical
advisory team during establishment of this Plan. The NRD opted to form a formal steering committee, in
addition to the technical advisory team, in order to maximize education of the public about the Plan and to
obtain feedback on potential water resources management actions.
8.2.1
Steering Committee
The purpose of the steering committee was to gather input from a diverse set of stakeholders that live
and work in the Basin. Steering Committee members were selected by both NRDs. Originally, a group of
32 individuals was invited to participate and a total of approximately 20 participated actively throughout
the process either by attending meetings or providing post-meeting feedback to the NRDs (Table 8-1).
Primary roles of the Steering Committee are as follows:
1) Review elements of the Plan as the Plan is being developed;
2) Ask questions, raise issues, and share information with other Basin stakeholders;
146
3) Provide representation of the agricultural economy, industries, municipalities, business owners,
and other agencies;
4) Attending steering committee meetings and provide feedback.
The steering committee met four times and participated by responding to questionnaires. A summary
of each meeting, each held at LBNRD’s office in Davenport, is shown in Table 8-2.
Table 8-1: Steering Committee Members
Name
Representing
Name
Representing
Robert Crumbliss
Farmer (Edgar)
Mary Glenn
Farmer (Fairbury)
Bryan Skalka
Farmer (Deweese)
Bill Glenn
Farmer (Fairbury)
Mark Jagels
Farmer (Davenport)
Kevin Pohlmeier
Mayor – Lawrence
Sacha Lemke
Pivot Dealer
Mason Hoffman
Farmer (Roseland)
Marlin Kimle
Farmer
Keith Berns
Farmer (Bladen)
Bob Marsh
Farmer (Hebron)
Dave Nelson
TBNRD Board
(Farmer)
Bill Mize
Farmer (Deshler)
Tony Likens
Farmer
Rex Kirchoff
Farmer (Superior)
Wayne Pohlman
Farmer
Kevin Kissinger
Farmer (Glenvil)/NRD Board
Member
Randy Harms
Farmer (Glenvil)
Ken Herz
Farmer (Lawrence)
Table 8-2: Steering Committee Meeting Summary
Meeting
1
2
3
4
8.2.2
Topic
Steering committee roles and
responsibilities, project
introduction.
Areas of interest, summary of
data collection and assessment
Plan Recommendations
Draft Plan Review
Date/Time
March 25th at 7:00 pm
January 15, 2015 at 7:00pm
April 15, 2015 at 7:00pm
June 30, 2015 at 7:00pm
Technical guidance and input from the Technical Advisory Team was vital to establishing the Plan. This
group consisted of technical staff representing different agencies and is listed below in Table 8-3. Each
member was encouraged to attend all Steering Committee meetings and was consulted by members of
the project team throughout the planning process. Members of the Technical Advisory Team were more
actively involved in the planning process and were responsible for reviewing and commenting on Plan
components and providing direction for public involvement.
147
During plan establishment, correspondence with a smaller group of representatives from the Technical
Advisory Team occurred on a regular basis as needed. This smaller group was informal and referred to as
the ‘project team’. Members of the project team are indicated by an asterisk next to their name in Table
8-3 below.
Table 8-3: Technical Advisory Team
Name
8.2.3
Representing
Marty Stange
City of Hastings
Elbert Traylor*
NDEQ
Carla McCullough
NDEQ
Janet Valasek
NRCS
Brad Seitz
NGPC Biologist
Jennifer Rees
UNL Extension
Andy Bishop
FWS Rainwater Basin
Sierra Meyer
Bruning-Davenport Schools
John Thorburn*
Tri-Basin NRD
Marlene Faimon*
LBNRD
Daryl Andersen*
LBNRD
Mike Onnen*
LBNRD
Dale Schlautman*
EA
Brandi Flyr*
EA
Jonathan Mohr*
LakeTech
Paul Brakhage*
LakeTech
John Holz*
FYRA Engineering
Mike Sotak*
FYRA Engineering
Open House Events
Basin stakeholders had an opportunity to meet first hand with those working on the development of the
plan at a series of Open Houses held throughout the Basin at the conclusion of the planning process. A
total of 79 individuals not associated with the NRD, EA, or LakeTech attended the meetings. The purpose
was to educate basin stakeholders on the plan’s intent, explain key recommendations, and to receive input
on the draft plan. A total of seven Open Houses were held across the Basin in Davenport, Blue Hill,
Hastings, Fairfield, Fairbury, Minden and Deshler. A flyer was distributed by the NRD to announce the time
and location of the different Open House meetings, and can be seen in Figure 8-1 below. The lists of all
those who attended the different meetings were compiled and are included in Appendix C
148
Figure 8-1: Open House Flyer
*August 14th meeting in Minden was re-scheduled to August 20th
8.2.4 Additional Outreach Methods
During development of the Plan update information was provided and disseminated through the LBNRD.
Outreach efforts focused on ensuring area residents were aware of the Plan’s development. The following
summarized additional outreach efforts:
•
Press releases – A press release was sent to local newspapers in February 2015. The press
release was also made available on the NRD’s websites.
Public Involvement Strategy
The primary mechanism in effective plan implementation is changing how people living in and around the
Basin manage their property in order to benefit the environment. This can be achieved through a strong
149
education and outreach effort utilizing the support of Basin stakeholders such as the NRCS, UNL Extension,
NGPC, neighboring NRD, and others. This section discusses actions to be taken to ensure the public is
involved, educated, and that collectively their actions have a positive impact on the health of the Basin’s
water resources.
The strategy is supported by direct feedback received after completion of a questionnaire in May 2015. A
total of 17 responses were received from the steering committee and Board Members. According to this
feedback, the topics that are the most important to discuss are:
•
•
•
8.3.1
Importance of water sustainability
Information on resource conditions (trends, recent data, etc.)
Opportunities to make a difference and incentives to support implementation.
Target Audience
It will be important to include a diverse group in the public involvement strategy including the target
audience, and those that will relay the message to support plan implementation. The list below identifies
key groups to be included as the target audience:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
8.3.2
Agricultural property owners and producers
Watershed residents and property owners
Business owners
County, City, and Village governments
Local Elementary and High Schools
Crop consultants and agronomists
Agricultural chemical representatives.
Communication Methods
Outreach to the public can be communicated in several ways. According to the education and outreach
survey, the most effective communication methods are newsletters, Internet, letters and mailings, news
media, use of a watershed coordination, outreach at operator training, and informational booths. The
following are recommended to be used to communicate efforts that are ongoing:
• Highway signage – creating a brand for the Basin. Use of signage to increase awareness of
issues such as groundwater declines, water quality improvements, use of conservation practices,
etc.
• Use of social media such as Facebook and YouTube
• Creation of an ‘app’ to provide outreach, reminders for training, current events, etc.
• News releases to local newspapers, radio stations, magazines, and local TV programs
• Traveling Display – create several poster presentation boards that discuss the Plan and the
importance for property owners and agricultural producers are to its success, project benefits,
availability of cost-share and incentives, and contact information to be placed at areas highly
visible to agricultural producers. Utilize the traveling display at operator education and
certification workshops.
150
8.3.3
Strategy and Tactics
Adequate attendance at public involvement events can be challenging and is vital to spread the word
about available projects and programs. There are several barriers to consider and incentives to offer that
can increase the attendance at events. Below are several considerations when organizing events:
Barriers
• Absentee property owners – several agricultural parcels are operated by a tenant whose owner
may not live nearby.
• Regulatory perception – although the majority of actions in the plan are voluntary, the public
may perceive this as being a regulatory action.
• Agriculture BMPs – due to the use of very large equipment some BMPs are viewed as a
hindrance to production, such as terraces and grassed waterways.
• Maintenance – property owners may be unwilling to attend events because they may be
unwilling to maintain BMPs.
• Timing of meetings – scheduling can always be a barrier.
• Presentation techniques – rather than a traditional sit-down meeting, use a booth rotational
method to allow from more one-on-one interaction.
Non-Financial Incentives
• Giveaways – provide coupons, products, and other items as an incentive for attending events
(e.g. no cost water nitrate tests to attendees).
• Food – provide meals, snacks, and refreshments at events, consider a BBQ.
• Advertising – utilize creative advertising to encourage attendance.
• Personalized invitations – send letters of invite to the target audience.
• Economic sustainability – explain how the Plan helps achieve the region’s economic
sustainability by protecting the supply and quality of water resources for future use.
• Waiving producer training requirements for operations which demonstrate the use of a high
number of NRD approved on farm BMPs.
• Recognition of outstanding conservation.
8.3.4
Action Items
The list below is a composite of ideas that can be utilized to involve the public in the implementation
process. This list has been separated into three groups: education and outreach, partnership, and
information.
Education and Outreach
1) Press releases – provide information to local newspapers and resource agency’s websites.
2) Provide updates when a program is started or construction is underway on a project.
3) Advertise the availability of programs, cost-share, and financial incentives for property owners.
4) Public open house events – utilize public meetings to spread the work about cost-share and
incentives.
5) Tours – allow stakeholders to visits sites during and after construction and BMP
implementation.
151
6) Demonstration sites – incorporate public education into all project sites. Promote property
owners to allow other agricultural producers the ability to visit project sites for use as
demonstrations.
7) Utilize the traveling display at other training events such nitrate or pesticide certification and
other similar type classes.
Partnership
1) Maintain an active Technical Advisory Team – continue to communicate with the project team
throughout the implementation timeline to ensure a collaborative work effort.
2) Involvement through local Elementary and Secondary Schools – include youth in creek
restoration and watershed improvement activities such as litter pick-up, water quality
monitoring, biological monitoring, etc.
Information
1) Continue to provide updated information on websites or other social media – showcase the
projects, provide information on projects including schedules and timelines, project sponsors,
funding sources, etc.
2) Signage / Informational Kiosk – considering building signage in order to educate residents and
property owners about the Plan.
3) Newsletters – at least twice a year provide information on implementation progress and ask for
input.
4) Tours - Provide annual tours highlighting water quality improvements and other project sites.
8.3.5
Evaluation
Measuring the effectiveness of education and outreach can be completed several different ways and can
be an evaluation criteria for showing the effectiveness of BMPs utilized in this plan. Below are several
methods that can be used to evaluate the public involvement strategy:
• Utilize sign-in sheets to tally total attendance of events over time. Appoint someone to keep a
record of attendance through the implementation period.
• Provide opportunities for the public to deliver input on projects and programs at public events.
• Use follow-up surveys, both mail and online, to gather information
• Follow-up with phone calls
• Take lots of pictures at public events
152
Section 9 – Schedules and Milestones
SCHEDULES AND MILESTONES
Introduction
Schedules and milestones related to the Basin plan encompass planning, monitoring, assessment,
implementation, and reporting. These major categories serve as milestones for progress gauging
purposes. All the major milestones must be met annually to ensure successful plan implementation.
Specific activities listed in Table 9-1 will be carried out by the Little Blue and Tri Basin NRDs.
The schedule details the required frequency for each activity and in some cases includes a target month
for activity completion. Individual schedules and milestones need developed for areas targeted for
implementation projects.
Schedule
Activity
Table 9-1: Implementation Schedule
Schedule
Planning
Revise Management Plan
Review priority areas
Update priority areas
Coordinate with stakeholders
Prepare monitoring budget
Revise monitoring strategy
Prepare implementation budget
Apply for grant funds (as needed)
Every 5-years or As Needed
Annual
As Needed
As Needed
Bi-annual
Every Four Years
Annually
Annual
Monitoring & Assessment
Develop monitoring networks and strategies
As Needed
Coordinate with monitoring partners
As Needed
Collect water quality data
January – December (see Monitoring
Assess water quality data
Annual - November
BMP tracking
Annual
Estimate pollutant load reductions
Annual - January
Implementation – Watershed Programs
One-on-one producer contacts
Annual
Complete engineering & design
Annual
Producer conservation plans
Annual
Agency-operator agreements for BMPs
Annual
Management measure installation/adoption
Annual
Implementation – Large Scale Projects
Identify water concerns and priorities
Annual
Quantify needs and goals
As Needed
Identify areas of interest for implementation
As Needed
Develop project level implementation strategy
As Needed
Gage public interest and generate public support
As Needed
153
Obtain board approval of implementation strategy
Develop Project Implementation Plan
Acquire outside funding
As Needed
As Needed
As Needed
Obtain Necessary Permits
Implement Project
As Needed
Specific Schedule to be Developed
Information – Education
Determine I/E needs
Annual
Prepare/disseminate educational materials
Annual
Attend appropriate community functions
Annual
Coordinate field tours & demonstrations
Annual
Reporting
Tabular data reports
Annual – January
Loading reduction report
Annual – January
Quarterly budget & progress reports
As Needed
Semi-annual budget & progress reports
As Needed
Final project reports
As Needed
Milestones
Project milestones identify anticipated times in which key components of each phase will begin. As the
implementation process unfolds, the project sponsors can use these milestones to determine their
progress at that time. Milestones are generalized and established for each year of the Plan. If it is known,
which month of that year the milestone applies an abbreviation for that month was written. Based on the
adaptive management approach, it is recognized that schedules are highly variable and that pre-project
planning activities will be finalized after completion of this management Plan.
Milestone
319 Grant
Applications
Sand Creek
Recharge WSF
V-IMP
Crystal Lake
PIP/Grant
Application
Crystal Lake
Renovation
Crystal Lake Post
Project
Assessments
Liberty Cove
Water Quality
Investigation
2015
Sep
Table 9-2: Plan Milestones Phase One and Two
PHASE ONE
PHASE TWO
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Sep
Sep
Sep
Sep
Sep
2025
Apr
X
X
Sep
X
X
X
X
X
154
Milestone
Liberty Cove
Renovation and
Watershed
Treatment
Liberty Cove
Post Project
Assessments
No-till &
Rangeland
Management
Outreach and
Incentives
Stream Channel
Reconnection
Feasibility
Study/Grant
Applications
Stream Channel
Reconnections
Watershed
Coordinator
Assistance with
WHPA
Vulnerability
Assessment
Vadose Zone
Monitoring
Groundwater
Monitoring
Dam Site #40
Recharge
Monitoring
Plan Update
2015
2016
PHASE ONE
2017 2018
X
X
2019
PHASE TWO
2022 2023 2024
2020
2021
2025
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
155
Section 10 – Budget and Resources
BUDGET AND RESOURCES
Introduction
NRDs administer multiple programs that focus on the management of water quantity and the
improvement of water quality. While NRDs have taxing authorities they use to support current water
management projects and programs, local, state, and federal funding partnerships are essential to
accomplish a broad range of water management responsibilities. Funding through these partnerships is
neither consistent nor guaranteed, however, they will be relevant to implementing different aspects of
this plan including project planning, implementation, monitoring, education, and staffing.
Short term (5 years) funding needs for implementing this plan were assessed for water planning
activities, monitoring, and conservation measures while longer term (10 years) projections were made
for targeted projects. Budget estimates beyond the first five years are less predictable and may provide
unrealistic budget expectations. Although plan implementation costs are based on the first five year
period, the NRDs will conduct comprehensive budget planning on bi-annual basis as part of their regular
budgeting process. In doing so, the NRDs will determine resource needs for planning, implementation,
monitoring and assessment, research, and staffing for upcoming budget periods. These needs will be
prioritized and balanced against available funding for that time period.
Planning Costs
Basin funding needs are based on implementation priorities listed in the Action Plan. Planning efforts
related to project development including data assessment, the preparation of project plans,
development of monitoring strategies, and the development of funding strategies and applications. The
estimated resource needs for planning the first five years of plan implementation is estimated to be
$265,000 (Table 10-1).
Table 10-1. Estimated Five Year Planning Budget
Planning Activity
Stream Channel Reconnection Feasibility
Recharge Feasibility Study
Crystal Lake Feasibility & Planning
Liberty Cove Reservoir Feasibility Study
TOTAL
Location
TBD
TBD
District Wide
TBD
Near Ayr
Near Lawrence
Estimated Cost
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$15,000
$265,000
Land Conservation Measures
The NRDs are responsible for administering several district wide programs related directly to water
management. Many of these programs are focused on implementing conservation measures targeted
at improving soil health and stream corridor conditions providing water quality and recharge benefits.
Complimentary to these programs are state and federally funded efforts that involve cost share and
incentives for conservation measures that address soil health and improve surface and groundwater
quality. The three primary factors that drive the amount of land treatment that can be accomplished
are: 1) the amount of funding available for cost share and incentives, 2) landowner/operator interest,
and 3) available contractors. These factors vary from year to year making long term budget projections
156
difficult. Conservation measure implementation targets for the next five years are presented in Table
10-2 along with estimated costs. The five year funding needs for conservation measure implementation
is estimated to be $1,624,777. Landowner contributions will vary by practice and funding source but will
average more than 40 percent of the total costs. The remainder of the costs is shared through a mix of
local, state, and federal funds.
Table 10-2. Estimated Five Financial Needs for Conservation Measures
Activity
Units
Cost Per Unit
Estimated Five
Planned
Year Expenditure
(5 Years)
Terrace Systems
35,252 LF
$1.11 LF
$39,130
155,000 LF
$3.70 LF
$573,497
Terrace Underground Outlets
3 Dams
$4,850/Dam
$14,551
Water Impoundment Dams
11 Contracts $2,068/contract
$22,746
Diversions
29 Acres
$155/AC
$4,495
Grassed Waterways
35
$969/unit
$33,915
Water and Sediment Control Basins
2 Dugouts
$2,050/Dugout
$4,100
Dugouts for Livestock Water
63
AC
$43/AC
$2,967
Pasture Planting and Range Seeding
58 AC
$30/AC
$1,740
Critical Area Planting
147,816 LF
$0.63/LF
$93,124
Windbreaks
181,470
Planned Grazing Systems
8 Contracts
$2,300/contract
$18,400
Windbreak Renovation
20
Contracts
$4,150/contract
$83,000
Irrigation Water Management
325 Wells
$695/well
$225,875
Well Abandonment
2 Wells
$5,146/well
$10,292
New Well Incentive
$140,000
Streambank Protection
80 Contracts
$978/contract
$78,240
Low Angle Sprinklers or Drop Nozzles
Chemical and Fertilizer Application Control
35 Contracts
$1221/contract
$42,735
8 Contracts
$2000/contract
$16,000
Nitrogen Inhibitor Equipment
$38,500
Variable Rate Irrigation
$1,624,777
TOTAL
Cost of Targeted Projects and Activities
Targeted projects and activities include those that will directly result in improvements in surface and
groundwater water quality, groundwater recharge, or surface storage. For the purposes of this budget,
targeted project costs will pertain to costs associated with surveys, design/engineering, and
construction. Estimated costs for targeted projects to be completed or initiated the first five year period
are listed in Table 10-3. These 13 projects, which have been determined as priority management efforts
by the NRDs, address surface and groundwater quality, groundwater recharge, and outreach. The costs
for some projects are based on one site or one year when multiple sites or years may be achieved. Cost
estimates were derived from the best available information and may change significantly as planning
progresses.
157
Table 10-3. Priority Water Projects and Estimated Costs
Project Name
Project Type
Project Location
Invasive Species
No-Till Survey & Education
Streambank Stabilization
Stream Channel Reconnection
Recharge Pilot Projects
Sand Creek Recharge Reservoir
Expand Phase II Area
Soil Sampling & Reporting
Alternative Crop Program
Public Relations Campaign
Municipal Water Assistance
Crystal Lake
Liberty Cove Reservoir
TOTAL
Surface Water
Surface/Groundwater
Surface/Groundwater
Surface/Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Surface/Groundwater
Outreach
Surface/Groundwater
Surface Water
Surface Water
District Wide
District Wide
TBD
TBD
TBD
Tri-Basin
TBD
TBD
TBD
Communities
Communities
Near Ayr
Near Lawrence
Estimated
Cost
$100,000
$20,000
$150,000(a)
$400,000
$500,000(a)
TBD
$10,000(b)
$10,000(b)
$5,000(b)
$10,000
$10,000(b)
$400,000
$600,000
$2,215,000
(a) Estimated cost per site. Number of sites are to be determined.
(b) Estimated cost per year. Number of years are to be determined.
Monitoring Costs
Annual costs of physical, chemical, and biological monitoring were determined for expanded efforts that
will be carried out or coordinated by the NRDs in the next five years. Cost estimates are associated with
purchasing or installing sampling equipment, equipment maintenance, and scientific/analytical services.
Routine monitoring activities include surface water, groundwater, and vadose zones. The estimated
cost for monitoring the first five years is $115,000 (Table 10-4). Some costs are based on a single year
when multiple years may be achieved.
Table 10-4. Estimated Five Year Monitoring Costs
Monitoring Description
Recharge Efficiency Monitoring
Vadose Monitoring
Stream Gaging
TOTAL
Estimated Cost
$25,000(a)
$15,000(b)
$25,000(b)
$50,000(b)
$115,000
(a) One time study cost.
(b) Estimated cost per year. Number of years are to be determined.
Research Costs
The solutions to expanding water demands to support population and economic growth and
environmental needs lies in research. A description of research priorities in this plan will allow
researchers to match their expertise to both societal needs and the availability of research funding.
Research priorities for the Little Blue River Basin will evolve as knowledge is developed, questions are
answered, and new societal issues emerge. Due to the highly variable nature of research scope and
costs, there is no estimated cost of the research priorities listed in this plan.
158
Staff
NRD staff requirements for implementing this plan will involve partial time commitments from
managers, resource technicians, clerical staff, and seasonal help. The NRDs routinely evaluate work load
and staffing needs. In some cases, staffing deficiencies can be addressed through seasonal help and/or
full time temporary grant funded positions, such as a program coordinator. This additional staff can
assist in program implementation, monitoring and assessment, project tracking and reporting, and
information/education.
Outside Funding Sources
NRD operations are funded by a variety of sources, including: sale of conservation trees and services,
assessment projects (self-supporting rural water systems), state and federal cost-sharing for projects
and programs, and various grant programs. The primary source of funds is local property taxes. The
NRDs will maximize funding by leveraging local funds against other outside funding sources. While all
available sources of funding will be evaluated and pursued for the implementation of this plan, a few
funding sources will be critical for completing water management activities and projects. Several of the
key funding sources are detailed below while all available funding sources are summarized in Table 10-5.
NDNR’s Water Sustainability Fund
The Legislature, through LB906, created the new Water Sustainability Fund and directed $21 million be
transferred to the fund in July 2014, with the stated intent that $11 million be transferred to the fund
each year thereafter. LB1098 established the intent, basic governance constructs, and legal authorities
for the new fund. As stated in the bill, the goals of the Water Sustainability Fund are to:
a) Provide financial assistance to programs, projects, or activities that increase aquifer recharge,
reduce aquifer depletion, and increase streamflow;
b) Remediate or mitigate threats to drinking water;
c) Promote the goals and objectives of approved integrated management plans or ground water
management plans;
d) Contribute to multiple water supply management goals including flood control, reducing threats
to property damage, agricultural uses, municipal and industrial uses, recreational benefits,
wildlife habitat, conservation, and preservation of water resources;
e) Assist municipalities with the cost of constructing, upgrading, developing, and replacing sewer
infrastructure facilities as part of a combined sewer overflow project;
f) Provide increased water productivity and enhance water quality;
g) Use the most cost effective solutions available; and
h) Comply with interstate compacts, decrees, other state contracts and agreements and federal
law.
The Legislature found that these goals can be met by equally considering programs, projects, or
activities in the following categories:
a) Research, data, and modeling;
b) Rehabilitation or restoration of water supply infrastructure, new water supply infrastructure, or
water supply infrastructure maintenance or flood prevention for protection of critical
infrastructure;
159
c) Conjunctive management, storage, and integrated management of ground water and surface
water; and
d) Compliance with interstate compacts or agreements or other formal state contracts or
agreements or federal law.
It was further stated that the Legislature intended the fund to be equitably distributed statewide to the
greatest extent possible for the long-term and to give priority funding status to projects that are the
result of federal mandates.
NDNR is responsible for administering the program, while the statutory authority for approving projects
and funding levels rests with the Commission. Before any applications for funding can be accepted, the
Commission and the Department must define and establish policies and rules for the applications and
processes of review and evaluation within the statutory requirements set out in LB1098 (NDNR 2014).
Nebraska Environmental Trust
Since 1992, the Nebraska Environmental Trust (NET) has supported projects that conserve, enhance, and
restore the natural environments of Nebraska. It was created on the conviction that a prosperous
future is dependent upon a sound natural environment and that Nebraskans could collectively achieve
real progress on real environmental issues if seed money was provided (NET, 2014).
NET especially seeks projects that bring public and private partners together collaboratively to
implement high-quality, cost-effective projects. NET values projects that leverage private investment in
conservation and emphasize long-lasting results. Spending on approved projects is not to be a
replacement for tax funded projects or mandates and operations of government; it is used solely to
carry out innovative ideas making Nebraska’s good life even better.
NDEQ Nonpoint Source Management Program
Section 319 of the Federal Clean Water Act provides funding to states to implement Nonpoint Source
Management Programs. This program, administered by the DEQ in Nebraska, provides financial
assistance for the prevention and abatement of nonpoint source water pollution. In general, eligible
activities include those pertaining to management practice implementation, monitoring, and
information/education. Funding could potentially support the implementation of activities, projects,
and programs identified in this plan. This fund requires a 40 percent non-federal match which can be
satisfied through local funds, dedicated state funds, or nonfederal grant funds such as those provided by
the NET.
USDA Funding
The USDA oversees a number of voluntary conservation related programs and special initiatives (USDA,
2014). These programs and initiatives work to address a large number of farming and ranching related
conservation issues including:
•
•
•
•
Drinking water protection
Reducing soil erosion
Wildlife habitat preservation
Preservation and restoration of forests and wetlands.
160
USDA funds provide a significant amount of cost-share and incentives to landowners resulting in large
scale practice implementation. To the extent possible, the NRDs will work with federal officials to target
these funds in the most appropriate areas of the basin.
Table 10-5: Financial Partners
Administering
Entity
Little Blue and TriBasin NRDs
Program Name/Notes
Program Description
Several Programs
Nebraska
Environmental
Trust (NET)
NDEQ
NET Grants
Each NRD offers a variety of programs to promote
conservation, pesticide and fertilizer management, and
others.
NET supports a wide variety of projects that conserve,
enhance, and restore the natural environments of
Nebraska.
Large competitive grants
Small Projects Assistance
Community Lakes Enhancement and Restoration
Assistance
Urban Runoff Management Assistance
Wellhead Area Management Assistance
Projects with long-term benefits to drinking water
supplies
Projects that increase aquifer recharge, reduce aquifer
depletion, increase streamflow, mitigate threats to
drinking water, promote goals of GWMPs and IMPs,
flood control, recreation, water productivity, and water
quality. Includes research, monitoring, and
Assist with facilitation of Groundwater Management
and Protection Act.
Studies for drainage issues, flooding, stream bank
stabilization for low to moderate income communities.
Nonpoint Source Program
Section 319
Source Water Protection Grants
NDNR
Nebraska
Department of
Economic
Development
USDA-NRCS
Water Sustainability Fund
Interrelated Water
Management Plan Program
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
Regional Conservation
Partnership Program (RCPP)
Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP)
Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP)
Multiple Programs
Ogallala Aquifer Initiative
Promotes coordination between NRCS and its partners
to deliver conservation assistance to producers and
landowners
Planting long-term, resource conserving covers to
improve the quality of water, control soil erosion, and
develop wildlife habitat.
Producer financial and technical assistance to
producers to address natural resource concerns and
deliver environmental benefits such as improved water
and air quality, conserve groundwater and surface
water, reduced soil erosion and sedimentation, and
create wildlife habitat.
NRCS offers several other programs including the
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Conservation
Innovation Grants (CIG), Agricultural Conservation
Easement Program (ACEP), Wetland Reserve
Easements, Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP),
Starting in 2015, NRCS will work with agriculture
producers within the Little Blue NRD to address
161
Administering
Entity
Nebraska
Department of
Agriculture
Rain Water
Basin Join Venture
Nebraska Game
and Parks
Commission
Basin Property
Owners and
Residents
Program Name/Notes
Nebraska Buffer Strip Program
Private Lands Habitat Programs
Public Lands Wetland
Enhancement
Aquatic Habitat Fund
Land and Water Conservation
Fund
Private Funding
Program Description
resource concerns in seven water quality subareas. Project goals are to conserve 18,000 acre-inches
per year and decrease and maintain nitrates to below
10 parts per million with the implementation of
conservation practices and proper management.
Offered to landowners for buffering crops adjacent to
streams, ponds, and wetlands. This program works in
conjunction with the CRP, CREP, or as a standalone.
Programs to preserve and enhance wetlands;
conservation easements
Offers funding to support maintenance, enhancement,
and restoration of existing aquatic habitat.
Funding for ball fields, soccer fields, picnicking facilities,
trains, park acquisition and development, and other
similar facilities.
Property owners are often responsible for a portion of
the funding for projects on their property.
Technical Partners
Implementation of the management strategies and recommendations in the Plan will be a responsibility
of the two NRDs and several resource agencies. Several other stakeholders are involved and will be a
continued part of the Technical Advisory Team that was established during plan development. The TAT
should stay in place and have a continued role in the implementation of the Plan to ensure
communication is open across all technical agencies and groups. Table 10-6 is a summary of each
technical resource available to assist with implementation.
Table 10-6: Technical Partners
Agency
Little Blue NRD
Tri-Basin NRD
Nebraska Environmental
Trust
NDEQ
NDNR
Nebraska Department of
Economic Development
USDA-NRCS
Nebraska Game and Parks
Commission
UNL Extension
Technical Capabilities
Coordination, project planning, funding, technical assistance, cost-share and
financial incentive programs, administrative support, and monitoring.
Coordination, project planning, funding, technical assistance, cost-share and
financial incentive programs, administrative support, and monitoring.
Funding assistance for projects and programs including education.
Funding, support of additional monitoring, project coordination, technical
assistance, water quality and biological monitoring, and plan update assistance.
Water sustainability funding project funding assistance, floodplain mapping, water
quantity modeling, and INSIGHT. Stream gaging and surface water flow
measurements.
Community funding assistance.
Technical assistance with design, installation, and evaluation of conservation
practices,
Technical assistance with aquatic habitat renovation, fisheries, and wetlands
management.
Environmental education, outreach, and stakeholder involvement.
162
Agency
UNL School of Natural
Resources
USGS
RWBJV
Technical Capabilities
Technical leadership, biological monitoring, environmental education, research
studies, GIS data, and a library of research.
Water quality monitoring, research studied, library of research. Stream gaging and
surface water flow measurements.
GIS and technical assistance with wetlands and environmental enhancements
References
NET, 2014. Nebraska Environmental Trust Web Site. www.environmentaltrust.org.
NDNR, 2014. Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (NDNR) Web Site. www.dnr.ne.gov.
USDA, 2014. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Site.
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/index
163
Appendix A – Action Plan
Appendix A
Action Plan
Little Blue River Basin – Five Year Action Plan
1 - INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Five Year Action Plan is to provide an initial set of implementation targets and action
items that will direct resource managers in meeting long-term water management goals and objectives.
If priorities arise during the implementation of the action plan that are not identified in the plan, a
revision will be completed to include those activities/projects. The first Five Year Action Plan was
focused on the following:
 Increase the adoption of management practices that will reduce the threat on nitrate
contamination to groundwater.
 Increase the adoption of management practices to control erosion and runoff from
irrigated and non-irrigated crop ground, pasture ground, and livestock operations.
 Collecting data and information necessary to evaluate and address nitrate threats to
community groundwater supplies.
 Facilitate the construction of structural recharge practices.
 Enhance riparian areas along perennial streams to improve wildlife habitat, filter
pollutants, and encourage development of aquatic habitat.
 Provide information and necessary outreach to producers and stakeholders.
Through the planning process, the NRDs identified priority activities, projects, and programs for the first
five years. As more information becomes available for individual efforts, estimated costs, necessary
actions, timeframes, and overall priority may change. Action items identified below pertain to water
resource planning, inventory, evaluation, and practice/project implementation. Actions listed below are
in addition to the current conservation measures and programs offered by each NRD. The intent of the
action items listed below is to continue or enhance current NRD programs. Current conservation
measures listed in Table 6-1 will be utilized within targeted sub-watersheds during plan implementation.
For planning purposes, cost estimates have been provided, but prior to initiating project planning cost
estimates will need to be refined. Also, additional information or study may be required before
proceeding with certain projects. In known cases, an additional action has been added to the Action
Plan below.
2 - Groundwater Projects and Programs
2.1
Rangeland Management and Invasive Species Removal
The LBNRD would like to provide equipment to land managers to promote rangeland management
through invasive species removal. Outreach to promote rangeland management will occur immediately
in addition to supporting other agencies such as the Twin Valley Weed Management Authority.
A-1
Estimated Cost:
Estimated Timeframe:
Potential Funding Sources:
$25,000-50,000
Short (Years 2 & 3)
NDEQ Section 319, NET
Continuous No-Till and Low-Tillage Farming Practices: Current No-Tillage, Tillage, and Agronomic
Practices Survey
The NRDs would like to increase basin wide adoption of no-till or minimum-till farming due to its
multiple benefits for surface water quality and groundwater recharge potential. In order to facilitate
these efforts, current adoption rates in the Basin need to be determined. In 1996 a Big/Little Blue
Farming Practices Study was conducted by UNL, which was funded through a grant received from the
EPA to the Department of Agriculture. A follow-up survey was conducted in 2006 but was only in the
Lower Big Blue River Basin. A follow-up study will be conducted in the Little Blue River Basin to
determine farming tillage practices, including the current no-till and minimum-till adoption rate in
addition to document changes in agronomic practices since the initial study. The survey would expand
from previous surveys to include information regarding soil sampling, reporting, and general agronomic
practices. Additionally, the NRDs will initiate an education component on benefits of no-till and to
promote further adoption of no-till practices.
Estimated Cost:
2.2
$10,000-20,000
Short (Year 1)
NDEQ Section 319, UNL, NET
Groundwater Recharge
Evaluation of Existing Structures: Recharge Efficiency Monitoring
Very little is known about the recharge efficiency of various types of existing structures. In order to
develop the most cost effective recharge approach several questions need to be answered. Currently,
the TBNRD plans to monitor recharge efficiency on the future Sand Creek Recharge Reservoir, while
LBNRD plans to monitor recharge on Dam Site #40. Information from each of these efforts will be used
to support future projects anticipated after Year 6.
Estimated Cost:
$10,000-15,000
Short (Years 2-3)
NET, NDNR
Utilization of Existing Structures and Landscape Features
Streambank Stabilization and Renovation
Recently in Washington County, Kansas, just south of Jefferson County, several bendway weirs were
installed to stabilize the streambank. This method has multiple-benefits, including aquatic habitat,
reduced sedimentation, restoration of the riparian corridor, and increased biodiversity. The LBNRD will
install similar type structures along the Little Blue River where stream banks are currently unstable.
Potential project locations have been identified within the stream assessment GIS, or will be based upon
request from property owners.
Estimated Cost:
$100,000-150,000
Short (Years 2-5)
A-2
Stream Channel Reconnection Feasibility Study
Several areas exist along the Little Blue River, or its major tributaries, to reconnect effectively relic
oxbows to high flow events through diversion from the river or tributary. Stream channel reconnection
has multiple benefits, including sediment trapping, groundwater recharge, wetland enhancement,
aquatic habitat improvement, and filtering of pollutants to reduce transport of contaminants to
groundwater supplies. The LBNRD will evaluate potential sites using existing information within this
plan and proceed with a pilot project at one site within two years. The feasibility study will include up to
50% design of up to four locations, detailed cost estimates, pollutant reduction estimates, property
owner coordination, and groundwater recharge estimates. The feasibility study will be used to obtain
funding for final design and construction.
Estimated Cost:
$35,000-50,000
Short (Year 1)
Stream Channel Reconnection Project
Based upon findings within the reconnection feasibility study, several relic oxbows will be developed
into projects. The LBNRD will proceed with final design and construction of up to four sites.
Estimated Cost:
$300,000-400,000
Short (Years 4-5)
Pilot Projects
Within the implementation strategy, several pilot projects are discussed to evaluate recharge concepts
using dams, modifying existing structures, in-stream weirs, or off-channel diversion/temporary offseason storage. Additional planning and discussion between staff the Board will be necessary to select
which type of project to use as a pilot, but LBNRD expressed interest in moving forward within the first 5
years of implementation.
Estimated Cost:
$100,000-150,000
Long (Years 6-8)
NET, NDNR, WSF, NDEQ 319
New Recharge Structures: Sand Creek Recharge Reservoir
The TBNRD has been planning to construct a recharge structure approximately 6 miles east of Minden
since 2010. The intent of the structure is to recharge an area with known groundwater declines. Net
recharge is estimated at 400 to 500 acre feet per year.
Estimated Cost:
$1,800,000-2,000,000
Short (Years 1-3)
WSF, TBNRD, NDEQ 319
Recharge Potential Map: Groundwater Recharge Feasibility Study
Opportunities exist throughout the Basin to capture seasonal high flows and runoff that can be used to
recharge groundwater aquifers. Using existing information, such as the Hydrogeologic Study and
A-3
Artificial Recharge Opportunity Maps, a feasibility study will be completed to identify locations for new
structures, or modifications to existing structures, to promote groundwater recharge.
Estimated Cost:
2.3
$25,000-35,000
2016 (Year 1)
NET, NDNR, WSF
Groundwater Policy Recommendations
Currently a Voluntary Integrated Management Plan (V-IMP) has not been established for the Little Blue
River Basin. This water management plan would be developed jointly by the NDNR and an NRD. In
order to qualify for WSF a V-IMP must be complete or underway at the time of any project applications.
Estimated Cost:
$25,000-50,000
Current (2015)
NRDs
Modify District Phase Areas or Phase Area Requirements
NRD staff and boards would determine the extent of the Phase II area and implement appropriate
changes to the Groundwater Rules and Regulations. Additional costs associated with expanding the
Phase Areas or modifying requirements of various Phase Areas come from additional NRD monitoring
and outreach efforts. Examples of new requirements include further quality testing or installation of
flowmeters. These modifications become effective after the proper hearing process.
Estimated Cost:
$5,000-10,000
Short (Years 4-5)
NRDs
Agronomic Soil Sampling and Reporting Requirement
Soil sampling provides agricultural producers with information regarding soil properties and health that
can influence decisions regarding the types and amounts of chemicals applied to fields. This type of
knowledge can allow agricultural producers to apply fewer chemicals, such as fertilizers to corn and
soybean fields. The reporting component of the program will allow the NRDs to determine areas that
could benefit from additional sampling and target those areas of the Basin. The cost and resources that
the NRDs are willing to contribute to this program will determine the sampling density and reporting
requirements. The main cost of this program will be staff time to track reports and maintain the
database. Continued monitoring through other Action Plan items, including the Vadose Zone
Monitoring will determine the effectiveness of agronomic soil sampling efforts on producer behavior.
Estimated Cost:
$5,000-10,000
Short (Years 4-5)
NRDs
A-4
The current groundwater-level monitoring network is not evenly dispersed throughout the Basin.
Adding monitoring wells in areas with known declines, conflicts, near WHPAs, or in areas not
geographically represented in the current network will increase the understanding of groundwater level
changes in the Basin. A small assessment may be necessary to determine well locations.
Estimated Cost:
$10,000-15,000
Short (Years 4-5)
NDEQ, NET
Alternative crop management relies upon changing agricultural producer behavior from choosing mainly
corn and soybeans to farm operations that plan a wider range of crops. Alternative crop education
would focus on reducing the number of acres in continuous corn production and transitioning to crop
rotations with 3 or more crops. NRD staff could provide the training or partner with local UNL extension
offices.
Estimated Cost:
$2,000-5,000
Short (Years 2-3)
NRDs
Vadose monitoring has been recommended in areas with elevated nitrate concentrations, such as
WHPAs and GWMAs. The NRD will need to determine areas and frequency of sampling. Shallow vadose
sampling sites that were sampled in 2013 and 2014 should be revisited after 5 years, while deep sample
sites should be revisited after 10 years.
Estimated Cost:
2.4
$30,000-50,000
Short (Year 5)
NDEQ, NET
Municipal Water System Assistance/Source Water Protection
Public Relations Campaign
Increase communication with Basin communities through outreach and survey methods to gage
community understanding of nitrate issues and willingness to address those issues. This increase in
communication will help Basin NRDs to develop partnerships when necessary.
Estimated Cost:
$1,000-3,000
Short (Years 2-4)
NRD, NDEQ, NET
Expand Current Programs
Completion of the public relations campaign will allow Basin NRDs to identify target communities to
develop partnerships or ILCAs to address nitrate issues. These partnerships will allow Basin NRDs and
partnering communities to expand current municipal water assistance and source water protection
programs.
A-5
Estimated Cost:
2.5
$5,000-10,000
Short (Years 3-4)
NRD, NDEQ, NET
Detailed Hydrogeologic and Nitrate Assessment
Depth of well screens is often an unknown within the current groundwater nitrate sampling program.
The distribution of groundwater nitrate concentrations indicate that nitrate levels are highly variable,
even in close proximity, which can be contributed to differences in well screening. Using GIS and NDNR
well logs, LBNRD will evaluate well screen intervals for to determine if this relationship exists between
the depth of the screened interval and the observed nitrate concentrations. In situations where this
data is key to management decisions, such as siting a new municipal well, video equipment may be used
to determine well screening if the data is not available.
Estimated Cost:
$15,000-25,000
Short (Years 4-5)
NDEQ, NET
3 - Surface Water Projects and Programs
3.1
Lake and Reservoir Water Quality Improvement
Crystal Lake Water Quality Renovation
Crystal Lake, located northwest of the Village of Ayr, is current listed on the impaired waters list for
‘Aquatic Life’. The lake levels are supplemented by a well, and pumping is required to maintain a
fishery. The lake is owned by the Village of Ayr, who would be the project sponsor. In 2015, the NGPC
approved funding for a renovation through the Aquatic Habitat Program. Additionally, a bathymetric
survey and water quality monitoring of the well and surface water occurred in 2015. A project
implementation plan would need to be prepared to serve as a basis for outside funding applications.
Estimated Cost:
$200,000-300,000
Short (Year 1)
NGPC, NDEQ Section 319, NET
Liberty Cover Water Quality Investigation
Prior to launching a project to renovate Liberty Cove, it’s first recommended to conduct a small study to
identify alternatives for weed management and to complete a bathymetric survey.
Estimated Cost:
$10,000 – $15,000
Short (Years 3-5)
Liberty Cove Water Quality Renovation
Liberty Cove, located near Lawrence, is currently on the impaired waters list for Aquatic Life - nutrients.
This lake also suffers from massive vegetation issues (pond weed) and is shallow in areas near the dam.
A-6
The lake is owned by the LBNRD and is not in the NGPC’s aquatic habitat plan. A bathymetric survey is
scheduled for completion by the end of 2015 or early in 2016. Prior to renovation planning, it is
recommended that a water quality investigation be performed to identify the best alternatives for
nutrient reduction and removal of pond weed. As part of the project planning, an assessment of current
watershed conditions including pollutant loads and conservation measure needs will be conducted.
Estimated Cost:
$200,000-300,000
Short (Years 3-5)
Augmentation
Significant effort is necessary prior to building structures for stream augmentation purposes. Possible
reservoir locations, such as Rose Creek would require installing stream gages to determine flow
volumes, determining volumes necessary to augment streamflow, determining location area, and
feasibility studies. Due to the effort necessary to building new augmentation structures, actual building
or implementation is a longer-term goal.
Estimated Cost:
3.2
$3,000,000-6,000,000
Long (Years 8-10)
Wetlands
The Rainwater Basin Wetlands (RBW) are a high quality resource, and also a target area for wetland
restoration. The lead agency is the RWBJV, in partnership with the NRDs, will promote installation of
Seasonal Wetland Habitat Improvement Projects within previously identified target areas. The intent is
to improve habitat for waterfowl, promote groundwater recharge, and reduce nutrient and sediment
pollutant loading to streams.
Estimated Cost:
$5,000/structure with annual
payments determined based on
the acres and landuse. Payments
will be $50/acre/year for flooded
cropland and $25/acre/year for
grasslands and/or pasture.
Continuous Program Enrollment
with 10 year program contract
RWBJV, NDEQ 319, NET, NGPC,
USFWS
4 - Staffing
It is anticipated that additional staffing will be needed to adequately develop, implement, track, and
report on projects and activities listed in the Action Plan. Staffing needs will be assessed by adding part
or full time temporary staff.
A-7
Estimated Cost:
TBD
Short (Years 2-3)
NDEQ, NET
5 - Monitoring
Streamflow Measurement
Data provided by stream gaging has several benefits for both surface and groundwater management
including integrated resource management, planning water resource projects, monitoring
environmental conditions, tracking trends in surface water flows, etc. Several sub-basins are lacking
equipment to perform monitoring of surface water flows as identified in Section 6 including Spring Creek
near Hebron, Rose Creek near Endicott, and Little Sandy near Fairbury. The cost of additional stream
gaging sites is dependent upon the number of new stream gaging locations and the type of data
collection needed. If the new stream gages are used for calculating flow volumes, the cost of each
gaging point is significantly cheaper than stream gages for administration purposes. Coordination with
other agencies such as NDNR and USGS is recommended.
Estimated Cost:
$30,000-50,000
Short (Years 2-3)
NET, NDNR
A-8
Summary of Priority Activities from 2016-2025. (no costs for years 6-10)
Project
Activity
201
6
201
7
201
8
201
9
YEAR
202 202
0
1
202
2
202
3
202
4
202
5
Total Activity
Cost
A-9
Appendix B – Stream Assessment
Appendix B
Stream Assessment
Little Blue River Basin
General Stream Assessment
April 2015
A product of the
A product of:
1 - Stream Assessment
In order to understand the general conditions of streams and drainages contributing to reservoirs, a
basic stream assessment was conducted by LBNRD with support from the consultant team. Due to the
large size of the project area, a unique protocol was used to gather new information. Two methods
were used including a field inventory from stream crossings and a GIS desktop assessment.
1.1
Assessment Methodology
Priority watersheds and stream reaches were selected in order to gather a general representation of
conditions throughout the Basin. The field inventory was completed by LBNRD from accessible stream
crossings at bridges. Information gathered for stream and riparian corridors included current habitat
conditions, land use, riparian characteristics, pollution sources, stream bank stability, instream
conditions, and presence of invasive vegetation. Field crews took pictures from each bridge crossing.
The GIS desktop assessment was completed for the same stream reaches, but was conducted using
2011 aerial photography along predetermined cross sections, at either one-quarter or one-half mile
intervals. At each cross section the following information was collected and recorded into a
geodatabase using GIS: linear distance of adjacent riparian buffer, buffer vegetation type, adjacent land
uses, areas of erosion, and other items such as CAFOs, ponds, oxbows, and adjacent wetlands.
1.2
Stream Assessment Summary
The table below summarizes the priority areas, field inventory locations assessed, and number of cross
sections assessed. Figure 1 shows the locations of the field inventory at bridge crossings within each
priority area. Table 1 displays a summary of each area that was assessed. The small tributaries above
lakes were typically intermittent streams which flow only during runoff events.
PRIORITY AREA
Table 1 - Stream Assessment Summary
DESKTOP
FIELD
CROSS
INVENTORY
SECTIONS
AT BRIDGES
Main Stem
Lower Little Blue River
Upper Little Blue River
Major Tributaries
Big Sandy Creek
Rock Creek
Rose Creek
Spring Creek
Small Tributaries Above Lakes
Bruning Dam Watershed
Buckley Creek Reservoir Watershed
Liberty Cove Watershed
Lone Star Watershed
Prairie Lake
TOTALS
STREAM
MILES
107
62
15
10
60.6
28.9
83
34
148
93
19
8
12
15
43.9
17.1
53.6
57.1
57
11
19
85
48
747
16
1
No bridges
14
No bridges
110
27.6
2.5
7.4
22.5
23.4
344.6
B-1
Figure 1.
Stream Assessment Location
B-2
1.3
Stream Assessment Results
Data collected on each segment, such as condition of the stream banks, riparian corridor length and
vegetation cover, and adjacent land use, was evaluated in order to understand the habitat conditions
adjacent to each stream. Based upon the desktop assessment, a general statement on the condition of
each reach has been provided. It is important to note that beyond the bridge crossings none of the
cross section areas were visited in the field as that was beyond the scope of this plan’s development. If
a project is considered within one of these reaches a detailed site assessment should first be performed.
Below is a summary of each priority area and a summary of the condition of the stream habitat within
the riparian corridor.
The riparian buffer cross section was determined by the immediate presence of woods, grass buffer, or
none adjacent to each stream segment. Figure 2 shows the average riparian buffer width for each
stream segment. The Little Blue River (Upper and Lower) and the Main Tributaries (Rock Creek, Big
Sandy Creek, etc.) all have healthy stands of wooded vegetation consistently throughout all reaches
assessed. The Small Tributaries which feed several reservoirs (Lonestar Reservoir, Liberty Cove, etc.) are
typically lacking wooded vegetation and in many cases flow through row crop land cover.
Figure 2.
All Streams Average Buffer Width
As seen in Figure 3, the Small Tributaries within the reservoir watersheds exhibit a higher percentage of
‘no buffer’ (21%) and grass areas (45%). Based upon a visual assessment of these areas the no buffer
and grass areas also include pasture, which can be a contributor of pollutants to the downstream
waterbodies. The Main Stem, which has more significant perennial flows, are nearly 80% wooded on
both sides of the waterway. Figure 4 displays the buffer composition.
B-3
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
All Streams Buffer Composition
All Sites Buffer Composition Percentage
B-4
1.4
Riparian Buffer Results by Priority Area
The riparian buffer results from the Small Tributaries within each Priority Area are summarized in Figure
5 and the riparian buffer for the Main Stem and Major Tributaries are shown in Figure 6. Buffer types
include the presence or lack of a vegetated cover adjacent to the stream. Streams that were present
within an agricultural area were marked as ‘no buffer’.
Figure 5.
Riparian Area Composition Type for Small Tributaries
B-5
Figure 6.
1.5
Riparian Area Composition Type for Main Stem and Major Tributaries
Instream Habitat Summary
As part of the field inventory at bridge crossings, LBNRD gathered data on the overall quality of instream
habitat. Field observations were made and characteristics were and ranked at each crossing based upon
aquatic habitat conditions such as: a structure located within the waterway or stream that can serve as
habitat for aquatic species, woody debris, overhanging vegetation, log jams, deep pools in shaded areas,
undercut banks, live trees or roots, and artificial structures. Stream reaches outside of the bridge
crossings were not included in the assessment. Figures 7-10 display a summary of the scoring for instream habitat.
B-6
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Average In-stream Habitat Score
Average Riparian Zone Score
B-7
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
River Instream Habitat Scores for Main Stem and Major Tributaries
Reservoir Watershed Habitat Scores for Small Tributaries
There was only one bridge along the stream into Buckley Creek Reservoir, which was rated a 3 for
instream habitat. There were no bridge crossings over the drainage leading to Liberty Cove. The
drainage to Prairie Lake, which consist mainly of small waterways through agricultural land cover, was
not significant enough to assess.
1.6
Areas of Streambank Erosion
B-8
During the desktop aerial photograph assessment, the entire reach was reviewed to look for areas of
significant erosion. These estimates are likely conservative, as tree cover prevented assessment of
certain stream areas. These areas were totaled and divided by the total miles assessed and are shown
in Table 2 while the average of the stability score is displayed in Figure 11. It is important to note that
the total number of miles assessed included intermediate waterways, which only flow during rain events
and many do not have a bed or stream bank present. Also, the area shown as ‘erosion area’ represents
an area on either side of the waterway.
Figure 11.
Average Streambank Stability Score
Table 2-1:
Priority Area
Main Stem
Lower Little Blue
Upper Little Blue
Major Tributaries
Big Sandy
Rose Creek
Spring Creek
Rock Creek
Small Tributaries above Lakes
Bruning Reservoir
Buckley Reservoir
Prairie Lake
Desktop Assessment Areas of Erosion
Erosion Area
(Miles)
Total Length
Assessed (Miles)
Percent of Total
Length
5.35
3.90
60.6
28.9
8.82%
13.51%
1.22
0.44
0.62
None recorded
43.9
53.6
57.1
17.1
2.8%
0.82%
1.08%
NA
0.12
0.41
0.001
27.6
2.5
23.4
0.45%
16.54%
0.01%
Overall, the Main Stem and Major Tributaries did not show significant areas of erosion as the
majority of banks were well vegetated. In addition, there were very few areas where streams have
B-9
been mechanically straightened. The single stream flowing to Buckley Reservoir passed through an
area with significant overgrazing and therefore was listed as an erosion area.
1.7
Summary by Priority Area
Below is an overall summary of each priority area along with a figure showing what a typical stream
segment within that priority area looks like from the desktop assessment.
1.7.1 Bruning Dam Reservoir
The entire Bruning Dam watershed, part of the Big Sandy drainage, was reviewed using GIS (57
cross sections) and a total of 16 bridge crossings were assessed and a total of 27.6 waterway miles.
Based upon this assessment, the majority of the cross sections showed ephemeral streams within
agricultural fields with no flow. There is very little riparian buffer along the waterway and poor instream habitat. This watershed was the lowest ranked for stream bank stability score as poor. This
watershed likely contributes significantly to water quality issues and presents opportunities to
increase conservation practices in order to reduce pollutant loading, especially sedimentation, to
Bruning Dam Reservoir. Figure 12 displays a typical segment of the waterway flowing to Bruning
Dam.
Figure 12.
Bruning Dam Watershed Typical Cross Section
B-10
1.7.2 Buckley Creek Reservoir
The Buckley Creek Reservoir watershed, a portion of the Rose Creek drainage, is very small with
only one waterway (2.5 miles) through agricultural fields. This watershed likely contributes to water
quality issues and presents opportunity to enhance any existing conservation practices in order to
reduce pollutants, mainly sedimentation, to Buckley Creek Reservoir. Figure 13 displays a typical
segment of the waterway flowing to Buckley Creek.
Figure 13.
Bruning Dam Watershed Typical Cross Section
1.7.3 Liberty Cove
The watershed flowing to Liberty Cove included 17 cross sections and 7.4 miles of waterways, but
no bridge crossings and is part of the Middle Little Blue sub-watershed. The watershed land cover is
mostly pasture, grass, with a mix of row crops. Compared to the other lake watersheds, there appears
to be significantly more vegetation within the watershed overall with an average buffer width of
about 30-feet. Only 4% of the buffer was listed as ‘no buffer’, with 65% listed as grass. It is
important to note that most of the grass buffer is likely pasture, which if not managed properly can
present a significant pollutant load to the waterbody. This watershed has land treatment
opportunities, such as range management and cross-fencing, and stream buffers, that could help
support a healthy waterbody in the future. Figure 14 displays a typical segment of the waterway
flowing to Liberty Cove.
B-11
Figure 14.
Liberty Cover Typical Cross Section
1.7.4 Lone Star Reservoir
The Lone Star watershed includes 22.5 miles of waterways of Walnut Creek, which drains to the
Lower Little Blue watershed and had 14 accessible bridge crossings and 85 cross sections. Overall,
the land cover consists of a mix of row crop and pasture. Most of the waterways were within fields
and had no flow or bank. A total of 13% of the cross sections showed ‘no buffer’, and 51% in grass
pasture, which can be a pollutant source if not managed properly. Due to an intermediate flow, the
waterways had poor in-stream habitat conditions. This watershed ranked second to last for stream
banks stability, on average between fair and poor. Similar to other agriculturally based watersheds,
there appears to be significant pollutant loading from untreated land and there are ample
opportunities to enhance conservation practices to improve water quality. Figure 15 displays a
typical segment of the waterway flowing to Lone Star Reservoir.
B-12
Figure 15.
Lone Star Typical Cross Section
1.7.5 Prairie Lake
Prairie Lake’s watershed, located in the Lower Little Blue sub-watershed, totaled 23.4 miles of
waterway and included 48 cross sections, but no bridge crossings. The watershed is dominated by
intensive agriculture and the majority of the waterways were located in fields with no flow and no
bank. Agricultural runoff from the watershed is contributing to the pollutant loading and opportunity
is present to enhance conservation practices. Figure 16 displays a typical segment of the waterway
flowing to Prairie Lake.
B-13
Figure 16.
Prairie Lake Typical Cross Section
1.7.6 Big Sandy Creek
The lower half of Big Sandy Creek was assessed, totaling 43.9 miles with 83 cross sections and 19
bridge crossings. Like all the perennial flowing streams in the Basin, a riparian buffer was present
and averaged 360 feet wide. A total of 82% of the cross sections were wooded on both sides. Instream habitat and the riparian buffer would ‘good’. While some natural bank erosion was present, it
does not appear that Big Sandy Creek is significantly degraded. The desktop assessment showed that
in several areas sand bars were present. Any stream bank stabilization necessary on Big Sandy
would likely be on a spot-by-spot basis. Figure 17 displays a typical segment of Big Sandy Creek.
B-14
Figure 17.
Big Sandy Creek Typical Cross Section
1.7.7 Rock Creek
The entirely of the main stem of Rock Creek was assessed, totaling 17.1 miles with 34 cross sections
and eight bridge crossings. The land cover consists of woods, pasture, grass, and a mix of row crops.
Compared to the other three small streams, Rock Creek had the largest riparian buffer, averaging
over 360 feet and 96% of the cross sections were wooded. In-stream habitat and the riparian zone
were rated as ‘good’ and stream stability was ‘good’. There were no visual areas of excessive stream
bank erosion. Overall, Rock Creek appears to be in good shape. Figure 18 displays a typical
segment of Rock Creek.
B-15
Figure 18.
Rock Creek Typical Cross Section
1.7.8 Rose Creek
The entire stretch of Rose Creek was reviewed using the desktop assessment, totaling 53.6 miles and
148 cross sections. The bridge inventory was conducted at 12 crossings, only those within Nebraska.
Rose Creek was heavily wooded (92% of cross sections) with an average riparian buffer of 350 feet.
In-stream habitat and stream bank stability was good. There was some stream bank erosion
observed, but like the other streams, no major areas of instability or straightening were found. Any
stream bank stabilization would be on a spot-by-spot basis. Figure 19 displays a typical segment of
Rose Creek.
B-16
Figure 19.
Rose Creek Typical Cross Section
1.7.9 Spring Creek
The entire main stem of Spring Creek was assessed, totaling 57.1 miles, 93 cross sections, and 15
bridge crossings. Of the four smaller streams assessed, Spring Creek had the smallest average
riparian width at 200-feet wide. The watershed has a mix of land cover, mostly row crop,
woodlands, and pasture. Only 57% of all cross sections were wooded the lowest among all creeks
assessed. While the in-stream habitat and riparian zone score was good, the stream bank stability
score was fair to poor and ranked third lowest overall to all other streams assessed. Like most of the
other streams there was some visual erosion of the banks, although overall there did not appear to be
any significant straightening or instability issues. Figure 20 displays a typical segment of Spring
Creek.
B-17
Figure 20.
Spring Creek Typical Cross Section
1.7.10 Lower Little Blue
This reach totaled 60.6 miles, 107 cross sections, and 15 bridge crossings. This reach had the largest
average riparian buffer just over 800-feet on average. A total of 83% of the cross sections were
wooded and another 15% were a combination of wooded and grass. The in-stream habitat score was
near excellent, and ranked second overall. The stream bank stability was fair, ranking third best
overall. Sand bars and exposed banks were common. A total of 5.35 miles of eroded stream bank
was recorded, 8.8% of the entire reach that was assessed. Overall, there did not appear to be a
significant straightening along the river and if any stabilization is needed it would be on a spot-byspot basis to protect critical infrastructure such as bridges and utilities. Figure 21 displays a typical
segment of the Lower Little Blue River.
B-18
Figure 21.
Lower Little Blue River Typical Cross Section
1.7.11 Upper Little Blue
This reach totaled 28.9 miles, 62 cross sections, and 10 bridge crossings. The second largest riparian
buffer, at an average of 720-feet was present with a 70% wooded buffer, the remainder was split
between grass-woods (17%) and grass (13%). This reach ranked the highest for in-stream habitat
and fourth highest for stream bank stability. A total of 3.9 miles of eroded banks was recorded, or
13.5% of the total reach. Like most of the other reaches, there were not any apparent areas that have
been straightening. Any stabilization needed would be on a spot-by-spot basis to protect critical
infrastructure such as bridges and utilities. Figure 22 displays a typical segment of the Lower Little
Blue River.
B-19
Figure 22.
Upper Little Blue River Typical Cross Section
B-20

Complete Version of Management Plan

Transcription

Similar documents

Page 1 TECTONOSTRATIGRAPHY AND NEOTECT ONIC

Field Trip to the Betic Zone and the Carboneras Fault System (SE

Building Code Training – August 30th at Burgundy Basin Inn

August 2015 - Wasatch Woolpack Handspinners

METCRAX - Home

www.imprex.eu @imprex_eu

Sunday Creek Watershed - West Branch 43 Stream Capture

Whitemans Creek Water Budget - Latornell Conservation Symposium

water + sanitation