Shelbina Water Plan

Preface
Watershed? What is it? A watershed is described as a land area that water flows across on its
way to a stream, lake, or river. A watershed has only natural boundaries. Those boundaries are
not defined by political or ownership property lines. They are, instead, natural topographic
features that define a drainage basin.
In October 1998, the City of Shelbina decided to start the process of putting a watershed management plan together. This holistic plan is the result of input and planning from a Watershed
Committee composed of City of Shelbina officials and employees, concerned citizens, public
officials, resource agencies, and – most importantly – land owners in the watershed. This will
serve as a flexible guideline to maintain and/or improve the watershed and water of the Shelbina
Lake.
In April of 1999, the City of Shelbina applied through the Mark Twain Regional Council of
Governments and received a grant originating from the United States Environmental Protection
Agency to finance an assessment of the Shelbina Lake and Watershed and to make recommendations for a two-year schedule of improvements to be funded by the grant with in-kind contributions from the City of Shelbina. This grant was administered by the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources. The assessment was conducted by Midwest Environmental Consultants, P.C.,
of Jefferson City.
Certain figures, recommendations, and graphics included in this document were taken from the
Shelbina Lake and Watershed Water Quality Assessment, September 2000. A copy of the complete assessment report is located at Shelbina City Hall.
The intent of the plan is to improve, upgrade, and increase the cost effectiveness of the local
water supply and distribution system. It will also focus on the beauty of the lake as an asset in
recreation, tourism, and economic development.
Pollution is inevitable. All human and animal activity produces waste. If this waste is not
disposed of properly, it may find its way into the water supplies as contamination. Nonpoint
source contamination is gradual and cumulative and its source is not easily identified. It does
respond to the voluntary use of best management practices implemented by agriculture producers,
businesses, homeowners, and the community itself.
The plan is in no way regulatory; all practices are voluntary with the best interest of the Shelbina
Lake Watershed and property owners in mind.
Remember, we all live downstream. A healthy watershed is a direct reflection of the activity
taking place in its boundaries. If we all work together, the plan will provide a good environment
and economy for all within it.
1
Introduction
Problem Description. Shelbina Lake is impacted by nutrient and sediment input from internal
and external loading. Internal loading (recycling of nutrients within the reservoir) appears to be a
significant source of nutrients in the reservoirs. The trophic state of the Shelbina Lake is
hypereutrophic (meaning it is very fertile and productive) which is detrimental for a drinking
water supply. Such water supplies typically produce taste and odor problems and elevated
production of disinfection by-products. In addition, hepatotoxins and neurotoxins may be present
seasonally in hypereutrophic water supplies due to the typical presence of blue-green algae.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations beneath the photic zone (upper zone in which light is available
for photosynthesis) are very low and could be causing stress of the fishery.
The Shelbina Lake serves as the drinking water supply for the City of Shelbina, with a population
of approximately 2,200. City personnel feel that the water quality is satisfactory; however,
measures to improve and protect lake water quality should be proactively pursued. The main
water quality concerns include turbidity, sedimentation, nutrients, and natural organic matter that
are disinfection by-product precursors. City personnel have a strong belief that watershed
management efforts should focus on water quality improvements, but economic impacts to land
owners should also be carefully considered. This viewpoint is critical for successful stakeholder
participation and implementation of a watershed management plan.
Planning Process and Public Participation. Shelbina has implemented a systematic development and outreach process designed to accomplish the following:
• Legitimize the process by informing City officials and seeking their support,
• Involve the appropriate resource agencies and secure commitment of their on-going educational and financial assistance,
2
• Involve residents of the watershed and other stakeholders in the problem identification process
and obtain their agreement to implement the management practices needed to correct identified
problems,
• Publicize activities and accomplishments of the project to promote stewardship and to create
on-going interest in the project, and
• Implement strategies and celebrate accomplishments to promote continuing ownership of the
project.
The following section details the efforts under each of these categories:
❑
Legitimize the Process
October 13, 1998 – City Council Meeting
Discussion and presentation:
Why develop a plan?
What is a plan?
How can it help Shelbina?
The Council voted to develop a watershed management plan.
See Appendix 1 for agenda.
❑
Involve Resource Agencies
July through September 1998 – Involvement of Mark Twain Water Quality Initiative
Preliminary meetings of resource persons interested in working with the City of Shelbina on
watershed management and planning.
See appendixes 2, 3, and 4 for copies of correspondence and meeting agenda.
Fall 1998 – Involvement of Shelby County NRCS/SWCD
“Shelbina Starts Ball Rolling on Watershed Plan”, Soil Conscious, A Quarterly Publication
of the Shelby Soil and Water Conservation District
See appendix 5 for a copy of newsletter article.
April 1999 – Project Proposal Submitted
With the assistance of the Mark Twain Regional Council of Governments (MTRCOG) and
University Outreach and Extension (UOE), a proposal was submitted for EPA funds under
section 604(b) of the Clean Water Act. The grant would finance an assessment of the
Shelbina Lake and Shelbina Lake Watershed and make recommendations for a two-year
schedule of improvements to be also funded by the grant with in-kind contributions from the
City of Shelbina.
See appendix 6 for a copy of the schedule of milestones.
October 1999 – Assessment of Shelbina City Lake and Silt Basins
Assessment and recommendations submitted to Committee by Missouri Department of
Conservation (MDC) Fisheries Management Biologist, Hannibal, Missouri.
See appendix 7 for copy of assessment.
November 15, 1999
DNR awarded Subgrant Assistance Agreement to the MTCOG for the Shelbina Lake
Preservation and Enhancement Project to develop a local community-led watershed management alliance to implement strategies identified utilizing the environmental assessment
results.
3
December 13, 1999
Requests for proposal (RFPs) mailed to 16 consulting engineers for the following:
Attendance at pre-bid conference
Physical inventory of Shelbina Lake and Shelbina Lake Watershed
Written and oral assessment of findings which identifies critical areas at Shelbina Lake and
in the Shelbina Lake Watershed
Final report (oral and written) to the watershed management committee by September 15,
2000
January 11, 2000
Pre-bid conference held at Shelbina City Hall
January 28, 2000
Bids opened; three bids received.
February 8, 2000
Contract with Midwest Environmental Consultants, P.C. (MEC) accepted by MTRCOG
December 1, 2001
All grant activities are to be completed.
❑
Involve Stakeholders
December 14, 1998 – Letter to Stakeholders
Invitation to informational meeting
See appendix 8 for copy of letter and contact list.
January 11, 1999 – Informational Meeting
Public Meeting
Water Quality at Shelbina Lake
Water-Quality Considerations
The Planning Process
See appendix 9 for agenda, roles and responsibilities, and volunteer registration materials.
April 8, 1999 – Public Meeting and Shelbina Watershed Futuring
Opportunity for stakeholders to identify problems and concerns
See appendix 10 for summary of meeting
December 14, 1999 – Letter to Stakeholders
Update and Opportunity to Share Ideas
Public Meetings
Grant Opportunity
Opportunities for Your Input
Bid Process
See appendix 11 for copy of letter.
March 1, 2000
Invitation to Public Meeting to discuss the scope of the engineering assessment to be
conducted (starting April 2000) by Midwest Environmental Consultants, P.C.
See appendix 12 for update letter and invitation.
4
March 20, 2000 - Public Meeting
Update on Project
Presentations on scope of project
Meet with representative of engineering firm
October 6, 2000 – Update and Solicitation of Public Input
Letter to review suggestions coming out of the Shelbina Lake and watershed water-quality
assessment report:
Control of the resident and migratory Canada goose populations
Implement voluntary BMPs to address erosion and nutrient runoff
Track future land uses that may impact water quality
Address shoreline erosion
Consider artificial destratification
See appendix 13 for letter.
December 8, 2000 – Update and Invitation to Public Meeting
Set priorities for improvements
See appendix 14 for copy of letter.
January 8, 2001 – Supper Meeting
Group meal followed by discussion and presentation:
Project Milestones
Shelbina Lake and Watershed Water Quality Assessment,
Possible Practices to be Implemented
Golf Course BMP’s
Management of Goose Population
Possibilities Under MoCREP (Missouri Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program)
Equipment Needs
Water Quality Management Plan
❑
Publicize Activities and Accomplishments
October 13, 1998 – Media Release (City Council Meeting)
Appoints Greenwell City Attorney, Shelbina Democrat
See Appendix 15 for copy of article (contains information on approval of planning process)
October 1999 – Media Release
“City to Begin Water Resources Planning”, Shelbina Democrat
See appendix 16 for copy of release.
June 2000 – Newsletter Article
“Shelbina Takes a ‘Trouble Shooting’ Approach”, Downstream, Quarterly newsletter of the
North Fork (319) Project
See appendix 17 for copy of newsletter article.
5
May 14, 2001 - Progress Report
Update on program of work for grant:
Control of the Resident and Migratory Canada Goose Populations
Implement Voluntary BMPs to Address Erosion and Nutrient Runoff
Address Shoreline Erosion
Implement Golf Course BMPs
Install Carbon Feeder
Relocate Dump Station
See appendix 18 for copy of update letter
June 2001 – Newsletter article
“The 19th Hole Could be A Water Hole”, Downstream, Quarterly newsletter of the North
Fork (319) Project
See appendix 19 for copy of newsletter article
❑
Implement Strategies and Celebrate Accomplishments
Schedule of Practices - Following are the recommended practices and implementation
timeline:
November 2000 – February 2001
Set procedures and blind areas for controlled goose hunt at Shelbina Lake
February 2001
Work with NRCS-Mark Twain Water Quality Initiative to design minor repairs on south
spillway
Request permit from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for shoreline restoration at Shelbina
Lake
March 21, 2001 – Co-Sponsor Workshop
“Golf Course Management Strategies. . .Links to Water Quality”, workshop for ag suppliers,
golf course superintendents, board members and pros, parks and recreation personnel, and
water/wastewater treatment operators.
See appendix 20 for copy of brochure.
Spring and Summer 2001 – Implementation of BMPs
Waterways constructed or to be constructed on farm and Shelbina Fairgrounds property.
118.9 acres enrolled in MoCREP
March – July 2001
Meet with Shelby County NRCS to work on possible BMPs for Shelbina Lake and Shelbina
Lake Watershed Project
1. Landowner participation in MoCREP and other BMPs
Five landowners = 118.9 acres in MoCREP; CRP2s sent to DNR for approval
2. One landowner utilizing variable rate technology on 252 acres of cropland, also will set
up nutrient management plan for these acres (complete)
6
3. Three landowners utilizing waterway and standard terrace and tile terraces and all
components
✔ Property – 4.750 feet of standard terraces and tile terraces and all components
Total cost of project: $14,847.00, cost to landowner, $4,847 (complete)
✔ Property – two waterways, 1500 cubic yards earthwork
Total cost of project: $1,595.50, cost to landowner, $398.87 (to be completed in Fall of
2001)
✔ Shelby County Fair Association – One waterway
Total cost of project: $1,020.60, cost to landowner, $272.72 (complete)
4. One landowner installing 5.3 acres buffer strip using MoCREP rate with a ten-year
contract (seeded and in good shape July 2001)
March and April 2001 – Walk Shelbina Lake shoreline
Measure footages that need attention for shoreline erosion. Total footages equal 3,031 feet;
will need 2,425 tons of rock to line areas of erosion. (Schedule to place rock is Fall of
2001.) Will use 2” clean base for matting then layer 3” on top for break up and wave
control. City of Shelbina has US Army Corps of Engineers approval for installation of
shoreline stabilization process.
Early Summer 2001 - Received Model #W1052-cc/2 Acrison Carbon Feeder for Water
Plant
This is to help with removal of organics, SOC and TOCs at water treatment. (Installed Fall
2001)
Late Summer or Early Fall 2001 - Golf Course to Implement BMPS
Address areas of erosion on fairways #5, #8, and #9. Will install 14,210 square feet of
concrete golf cart pathways to reduce erosion.
7
Late Summer or Early Fall 2001 - Relocate Camper Dump Station
To increase setback, improve access, increase capacity, and as an additional safety feature
August 6, 2001 – Barbecue and Review of Management Plan
Public meeting to review grant plan of work, review draft of water quality management
plan, and to thank participants for their support.
Management Plan Purposes. Throughout the state, watershed management plans are currently
being developed for a variety of purposes including water-quality protection, comprehensive
planning, regulatory compliance, grant eligibility, and economic development.
Other uses for this plan are to foster linkages to the rural community, coordinate resources with
existing needs, and serve as a framework for enhanced cooperation and communication between
programs focused on natural resource issues.
The intended uses of this plan are shown below:
PLAN PURPOSES
Aid in the Preservation and Protection of the Municipal Water Supply
Provide an Inventory of Watershed Characteristics and Current Conditions
Provide Guidance for Watershed Management
Create Public Awareness and Involvement in Water Quality Issues
Maintain Compliance with Regulatory Standards
Provide a Base for Future Resource Development
Watershed Setting
Shelbina Lake is located in Township 57 North, Range 10 West, in sections 20 and 29, approximately 1.25 miles north of Shelbina, Missouri in Shelby County. The corresponding watershed is
located in the same county, township and range, but includes areas in sections 20, 21, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, and 33. The lake is approximately 55 acres in surface area with surface recharge derived
from a drainage basin approximately 1,540 acres or 2.4 square miles (mi2). Figure 1 shows the
topography and size of the Shelbina Lake watershed (Shelbina Lake Intake map). The overflow
from Shelbina Lake discharges into the North Fork of the Salt River, which flows through Mark
Twain Lake and is ultimately received by the Mississippi River.
8
Land Cover and Use
The chart below illustrates land use by area, in acres, for pasture, crop land, and other land uses.
Area (acres)
Land Use
1993 Acres 1994 Acres 1995 Acres 1996 Acres 1999 Acres
Pasture
280
291
146
186
85
Crop Land Use Subtotals
786
712
881
816
855
Corn
241
166
57
146
95
Wheat
320
92
211
114
95
9
31
46
19
48
201
365
561
537
617
Milo
Soybeans
No-till Beans
58
Oats
15
6
Other Land Use Subtotals
533
533
533
533
533
Farmstead
36
36
36
36
36
Pond
9
9
9
9
9
Woods
107
107
107
107
107
Roads
74
74
74
74
74
Park, Residential, Golf
Course, Fair Grounds
243
243
243
243
243
Reservoir
55
55
55
55
55
9
Livestock. Livestock in this watershed is limited to a small farrow-to-finish hog operation, the
Excel Hog Market, and some beef cattle. The Excel Hog Market averages 1000 head of hogs per
day; some manure is spread on crop fields and pastures within the watershed area.
There are approximately 85 acres of pastureland utilized by beef cow-calf operations in the
watershed. One producer, to limit overgrazing and increase production, is using Managed
Intensive Grazing (MIG). MIG allows grass to have a rest period between grazing which helps
maintain good grass growth. Water is generally the limiting factor to greater implementation of
MIG and rotational grazing. There are no cattle feed lots or dairy operations in this watershed.
Topography and Soils. Topography ranges from wide, nearly level ridge tops (0% to 2% slope)
to gently sloping side slopes (3% to 5% slope) and some moderate sloping areas (5% to 9%
slope) in the watershed. The overall relief is about 70 feet with elevations ranging from approximately 780 feet (USG 1929 Elevation Datum) at the western edge of the watershed to 710 feet at
the surface of the lake.
The Knox, Monroe, Shelby Soil Survey (USDA-SC., 1979) indicates that the majority of the
watershed acreage is within the Putnam-Mexico-Leonard soil association. Putnam and Mexico
soils were formed under tall prairie grasses and Leonard soils developed with woodland vegetation. They are located on nearly level to gently sloping upland landscapes and are poorly to
somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in loess. These are known as clay pan soils. The clay
pan begins within 2’’ to 18’’ of the soil surface. The slow permeability of the clay pan causes
these soils to commonly be saturated in the early growing season. They are subject to surface
runoff and seepage above the clay pan.
All of the soils are rated severe limitation for the installation of septic tank absorption fields.
Sewage lagoons are a good option for homes on these soils. Nearly all the soils found in the
watershed have severe potential for pesticide loss due to runoff or leaching. Putnam, Mexico,
Leonard, and Armstrong soils have very slow infiltration rate and high runoff potentials. All four
soil-mapping units are in the Class D Hydrologic soil group. These soils make up 95 % of the
soil in the watershed and have a major impact on water quality.
10
Mineral Resources. Consolidated bedrock underlying soils in the majority of the Shelbina Lake
watershed generally consist of Pennsylvanian-age limestone and shale. The limestone and shale
are assigned to the Cherokee group (Desmoinesian Series). Mississippian-age limestone
(Osagean Series) is present in a small portion of the watershed near the Lake dam.
There are no significant mineral resources in the watershed area.
Woodland Resources. The forest cover in the Shelbina Lake Watershed is a small component
but a vital resource. It has a linear distribution following the major drainages and the south side
of the lake shoreline. Other forest components are wide fencerows. A total of 134 acres are
present with the largest blocks being 16 - 26 acres in size. Numerous other wooded fencerows
are present but not accounted for in this acreage due to their small size.
The forest type and condition are very diverse. Heavily disturbed zones such as grazed areas and
past clearing attempts consist of shingle oak, a variety of hickories, and pin oak. Other areas have
the more common white oak forest cover type. Many drainages will be a combination of the
above species along with swamp white oak and black oak.
The forest offers numerous benefits. First is stream bank stability. Studies show that trees
provide some of the best soil stabilizing potential of any natural vegetation. A corridor, even as
narrow as 25 feet on up to 100 feet adjacent to a stream, will assist in slowing down water
movement, decreasing runoff, and holding soil in place with extensive root systems. Second is
wildlife habitat. Forest cover such as this, provides needed travel corridors for deer and turkey.
They also are a source of food and shelter. The thick cover is vital for small game such as quail
and rabbits. Finally, forests, when properly managed, provide alternative income sources. This
can come either from the direct sale of trees or through forest farming. Forest farming consists of
growing a high value crop such as ginseng or goldenseal in the shade of trees.
Some threats to the resource include continuous livestock grazing, land conversion, and improper
harvesting. Livestock will damage timber making it less valuable. Some studies have also shown
that livestock cause increased erosion in the forest and more sediment problems in streams and
lakes. Land conversion from forests simply eliminates the cover, opening the drainage up to more
erosion potential. It also has the potential of increasing runoff and further contributing to stream
bank instability. Improper harvesting can contribute more sediment to streams mainly through
poor road layout, the lack of water diversions, and other best management practices.
Expanding the forest cover is one option in improving water quality in the lake. The forest is
mainly in the primary drainages with the exception of a few gaps. These areas could be planted
to trees and some of the upper reaches of the drainages could be reforested. Many of these are
currently in grass waterways that could be widened to include a tree/grass/shrub border. With
their close proximity to cropland, this will offer added nutrient, pesticide, and sediment control in
runoff. They also have the potential for some side benefits as quail and rabbit habitat. Livestock
exclusion should also be promoted in any of the forested areas, especially since most of the
forests are already restricted to sensitive zones.
Wildlife Resources. The Shelbina Lake watershed provides habitat that is suitable both for game
and non-game species. White-tailed deer, eastern wild turkey, bobwhite quail, mourning dove,
waterfowl, squirrels, and furbearers can all be found within the watershed. Non-game species
such as the grasshopper sparrow, field sparrow, killdeer, white-footed mouse, great blue heron,
and many species of snakes and amphibians are also present in the watershed. Migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, and raptors use the area during both spring and fall migration. Common mam11
malian species associated with wetlands include the river otter, beaver, mink, and muskrat.
Common waterfowl include mallards, Canada geese, and snow geese. As a residential water
source, the lake will need to be monitored to prevent excessive nutrient loads as a result of
Canada geese. Resident wildlife can be either numerous or rare depending upon the individual
species. The diversity of the species present in the watershed can be directly linked to the existing habitat diversity.
The bobwhite quail is often termed an “edge” species, an animal that exists at the transition zone
where one habitat type meets the next. They have been in decline throughout their entire range
since the early 60’s. There are undoubtedly many factors which have exacerbated this decline
including: lack of diversity in grasslands (CRP, pastures, hay ground), planting of exotic monocultures (tall fescue), predation, weather, lack of suitable escape cover in the form of shrubby
fencerows and draws, and more efficient farming practices (increased chemical use, efficiency in
harvest, larger fields) that result in weed-free fields. In order to help reverse this trend, any
grasslands seeded within the watershed should include high diversity grass/legume/forb mixtures
in their recommendations. Consideration should also be given to supplementing existing and
potential grass plantings with shrub strips or clumps that will provide valuable escape and winter
cover for various wildlife species including the bobwhite quail.
Wetland Resources. The wetland resources within the watershed of Shelbina Lake are mostly
made up of created wetlands. The National Wetland Inventory, compiled by the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, classify the Shelbina Lake as a lacustrine wetland and the sediment basins
above the lake, as well as farm ponds in the watershed, as palustrine wetlands.
There is a small area of wooded wetland and wetland pasture above the south sediment basin as
defined in the 1985, 1990, and 1995 farm bills.
Aquatic Resources. The South Sediment Basin is shallow and turbid. Common carp are present
and contribute to the turbidity. No other information exists on species present. No aquatic
vegetation is present. Buttonbush and willows are the most common shoreline plants present.
Most fishing activity occurs on the main lake. Species present include largemouth bass, bluegill,
crappie, channel catfish, flathead catfish, bullhead, and common carp. No current fish population
survey is on file. Daily harvest limits fall under statewide regulations of 6 bass, 10 channel
catfish, 5 flathead catfish, 30 crappie, and 50 of all other species combined. Fishing methods are
restricted to pole and line only.
Aquatic and shoreline vegetation is sparse in the main lake and is heavily grazed by the resident
Canada goose population. Shoreline trees and shrubs include cottonwood, willow, river birch,
and buttonbush. Aquatic plants present include American pondweed, water primrose, and an
unidentified specie.
Recreational Resources. There is year-round access to the Shelbina Lake via State Highway 15.
The main access to the Shelbina Lake is through the two access roads of the adjacent park. The
reservoir is bordered on the eastern and western sides by the park and campgrounds and on the
western side by the golf course behind the campground. A boat-launching facility exists in the
park near the dam on the northeast side of the lake. A large camping facility composed of a total
of 60 sites, an on-site privy, and well-maintained paved roads exist throughout the park. Boats
are allowed on the lake with a limit of 5 h.p. motors to be operated at idle speeds. Fishing is
allowed on the lake with Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) restrictions applying to
fish taken from the lake as discussed in the Aquatic Resources section.
12
From the earliest days of its construction, the Shelbina Lake has been utilized for recreational
pursuits. Excellent fishing exists within the lake, with reports of some trophy-sized bass occasionally taken. The other main use of the lake is its aesthetic value as it provides a beautiful spot
for both those enjoying the camping facilities on the reservoir shore or the golf course on the hill
above the western edge of the lake.
Economics. While the watershed area of the Shelbina City Lake is not a large area in size, it does
contain one of the major elements in the quality of life equation in the Shelbina community, the
city lake. The Shelbina City Lake is very important to the area for recreational activities and
family outings and gatherings. In addition, the number of campers, fishermen, and golfers that
visit the area bring a significant economic impact for the community. The visual beauty associated with the lake is very important to the continued use of the lake for these purposes. The
attempts of the watershed project to address these issues will help keep the lake beautiful for
years to come.
In addition to the physical enhancements, the control of possible chemical contaminants that
could affect the drinking water quality of the Shelbina area, and the costs associated with processing the water for drinking, could have a significant economic impact on the residents and water
users of Shelbina. If efforts through the watershed project are successful in controlling the
amount of contaminants that run off into the lake and directly lower the cost of processing that
water into drinking water, the City of Shelbina and their water customers will realize the cost
savings. This will help to keep the taxes for city services lower and the cost to the end user of the
processed water less expensive.
Both effects, though seemingly small, over a period of several years will produce a significant
economic benefit to the Shelbina area through the efforts of those associated with the Shelbina
Watershed Project.
13
Government Programs. Following are some of the many local resources that can provide
assistance and resources for planning and management:
Agency Assistance
Concern
Pest Management
Crop Production
Riparian Corridors
Recreation
Fisheries
Wetlands
Agency Assistance
Technical
UOE, NRCS
UOE, NRCS
MDC, NRCS, SWCD, FS
MDC, DNR, CHD
MDC
MDC, FWS, NRCS, COE
Financial
FSA, DNR, SWCD, EPA
FSA, RD
MDC, NRCS, FSA, DNR, EPA
MDC
MDC
MDC, FWS, NRCS, FSA, DNR, EPA
Wildlife Habitat
Nutrient Management
Animal Manure Management
MDC, NRCS, SWCD
UOE, NRCS, DNR, SWCD
UOE, NRCS, DNR, SWCD
MDC
NRCS, FSA
NRCS, FSA, MDA, DNR
Woodland Management
MDC, NRCS, UOE
MDC, FSA, NRCS, DNR
Water Quality Financial Assistance Programs
Program
Environmental Quality
Incentive Program (EQIP)
Soil and Water Conservation
Assistance Program (SWCA)
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
Missouri Conservation Restoration
Enhancement Program (MoCREP)
319 Project Grants
State Cost-Share Incentive Programs
Loan Interest-Share Program
Special Area Land Treatment (SALT)
Forestry Incentive Program (FIP)
Wetland Reserve Program (WRP)
Wetland Heritage Program (WHP)
Habitat Improvement Program (HIP)
Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program
(WHIP)
Open Lands Initiative
Agricultural Loans
Resource, Conservation &
Development Grants
Partners
14
Primary Contact/
Funding Agency
Support Agencies
NRCS/USDA
FSA, SWCD, MDC
NRCS/USDA
FSA/USDA
FSA, SWCD, MDC
NRCS, SWCD, MDC
NRCS/DNR/FSA
DNR/EPA
SWCD/DNR
SWCD/DNR
SWCD/DNR
NRCS/USDA
NRCS/USDA
MDC
FWS
MDC, DNR, NRCS, FSA
SWCD, UOE, NRCS
NRCS, MDC
NRCS
NRCS, UOE, MDC
FSA, MDC, SWCD
MDC, SWCD
NRCS, SWCD
SWCD, NRCS
NRCS
MDC
RD/USDA/MDA
SWCD, NRCS, MDC
NRCS, SWCD, QU
RC&D/various
FWS
NRCS, SWCD, UOE
FWS, MDC, NRCS, SWCD
Agency Acronyms
CHD
COE
DNR
DNR-NERO
EPA
FSA
FWS
MDA
MDC
NRCS
QU
RD
SWCA
SWDC
UOE
County Health Departments
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Missouri Department of Natural Resources-Northeast Regional Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USDA Farm Service Agency
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Missouri Department of Agriculture
Missouri Department of Conservation
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Quails Unlimited
USDA Rural Development (formerly FmHA)
Soil and Water Conservation Assistance Program
Soil & Water Conservation District
University Outreach and Extension
Problems, Concerns, Interests
Public Concerns. In the summer of 1998, initial steps were taken to form a watershed steering
committee for the purposes of preserving the Shelbina City water supply, developing a watershed
management plan, and protecting the Lake and its watershed.
From 1999 through 2001, public meetings were held to identify to identify issues and concerns
related to the Shelbina Lake and watershed. The following is a summary of public input:
CONCERNS
REMARKS
Having Adequate Water Supply
Adequate for demand and growth
Having Affordable Supply
Strive to maintain affordable rates
Non-Point Source Runoff
Town and rural
Nutrient Loading
Concerns about livestock and waterfowl
Erosion/Soil Movement
Silting/sedimentation/accelerated aging
Proximity to Highway 36
Potential for spills, highway runoff, other
contamination
Unnecessary Hardships for Landowners
Increased regulation and expense
Need for Landowner Participation
In all phases of the project (planning,
implementation etc.)
15
RECOMMENDATIONS
Involve Landowners as Much as Possible
Build/Repair Structures Needed to Protect Lake
Install Natural Buffers and Barriers
Encourage Management Practices
Consider Major Renovation
Conduct Education and Activities
Consider Infrastructure Changes
REMARKS
Necessary to ensure success of project
Holding ponds, shoreline stabilization,
(vegetation and rip rap), spillway
maintenance
Grass waterways, buffer strips, riparian
corridors
To lower contaminant levels
Dredge or build new lake
To protect Shelbina Lake and watershed
Improve treatment facilities
See pages 21-24, Public Education, for a description of how identified concerns are being addressed and identification of resources available for future activities and education. Other
activities are described below:
• Local residents and stakeholders were identified to be included in project oversight.
• Local agency representatives were identified to serve as a technical advisory group.
• A grant proposal was developed and submitted to provide operational money to carry out the
following:
➢ A physical assessment of Shelbina Lake and Watershed,
➢ Carry out educational programs,
➢ Create public awareness of the project,
➢ Provide seed money for implementing prevention strategies, and
➢ Develop and print a watershed management plan.
• Updates were held for stakeholders and committee members.
• Landowners and producers were recruited and involved in implementing necessary practices.
• Procedures were established for water fowl management.
• Upgrades were made to the water treatment system for more efficient and effective operation.
• Educational activities were conducted as needed.
• Appreciation events were held to thank participants and stakeholders.
• Development, printing, and distribution of the Shelbina Water Quality Management Plan was
completed.
The Shelbina Lake and Watershed Project is intended to be an on-going effort for the benefit of
the Shelbina Watershed Community.
Soil Erosion & Sedimentation. The Shelbina Lake Watershed is located in Shelby County,
Missouri. The watershed has a drainage area estimated at 1,538 acres or 2.4 square miles. The
reconnaissance investigation suggests that soil losses and sediment delivery to downstream areas
are relatively low, due primarily to gently sloping cultivated land, good land treatment practices,
and low to moderate erosion rates from classical gullies. Some actively degrading and head
cutting classical gullies were noted in the upper ends of the watershed. These are mentioned later
in this report. Shoreline erosion, which is not quantified in this report, was also noted around the
lake.
For the purpose of analysis, the watershed was divided into ten sub-watersheds – eight around the
periphery of the lake with drainage areas between 11 and 45 acres and two with drainage areas of
325 acres (southwest of the lake) and 1,055 acres (south-southeast of the lake.)
16
Periphery Sub-Watersheds: Landuse/landcover for the eight peripheral sub-watersheds (total
drainage area estimated at 158 acres) is almost totally grass (golf course, park settings) and
forestland. Less than 10 acres of cropland was noted in these drainages. These sub-watersheds
produce approximately 300 tons of sediment on an average annual basis from all sources. This
amounts to 1.9 tons per acre per year of soil loss from all erosion sources including sheet-and-rill,
ephemeral gullies, and classical gullies. Seventy-five percent of all sediment produced is derived
from sheet-and-rill erosion, 17% from classical gullies, and 8% from ephemeral gullies. These
sub-watersheds deliver an estimated 230 tons of sediment (0.2 acre-feet) to the lake on an average
annual basis. Eighty-one percent of the delivered sediment is derived from sheet-and-rill erosion,
15% from classical gullies, and 4% from ephemeral gullies.
Southwest Sub-Watershed: Landuse/landcover for the 325-acre southwest sub-watershed is
estimated at 177 acres cropland and 148 acres grass and forestland. Sheet-and-rill erosion
produces nearly 1,300 tons on an average annual basis; about 1,150 tons is from cropland (6.5
tons per acre per year) and 150 tons from grass and forestland (1 ton per acre per year). Classical
gullies produce approximately 400 tons of sediment annually and ephemeral gullies are responsible for 530 tons per year. Total erosion from all sources is 2,230 tons annually with 52%
derived from cropland sheet-and-rill erosion, 6% from grass and forestland sheet-and-rill, 24%
from classical gullies, and 18% from ephemeral gullies. The southwest sub-watershed, on an
average annual basis, delivers approximately 1,300 tons of sediment (1.0 acre-feet) to the lake.
Fifty-nine percent of the delivered sediment is from sheet-and-rill erosion, 23% from classical
gullies, and 18% from ephemeral gullies.
South-Southeast Sub-Watershed: Landuse/landcover for the 1,055-acre south-southeast subwatershed is estimated at 497 acres cropland, 358 acres grass and forestland, and 200 acres urban.
Average annual sheet-and-rill erosion is about 2,850 tons with 2,400 tons derived from cropland
(4.8 tons per acre per year), 350 tons from grass and forestland (1 ton per acre per year), and 100
tons from urban areas (0.5 tons per acre per year). An estimated 1,300 tons of sediment is produced yearly from classical gullies and 450 tons from ephemeral gullies. Total average annual
erosion from all sources is 4,600 tons with 52% produced from cropland sheet-and-rill erosion,
10% from grass and forestland sheet-and-rill, 28% from classical gullies, and 10% from ephemeral erosion. The south-southeast watershed delivers nearly 2,600 tons of sediment to the lake
yearly. Fifty-four percent is derived from sheet-and-rill erosion, 38% from classical gullies, and
8% from ephemeral gullies.
Entire Watershed: Approximately 7,130 tons of sediment from all sources is produced on an
average annual basis within the entire 1,538 acre Shelbina Lake Watershed (4.6 tons per acre per
year). Fifty-one percent is produced from cropland sheet-and-rill erosion, 11% from grass,
forestland, and urban sheet-and-rill, 24% from classical gullies, and 14% from ephemeral gullies.
Cropland sheet-and-rill erosion for the entire watershed is estimated at 5.3 tons per acre per year.
Of this total, an estimated 4,130 tons (3.2 acre-feet) are delivered to and deposited within
Shelbina Lake. Fifty-seven percent of the delivered sediments are derived from sheet-and-rill
erosion, 32% from classical gullies, and 11% form ephemeral gullies.
The amount of sedimentation that has occurred represents a potentially serious future problem.
Water storage capacity has obviously been diminished. Nutrient recycling is probably another
adverse impact of the sedimentation. Shallow reservoirs typically recycle more nutrients (larger
internal nutrient load) than deeper reservoirs. Therefore, the amount of sedimentation is probably
17
one major factor impacting the reservoir’s water quality.
Erosion occurs at several locations along the Shelbina Lake shoreline. MEC estimated shoreline
erosion while conducting the bathymetric survey. While this erosion is unsightly and very
noticeable, it represents an insignificant amount of the total sedimentation into the reservoir. The
estimated total quantity of shoreline erosion is 730 cubic yards of sediment. Approximately 3,425
feet of shoreline has been impacted. The shoreline erosion is most prevalent on the shoreline
opposite the prevailing wind direction and is probably due to wave action against the relatively
unvegetated banks.
Opportunities
Opportunities exist, through the implementation of additional best management practices and land
treatment measures, to further reduce erosion and sedimentation within the Shelbina Lake Watershed.
Water Quality. The Shelbina Lake and Watershed Water Quality Assessment used several
sources of data as they assembled a water quality database for Shelbina Lake. The data set,
extending from 1989 to the present, represents a valuable resource for interpreting the lake
processes and the water quality status of Shelbina Lake. While a large amount of water quality
data is available, the data set is not complete enough to conclusively assess some aspects of lake
function and water quality.
The University of Missouri-Columbia (UMC) Fisheries and Wildlife Department has collected
water quality data at the Shelbina Lake for several years since 1989. These efforts included three
to four lake sampling events per summer season for several water quality parameters, including
total nitrogen, total phosphorus, chlorophyll, volatile and non-volatile suspended solids, clarity
(Secchi depth), and dissolved oxygen
The City of Shelbina Water Treatment Plant has collected daily raw water (Shelbina Lake) quality
data for numerous years. Parameters include pH, alkalinity, iron, and manganese, as well as
rainfall. MDNR and Novartis Crop Protection have also collected raw water quality data for
parameters including total organic carbon and synthetic organic compounds (SOCs) such as
atrazine, trihalomethanes, and haloacetic acids.
The water quality data available shows that Shelbina Lake is one of the most productive reservoirs in the region and Northern Missouri. Levels of nutrients and chlorophyll (a measure of
algal biomass) were approximately 1.5-2.7 times higher than the average for Northern Missouri
reservoirs, meaning that it typically contains sufficient nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) to
support large populations of algae. This adversely impacts the reservoir’s primary use as a
drinking water supply, as evidenced by the high levels of disinfection by-products that have been
observed in the City’s finished drinking water.
Rainfall and Runoff: Rainfall and the runoff produced from precipitation events are very
important for interpreting lake water quality data since runoff events typically account for the
majority of the nutrient input into a reservoir. Average annual runoff for the Shelbina area is 11.2
inches per year
18
The minimum runoff was 1.3 inches (1989) and maximum runoff recorded was 30.6 inches
(1993). These wide variations complicate the interpretation of the water quality data since they
probably represent wide variations in nutrient inputs into the reservoir.
Turbidity, Suspended Solids, and Transparency: Turbidity, a measure of the light absorption
within a water sample, ranged from 4 to 112 NTU. These are typical within Northern Missouri
reservoirs. Turbidity typically tracked rainfall events since these events typically contain relatively high concentrations of light absorbing sediments. Some events, mostly in the summer, did
not cause turbidity increases probably due to plunging of cool runoff water into the cooler hypolimnion of the reservoir.
Iron and Manganese: Iron and manganese are important metals relative to drinking water
sources due to the associated taste and odor problems. Iron and manganese concentrations that
reportedly cause taste and problems are 0.3 and 0.05 mg/L, respectively. Iron concentrations
varied from 0.07 to 1.32 mg/L during the last two years, while manganese varied from 0.15 to
1.88 mg/L. Figure 2 illustrates the iron and manganese data as well as their relationship to
turbidity. Peaks in iron concentration are related to high levels of turbidity. This is probably due
to iron concentrations present within the suspended sediment that is inputted during runoff events.
These data show isolated peaks in manganese concentrations that are not associated with turbidity, particularly in 1999. These may represent mixing events, again pointing to the reservoir’s
polymictic state. Both iron and manganese are solubilized from lake sediments during
hypolimnetic anoxia (low dissolved oxygen levels near the lake bottom). These may then be
released to the surface during mixing events in the summer.
Nutrients: Phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations are key elements regulating lake fertility
(Jones and Bachmann, 1976). Nutrients promote the growth of suspended algae in surface water
and thereby decrease water clarity and the value of lake water for most human uses. Shelbina
Lake is very productive, meaning that it typically contains sufficient nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus) to support large populations of algae. While this can, to a point, support larger
fisheries, this is a disadvantage to its use as a drinking water supply. Higher concentrations of
algae can cause taste and odor problems and increase total organic carbon concentration which in
turn can cause elevated levels of disinfection by-products.
Nutrient levels are relatively high, with average phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations of 108
and 1,130 micrograms per liter (ug/L). The levels appear to be relatively constant, with early
variations in the data set probably caused by widely varying runoff. Nutrients appear to control
algal populations as measured by chlorophyll. Figure 3 illustrates these nutrient and chlorophyll
data from 1989 to 1998.
Algal Biomass: Algal biomass, measured as chlorophyll, ranged from 7 to 62 ug/L. Chlorophyll
is a pigment utilized by algae for photosynthesis and therefore may be used as a measurement of
algal biomass. This also suggests that its use as a water supply may be subject to taste and odor
problems and the formation of disinfection by-products.
Volatile suspended solids and total suspended solids appeared to be directly related to chlorophyll. This means algal biomass accounts for the majority of organic materials and total suspended solids. Chlorophyll levels were 2.7 times greater than the average for Northern Missouri
reservoirs. This is due to the high levels of nutrients observed in the reservoir.
19
Synthetic Organic Compounds (SOCs): Atrazine is a common SOC of concern in Northern
Missouri drinking water supplies. The Novartis and MDNR data show that atrazine levels within
the reservoir have not reached levels of concern. The maximum contaminant level (MCL)
imposed by the Safe Drinking Water Act for atrazine (3 ug/L) has never been exceeded as suggested by these data (see Figure 4) due to municipal water treatment practices.
Disinfection by-products (DBP) are the primary SOCs of concern for the City of Shelbina’s
finished drinking water. These compounds are formed when a disinfectant reacts with various
water constituents, in this case chlorine with natural organic matter. These compounds include
trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids. The levels found in the Shelbina drinking water at times
exceed the MCLs (individually, not on an annual average basis) that will be phased in to apply to
this utility in January 1, 2004. Since algae and their by-products most likely are the primary
forms of organic matter in the reservoir, as demonstrated by the volatile suspended solids (VSS)
and chlorophyll data, a reduction in algae should reduce the lake total organic carbon (TOC).
Public Water Supply System. The current water supply for the City of Shelbina’s is the
Shelbina Lake, a surface water reservoir. The City also uses the North Fork of Salt River as a
back up resource to keep the lake at full pool during times of low rainfall or high usage. Figure 5
illustrates the North Fork drainage basin above Shelbina’s intake.
The current water plant is rated at 1 million gallons/day (MGD). The treatment process is operated at 600 gallons/minute for approximately 7-9 hours per day, producing an average daily
output of 275,000-325,000 gallons per day.
Shelbina City Lake and Water Plant: The following information describes the lake size and
capacity of the water supply system:
Shelbina Lake – Surface acres - 55
Length of Lake – 2,640 feet
Width of Lake – 1,210 feet
Average Depth – 8 feet
Spillway height – 715 feet above sea level
20
Shelbina Lake Raw Water Pumps – 600 gallons/minute
River Raw Water Pumps – 300 gallons/minute
1. 1-Upflow Clarifier Unit – 114,945 gallons
2. 4-Secondary Floculators – 18,700 gallons each
3. 2-Secondary Settling Basins – 92,565 gallons each
4. 1-Clearwell – 82,000 gallons
5. 2-Upright water towers –North tower – 200,000 gallons, East tower – 100,000 gallons
Water Treatment Process: The treatment plan uses various chemicals and plant technologies
with the plan design to treat raw water coming from the Shelbina Lake to a finished product
coming from the consumer tap. The treatment processes are done in the following stages:
1. Raw water is pumped from Shelbina Lake to the water plant. Potassium Permanganate is
added at raw water pump houses for organic removal.
2. Raw water then enters the slow mix chamber in the upflow clarifier where the primary
coagulation chemicals are added.
a. Poly aluminum chloride – coagulation of particulate matter
b. Powdered activated carbon for removal of TOC’s and SOC’s
c. Lime is also added when needed for pH and alkalinity control
3. Water then goes to secondary floculator rapid mix where lime is added for PH & alkalinity control. From rapid mix boxes the water enters secondary slow mix where CO2 is
added to stabilize the water. Also, add chlorine (C12) at this point for bacterial growth
purposes.
4. Water enters the 2-secondary settling basins where the treatment process has time to settle
before entering the 3 Dual Media Filters which is at the last stage of treatment.
5. After the water passes through the filters C12 is added again as water goes into the
Clearwell for disinfectant purposes. The water is then pumped from the Clearwell to the
distribution system and water towers as needed.
6. The 3 filters are washed every 40 hours or more frequently if needed.
Impoundment Conditions. The Shelbina Lake does not appear to be unique either in terms of
utility or its vulnerability to water quality deterioration and quantity depletion. Indeed, its uses
are probably very typical of lake water systems in similar regions of the Midwestern United
States. Still, adjacent lakes cannot conveniently or economically supplant the need for the
Shelbina Lake. Pipelining and pumping of water supply over long distances is costly. Most
municipal water utilities use water found in close proximity to their treatment, storage, and
distribution facilities. In addition, increased travel distance is a strong deterrent to opportunistic
recreational use of lakes. In other words, while not unique in character, the proximity of the
Shelbina Lake to the regional population center makes it a most valuable resource.
Public Education. Like most water sources in Northeast Missouri, Shelbina Lake is fed by
surface water runoff. This source water is vulnerable to nonpoint source (NPS) pollution from all
the activities taking place in the Shelbina Lake watershed.
The following section addresses the public concerns shown on pages 15 and 16 and suggests
ways these can be dealt with through existing channels of information, education and technical
outreach.
These concerns and management strategies are similar to those expressed in watershed management efforts throughout north Missouri. In order to maximize the use of existing resources, the
21
problems, concerns, and interests (see Public Concerns on page 15) are grouped into action areas
with suggested audiences, educational opportunities, and resources for implementing action
plans.
Three main areas of concern were expressed at public meetings. These could be grouped as need
for the following: an adequate and affordable water supply (management of water resources),
erosion and runoff of sediment and nutrients (management of natural resources), and on-going
public education and involvement (community awareness and action).
Concern I: Management of Water Resources: Included in this area are such things as the
adequacy, affordability and safety of supply, structural condition of the Shelbina Lake, and
adequacy of water-treatment facilities. Major goals in this action area are to protect supplies and
minimize water-treatment costs and to achieve cost-effective delivery of water supplies to the
customer.
Target Audiences: These problems are of concern to city and county officials, homeowners,
landowners and managers, agricultural producers, the real-estate community, regulators, agriculture/conservation/health-related professionals, and water-treatment operators. These concerns
also appear to be immediate interest to the Chamber of Commerce, developers, planners, health/
public officials, and water suppliers.
Educational Opportunities: Information on the dimensions and impact of these problems can be
presented in a variety of ways: continuing education/certification courses, demonstrations,
exhibits, media releases, water-testing, and tours of supply and treatment facilities.
Resources: Assistance and support is available from the following:
Information/Education Outreach
Shelbina Water Department (SWD),
Mark Twain Water Quality Initiative (MTWQI),
Missouri Department of Natural Resources-Northeast
District Office (DNR-NERO), North Fork Project,
Missouri Rural Water Association (MRWA),
University Outreach and Extension (UOE)
Regulatory Compliance and
Human Health Education
Northeastern District/Missouri Department
of Health (DOH), DNR-NERO, Health Educators,
UOE
Planning/Resource Development
Mark Twain Regional Council of Governments
(MTRCOG), North Fork Project, UOE, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE), others
Recommendations related to structural changes to the lake and/or treatment facilities would
require professional counsel to determine feasibility and public input for decision making on
expenditure of funds. Many of the resources above would apply to these problems as well.
Alternative Water Supplies
22
Clarence Cannon Wholesale Water Commission,
(CCWWC), COE, DOH, UOE, and NRCS
(engineering),and/or private engineering consultants
Lake Management
COE, MDC, SWD, public officials
Tourism Promotion
Chamber of Commerce, local officials, local
business and industry
Planning/Resource Development
MTRCOG, North Fork Project, UOE, others
Concern II: Management of Natural Resources: This area focuses on management of the
natural resource base as it affects the capacity of the lake and the quality of the water. The desired
outcomes of this action area are to improve land treatment and protect the integrity of the lake.
Because agriculture and recreation each have a vital role in the local economy, there is a major
concern that this action area deal with ways to maximize agricultural productivity and recreational opportunities while minimizing environmental risks.
Target Audiences: Audiences who might be targeted are: agricultural producers, local business
and industry, developers, homeowners, landowners, tourists and the public at large.
Educational Opportunities: These problems call for recommendations/information on management strategies and technical practices. Checklists, assessments, demonstrations, workshops,
tours and other hands-on opportunities could be provided by a number of resource agencies.
Pollution from Surface Water Runoff
SWD, MTWQI, NRCS, Soil and Water Conservation
Districts (SWCDs), Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), Highway departments (DOT),
UOE, Solid Waste Districts
Water Contamination by Wildlife
MDC, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
Environmental Assessment
North Fork Project, UOE (Farm*A*Syst,
Home*a*Syst), continuing education for realestate professionals
Conservation Practices
MTWQI, NRCS and UOE (IPM/ICM, managed
grazing, tillage practices, precision farming, manure
management, Agroforestry etc.)
Solid Waste Management
MO-AG Industries (pesticide container recycling),
North Fork Project, UOE (cleaning up farm dumps,
carcass composting, managing household hazardous
waste, recycling education), Solid Waste Districts
(recycling)
Concern III: Community Awareness and Action: Those involved in this planning process
stressed the need for landowner involvement and continuing education and activities. The overall
goal is to improve public knowledge of water-quality concerns and measures; the course of action
should focus on improving water and land treatment through education and cost-effective management strategies with an emphasis on voluntary action.
Target audiences: Public involvement can be encouraged through public meetings and also by
23
providing opportunities and training for those involved in leadership and teaching roles.
Educational opportunities: The media can be used to raise the general level of awareness of the
problems in the target watershed. Other opportunities include exhibits, events such as community
or county fairs, lake days, and a local watershed committee.
Resources: Informational and technical assistance is available from the following:
Information/Education Outreach
Local media, SWD, MTWQI, North Fork Project,
DNR-NERO, SWCDs, schools, UOE
Resource Development
MTRCOG, North Fork Project, UOE
Watershed Management and
Community Action
SWD, CCWWC, NRCS, NCWD, North Fork Project,
SWCDs, UOE
Watershed Description & Planning
NRCS, SWCDs, UOE
Watershed Regulation
SWD, MDC, DNR-NERO, COE
Planned Future Conditions-Goals
•
•
•
•
Maintain Shelbina Lake as the primary drinking water supply for the City of Shelbina
Continue periodic upgrades to minimize water treatment costs
Continue to encourage use of BMPs in the watershed
Promote public awareness about the lake as Shelbina’s drinking water supply
24
Alternatives
Several watershed and lake restoration alternatives were evaluated to enhance water quality.
Most in-lake restoration attempts are unsuccessful if external nutrient loading is not reduced.
Therefore, any watershed management efforts to reduce nutrient and sediment inflow are recommended. The majority of land uses appeared to be typical for Northern Missouri watersheds and
only minor problems are apparent within the watershed. The agricultural row crop production
appears to be well managed as evidenced by the low concentrations of herbicides. However, like
many watersheds, there is always room for improvement. The water quality impacts of wildlife,
primarily Canada geese, appear to be potentially significant and warrant control. Efforts to
address shoreline erosion would improve aesthetics and prevent worsening of the problem. Also,
efforts should be made to reduce internal return of nutrients into the water column from the
sediments. With respect to internal loading, lake management techniques may be employed to
beneficially impact water quality.
Several recommendations are put forth to improve the water quality of Shelbina Lake. The
priority of these recommendations should be based on the potential for water quality improvements, ease of incorporation, and relative cost-effectiveness. The following is the prioritized list
of recommendations:
Control of the resident and migratory Canada goose populations: The nutrients and
microbiological impacts by the Canada goose populations are probably the easiest and most
cost-effective to control. Special hunts are recommended to drive migratory flocks from the
reservoir. MDC and USDA should be consulted regarding this control measure.
Track future land uses that may impact water quality: Activities to avoid water quality
impacts by future land uses are also relatively inexpensive and will require a fairly proactive
approach by the City. The City should be involved with the water-pollution permitting
process for future highway projects. The City should also carefully observe the project to
ensure that construction site Best Management Practices (BMPs) are rigorously followed.
25
Implement voluntary BMPs to address erosion and nutrient runoff: Although few
significant areas for BMP implementation were observed by NRCS and MEC, voluntary
implementation of BMPs should be pursued where applicable. These most likely include
stabilization of erosion areas and installation of additional grassed waterways and field
borders. These should be relatively inexpensive since the Missouri State Cost Share Program, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and Wetlands Incentive Program (WIP) are
available for these measures. Additionally, the Missouri Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (MOCREP) may be very attractive since it is tailored to small drinking water
supply watersheds.
Address shoreline erosion: Shoreline erosion should be addressed by placement of
stabilization materials, such as riprap and shoreline vegetation. Stabilization materials
should be used in certain areas to provide bank-fishing access. Aquatic vegetation should be
implemented in other areas to provide additional habitat and since it should be relatively
cost-effective.
Install and implement artificial destratification: Destratification of the reservoir may
result in the largest reduction of algae when compared to any of the recommendations.
However, it will be more costly than any of the other recommendations. This lake management method could reduce nutrient levels by reducing the recycling of nutrients within the
lake. More importantly for Shelbina Lake, mixing the cells deeper within the lake and
inducing light limitations may reduce algae. However, there is a risk of causing adverse
water quality conditions and this recommendation should be studied more thoroughly
(probably with pilot testing) prior to implementation.
26
Water Quality Practices
Water quality practices used in the Shelbina Lake and Shelbina Lake Watershed will help in
erosion control, sedimentation control, organic loading, and nutrient loading of the Shelbina
Lake. Each of these practices will help individually but when all are combined they can and will
have a much greater effect on the watershed and the Shelbina Lake. All of these practices are
voluntary with great landowner participation.
Best Management Practices for Various Land Uses. Efforts should be made to reduce soil
erosion and nutrient runoff from the landscape. Several BMPs are available that apply to the
watershed’s three main land uses: row crop production, pastures, and the adjacent golf course.
The following are potential BMPs for the Shelbina Lake watershed that should be reviewed by
the watershed landowners and local experts, such as NRCS and University Extension. The
implementation of these BMPs should be voluntary and significant State and Federal funding is
available for their adoption.
Row Crop Production: The row crop production within the Shelbina Lake watershed consists
primarily of soybeans, corn, and milo. The majority of these fields were observed by NRCS and
MEC. Several BMPs are already being implemented in the watershed; however, like any watershed, there is always room for improvement. The following BMPs are listed within their applicable category, such as planting, control structures and chemical use.
❑
Planting
Conservation Tillage & No-Till: Conservation tillage is any tillage and planting system in
which at least 30 percent of the soil surface is covered by plant residue after planting. Notill is a planting system where soil is undisturbed except for planting and fertilizer application. Surface residue helps slow water runoff and increases infiltration, reducing total water
runoff and sediment runoff. This is especially true for no-till, which leaves maximum crop
residue on the soil surface. No-Till works well for soybeans, but problems have occurred
with its use for corn production in this region, primarily due to inadequate stand development.
Contour Cropping and Contour Strip Cropping: Contour Cropping and Contour Strip
Cropping involves preparing, planting, and cultivating land on contour, cross-slope, without
significant grade between rows. Contour Strip Cropping involves alternating strips of row
crop with grass strips and/or rows of trees or shrubs in an agroforestry setting. Contour
cropping and contour strip cropping not only reduce the water runoff from fields, but also
herbicide and pesticide runoff, reducing soil erosion by as much as 40 to 60 percent compared to rows planted up and down the slope.
Cover Crops: Cover crops consist of grasses, legumes, or small grains grown primarily to
cover the soil at times when major row crops cannot protect the soil, such as during the
winter months after the harvest of the major crops. Cover crops not only reduce erosion, but
also improve soil infiltration, aeration, tilth, and provide some control against weeds. Cover
crops can be planted immediately after harvest of major crops or sown into standing crops
during the latter periods of the major crop’s life cycle.
Crop Rotation: Row crop rotations have been proven to be a very economical form of crop
management. By rotating the type of crops grown in a field from year to year, the amount
27
of insect and disease problems greatly diminishes. Rotations that include growing a legume
such as soybeans or alfalfa the year following a corn or milo crop can actually increase soil
fertility and reduce the amount of nitrogen fertilizer to be applied to the field.
❑
Control Structures
Dams: Dams include many types of diversionary structures designed to slow or stop the
flow of water through an area. Dams can eliminate gully erosion, trap sediment and pesticides, provide water for livestock, and provide habitat for wildlife. The construction of
dams in the upper watershed of a drinking water lake is one direct method of reducing the
sedimentation of the lake, as well as the inflow of pesticides.
Filter Strips: Filter strips are composed of buffer strips, riparian areas, as well as setbacks.
These structures are composed of permanent, usually woody, vegetation that protects a
surface water body or drainage stream. Filter strips work by distributing water flowing from
a field over a wide area of vegetation, allowing some filtration into the soil, as well as
slowing the flow of the water, and allowing sediment to drop out. Filter strips along
streams, called riparian areas or corridors, provide needed stream bank protection, water
quality enhancement, wildlife habitat, and forestry income. The Shelbina Lake watershed
includes excellent riparian zones along the major drainage ways.
Grassed Field Borders & Waterways: Grassed field borders and waterways benefit water
quality by reducing gully erosion, filtering heavy sediments, and removing land from
production that typically yields large amounts of fertilizer runoff. Grassed waterways are
used as outlets for terraces or to prevent the formation of gullies by moving concentrated
water to a wider, grassed area where sediment may be filtered. Grassed field borders
provide a filtering strip around a field to trap sediment that may be eroded through sheet and
rill erosion, as well as through small, ephemeral gully erosion. Grassed field borders work
very well during small rain events when erosion is minimal.
For the Shelbina Lake watershed, incorporating more grassed field borders and grassed
waterways would likely be the most beneficial in slowing erosion. A planting scheme
currently being developed and encouraged by NRCS, University of Missouri, and MDC
includes the use of stiff-stemmed grasses in these waterways. Stiff-stemmed grasses, such
28
as switch grass and Indian grass, tend to trap more sediment during a runoff event. In
comparison to fescue, the stiff-stemmed grasses do not lay flat when large amounts of water
run through them, thereby slowing the progress of the water and allowing sediment to
become lodged among the grass stems.
Terraces: Terraces are one of the most widely used and efficient methods of erosion control
currently practiced. Terraces provide a multitude of functions including: reduction of
downhill surface flow of water to a controlled waterway, collection of sediment from sheet
and rill erosion, prevention of gullies, and retention of moisture. Terraces should follow the
contours of the land as closely as possible and should drain into a controlled area, such as a
grassed waterway, or even a pond.
Wetland Development: The use of wetlands to limit erosion is only one of their many
functions. Wetlands also reduce flooding, reduce nutrient and pesticide runoff through
various biochemical processes by plants and microorganisms inhabiting the wetland, and
filter out sediment. Wetlands provide excellent fish and wildlife habitat. Many wetland
plants are known for their ability to survive under the most harsh water conditions, and
wetlands are also used as filters of heavily polluted water. Wetlands can be constructed
similarly to ponds, but must stay approximately 18 inches deep, or less, for the vegetation to
survive.
❑
Chemical Use
Anti-Back siphoning Devices: Back siphoning occurs when filling sprayer tanks. The hose
filling the tank with water is left in the tank after the flow of water has been turned off
causing the liquid inside the tank to then begin siphoning back into the hose. This can lead
to the contamination of a water supply. Anti-back siphoning devices are relatively cheap
and easy to install. Check valves are one of the most common devices used and can be
installed on water hydrants and pumping equipment.
Crop Scouting & Soil Testing: Soil testing and crop scouting for crop type and nutrient
needs are some of the most economical and environmentally sound practices today. By
29
conducting soil tests, and measuring the soil composition and nutrient availability, the most
economical amount of nutrient fertilizers may be applied to give an optimum yield. Crop
Scouting is carried out in much the same way with factors such as soil composition, nutrient
availability, and topography considered before planting. This allows selection of the most
economical and productive planting choices. Companies, such as MFA and Farmland, and
organizations, such as University Extension, provide services to perform soil testing and
give recommendations for future planting, fertilization, or soil treatment. This initial
expenditure saves valuable time, and possibly a lot of money, in future growing seasons.
Pesticide/Herbicide Container Disposal: Pesticides play a large part in the pollution of
waters. Many common pesticides, in certain amounts, are toxic to people. Therefore, it is
important that the containers be properly rinsed and disposed of properly. The most important thing to do is to triple rinse the pesticide containers. This should be done while mixing
the pesticides into the sprayer.
Pesticide/Herbicide Selection and Application: The selection of a proper herbicide,
pesticide, or mixture plays a major economic and pollution role on farms. By selecting the
proper chemical applications, a minimal amount of chemicals can be used on crops, yielding
higher returns. Also, the method of application, such as herbicide incorporation, has shown
promising results with respect to minimizing herbicide runoff. Very promising water quality
and agricultural results have been achieved in Northeastern Missouri through crop scouting
and alternative pesticide programs. The Monroe City Route J Project managed by NRCS
has been a success story and the results could be applied to the Shelbina Lake watershed.
Sprayer Calibration: Sprayer calibration is both economically and environmentally important. By properly calibrating your sprayer, the correct amount of chemicals may be applied.
Miscalibration of a sprayer can lead to higher herbicide/pesticide costs, as well as an
increased chance of pollution of a water body.
❑
Pasture and Livestock Production
A significant portion of the watershed is in a pastureland use. Livestock production is present;
however, it is not as prevalent as in many Northern Missouri watersheds. No BMPs are recommended solely for pastures since they typically yield low quantities of nutrients and suspended
solids. The following BMPs may be potentially applicable in pastures in which livestock production is practiced.
❑
Limited Stream and Drainage Way Access
An implication of watershed management in livestock production is the degradation of streams
due to the presence of livestock. When allowed to enter a riparian area or the stream itself,
livestock destroy vegetation that is essential to maintain stream bank stability. By fencing
livestock from streams, vegetation is allowed to grow undisturbed. There is funding available
through the MDC to assist in the cost of constructing fences to keep livestock out of streams.
❑
Woodland Protection
Woodlots can also play a major role in the stability of a watershed. Few ecosystems can limit the
eroding potential of water like a healthy woodlot. A healthy woodlot consists of a diversity of
plant life, with both living and decaying wood materials. When livestock are allowed into a
woodlot, there is a tendency for the livestock to heavily graze or browse the younger and smaller
30
plants found near the ground and to compact the soil. When heavy livestock loading occurs, a
browse line may become visible on the older trees. These things limit the effectiveness with
which a woodlot can function to slow the progress of water in times of rain. By restricting the
livestock from the woodlot, this can be avoided and the woodlot will be allowed to function to its
full potential. Similar to the aforementioned stream fencing, funding is also available for fencing
woodlots, also through the MDC.
❑
Golf Course
The Shelbina Country Club currently utilizes several BMPs that are applicable to golf courses.
These include use of slow-release fertilizers, light irrigation after fertilization, fertilizer timing
with respect to forecasted rainfall, and relatively low fertilizer rates. Pesticides also appear to be
well managed.
Action Plan-Scheduled Activities
See page 6 for the schedule of practices and the implementation timeline.
31
Glossary
Best management practices (BMP) — Agricultural water conservation measures that generally
meet one of two criteria: (1) Constitutes an established and generally accepted practice among
water purveyors that provides for the more efficient use of existing water supplies or contributes
towards the conservation of water; or (2) Practices which provide sufficient data to clearly
indicate their value, are technically and economically reasonable, environmentally and socially
acceptable, reasonably capable of being implemented by water purveyors and users, and for
which significant conservation or conservation-related benefits can be achieved.
Buffer strips — Strips of grass or other erosion-resisting vegetation between or below cultivated
strips or fields used to remove sediment, organic matter, and other pollutants from runoff and
wastewater. Also referred to as buffer zones or filter strips.
Calibration — Fine tuning of an instrument to meet a specific standard value. This helps to
ensure data accuracy.
Carcinogenic — That which tends to produce or incite cancer
Classical Gully – Concentrated flow channels greater than one foot in depth with little or no
vegetation.
Clay pan — (1) A dense, compact layer in the subsoil having much higher clay content than the
overlying material from which it is separated by a sharply defined boundary. Such layers are
formed by the downward movement of clay or by synthesis of clay in place during soil formation.
Clay pans are usually hard when dry, and plastic and sticky when wet. They usually impede
movement of water and air, and the growth of plant roots.
Community — People living within the same district, city, etc., under the same laws
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) – Typically defined as having 1,000 cattle
or comparable “animal units” of other livestock.
Conservation—(1) Increasing the efficiency of energy use, water use, production, or distribution.
(2) The careful and organized management and use of natural resource, for example, the controlled use and systematic protection of natural resources, such as forests, soil, and water systems
in accordance with principles that assure their optimum long-term economic and social benefits.
Also, preservation of such resources from loss, damage, or neglect.
Cryptosporidium parvum—A parasite often found in the intestines of livestock that contaminates
water when the animal feces interact with a water source. In healthy individuals, infection may
result in an acute diarrheal illness lasting for 2-3 weeks. In immuno-suppressed individuals (e.g.,
AIDs patients, children, elderly), Cryptosporidiosis, the disease from infection by the parasite,
may be life-threatening. While much needs to be learned about the infectious level of crypto,
studies have indicated that it takes five to ten cysts to make someone sick. Of particular concern
to health officials and public drinking water supplies is that the most widely used agent to disinfect tap water—chlorine—does not kill the parasite. As an additional complication in the detection process, there are several varieties of crypto, but only one—Cryptosporidium parvum—is
infectious to humans. Currently, the only effective treatment for water supplies is through filtration (crypto oocysts are only 3 to 7 microns in size) and the use of ozone gas rather than chlorine.
Degradation —The general lowering of the earth’s surface by erosive processes, such as scouring by flowing water. The removal of channel bed materials and down cutting of natural stream
channels. Such erosion may initiate degradation of tributary channels, causing damage similar to
that due to gully erosion and valley trenching.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 604(b) Grant — Every year under Section 604(b) of
the Clean Water Act, the state queries the regional public comprehensive planning agencies
32
(RPCPAs) and interstate organizations (IOs) for water quality management planning.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) — Established in the 1996 Farm Bill to
provide a voluntary conservation program for farmers and ranchers who face serious threats to
soil, water, and related natural resources. Nationally, it provides technical, financial, and educational assistance primarily in designated priority areas; half of the money is targeted to livestockrelated natural resource concerns and the remainder to other significant conservation priorities.
Ephemeral Gully - Small erosional channels formed on crop fields as a result of concentrated
flow of runoff water. These channels are routinely eliminated by tillage of the field but return
following subsequent runoff events.
Erosion — The wearing away of the land surface by wind, water, ice or other geologic agents.
Erosion occurs naturally from weather or runoff but is often intensified by human land use
practices.
Eutrophication — The process of enrichment of water bodies by nutrients. Degrees of eutrophication typically range from Oligotrophic water (maximum transparency, minimum chlorophyll-a,
minimum phosphorus) through Mesotrophic, Eutrophic, to Hypereutrophic water (minimum
transparency, maximum chlorophyll-a, maximum phosphorus). Eutrophication of a lake normally
contributes to its slow evolution into a bog or marsh and ultimately to dry land. Eutrophication
may be accelerated by human activities and thereby speed up the aging process.
Floodplain — (1) A strip of relatively smooth land bordering a stream, built of sediment carried
by the stream and dropped in the slack water beyond the influence of the swiftest current. It is
called a Living Flood Plain if it is overflowed in times of high water but a Fossil Flood Plain if it
is beyond the reach of the highest flood. (2) The lowland that borders a stream or river, usually
dry but subject to flooding. (3) That land outside of a stream channel described by the perimeter
of the Maximum Probable Flood. Also referred to as a Flood-Prone Area.
Giardia lamblia - A microorganism frequently found in rivers and lakes, which, if not treated
properly, may cause diarrhea, fatigue, and cramps after ingestion.
Global Positioning System (GPS) — A system, which verifies latitude and longitude of a
location on the ground through the use of a transmitter and a remote (satellite) vehicle
Habitat — The native environment or specific surroundings where a plant or animal naturally
grows or lives. The surroundings include physical factors such as temperature, moisture, and light
together with biological factors such as the presence of food or predator organisms. The term can
be employed to define surroundings on almost any scale from marine habitat, which encompasses
the oceans, to microhabitat in a hair follicle of the skin.
Holistic — Emphasizes the importance of community activities as a whole (people, animals,
plants, plus related environmental, social and economic components).
Hypereutrophic – A general classification of lakes, which have extremely high levels of nutrients and support algal populations large enough to inhibit many uses. These lakes have seasonal
deficiencies in oxygen.
Hypolimnion – The bottom layer of a stratified lake, consisting of cooler water. In productive
lakes this layer will often become anoxic during the summer.
Impaired water bodies — Waters for which existing required pollution controls are not stringent
enough to implement state water quality standards. For these waters, states are required to establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) according to a priority ranking. The waters listed below
are not expected to attain water quality standards through the implementation of any currently
required pollution control technology.
Inorganic — All chemical compounds in nature except the compounds of carbon, but including
the carbonates.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) — The practice of combining the best of all available
techniques – biological, chemical, cultural, physical, and mechanical – into a custom-made pest
33
control system
Irrigation — The controlled application of water for agricultural purposes through man-made
systems to supply water requirements not satisfied by rainfall.
Lacustrine – Wetlands formed in lakes and ponds.
Loess (soil) — A fine-grained, yellowish-brown, extremely fertile loam deposited mainly by the
wind and found widely in North America, Asia, and Europe. Such soils are highly susceptible to
water erosion
Macroinvertebrate — Invertebrates visible to the naked eye, such as insect larvae and crayfish
Microbial load — The total number of bacteria and fungi in a given quantity of water or soil or
on the surface of food. The presence of the bacteria and fungi may not be related to the presence
of disease-causing organisms
Missouri Conservation Assistance Guide — A compilation of natural resource conservation
programs and practices, technical, financial, informational and educational assistance, available
agency resources and contact information. The guide is a joint effort by Missouri Department of
Agriculture, Missouri Department of Conservation, Department of Natural Resources, University
Outreach & Extension, United States department of Agriculture and the Missouri Association of
Soil and Water Conservation Districts under the leadership of The Missouri Watershed Information Network
Missouri CREP – CREP (pronounced “krep”) is a federal and state partnership agreement to
retire environmentally sensitive land through the CRP. MoCREP involves protection of water
supplies of 83 reservoirs that provide water for 58 public water supplies. Improving water quality
will reduce the need for more costly treatment systems.
Nonpoint source (NPS) — Pollution sources which are diffuse and do not have a single point of
origin or are not introduced into a receiving stream from a specific outlet. The pollutants are
generally carried off the land by stormwater runoff. The commonly used categories for non-point
sources are: agriculture. Forestry, urban, mining, construction, dams and channels, land disposal,
and saltwater intrusion.
Novartis – A major Agri-chemical supplier; one of the major producers of Atrazine.
NTU – Nephelometric Turbitity Unit
Outreach — An organized effort to extend services beyond the usual limits – to particular
segments of a community
Palustrine – All non-tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent
mosses or lichens.
Permeability — For a rock or an earth material, the ability to transmit fluids; the rate at which
liquids pass through soil or other materials in a specified direction. It is measured by the rate at
which a fluid of standard viscosity can move through a material in a given interval of time under
a given Hydraulic Gradient. Permeability for underground water is sometimes expressed numerically as the number of gallons per day that will flow through a cross section of 1 square foot, at
60°F, under a hydraulic gradient of 100 percent. Permeability is equal to velocity of flow divided
by hydraulic gradient
Pollution — Generally, the presence of matter or energy whose nature, location or quantity
produces undesired environmental effects. Under the Clean Water Act, for example, the term is
defined as the man-made or man-induced alteration of the physical, biological, and radiological
integrity of water.
Potable water — Water that is drinkable. Specifically, freshwater that generally meets the
standards in quality as established in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Drinking
Water Standards for drinking water throughout the United States. Potable water is considered safe
for human consumption and is often referred to as Drinking Water.
Precipitation — As used in hydrology, precipitation is the discharge of water, in liquid or solid
34
state, from the atmosphere, generally onto a land or water surface. It is the common process by
which atmospheric water becomes surface or subsurface water. The term “precipitation” is also
commonly used to designate the quantity of water that is precipitated. Forms of precipitation
include drizzle, rainfall, glaze, sleet, snow, small hail, and hail.
Public Water System (PWS) – Any water system, which provides water to at least 25 people for
at least 60 days annually. There are more than 170,000 PWSs providing water from wells, rivers
and other sources to about 250 million Americans. The others drink water from private wells.
There are differing standards for PWSs of different sizes and types.
Reforestation — The restocking of an area with forest trees
Riparian — Pertaining to the banks of a river, stream, waterway, or other, typically, flowing
body of water as well as to plant and animal communities along such bodies of water. This term is
also commonly used for other bodies of water, e.g., ponds, lakes, etc. Littoral is the more precise
term for such stationary bodies of water. Also refers to the legal doctrine (Riparian Doctrine and
Riparian Water Rights) that says a property owner along the banks of a surface water body has the
primary right to withdraw water for reasonable use
Runoff — (1) That part of the precipitation, snow melt, or irrigation water that appears in uncontrolled surface streams, rivers, drains or sewers. It is the same as stream-flow unaffected by
artificial diversions, imports, storage, or other works of man in or on the stream channels. Runoff
may be classified according to speed of appearance after rainfall or melting snow as direct runoff
or base runoff, and according to source as surface runoff, storm interflow, or ground-water runoff.
Sedimentation — (1) Strictly, the act or process of depositing sediment from suspension in
water. Broadly, all the processes whereby particles of rock material are accumulated to form
sedimentary deposits. Sedimentation, as commonly used, involves not only aqueous but also
glacial, aeolian, and organic agents. (2) (Water Quality) Letting solids settle out of wastewater by
gravity during treatment.
Sheet and rill erosion – Sheet Erosion removes a uniform layer of soil material from the land
surface by surface runoff. Rill Erosion makes a small channel a few inches deep but not wide
enough to be an obstacle to farm machinery.
Soil conservation — The use of land, within the limits of economic practicability, according to
its capabilities and its needs to keep it permanently productive
Source water protection — The prevention of pollution of the lakes, reservoirs, rivers, streams,
and groundwater that serve as sources of drinking water. Wellhead protection would be an
example of a source water protection approach that protects groundwater sources, whereas
management of land around a lake or reservoir used for drinking water would be an example for
surface water supplies. Source water protection programs typically include: delineating source
water protection areas; identifying sources of contamination; implementing measures to manage
these changes; and planning for the future.
Siltation — The deposition of finely divided soil and rock particles upon the bottom of stream
and riverbeds and in reservoirs.
Silt Loam — Soil material that contains 50% or more silt and 12 to 27% clay, or 50 to 80% silt
and less than 12% clay.
Solid waste — (Water Quality) Any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water
supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility, and other discarded material, including
solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous materials resulting from industrial, municipal,
commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community and institutional activities.
Stakeholders — Individuals affected by the outcome-negatively or positively-or those who can
affect the outcome of a proposed intervention, project, activity etc.
Storm water — Water draining into streams. Lakes or sewers as a result of a storm
Stream banks — The usual boundaries, not the flood boundaries, of a stream channel. Right and
35
left banks are named facing downstream (in the direction of flow).
Stream bank stabilization — Natural geological tendency for a stream to mold its banks to
conform with the channel of least resistance to flow. Also the lining of stream banks with riprap,
matting, etc., to control erosion.
Streambed — The channel through which a natural stream of water runs or used to run, as a dry
streambed.
Surface runoff — Precipitation, snow melt, or irrigation in excess of what can infiltrate the soil
surface and be stored in small surface depressions; runoff is a major transporter of non-point
source pollutants
Synthetic Organic Compounds – SOC – Manmade organic chemicals. Some SOC’s are
volatile and evaporate; others tend to stay dissolved in water rather than evaporate out of it.
Missouri Watershed Information Network (MoWIN) — A University of Missouri Outreach
and Extension Project designed to assist in locating and accessing of information relative to
Missouri watersheds
Total maximum daily load (TMDL) — (Water Quality) The maximum quantity of a particular
water pollutant that can be discharged into a body of water without violating a water quality
standard. The amount of pollutant is set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
when it determines that existing, technology-based effluent standards on the water pollution
sources in the area will not achieve one or more Ambient Water Quality Standards. The process
results in the allocation of the TMDL to the various Point Sources (PS) of pollutants in the area.
Total organic carbon (TOC) — (Water Quality) A measure of the amount of organic materials
suspended or dissolved in water. The measure is very similar to the assay of the total carbon
content; however, samples are acidified prior to analysis to remove the inorganic salts of carbonates and bicarbonates. The assay of total organic carbon represents an estimation of the strength
of wastewater and the potential damage that an effluent can cause in a receiving body of water as
a result of the removal of dissolved oxygen from the water. The measurement of total organic
carbon requires less sample, is more rapid, and yields more reproducible results than the measurement of either the Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) or the Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD). As a pollution indicator, this method is more reliable than the assay of Total Carbon (TC)
when the wastewater contains high amounts of total inorganic carbon as well.
Turbidity — The term “turbid” is applied to waters containing suspended matter that interferes
with the passage of light through the water or in which visual depth is restricted. The turbidity
may be caused by a wide variety of suspended materials, such as clay, silt, finely divided organic
and inorganic matter, soluble colored organic compounds, plankton and other microscopic
organisms and similar substances. Turbidity in water has public health implications due to the
possibilities of pathogenic bacteria encased in the particles and thus escaping disinfect ion
processes. Turbidity interferes with water treatment (filtration), and affects aquatic life. Excessive
amounts of turbidity also make water aesthetically objectionable. The degree of the turbidity of
water is measured by a turbid meter.
Watershed - The land area that water moves across or under while flowing to a stream, spring,
pond, lake or river
Watershed management —The analysis, protection, development, operation or maintenance of
the land, vegetation and water resources of a drainage basin for the conservation of all its resources for the benefit of its residents. Watershed management for water production is concerned
with the quality and timing of the water which is produced.
Water quality management — Planning for the protection of a water’s quality for various
Beneficial Uses, for the provision of adequate wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal for
municipalities and industries, and for activities that might create water quality problems, and
regulating and enforcing programs to accomplish the planning goals and laws and regulations
36
dealing with water pollution control.
Watershed Restoration Action Strategies — Plans to restore the health of water-bodies that do not
meet clean water or other natural resource goals and will be supported by more specific grant workplans. In many cases, development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for impaired waters
within a watershed will form the core of each strategy.
Wetlands — Areas inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
bogs, and similar areas.
References
Webster’s II New College Dictionary. 1995 Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, New York
A Glossary of Selected Terms of Conservation, Ecology and Resource Use
URLs as indicated below:
http://outreach.missouri.edu/mowin/Resources/glossary/glossary.html
http://www.mo.nrcs.usda.gov/WRASGUID.html
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/sourcebook/sb0302t.htm#B1
http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/glossary/texture,_soil.html
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/cwact.html
http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/glossary.htm#ilink
http://www.epa.gov/owmitnet/afos/rule.htm
37
Appendices
Appendix 1
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, October 13, 1998
Shelbina, MO
WHY DEVELOP A PLAN?
•
All public-water systems are dealing with MCLs/contaminant levels
•
Treatment is expensive to the city/community.
•
Many nonpoint source (NPS) pollutants can be minimized with behavior
change and/or adoption of new practices and/or different ways of doing thing.
•
Responds positively to suggestions from Northeast Regional DNR/DEQ
Office re: organizing watershed management groups.
•
Creates an outline for required reporting.
WHAT IS A PLAN?
•
Proactive; you are in control. You review. You approve.
•
Not compulsory. Not regulatory. Does not deal with point source pollution.
•
Involves all segments of the community. People identify problems and suggest ways to deal with them.
•
Increases communication with regulators.
HOW CAN IT HELP SHELBINA?
•
Positions the community well for state revolving fund, TMDLs issue, block
grant funding etc.
•
Good experience and training for employees of city utilities.
•
Protects the lake for recreational and esthetic purposes.
•
Focuses on the lake as an asset to Shelbina in economic development and
tourism. Good public relations.
•
Extends the life of the lake and protects the drinking-water supply.
•
Fosters a spirit of stewardship for water and other natural resources.
Wanda Eubank
10/13/98
38
Appendix 2
39
Appendix 3
40
Appendix 4
41
Appendix 5
42
Appendix 6
Shelbina
Water Resources Management Committee
Schedule of Milestones
604(b) grant
Year 1
1. Receive approval from DNR to proceed with grant scope of work. (November 1999)
2. Notify interested parties and public of progress. Accomplished by public meeting,
news release(s) or letter writing campaign. (4th quarter 1999)
3. Notify potential bidders by issuing request for bids/request for proposals for completion of environmental assessment. (4th quarter 1999)
4. Hold pre-bid conference with potential bidders and resource agency representatives.
(1st quarter 2000)
5. Meeting of watershed committee and/or technical panel to review bids. (1st quarter of
2000)
6. Award bid. (1st quarter 2000)
7. Update interested parties and public of progress. Accomplished by public meetings,
news release(s) or letter writing campaign. (1st quarter 2000)
8. Completion of Environmental Assessment. (End of 3rd quarter 2000)
9. Draft of Environmental Assessment report for committee review. (November 2000)
10. Accept final report. (November 2000)
11. Update interested parties and public of progress. Accomplished by public meetings,
news release(s) or letter writing campaign. (November 2000)
Year 2
12. Committee meeting to begin preliminary recommendations (BMPs/technical implementation) based on final report. (November 2000)
13. Develop a plan of work and milestones for year two for education/information outreach and implementation of BMPs. (January 2001)
14. Develop schedule for completing recommended practices. (January 2001)
15. Prioritize and implement practices. (2nd and 3rd quarters 2001)
16. Update interested parties and public of progress. Accomplished by public meetings,
news release(s) or letter writing campaign. (2nd and 3rd quarters 2001)
17. Investigate opportunities for continued funding through the 604(b) and other programs (2nd and 3rd quarters 2001)
18. Complete program of work and issue water quality management plan to DNR, committee members, technical panel, and other stakeholders. (4th quarter 2001)
43
Appendix 7
44
45
Appendix 8
46
47
Appendix 9
Shelbina Lake Watershed
Informational Meeting
On
Watershed Management Planning Process
Monday, January 11, 1999
Shelbina Lakeside Golf Course
Community Room
7:00 p.m.
Agenda
7:00 p.m.
Informal Gathering/Exhibits
7:20
Welcome
Dennis Klusmeyer, City Superintendent
Water Quality at Shelbina Lake: Now and in the Future
Dennis Klusmeyer
Rob Trivette, Water and Sewer Supervisor
7:30
Water-Quality Considerations
Representative, Northeast Regional Office DNR/DEQ, Macon
8:00
The Planning Process: Getting Involved
Dan Downing, Water Quality Associate, UMC, Columbia
Thanks for coming tonight. Your interest and participation are important to the
City of Shelbina and to water-quality efforts statewide.
48
49
50
Appendix 10
51
52
Appendix 11
53
54
Appendix 12
March 1, 2000
To:
Those Who Have Been Involved
Shelbina Watershed Committee
As we told you in our December letter, the City received a grant to conduct an engineering assessment of the Shelbina Lake reservoir, watershed and adjacent properties. During
February, we contracted with Midwest Environmental Consultants, P.C. to conduct this
assessment. They will be ready to start their work by April of this year.
In keeping with our goal to keep you informed and involved, we have set up a meeting to
go over the plans for the assessment and to give you opportunities to ask questions and
make suggestions. We’re sending this letter to all those who have participated in any of
the meetings of the Shelbina Lake Watershed Committee. Since it may be necessary for
the consultants to walk some or all of the watershed, we’re making a special effort to
reach all landowners in the watershed.
Please join us at the Shelbina Lakeside Golf Course Community Room on Monday
Evening, March 20, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. There will be short presentations on the scope
of the project and an opportunity to meet with a representative of the engineering
firm. There will also be time allotted for informal discussion and questions. Refreshments will be served.
We look forward to meeting with you and hearing your ideas. If you have questions or
concerns, contact one of us at the address on this letterhead. We hope to see you on
March 20th.
Sincerely,
Dennis Klusmeyer
City Superintendent
Rob Trivette
Water and Sewer Supervisor
55
Appendix 13
56
57
Appendix 14
December 8, 2000
To:
Landowners and Residents
And Others Who Have Been Involved
Shelbina Lake Watershed Project
From: Dennis Klusmeyer, City Superintendent
Rob Trivette, Water and Sewer Supervisor
John Bode, Economic Development Director
Thanks to your input and support, the first year of this project has proceeded on schedule.
Assessment of the Shelbina Lake and watershed has been completed and now it’s time to
make decisions about correcting as many of the identified problems as possible.
We need your help to set priorities for the improvements that will give us the most “bang
for our buck” as we proceed with a plan of action to protect the water quality in the lake
and improve the health of the watershed in general.
In order to get your ideas, we invite you to a supper meeting at the Shelbina
Lakeside Golf Course Community Room at 6:00 p.m. on Monday night, January 8,
2001. We want to be sure that there is adequate food, so call one of us at the number
on this letterhead if you will be attending.
On the reverse side of this page are possible areas that we need to address in the coming
year. We hope you’ll take time to read these over and be ready to offer your suggestions
during the discussion that will take place after supper.
We thank you for your interest and ideas. It is our goal to keep you involved and informed. If you have questions, concerns, and/or suggestions, contact one of us at the
address on this letterhead.
—over—
58
Items for Discussion
Shelbina Lake Watershed Project
Shelbina Lakeside Golf Course Community Room
Monday night, January 8, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
•
Project Milestones (review of enclosed schedule of milestones)
•
Shelbina Lake and Watershed Water Quality Assessment
➢ background
➢ review of recommendations
•
Possible Practices to be Implemented
➢ raising berm – freeboard
➢ terracing
➢ small structures
➢ grading/draw stabilization/seeding
➢ shoreline stabilization
✔ rip rap
✔ plants/vegetation
•
Golf Course BMP’s
➢ filtration
➢ cart paths
➢ re-circulation system (structure)
•
Management of Goose Population
➢ plants/vegetation
➢ shoreline signage
➢ managed goose hunt
•
Possibilities Under MoCREP
(Missouri Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program)
•
Equipment Needs
➢ carbon feeder
Water Quality Management Plan
59
Appendix 15
60
Appendix 16
61
Appendix 17
62
Appendix 18
May 14, 2001
To:
Those Who Have Been Involved
Shelbina Watershed Committee
From: Dennis Klusmeyer
City Administrator
Re:
Rob Trivette
City Superintendent
City of Shelbina Lake and Watershed Project
Progress Report
In October, 2000, we sent to you an update on the results of the engineering assessment
of the Shelbina Lake reservoir, watershed, and adjacent properties. This report contained
a variety of recommendations. We also used that letter to solicit your opinion about
those recommendations and to get other ideas for consideration.
On January 8, 2001, several of you took the time to attend a meeting to review those
suggestions and to help us set priorities for a plan of action to protect the water quality in
the lake and to enhance the health of the watershed in general.
In return for your generous contribution of time and interest, we wanted to bring you up
to date on the program of work for our grant. Following is a review of recommendations
and progress to date:
1. Control of the Resident and Migratory Canada Goose Populations
In order to minimize nutrients and microbiological impacts by the Canada goose populations, the City has worked cooperatively with the Missouri Department of Conservation
(MDC) to establish a goose-hunting season at Shelbina Lake to coincide with MDC
migratory bird regulations. Because of early lake freezeover, the goose population
moved south and no hunt was held in 2000. A hunt is planned for the 2001 season.
Interested persons should contact Rob Trivette at City hall. First come, first served.
-over-
63
2. Track Future Land Uses that May Impact Water Quality
The City has held discussions with those responsible for the required water pollution
permitting process for the new highway project. The City will carefully observe the
project to ensure that construction site Best Management Practices (BMPs) are rigorously
followed.
3. Implement Voluntary BMPs to Address Erosion and Nutrient Runoff
City personnel have worked closely with several landowners to encourage them to implement a number of different BMPs to protect vulnerable acreage in the watershed. The
majority of these practices involve one or all of the following: construction of terraces,
grass waterways, and filter strips, grid soil sampling to manage nutrients, and involvement in the MoCREP CRP programs. Persons interested in these cost incentives can
contact Rob Trivette.
As a result of this cooperative planning, 75% of the watershed will be involved in some form
of management practice to minimize runoff of nutrients, sediment and crop-protection
chemicals. Since several of the landowners in the watershed have practices already in place,
this means that nearly all of the watershed acres are actively managed to limit runoff.
4. Address Shoreline Erosion
Shoreline erosion will be addressed by placement of stabilization materials along the shoreline where bank erosion is occurring. Stabilization materials, including 3100 feet of rip rap,
will be used in certain areas to provide bank fishing access. Aquatic vegetation will be
implemented in other areas to provide additional habitat. The City has approval from the
US COE for installation of shoreline stabilization practices.
5. Implement Golf Course BMPs
The Shelbina Lakeside Golf Course will be undertaking the following:
• Installation of materials to stabilize cart paths and limit erosion,
• Seeding and re-seeding for erosion control, and
• Working with UMC plant pathologists to conduct integrated pest management (IPM)
and minimize need for herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, and fertilizers
6. Relocate Dump Station
The camper dump station will be relocated to increase setback, impove access, increase
capacity, and as an additional safety factor.
7. Install Carbon Feeder
A carbon-based system will be installed at the water plant for more efficient removal of
nutrients and pesticides and to minimize treatment byproducts.
As part of our goal to keep you informed and involved, we’re very much interested in
your continuing input. If you have comments, questions or concerns contact one of us
at the address on this letterhead.
64
Appendix 19
65
Appendix 20
66
67
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VII, through the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, has provided
partial funding for this project under
Section 604(b) of the Clean Water Act.