Addressing very poor Water Quality in the Red Cedar Watershed

On this labor day weekend, my partner and I rode our bikes along the Red Cedar
River from Downsville to Menominee. The level of green goo in the Red Cedar
River and Menominee lakes is beyond unacceptable. Nowhere could you see the
bottom of the river. In calm areas the surface muck collected to more than a
few inches thick. It's clear even a powerful river can't wash away the intense
blue-green algae bloom that is occurring. We need to address the problem at
the source.

We need to speak more about getting phosphorus out of our water sources in
Wisconsin. This is the worst pollutant in the water and 80% is from big
Agriculture run-off.*

What can be done now to aid and encourage farms to shift to practices that
would prevent this from happening? Supposedly no-till drill practices used by
farms upstream would greatly improve the situation - thoughts on this?

Governor Walker's 2011-13 proposed budget included a provision that would
include a two year delay for new phosphorous numeric water quality standards.
On June 3rd, the Joint Finance Committee deleted the Governer's proposed
delayed phosphorus effluent limitation provision by a 10 to 6 vote. Terry
Moulton is one Senator who was reasonable enough to address the problem.** We
can expect more efforts from big business to sway legislation the other way.

Again: What can be done now to aid and encourage Wisconsin to shift to
practices that would prevent this from happening?

*from an Article by Melissa Malott "The Defender" Water Program Director for
Clean Wisconsin in the Summer 2011 issue.

**From a letter reply from Wisconsin Senator Terry Moulton.
Please call him and let him know you care about this problem: (888)437-9436

One great thing about living in the Chippewa River Valley really are all the
waterways we have access to. And- it is sad to sometimes see them in poor
shape.

Dan Zerr is one of my favorite people to run into in Eau Claire (UW-Extension
Basin Educator for Natural Resources Lower Chippewa River Basin) because he
knows about the water quality in the Eau Claire area. I was surprised to hear
from him last winter that the Chippewa River is actually cleaner than the Eau
Claire River due to bacteria levels!

I guess I had always assumed that since the Chippewa is larger, runs through
urban areas and has water treatment facilities located along it, that it would
be more polluted than the Eau Claire River. However, I'm guessing that since
the Eau Claire River is smaller (gets warmer-better conditions for bacteria)
and possibly has more run-off, maybe that is why it is more contaminated.

I am curious to see how the water quality has changed over the last 15 years
locally in Eau Claire. I have several friends that still prefer the Eau Claire
River over the Chippewa and even swim when the bacteria warning signs are up...

Going off of Joe's post- maybe there are other things we can be aware of
locally in the city of Eau Claire that we can do something about. Has anyone
stumbled upon anything nasty draining into the river here in town from a
building or street? I can think of one area down off of Menomonie street by the
river trail, but I'll wait and see what others post first... What about that
AWFUL smell on the bike trail just out of town, after you cross Short St.
headed towards Caryville??

river.jpg 44.66kb

The odor you noticed on the trail beyond Short Street probably came from the
animal rendering plant on Jopke Road.

Thanks for the compliment Kerri! One of the main reasons the Eau Claire River
has some more issues is because of all of the impoundments (man-made lakes).
Mead Lake, Lake Eau Claire, and Lake Altoona, all are dammed up lakes in the
Eau Claire River system. These lakes all trap sediment (and thus phosphorus
and nitrogen) and allow for the growth of algae and cyanobacteria in a way that
a more freely-flowing river does not. A good portion of the land that drains
to the Eau Claire system is agricultural land (and this is very much true for
the Red Cedar system as well!), whereas the Chippewa is coming to us via mostly
forested land in the north. Lake Wissota (on the Chippewa River) does trap
sediment and does have occasional phosphorus and algae issues, but not to the
degree that the Eau Claire system lakes do (and we're hoping we can keep
Wissota in a cleaner condition). The Chippewa being a bigger river than the
Eau Claire helps as well. From the city of Eau Claire down to the Mississippi
River, the Chippewa River is actually in pretty good shape, but still needs our
attention if we want to keep it that way.

The Red Cedar River drains 1,900 square miles, of which about 47% is
agricultural land. Lakes Menomin and Tainter, being close to the bottom of
this watershed, receive the sediment and phosphorus from a very large area, and
thus often have algae issues. Joe is correct that no-till farming can help in
this regard (because the extra plant residue on the soil surface helps keep
soil, and thus phosphorus, in place rather than letting it get washed away with
runoff water). But there are many other things farmers can do. However,
getting farmers to change management styles often takes time and the
development of trust between the farmer and the person offering
advice/education/cost-share money to the farmer. Right now, money for such
time-intensive work is hard to come by.

If I can encourage folks to do anything, it's to apply pressure to local and
state elected officials to properly fund the entities that do most of this
work. County Land Conservation staff would be the highest priority, since they
have the most contact with farmers and can offer help and financial assistance.
The others would be DNR, UW-Extension, and NRCS (federal agency). Get to know
your local farmers as well. The divide between those that use and enjoy our
water resources, and those that manage much of the land that drains to those
waters, is often very pronounced.

I totally agree with Joe after riding the Red Cedar Trail on Sunday. It should
be called 'Green Cedar'. Some thing drastic needs to be done!

I agree we should talk with Land Conservation Officers - but what about? They
need ideas too and why not use the forum to offer up some ideas so we can
address it beyond hyperbole/complaining. Or simply to educate and inform
people of the facts. The less general the better. Then, how about some phone
numbers of those local and state elected officials?

Let's talk scale. Kerri asks 'what kind of things locally can we do?' But
it's been mentioned the majority of the harmful pollutants are out of the local
region from non-point sources (fertilizers on ag land). Dan mentions a divide
between those that use and enjoy the waters, and those that manage the land and
that we should get to know our farmers.

How many people in this fine dairy state have been to a dairy farm which gets
its dry matter intake primarily by grazing and one which get its dry matter
intake from primarily grains and or TMRs? Know the difference?

On the consumer end, considering this is the land of cheese heads, it should be
clear grazing is certainly an underutilized practice in this state in terms of
quality of life. From my limited experience, it's where dairy should be, it's
more fun and less like a factory. Plus the milk tastes better and has lower
somatic cell counts. It's better for the environment, cows generally live
longer and the practice uses less fossil fuels. So if you purchase dairy
products that only come from farms that practice grazing, that would be a start
at 'locally' affecting change. Ask cheese makers where their raw materials
come from. Care. Deeply.

On the farm end, I spoke with a dairy farmer of 30 years last night about our
polluted waterways.

His take on the drastic measures that should be taken is that there should only
be a buffer of 'permanent pasture' for grazing directly adjacent to waterways.
Or they could be hayfields. This buffer would serve to slow surface runoff and
keep the direct application of fertilizers away from entering the watershed.
Some would still leach in, but maybe Dan or somebody else can offer some advice
of how big or what type of financial/political mechanisms would be needed to
make this type of thing happen.

Somebody else on the V1 website mentions draining the 'problem' lakes - which I
find intriguing. The wetlands created sans-lake could serve to slow flows etc.

Red Cedar Watershed
http://basineducation.uwex.edu/lowerchip/redcedar/pdf/rcmap.pdf

Rest of post

Wow- lots of interesting conversation here- first of all, i just googled
"animal rendering plant" on http://www.realfoods.net/renderingplant.html and
just kinda lost my appetite for the rest of the day... i will not go into
detail...glad i didn't investigate the smells on my own and deviate from the
trail into those questionable looking buildings...probably not a pretty sight.

Back on point- That is an interesting thought- the problem lakes drained- quite
the visual..the marshland ski sprites! I can assume that would cause quite the
stir from folks around here...mainly related to $ i'm sure. I do wish there
were stricter regulations concerning land immediately surrounding the
waterways, they are so important.

Thanks for the information and insight Dan and Joe.

Rest of post

I was thinking the same as this farmer you spoke with Joe. Riparian buffers are
a strong mitigation factor. I found this EPA short research summary on the web
about the effectiveness of these buffers. Check it out. Dan, do the counties in
the watershed have any provisions like this?

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/fs/riparianbuffer.pdf

An Idea

I'm concerned too. I agree that industrial farming is negatively impacting our
communities in many ways. I thought long and hard about what I could do as a
person to make an effect on an issue so grand. After checking my Maslow's list
of needs, I chose to examine my own food choices and their effect on both my
health and the overall health of our communities. When I discovered so many
farms DOING THE RIGHT THING and growing food I wanted to eat, and actually
improving soil and water quality - I knew I was on to something. Nearly ten
years later, an idea I shared with just a few other folks here in Eau Claire
has grown into a million dollar local food clearinghouse. While sales of local
food in Eau Claire are a small percentage of the total we are all eating, it is
growing. And farmers doing the right thing for water quality are growing.

It isn't enough to simply tell farmers "stop doing that!". We need to create
the demand for farmers doing the right thing. That means investing in your
food. It really does. I can show you land a few miles from Eau Claire that ten
years ago was lifeless from chemical/industrial ag use. Today it is lush,
diverse grassland because people in Eau Claire CHOSE to spend a few more
dollars and buy pasture-raised organic chicken in downtown Eau Claire. So the
people of Eau Claire know what to do. Change your eating habits and water
quality will follow.

Not everyone can or will transition to a 100% local diet immediately. But small
percentages of local food sales reap great rewards economically too. Food
dollars spent locally are recycled locally. Food dollars spent locally go to
local farmers who have your ear when you are their customer. They will show you
their farm and explain to you why they let their cows wander in the stream or
how they fence off rotating plots of pasture.

Changing our diets isn't enough, and isn't the only solution. But it is
something we can all do, a little bit at a time or a whole lot at once.

This month is the Local Food Challenge - I challenge you to discover how local
food can change the color of your watershed!

Working with the Chippewa County Land Conservation and Forest Management
Engineers and Conservationists, I can relate to what Dan has said above. I
have been working as an Environmental Engineering Intern there for the past 4
months. I agree that any funding to help out any county's Land Conservation
Department would be put to good use and am very thankful that Chippewa County
had enough to hire me to help out as an intern this year. Maybe once a week I
run into or hear of a potential project in Chippewa County, usually relating to
soil or water conservation, that isn't able to go anywhere with the great lack
of money that the public sector has been dealing with lately.

Relating to this lack of money, the Chippewa County Land Conservation
Department was recently merged with the Forestry and Parks Department to form
the now Land Conservation and Forest Management Department (LCFM). While this
merging helped save some money by removing some people from work, now, from
what I have seen, there is almost too much to do. Combine this lack of
manpower with the recent huge upsurge in the need to regulate the mining of the
new silica sand in mines that are popping up all over for oil and natural gas
fracking, and you have a very busy 12 people (including myself) in our
department. Sadly, some conservation work is being placed on the side burner
to take care of the now 4 large scale silica sand mines that have started in
the last year.

However, there are still some promising projects on the horizon. The Chippewa
County LCFM has been working on protecting the Little Lake Wissota watershed
that drains into Little Lake Wissota (the portion of (Big) Lake Wissota that is
south of County Hwy X). After having an expected successful grant proposal
turned down, the LCFM has had to take matters into its own hands where possible
with the project. So far, the most we have been able to do is ask farmers and
landowners within the Little Lake Wissota watershed to voluntarily keep more of
an undisturbed buffer between their fields and drainageways. Others we have
asked if they would be willing to voluntarily restore low-lying areas into the
wetlands that once existed before. Without our grant to help with funding,
some can't do anything as they are just getting by themselves with their farm.
A few do understand the importance and have thankfully agreed to help. Just
imagine what could be done if we had funding to help them all!

As Dan noted, Lake Wissota does not usually have too big of algal bloom
problems. While a friend and I were fishing on Lake Wissota a few weeks ago,
we noticed that it doesn't have much of the dilution factor for dispersing
algae as it possibly has in the past. I could not see down deeper than a foot
into the water before my vision was obscured by thousands of stringy green
algae specimens. I am sure these problems are not just the case in the Red
Cedar River and Chippewa Rivers. Hopefully the best ideas to protect our
waterways will catch on and we will be able to keep our rivers and lakes
running clear.

On a brighter note, it is good that since last year, there is no longer
phosphorus allowed in lawn fertilizers. Since only new growth lawns actually
use phosphorus to establish the roots, most won't even notice that the
fertilizers are lacking something. While excess nitrogen does promote algal
blooms (usually in the ocean, where nitrogen is limited), phosphorus is usually
the culprit in lakes and rivers because it is the "limiting nutrient" for the
algae. Soon as phosphorus levels aren't limited anymore, there is nothing
stopping the algae from growing out of control. Once this happens usually it
causes bacteria to use up all the oxygen in the water to decompose the algae
when it dies. No oxygen means no fish... and an awful stench. So it is very
good that part of the past phosphorus problem has been removed from our urban
water bodies.

Here's the path to the Chippewa County LCFM website if interested in any of the
ongoing projects:
http://www.co.chippewa.wi.us/index.php?option=com_content&;view=article&;id=273&;Itemid=38

Adam and Aaron,

Thanks for weighing in.

I see a big social problem: People think if they deal with lawn fertilizer, it
will deal with the problem and this is where the discussion ends.

Removing phosphorus from lawns is a small change that could act as a catalyst
to inform them on the larger issue: 80% is from Big Agricultural runoff in this
state. It could be prevented and nobody is talking about it. The other things
matter (ie smart consumer choices, proper funding), but so does correct
information and public awareness of the issues. When is the last time you
heard the media cover this topic?

Are their current land use maps available for our watersheds? A graphic
presentation of quantitative information is necessary. We need the measure of
the issue to communicate the scale. The maps should be everywhere.

Please discuss what sort of resources the LCFM department needs to get to a
place where they can function (in dollars). And where would the money go?
What do you feel are Wisconsin's top 3 environmental protection priorities?

Thanks for writing,

Rest of post

tainted.jpg 341.80kb

That is pretty large for Eau Claire Chicken Sheds... or should I say Polish
Pigeon Coops. Nice project. ................
I am anxiously waiting for progress on my neighbors photovoltaic install. She
has the perfect roof and set up... Just waiting for the GE Solar Shingles to
become available...
It is nice to see these types of initiatives.

Rest of post

Nice comments all, and Adam, thanks for adding all the good info about what's
happening with the Chippewa County LCFM. I've worked a bit with Dan Masterpole
and Dave Nashold, and they are top notch folks.

Ned, for the most part, there is no "required" buffer for farmers. There are
certain things that can't be done/located within a certain distance of waters
of the state, but many of those focus more on feedlots than on a crop field.
The heaviest hammer that the state has is the Phosphorus Index, or PI. A farm
field is supposed to meet a PI of 6. This number doesn't really have units.
It's determined by a model called Snap Plus. Basically you feed in all the
data about a farm field; slope, distance to water, crop rotation, soil type,
fertilizer applications, etc. And Snap Plus spits out a PI number. If that
field is over 6, it's in violation. There are many problems with this. First,
6 is a very arbitrary number. It's like a statewide average, and is not
representative of some watersheds where a PI much lower than 6 is necessary to
keep water quality at decent levels. Second, even if your field is in
violation, you're not required to do anything about it if there is no
cost-share money available from the state (and many of those funds are very low
or non-existent now). And third, most counties don't have the staff to inspect
farms for violations of these rules (codified in NR 151). Most counties around
here only inspect a farm for NR151 violations if they get a complaint.

Buffers definitely help, and there are many more things farmers can do. Here's
a link to a slightly old, but still very relevant document, from UW-Extension.

http://learningstore.uwex.edu/Farmland-Conservation-Choices-P151.aspx

The issue is finding ways to get farmers to do such things. It takes time,
trust, money and follow-up. Land conservations offices, as Adam was saying,
are mostly pushed to the limit just trying to do what's required of them, let
alone trying to spend large amounts of time with individual farmers.

But...we press on and hope we can make some progress!

Dan

Dan,

This is exactly the kind of detail I enjoy reading. Thanks for posting.

This was posted this on V1 website today:

"...The "green" energy known as ethanol has been responsible for the increased
phosphorus load not only in local lakes and rivers, but has been linked to the
increased dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico..."

How much land do you think is being farmed for ethanol? What if ethanol regs
were adjusted to disallow any use of phosphorus?

Are their land use maps for the Red Cedar Watershed available online?

Joe,

Corn is what farmers know how to grow. If we could get them and the ethanol
industry to embrace switchgrass, phosphorus loading could be reduced
dramatically. But its cultural, economic and technological inertia which must
be overcome.

_|_| Jay B. Tappen, Executive Director
_|_| West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
_|_| 800 Wisconsin Street, Mail Box 9, Suite D2-401
_|_| Eau Claire, WI 54703-3606
_|_| 715-836-2918 phone
_|_| 715-577-7512 mobile
_|_| 715-836-2886 fax
_|_| <email obscured> email
_|_| <email obscured> agency email
_|_| http://www.wcwrpc.org agency website

Rest of post

I like that idea. Apparently so did George Bush.

Let's say the idea were embraced, could it compete with the biomass of corn?

Rest of post

Switchgrass_roots.jpg 1.73mb

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn

Corn has inertia, switchgrass must catch up.

_|_| Jay B. Tappen, Executive Director
_|_| West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
_|_| 800 Wisconsin Street, Mail Box 9, Suite D2-401
_|_| Eau Claire, WI 54703-3606
_|_| 715-836-2918 phone
_|_| 715-577-7512 mobile
_|_| 715-836-2886 fax
_|_| <email obscured> email
_|_| <email obscured> agency email
_|_| http://www.wcwrpc.org agency website

Rest of post

UPDATE: 10/21/11

>From Valley Stewardship Network:

"Governor Walker and some members of the legislature hope to achieve
significant revisions in environmental protections - not just for mining
operations but for any and all activities around the state that impact waters -
under the guise of job creation, and outside the mining committee process.

The one way to stop this bill is to demonstrate to legislators that it is
WILDLY unpopular with voters. This will be a JOINT hearing of the Assembly and
Senate Natural Resources Committee. We need you, your friends, neighbors and
family to be in Madison for this hearing.

Public Hearing on the Special Session AB 24
Wednesday, October 26th
11:00 am
State Capitol, Room 412 East
Please RSVP here.

Please share this email broadly with your friends who – like you – care deeply
about Wisconsin, democracy, and public health. We hope to see you in Madison on
Wednesday."

Also please see attachment on upcoming Forum on Rural and Urban Ag!

The first annual Wisconsin Forum on Rural and Urban Agriculture in Madison on
November 11 and 12 brings together forward-thinking farmers, economists,
environmentalists, health professionals, sportsmen, rural citizensand others
concerned with the quality and safety of food, water and air in Wisconsin.

ag_forum_flyer[1].pdf 171.88kb

Be sure to see the recent March 8 V1 article featuring Dan Zerr. It's great to
see them covering this story. It's a cultural problem as much as it is an
environmental one.

v1-red-cedar.jpg 74.65kb

The Red Cedar: Land, Water and People Coming Together
March 22, 2012
UW-Stout Student Center

http://www.uwstout.edu/profed/redcedar/index.cfm

You cannot post because you are not logged in.

Addressing very poor Water Quality in the Red Cedar Watershed

Already a member?

Not a member?

E-Democracy is 100% Donation Supported Contribute Today!