Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

1/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

2/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

3/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

4/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

5/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

6/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

7/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

8/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

9/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

10/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

11/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

12/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

13/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

14/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

15/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

16/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

17/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

18/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

19/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

20/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

21/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

22/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

23/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

24/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

25/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

26/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

27/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

28/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

29/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

30/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

31/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

32/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

33/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

34/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

35/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

36/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

37/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

38/53

Rapid Channel Assessments

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

39/53

Rapid Channel AssessmentsSediment Fingerprinting

Outlet USGSgaging station

In-situ suspendedsediment sampler

* DNR biology

Rapid channelassessment

(Background of Field P Index)

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

40/53

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

41/53

Bank Erosion/Lateral Recession Rates

Lateral RecessionRate ft/yr(cm/yr) Category Description

0.01-0.05(0.3 - 1.5)

Slight Some bare bank but active erosion not readily apparent. Some rillsbut no vegetative overhang. No exposed tree roots.

0.06-0.2(1.8 – 6.0)

Moderate Bank is predominantly bare with some rills and vegetativeoverhang. Some exposed tree roots but no slumps or slips.

0.3-0.5(7.0 – 15)

Severe Bank is bare with rills and severe vegetative overhang. Many exposed

tree roots and some fallen trees and slumps or slips. Some changes incultural features such as fence corners missing and realignment ofroads or trails. Channel cross section becomes U-shaped as opposed toV-shaped.

0.5+(>15)

Verysevere

Bank is bare with gullies and severe vegetative overhang. Manyfallen trees, drains and culverts eroding out and changes in culturalfeatures as above. Massive slips or washouts common. Channelcross section is U-shaped and stream course may be meandering.

WI NRCS technical document (2003)

Bank retreat rate this study = 4.1 cm/yr based on Fever River/Pioneer Farm 2004-07

P I l t ti W t h d S di t B dg t

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

42/53

UPLAND SOIL EROSION0.8 tons/ac/y

FINE SEDIMENTSAVINGS AND LOAN

1.2 tons/ac

Pre-Implementation Watershed Sediment BudgetPleasant Valley Outlet/USGS Gage

BANK EROSION0.06 tons/ac/y

ANNUAL WATERSHEDEXPORT (GAGE)0.14 tons/ac/y

(2006 -10 data, various sources)

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

43/53

Suspended Sediment Loads

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

44/53

010

2030405060708090

100

R e

l a t i v e C o n t r i b u t i o n

( % )

Stream Banks

Woolands

Agriculture

Lamba, et al., 2014

Woodlands

Streambanks

Suspended Sediment LoadsFingerprinting/Source Apportionment

Outlet/USGS Gage

44

2010 2011 2012Average = 30% eroding banks, 70% upland agriculture

In situ suspendedsediment samplersphoto: Curt Diehl

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

45/53

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

P a r t i c u

l a t e B o u n

d P

L o a

d (

l b s

)StreambanksWoodlandsAgriculture

Particulate P in Suspended SedimentFingerprinting/Source Apportionment

45

2010 2011 2012Average = 30% eroding banks, 70% upland agriculture

In situ suspendedsediment samplersphoto: Curt Diehl

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

46/53

Bank ErosionPre-Implementation Sediment Budget (2009)

Grazed/feeding areas

Barnyard/night pasture

Kittleson Valley bank erosion photo: Curt Diehl

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

47/53

Barnyard/Night Pasture

2009 Pre-implementation 2012 Post-implementation

Barnyard: Clean Water Diversion, Heavy UseArea Protection, Vegetative TreatmentStrips, Fence, Roof Runoff, Milkhouse WasteTreatment System, Animal Trail and Walkway

P Savings fromchannel = ~16 lb/yr

2009 Phosphorus Concentrations

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

48/53

Barnyard/night pasture

(no fine sedimentdeposition in the othertwo grazed feedingareas)

2009 Phosphorus ConcentrationsEroding Bank and Fine Sediment

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

49/53

Grazed woods/feeding area

2009 Pre-implementation

[Stream bank protection from over-grazing, trampling; Feeding area moved]

2012 Post-implementation

P Savings = ~25 lb/yr

Ph h i Fi S di t D iti

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

50/53

Phosphorus in Fine Sediment DepositionPre-Implementation (2009)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 10 20 30

T P i n F i n e

S e d i m e n t D e p o s i t i o n

( l b s / m

i )

Drainage area (square miles)

Concentration Storage

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

51/53

Pleasant Valley Delisted

Trout photo credit: Curt Diehl

[Gaged reach had boxelder removed and bank toeriprapping in 2006]

d d h l

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

52/53

• A sediment budget and fingerprinting approach werehelpful for estimating channel sources and sinks of finegrained sediment and P.

• On average, agriculture makes up the majority of thesource of suspended sediment at the outlet (~70%).

• Relative contributions of P from bank erosion areseason/flow dependent.

• There is about 8 yrs worth of annual export ofsuspended sediment stored in soft sediment deposition.

• Targeted rehabilitation work in channels is important – need information on riparian land use history andlongitudinal continuum of legacy erosion/deposition.

Coon Creek Restoration,October 2010

Targeted Conservation and Channel ProcessesPleasant Valley Experience

8/9/2019 Targeting Practices -- Lesson from the Pecatonica River Watershed

53/53

STUDY PARTNERS, ASSISTANCE, AND FUNDINGDane County, Land Conservation DivisionIowa County Land Conservation DepartmentGreen County Land Conservation DepartmentUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonUniversity of Wisconsin-ExtensionU.S. Geological SurveyUSDA Natural Resource Conservation ServiceWisconsin DNRWisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer ProtectionThe Nature ConservancyLandowners and FarmersMonsanto CorporationMcKnight FoundationUSGS cooperative program

Research funding provided by USDA-NIFA award #2009-51130-06049

Questions?

Contact: Faith Fitzpatrick [email protected], 608-821-3818

Acknowledgments