Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Water Resources Management
Nonpoint Source and Land Management SectionNatural Resources Board
Herbert F. Behnke, Chairman
Trygve A. Solberg, Vice Chair
Neal W. Schneider, Secretary
Betty Jo Nelsen
Mary Jane Nelson
James E. Tiefenthaler, Jr.
Stephen D. Willett
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
George E. Meyer, Secretary
Susan L. Sylvester, Administrator,
Division of Environmental Quality
Bruce Baker, Director,
Bureau of Water Resources Management
Rebecca R. Wallace, Chief,
Nonpoint Source and Land Management Section
Department of Ag, Trade and Consumer Protection
Keith Foye, Chief,
Soil & Water Resource Management Section
Authors
Lynn Z. Goldade, Nonpoint Source and Land Management Section
Gail Puzach, Nonpoint Source and Land Management Section
Contributors
Don Franke, County Conservationist, LaCrosse County
John Masterson,Surface Water Standards and Monitoring Section
Publication Coordinator
Gail Puzach, Bureau of Watershed Management
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Nonpoint Source and Land Management Section
P.O. Box 7921 Madison, Wisconsin 53707
The Department of Natural Resources acknowledges the Environmental Protection Agency’s
Region V Office for their involvement in the partial funding of this report through Section
319 of the Water Quality Act.Executive Summary
Introduction
The Lower Black River watershed in LaCrosse and Trempeleau Counties was selected as a
priority watershed in 1981 under the Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement
(NFS) Program administered by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
The project, which began in 1983, was administered and implemented locally by the
LaCrosse County Land Conservation Department and the Trempeleau County Land
Conservation Department. Best management practices (BMPs) were installed in the watershed
from 1985 to 1993. The watershed is located in northwest La Crosse County and southern
Trempeleau County and includes 167 square miles of land draining to the Black River and its
tributaries from the confluence with Fleming Creek downstream to the Mississippi River and
the tributaries to Lake Onalaska (Map 1).
Water resource objectives identified in the 1983 plan focused on improving the fish habitat on
Halfway Creek, Jostad Creek, Creamery Creek and the Black River by reducing sediment
and organic loading and improving streambank cover. The project also sought to achieve
incremental reductions in the sediment load to the Mississippi River and Lake Onalaska by
reducing the sediment load coming from Fleming Creek, Grant Creek, Halfway Creek, Sand
Lake Creek and the Black River. The reduction in sediment load to Lake Onalaska was
expected to contribute to the preservation of its warm water fishery and its recreational value.
Land Management
Increased Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) from barnyard runoff, which reduces the amount
of dissolved oxygen available to fish and aquatic invertebrates, was identified as a major
concern in the plan. Eroding cropland on steep slopes was estimated to contribute 77% of
the sediment load delivered to the streams in the watershed and eventually Lake Onalaska,
with eroding streambanks and eroded soil from grazed woodlands and pastures on steep
slopes contributing about equally to the remainder of the sediment load. The plan identified
the most critical areas contributing the largest percent of nonpoint pollutants in determining
the Priorty Management Area (PMA) on which the project would focus. Because of its steep
topography the coulee region in the eastern two thirds of the watershed was designated as the
priority management area. Landowners in this area were identified as eligible for cost-share
assistance for installing Best Management Practices (BMPs) aimed at reducing nonpoint
pollution (Map 2).Of the 540 eligible land parcels, 75, or 14%, were covered by a cost share agreement with
the landowner. When viewed in terms of the percent of targeted BMPs that were installed
the project was more successful, with participation in targeted BMPs generally ranging
between 40% and 70%. The project acheived notable successes in acheiving higher
participation in several BMPs aimed at reducing soil erosion. While 30 acres were targeted
in the plan as critical areas to be stabilized, almost twice that number, 57 acres, were
stabilized. In addition, 72% of the needed grade stabilization structures were installed, and
67% of the needed grassed waterways were installed. In terms of streambank protection,
about half of the targeted cattle crossing and streambank stabilization BMPs were installed.
The lowest percentages of targeted BMP installation were 31% for contour stripping, 24%
and 25% for fencing to keep livestock from trampling streambanks and wood lots,
respectively.
Water Resources
DNR collected pre- and post-implementation data on water chemistry (from a USGS gauge
station on the Black River), aquatic macroinvertebrates (using the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index)
and stream habitat (using the Stream Classification Guidelines for Wisconsin). Post-
implementation studies to determine the effectiveness of BMP installation concentrated on
smaller streams in the eastern coulee region. Improvements in stream habitat were noted
at one section of Halfway Creek and Upper Fleming Creek, but most of the evaluated streams
showed little or no improvement. Evaluators noted that bank erosion was dramatically
reduced and habitat scores improved in stream sections where cattle fencing was installed, but
water quality gains from these improvements were offset by continuing streambank erosion,
sedimentation and organic loading from upstream sections where cattle access to the stream is
not controlled.
Results from aquatic macroinvertebrate sampling in upper and lower Fleming Creek and
Halfway Creek did not show a significant difference between scores before and after the
project. However, all these streams had very good water quality according to the Hilsenhoff
Biotic Index both before and after the project. Water chemistry data from the USGS gauge
station did not show significant differences in water quality before, during or after the
watershed project.
Overall, improvements in water quality and stream habitat have been difficult to assess due to
the limited participation of landowners installing BMPs. It may also be too soon to to be able
to measure the effects of BMP installation on water quality and stream habitat
Financial Management
The Lower Black River Priority Watershed Project was one of the few projects where the
cost-share funds set aside at the beginning of the project, 1.5 million, was nearly expended at
the end of the project, or 1.3 million. Dollars spent through cost-sharing is not a goodmeasure of success, however, this indicates that landowner cooperation was good and that
almost all the projects that were agreed upon to be installed, were installed.
Landowner/local share contributions for this priority watershed project totalled $540,000.
Compared to the $1,708,000 total state expenditures, 32% of the funds involved in this
voluntary program had their source at the local level. The remaining 76% of the funds were
split into two types of grants. A total of $398,000. in Local Assistance Grants (LAGs) was
used by both LaCrosse and Trempeleau counties to support project planning and program
administrative costs at the local level. The remaining $1,310,000 contributed by the state was
in the form of Nonpoint Source Grants (NFS). These are the funds used for cost sharing
installation of best management practices (BMPs). Conservation practices that landowners
installed were cost-shared at the 70 to 80% rate, depending on the practice.
Conclusion
The Lower Black River Priority Watershed can be considered a success for several reasons.
The majority of the landowners who participated in this project represented mostly full-time
farming operations. Comparisons of practice installation rates show that more practices were
installed per agreement than in any other watershed. The question regarding the extent of
improvements made in water quality has been better addressed in newer watershed projects
where more prior water quality data is collected. There is lack of sufficient monitoring data
to confirm that overall water quality has improved, however, common sense dictates that
installation of a typical barnyard best management practice would greatly reduce nitrate and
phosphorus loadings to a stream. The installation of the barnyard systems provided the
greatest probable benefit to improving water quality. Once a few systems were installed, they
tended to sell themselves within and outside the watershed project area. Cost-sharing on the
57 barnyard systems installed represented the biggest portion of state funds spent on the
project. Of the 1.4 million dollars spent in cost-sharing, $678,000. was applied toward the
barnyard systems.
The Lower Black River Priority Watershed Project was well supported by the counties and
the Department of Natural Resources. Adequate funding was available to support needed
staff, equipment and supplies. Following the eight and one-half years duration of this project,
an evaluation of project management was done. The exchange of information was positive in
that suggestions and criticisms of what worked and what didn’t work can be used to improve
future project planning and implementation. Measuring past successes and failures is a way
to improve the continually evolving Nonpoint Source Program. At the close of the Lower
Black River project, it was discovered that one of the key elements for insuring success of
future projects is to expand and emphasize the Information and Education (I & E)
aspect of watershed management.

watershed boundary

Priority Management An
Introduction
This report is required under the Evaluation Plan of the Soil and Water Resource
Management and Nonpoint Source Program. The report evaluates the degree to which both
water resource and land management project objectives were accomplished. It also analyzes
local project management, documents financial trends, and serves as a mechanism for
targeting areas for improvements in the NPS Program. A glossary is provided in Appendix A
to define programmatic terms.
In 1978, the Wisconsin Legislature created the Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water Pollution
Abatement Program (NPS). The primary goal of the NPS Program is to improve and protect
the water quality of streams, lakes, wetlands, and ground water by reducing pollutants from
urban and rural nonpoint sources. Pollutants from nonpoint sources can be carried to surface
water or groundwater through rainfall runoff or seepage, and snowmelt. The Program seeks
water quality improvement by providing technical and financial assistance to those individuals
or entities who voluntarily implement nonpoint source controls, usually referred to as Best
Management Practices (BMPs), and to those municipalities who adopt local ordinances
controlling nonpoint pollution.
In 1981 the Lower Black River Watershed in LaCrosse and Trempealeau Counties was
designated a priority watershed by the Department of Natural Resources under the NPS
program. The watershed plan was developed by the DNR and LaCrosse and Trempealeau
County Land Conservation Departments (LCDs). The project began in 1981 and ended in
1993, with the Implementation Phase from 1983 to the end of the project.
During the project, the Lower Black River Priority Watershed sought to:
* Improve existing trout fishery in Halfway Creek, Jostad Creek and Creamery Creek;
* Protect the smallmouth bass habitat in the stretch of the Black River upstream of
STH53; and
* Contribute to the preservation of the existing warmwater fishery and recreational
value of Lake Onalaska while reducing sediment loads from Fleming Creek, Grant
Creek, Black River, Halfway Creek and Sand Lake Creek.
Two counties, LaCrosse and Trempealeau, have been responsible for administering and
implementing the program at the local level. Specific guidelines and practices necessary to
achieve the project's goals were set out in the Lower Black River Priority Watershed Plan
and are discussed in more detail as follows.Table of Contents
Page

Watershed Project Organization Information ................. Inside Front Cover
Table of Contents ............................................ i
List of Tables .......................................... ii
List of Maps ................................................ ii
List of Figures ....................................................... ii
List of Appendices ................................... ii
Executive Summary ...............................................................1
Introduction ................................................................1
Land Management ......................................................1
Water Resources. .......................................................2
Financial Management ...............................................2
Conclusion ....................................................3
Introduction ............................................................9
Watershed Description ......................10
Water Resources Assessment ..............11
Nonpoint Source Assessment ..............12
Land Management Assessment and Results .............19
BMP Needs Assessment and Accomplishments ...................19
Summary ...................................................22
Water Resource Evaluation and Results ...................23
Water Evaluation Monitoring Strategy ...........23
Water Evaluation Methodologies and Results .23
Water Chemistry Analysis ..................23
Fish Surveys .....................................24
Macroinvertebrate Analysis .........................24
Habitat Analysis ..........................................24
Results ............................................24
Summary .....................................................26
Financial Evaluation ................................................27
Summary and Conclusions ......................................29List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of the Nonpoint Sources Targeted for Control in the Lower
Black River Watershed Inventory ............................................................ 20
Table 2. BMP Installation Chart .......................................................................... 22
Table 3. Habitat Scores and Ratings for Selected Stream Stretches in the Lower
Black River Watershed ............................................................................. 26
List of Maps
Map 1. Lower Black River Priority Watershed ................................................. 5
Map 2. Priority Management Area for the Black River Watershed ..................7
Map 3. Designated Smallmouth Bass and Trout Streams
in the Lower Black River Watershed ....................................................13
Map 4. Lower Black River Subwatersheds ......................................................17
List of Figures
Figure 1. State's Cost Share for BMP Implementation ..................................... 27
Figure 2. State and Local Cost Share for BMP Implementation ....................... 28
List of Appendices
Appendix A
Glossary ..................................................................................................................... A-1
Appendix B
Bibliography ............................................................................................................ B-l
Appendix C
Local Project Management Survey LaCrosse County .......................................... C-l
11The purposes of this final report are to:
1. Report and evaluate the progress of LaCrosse and Trempealeau Counties in project
implementation and management.
2. Evaluate and provide documentation on whether water quality objectives have been
attained in the project.
3. Evaluate and provide documentation on whether pollutant load reduction goals have
been met and whether they have improved water quality in the project.
4. Evaluate the BMP implementation process, and the effectiveness of BMPs in reducing
the pollutants in the project.
5. Provide recommendations which target key areas needing improvement in the NPS
program, and reinforce positive aspects of the program.
6. Inform and educate landowners, operators, and other citizens in and near the watershed.
Watershed Description
The Lower Black River Watershed is located in northwest LaCrosse and southern
Trempealeau counties. The watershed extends from the Black River at the confluence with
Fleming Creek downstream to the Mississippi River and to Lake Onalaska. The watershed
encompasses 167 square miles and nearly 107,000 acres and is located in the driftless,
unglaciated southwestern part of Wisconsin.
The LaCrosse County portion of the watershed is about 137 square miles (about 82% of the
watershed area). Incorporated areas in the LaCrosse County portion of the watershed include
the Village of Holmen and a portion of the City of Onalaska. Holmen is the only
incorporated area entirely within the watershed. The Cities of LaCrosse and most of
Onalaska are immediately south of the watershed. The remaining 30 square miles (18%) of
the watershed is in Trempealeau County.
In 1983 land use was predominantly rural; 41% of the land was used for agriculture and 44%
was woodland, with wetlands, farms and urban areas comprising the remaining 15%. The
major agricultural use throughout the watershed was dairy farming, with some cash cropping,
primarily Tcorn and soybeans, in the prairie areas. Some scattered beef operations existed.
The 1980 population was just over 10,000.
The eastern two-thirds of the watershed, which contains most of its smaller streams, is
characterized by steep coulee terrain of sandstone ridges and narrow stream valleys. Soils
are well drained and very susceptible to water erosion, especially on steeper slopes and where
gullies have cut into the sandy subsoils. Dairying is the primary agriculture in this area.
Most farming occurs on steep valley slopes with the farms often located directly adjacent to
10the streams. Fields are generally small and irregularly shaped. The western one-third is
nearly level prairie areas of the Black River delta and Mississippi River Valley benches.
Farm fields here are larger, more regularly shaped and better for cash cropping than the
uplands. The Black River floodplain is too wet for agriculture and is primarily wetland
wildlife habitat.
Water Resources Assessment
The water resources inventory in the plan described the condition of the watershed's streams
and lakes. There are 18 named streams, approximately 13 miles of which were classified as
trout streams on Jostad, Creamery and Halfway Creeks. The stretch of the Black River
upstream of STH 53 supported a smallmouth bass fishery. The Black River also supported
northern pike, walleye, largemouth bass, bluegills, channel catfish and black crappies. Other
streams in the watershed primarily supported a forage fishery. Streams supporting trout and
smallmouth bass fisheries are shown in Map 3. Map 4 shows the sub water sheds.
Fleming Creek and Halfway Creek are the major streams in the Lower Black River
Watershed. Because of the steep coulee topography there are a number of tributaries to each
of the major streams. Many of these tributaries are flashy and have intermittant flows within
parts of their reaches or during drier months.
DNR Fish Managers felt there was moderate potential to improve the fishery on Fleming
Creek upstream of Mindoro to support trout and also improve the water quality in Creamery
Creek to upgrade it from a Class III trout stream to a naturally reproducing trout stream.
Portions of Halfway Creek and the length of Jostad Creek were judged to have good potential
for fishery improvement.
There are numerous small lakes and extensive wetlands in the Mississippi River floodplain
and the floodplain along the lower Black River. The major lake in the watershed is Lake
Onalaska which is a shallow 5,400 acre impoundment at the confluence of the Black River
and the Mississippi River formed by Lock and Dam # 7 on the Mississippi. Halfway Creek
and Sand Lake Creek also contribute small volumes of water during periods of high flow, but
runoff from these streams during intense storms was very high in suspended sediment
(Claflin, 1970). Halfway Creek was identified as a major nutrient source for Lake Onalaska
(Dawson, 1982).
Lake Onalaska supported a warmwater fishery totalling over 40 species (including
commercial harvesting of carp), but also received high nutrient and sediment loads from
almost the entire watershed. As a result, Lake Onalaska was losing open water area, algae
blooms were occurring, densities of aquatic plants were increasing and excess sediment and
nutrient loading to the lake was increasing the potential to lose a well balanced largemouth
bass and bluegill fishery. There was an estimated loss of 31 % of the lake volume in the last
40 years due to sedimentation.
11Nonpoint Source Assessment
Land uses surveyed in the Lower Black River watershed included cropland, woodland,
pastures, barnyards, streambanks and urban areas.
The watershed plan identified excess sediment as the major cause of water quality problems
in the Lower Black River watershed and in Lake Onalaska. The GREAT I Study of the
Upper Mississippi River Basin identified the Lower Black River watershed as having a severe
erosion hazard and the potential to significantly contribute to the sediment problems in the
Mississippi River.
The primary source of sediment was excess cropland erosion which contributed approximately
77% of the total sediment load delivered to the streams from the watershed. A large percent
of the cropland erosion comes from a small percent of the cropland acres which had high
rates of tons per acre per year of soil loss. Erosion on woodlands, pastures and streambanks
each contribute about equally to the remaining 23 % of the sediment load to streams from the
watershed. Again, a small percent of the acres on steep slopes where cattle were grazed on
both woodlands and grasslands, caused a very large percent of the woodland and pasture
sediment load. Most of the streambank erosion occurred along relatively short stretches of
the streambanks where erosion rates were high. Cattle access to streams which can aggravate
streambank erosion and reduce fish habitat, was common throughout the watershed. 101
barnyards in the watershed were considered high potential sources of organic material and
suspended sediments to the streams.
Specific water quality problems and the nature of the nonpoint source pollutants made it
difficult to define specific objectives that were reasonable and economically feasible yet would
produce quantifiable improvements in water quality. Aesthetic improvements were also
important but difficult to quantify. The following objectives were identified in the plan:
1. Improve existing trout fishery in Halfway Creek, Jostad Creek and Creamery Creek by
reducing sediment and organic loads and improving fish habitat and streambank cover.
2. Protect smallmouth bass habitat of the Black River by reducing sediment and organic
material from Fleming Creek and its tributaries and from Grant Creek.
3. Contribute to the preservation of the existing warm water fishery and recreational value of
Lake Onalaska with incremental reductions in the sediment load to the Mississippi River, by
reducing the sediment load from Fleming Creek, Grant Creek, Black River, Halfway Creek
Sand Lake Creek.
The plan identified the long term measure of the achievement of the objectives as the
improvement in the fishery of the watershed lakes and streams. Each subwatershed had
specific objectives stated in the plan for cropland soil loss, organic load from barnyards, and
erosion from streambanks, woodlands and pastures/These are detailed in Table 1.
12Map 3: Designated Smallmouth Bass and Trout Streams in the Lower Black River Watershed

Class II Trout Streams Class III Trout Streams Smallmouth Bass Streams
The DNR Fish Managers were optimistic that correction of the nonpoint source problems in
the watershed could lead to as much as a 5-fold increase in the number of fishermen using the
trout streams in the watershed. With a combination of nonpoint source controls and trout
habitat improvement the increase in use could be as much as 10-fold. The continued ability
of the Black River, Van Loon Public Hunting Grounds and Upper Mississippi River Wildlife
and Fish Refuge to support recreational use levels, at the time the plan was written, was felt
to be dependent on abating the nonpoint source of sediment and other pollutants to the rivers
before the effects became irreversible
15
** — "• subwatenhed boundary «/,;,•$
GRANT CREEK DECOnAH PRAIRIE tfBWATfRSHED
LOWER FLEMING SUBWATERSHED
UPPER FLEMING SUBWATERSHED
CALEDONIA PRAIRIE
I SUBWATERSHED j
H—————•——(93\4*
G2>
LOON WATERSHED
'AN
HALFWAY CREEK SUBWATERSHED
SUB
SAND LAKE COULEE SUBWATERSHED
Land Management Assessment
_________and Results_________
BMP Needs Assessment and Accomplishments
Nonpoint sources of pollution degrade water quality. The NFS Program provides financial
and technical assistance to eligible landowners who voluntarily implement certain land
management techniques developed to control nonpoint source pollution (otherwise known as
a Best Management Practice or BMP). Each BMP provides an increment of pollutant
reduction. The program's fundamental assumption is, the more BMPs installed, the more
pollution reduction and pollution control will occur.
Priority Management Area
The watershed plan identified a priority management area (PMA) where polluted runoff has
the greatest potential to reach streams and channels, and where BMP installation will be most
effective at improving water quality. Because of their steep topography and high sediment
delivery rates, and because most of the land area falls within a quarter mile of a perennial or
intermittent stream, all of the Upper Fleming, Lower Fleming, Grant-Decorah, Halfway
Creek, Long Coulee and Sand Lake subwatersheds were designated as the Priority
Management Area. (See Map 2). Within these identified subwatersheds, efforts were to be
concentrated to install BMPs to correct nonpoint source pollution problems.
All landowners in the PMA were eligible for cost sharing assistance to install BMPs. In
areas outside the PMA, where critical erosion problems were occuring, existing cost share
programs, such as ACP, were considered adequate.
Later watershed plans did not designate Priority Management Areas but instead identified
each major nonpoint source pollution site (barnyards, manure spreading, eroding upland
fields, streambank and shoreline erosion or habitat degradation) as a Management Category I,
II, or III. Category I is used to designate sources that generated a significant portion of the
pollutant loading to the waters within a subwatershed and installation of BMPs will be
necessary to meet pollutant reduction goals of the watershed. Category II is a less significant
source. These sites are eligible for cost-share funds but are not required to be included in
watershed plans. Category III sources are those that contribute a minor portion of the
pollutant load and therefore are ineligible for cost-share funds.
Each subwatershed had specific objectives stated in the plan for cropland soil loss, organic
load from barnyards, and erosion from streambanks, woodlands and pastures. These are
detailed in Table 1. Subwatersheds not threatened by rural runoff were not chosen to have
BMPs installed.
19Table 1. Summary of the Nonpoint Sources Targeted for Control in the Lower Black
River Watershed Inventory

Subwatersheds
Reduce Cropland
Barnyards
Reduce Erosion on

Soil Loss to 5

tons/ac/yr or less

Stream
Pasture
Grazed

bank
on Steep
Wood

(moderate &
slopes
lands on

severe)

steep

slopes

Upper Fleming
2980 ac
22 highest
10,540 ft.
790 ac
2700 ac

ranked

on steep

slopes

Lower Fleming
2370 ac
23 highest
8620 ft
900 ac
1860 ac

Creek

ranked

on steep

slopes

Grant-Decorah
1440 ac
13 highest
2000ft

Prairie

ranked

Halfway Creek-
2200 ac
30 ranked high
15,670 ft
140 ac

coordinate

& medium

w/trout stamp &

habitat work

Sand Lake
250 ac

9800 ft
1020 ac
270 ac

steep

areas

Long Coulee*
740 ac
13 ranked high
4600 ft.
130 ac

& medium

*Plus: Encourage the city of Onalaska to develop a construction erosion and runoff control
ordinance which will include single home sites.
The LaCrosse County Land Conservation Department was successful in contacting all eligible
landowners. Of the approximately 540 eligible landowners contacted, 75, or 14%, signed a
cost-share agreement. County personnel stated that most of the landowners who refused to
participate in the program cited lack of control over practice implementation. Other factors
causing the low participation rate included a lack of priority setting in the project, the
economic downturn in the early 1980s, confusion over the different local agency's jurisdiction
and directives, and lack of standards for compliance for pollutant reduction.
20A small portion of Trempeleau County was included within the project boundary. Of the 50
eligible landowners contacted, 34, or 68% signed cost-share agreements. This is a higher
participation rate, but over a smaller portion of the watershed. The combined overall
participation rate from both counties was 18%.
The project had several successes in meeting the objectives for BMP installation. Of the 30
acres of critical area stabilization needed, 59 acres were completed: almost 200%. Of the
156 acres of waterways needed, 99 acres or 63% were installed. Of the 105 barnyard runoff
systems needed, approximately 57, or 54% were installed.
The project met with more difficulty in meeting the objectives for installing other BMPs. Of
the 7680 feet of riprap needed, 3670 feet or 40% were installed including streambank shaping
and seeding. Of the 3500 acres needing strip cropping, 1075 acres or 31% were strip
cropped. Of the 171,600 feet of streambank protection/fencing needed, 40,931 feet, or 24%,
of fencing were installed. For livestock exclusion from woodlots, of the 6554 acres (80
rods/60 acres) planned, only 35,887 linear feet were installed. This is an accomplishment of
25%. Final closeout records revealed that many landowners either didn't install planned
fencing at all or installed less than was originally planned.
21Table 2. BMP Installation Chart

Practice
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
Total
Planned Amount
% Complete

Upland Erosion Control / Sediment Delivery Reduction

Contour Strips (AC)
209
172
161
286
67
159
21
--
-
1075
3500
31%

Field Diversions (ft)
3770
2790
3799
2155
600
2250
700
1615
710
18,389
38,500
48%

Grassed Waterway (AC)
9
13
16
25
8
9
5
11
9
105
156
67%

Critical Area Stabilization (AC)
7
3
10
8
3
4
11
9
2
57
30
190%

Grade Stabilization Structures (units)
9
6
9
9
8
9
5
4
~
59
82
72%

Fencing to Exclude Livestock from Woodlands (rods)
176
104

387
469
523
325
12
179
2175
8,739
25%

Streambank Protection

Fencing (ft)
..
—
7590
8892
743
2351
1968
10923
8465
40,932
171,600
24%

Cattle crossings
5
3
--
8
1
2
3
1
-
23
39
59%

Riprap, Shaping and Seeding (ft)
525
145
-
435
--
477
1254
54
780
3,670
7,680
48%

Animal Waste Management

Barnyard Runoff Control System
4
9
15
7
4
7
6
1
4
57
105
54%

Manure Storage Facility
--
-
1
2
-
-
1
1
3
8
11
73%

Summary
While the 18% overall participation rate sounds very low, this project was undertaken with
little or-no advance "marketing" data analysis to determine the level of local landowners1
interest in such a voluntary program. La Crosse County was very successful at assuring
installation of practices on cost share agreements. Only two landowners did not fulfill their
contracts due to sale of property or financial difficulties. Many program-level improvements
concerning procedures for state review of cost share agreements and other topics were
implemented due to recommendations from the county project manager.
22Water Resource Evaluation and Results
Water Evaluation Monitoring Strategy
In order to determine whether water resources objectives were being achieved, water
evaluation monitoring was conducted on different sites throughout the Lower Black River
Priority Watershed. DNR environmental monitoring staff evaluated the water quality and the
effects of nonpoint source pollution management efforts. Evaluations consisted of pre-
implementation monitoring to estimate baseline water quality data, and post-implementation
monitoring to document changes in water quality resulting from changes in land management.
The DNR's bioassessment report contains discussions of the sampling methodologies used and
the site specific results. This report summarizes the results and conclusions; readers
interested in greater detail are advised to directly consult the bioassessment report.
Pre-implementation monitoring efforts were widely scattered throughout the watershed.
Monitoring included water chemistry, fisheries and macroinvertebrate surveys and habitat
assessment. Post-implementation monitoring consisted of habitat evaluation, macro-
invertebrate analysis and water chemistry sampling on selected streams. Although the
original plan called for monitoring of all sites for which baseline evaluations had been done,
post-implementation monitoring was focussed on streams where BMP installation was
concentrated. The primary goal of post-implementation monitoring was to determine if
selected BMPs were achieving their goal in improving the biological integrity of selected
streams.
Water Evaluation Methodologies and Results
Water Chemistry Analysis
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has collected water samples on the Black River
with a gauge station near Galesville in La Crosse County since December 1931. Water
samples collected with an automatic sample device from 1981 to 1993 were used to determine
if water quality had improved over the duration of implementing BMPs. Samples were
analyzed by the Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene (SLOH). Parameters studied to evaluate
objective goals were turbidity, dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus, total kjeldahl nitrogen,
dissolved ammonia, fecal coliform bacteria, suspended sediment and dissolved solids.
Geometric means of water quality data from the USGS gauge station were calculated from
1981 to 1993. Because of the location of the gauge station, this data would only represent
runoff from Upper Black River, Upper and Lower Fleming Watersheds and Grant Creek-
Decorah Prairie Subwatersheds. No significant differences in water quality were noted
before, during or after implementation of BMPs.
23Fish Surveys
DNR collected fish community data by electroshocking the entire Black River from 1975 to
1979 (Fago, 1983). Approximately 44 locations were sampled on the Lower Black River
watershed. A diverse population of fish species was observed. Post-implementation analysis
has not been done to date.
Macroinvertebrate Analysis
The WDNR has periodically conducted macroinvertebrate community analysis on the
tributaries throughout the Lower Black River Watershed. Macroinvertebrates are good
indicators of water quality over several months. Macroinvertebrate communities will
generally respond to periodic water quality problems that are not always detected during
water quality sampling.
The WDNR collected aquatic macroinvertebrate samples in Spring 1986 and 1992. Samples
were collected using the "kick method" (Hilsenhoff, 1987) and a D-frame net. Samples were
sent to the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point to identify the species of organisms present.
Results were applied to Hilsenhofffs Biotic Index (HBI). Aquatic macroinvertebrate
communities indicated no significant changes between pre and post-implementation biotic
index values. The macroinvertebrate HBI may not be a good indicator of improving
conditions in this watershed because water quality is generally good as reflected by the HBI values.
Habitat Analysis
Pre-implementation habitat assessment (Ball, 1982) was done during the Fall of 1985 on
Hardies Creek and during the Fall 1986 on several tributaries of Grant Creek-Decorah
Prairie, Upper and Lower Fleming, Long Coulee, Halfway Creek and Sand Lake Coulee
sub watersheds.
Post implementation analysis was done during the Fall of 1992 on Hardies Creek and the Fall
of 1994 on selected streams in the watershed where pre-implementation analysis was done and
where BMP implementation was concentrated. This included streams in Grant Creek-
Decorah Prairie, Upper and Lower Fleming, Long Coulee and Halfway Creek subwatersheds.
Results
Strjeam habitat assessments can further evaluate the streams ability to support a healthy
biological community. Pre-implementation habitat analysis was conducted on Upper and
Lower Fleming Creek, Hardies Creek, Long Coulee Creek and Halfway Creek
Subwatersheds. With the exception of one sight on Upper Fleming Creek which rated poor,
all of the sites rated fair using the Stream Classification Guidelines for Wisconsin (Ball,
1982).
Post-implementation analysis indicates a small amount of improvements in the watershed,
although some sites scored lower, indicating ongoing problems (See Table 3).
24Trivial changes in habitat ratings and scores are more than likely due to the subjective
observations by the individual doing the analysis. This is possible because different persons
conducted pre and post implementation analysis. However, obvious improvements in stream
habitat were noted in several cases where BMPs were installed on smaller tributaries.
Where cattle fencing was installed on Upper Fleming Creek, Halfway Creek and Long
Coulee Creek, habitat scores did improve. Upper Fleming Creek improved its rating from
poor to fair. Bank erosion sedimentation, and organic loadings were dramatically reduced.
The same can be said for Halfway Creek below County Highway D where habitat rating
improved from fair to good. Lunker structures were also installed at this site and the stream
is currently classified as a Class II trout stream. However, immediately upstream of CTH D,
cattle still have access to the stream. Streambank erosion, sedimentation and organic loadings
are an obvious problem and are impairing BMP improvements downstream. Sedimentation
and infilling of pools are the most noticeable problem.
25Table 3. Habitat Scores and Ratings for Selected Stream Stretches in the Lower Black River Watershed
1986 1994

Stream
Score
Rating
Score
Rating

Grant Creek
118
Fair
144
Fair

Bell Coulee Creek
126
Fair
128
Fair

Upper Fleming Creek
208
Poor
171
Fair

Wet Coulee Creek
124
Fair
168
Fair

Lower Fleming Creek
148
Fair
148
Fair

Lower Fleming Creek
163
Fair
154
Fair

Lower Fleming Creek
116
Fair
120
Fair

Halfway Creek
159
Fair
166
Fair

Halfway Creek
166
Fair
110
Good

Long Coulee Creek
179
Fair
166
Fair

Long Coulee Creek
152
Fair
180
Fair

Hardies Creek
158
Fair
138
Fair

Hardies Creek
158
Fair
141
Fair

Water chemistry data from the USGS gauge station showed no significant improvement.
Generally streams in the watershed did not show significant improvement, but habitat
evaluations did show noticeable improvements on the smaller streams where BMPs were
installed in high concentration. This is supported by aquatic macroinvertebrate and habitat
scores improving only in these small stream sections. Post implementation fish shocking may
show improvements in certain areas and should be done in the future.
Summary
It is clearly documented that BMPs can reduce nonpont source pollution. On the smaller
streams where practices were installed in high concentration, stream improvements were
noticeable. Macroinvertebrate and habitat scores improved in these small stream sections to
further support these incremental stream improvements.
Overall priority watershed improvements were not noted due to the following limiting factors:
low participation, limited chemical and biological data, and location of the USGS gauge
station.
26Financial Evaluation
This section addresses the financial aspects of the Lower Black River Priority Watershed
Project. The evaluation includes the timing and amount of nonpoint source and local
assistance grants to La Crosse and Trempealeau Counties and examines the degree to which
funds obligated through cost share agreements to landowners were expended.
Two types of financial grants are awarded to watershed projects, Nonpoint Source (NPS) and
Local Assistant Grants (LAG). Nonpoint grants fund the actual practices built or undertaken
(e.g., barnyards, minimum tillage) by the owner/operator of the farm. The local assistance
grants fund local staff, their supplies, travel, training, and professional service contracts with
private providers (engineers, crop consultants, co-ops, etc.). Cost-share agreements are the
contracts between the owner/operator and the local government to install the practices to
control nonpoint pollution. The glossary provided in Appendix A defines some of the grant-
related terms used in this section.
Estimates were made in the watershed plan to approximately budget for a number of practices
that might reasonably be expected to be needed to control the nonpoint pollution. The
estimates in the plan were for budgeting purposes, i.e. to set aside enough money for an
entire project grant period (8-10 years), not necessarily for comparison with actual
installations.
The total amount of funds awarded through grants from the DNR to LaCrosse and
Trempealeau counties for the Lower Black River Priority Watershed Project was
$1,708,000.00. Figure 1 shows the relative proportions of the State's cost share for the
BMPs that were implemented in this watershed. The greatest expenditures were for barnyard
runoff management structures, streambank protection, grassed waterways and terraces
respectively. The remaining 12 BMPs made up less than 25 percent of the total expenditures
for BMPs implemented
Figure 1. State's Cost Share for BMP Implementation
State's Cost Share for BMP Implementation

27
.
Landowners in LaCrosse and Trempealeau counties also contributed to cost share amounts.
Local contributions in the amount of $540,000.00 were also applied toward the cost of the
installation of practices. Figure 2 shows the percentages of funds spent by the State and local
governmental units on administrative and implementation phases of this project.
Figure 2. State and Local Cost Share for BMP Implementation
28
State and Local Cost Share for BMP Implementation
Summary and Conclusions
It is clearly documented that BMPs are successful in reducing nonpoint source pollution. A
higher participation of installing BMPs would have improved the reduction of these sources
and the success of this project. The few sites where improvements were noted show that
implementing cost effective BMPs does work.
This project supports the idea that voluntary measures can effectively control nonpoint
pollution. At this time, the water quality results are not immediately evident due to the fact
that response of streams to installation and adoption of BMPs is also affected by many other
factors. Given the time scale of the physical processes involved in stream morphology and
natural variations, it may not be reasonable to expect dramatic improvements in biotic
indicators of water quality.
The Lower Black River Priority Watershed Project can be considered a success for several
reasons. The project increased awareness of nonpoint pollution problems, enabling
landowners to identify existing problems and to. know that assistance in remediating these
problems is available. The project was successful in maintaining water quality as opposed to
the degradation that would have continued to occur had pre-existing practices and conditions
remained unchanged. The biggest positive result of this project was reinforcement of the fact
that increasing information and education efforts is necessary to set the stage for a change in
landowner attitudes and practices that will yield long term results in reducing and eliminating
nonpoint pollution.
29Appendix A Glossary
COST SHARE AGREEMENT (CSA):
The contract between the local governmental unit (county, city, village, lake district) and the
program participant (landowner or operator). The CSA lists the Best Management Practices,
cost estimates, installation schedule, operation & maintenance requirements, and the
obligations of both parties signing the agreement.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE (BMP):
As defined in s. 144.25, Stats., means a practice, technique or measure identified in areawide
water quality management plans which is determined to be the most effective, practicable
means of preventing or reducing pollutants generated from nonpoint sources to a level
compatible with water quality objectives, which does not have an adverse impact on fish and
wildlife habitat. BMPs are described in s. NR 120, Wis. Admin. Code.
ENCUMBRANCE:
The funds included in a Nonpoint Source or Local Assistance Grant.
EXPENDITURE:
The funds actually paid to cost share recipients after installation of BMPs. Also, the funds
actually paid to local units of government through a Local Assistance Grant.
FISCAL YEAR (FY):
The state fiscal year beginning on July 1 and ending June 30.
LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANT:
NPS Program funds to support local costs of project planning and implementation including:
Local staff salaries, supplies, travel and training, information and education efforts,
professional services contracts.
NONPOINT SOURCE GRANT:
NPS Program funds used for cost sharing of Best Management Practices. The state shares the
cost of installing best management practices from 70 to 100%, with the landowner/operator
and sometimes the local government unit.
NONPOINT SOURCE:
A land management activity (land use) which contributes to sediment runoff, seepage or
percolation which adversely affects or threatens the quality of waters of this state and which
is not a point source under s. 147.015 (12), Stats.
A-lPRIORITY WATERSHED:
A large-scale or small-scale watershed which the department has identified through the
continuing planning process under s. 147.25, Stats., as one of those watersheds where the
need for nonpoint source water pollution abatement is most critical.
PRIORITY WATERSHED PLAN:
A detailed portion of the areawide water quality management plan prepared for priority
watersheds as described in s. NR 120, Wis. Admin. Code.
UNEXPENDED BALANCE:
Funds in cost share estimates on cost share agreements, but not yet paid to cost share
recipient.
A-2Appendix B Bibliography
Claflin, Thomas O. 1970. Lake Onalaska feasibility study. The River Studies Center,
University of Wisconsin - La Crosse.
Dawson, V.K., G.A. Jackson and C.E. Korschgen. 1982. Water chemistry at selected sites
on Pools 7 and 8 of the Upper Mississippi, Vol. 4 and Techincal Appendix G. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Great River Environmental Action Team. St. Paul, MN.
Fago, D. 1983. Distribution and Relative Abundance of Fishes in Wisconsin: Black,
Trempealeau, and Buffalo River Basins. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Technical Bulletin No. 40. 120 pp.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1987. Using a Biotic Index to Evaluate Water Quality in Streams.
Wisconsin DNR Technical Bulletin. No. 132. 23 pp.
Ball, J. 1982. Stream Classification Guidelines for Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources Technical Bulletin.
Masterson, Jon 1994. Lower Black River Priority Watershed Project Bioassessment Final
Report. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Madison, WI.
B-lAppendix C
Local Project Management Survey LaCrosse County
An Evaluation of Local Project Management
I. PARTICIPATION
A. 1) What percentage of eligible landowners were contacted by county staff?
100% of those not on a "hobby farm".
How was eligibility defined? Everybody not on a hobby farm.
Do you have an suggestions for improving how eligibility is defined? Should be
eligible if a water quality problem is identified and a solution for controlling the
problem is available with specifications.
2) What is your definition of one contact? Person to person, not by telephone.
3) What methods of contact wer used (phone contacts, written correspondence, face to
face, media, etc...)? What was the primary method? Letters sent to explain
program, followed by DNR drive by to i.d. barnyards, slopes, feedlots distance to
creeks, then personal (face to face).
4) On average, how many times was contact attempted by each method? Everyone was
attempted to be contacted at the farm at least once, usually twice.
5) In what order of priority were landowners contacted? What were the problems
encountered, if any? Higher priority landowners, based on phosphorus load
ranking, were contacted first and more often.
6) What suggestions do you have for improving success of landowner contact? None.
B. 1) What percentage of those landowners contacted signed up? Out of 540 eligible
properties, 75 contracts were signed, or 14%.
2) Of those who were contacted, what percentage installed practices under this program?
Out of 75 Cost Share Agreements, 73 installed all practices, 2 dropped out
for financial reasons.
3) What percentage of those landowners contacted installed practices under other
programs or without cost-sharing? Unknown.
C-l4) Briefly describe what worked and what didn't. If known, state the reasons given for
non-participation. Landowners have no standard to follow for behaviors to
improve water quality. IF standards, like USLE, are available, landowners are
more likely to follow them. It is possible to set a standard for phosphorus; lateral
movement of streambank for erosion.
C. Table [ ] shows the percentage of best management practices on cost share agreements
that were installed, by practice.
Briefly give your rationale for:
1) The percentage of animal waste practices installed. All those contracted,
except for 2 landowners who went bankrupt.
2) The percentage of streambank practices installed.
3) The percentage of upland erosion practices installed.
Describe what worked and what didn't regarding practices installed. Had more practices
installed per farm due to "whole farm" plans. More landowners signed when
County could state absolutely that funds would be available.
D. 1) What were the types of Information and Education activities? Quarterly newsletter
sent out during the sign-up period (first 3+_ years).
2) In your opinion, did available I & E methods and materials provide adequate
information to encourage landowners to sign up? Yes.
3) Are there any I & E strategies, materials or activities you would try on new projects
not used in this project? Explain. All high priority projects designated in basin
plans should get demonstration grant money before selection. Have all priority
watersheds priority landowners eligible for $$.
4) Was there a Community Action Committee? How often did they meet? Describe
their major function and activities. Yes, 3-4 times, there was little emphasis on
CACs.
E. 1) Describe what worked and what didn't in regards to the ability of the project staff to
work effectively with landowners. Good experienced technical staff, not new
people. With state staff? Too much turnover in DNR coordinators with less
technical knowledge. There were long delays in receiving Cost Share Agreement
approvals from DNR.
F. 1) What was the most influential factor affecting participation rates? Legal ramifications
of contracts had a mostly positive influence.
C-22) What other factors had a positive influence on participation? The money was
guaranteed. There was less trouble than ASCS because fewer approvals and
committee actions were required.
3) What percentage of landowners who had both information and knowledge of the
program and adequate financial resources, still didn't sign up? No idea, did not do
100% inventory.
4) What is your opinion on the use of regulation in the future? There is a need to
define physical and chemical standards for compliance, which hold for all
landowners in high priority watersheds, not just for the 70% designated or
targeted landowners. Perception already exists that the priority watershed
program is not voluntary and therefore is somewhat regulatory because after an
inventory, anyone could be designated a "critical site11 and regulated. Regulations
should be based on a standard which everyone is required to meet.
II. INFORMATION AND MANAGEMENT
A. What types of data management and automation were used? Describe what worked well
and what didn't. No automation, this was an older project. Tracking sheets were
used for contacts, but pollutant load reduction was not tracked.
B. Describe what worked and what didnft in regards to combined workload analysis, grant
applications, annual review forms and meetings. (Applicable to projects beginning in
1993 and after.) Not applicable, there were only 1-2 annual meetings with DNR.
Workload is driven by landowner complaints, not necessarily by annual plans.
C. Describe what worked and what didn't in regards to accomplishment and reimbursement
reporting (verification forms). During first half of the project, "work prodects" were
used for reimbursement not reimbursements based on hours or salaries.
Reimbursement required lots of amendments.
D. List recommendations for improvement of information management. Eliminate all the
reviews of Cost Share Agreements in Madison.
HI. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
A. In your opinion, was the project adequately staffed? Yes, same project manager plus 2
technicians worked throughout the entire project life.
B. Please record the number of people who left positions early for each year of the project,
and describe reasons for the turnover. None, because staff positions were made
permanent, not project positions which end when the project ends.
C-3C. What worked well and what could be improved upon? Having permanent staff, trained
and knowledgable for the life of the project worked well. Constant turnover in DNR
staff (untrained, unknowledgeable, no sense of watershed history or project progress)
worked badly.
D. Describe the strategy for information exchange between old and new position holders.
N/A - no turnover.
E. Were staff resources adequate for existing workloads? Mostly adequate.
F. How did actual hiring compare to what the priority watershed plan advised? N/A - not in
plan.
G. How supportive was the LCC and County Board in hiring staff and dealing with project
changes? Pretty supportive.
H. Did the DNR District Coordinator adequately answer questions and/or train county staff to
function properly in the watershed? No, there was no coordinator in the District and
there were too many different DNR Central Office coordinators during the life of the
project, with too little experience. Some tended to "exaggerate" their competence/
competency.
I. Is adequate training being given to local staff? If not, please suggest needs. Project staff
received better training from Soil Conservation Service and SITCOM.
J. Is ther timely follow up to problems by the District Coordinator? Project coordinator
wasn't in the district. There was not timely follow up from Central Office most of
the time.
IV. FISCAL AND GRANT MANAGEMENT
A. How important was funding to accomplish the project goals? Pretty important – no
money means no (or fewer) practices. Some exceptions are: reduced tillage
occurs voluntarily due to equipment changes, and less woodlot grazing has occurred
where timber is worth more.
B. What was the reimbursement schedule? We were told it would only take 2 weeks to
receive reimbursement, but it always took longer. How long did it take counties to
submit reimbursements? Quarterly would be optimal for county submittals.
^
C. How long of a time period expires from submitting reimbursements request to receiving
payment? Early in the project it took about 4 months — too many people had to
review them. Later on it took 3 months. Describe any problems with timing, if any.
If not, in your opinion, why? Three to four months is unacceptable.
D. Did adequate safeguards exist to insure money was spent as statutes and codes direct?
From county perspective, yes. DNR .didn't trust that counties were professionals.
C-4E. Please offer any suggestions for improving fiscal management. DNR should publish a
procedural handbook for financial steps, including what DNR has to review. DNR
policies should be in writing - including the deviations from the usual procedures.
V. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
A. Describe how county staff worked with farmers to monitor installed practices toensure
that they are maintained. Complaint based only and 25% monitoring forother farm
programs. Because we had stable staff, each of the 2 technicians could work with
"their landowner", write a plan, design the practices and oversee the installation. So
each farmer was able to work with the same technician throughout the process. Now
technicians are too specialized, no continuity with landowners.
B. Describe county staff relations with the Soil Conservation Service (NRCS). We had one
temporary hire who didn't work out too well - we did no further hiring.
The problem was inexperience - too much training was required. The SCS
District Conservationist was involved early in the project. Contracting didn't work
well.
C. Describe what worked well and what didn't in regards to county staff relations with the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Department of Agriculture, Trade and
Consumer Protection (DATCP). DNR had too many project managers. There was
little DATCP involvement.
D. Please offer any recommendations for DNR improvement. We need consistent program
policy and continuity in DNR Project Managers. Delegate as much authority as
possible to the counties. Counties should be able to use "saved " LAG funds in their
NPS account for installing practices.
VI. EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT
A. Describe what worked and what didn't regarding the adequacy of equipment such as
computers or vehicles. We didn't have a computer and did not lease vehicles. The
county should pay for its own vehicles and equipment because they are used for
other reasons and kept after the project ends.
FUTURE INSPECTION ACTIVITIES TO FULFILL NR120.04(6) AND GRANT
CONDITIONS REFERRED TO IN PART 5 #13.
A. Describe Ihe BMP maintenance inspection strategies that will be used after the closeout of
the project. No set schedule, but almost all landowners are in other programs.
Compliance monitoring with Farmland Preservation is coincidental.
B. Describe the payback criteria and procedures used. N/A because everything was
installed. There was one case of a fraudulent bill which resulted in a fine and some
jail time. There were 2 or 3 padded bills, but the LCC reviewed them and both
withdrew their bills or changed the bill to the correct amount.
C-5C. Describe the reporting process to the DNR and DATCP. None
D. Describe any projects (such as habitat restoration, cattle fencing, etc..) that involved
community groups, fishing or conservation clubs, WCC or any other groups. One
landowner used a conservation club for fish habitat work, but few people showed up
to work. However the practice worked o.k.
E. Have you noticed or had reports of water quality changes (appearance, odor, etc..) since
installation of BMPs began? No reports for watershed, but looking at site-by-site
conditions are obviously improved. Setting watershed goals is not realistic. We
should look at site improvements instead.
C-6