The webinar will last for about an hour.

As attendees, you'll be muted 
throughout the presentation.

If you have questions, please type them
into the questions pane in your go-to

webinars toolbar, which should be on the
side of your screen.

We will try to reserve about 15 minutes
at the end of the webinar to address any

questions, which we will read aloud so 
our speakers can respond.

The webinar is being recorded and will
be available later this week for your

reference.

If you have any technical questions, 
please email Emily at

ebrumit@cowatercongress.org.

So now on to the topic at hand. 
Cyanotoxins, algoglams, nutrients and

of course, how it affects 
Coloradoan's public health.

Today, we will hear from, hopefully, 
three wonderful experts and leaders

who will guide us through these topics.

Djenette Khiari with the water research
foundation.

Steve Lundt, representing the Barr
Milton Watershed association.

And Troy Bauder with CSU extension.

Steve has worked on lakes and reservoirs
as a certified lake manager since 1999.

Focusing on improving water quality 
through in-lake techniques and

watershed projects.

Today he will be talking with us about
work reducing algolams at Barr lake.

Which he has worked on along with other
reservoirs downstream of Denver for

the past 15 years.

Troy Bauder is an Extension water 
quality specialist in the department

of soil and crop sciences at Colorado 
State University.

There he is responsible for conducting
statewide educational and applied

research programs for water quality, 
especially related to the protections

of groundwater quality from 
impremest to agricultural chemicals.

His research and expertise include 
nutrients and irrigation management,

which he'll be talking about today.

Is Dejenette on the line?

I am not seeing that Dejenette has been
able to join us.

As Kaitlyn mentioned, she had a 
power outage.

So we are planning, um, Steve if you 
are OK with this plan.

So kind of like, let you go through her 
slides, and I will advance them for you.

Does that work for you?

[laughing] I will do my best. I'll have
to remember what she was going

to talk about.

But I can definitely address some of the
things also in my talk, but I can maybe

fill in a little.

Kaitlyn: So I'll just go through the 
slides and when you are ready for

me to advance, just let me know.

So Djenette was going to offer an
introduction to cyanobacteria

and cyanotoxins. So Steve can kick us off.

Steve: [laughing] This is a fun game, 
to wing someone else's presentation.

The whole reason why we probably have 
all these people on this webinar is to.

Because we all do care about our lakes, 
our reservoirs, our rivers and it boils

down to managing nutrients that 
support algae bloom that then now

have gotten into the realm of toxins.

This idea of blue-green algae blooms
that produce cyanotoxins has been around

for quite a while. but it wasn't until 
about 2015, I believe, with Lake Erie

and the Toledo incident where they had
to close down their drinking water plant

for, what was it, close to 1 million
people. or a half a million people.

So it really brought this topic to the 
surface for our country.

and so since then we've been really 
focusing on cyantoxins.

what does it mean to drinking water?

what does it mean to recreation? 
and all that.

Colorado and around the country,
have been focusing on nutrient standards

and have been trying to come up with 
appropriate numbers for phosphorus

and nitrogen. And maybe the main focus 
has been on, obviously, to control algae

blooms and to make sure all the uses for
those waters are being met.

And so what's kind of come up as more of
a higher priority is, maybe, this public

health idea. So maybe let's go to the next
slide and see what she has to say.

So there are a few key blue-green algae
that are very common.

There's microcystins, Anabana,
Aphantzomenon and those blue-greens

are very typical throughout our lakes 
and reservoirs around our country as

well as the world.

The world health organization, a few 
years back, you know, came up with

some guidelines for the toxins that 
those produce.

It's really been a hard topic because
those blooms sometimes produce

the toxins and sometimes they don't.

And sometimes when they die and there's 
no bloom or scum on the surface, that's

when the toxins are the highest.
So it's a really hard thing

to understand about these toxins 
and the properties around them.

But some of them, they impact the liver.
They impact your nervous system.

They also, you know there's even 
dermatologists that will give you

skin rashes and so forth. And then 
there's some toxins that will kind

of cover everything and just wreck 
havoc on your body and your system.

A lot of times those toxins, have hurt
animals like cattle and pets like dogs

that will go down to a scum covered pond
and drink from it.

Typically humans are wise enough to know
not to get into close contact or to drink

water with cyanotoxins in it, with a
bloom.

But you can see from this chart, that
some of the names of the toxins.

Some of the primary organs that it
goes after.

and then the different species of algae for each of those toxins.

Might talk later, for Barr Lake, we
definitely have mirocystis, and

Anabana. Those are the ones 
that I mainly have been monitoring.

As well as Aphanzomenon. You 
can go to the next one.

Microcystin, there's a whole sort
of different kinds of these toxins.

So there's microcystin-LR , but there's
a whole series of different kinds of

microcystin. So this is just a more 
common one. And then you can

see the saxitoxin and the 
cylindrospermopsin and anatoxin-a.

Some samples that I've sent off from
Barr Lake we sent to a lab in Florida.

When we had them tested for these four
main categories, to see what we had

in Barr Lake. And then also states around
the country are starting to set up their

monitoring program and how to sample
for toxins and to give warning to people

that are using it for drinking water,
for recreation.

So these are the main cyantoxins that
we are concerned about. Next one.

So in June 2015, EPA put out an 
advisory for drinking water.

I know here in Colorado I've been working
with the health department and a group to

kind of figure out what that means for drinking water plants and how do you

monitor, and where do you monitor and
how do you go about this whole process.

This whole new thing about another
toxin to worry about.

To figure out how to make sure it's not in
your drinking water, how you're

getting it out of your drinking water, 
how to prevent it.

And then what to do, god forbid that
it gets through the system and it's all

sent out into distribution lines, what
do you do then?

So states, Colorado and others have
been working on that since 2015.

And then you see recently, EPA sent out
in the fall of 2016 the recreational waters.

And this is more applied to Barr Lake
and to maybe more reservoirs in Colorado

where there's a lot more recreational 
contact and swimming involved.

And you can see those toxins and
those levels for recreational waters.

The closing period for comments, I 
believe, just closed for that process.

Let's see. I think we can skip this one
and I'll cover it with maybe my talk?

I like this one actually. When I saw this,
it definitely tells the story.

Blue-greens are the only species of 
algae that can change their buoyancy.

So that's why you see that one cartoon
figure up there on the surface

getting a suntan.

It's blocking out the sunlight to any
other species of algae that grow.

So blue-greens have evolved over
billions of years to really be able to

do a good job of surviving in any kind
of condition.

They prefer the warmest water.

They prefer the still water, so that's why
they are more in lakes and reservoirs.

And they can get to the surface.

Obviously they can change their
buoyancy and they go down at night.

I've seen blooms literally come to 
the surface while I'm anchored in

one spot monitoring a lake.

They can go down and they can
store phosphorus.

They also have the ability to take 
nitrogen right out of the atmosphere

and use that instead of ammonia or
nitrate.

So they are capable of using nitrogen right
out of the atmosphere, which all the other

species cannot do.so that's why they
definitely can beat when nitrogen is low.

They can still use that phosphorus that
they stored up and they can use it

from the air.

So they have this kind of daily cycle 
of going down and coming back

up to get to the sun and blocking 
everything out.

Definitely, this occurs and has occurred
at Barr Lake for many years.

Next slide.

I think I can get to my slides on this 
one too.

We can skip this one.

Definitely these are the sources of
nutrients. If any body is dealing with

lakes, with reservoirs, with water quality
with drinking water, with waste water,

these are the classic sources of nutrients.
If any body's ever doing TMDL for nutrients

and you're doing it on a watershed scale,
these are, you're going to be looking at

background, you're going to be looking 
at fertilizer application whether it's lawns

or agriculture.

Definitely stormwater. And then reservoirs
and lakes, you know when a lake has zero

oxygen at the sediment, the phosphorus 
can recycle, dissolve out of the sediment

and get recycled into the water. 
next slide.

Nice pictures. Those are all the different
sources.

So, how much is too much?

A lot of times for lakes and reservoirs
I've seen where anything under 10 micro

grams per litre, you should be really
good.

Anything that gets above 10, above 20, 
then you're going to start running into

signs of nutrofication and water quality
issues with algae.

So dealing with lakes, I kind of keep 
those numbers in mind.

We can keep going , I think , to the 
next one.

So you can see here, you know, if total
phosphorus is below 10 then it should

be very good. And then to the different levels.
Very high or poor, you'll see over 100 and

with my talk, you'll see where we are at
Barr Lake.

I'm at, right now, typically 250 at Barr Lake 
and I'm ecstatic.

I'm happy because it's a lot better than
where it used to be.

So these numbers are all relevant, they 
are just sort of guidelines too, so just

keep that in mind. Next slide.

Source control strategies. There's a lot
of things you can do in the reservoir to

keep intraloading, to keep the phosphorus
in the sediment.

There's a lot of things you can do at 
point sources like wastewater treatment

plants. They are starting to treat for 
phosphorus, tertiary treatment.

There's a lot of in lake techniques. 
You can skim the algae off.

That's sort of a band-aid approach. Not
really getting at the source of the

problem, which is the phosphorus.
Many states, there's about 12

states that have state-wide phosphorus 
controls on lawn fertilizers.

We don't have one here in Colorado, but 
definitely that's the way.

You can no longer buy phosphorus in
detergents in laundry soap.

That has definitely helped since 1970's
with the Great Lakes and around the

country is controlling phosphorus in the 
products that everybody uses.

Go to the next one. Multi-barrier approach. 
Let's see. I think we'll just skip this one.

Prefer to get to my talk here soon.
[laughter]

Looks like we are getting close to
the end here. Obviously her organization

has put out a lot of good information and 
hopefully you can contact Dejenette and

get more information from the great things
that she does. at the water resource

foundation. How was that?

Kaitlyn: thank you so much Steve, 
that was awesome!

Steve: Sure.

Kaitlyn: Thanks, for stepping in for 
Djenette. I'm going to go ahead and

pass the controls to you for your 
presentation.

Steve: Sure.

Thank you.

Are we good? Alright.

Round 2 here. I first want to say I just
really appreciate this opportunity to talk

about Barr Lake specifically.

I've worked on it for about 15 years and
for me it's pretty exciting to see how water

quality has changed over those 15 years.

And so much like the talk before, going
to talk about nutrients and how algae

responds and I have definitely seen 
improvements in Barr Lake.

So this is why I was definitely on board 
when I was asked to do this webinar.

First off, cultural eutrophication it's 
sort of, it's a fancy way, a term of

saying people mess up a lake by sending
it too much nutrients all at once.

Especially at Barr Lake. Barr Lake probably
gets a million years' worth of phosphorus

in just a few months when it fills up
every year.

So the process of lakes that can handle
over time, thousands of years, millions

of years, can transition from a 
ligatrophic lake to a mesatrophic

to a hypotrophic lake where it's 
very very productive.

That can occur in a reservoir in a 
matter of years. So that's the process

that we all talk about and that we're 
worried about with cyanotoxins.

In the news, we usually hear about
the problems. Where it's toxins, fish kills.

For Barr Lake it was high pH. It was 
all based around the idea that there's

these algae blooms. But again, it's
mislabled. Those are just symptoms,

the true problem, is that it always 
goes back, every single time to too

much phosphorus and nitrogen, too
quickly to a body of water.

To introduce you to Barr Lake, this is
an aerial photo of Barr Lake.

It's just north of DIA. A lot of times, 
people fly in and you can see it out

your window as you are looking at
the mountains.

Just north of the rocky mountain
arsenal wildlife refuge.

There's also, you can see the community.
There's definitely a lot of developments and

growth in the area. It's not quite as
popular as Cherry Creek and Chatfield,

but this reservoir is quite different.

It's been around for a little over 100 years.
About as old as Denver, almost.

The other thing is, is that, it fills up 
every winter and the main use over

the years has been agriculture.

While Cherry Creek and Chatfield and 
Bear Creek have been flood control.

Barr Lake has been around a long 
time and a lot of water goes out

there to be sent out to grow crops.

And so the residence time is only 8 months.
Basically, fills in the winter and releases

during the summer and does 
this annual cycle.

It is twice the size of volume as
Cherry Creek so it is pretty big.

It's had a state park since 1975. And 
the main uses now are recreation,

aquatic life, agriculture and drinking
water that was added about

15 or so years ago.

The main source of water to Barr Lake 
is from the South Platte river.

There's a 19 mile ditch, the Burlington
Ditch that diverts water from the

South Platte River. Typically, it sweeps
the entire river. So any water you see

downtown by the confluence at Cherry
Creek or by REI, that's going out a

couple of miles to almost the riverside
cemetery and gets diverted and

sent to Barr Lake.

So travel time, if you were standing
Downtown Denver, water going down

the south platte, it probably gets to 
Barr Lake in about a day and a half.

A lot of times, people think Barr Lake
is way out northeast. People don't see

it that much, but it is definitely 
connected to the urban Denver area.

The ditch can also send water around
Barr Lake to several other agricultural

reservoirs. So here's the watershed. 
Back in the 90's it collected a lot of

water quality data in Barr Lake as 
well as Milton Reservoir.

And determined that both were 
exceeding the pH standard which

is the upper limit is 9 and so they 
were going above 9.

So it got put on a 303 D-List. And 
similar to Bear Creek, and Chatfield

and Cherry Creek, the state helped
organize a watershed association.

We call it the Barr-Milton watershed 
association because we focus on both

of those. But my main focus of this talk
is Barr lake. The idea was that this group

would bring all the stakeholders 
together.

And help write a TMDL for pH. Which
meant obviously, pH is a symptom,

so you go back to phosphorus.

So it's actually a phosphorus TMDL. 
To determine how you can achieve

the pH standard.

The big story for this watershed,
obviously, is the number of people

living just upstream of Barr Lake.

It's literally about 1 in 2 coloradoans,
live upstream of Barr. Which means,

obviously, cultural eutrophication
again and excessive amount of

phosphorus that goes out to Barr Lake.

This is sort of a timeline. This is a 
timeline of the phosphorus out at

Barr Lake, prior to 1960's for 
about 50 years.

As long as there was water in the 
South Platte coming out of Denver,

they didn't care what was in it.

Quantity trumped quality, so they sent
water, anything to Barr Lake to

according to it's water rights so they 
could fill it up so they could grow crops.

But that finally caught up to them and
it was labeled as the country's largest

inland sewage bloom back in the
50's and 60's.

And so you can see the phosphorus
concentrations are enormous.

Then there was in the mid-60's there was
a better job of consolidating wastewater

treatments. and built a new treatment
plant that was downstream of the

burlington ditch. And then by 1975
it became a state park. EPA actually

came out and sampled it three 
times in the mid 70's.

So you can see where the concentrations
were in the 70s, just over 1 milligram

per litre phosphorus.

and then we started collecting a lot of
data on water quality in the 90's, 2000's.

And we collected a lot more data and that
resulted in showing about half of the

phosphorus now, about 660 
micrograms per litre.

Then by 2015 we got down to 250 micrograms
per litre and that's where I got excited,

because look where we came from.

From 10,000 micrograms per litre to 250. 
reason why this happened was there was

the 2013 flood that happened in September
and it came down sand creek and washed

out a pipeline that used to send treated
effluent from metro wastewater uphill

and put it into the burlington ditch.

That pipeline was washed away. so since
2013 there's been no treated effluence

being pumped up into the ditch to go 
to Barr Lake.

So by, sort of, an act of God. It has 
definitely helped water quality.

The TMDL process, the goal is to get
to less than 100 micorgrams/litre in

the growing season. So that's what we're
shooting for. So we still have to reduce

it by half again. So now we're in 
the phase of implementing the TMDL.

From the TMDL, we estimated the annual
load of phosphorus, 70,000kg would go

out to Barr Lake. About 90% of that came 
from point sources, which was wastewater

treatment plants and permitted
stormwater MS4 folks.

then there was background, and background
is what's coming from Chatfield, Cherry Creek

and Bear Creek. Those reservoirs release
water into our watershed and so then

we have to account for that.

And then about 4,000kg comes internally
from the reservoir.

We need about a 92% reduction, which is
huge, to get down to about 6,000kg a year.

And then, you can see, it's a little more
balanced distribution from the different

sources. One thing to note though, in 
this process, we learned that even if

you removed every single person in 
the watershed, all the streets, all the

stormwater, removed all the point 
sources, you'd still be left with the

3,000 coming in from upstream watersheds 
and the 4,000 in the reservoir.

So that's 7000kg which is more than what
we think it will take to achieve the pH

standard. And so it just means that every
single source needs to be addressed.

So how are we going to do this?

A lot of dollar signs on this slide, so 
you can see it's going to take a lot of money

to get down below 100 micrograms
per litre.

First off, wastewater treatment plants
are moving to tertiary treatment.

Metro wastewater, Littleton/Englewood,
and Centennial are the three upstream

wastewater treatment plants to Barr Lake.

Stormwater also. Denver, just last year I
believe, increased their stormwater bills. So they

now have plans for major improvements in
north Denver.

Platte Park Hill is one of those big 
stormwater projects that will eventually

help water quality in Barr Lake.

We've also looked at studies for internal
loading. Not quite as expensive, but still

going to cost some money.

we also have to treat the phosphorus
that's coming out, from upstream in

our watershed. So we somehow have
to intercept that.

And then of course we do public education.

Here's a chart of our phosphorus. 
This is sort of a monthly timeframe

of the 15 years I've been sampling.

You can see the phosphorus comes in 
with the water in the winter and slowly

drops out. and then increases again in 
the summer, maybe during internal loading.

and then it gets lowest in October.

Along with that, you get chlorphyill A. 
Chart here shows there's a big diatom

growth in the spring time.

the best time to go up to Barr Lake, I 
recommend, is in May and early June.

There's very little growth of algae, it's
full, and it's got great water clarity.

Because as soon as 4th of July comes 
around and the big recreational season,

and the growing season.

Typically we would get the big blue-green
algae bloom, the first one, the microcystis

algae bloom. And the kind of crash and
bloom, crash and bloom. And we have

another big one Aphantzomenon in 
late September.

So this is why Barr Lake has the reputation
of being a blue-green algae scummy lake.

When I first started in '02 sampling this
was pretty much every summer what it

would look like. It would be monoculture
of algae bloom that would go over

the entire lake. And eventually get crusty
and scab over and cause odor issues

and stuff. 
And you can see the bottom picture.

The people that would mostly recreate
would be people fishing from shore

and they would just tolerate it and avoid
those scums the best that they could.

More recently, since the 2013 flood, there
has been a big noticeable change.

Open water, it's clear and back in '02 
and '03 the boat wake would be green

not white and foamy. And then you can
see last, middle of July, when we should

be having a big bloom, we have really 
nice water quality compared to

previous years.

We did, because of the 2015 issues
around the cyanotoxins. We decided to

say "Ok let's just kind of explore this
and get some strip tests from Abraxis

and do some testing out there." I tested
the open water as well as near shore.

Open water never had any indication 
of the cyanotoxins. The only time I got

it was when I would sample the shoreline
where we see this green line of

blue-green algae.

Water quality's pretty good. It's not like
the other pictures where it's completely

crusted over.

There was still a small less intense algae
bloom. It was typically microcystis and

some Aphantzomenon.

but when we sent off those samples to
green water, we did get a hit on

microcystin. We did not have any 
Anatoxin-A, saxitoxin, or

cylindrospermopsin. It was mainly
because of the microcystis.

But Barr Lake, key note is, that even
though it's classfied as primary full

contact use. The rules out there for the 
state park is that there is no swimming,

no swim beach, even dogs are not allowed 
to wade into the water.

The main thing is just boating and recreating,
fishing from shore.

Now clearly, people get into the water 
they roll their kayaks this was a camp

here that would take kayaks out and learn
how to roll kayaks.

so there is incidental contact. but the 
thing is that we try to do a good job of

educating people year round at Barr Lake
to be algae aware.

That you just want to avoid any time you
see green surface scum on any body of water.

So what we do educationally, we try to do
our best to educate people just algae in

general, water quality, phosphorus and
the watershed.

So the big plan here. If we achieve making
sure all these uses are being met, then

I think we'll be good.

Obviously there's dollar signs to this. 
so if aquatic life is happy then the

fish will be happy.

We'll be spending less money on fixing 
the problem than just maintaining the

proper conditions out there.

Recreation's a big deal. And then of 
course we grow a lot of food and

it's a water supply.

So those are definitely all these. 
What's unique about our lake is that

these uses are equally important.

And if we achieve the right amount of 
nutrients coming from the watershed,

then we believe the blooms will be less
intense, not as long and that the

reservoir will be a healthy system.

So I believe with that, I'll end with a 
sunset picture and I thank every body

for listening to me for the last 
half hour.

Kaitlyn; Thank you so much Steve. 
We are going to switch to Troy.

Troy I just made you a presenter and I
believe you just un-muted yourself.

So thank you.

Troy: Good morning every body. 
Is my sound and screen working ok?

They sure are.

Troy: Ok good deal.

Moderator: You are not in presentation
mode so we can still see your next slide.

Troy: Let's try that. Did that help?

Moderator: No, we can still see your next
slide but feel free to carry on.

Troy: Ok, sorry about that. So you get a 
preview of what I'm talking about before

I get there. We're going to switch from 
point sources, that Steve was talking

about with Barr Lake.

You know, system mostly impacted by point sources to non point source.

My field is working with agricultural producers on reducing nutrient losses on their fields.

I'll give you a little bit about the 
process. and where we are on that.

So it's important to remember that ag 
nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus are

in other nutrients, but in this instance 
we are talking about N and P.

Are absolutely required for productive
agriculture. If we fail to replace or

supplement nitrogen and phosphorus 
that's removed by our crop systems,

ultimately not only will you result in low 
and unprofitable yields,

but you'll end up with a situation where you're not putting enough crop residue back into the system and you can have soil degredation.

So it is important for sustainable 
agriculture.

But of course we need good management. 
To prevent too much N and P in our soils

and then of course the potential to
reduce the potential for movement to

surface and groundwater.

So recently, in 2012, Colorado passed 
a nutrient policy called regulation 85.

For agriculture it's still a non point 
source kind of voluntary approach

to help incentivize producers to utilize, 
voluntarily, BMPs around nitrogen and

phosphorus control in their operations.

and we partnered with CDPHE, to produce
some resources and outreach program

which we are calling Colorado Ag Water 
Quality and this is our logo.

And you'll find all these resources at 
that URL, coloradoagnutrients.org.

the purpose of this outreach effort is 
to get the word out to growers about

how reg 85 could potentially affect them.

and right now it's a non point source 
voluntary policy for agriculture, but

they are going to reevaluate that in 
2022 to see if we've made progress

on BMP implementation, adoption and 
water quality as it relates to non

point source in agriculture.

I'd really encourage you to go to that
URL. There's a couple of videos up

there that do a really nice job of having
the stakeholders, producers and people

that represent them talk about how 
nutrient, using nutrients in agriculture

is important to them.

and practices they can use to prevent 
non point source pollution.

I'd encourage you to go check that out.

So the approach that I encourage and 
we do in our program is what I call

participatory research and outreach.

Around getting growers to implement 
BMPs voluntary.

And some of the concepts that we work
with are nutrient management with

the 4R concept.

We encourage BMPs around conservation
tillage and the soil resource.

And what's really important in a semi-arid
state like colorado, where so much of our

crop production relies on agriculture's
managing that water source improved

irrigation systems and advanced
irrigation scheduling.

and i'll talk about that a little bit more 
in a couple of slides.

and then finally, we definitely want to
work with our growers on the agronomic

and economic feasibility of these 
practices to help them understand

how they can help the bottom line.

so early in the process of any localized
or state wide stakeholder engagement

around ag and water quality, it's 
important to get the stakeholders

involved early in the process.

And we've been doing that for many years.
producer input; we want them to

understand that buying into what is even
defined as a best management practice.

and then demonstrate their effectiveness
and their agronomic practicality.

and then try to follow up with tools and
resources that our producers can use

and understand and help them manage 
their nutrients and water better.

So a little bit about BMP effectiveness
on the ground.

I talked about the 4R concept that's kind 
of become fairly popular recently in

agriculture. And that is applying the 
right nutrient at the right amount, or rate,

at the right place within the soil.

Either spatially or within the plane of 
the root zone, at the right time. Trying

to time our nutrients when the crops 
need them the most.

So the uptake efficiency will be be higher.
and the right source.

Sometimes we have different nutrient 
sources, whether it be compost or

commercial fertilizer. It might be 
better for the conditions on the

ground or the farmer's situation.

When these practices are properly 
implemented, they do in most cases

increase nutrient use efficiency by the
crop and thus prevent the potential for

movement in most environments.

However, as I mentioned before, 
in Colorado in our irrigated

environment we know that most of our
losses are with water, soluableized

or attached to sediments.

For these 4R's to work we need improved
irrigation management to take place

at the same time. In each of nutrients
type we don't manage our water,

we could be defeating the purpose.

So a little bit about irrigation
management.

Like I mentioned, it's really critical
for quatifiable reductions at the

field level. Particularly with nitrate 
leaching but also with runoff.

and you can have improvements in system
upgrades moving from a furrow to a

pivot to a drip system. or you can improve
your management in terms of scheduling

your water at the right time and 
right amount.

and together those two practices can go a
long way for tightly managing your water

and your nutrients. and a lot of this is
occurring organically in the watershed.

a good example I like to show is some
google earth imagery, satellite imagery

from around fort morgan.
And if you go back to 1998 and look,

and this is black and white imagery. you
can see a grid work of rectangular and

square fields out there as recently as
only 20 years ago.

but if you look at an image from just a 
couple of years ago, you can see that

most of those have been replaced with
circles and center pivot irrigation systems

and the opportunity to manage your 
water and your nutrients is much higher

when you improve your efficiency of
your system.

a lot of this is happening already. 
growers are adopting these practices

for a variety of reasons, but usually it's 
economics and labor.

I mentioned we like to provide tools that
growers can use to manage their nutrients

and their water.

and recently we released an online
irrigation scheduler called WISE.

This is a couple screen shots from that 
particular product.

you can find that at wise.colostate.edu.

it's a very user friendly, convenient 
irrigation scheduling platform at

erams at colorado state university.

again tying our nutrients to our 
water management.

the other thing that i mentioned that is
important for agriculture for adoption

of BMPs is to show results and water 
quality is part of that.

growers need to know that if they use
these practices it will make a difference.

on one side of your screen you can see
some water quality coming off fields

where we had just conventional tillage 
and on the other side of the screen

you can see BMP in terms of strip tillage
and you can see the residue that it

left in place there.
and how that residue is affecting the

quality of the water coming off that plot 
compared to the other plot.

and of course, the bottom line matters 
with growers. they are in business to

make money. and so we try to provide 
them the costs and returns of

adopting practices. our gross returns are 
represented largely by the yield on one

side of your graph where you can see the
dark brown bar of conventional, compared

to the light brown bar of strip vs the green
bar of another BMP that we tried that was

minimum till on this particular project.

and where the gross returns showed the
BMP was losing a little bit of money,

when we looked at the net returns because
of the costs of inputs for that particular

practice, you can see that the gross 
returns were highest with the BMP

practice of strip tillage.

so the bottom line matters and it's 
important to work with growers so

that they know how these practices are 
going to affect that for them.

Some challenges that i see or have seen in
my career, both looking locally and

nationally in terms of what we're facing in 
nutrients and water quality.

in colorado, where water rights and
policy may be perceived from keeping

growers from implementing certain, 
maybe, irrigation practices.

a lot of times that's more perception 
than reality but it's still out there.

In many parts of the country we have some
nutrient balances and watersheds, with

high density of animal feeding 
that are off.

we have more N and P coming in than
is going out as product.

I see places where perhaps our baseline
concentrations are greater than the

standard that we are going to try and
achieve and I think that's going to be

difficult with non point source 
implementation to meet those targets.

And then the idea, we know that a lot 
of our water quality problems are localized.

And how do you target a watershed or an
area of agriculture without making the

producers feel like they are being 
targeted, as, at the problem with

finger pointing. Funding is always an
issue. not all of these BMPs are cost

neutral or positive.

so getting funding through NRCS cost 
shares or other places to help implement

these is an issue.

and then finally, when it comes to showing
these are working. obtaining non point

source water quality and adoption data is
going to be necessary to show agriculture's

doing it's part moving forward.

just to finish up here. like i said, 
supplemental nutrients are definitely

necessary for sustainable agriculture.
you can't continue to grow profitable crops

without supplementing what they are
removing from the system.

They have a lot of BMPs that can help 
mitigate that loss in movement in

water resources.

A lot of these growers are using already
and I think we can improve upon what

we are doing as we learn more information.

Incentives, tools and resources are all
critical to help growers adopt BMPs.

and i think we can all work together 
to do a better job with that.

It's definitely important to engage
growers early and often in this process

and not only the growers but their 
representatives and commodity groups

and the people that advise them.

and that is what I had to share this morning. 
I appreciate your attention and

I appreciate the opportunity to be 
on this call. So I'll turn it back to Kaitlyn.

Kaitlyn: It looks like we have a few 
questions coming in, so i think Emily

will read those and Troy and Steve can 
see if they have responses.

Emily: Yeah, so we have a few questions.

The first question comes from Lisa 
Buchanan and she asks, "How difficult

was it to get buy in for upstream treatment for Barr Lake?"

Steve: Well, buy-in. So starting in 2002
we formed this watershed group that

brought together the point source 
dischargers as well as the users of the

lake and the owners of the lake and the
people that use it for drinking water.

So our goal from the very beginning 
was to have the consensus- driven

process with this board of directors and 
this watershed group.

We didn't want to have finger pointing 
and going down lawsuit routes and

have twenty models trying to 
explain the system.

so from the very beginning when we
formed our watershed group and we put in

our bylaws, we wanted to have buy in from 
every body that was sitting at the table.

To join, and to be a member of the board,
you had to put in $10,000 as a member

and you got a seat on the board.

And so the people, the dischargers, the 
upstream folks that were definitely

going to be part of the TMDL as an
allocation for phosphorus, wanted

to be at the table.

so you joined and then we all agree,
that you know. We all understand this

is an effort by everybody and that 
everyone's going to be paying for

treatment plant upgrades, everyone's 
going to be paying for drinking

water upgrades.

Everybody will hopefully be enjoying
Barr Lake and so we really tried to come

together as one group and always make
decisions based on 100% consensus.

We literally do our voting with thumbs up
or thumbs down. if we don't have

everyone's thumbs up then we
continue to work on it.

Emily: thank you so much. 
we have a couple more questions.

The next one is directed at Steve. "Steve
did you alum to fix P in sediment?

If so, what was the result and cost? Thanks"

Steve: Sure. So alum is a very common
whole lake treatment process. People

have been using since the 70's.

We have not used alum in Barr Lake. 
We have people, we've had some reports

saying that alum would be a great way to
bind up and keep that phosphorus

bound up in the sediment. 
The in-canal treatment,

treating the upstream phosphorus that
comes into our watershed and then

comes through and comes down the ditch.

One process or a study we said was that
we could divert that water out of the ditch.

mix it with alum, separate the phosphorus,
and then send that water into Barr Lake.

We did use alum a little bit in, there
was that picture of those corrals, those

columnar corrals they did some studying
of what would happen to cholophill A

and phosphorus if phosphorus
did get below 100.

Because we've never seen it below 300. 
so we had to do some artificial

testing out there. and we did use alum 
to strip out the phosphorus in the water

column. just so we could see how
the lake responds.

It's about, when we did our study, it's
about $1 per gallon and so it's just a

matter of how many gallons of alum you 
want to put in to remove the amount

of phosphorus.

Emily: thanks. The next question comes
from Ken Clark. "What are the

opportunities. What opportunities are 
there for translating or scaling, agricultural

BMPs to urban landscape practices?"

Let me know if you want me to 
repeat the question.

Troy: Go ahead and start Steve.

Steve:The only thing I can sort of talk 
about a little bit is, some of those

translations of nutrient management with 
fertilizers, the same concept can be

applied to what we do with urban lawns.

And so, a lot of times, its a matter of 
keeping the fertilizer on your lawn.

so it's the 4R's applies to your lawn as 
well as a corn field in Weld county.

Don't do it just before a storm event, 
washes on your driveway and goes

into a storm drain. Maybe do some soil 
testing and maybe you don't need

phosphorus to grow a lawn.

Phosphorus is, as I understand, is for
seed production and flowering. People

just want a green lawn so that's the
nitrogen part of it. Troy do you have

anything else?

Troy: Just would ditto that. Again when
you look at CSU Extension's

recommendations for lawns, we don't 
really even recommend phosphorus.

We prefer folks stick with nitrogen
and for a low maintenance lawn that's

really at around 1 pound per 
1,000 square foot per year.

Again making sure you put the right rate on,
not too much, at the right time.

and we have recommendations for those too.

And the biggest one is just keeping it 
off impermeable surfaces.

Emily: Great, thanks. So the next question
is directed at Troy. From Kelly Denataly.

"Do you think the rollback of the Obama
administration's clean water rules

will change the attitudes of ag producers
towards implementing BMPs?"

Troy: Hmm. [chuckle] Good one Kelly.
I don't think so.

Particularly in Colorado, since we do have
somewhat of a statewide policy with reg 85

and some of the other policies with non
point source with agriculture.

You know, our state, is so semi-arid and 
we have so few places where we have

direct contact between agriculture and a 
stream, I don't think so.

I think that there are a lot of economic
incentives especially around fertilizer to

apply the 4R concept to what they're 
doing that what I worry perhaps more

about is cuts to conservation programs 
within agencies such as USDA-NRCS

and research potential cuts as has been
proposed to the ag research service,

agricultural research service within USDA 
and our land grant system.

because that's where we develop a lot of
the information that we can translate to

producers about, you know, the best way
to manage their nutrients.

I don't think it's going to be, I'm less 
worried about perhaps, changes in

attitudes with growers than I am with the 
proposed cuts to our research and land

grant and outreach organizations that work
directly with producers around the country.

Emily: the next question comes to us from 
Kevin McBride. and he asks "how is the?"

agricultural practice of high alt hay and 
ranching different from the row cropping

discussed? Is there extra nutrients appropriate BMPs?"

Troy: I think I understand the question.
What are some differences in Best

management practices between high 
altitude mountain meadow production

versus row crop production.

They are not terribly different, it's just
the opportunities perhaps to do things

like placement like nutrients in the 
root zone or a little more limited in

those established pastures.

but there's other things that they can
do up there. Timing makes a difference

on when you apply fertilizer to a high 
altitude meadow system.

we've done some research with Joe 
Brummer, in our department, a forage

and high mountain meadow specialist, on
timing fertilizer applications in the fall vs

early spring vs late spring. 
and found that the earlier you can apply

your nutrients before you apply your
irrigation water in the spring, the less

likely they are going to move out of 
those systems.

I'd say the other difference is that
those mountain meadows have a

very short growing season and limited 
productivities, so they, a lot of times

their productivity is not necessarily
defined as much by how much fertilizer

they apply. 
Is the short growing season whereas

down here on the plains with row crop
agriculture much longer growing season

and typically much higher nutrient application rates.

Emily: great thanks. The next question is
for Troy from Lisa Buchanan. She asks

"for areas where BMPs are being used, have
you seen an improvement in downstream

water quality is treated?"'

Troy: Yeah that's a good question. I
personally haven't done any, that

many studies with surface water quality
and BMP implementation on a

watershed scale. The data I showed
you was on the edge of field scale.

and we definitely can show edge of 
field water quality improvements at

edge of field in the work that I've done. 
nationally other folks have done

watershed studies and it depends on the
BMP systems and how well they were

implemented and how well the BMP
fit the agriculture in the area.

Emily: thanks. we have time for one
more question. This question comes

from Jojo Laff and he asks "Troy in your
experience what is the best way to

agricultural members buy in for 
participation in voluntary programs?"

"What do you believe are the best 
incentives for participation? Additionally,

what is the best way to conduct public
education on BMPs and the tools available?"

Let me know if you want me to repeat 
any part of that.

Troy: So the best, or the first part of that
question I heard, I think I heard was

"what's the best way to agricultural 
producers involved and interested in

learning about and implementing 
best management practices.?"

It depends on the practice to be honest
with you. I think a lot of practices, like I

showed with implementing center pivot
irrigation instead of furrow irrigation

are happening on their own because 
the incentives are already there.

whether it's labor saving time or 
money or nutrients.

The tougher ones I think are 
structural BMPS like filter strips

and set backs and things like that may cost 
producers some time and money.

I think those have, your incentives there 
are cost sharing and those kinds of things.

I think in terms of getting them to the table,
you know, working through their groups that

represent them, whether they be commodity
or livestock associations are really important.

those folks are really engaged in the 
conversation and they want their

producers to know what's going on.

Because there's so many producers and
there's so few of us doing this kind of work,

that we can't talk to every body.

But getting people around the table is really important whether it be growers or the people that represent them.

Can you repeat the second part of 
that question?

Emily: The second part asks, "Additionally,
what is the best way to conduct public

education on BMPs and the tools available?"

Troy: yeah, that is an interesting question.

because we just went through this process 
with CDPHE and stakeholders over the past

year with reg 85 and the example outreach
program that I showed early in my

presentation. And we've kind of evolved
about how we presented information to

producers. It used to be a lot of factsheets
and bulletins and written materials.

and that kind of thing. and it's certainly 
going more high tech with short videos a

nd websites and providing them tools
like irrigation schedulers or nutrient

management planners that they can use. 
particularly stuff that they can pull

up on their smartphone when they 
are up there on their tractor with their g

uidance system taking them down the row.

Definitely, technology and I think the 
other place, again, is getting to the

people that talk to them.

getting to the local extension people, 
getting to NRCS, getting to

certified crop advisers.

Fertilizer dealers, people who, input 
suppliers can reach so many more

growers than we can. 
Emily: great thanks so much.

I believe that concludes the question 
part and I will pass it over to Katelyn.

Kaitlyn: thank you to both of our 
panelists. And Steve, thanks for

taking over for Dejenette. We did record
this webinar, so you all will receive an

email with links to the recording.

Or you can find it on either 
of our websites.

We encourage you to take the next step
by connecting with the Colorado foundation

for water education and colorado 
water congress.

You should see our websites on 
your screen.

Thanks to the presenters for their 
time as well as the audience for

their participation and those 
wonderful questions.

This concludes our webinar, thank you.