1994 SUMMARY REPORT
SECTION 319
NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM
PROJECTS
Nonpoint Source Watershed Project Studies
NCSU Water Quality Group
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7637
Deanna L. Osmond
Steven W. Coffey
Daniel E. Line
Judith A. Gale
Jo Beth Mullens
Jean Spooner
Jean Spooner, Group Leader - Co-Principal Investigator
Frank J. Humenik, Program Director - Co-Principal Investigator
U.S.EPA - NCSU-CES Grant No. X818397
Steven A. Dressing
Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Washington, DC
September 1994
-------
Disclaimer
This publication was developed by the North Carolina State University Water QualityGroup,
a part of the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, under U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) Grant No. X818397. The contents and views expressed in this
document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or positions of
the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, the USEPA, or other organizations named
in this report, nor does the mention of trade names for products or software constitute their
endorsement.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the coordinators of the 319 National Monitoring Program
projects, who have provided invaluable information and document review. The authors are
most appreciative of the time and effort of Janet Young, who formatted this document.
Additional thanks to Melinda Pfeiffer, who edited this publication, and Jim Roberson, who
provided the graphics.
This publication should be cited as follows: Osmond, D.L., D.E. Line, J.B. Mullens, S.W.
Coffey, J.A. Gale, and J. Spooner. 1994.1994 Summary Report: Section 319 National Moni-
toring Program Projects, Nonpoint Source Watershed Project Studies, NCSU Water Quality
Group, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State Univer-
sity, Raleigh, NC, EPA-841-S-94-006.
-------
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ..1
Chapter 2: Guidance for Project Selection, Planning, and Implementation ..5
Chapter 3: Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project Profiles 19
Arizona - Oak Creek Canyon
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 21
California - Morro Bay Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 35
Idaho - Eastern Snake River Plain
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 49
Illinois - Lake Pittsfield
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 63
Iowa - Sny Magill Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project ..73
Maryland - Warner Creek Watershed
Section 319 Project
(Pending Section 319 National
Monitoring Program Project Approval) 89
Michigan - Sycamore Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 97
Nebraska - Elm Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 107
North Carolina - Long Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 119
Pennsylvania - Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 131
Vermont - Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 139
111
-------
Project Profiles (Continued)
Wisconsin - Otter Creek
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project.
.149
Appendices 159
I. Minimum Reporting Requirements for
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Projects 161
II. Abbreviations .....165
III. Glossary of Terms 169
IV. Project Documents and Other Relevant Publications 177
IV
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Figure 8:
Figure 9:
Figure 10:
Figure 11:
Figure 12:
Figure 13:
Figure 14:
Figure 15:
Figure 16:
Figure 17:
Figure 18:
Oak Creek Canyon (Arizona) Project Location 21
Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Oak Creek Canyon (Arizona)
Morro Bay (California) Watershed
Project Location
Paired Watersheds (Chorro Creek and
Los Osos Creek) in Morro Bay (California).
Eastern Snake River Plain (Idaho)
Demonstration Project Area Location
Eastern Snake River Plain (Idaho)
Demonstration Project Area
Eastern Snake River Plain (Idaho)
Project Field Well Locations
Lake Pittsfield (Illinois) Location.
.22
.35
,.36
..49
..50
..51
..63
Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Blue Creek
Watershed and Lake Pittsfield (Illinois)
Sny Magill and Bloody Run (Iowa) Watershed
Project Locations
Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Sny Magill
and Bloody Run (Iowa) Watersheds
Warner Creek (Maryland) Watershed
Project Location
Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Warner Creek (Maryland) Watershed..
Sycamore Creek (Michigan) Project Location.
Paired Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
the Sycamore Creek (Michigan) Watershed....
.64
.73
.74
.89
..90
..97
..98
Elm Creek (Nebraska) Watershed
Project Location
Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Elm Creek (Nebraska) Watershed
Long Creek (North Carolina) Watershed
Project Location
.107
.108
.119
-------
List of Figures (Continued)
Figure 19: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Long Creek (North Carolina) Watershed 120
Figure 20: Pequea and Mill Creek (Pennsylvania) Watershed
Project Location 131
Figure 21: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Pequea and
Mill Creek (Pennsylvania) Watershed 132
Figure 22: Lake Champlain Basin (Vermont) Watersheds
Project Location 139
Figure 23: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Lake Champlain Basin (Vermont) Watersheds 140
Figure 24: Otter Creek (Wisconsin) Watershed
Project Location 149
Figure 25: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Otter Creek (Wisconsin) 150
VI
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
Monitoring of both land treatment and water quality to document water quality
improvement from nonpoint source (NFS) pollution controls is necessary, in at
least a few projects, to provide information to decision makers regarding the
effectiveness of NFS pollution control efforts. The United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency (U SEP A) Section 319 National Monitoring Program
is designed to provide information on pollution control efforts by documenting
water quality changes associated with land treatment.
The Section 319 National Monitoring Program projects comprise a small subset
of NFS pollution control projects funded under Section 319 of the Clean Water
Act as amended in 1987. Currently, projects are focused on stream systems, but
USEPA intends to expand into ground water, lakes, and estuaries as suitable
project criteria are developed. The goal of the program is to support 20 to 30
watershed projects nationwide that meet a minimum set of project planning,
implementation, monitoring, and evaluation requirements designed to lead to
successful documentation of project effectiveness with respect to water quality
protection or improvement. The projects are nominated by their respective
USEPA Regional Offices, in cooperation with state lead agencies for Section
319 funds. USEPA Headquarters reviews all proposals, negotiates with the
regions and states regarding project detail, and recommends that regions fund
acceptable projects using a regional 5% set-aside of Section 319 funds.
The selection criteria used by USEPA Headquarters for Section 319 National
Monitoring projects are primarily based on the components listed below. In
addition to the specific criteria, emphasis is placed on projects that have a high
probability of documenting water quality improvements from NFS controls over
a 5- to 10-year period.
• Documentation of the water quality problem, which includes identification
of the pollutant(s) of primary concern, the source(s) of those pollutants,
and the impact on designated uses of the water resources.
• Comprehensive watershed description.
• Well-defined critical area that encompasses the major sources of pollution
being delivered to the impaired water resource. Delineation of a critical
area should be based on the primary pollutant(s) causing the impairment,
the source(s) of the pollutant(s), and the delivery system of the pollutants
to the impaired water resource.
• A watershed implementation plan that uses appropriate best management
practice (BMP) systems. Systems of BMPs are a combination of individual
BMPs designed to reduce a specific NFS problem in a given location. These
BMP systems should address the primary pollutant(s) of concern and
should be installed and utilized on the critical area.
• Quantitative and realistic water quality and land treatment objectives and
goals.
• High level of expected implementation and landowner participation.
• Clearly defined NFS monitoring program objectives.
• Water quality and land treatment monitoring designs that have a high
probability of documenting changes in water quality that are associated
with the implementation of land treatment.
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
• Well-established institutional arrangements and multi-year, up-front fund-
ing for project planning and implementation.
• Effective and ongoing information and education programs.
• Effective technology transfer mechanisms.
Minimum tracking and reporting requirements for land treatment and surface
water quality monitoring have been established by USEPA for the National
Monitoring Program projects (USEPA, 1991). These requirements should be
considered as minimum guidelines for those projects whose objective is to
evaluate water quality changes at a watershed or subwatershed level as a result
of land treatment implementation. These minimum reporting requirements for
Section 319 National Monitoring Program projects are listed in Appendix I.
This publication is an annual report on the ten Section 319 National Monitoring
Program projects and one ground water pilot project approved as of July 31,
1994. (A report on the Warner Creek, Maryland, 319 project, which is pending
Section 319 National Monitoring Program project approval, is also included.)
Project profiles were prepared by the North Carolina State University (NCSU)
Water Quality Group under the USEPA grant entitled Nonpoint Source Wa-
tershed Project Studies, and by the Oregon State University Water Resource
Research Institute. Profiles have been reviewed and edited by personnel asso-
ciated with each project.
The ten surface water monitoring projects selected as Section 319 National
Monitoring Program projects are Elm Creek (Nebraska), Lake Champlain
(Vermont), Lake Pittsfield (Illinois), Long Creek (North Carolina), Morro Bay
(California), Oak Creek Canyon (Arizona), Otter Creek (Wisconsin), Pequea
and Mill Creek (Pennsylvania), Sny Magill (Iowa), and Sycamore Creek (Michi-
gan). The eleventh project, Snake River Plain, Idaho, is a pilot ground water
project. The Warner Creek (Maryland) 319 project is pending Section 319
National Monitoring Program project approval.
Each project profile includes a project overview, project description, and maps.
In the project description section, water resources are identified, water quality
and project area characteristics are described, and the water qualitymonitoring
program is outlined. Project budgets and project contacts are also included in
the description.
The Appendices include the minimum reporting requirements for Section 319
National Monitoring Program projects (Appendix I), a list of abbreviations
(Appendix II), and a glossary of terms (Appendix III) used in the project
profiles. A list of project documents and other relevant publications for each
project is included in Appendix IV.
-------
REFERENCES
USEPA. 1991. Watershed Monitoring and Reporting for Section 319 National
Monitoring Program Projects. Assessment and Watershed Protection Division,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Office of Water, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
-------
Chapter 2
Guidance for Project Selection,
Planning, and Implementation
-------
Chanter 2
The Section 319 National Monitoring Program was designed to assist nonpoint
source (NFS) pollution control project teams in successfully associating land
treatment implementation with improvement in water quality. There are two
important steps which, when taken during project initiation and planning, can
significantly facilitate the linking of water quality improvements with the imple-
mentation of land treatment practices or changes in land use. The two steps are:
1) selecting an appropriate watershed project and
2) documenting the water quality problem.
Many factors, including project length, watershed size, water quality problem,
and type of NFS pollution (i.e., urban, agricultural, etc.), combine to affect the
probable success of NFS pollution control projects. These and other factors
should be considered in the project selection process. Once a project has been
selected, the water quality problem must be properly identified and docu-
mented so that the project team can: 1) select and implement NFS controls that
effectively address the problem and 2) design a monitoring effort that will detect
water quality changes resulting from the land treatment implemented during
the project.
The following draft fact sheets are included to provide information and guid-
ance on selecting water quality projects and documenting water quality prob-
lems. The fact sheets were developed from lessons learned about the control of
agricultural NFS pollution from the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP). The
RCWP was the largest federally sponsored experimental agricultural NFS
control program implemented to date. The basis of the RCWP program was
the combination of land treatment and water quality monitoring to document
the effectiveness of NFS pollution control measures. Due to the complexity and
scope of the RCWP, a great deal of information on watershed-based manage-
ment was collected. A portion of this information is included in the two draft
fact sheets entitled, Selecting an Agicultural Water Quality Project: The Rural
Clean Water Program Experience and Identifying and Documenting a Water
Quality Problem: The Rural Clean Water Progfam Experience. Although the
focus of these fact sheets is agricultural, the principles can be applied to both
rural and urban watersheds.
-------
Chapter 2
The Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram (RCWP), a 10-year feder-
ally sponsored nonpoint source
(NFS) pollution control pro-
gram, was initiated in 1980 as an
experimental effort to address
agricultural NFS pollution
problems in watersheds across
the country. The RCWP is im-
portant because it is one of the
few national NFS control pro-
grams that has combined land
treatment and water quality
monitoring in a continuous
feedback loop to document the
effectiveness of NPS pollution
control measures.
The RCWP was adminis-
tered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Agricultural Stabi-
lization and Conservation Serv-
ice in consultation with the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency. The Soil Conservation
Service, Extension Service, Eco-
nomic Research Service, Agri-
cultural Research Service, U. S.
Geological Survey, and many
other agencies also participated.
The 21 experimental RCWP
projects, representing a wide
range of pollution problems and
impaired water uses, were lo-
cated in Alabama, Delaware,
Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa,
Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Min-
nesota, Nebraska, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Tennessee/Kentucky, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia,and Wiscon-
Appropriate best manage-
ment practices (BMPs) were
used by producers to reduce
NPS pollution from their farm-
ing operations. Since participa-
tion in the RCWP was voluntary,
cost-share funds and technical
assistance, provided by the fed-
eral government, were offered to
producers as incentives for us-
ing or installing BMPs.
SELECTING AN AGRICULTURAL
WATER QUALITY PROJECT:
The Rural Clean Water Program
Experience
Restoring or protecting water resources from nonpoint sources of
pollution is critical in assuring good water quality. Watershed-level
projects are ideal for improving or protecting a water resource from a
total watershed perspective. However, controlling nonpoint source
(NPS) pollution generally requires funding from public appropriations.
To assure the best use of scarce financial resources, it is important to
select those NPS pollution control projects that are the most viable and
can succeed in either protecting threatened or restoring impaired water
resources.
A successful NPS pollution control project does not happen ran-
domly: nonpoint source pollution control project selection is a difficult
and time-consuming task. Projects need to be selected carefully based
on an analysis of the technical and social factors within the watershed
of concern. Because encouraging feedback is essential to project
participants, the watershed community, and policy makers, watershed
projects that have a high probability for reversing a water quality use
impairment, or that contain highly valued water resources threatened
by NPS pollution, should be given high priority. The technical factors
involve:
• the correct identification and documentation of the water quality
problem(s);
• analysis of the appropriate types and quantities of land-based
treatment in the critical areas;
• selection of a water quality problem that can be treated within the
project's time frame and monetary constraints; and
• monitoring to document changes in land treatment and water
quality.
Social factors that influence the effectiveness of any NPS pollution
control project include:
• commitment by the community and producers to control NPS
pollution;
(DRAFT 8/1/94)
-------
Chapter 2
Water Resource
Impairment and Water
Quality Objectives and
Goals
RCWP Project Examples
A well-defined water qual-
ity problem statement was
used to select the Taylor
Creek - Nubin Slough RCWP
project (Florida). Lake
Okeechobee (the water re-
source of concern), a multi-
purpose freshwater lake,
received excessive quantities
of phosphorus- (pollutant)
laden runoff from dairy
farms (pollutant source) lo-
cated on the Taylor Creek -
Nubin Slough tributaries.
High phosphorus inputs
(magnitude of the pollutant)
from agricultural areas, espe-
cially the Taylor Creek - Nu-
bin Slough drainage areas,
were causing eutrophication
(water use impairment) of
Lake Okeechobee. Lower
dissojved oxygen contents
and increased plant growth
were affecting drinking water
standards, recreational use,
and habitat quality of the lake.
Because of the well-defined
water quality problem state-
ment, an effective best man-
agement strategy (BMP) was
designed with a quantitative
goal to reduce by 50% phos-
phorus concentrations of the
water entering Lake
Okeechobee from the water-
shed. After BMP implemen-
tation, phosphorus inputs into
Lake Okeechobee from the
Taylor Creek - Nubin Slough
drainage areas were reduced
by more than 50%.
Conversely, the Massa-
chusetts RCWP project was
selected without a well-de-
fined water quality problem
statement. Since the water
quality problem statement did
not clearly define the source
of the fecal coliform contami-
nation (dairy farms or on-site
waste management systems),
dairy farmers were reluctant
to participate in RCWP ac-
tivities. Because of poor pro-
ject participation, there was
no documentable change in
the water quality of the estu-
ary.
• implementation strategies selected by the sponsoring agencies and
the agencies' ability to work together; and
• multi-year funding sufficient to offer technical assistance, informa-
tion and education, and cost-share for best management practice
(BMP) implementation to ensure a high level of participation in the
critical areas.
Many of the 21 projects that participated in the Rural Clean Water
Program (RCWP), an experimental NPS pollution control project, were
successful in reducing the impacts of NPS pollution (Gale et. al., 1993).
Each of these successful projects was able to uniquely combine the
necessary technical and social factors that comprise an effective NPS
pollution control project. Specific examples and lessons learned from
RCWP on the selection of workable NPS pollution control projects are
presented below, along with examples of specific RCWP projects.
Water Resource Impairment and Water Quality Objec-
tives and Goals
One of the most critical factors when selecting a NPS pollution
control project is to choose a project that has a well-defined water
quality problem statement. In order to write a problem statement, the
water quality problem must be correctly identified and documented. A
water quality problem statement should include, at a minimum, the
following factors:
• the water resource(s) of concern;
• the water use impairment(s) or threat of impairment(s); and
• the pollutant, pollutant sources, and magnitude of the pollutant(s)
causing the water use impairment
A water quality problem statement should be used as the basis for
selecting NPS pollution control projects. If all factors of the water
quality problem statement are not clearly delineated, then the project
should not be selected.
Clearly defined and realistic water quality objectives and goals
improve a projects probability of success. The water quality problem
statement should be the basis for setting objectives and goals for both
water quality and land treatment. The goals and objectives should be
directly related to the water quality impairment or conditions threaten-
ing designated uses.
-------
Chapter 2
BMP Implementation
Strategy
RCWP Project Example
Bacteria, sediment, and
nutrients from dairy farms in
the St. Albans Bay, Vermont
RCWP project were enrich-
ing the bay, causing high bac-
teria counts, large algal
blooms, and prolific macrp-
phyte growth. These impair-
ments resulted in beach
closings, decreased shoreline
property values, and overall
declining recreational use of
the bay. Dairy production
was the dominant land use.
The land treatment strategy
was to treat 75% of the critical
area. The critical area was de-
fined as farmsteads delivering
excessive phosphorus and fe-
cal coliformto St. Albans Bay
and was based on the amount
of manure, distance from wa-
tercourse, present manure
management practices, and
manure-spreading rates. The
system of BMPs placed an
emphasis on reducing phos-
phorus and bacteria from ani-
mal operations and cropland.
By targeting appropriate
farms and applying the right
BMPs, fecal coliform and
phosphorus decreased in
tributaries feeding the bay.
Treatable Water Quality
Problem Within Project
Time Frame and
Monetary Constraints
RCWP Project Example
In the Vermont RCWP
project, the upgrading of a
wastewater treatment plant
improved the water quality,
but made analysis of water
quality improvements associ-
ated with the NFS land treat-
ment program more difficult.
In addition, no documented
reductions of phosphorus oc-
curred in St. Albans Bay over
a 10-year period despite docu-
mented reductions of phos-
phorus and fecal coliform in
the tributaries draining to the
bay. It is thought that a period
longer than 10 years will be
required to document changes
because of the accumulation
of phosphorus in the Bay
from previous inputs.
BMP Implementation Strategy
Best management practices are essential for any nonpoint source
pollution control proj ect. One of the criteria for proj ect selection should
include the technical merits of the BMP implementation plan, which is
integrally tied to water quality impacts and project goals. Proposed
plans must include critical area delineation within the watershed. A
critical area should be delineated to identify and encompass the major
pollutant sources that have a direct impact on the impaired water
resource. Planned BMP implementation should be targeted to the
critical area and primary pollutants. The BMPs proposed for the critical
area should be selected such that the most effective system of BMPs .to
reduce a particular pollutant is chosen. The system of BMPs should
address both source reduction from the major pollutant sources and
pollutant delivery reduction by minimizing transport of the pollutant to
the water resource of concern. Additionally, there should be some
indication (a goal) of the anticipated percent of BMP implementation
(coverage) that will occur in the critical area. Delineating BMP systems
and coverage is important for two reasons: to estimate the effectiveness
of the BMP systems to meet water quality goals and to determine if
proposed appropriations are sufficient to fund the necessary types and
numbers of BMPs.
Treatable Water Quality Problem Within Project Time
Frame and Monetary Constraints
The size of the critical areas, sources of pollutants, extent of BMPs
needed in the critical area, cost per participant, and the cost per acre
establish the economic and technical feasibility to control water quality
problems. The size of the selected watershed project should allow for
a large portion of the critical area to be treated. Also, the water resource
of concern should be able to exhibit a measurable improvement from
the estimated pollutant delivery reduction over the project lifetime. In
addition, the project time frame needs to be sufficiently long to allow
for adequate comparison between pre- and post-project conditions.
Multi-year projects (usually greater than 5 to 10 years) should be given
priority. Small watersheds (e.g., critical area of roughly 30,000 acres
or less) are easier to treat and monitor and should, therefore, be given
special consideration in the selection process.
Nonpoint source pollution programs restricted to addressing agricul-
tural sources should avoid watersheds that contain significant non-ag-
ricultural nonpoint sources or point sources because pollutant loadings
from these other sources often mask water quality changes associated
with NPS controls. Other approaches, such as total watershed manage-
ment, which include both point and all major nonpoint sources of
pollution, can be effective inadequate resources are available.
-------
Chapter 2
Water Quality and Land
Treatment Monitoring to
Document Changes in
Land Treatment, Land
Use, and Water Quality
RCWP Project Example
The Rock Creek, Idaho,
RCWP project had a good
monitoring design for docu-
menting changes in water
quality in subwatersheds and
entire project areas. Land
treatment and water quality
monitoring occurred through-
out the 10-year project time
frame with consistent sam-
pling before and after BMP
implementation at multiple
sites. Project personnel were
able to isolate the effects of
water management and sedi-
ment control BMPs by moni-
toring explanatory variables
including season, stream dis-
charge, precipitation, and
land use.
Participation and
Community Support
RCWP Project Example
Initially in Minnesota,
only a few farmers volun-
teered to participate in a pro-
ject to protect and restore a
trout stream (Garvin Brook
RCWP project). However,
when the focus of the Minne-
sota RCWP project changed
from restoration of a trout
stream to protection of the
drinking water resource (the
ground water), many farmers
chose to participate.
Water Quality and Land Treatment Monitoring to
Document Changes in Land Treatment, Land Use, and
Water Quality
Water quality and land treatment monitoring plans that can ade-
quately document changes in land treatment, land use, and water quality
are important selection criteria for experimental watershed projects,
especially in projects that have a goal of documenting both water
quality changes and an association between land management and
water quality improvements. Water quality monitoring can provide
important feedback to project participants, other citizens, and policy
makers. The potential of the project for monitoring, including two to
three years of baseline data and evaluation feedback, is important.
Participation and Community Support
Gaging participation and community support are important when
assessing the probable viability of a NFS pollution control project.
Adequate participation is essential for a NFS pollution control project
to succeed. Community support helps to pressure potential participants
to cooperate. To ensure project participation, people must have a vested
interest in solving the pollution problem. A vested interest in a NFS
pollution control project comes about because the water resource is
valued, the pollutant source is understood, and finally, because partici-
pants recognize that they are part of the solution. Public benefits from
the project that would increase the public value may include decreased
human health threats, improved recreational use, or improved habitat
or natural health of the water resource.
Predicting producer participation in advance of project activities, in
order to select a NFS pollution control project, is a difficult task. One
good indicator for predicting participation is how highly valued a water
resource is by the community.
Another good indicator of potential project participation is the pres-
ence of ongoing grass-root efforts to protect the water resource.
Community support is also important to the success of NFS pollution
control projects. Thus, it is also necessary to evaluate the expected level
of community support before selecting a NFS pollution control project.
Funds for cost-sharing and technical assistance should be committed at
the state and local levels to assure local support.
10
-------
Chapter 2
Participation and
Community Support
(continued)
RCWP Project Examples
Tillamook Bay, a shell-
fish-producing estuary, was
impaired by fecal coliform
contamination, which led to
the closing of the shellfish
beds and subsequent reduced
shellfish harvest. A citizen's
group, comprised of dairy
farmers, fishermen, and busi-
ness leaders, was formed
prior to Tillamook Bay
RCWP project activities in
order to protect the estuary.
There was almost 100% par-
ticipation of area dairy farm-
ers in the Tillamook Bay
RCWP project. Fecal coli-
form was reduced by over
50% and the majority of the
shellfish beds were reopened
for harvest.
Peer pressure from the
community (fishermen, bank-
ers, the dairy cooperative)
was essential in obtaining and
maintaining project participa-
tion in the Oregon RCWP
project.
Institutional
Arrangements
RCWP Project Example
In the Oregon RCWP pro-
ject, working relations be-
tween the Oregon Depart-
ment of Environmental Qual-
ity, the USDA (United States
Department of Agriculture)
Soil Conservation Service,
the USDA Agriculture Stabi-
lization and Conservation
Service, Oregon State Uni-
versity, and the local dairy co-
operative were established
before the project was started.
These groups were actively
cooperating with each other to
solve the problem of fecal
coliform contamination of
Tillamook Bay. Part of the
success of the Tillamook Bay
RCWP project was directly
attributed to the strong insti-
tutional arrangements that
were forged prior to the initia-
tion of RCWP project activi-
ties and then were maintained
throughout the life of the pro-
ject.
Institutional Arrangements
Institutional arrangements are important for selecting NFS pollution
control projects. Projects that have a dedicated staff, positive interac-
tion between groups, cooperative attitudes, well-defined organiza-
tional strategies, and a long-term commitment to the project processes
are generally more successful at gaining and maintaining producer and
community participation and support. The organizational strategy
should include strong interagency cooperation with clearly outlined
roles for each agency. Although it is difficult to judge the effectiveness
of institutional arrangements prior to project activities, pre-project
institutional arrangements can be useful indicators of future interactions
and should be investigated prior to project selection.
Funding
Availability of funds for the life of the project is an important
criterion for the selection of a NFS pollution control project. Nonpoint
source pollution control projects need sufficient funds for the size of
the critical area within the watershed and the problem that is being
addressed. In the RCWP, each project designated critical areas (those
areas that contribute the largest amount of pollutants to the water
resource) for treatment. For most of the 21 RCWP projects, there was
sufficient funding, regardless of the problem, for 75% treatment of
critical areas with BMPs.
Reliable funding is needed for long-term planning and budgeting,
both essential components of NFS pollution control watershed projects
that often take five or more years to implement. A short funding cycle
that does not ensure full implementation of project activities reduces
the effectiveness of projects. Sufficient tune and funds should be
allocated to pre-implementation planning for meeting project goals. In
addition, the pre-project planning period allows for acquisition of
pre-project data, development of compatible / consistent data manage-
ment and evaluation procedures, and selection of the most appropriate
monitoring and modeling activities that enhance project evaluations.
Best management practices are often too expensive for most agricul-
tural producers to implement. Cost-share funds ease the economic
burden of adopting BMPs. Results from a farm operator survey showed
that access to cost-share money was determined to be the primary
reason that producers participated in the RCWP. Because cost-share
funds are significant to producer participation, one of the project
selection criterion must include funding for BMP implementation.
Participants in NFS pollution control projects need frequent advice
about what type(s) of BMPs to use and how to implement and manage
them. Without a strong technical assistance component, which in-
cludes information and education (I&E), NFS projects will fail.
11
-------
Chapter 2
Funding
RCWP Project Examples
Unlike most agricultural
NFS pollution control pro-
jects, the RCWP was funded
up-front, for a well-defined
period of time (10 to 15
years). If all other selection
criteria factors are equal, the
project with the most reliable,
long-term funding should be
chosen.
For example, in Alabama,
an extension agent was cred-
ited with obtaining and main-
taining project support from
area farmers. Because techni-
cal assistance and I&B activi-
ties are necessary project
components, it is important
that potential NFS pollution
control projects include suffi-
cient funding for technical as-
sistance and I&E.
Although state extension and the Soil Conservation Service offer these
technical services free of charge, the additional workload may require
funding for technical assistance. Additional money may also be re-
quired for I&E activities that inform and educate participants and
citizens about the project. Funding of technical and I&E services in the
RCWP made possible the technical transfer of large amounts of infor-
mation and was often credited as being essential to a project's success.
References
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J. Spooner, J.A. Arnold, T.J. Hoban, and R.C.
Wimberley. 1993. Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Program. NCSU Water Quality
Group, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
NC, EPA-841-R-93-005, p. 559.
12
-------
Chapter 2
The Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram (RCWP), a 10-year feder-
ally sponsored nonpoint source
(NFS) pollution control pro-
gram, was initiated in 1980 as an
experimental effort to address
agricultural NFS pollution prob-
lems in watersheds across the
country. The RCWP is important
because it is one of the few na-
tional NFS control programs that
has combined land treatment and
water quality monitoring in a
continuous feedback loop to
document the effectiveness of
NFS pollution control measures.
The RCWP was administered
by the U.S. Department of Agri-
culture Agricultural Stabiliza-
tion and Conservation Service in
consultation with the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency.
(U.S. EPA). The Soil Conserva-
tion Service, Extension Service,
Economic Research Service, Ag-
ricultural Research Service, U.S.
Geological Survey, and many
other federal, state, and local
agencies also participated.
The 21 experimental RCWP
projects, representing a wide
range of pollution problems and
impaired water uses, were lo-
cated in Alabama, Delaware,
Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa,
Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Min-
nesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Penn-
sylvania, South Dakota,
Tennessee/Kentucky, Utah, Ver-
mont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Appropriate best manage-
ment practices (BMPs) were used
by producers to reduce NFS pol-
lution from their farming opera-
tions. Since participation in the
RCWP was voluntary, cost-share
funds and technical assistance,
provided by the federal govern-
ment, were offered to producers
as incentives for using or install-
ing BMPs.
IDENTIFYING AND
DOCUMENTING
A WATER QUALITY PROBLEM;
The Rural Clean Water Program
One of the most critical steps in controlling agricultural nonpoint
source (NFS) pollution is to correctly identify and document the
existence of a water quality problem. The water quality problem may
be defined either as a threat to the designated Use of a water resource
or as a total or partial impairment of the designated use. The designated
use of a water resource is set by each state's water quality agency and
includes categories such as human consumption, agriculture, aesthetics,
and recreation.
Proper identification and documentation of a water quality problem
requires gathering existing data from past or ongoing water quality
studies. If adequate water quality data are not available to clearly
document the problem and its source, a water quality problem identifi-
cation and documentation monitoring program should be initiated.
Monitoring should include both storm and baseflow sampling over a
6-18 month period. Depending on the pollutant(s) of concern, water
quality monitoring may require measurements of chemical, physical,
and biological factors.
The results of the water quality monitoring studies should be synthe-
sized, sometimes in conjunction with a pollutant budget, in order to
produce a water quality problem statement. Clear problem identifica-
tion and documentation should lead to a water quality problem state-
ment that:
• defines the water resource of concern;
• delineates the water use impairment or threat of impairment and
identifies its location and history; and
• states the pollutant(s), the pollutant sources, and
magnitude of the sources.
Assumptions about the cause-and-effect relationship between pollut-
ants and impairments should be stated. In addition, any habitat attrib-
utes found to limit ecological health should also be included.
The water quality problem statement provides the basis for a strategy
to effectively remediate the water quality impairment and enhance the
designated water resource use. The strategy is used to guide the selec-
tion and placement of best management practices (BMPs) designed to
reduce, remediate, or retard specific pollutants. A well-crafted water
quality problem statement is also essential to ensure community con-
sensus about the water quality impairment.
(DRAFT 6/1/94)
13
-------
Chapter 2
The Importance of a
Well-Crafted Water Quality
Problem Statement
RCWP Project Example
The Florida RCWP project is an
excellent example of how effective
water quality problem identifica-
tion and documentation can lead to
improvements in water quality.
Lake Okeechobee, a valued water
resource in Florida, has been stud-
ied since the early 1940's by the
U.S. Geological Survey. A 1969
study that assessed the nutrient
status of the lake indicated eutro-
phic conditions (Fredrico et al.,
1981). High nutrient levels, par-
ticularly phosphorus, were leading
to excess water plant growth and
depleted oxygen levels, which was
impairing fish and migratory bird
habitats. In addition to other lim-
nological studies, the water quality
of the tributaries that flow into the
lake was monitored for seven years
(1973-1980). One tributary, the
Taylor Creek-Nubin Slough, was
contributing 28% of the total phos-
phorus but only 5% of the water
into Lake Okeechobee (Allen et al.,
1982).
Animal waste and fertilizer run-
off from the large dairy farms (av-
eraging more than 1,000 cows per
herd) in the Taylor Creek-Nubin
Slough watershed were the primary
sources of the phosphorus. Be-
cause thorough and long-term
monitoring of all the tributaries en-
tering Lake Okeechobee identified
Taylor Creek-Nubin Slough as a
major pollutant contributor, this
watershed was selected as a RCWP
project.
Land treatment consisted of an
aggressive system of BMPs de-
signed to reduce phosphorus runoff
from manure and fertilizer. As a
direct result of the BMPs imple-
mented during the RCWP, phos-
phorus concentrations in the Taylor
Crcck-Nubin Slough were de-
creased by more than 50% (Gale et
al., 1993).
Communities are generally unwilling to expend the money and time
necessary to combat NFS pollution unless they are convinced that a
significant problem exists and that it can be rectified.
The Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) (see box on page 13) was
a national program that demonstrated the importance of water quality
problem identification and documentation to agricultural NFS pollution
control projects (Gale et al., 1993). Lessons learned about problem
identification and documentation from RCWP are presented in this fact
sheet.
The Importance of Problem Identification and
Documentation
The diffuse nature of NPS pollution, and its spatial and temporal
variability, make it a difficult problem to treat. Pollutant sources can
be difficult to identify and impacts may be subtle. Therefore, without
adequate water quality problem documentation, NPS pollution cannot
be successfully controlled.
Many of the projects selected to participate in the RCWP had
thorough water quality impairment investigations prior to project se-
lection and initiation (see opposite box). This allowed project teams to
prepare well-crafted water quality problem statements that led to ac-
tions that enhanced water quality.
Gathering Existing Data for Water Quality Problem
Identification and Documentation
The first step in identifying and documenting a water quality problem
is to gather existing data on the water resource and the watershed.
Water resource information includes past or ongoing water quality
studies and information from the state 305(b) report. Any additional
water quality studies should also be reviewed and summarized. This
existing information may be available from the state water quality
agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) - Forest Service, or U.S. Geological Survey.
Watershed data should be compiled to evaluate land use, soils, and
climatic information. A land use map is one of the most important tools
for watershed managers. Land use classifications include agricultural
lands, animal operations, residential areas, commercial and industrial
facilities, mining operations, parks, forests, and wetlands.
Basic climatic information can be used to evaluate the times of the
year when pollutant runoff is greatest and when drought or other factors
are affecting water resource data.
14
-------
Chapter 2
Monitoring Complex
Hydrologic Systems
RCWP Project Example
The water quality problem of
the Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett
RCWP project (South Dakota) in-
itially seemed straightforward.
Lake Poinsett and East & West
Oakwood Lakes were found to be
hyper-eutrophic by the National
Eutrophication Survey (U.S. EPA)
in 1977. The hyper-eutrophic con-
ditions had occurred due to excess
nutrient runoff from surrounding
croplands and animal operations.
Algae blooms, aquatic weeds, dis-
solved oxygen depletion, and fish
kills were common.
Nutrient- and sediment-reduc-
ing BMPs and waste management
BMPs were imple- mented on the
watershed's critical areas. (Critical
areas are those portions of the wa-
tershed that contribute dispropor-
tionate amounts of the pollutant(s)
to the receiving water resource). A
very comprehensive monitoring
program was conducted during the
RCWP to assess the water quality
of the lakes, tributaries, ground
water, and runoff from farm fields.
BMPs reduced sediment and the
nutrients associated with the sedi-
ment, and nutrients from animal
sources (Gale et al., 1993).
In spite of a reduction in pollut-
ant, there was no change in the tro-
phic status of the lakes. Further
studies revealed that phosphorus
from ground and surface water is
trapped and stored in lake sedi-
ments. This trapped phosphorus is
continuously released into the
water column, thus promoting hy-
per-eutrophic conditions. Even
without additional phosphorus in-
puts, this recycling of phosphorus
will occur for many years and con-
tinue to impair water quality. Al-
though the project failed to reduce
the phosphorus levels of the lakes,
it did provide detailed information
and documentation on the water
quality problem and the eutrophi-
cation process in these types of
prairie lake systems.
Data for the watershed analysis may be available from local health
departments, county planning departments, USDA - Soil Conservation
Service (state or local offices), USDA - Agricultural Conservation and
Stabilization Service, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, or county
or regional Extension Service offices.
In cases where existing data are not adequate to identify or document
a water quality problem, water quality problem identification and
documentation monitoring will be needed.
Monitoring for Problem Documentation
Program Design
The objective of problem identification and documentation monitor-
ing is to locate pollutant sources and ecological conditions contributing
to the problem. The monitoring program must be designed such that at
its conclusion an accurate water quality problem statement can be
written, stating the water use impairments), the primary pollutant(s),
and the sources of the pollutants.
The program should employ both baseflow and stormwater quality
monitoring. Baseflow monitoring documents ambient water quality
conditions and problems. Storm sampling is useful for documenting the
magnitude of the hydrologic and pollutant impacts. Runoff from agri-
cultural activities (such as agrichemical and manure applications, irri-
gation activities, and tillage operations) should be monitored.
There are four major categories of water quality variables: 1) physi-
cal properties, 2) chemical constituents, 3) biological organisms, and
4) habitat (Coffey et al., 1994). The categories and individual variables
monitored will depend on the suspected water quality impairment and
the extent to which the water resource has already been studied.
Chemical constituents and physical assessments are the most fre-
quently sampled and easiest to measure of the water quality variables.
Physical assessment monitoring includes such variables as water
temperature, turbidity, and sedimentation.
Chemical assessment consists of monitoring both inorganic (nitrate,
orthophosphate, metals) and organic constituents (pesticides, benzene).
Biological monitoring should be utilized to assess designated water
use attainment for aquatic life and should include monitoring variables
such as coliform bacteria, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish.
Habitat monitoring is important for characterizing the ecological
integrity of the water resource as well as an explaining primary biologi-
cal variation. Habitat monitoring variables include stream, lake, or
reservoir macroinvertebrate and fish habitat.
15
-------
Chap
iter2
The Importance of Pollutant
Source Determination
RCWP Project Example
In Tennessee and Kentucky,
Lake Reelfoot, which supports
commercial fishing and sportfish-
ing and migratory birds, is threat-
ened by siltation. The water quality
impairments and primary pollut-
ants were identified and docu-
mented correctly before the
commencement of the Lake Reel-
foot RCWP project. However, the
contributing pollutant sources were
not sufficiently quantified (Gale et
al, 1993). The two primary sources
of sediment in this watershed are
cropland and naturally occurring
gullies.
A sediment budget, indicating
the relative contributions of each of
these pollutant sources, should
have been completed prior to pro-
ject implementation. A sediment
budget would have been useful to
the project team in selecting the
most effective placement of BMPs
for reducing erosion.
Another study of Reelfoot
Lake, conducted during the RCWP
time frame, indicated that some of
the small watersheds not originally
targeted for BMP installation were
contributing significant amounts of
localized sediment and should have
been included as part of the critical
area. Later studies confirmed the
need for winter cover crops that
were not promoted as part of the
RCWP project Finally, results of
a pollutant delivery study indicated
that dcchannelizing area streams
and tributaries would have reduced
sediment loading into Lake Reel-
foot.
Had the studies mentioned
above been conducted prior to the
implementation of the RCWP pro-
ject, a more complete water quality
problem statement would likely
have been written, leading to in-
creased accuracy in critical area
definition and more appropriate se-
lection and placement of BMPS.
Depending on the water resource being studied, monitoring stations
may be established at: 1) tributaries; 2) main-stem streams; and 3)
estuaries, lakes, reservoirs or wetlands in order to determine the water
quality impairment and the primary pollutant, and possibly thepollutant
source.
Tributary stations are often useful for identifying pollutant sources
and the magnitude of the pollutant. Simply monitoring the main-stem
stream (primary drainage channel or lake) is inadequate to identify
sources of pollutants because the receiving water dilutes and assimilates
tributary inputs, making identification of specific sources difficult.
Tributary stations should be located immediately above and below
suspected NFS pollution discharge areas to facilitate pollutant source
identification. For example, in the Oregon RCWP project, tributary
stations were used to document the type(s) and magnitude of pollutants
entering Tillamook Bay from individual dairy farms.
Data collected at main-stem stream stations provide an aggregate of
the water conditions upstream. Main-stem monitoring is useful because
it helps explain the pollutant dilution 'and assimilation that occurs in
large streams. The water quality variables measured for the main-stem
stream station should match those monitored in the tributaries. In the
Florida RCWP project, for example, phosphorus, the major pollutant
of concern, was carefully monitored in both main-stem streams and
tributaries.
Monitoring stations located in reservoirs, lakes, estuaries, or wet-
lands can provide useful information about the amount and fate of
pollutants reaching the water resource. These stations should be stra-
tegically positioned to evaluate the impact of the pollutant on the
designated water use. For example, in the Oregon RCWP project,
estuarine monitoring stations were located in or near shellfish beds so
that fecal coliform contamination could be precisely monitored.
Monitoring Duration and Frequency
Water quality problem identification and documentation monitoring
should usually be conducted for 6 to 18 months. However, watersheds
with complex hydrologic conditions may require more than 18 months
of monitoring for adequate water quality identification and documen-
tation.
For continuous streams, baseflow monitoring of physical and chemi-
cal constituents should occur with sufficient frequency to ensure detec-
tion of water quality changes caused by climatic impacts and watershed
activities.
The tuning of biological monitoring should correspond to the type
and stage of the organism being documented. Guidance on timing for
biological monitoring should be available from the state water quality
agency.
16
-------
Chapter 2
The Role of a Strong Water
Quality Problem Statement
in Assuring Community
Support for a Project
RCWP Project Example
Another RCWP project in
which the water quality impairment
was correctly identified and docu-
mented was the Tillamook Bay
RCWP project. Tillamook Bay> lo-
cated in northwestern Oregon, con-
tains important commercial and
recreational shellfish resources.
Due to fecal coliform contamina-
tion originating from dairies lo-
cated near the estuary, shellfish
beds were frequently closed to har-
vesting. As part of the water qual-
ity planning for Section 208 of
Public Law 95-217 (The Clean
Water Act), studies conducted by
the U.S. Food and Drug Admini-
stration, the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality, and U.S.
Department, of Agriculture
(USDA) Soil Conservation Service
quantified bacteria counts and the
timing of the contamination and de-
lineated the major land areas that
were the primary source of the bac-
teria.
Fecal coliform was reduced by
over 50% in the estuary after BMPs
were implemented on more than
80% of all dairy farms in the region
(Gale etal., 1993). Detailed prob-
lem identification and documenta- ,
tion was instrumental in the
construction of a good water qual-
ity problem statement. This state-
ment was used to convince all
segments of the community - dairy
producers, concerned citizens, fish-
ermen, dairy; cooperative execu-
tives, lenders - that the fecal
coliform water quality problem had
to be solved by the dairy farmers,
working in conjunction with fed-
eral, state, and local agencies, to
reduce contamination of shellfish
beds.
Timing of storm sampling is critical. Water quality samples should
be taken during the rise, peak, and fall of stream level during runoff.
Peak seasonal flows should be collected. For example, if snow melt is
substantial, monitoring during this time is important.
Pollutant Budget
Existing watershed data and problem identification and documenta-
tion monitoring may be insufficient to entirely clarify the exact nature
of the water quality problem. In some NFS projects it may be necessary
to quantify the relative proportion of the pollutant contributed by each
source (create a pollutant budget). Pollutant budgets address only the
pollutant that directly contributes to the water quality problem. For
example, in the Tennessee RCWP project, where several sources of
sediment contributed to the siltation of Reelfoot Lake, a pollutant
budget was not constructed for the lake. The consequence of this lack
of information about the relative proportion of sediment entering the
lake from the various sources was that critical areas contributing the
greatest amount of sediment were not correctly identified and the most
effective BMPs were not implemented.
The Importance of Preparing a Water
Quality Problem Statement
After all pertinent preliminary water quality information has been
obtained, water quality data have been collected, and a pollutant budget
prepared (if necessary), a detailed water quality problem statement
should be written. A comprehensive water quality problem statement
describes the water resource; the water quality impairment or threat to
designated use; habitat limitations; and the type, source, and magnitude
of the pollutant(s). The problem statement is essential because it clearly
states the water quality impairment and its source(s). The problem
statement can be used by the project team to guide in selecting and siting
appropriate BMPs. A comprehensive water quality problem statement
can also be useful because it provides a clear explanation of the water
quality problem and its causes to community members. Consensus
within the community about the water quality problem and the approach
being taken to address the problem is essential to project success.
17
-------
Chapter 2
Keys to Water Quality
Problem Identification and
Documentation
• Prioritize problem identifica-
tion and documentation as a
first step to designing an ag-
ricultural nonpoint source
pollution control project
• Gather existing water quality
data from past or ongoing
water quality studies. This
information should include a
physical description of the
water resource and the water-
shed; a designated use of the
water resource; and water
quality data that indicates a
water quality impairment or
potential threat to the water
resource.
• Water quality monitoring for
problem documentation
should ensue if existing water
quality data is inadequate to
sufficiently identify and
document the water quality
problem.
• Water quality monitoring for
problem documentation
should include both storm
and baseflow.
• A minimum of 6-18 months
of monitoring is necessary for
problem documentation.
• The type of variable - chemi-
cal, physical, and/or biologi-
cal - will depend on the sus-
pected designated use impair-
ment of the water resource.
• The results of the water qual-
ity studies should be synthe-
sized, along with any useful
land-based data, to produce a
water quality problem state-
ment.
• Well-crafted water quality
problem statements should
lead the project team toward
the selection of the appropri-
ate systems and locations of
BMP. A good problem state-
ment will also help solidify
community support to reduce
nonpoint source pollution.
Sometimes the water quality problem statement is written correctly
the first tune. In other cases, the statement may have to be rewritten as
additional information becomes available. In the Illinois RCWP pro-
ject, for example, the project team originally thought that excess lake
turbidity was caused by general erosion (Gale et al., 1993). However,
monitoring conducted during the project indicated that a particular type
of soil (natric soils) was causing most of the turbidity because saline
soil particles from the natric soils do not settle. Once the pollutant
source was accurately determined, a new problem statement was writ-
ten and land treatment efforts were redirected toward the natric soils.
References
Allen, L.H., Jr., J.M. Ruddell, G.J. Ritter, F.E. Davis, and P. Yates. 1982. Land Use Effects on Taylor
Creek Water Quality. In: Proc. Specialty Conference on Environmentally Sound Water and Soil
Management. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY. p. 67-77.
Coffey, S.W., J. Spooner, and M.D. Smolen. 1994. (In Draft). The Nonpoint Source Manager's Guide to
Water Quality and Land Treatment Monitoring. NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricul-
tural Engineering Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Fredrico, A.C., K.G. Dickson, C.R. Kratzer, and F.E. Davis. 1981. Lake Okeechobee Water Quality Studies
and Eutrophication Assessment. South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Technical
Publication #81-1, West Palm Beach, FL. p. 270.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J. Spooner, J.A. Arnold, T.J. Hoban, and R.C.
Wimberley. 1993. Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Program. NCSU Water Quality
Group, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
NC, EPA-841-R-93-005,p. 559.
18
-------
Chapter 3
Section 319
National Monitoring Program
Project Profiles
19
-------
Chanter 3
This chapter contains a profile of each of the Section 319 National Monitoring
Program projects approved as of July 31, 1994, including one project pending
approval, arranged in alphabetical order by state. Each profile begins with a
brief project overview, followed by detailed information about the project,
including water resource description; project area characteristics; information,
education, and publicity; nonpoint source control strategy, water quality moni-
toring; total project budget; impact of other federal and state programs; other
pertinent information; and project contacts.
Sources used in preparation of the profiles include project documents and
review comments made by project coordinators and staff.
Project budgets have been compiled from the best and most recent information
available.
Abbreviations used in the budget tables are as follows:
Proj Mgt Project Management
I&E Information and Education
LT Land Treatment
WQ Monit Water Quality Monitoring
NA Information Not Available
A list of project documents and other relevant publications for each project may
be found in Appendix IV.
20
-------
Arizona
Oak Creek Canyon
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 1: Oak Creek Canyon (Arizona) Project Location
, 21
-------
,-~.}
.,.,,./:"
i
i
\ X
/""
--* Coconino County
Yavapai County
v ^ £
f Slide Rock
lIL Manzanita
\
Legend
Sampling Site (Upstream)
Sampling Site (Downstream)
Stream
Watershed Boundary
Figure 2: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Oak Green Canyon (Arizona)
22
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Oak Creek flows through the southern rim of the Colorado Plateau. It drops
approximately 2,700 feet from its source along the Mogollon Rim to its conver-
gence with the Verde River. There are several gaining reaches that contribute
to the perennial flow of the creek. The flows vary from a low of less than one
cubic feet per second (cfs) to a high snowmelt-contributed flow of over 1800 cfs.
The average annual flow within the study area, Oak Creek Canyon, is approxi-
mately 13 cfs.
The Oak Creek Canyon National Monitoring project focuses exclusively on that
segment of water located in the canyon portion of Oak Creek, a 13-mile
steep-walled area of the creek. Oak Creek Canyon is a narrow strip of deep-
canyon land extending from the City limits of Sedona, thirteen miles northward
to the Mogollon Rim. The canyon width varies from one mile at the northern tip
to approximately three miles in the south. Although Oak Creek Canyon water-
shed encompasses 5,833 acres, only 907 acres are considered critical. The
major land use of the canyon area is recreational. The U.S. Forest Service and
State Parks have developed campgrounds, parking lots, picnic areas, and scenic
views along the Congressionally designated Scenic Highway, Route 89A. Pri-
vate homes and businesses account for much of the remaining land use.
The Oak Creek National Monitoring project focuses on the implementation
and documentation of integrated best management practice (BMP) systems for
three locations: Slide Rock State Park, Pine Flats Campground, and Slide Rock
Parking Lot. The eleven-acre Slide Rock State Park is used by more than
350,000 swimmers and sunbathers each season. The water quality at this site has
historically been characterized by large seasonal fecal coliform loads. Pine
Flats Campground accommodates approximately 10,000 campers each season.
Runoff from the campground delivers fecal coliform and excess nutrients into
Oak Creek. Slide Rock State Park parking lot accommodates over 90,000
vehicles each season. Runoff of pollutants associated with automobiles drains
into Oak Creek.
The BMPs to be implemented at Slide Rock State Park and Pine Flats Camp-
ground include enhancing the restroom facilities, better litter control through
more intense monitoring by State Park officials of park visitors, and the promo-
tion of visitor compliance with park and campground regulations on facilities'
use, littering, and waste disposal. The BMPs to be implemented at the Slide
Rock Parking Lot include periodic cleaning of the detention basin, promotion
of an aerobic environment in the basin, periodic sweeping of the parking lot,
and, if necessary, retrofitting the detention basin itself.
A paired-site upstream/downstream water quality monitoring design will be
used to evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs on improving water quality at Slide
Rock State Park. Grasshopper Point, a managed water recreation area similar
to Slide Rock State Park, will serve as the control. Water quality monitoring
stations will be located upstream and downstream of both the Slide Rock
(treatment) and Grasshopper Point (control) swimming areas. A paired-site
upstream/downstream water quality monitoring design will also be used for
23
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Pine Flats Campground and Manzanita Campground. Manzanita will serve as
the control site while Pine Flats will serve as the treatment site. As before,
monitoring stations will be upstream/downstream of campground sites. For
these two studies, weekly grab samples will be taken on Saturday afternoons
from May 15 through September 15 for seven years starting in 1994.
The Slide Rock Parking Lot study will evaluate the effectiveness of a detention
basin designed to limit pollutants from entering into the Creek. An event-based
BMP-effectiveness monitoring scheme will be used. Automatic samplers, trig-
gered by rainfall, will be installed at inflow and outflow points of the detention
basin. Each one will collect samples of the first flush and composite periodic
samples of the rainfall.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
Oak Creek cuts deep into the southern rim of the Colorado Plateau. It drops
approximately 2,700 feet from its source along the Mogollon Rim to its conver-
gence with the Verde River. The Creek averages around 13 cubic feet per
second (cfs) at the study area, but increases to 60 cfs downstream at its conflu-
ence with the Verde.
The study sites for this project are located in Oak Creek Canyon. This portion
of the watershed is characterized by steep canyons and rapid water flows with
sharp drops forming waterfalls and deep, cold pools. Oak Creek Canyon is the
primary recreational area in the watershed.
Designated beneficial uses of Oak Creek include full body contact (primarily in
Oak Creek Canyon), cold water fishery and wildlife habitat (primarily Oak
Creek Canyon), drinking water (along the entire course), agriculture (the lower
third), and livestock watering (lower third). Oak Creek is designated as a
Unique Water, with very high water quality standards.
Oak Creek was designated as a Unique Water by the Arizona State Legislature
in 1991 on the basis of (1) its popularity and accessibility as a water recreation
resource; (2) its aesthetic, cultural, educational, and scientific importance; and
(3) its importance as an agricultural and domestic drinking water resource in
the Verde Valley. Two other criteria contributed to the designation of unique-
ness: (1) Oak Creek Canyon is susceptible to irreparable or irretrievable loss
due to its ecological fragility or its location, and (2) a surface water segment
shall not be classified as unique water unless such segment is capable of being
managed as a unique water. Management considerations shall include techni-
cal feasibility and the availability of management resources.
Biological, nutrient, and vehicular pollutants pose the most serious and pressing
current threat to Oak Creek water quality. Oak Creek water quality is impaired
by high fecal coliform levels, probably resulting from residential septic systems
and the high usage of the campgrounds and day-use swimming areas by over
350,000 people during a concentrated period of time extending from May
through September. Excessive nutrients, particularly phosphorus, which ex-
24
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
ceeds the 0.10 standard, threaten the water integrity of two impoundments
located well below Oak Creek that provide a major source of drinking water for
the City of Phoenix. The third type of pollution impairing Oak Creek is
associated with motor vehicles. Heavy metals (such as lead and zinc), petro-
leum hydrocarbons, and total organic carbons, from the estimated four million
vehicles traveling along State Highway 89A each year and from numerous
parking lots in the Oak Creek Canyon area, drain into Oak Creek during
rainstorms and snow melts, threatening all designated uses.
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Water Recreation and Camping Areas
Human pathogens (bacteria and viruses) contaminate the Canyon segment of
Oak Creek. Most of the attention has focused upon Slide Rock State Park and
Grasshopper Point, the two managed "swimming holes" in the area. Fecal
coliform counts peak in the summer during the height of the tourist season.
Fecal Coliform Levels by Season
Date
July 15
August 15
June
September
Fecal Coliform Count
(# /100 mH
463.7
392.5
61.2
54.3
Nutrient levels, especially phosphorus, are also of concern, as shown below:
Pine Flats Campground phosphorous (P) concentrations (the annual aver-
age standard is 0.10 mg/1)
Date
June, 1993
July, 1993
August, 1993
February, 1993
March, 1993
April, 1993
P(mg/l)
0.14
0.28
0.41
0.12
0.20
0.12
.Slide Rock Parking Lot
Preliminary data suggest that the Slide Rock Parking Lot detention basin (a
large, baffled concrete vault) is contributing to rather than reducing environ-
mental damage. Approximately four feet of stagnant water remains in the vault
at all times. The data collected (see table below) indicates that the heavy
rainfall cleanses the parking lot of pollutants and also flushes out significant
amounts of pollutants contained in the detention basin.
25
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
Water Quality of the Detention Basin
Time DO(mg/l) pH Zn(ug/l)
Before Rain 0.0 4.79 222
July, 1993
After Rain 4.5 6.6 38
October,1993
Water Recreation Project Objectives:
• A 50% reduction in fecal coliform
• A 20% reduction in nutrients, particularly ammonia
• A 20% reduction in total organic carbons (TOC) corresponding with a
reduction in biological oxygen demand (BOD)
Camping Project Objectives:
• A 50% reduction in fecal coliforms
• A 20% reduction in nutrients
Slide Rock Parking Lot Objectives:
• A 25% reduction of automobile-related pollutants that enter Oak Creek
1994 to 2001
1994
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
The entire Oak Creek watershed encompasses 300,000 acres. The project area,
Oak Creek Canyon, encompasses 5,833 acres. However, the critical area com-
prises only 907 acres.
Flow in Oak Creek ranges from an average 13 cfs, in the higher Oak Creek
Canyon area, to 60 cfs at its confluence with the Verde River.
Annual precipitation in the Oak Creek watershed varies from a six-inch average
in the Verde Valley to 20 inches per year on the higher elevations of the
Mogollon rim. The majority of rainfall occurs during July and August of the
rainy season (July 4 to September 15). Summer rainfall storm events are short
and intense in nature (rarely lasting for more than a half-hour) and are sepa-
rated by long dry periods. In a normal summer season, over twenty rainfall
events will occur.
Perennial flow in Oak Creek is sustained by ground water flow. The main
source of ground water is the regional Coconino Aquifer. The majority of
aquifers in the Oak Creek watershed are confined or artisan. Within the Oak
26
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Creek watershed, ground water flow is generally to the south, paralleling topog-
raphy toward the low-lying valley floor.
Land Use
Pollutant Source(s)
Land Use Acres %
Road 55 6
Campground and Parking Lots 123 14
Business and Residential 245 27
Floodplain 290 32
Undeveloped 194 21
TOTAL 907 100
Source: The Oak Creek 319(h) Demonstration Project National Monitoring Pro-
gram Work Plan, 1994
Pollutants in Oak Creek addressed in this study come from swimmers, campers,
and motor vehicles.
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Numerous organizations and individuals perceive themselves as "owners" of
Oak Creek Canyon. It is in the best interest of the Oak Creek National
Monitoring Program project to fully involve these groups and individuals in
informational and educational activities.
The Oak Creek Advisory Committee, which was formed in 1992, involves
federal, state, and local government agencies and private organizations such as
Keep Sedona Beautiful and the Arizona River Coalition. The committee meets
monthly to: keep participants informed of current project activities and results;
gain insights to areas of concern; and learn about the suggested BMPs that will
be implemented as part of the 319 National Monitoring Program.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY
Slide Rock and Grasshopper Point (Water Recreation Project)
The access and ambience of restroom facilities, located at the Slide Rock
swimming area, will be enhanced. Littering laws will be enforced by park
officials to reduce the amount of trash that is disposed of in unauthorized areas.
Finally, social strategies will be implemented to promote compliance of park
regulations.
Pine Flats and Manzanita (Campgrounds Project)
The nonpoint source control strategy for the campground project targets the
upstream site of Pine Flats. Best management practices implemented at Pine
Flats are designed to reduce pollutants associated with human use of camp-
ground facilities. The BMPs that will be implemented include the installation
27
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
of an enclosed shower for campers, enforcement of a clean zone between the
creek and the campground, and the promotion of the use of existing restroom
facilities. Direct contact by park personnel with visitors and the addition of
more visible signs will help accomplish these goals.
Slide Rock (Parking Lot Project)
The BMP strategy focuses on reducing runoff from the parking lot and parking
lot detention basin. The existing detention basin will be cleaned out prior to and
after the rainy season. An aerobic environment within the basin will be pro-
moted and street sweeping of the parking lot will occur.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Variables Measured
The water recreation project, which is a paired-site upstream/downstream
monitoring design, will be used to document the change in water quality as a
result of the application of BMPs. The swimming sites at Slide Rock State Park
(treatment site) and the Grasshopper Point (control site) will be the paired
comparison. There will be water quality monitoring stations located above and
below each swimming area.
The camping area project will also use a paired-site upstream/downstream
monitoring design. The camping area at Pine Flats (treatment site) and the site
at Manzanita (control site) have been selected for project monitoring. Up-
stream/downstream water quality monitoring stations will be installed at both
sites.
A BMP effectiveness water quality monitoring design will be used for the Slide
Rock Parking Lot study. Sampling will take place at the inflow point and the
outflow point of the detention basin.
Slide Rock and Grasshopper Point (Water Recreation Proiectt
Biological
Fecal Coliform
Chemical and Other
Nitrate (NO3-N)
Phosphates (TP)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Biological oxygen demand (BOD)
Explanatory Variables
Water temperature
Stream velocity and level
28
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Number of users of the sites
Weekly precipitation
Pine Flats and Manzanita (Campgrounds Project)
Biological
Fecal Coliform
Chemical and Other
Total nitrogen (TN)
Total phosphates (TP)
Ammonia (NHa-N)
Nitrate (NOa-N)
Orthophosphate
Explanatory Variables
pH
Water temperature
Conductivity
Water flow rate
Dissolved oxygen
Total dissolved solids
Precipitation
Slide Rock Parking Lot Project
Chemical and Other
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Biological oxygen demand (BOD)
Total phosphorous (TP)
Soluble phosphorous
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Nitrite (N02-N)
Nitrate (N03-N)
Lead(Pb)
Copper (Cu) 'r
Zinc(Zn)
Explanatory Variables
Precipitation (Amount and Duration)
Runoff velocity
pH
29
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Sampling Scheme
Slide Rock/Grasshopper Point (Water Recreation Project)
and Pine Flats/Manzanita (Campgrounds Proiectt
Grab samples will be collected every Saturday afternoon from May 15 through
September 15. Samples will be taken in the deepest part of the stream at each
sampling site. In addition, samples will be taken the first Saturday of every
month from November through April.
Slide Rock Parking Lot Project
An event-based scheme will be used to monitor runoff from the parking lot. An
automatic sampler will be placed at the inflow point of the detention basin and
the outfiowpoint of the basin. The samplers will be triggered by rainfall events.
A sample of the "first flush" will be deposited in the first bottle. Thereafter, a
sample will be taken every twenty minutes and composited in the second bottle,
'post flush." Sample bottles will be collected within five hours of each rain event.
The monitoring scheme for all three sites is presented below.
Monitoring Scheme for the Oak Creek Canyon 319 National Monitoring Program
Activity
Water
Recreation
Camping
Parking Runoff
Sites*
Slide Rock (T)
Grasshopper
Point (C)
Pine Flats (T)
Manzanita (C)
Slide Rock
Parking Lot
Primary
Pollutants**
Fecal Coliform
Nitrates
Phosphates
Organic Carbons
Fecal coliforms
Nitrates
Phosphates
TSS.BOD.COD,
Total Phosphorous
(TP), Soluble
Phosphorous (SP),
Covariates***
water temp.
PH
level & flow
rainfall
visitor count
PH
Water temp.
Conductivity
Water flow rate
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Dissolved
Solids
Weekly rainfall
PH
rainfall amt.
rainfall dur.
runoff velocity
Frequency
9/15-5/15 monthly
5/15-9/15 weekly
9/15-5/15 monthly;
5/15-9/15 weekly
Minimum of 20 event
driven samples with
priority to:
1.7/4 to 9/15
Time
12:00 pm
5:00 pm
Saturdays
12 pm-5 pm
Saturdays
Event driven;
usually in the
afternoon or
early evening
Duration
1-2 years pre-BMP
1-2 years BMP
3 years post-BMP
2 years pre-BMP
1-2 years BMP
3 years post-BMP
2 years pre-BMP
1-2 years BMP
3 years post-BMP
Total Kjeldahl 2.9/15 to 7/4
Nitrogen (TKN),
No2,NO3,Cu,Pb,
andZn
* T = the treatment site; C = the control site
** Basic Pollution parameters will remain constant throughout the 6-7 years of the project except for the parking lot project. The num-
ber of basic parameters will be reduced through Years I and II; those which are not detected in six sampling events will be discarded.
***A11 covariate parameters will be sampled throughout the 6-7 years of the project in order to assure project credibility. However
those which do not significantly covary with basic parameters will be dropped from statistical analysis after Year I of the project.
30
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
The project team will store all raw data in STORET and report the project
results in EPA's Nonpoint Source Management System (NPSMS) software.
Additionally, data will be entered in a Geographical Information System (GIS).
The three-year post-BMP implementation phase will entail sampling protocols
identical to those instituted in the calibration and project sampling phase. The
object of this monitoring phase is to demonstrate the extent to which land
treatment has reduced nonpoint source pollution.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Project Element
Proj Mgt
LT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Funding Source ($)
Federal
70,000
30,200
424,800
525,000
70,000
65,000
NA
135,000
Source: Tom Harrison (Personal Communication), 1994
Local
70,000
35,500
608,140
713,640
Total
210,000
130,700
1,032,940
1,373,640
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
The Oak Creek National Monitoring Project complements several other pro-
grams (federal, state, and local) located in the Verde Valley:
• The U.S. Geological Survey has initiated a comprehensive water use/water
quality study focusing on the northcentral Arizona region extending from the
City of Phoenix to the Verde Valley.
• The Verde Water Association, a private citizens' organization, in cooperation
with the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Forest Service, U.S.G.S. and others,
is planning a major water use study encompassing the entire Verde Valley,
which includes the Oak Creek Watershed.
• The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality has established the
Verde Water Zone in the state, which includes the Oak Creek Watershed.
Planning is ongoing.
• The Colorado Plateau Biological Survey has established a major riparian
study project focusing on the Beaver Creek/Montezuma Wells area of the
Verde Valley.
Members of the Oak Creek Canyon National Project are active participants in
all of these groups. Activities are under way to consolidate and to coordinate
these efforts.
31
-------
Oak Creek Canvon. Arizona
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
Subsequent to plan approval and the on the basis of data obtained during the
first-year monitoring season, the Coconino County Health Department, in
conjunction with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, U.S.
Forest Service, Arizona Department of Transportation, Arizona Park Service
and others, confirmed that fecal coliform levels were alarmingly high at Slide
Rock State Park. The health department ordered closure of the facility until
such time as (1) fecal levels decrease significantly and (2) a plan is presented for
assuring that dangerous fecal levels are reduced in the future.
The Oak Creek Canyon National Monitoring Project plan forms the basis for
proposed BMPs. Planning is under way to have at least two proposed BMPs in
place by the 1995 season: (1) U.S. Forest Service has allocated funds to
refurbish the single restroom located at the water's edge of Slide Rock State
Park and (2) Arizona Department of Transportation is planning to erect per-
manent parking barricades on State Highway 89A so that Slide Rock atten-
dance is restricted to parking lot capacity (141 vehicles).
The project possesses sufficient preliminary data to assure that the basic moni-
toring plan remains intact.
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Daniel Salzler
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Nonpoint Source Unit
3033 N. Central, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85012-0600
Phone: (602) 207-4507; Fax: (602) 207-4528
Tom Harrison
Director, Grants and Contracts
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, Arizona 86011
Phone: (602) 523-6727; Fax: (602) 523-1075
Dr. Richard D. Foust
Department of Chemistry and Environmental Science
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, Arizona 86011
(602)523- 7077; Fax: (602) 523-2626
32
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Information and
Education
WilbertOdem •
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, Arizona 86011
(602) 523-4449; Fax: (602) 523-2600
REFERENCES
The Oak Creek 319(h) Demonstration Project National Monitoring Program
Work Plan. 1994. Prepared by The Northern Arizona University Oak Creek
Watershed Team, Thomas D. Harrison, Project Manager.
33
-------
-------
California
Morro Bay Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 3: Morro Bay (California) Watershed Project Location
35
-------
Morro Bay Watershed
San Luis Obispo County
Chorro Flats
Floodplaln/Sediment
Retention Project
miles
Legend
— Watershed Boundary
Urban Boundary Line
Creek
Intermittent Creek
Marsh
Chumash Creek
Walters Creek
Figure 4: Paired Watersheds (Chorro Creek and Los Osos Creek)
in Morro Bay (California)
36
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Morro Bay watershed is located on the central coast of California, 237 miles
south of San Francisco in San Luis Obispo County (Figure 3). This 76-square
mile watershed is an important biological and economic resource. Two creeks,
Los Osos and Chorro, drain the watershed into the Bay. Included within the
watershed boundaries are two urban areas, prime agricultural and grazing
lands, and a wide variety of natural habitats that support a diversity of animal
and plant species. Morro Bay estuary is considered to be one of the least altered
estuaries on the California coast. Heavy development activities, caused by an
expanding population in San Luis Obispo County, have placed increased pres-
sures on water resources in the watershed.
Various nonpoint source pollutants, including sediment, bacteria, metals, nutri-
ents, and organic chemicals, are entering streams in the area and threatening
beneficial uses of the streams and estuary. The primary pollutant of concern is
sediment. Brushland and rangeland contribute the largest portion of this sedi-
ment, and Chorro Creek contributes twice as much sediment to the Bay as Los
Osos Creek. At present rates of sedimentation, Morro Bay could be lost as an
open water estuary within 300 years unless remedial action is undertaken. The
objective of the Morro Bay Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution and Treat-
ment Measure Evaluation Program is to reduce the quantity of sediment enter-
ing Morro Bay.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Section 319 National
Monitoring Program project for the Morro Bay watershed has been developed
to characterize the sedimentation rate and other water quality conditions in a
portion of Chorro Creek, to evaluate the effectiveness of several best manage-
ment practice (BMP) systems in improving water quality and habitat quality,
and to evaluate the overall water quality at select sites in the Morro Bay
watershed.
A paired watershed study on tributaries of Chorro Creek (Chumash and Wal-
ters Creeks) will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of a BMP system in
improving water quality (Figure 4). Other monitoring sites, outside the paired
watershed, have been established to evaluate specific BMP system effective-
ness. In addition, water quality samples will be taken throughout the watershed
to document the changes in water quality during the life of the project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
The total drainage basin of the Morro Bay watershed is approximately 48,450
acres. The monitoring effort is focused on the Chorro Creek watershed.
Chorro Creek and its tributaries originate along the southern flank of Cuesta
Ridge, at elevations of approximately 2,700 feet. Currently three stream gages
are operational in the Chorro Creek watershed, one each on the San Luisito,
San Bernardo, and Chorro creeks. Annual discharge is highly variable, ranging
37
-------
Morrow Bay Watershed, California
from approximately 2,000 to over 20,000 acre-feet, and averaging about 5,600
acre-feet. Flow is intermittent in dry years and may disappear in all but the
uppermost areas of the watershed. In spite of the intermittent nature of these
creeks, both Chorro and Los Osos creeks are considered cold-water resources,
supporting anadromous fisheries (steelhead trout).
Water Uses and
impairments
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Morro Bay is one of the few relatively intact natural estuaries on the Pacific
Coast of North America. The beneficial uses of Morro Bay include recreation,
industry, navigation, marine life habitat, shellfish harvesting, commercial and
sport fishing, wildlife habitat, and rare and endangered species habitat.
A number offish species (including anadromous fish, which use the Bay during
a part of their life cycle) have been negatively impacted by the increased amount
of sediment in the streams and the Bay. Sedimentation in anadromous fish
streams reduces the carrying capacity of the stream for steelhead and other fish
species by reducing macroinvertebrate productivity, spawning habitat, egg and
larval survival rates, and increasing gill abrasion and stress on adult fish. Al-
though trout are still found in both streams, ocean-run fish have not been
observed in a number of years.
Accelerated sedimentation has also resulted in significant economic losses to
the oyster industry in the Bay. Approximately 100 acres of oyster beds have
been lost due to excessive sedimentation. Additionally, fecal coliform bacteria
carried by streams to the Bay have had a negative impact on the shellfish
industry, resulting in periodic closures of the area to shellfish harvesting (SCS,
1992). Elevated fecal coliform counts have been detected in water quality
samples taken from several locations in the watershed. Elevated fecal coliform
detections, exceeding 1600 Most Probable Number/100 ml, have generally been
found in areas where cattle impacts in streams are heavy.
The Tidewater Goby, a federally endangered brackish-water fish, has been
eliminated from the mouths of both Chorro and Los Osos creeks, most likely as
a result of sedimentation of pool habitat, in combination with excessive water
diversion.
The two creeks that flow into the estuary (Chorro Creek and Los Osos Creek)
are listed as impaired for sedimentation, temperature, and agricultural non-
point source pollution by the State of California (Central Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board, 1993).
Studies conducted within the watershed have identified sedimentation as a
serious threat in the watershed and estuary. Results of a Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) Hydrologic Unit Areas (HUA) study show that the rate of
sedimentation has increased ten-fold during the last 100 years (SCS, 1989b).
Recent studies indicate that the estuary has lost 25% of its tidal volume in the
last century as a result of accelerated sedimentation and has filled in with an
average of two feet of sediment since 1935 (Haltiner, 1988). SCS estimated the
current quantity of sediment delivered to Morro Bay to be 45,500 tons per year
(Soil Conservation Service, 1989b).
38
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
The overall goal of the USEPA 319 project is to evaluate improvements in water
quality resulting from implementation of best management practices. The
following objectives have been identified for this project:
• Identify sources, types, and amounts of nonpoint source pollutants (see the
list of variables that will be monitored) originating in paired watersheds in
the Chorro Creek watershed (Chumash and Walters Creeks).
• Determine stream flow/sediment load relationships in the paired watersheds.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs implemented as a BMP system in improv-
ing water quality in one of the paired sub-watersheds (Chumash Creek).
• Evaluate the effectiveness of three implemented BMP systems in improving
water or habitat quality at selected Morro Bay watershed locations.
• Monitor overall water qualityin the Morro Bay watershed to identify problem
areas for future work, detect improvements or changes, and contribute to the
database for watershed locations.
• Develop a Geographical Information System (GIS) database to be used for
this project and in future water quality monitoring efforts.
None.
August 1, 1993 - June 30,2003
1993
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area.
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
The Morro Bay watershed drains an area of 48,450 acres into the Morro Bay
estuary on the central coast of California. The Bay is approximately four miles
long and one and three-quarters miles at its maximum width. The project area
is primarily located in the northeast portion of the Morro Bay watershed.
Morro Bay was formed during the last 10,000 to 15,000 years (SCS, 1989a). A
post-glacial rise in sea level of several hundred feet resulted in a submergence
of the confluence of Chorro and Los Osos creeks (Haltiner, 1988). A series of
creeks that originate in the steeper hillslopes to the east of the Bay drain
westward into two creeks, Chorro and Los Osos, which drain into the Bay. The
400-acre salt marsh has developed in the central portion of the Bay in the delta
of the two creeks. A shallow ground water system is also present underneath the
project area.
The geology of the watershed is highly varied, consisting of complex igneous,
sedimentary, and metamorphic rock. Over fifty diverse soils, ranging from fine
sands to heavy clays, have been mapped in the area. Soils in the upper water-
shed are predominantly coarse-textured, shallow, and weakly developed.
Deeper medium- or finer-textured soils are typically found in valley bottoms or
on gently rolling hills. Earthquake activity and intense rain events increase
landslide potential and severity in sensitive areas.
39
-------
Morrow Bay Watershed, California
The climate of the watershed is Mediterranean: cool, wet winters and warm, dry
summers. The area receives about 95% of its 18-inch average annual precipita-
tion between the months of November and April. The mean air temperatures
range from lows around 45 degrees in January to highs of 75 degrees in October,
with prevailing winds from the northwest averaging around 15 to 20 miles per
hour.
Land Use
Approximately 60% of the land in the watershed is classified as rangeland.
Typical rangeland operations consist of approximately 1,000 acres of highly
productive grasslands supporting cow-calf enterprises. Brushlands make up
another 19% of the watershed area. Agricultural crops (truck, field, and grain
crops), woodlands, and urban areas encompass approximately equal amounts
of the landscape in the watershed.
Land Use
Acres
Agricultural Crops 3,149
Woodland 3,093
Urban 3,389
Brushland 8,319
Rangeland 26,162
Total 44,112
Source: SCS, 1989a
7
7
8
19
59
100
Pollutant Source(s)
Modifications Since
Project Started
It has been estimated that 50% or more of the sediment entering the Bay results
from human activities. Sheet and rill erosion account for over 63% of the
sediment reaching Morro Bay (SCS, 1989b). An SCS Erosion and Sediment
Study identified sources of sediment to the Bay, which include activities on
rangeland, cropland, and urban lands (SCS, 1989b). The greatest contribution
of sediment to the Bay originates from upland brushlands (37%) because of the
land's steepness, parent material, and lack of undercover, as well as rainfall.
Rangelands are the second-largest source of sediment entering into streams
(12%). Cattle grazing has damaged riparian areas by stripping the land of
vegetation and breaking down bank stability. The unvegetated streambanks, as
well as overgrazed uplands, have resulted in accelerated erosion. Other water-
shed sources that contribute to sediment transport into Morro Bay include
abandoned mines, poorly maintained roads, agricultural croplands, and urban
activities.
None.
40
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
At least one informal educational program on the 319 National Monitoring
Program project and the watershed will be conducted each year. Information
and education (I&E) programs, thus far, have been workshops about the water
quality problems within the watershed for landowners and local agencyperson-
nel and a presentation before the Central Coast Regional Water Board. Future
public presentations about the Morro Bay 319 National Monitoring Program
project will be made to such local advocacy or other interest groups as Friends
of the Estuary, the Morro Bay Natural History Association, and the Morro Bay
Task Force, as well as Cal Poly State University (Cal Poly) and Cuesta Commu-
nity College.
Presentations on the monitoring program have been made at a Regional Water
Quality Control Board public hearing and at the annual Soil and Water Conser-
vation Society Conference (California Chapter). In addition, educational out-
reach efforts were made at a Cooperative Extension erosion control workshop,
the Morro Bay Museum of Natural History, a 4-H watershed education day, the
California Biodiversity Council, and a Cal Poly soil science class. Publicity has
included an excellent article in the local newspaper and a featured spot on the
local evening news.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Paired Watershed
BMP Systems at Sites
within the Morro Bay
Watershed
In the paired watershed, a BMP system will be used to control nonpoint source
pollutants. Cal Poly will be responsible for implementation ofthis BMP system
on Chumash Creek, which is one of the streams in the paired watershed. The
BMPs to be implemented include: 1) fencing the entire riparian corridor; 2)
creating smaller pastures for better management of cattle-grazing activities; 3)
providing appropriate water distribution to each of these smaller pastures; 4)
stabilizing and re vegetating portions of the streambank; and 5) installing water
bars and culverts on farm roads where needed. During the project, riparian
vegetation is expected to increase from essentially zero coverage to at least 50%
coverage. The project team has established a goal of a 50% reduction in
sediment following BMP implementation.
SCS has established three different BMP systems throughout the watershed.
These three systems will be evaluated for their effect on water and habitat
quality. A floodplain sediment retention project will be established at Chorro
Flats to retain sediment (sediment retention project). A riparian area along
Dairy Creek, a tributary of Chorro Creek, will be fenced and revegetated (cattle
exclusion project). Fences will be installed to allow rotational grazing of pas-
tures on the 1,400-acre Maino ranch (managed grazing project). The goals for
these projects during the next 10 years are to achieve a 33.8% decrease in
sediment yield from the sediment retention project, a 66% reduction in sedi-
ment yield from the cattle exclusion project, and a 30% reduction in sediment
as a result of the managed grazing project.
41
-------
Morrow Bay Watershed, California
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
None.
Paired Watershed Study: Funding has been acquired through CWA 319(h) for
implementation of improvements on the paired watershed. A Technical Advi-
sory Committee has been formed, and planning has begun for specific place-
ment of land improvements needed on the Chumash Creek watershed.
Sediment Retention Project: The Chorro Flats project has obtained funding
($90,000) for the engineering design of the flood plain restoration project. All
environmental documents have been completed, but installation is still a few
years away.
Cattle Exclusion Project: Dairy Creek fencing for riparian exclusion has begun
and will be completed this summer.
Managed Grazing Project: The Maino Ranch has completed installation of
watering devices and fencing and, as of this year, is being managed as planned
in a timed grazing project.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Two watersheds have been selected for a paired watershed study. Chumash
Creek (400 acres) and Walters Creek (480 acres) both drain into Chorro Creek.
These creeks have similar soils, vegetative cover, elevation, slope, and land use
activities. The property surrounding these two creeks is under the management
of Cal Poly. Because the rangeland being treated is owned byCal Poly, project
personnel will be able to ensure continuity and control of land management
practices.
The paired watershed monitoring plan entails three specific monitoring tech-
niques: stream flow/climatic monitoring, water quality monitoring, and biologi-
cal/habitat monitoring. The duration of the calibration period (the period
during which the two watersheds will be monitored to establish statistical
relationships between them) will be at least two rainy seasons. After the calibra-
tion period is complete, a BMP system will be installed in one of the watersheds
(Chumash Creek). The other watershed, Walters Creek, will serve as the
control.
Other systems of BMPs will be established at different locations in the Morro
Bay watershed. Water quality will be monitored using upstream/downstream
and single station designs to evaluate these systems. An upstream/downstream
design will be adopted to monitor the water quality effect of a floodplain/sedi-
ment retention project and a cattle exclusion project. A single station design on
a subdrainage will be used to evaluate changes in water quality from implemen-
tation of a managed grazing program.
In addition to BMP effectiveness monitoring, ongoing water quality sampling
will take place at selected sites throughout the Morro Bay watershed to docu-
_
42
-------
Mono Bay Watershed, California
ment long-term changes in overall water quality and to discern problem areas
in need of further restoration efforts.
Modifications Since
Project Started
Variables Measured
Sampling Scheme
Because of very limited runoff during the 1993-1994 sampling year, only one
sampling event occurred. Unless the winter of 1994-1995 is very wet, it may be
necessary to extend to three seasons the calibration period for the paired
watersheds.
Biological
Fecal Coliform
Riparian vegetation
Chemical and Other
Suspended and bedload sediment
Turbidity
Nitrate (NOs-N)
Total phosphate
Conductivity
pH
Explanatory Variables
Precipitation
Stream flow
Evaporation
Animal units
Weekly grab samples will be taken for at least 20 weeks during the rainy season,
starting on November 15. The samples from the paired watershed will be
analyzed for suspended sediment, turbidity, nitrate, total phosphate, and fecal
coliform. The two upstream/downstream sites and one of the downstream
monitoring sites will be analyzed for suspended sediment, turbidity, and fecal
coliform. In addition, year-round samples for pH, dissolved oxygen, turbidity,
temperature, and fecal coliform will be conducted every two weeks at these
locations, the gage stations, and several additional sampling sites.
In the paired watershed, suspended sediment samples will be collected during
storm events using automated sampling equipment set at even intervals (30-
minute or hourly intervals, depending on the sediment/flow relationship). The
water collected from each individual sample will be analyzed for suspended
sediment, turbidity, and conductivity.
Bedload sediment will be sampled after each flow event (4 to 10 events per rainy
season) for total mass. Physical (particle size) analysis will be performed on
composite bedload samples.
Vegetation will be assessed via aerial photography conducted bi-annually in
March and September during the first, fifth, and tenth years of the project. On
both the paired watershed and the Maino property, four permanent vegetation
43
-------
Morrow Bay Watershed, California
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
transects will be conducted two times each year to sample vegetation and
document changes during the life of the project.
Modifications will be made to sediment analysis techniques in upcoming years.
This year, evaporation was used to process suspended sediment samples; how-
ever, dissolved solids are high in this watershed and were contributing signifi-
cantly to the total weight of the samples. In the future, analysis will be for total
filterable solids. A relationship between conductivity and dissolved solids will
be developed to convert this year's data to filterable solids. In addition to
suspended solids and turbidity, conductivity will be measured for each sus-
pended sediment sample during event monitoring. However, composite sam-
ples from event monitoring will no longer be analyzed for total N, total P, or pH.
Grab sampling will continue unchanged for nitrate, total P, pH, conductivity,
and turbidity.
The winter of 1993-1994 was atypical; only one rainfall event produced signifi-
cant runoff. Sediment, turbidity, and flow data from this event were collected.
A year of even interval grab sampling was obtained, with sampling conducted
once every two weeks. During the rainy season (20 weeks beginning December
15), grab samples were collected once per week. A coshocton sampler was
installed to collect flow from a small drainage on the Maino property, but flows
were insufficient to start sample collection. Though the study design requires
even-interval sampling year round, this is not feasible in several locations
(including the paired watersheds) because the flow becomes intermittent or
ceases entirely during summer months.
Data Management
Data and BMP implementation information will be handled by the project
team. As required by the USEPA Section 319 National Monitoring Program
Guidance, data will be entered into STORET and reported using the Nonpoint
Source Management System Software. A geographical information system
(GIS), ARC/INFO, will be used to map nonpoint pollution sources, BMPs, and
land uses, and to determine resulting water quality problem areas.
A Quality Assurance Project Plan, for project water quality sampling and
analysis, will be developed by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Con-
trol Board. The plan will be used to assure the reliability and accuracy of
sampling, data recording, and analytical measurements.
Data Analysis
Parametric and non-parametric statistical tests will be adopted to analyze the
data. Possible tests include linear regression F-tests, analysis of variance,
covariance F-test, Wilcoxon-Rank Sum tests, and Kendall's Tau test. A two-
way contingency table will be used for comparison of the levels of pollutant
concentrations and levels of explanatory variables. Three variable contingency
tables will also be prepared; these include time (season or year), pollutant
concentration, and an explanatory variable (such as flow or land treatment).
44
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
None.
A draft Quality Assurance Plan has been developed and implemented. It is
currently being circulated along with the annual report for review. GIS data
layers entered this past year (using ARC/INFO) included sample site locations,
soils, vegetation, land use, and topography. Initial analysis of the data has been
relatively simple, including basic statistics and graphical representation of water
quality parameters versus flow.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Modifications Since
Project Started
The estimated budget for the Morro Bay watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution
Monitoring project for the period of FY 92 - 94: '
Project Element
Proj Mgt
I&E
*LT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Funding Source (S)
Federal State Slim
51,710 N/A 51,710
60,000 N/A 60,000
130,000 1,593,500 1,723,500
85,540 10,000 95,540
327,250 1,603,500 1,930,750
* Land Treatment dollars are largely to be used for permanent structures.
These funds will probably be used for matching funds throughout the duration
of the project, not just the first two years.
Source: Karen Worcester (Personal Communication), 1994
None.
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
In addition to the USEPA 319 National Monitoring Program project being led
by the California Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, several
other agencies are involved in various water quality activities in the watershed.
The California Coastal Conservancy contracted with the Coastal San Luis
Resource Conservation District in 1987 to inventory the sediment sources to the
estuary, to quantify the rates of sedimentation, and to develop a watershed
enhancement plan to address these problems. The Coastal Conservancy then
provided $400,000 for cost share for BMP implementation by landowners.
HUA grant funding has been obtained for technical assistance in the watershed
($140,000/year), Cooperative Extension adult and youth watershed education
programs ($100,000/year), and cost share for farmers and ranchers
($100,000/year) for five years. An SCS Range Conservationist was hired
45
-------
Morrow Bay Watershed, California
through 319(h) funds ($163,000) to manage the range and farm land improve-
ment program. Cooperative Extension has also received a grant to conduct
detailed monitoring on a rangeland management project in the watershed. The
California National Guard, a major landowner in the watershed, has contracted
with the SCS ($40,000) to develop a management plan for grazing and road
management on the base. State funding from the Coastal Conservancy and the
Department of Transportation has been used to purchase a $1.45 million parcel
of agricultural land on Chorro Creek just upstream of the Morro Bay delta
which will be restored as a functioning flood plain. Without the cooperation of
these agencies and without their funding, this project would be unable to
implement BMPs or educate landowners about nonpoint source pollution.
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Board is conducting a study of the
abandoned mines in the watershed with USE PA 205(j) funds. The Board has
also obtained a USEPA Near Coastal Waters grant to develop a watershed
work plan, incorporate new USEPA nonpoint source management measures
into the Basin Plan, and develop guidance packages for the various agencies
charged with the responsibility for water quality in the watershed.
The Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Conservation Board has provided
funding ($48,000) for steelhead habitat enhancement on portions of Chorro
Creek. The State Department of Parks and Recreation has funded studies on
exotic plant invasions in the delta as a result of sedimentation. The California
Coastal Commission has used Morro Bay as a model watershed in development
of a pilot study for a nonpoint source management plan pursuant to Section
6217 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization Amend-
ments of 1990.
In addition to state and federal support, the Morro Bay watershed receives
tremendous support from local citizen groups. The Friends of the Estuary, a
citizen advocacy group, has been invaluable in its political support of Morro
Bay, including an effort to nominate the Bay for the National Estuary Program.
The Bay Foundation, a non-profit group dedicated to Bay research, has funded
a $45,000 study on the freshwater influences on Morro Bay, has developed a
library collection on the bay and watershed at the local community college, and
is actively cooperating with the Morro Bay National Monitoring Program pro-
ject in development of a watershed GIS database. The Bay Foundation has also
recently purchased satellite photographs of the watershed, which will prove
useful for the monitoring program effort. The Friends of the Estuary and the
Bay Foundation of Morro Bay are cooperating to develop a volunteer monitor-
ing program for the Bay itself, which includes water quality monitoring.
46
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Recently, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill 640. This bill was
written by the Friends of the Estuary and carried by Assemblywoman Andrea
Seastrand. It establishes Morro Bay as the first "State Estuary," and mandates
that a comprehensive management plan be developed for the bay and its
watershed by locally involved agencies, organizations, and the general public.
Current effort is under way to organize the steering committee for this planning
process.
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Karen Worcester
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
81 Higuera St. Suite 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 549-3333, Fax (805) 543-0397
Thomas J. Rice
Soil Science Department
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
(805) 756-2420, Fax (805) 756-5412
Internet: trice@cymbal.aix.calpoly.edu
GaryKetchum
Farm Supervisor
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
(805) 756-2548
Scott Robbins
SCS-Range Conservationist
545 Main Street, Suite Bl
Morro Bay, CA 93442
(805) 772-4391
Karen Worcester
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
81 Higuera St. Suite 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 549-3333, Fax (805) 543-0397
Thomas J. Rice
Soil Science Department
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
(805) 756-2420, Fax (805) 756-5412
Internet: trice@cymbal.aix.calpoly.edu
47
-------
Morrow Bav Watershed California
Information and
Education
Karen Worcester
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
81 Higuera St. Suite 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 549-3333, Fax (805) 543-0397
REFERENCES
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1993. Nonpoint Source
Pollution and Treatment Measure Evaluation for the Mono Bay Watershed.
Haltiner, J. 1988. Sedimentation Processes in Morro Bay, California. Prepared
by Philip Williams and Associates for the Coastal San Luis Resource Conserva-
tion District with funding by the California Coastal Conservancy.
SCS. 1989a. Morro BayWatershed Enhancement Plan. Soil Conservation Serv-
ice.
SCS. 1989b. Erosion and Sediment Study Morro Bay Watershed. Soil Conser-
vation Service.
SCS. 1992. FY-92 Annual Progress Report Morro Bay Hydrologic Unit Area.
Soil Conservation Service.
48
-------
Idaho
Eastern Snake River Plain
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 5: Eastern Snake River Plain (Idaho) Demonstration Project Area Location
49
-------
Scale
10
I-86
Figure 6: Eastern Snake River Plain (Idaho) Demonstration Project Area
50
-------
'F" Field Well Locations
1
FE1
Forgeon Test Field
"M" Field Well Locations
Concrete Lined Irrigation
Ditch
Unlined
Ditch
All Distances Are
Approximate
+
MPWN
MW4 /
MPEN
'150
ft
MW3
500
ft
ME4
ME3
MPWS
+
MW2
MW1
Electric
Fence
Moncur Test Field
ME2
ME1
MPES
Figure 7: Eastern Snake River Plain (Idaho) Project Field Well Locations
51
-------
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Idaho Eastern Snake River Plain is located in southcentral Idaho in an area
dominated by irrigated agricultural land (Figure 5). The Eastern Snake River
Plain aquifer system, which provides much of the drinking water for approxi-
mately 40,000 people living in the project area, underlies about 9,600 square
miles of basaltic desert terrain. The aquifer also serves as a important source
of water for irrigation. In 1990, this aquifer was designated by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (USEPA) as a sole source aquifer.
Many diverse crops are produced throughout the Eastern Snake River Plain
region. Excessive irrigation, a common practice in the area, creates the poten-
tial for nitrate and pesticide leaching and/or runoff. Ground water monitoring
indicates the presence of elevated nitrate levels in the shallow aquifer underly-
ing the project area.
The objective of a five-year United States Department of Agriculture (USD A)
Demonstration Project within the Eastern Snake River Plain (1,946,700 acres)
is to reduce adverse agricultural impacts on ground water quality through
coordinated implementation of nutrient and irrigation water management (Fig-
ure 6). As part of this project, two paired-field monitoring networks (con-
structed to evaluate best management practices (BMPs) for nutrient and
irrigation water management effects) are funded under Section 319 of the Clean
Water Act (Figure 7).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
In the intensely irrigated areas overlying the Eastern Snake River Plain aquifer,
shallow, unconfined ground water systems have developed primarily from irri-
gation water recharge. Domestic water supplies are often supplied by these
shallow systems. Within the project area, the general flow direction of the
shallow ground water system is toward the north from the river; however,
localized flow patterns due to irrigation practices and pumping effects are very
common. This ground water system very vulnerable to contamination because
of the 1) proximity of the shallow system to ground surface, 2) the intensive land
use overlying the system, and 3) the dominant recharge source (irrigation
water)of the ground water.
Some wells sampled for nitrate concentrations have exceeded state and federal
standards for allowable levels. This occurrence of elevated nitrate concentra-
tions in the ground water impairs the use of the shallow aquifer as a source of
drinking water. Low-level pesticide concentrations in the ground water have
been detected in domestic wells and are of concern in the project area. Both
nitrate and potential pesticide concentrations threaten the present and future
use of the aquifer system for domestic water use.
53
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain. Idaho
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
Ground water data collected and analyzed within the project area indicate the
widespread occurrence of nitrate concentrations that exceed state and federal
drinking water standards. In a study conducted from May 1991 through Octo-
ber 1991, 195 samples were taken from 54 area wells and analyzed for nitrate.
Average nitrate concentrations were around 6.5 milligrams per liter (mg/1), with
a maximum of 28 mg/1. The federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)for
nitrate of 10 mg/1 was exceeded in 16 % of the wells at least once during the
sampling period. Five percent of the wells yielded samples that continuously
exceeded the MCL during the sampling period.
Ninety-eight samples were collected from the same 54 wells and analyzed for
the presence of 107 pesticide compounds. Fourteen of the 54 wells yielded
samples with at least one detectable pesticide present, but all concentrations
measured were below the federal Safe Drinking Water MCL or Health Advi-
sory for that compound. Even though the wells now meet MCL standards,
pesticide concentrations are still believed to be a future concern for the Eastern
Snake River Plain Aquifer.
The overall Demonstration Project objective is to decrease nitrate and pesticide
concentrations through the adoption of BMPs on agricultural lands. Specific
project objectives for the USEPA 319 National Monitoring Program project
are:
• Evaluate the effects of irrigation water management on nitrate-nitrogen
leaching to the ground water. A paired-field, referred to as "M," will allow
a comparison of ground water quality conditions between regular irrigation
scheduling and the use of a 12-hour sprinkler duration.
• Evaluate the effects of crop rotation on nitrate-nitrogen leaching to the
ground water. A paired-field study, referred to as "F," will allow a com-
parison of water quality conditions between the side planted in grain and
the side planted in beans.
Source: James Osiensky (Personal communication), 1993.
None.
October 1991 - October 1997
1992
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
The Demonstration Project is comprised of over 1,946,000 acres. The ground
water quality monitoring activities are limited to a 30,000-acre area of south
Minidoka County. The 319 project consists of two sets of paired five-acre plots
(a total of four five-acre plots) located in this 30,000-acre area (Figure 6). The
paired-fields are located in the eastern and western portions of the area to
illustrate BMP effects in differing soil textures. The "F" field soils are fairly
clean, fine to medium sands. The "M" field soils are silty loams. Due to the
differences in soils and the traditional irrigation methods employed on these
54
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
Land Use
fields (flood and furrow respectively), the "M" field has relatively lower spatial
variability of existing water quality than the "F" field. The "F" field also shows
greater influences from adjacent fields.
A regional monitoring well network consisting of existing domestic standpoint
(driven) wells has also been established within the Demonstration Project Area.
The regional network is intended to augment the paired-field data and provide
a means to document the influence of the Demonstration Project on the quality
of the area's shallow ground water system.
The average annual rainfall is between 8 and 12 inches. Shallow and deep water
aquifers are found within the project area. Because of the hydrogeologic
regime of the project area, there is a wide range of depths to ground water. Soils
in the demonstration area have been formed as a result of wind and water
deposition. Stratified loamy alluvial deposits and sandy wind deposits cover a
permeable layer of basalt. Soil textures vary from silty clay loams to fine sandy
loams. These soils are predominantly level, moderately deep, and well drained.
Sugar beets, potatoes, and grains are grown in the "M" field. Alfalfa, dry beans,
and grains are grown in the "F" field. Both fields were converted to sprinkler
from furrow and flood irrigation in 1993. Comparison demonstrations between
sprinkler and gravity irrigation systems are not occurring because project per-
sonnel feel that this information is apparent and available.
The "M" paired field will be used to establish existing baseline conditions which
exist using a "wheel line" sprinkler system. After baseline conditions have been
established, the water application rate to the "BMP" side of the paired field will
be approximately half of the control side.
Pollutant Source(s)
Baseline conditions, which exist under sprinkler-irrigated alfalfa production,
will be established on the "F" paired field. After baseline conditions have been
established, the "BMP "side of the paired field will be planted in grain, while the
"control" side of the field will be planted in beans.
Within the project area there are over 1,500 farms with an average size of 520
acres. A wide variety of crops, including alfalfa, barley, dry beans, corn, pota-
toes, sugar beets, and wheat are grown in the area. Nutrient management on
irrigated crops is intensive. Heavynitrogen application and excessive irrigation
are the primary causes of water quality problems in the shallow aquifer system.
In addition, over 80 different agrichemicals have been used within the project
area. Excessive irrigation may cause some leaching of these pesticides into
ground water (Idaho Eastern Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration
Project, 1991).
Modifications Since
Project Started
During implementation of the regional domestic well water quality monitoring
portion of the USD A project, agricultural chemicals and nitrate-nitrogen have
been detected at levels of concern and measured in samples collected from
domestic wells. The herbicide Dacthal has been detected at low levels in
samples collected from one well during each sampling event. The same well
yielded a single sample with 2,4-D measured at 195 ppb. Other wells have
yielded samples containing nitrate-nitrogen as high as 30 mg/1. Concern gener-
55
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
ated by this data has led to site-specific ground water investigations by the Idaho
Division of Environmental Quality and Idaho Department of Agriculture.
In addition, limited sampling and analyses of ground water drainage systems,
irrigation return flows, and injection wells have identified nutrients and pesti-
cides in certain surface water bodies within the project area. Nitrate-nitrogen
concentrations have been measured in subsurface tile drain effluent as high as
8 mg/1. The herbicides MCPA and 2,4-D have been detected in return flow
irrigation water. The 2,4-D was measured at levels greater than the allowable
Safe Drinking Water MCL of 70 ppb. Concern generated from evaluation of
this data has prompted Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to re-
quest an expansion of the existing surface water quality monitoring efforts.
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Presently, there is no plan to implement a separate information and education
(I & E) campaign for the 319 National Monitoring Program project. I & E for
the Snake River 319 National Monitoring Program project will be included in
the Demonstration Project I & E program.
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
Two Eastern Snake River Plain Demonstration Project brochures have been
published. One brochure, targeting the local public, was designed to provide a
general explanation of the project. The second explains results from the nitrate
sampling of the project area. A survey was conducted to gain insight into the
attitudes of the general public and the farmer. The results of these surveys have
been published. In addition, presentations have been conducted and Demon-
stration Project displays have been exhibited in the area.
The USD A demonstration project continues to provide the I&E component for
this project. Weekly university articles are produced on the demonstration
project. Project information is disseminated through university and producer
conferences. Presentations on the project are made to the public through local
and regional outlets, such as the American Association of Retired Persons,
Future Farmers of America, and primary and secondary education institutions.
In addition, a public information workshop is held annually within the project
area for project participants, cooperators, and interested individuals. Informa-
tion has been disseminated through local and regional television and radio
programs and newspaper articles. Presentations also have been made to local
and regional agricultural producers, local irrigation districts and canal compa-
nies, industry representatives, and industry supply vendors. Cooperating farm
operations performing improved management practices for water quality are
marked by project display boards to maximize exposure to the local population.
These operations are also visited and presented during the numerous project
organized field trips for targeted audiences.
56
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Description
The NFS control strategy focuses on nitrogen, pesticide, and irrigation water
management practices that will reduce the amount of nutrients and pesticides
in surface water and the amount leached into the ground water.
Fertilizer evaluations and recommendations based on soil tests, petiole analysis,
crop growth stage, crop type, rotation, and water sampling will be adopted.
Farmers will be asked to incorporate pesticide management strategies into their
farming practices. It is hoped that these strategies will reduce farm input and
overuse of pesticides. Integrated Pest Management will be utilized and will
include, but not be limited to, scouting, trapping, and rotational management.
An irrigation management program will be implemented for each participating
farm in the Demonstration Project. Recommended activities include changes in
irrigation scheduling, tailwater management, repair of existing structural com-
ponents, and conversion to other types of systems.
Modifications Since
Project Started
Farmstead Assessment System and Homestead Assessment System
(Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst), a well-head protection program, have been
added to the project. These programs will aid in ground water risk assessment
for the rural homeowner.
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
Twenty-seven of the projected thirty local agricultural producers have cooper-
ated in installation of planned NFS control strategies. Of these twenty-seven,
sixteen focused on the installation of structural irrigation water application
systems and nutrient management, and eleven focused on irrigation, nutrient,
and pesticide management.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
The 319 National Monitoring portion of the Demonstration Project incorpo-
rates two field networks consisting of 24 constructed wells, eight of which are
centrally located "permanent" wells and four are peripheral "temporary" wells,
installed on both fields (Figure 7).
Modifications Since
Project Started
The scope of work has been increased to evaluate spacial variability within the
two paired fields. In addition to monthly ground water sample collection, a
statistically designed soil water sampling program has been initiated. Soil water
samples, using a suction lysimeter (soil water samplers), will be collected during
the growing season at both the "M" and "F"paired fields.
The soil water sampling program will be important in the interpretation of the
ground water samples collected from in-field monitoring wells.
57
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
• Soil samples have been collected and analyzed to determine particle size
distribution. Using geostatistics, a soil texture probability map was gener-
ated that predicts soil texture within the test fields. This information was
used to determine the location of the installed suction lysimeters in the
paired fields.
• Saturated hydraulic conductivity within the paired fields will be measured.
Geostatistics will be used to evaluate the spacial distribution of saturated
hydraulic conductivity measurements for both test fields based on meas-
ured field values. Since saturated hydraulic conductivity will vary depend-
ing on the type of tillage and the amount of time that has occurred since
the tillage, hydraulic conductivity measurements will be collected and the
data will be analyzed, using geostatistics, over time.
• Soil samp les will be collected at the surface immediately following fertilizer
applications and analyzed for nitrate nitrogen. The nitrate data will be
used, in conjunction with a geostatistics program, to generate the spatial
distribution of the nitrate concentration for both the "M" and "F" fields.
Because nitrate is mobile, the concentration of nitrate will vary over space
and time. To account for the changes over time, soil samples will be taken
monthly and analyzed for nitrate. This information will analyzed using
geostatistics to account for nitrate concentrations in both space and time.
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
The project continues to collect baseline ground water quality data. Data is
being compiled and stored in STORET and the USD A Water Quality Project's
Central Data Base.
Variables Measured
Chemical and Other
Nitrate (NOa-N)
pH
Temperature
Conductivity
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Total dissolved solids (TDS) on a monthly basis
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and Ammonium (NH4-N) on a quarterly basis
Organic scans for pesticide on a semi-annual basis
Explanatory Variables
Precipitation
Crop
Soil texture
Nutrient content of the irrigation water
Sampling Scheme
Paired Field Networks
Type: Grab
Frequency and season: Monthly, third week of each month starting April, 1992.
A number of explanatory variable monitoring activities are being undertaken by
some of the other agencies participating in the project. Variables to be consid-
ered in this project include precipitation, crop, soil texture, and nutrient content
of the irrigation water. In addition, vadose zone suction lysimeters are being
used to monitor nitrate transport.
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
58
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
The Idaho Division of Environmental Quality will enter all raw water quality
data in the USEPA STORET system. Data will also be entered into the USDA
Water Quality Project's Central Data Base, and the Idaho Environmental Data
Management System.
None.
None.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Modifications Since
Project Started
Project Element
Proj Mgt
I&E
LT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Federal
NA
NA
NA
70,000
70,000
Funding Source (S)
State Local
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
Source: Osienskyand Long, 1992
None.
NA
NA
Sum
NA
NA
NA
70,000
70,000
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
None.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
The Eastern Snake River Plain Demonstration Project is led by the USDA Soil
Conservation Service, the University of Idaho Cooperative Extension Service,
and the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. In addition to the
three lead agencies, this project involves an extensive state and federal inter-
agency cooperative effort. Numerous agencies, including the Idaho Division of
Environmental Quality, the University of Idaho Water Resource Research
Institute, the USDA Agricultural Research Service, the Idaho Department of
59
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Water Resources, U.S. Geological Survey, and Idaho Department of Agricul-
ture, have taken on various project tasks.
The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and the Idaho Water Re-
source Research Institute will be responsible for the 319 National Monitoring
Program portion of the project.
An institutional advantage of this project is that the Soil Conservation Service
and the Cooperative Extension Service are both located in the same office.
Also, three local Soil and Water Conservation Districts, East Cassia, West
Cassia and Minidoka, as well as the Minidoka and Cassia County ASCS, county
committees and the Cassia County Farm Bureau make up the Project State
Committee.
The success of the USD A Demonstration Project requires the cooperation and
support of a number of federal, state, and local agencies working in the project
area. These various agencies come to the project bringing different back-
grounds, but will be working to achieve central project objectives and goals.
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Information and
Education
Jeff Bohr
USD A Soil Conservation Service
1369 East 16th St.
Burley.ID 83318
(208) 678-7946
*i
Randall Brooks
University of Idaho
Cooperative Extension
1369 East 16th St.
Burley.ID 83318
(208) 678-7946
John Cardwell
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 Hilton
Boise, ID 83706
(208) 334-0533; Fax (208) 335-0576
Randall Brooks
University of Idaho
Cooperative Extension
1369 East 16th St.
Burley,ID 83318
(208) 678-7946
60
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
REFERENCES
Idaho Eastern Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. 1991.
Plan of Work. April 1991.
Osiensky, J. and M.F. Long. 1992. Quarterly Progress Report for the Ground
Water Monitoring Plan: Idaho Eastern Snake River Plain Water Quality Demon-
stration Project.
61
-------
-------
Illinois
Lake Pittsfield
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 8: Lake Pittsfield (Illinois) Location
63
-------
Figure 9: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Blue Creek Watershed
and Lake Pittsfield (Illinois)
64
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Lake Pittsfield was constructed in 1961 to serve as a flood control structure and
as a public water supply for the city of Pittsfield, a western Illinois community
of approximately 4,000 people. The 7,000-acre watershed (Blue Creek Water-
shed) that drains into Lake Pittsfield is agricultural. Agricultural production
consists primarily of row crops (corn and soybeans). Small livestock operations
consist of hog production, generally on open lots, and some cattle on pasture.
Sedimentation is the major water quality problem in Lake Pittsfield. Sediment
from farming operations, gullies, and shoreline erosion has decreased the
capacity of Lake Pittsfield from 262 acres to 200 acres (a 25% reduction) in the
last 33 years. Other water qualityproblems are excessive nutrients and atrazine
contamination. The lake is classified as hypereutrophic, a process caused by
excess nutrients.
The major land treatment strategy is to reduce sediment transport into Lake
Pittsfield by constructing settling basins throughout the watershed, including a
large basin at the upper end of Lake Pittsfield. Water Quality Incentive Project
(WQIP) money, provided through the Agricultural Stabilization and Conserva-
tion Service (ASCS), will be used to fund conservation tillage, integrated crop
management, livestock exclusion, filter strips, and wildlife habitat management.
An information and education program on the implementation of all of the
BMPs, used to control sediment, fertilizer, and pesticides, will be conducted by
the Pike County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD).
The Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS) is conducting the Blue Creek Water-
shed water quality monitoring program in order to evaluate the effectiveness of
the settling basins. Water quality monitoring consists of storm event tributary
sampling, lake water quality monitoring, and lake sedimentation rate monitor-
ing.
Land-based data are being used by the ISWS to develop watershed maps of
sediment sources and sediment yields using a geographical information system
(GIS). The data for the different GIS layers consist of streams, land uses, soils,
lake boundary, sub-watersheds, topography, and roads.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
Lake Pittsfield is a 200-acre lake located near the city of Pittsfield in Pike
County (western Illinois) (Figure 8).
Lake Pittsfield serves as the primary drinking water resource for the city of
Pittsfield. Secondarily, the lake is used for recreational purposes (fishing and
swimming). Decreased storage capacityin Lake Pittsfield, caused by excessive
sedimentation, is the primary water quality impairment. Lake eutrophication
65
-------
Lake Pittsfiplri Illinnk
and occasional concentrations of atrazine above the 3 ppb Maximum Contami-
nant Level (MCL) also impair lake uses.
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Lake sedimentation studies have been conducted four times: in 1974, 1979,
1985,-and 1992. Almost 15% of Lake Pittsfield's volume was lost in its first 13
years (see table below). An additional 10% of the lake's volume was lost in the
next 18 years (1974 to 1992), suggesting that the rate of sedimentation has
slowed. The majority of the lake volume that has been lost is at the Blue Creek
inlet into the lake, which is in the upper north portion of the lake.
Lake Pittsfield Sedimentation Studies.
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Project Time Frame
Year of
Survey
1961
1974
1979
1985
1992
Lake Age
(Years)
13.5
18.3
24.3
31.5
Lake
Volume
ac-ft
3563
3069
2865
2760
2679
MG
1161
1000
933
899
873
Sediment
Volume
ac-ft
494
697
803
884
MG
161
227
262
288
Original
Volume
Loss (%\
13.9
19.6
22.5
24.8
Project Approval
Source: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 1993
Long-term water quality monitoring data demonstrate that the lake has been
and continues to be hypereutrophic. In 1993, Lake Pittsfield's water quality was
found to exceed Illinois Pollution Control Board's general use water quality
standards for total phosphorus (0.05 mg/1). Orthophosphorus standards of 0.05
mg/1 were exceeded in 70% of the samples. The 0.3 mg/1 standard for inorganic
nitrogen was exceeded in 60% of the water samples. Water quality samples
collected in 1979 had similarly excessive amounts of phosphorus and nitrogen,
as did the 1993 samples.
The objectives of the project are to:
• reduce sediment loads into Lake Pittsfield and
• evaluate the effectiveness of sediment retention basins.
March 1,1993 - February 28, 1995 (Watershed)
September 1,1992 - 1994 (Monitoring Strategy)
Note: Money for monitoring is approved yearly. Contingent upon funding,
monitoring should be continued for at least four years past installation of
sediment retention basins.
Initial funding in 1992 as a 319 Watershed Project. Currently pending approval
as a 319 National Monitoring Program project.
66
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
Land Use
The 7,000-acre Blue Creek watershed that drains into Lake Pittsfield is located
in western Illinois (Figure 8). The terrain is rolling with many narrow forested
draws in the lower portion of the watershed. The topography of the watershed's
upper portion is more gentle and the draws are generally grassed.
The area surrounding Lake Pittsfield receives approximately 39.5 inches of
rainfall per year, most of which falls in the spring, summer, and early fall. Soils
are primarily loess derived. Soils in the upper portion of the watershed devel-
oped under prairie vegetation, while those in the middle and lower portions of
the watershed were developed under forest vegetation.
Some sediment-reducing BMPs are currently being used by area farmers as a
result of a program (Special Water Quality Project) that was started in 1979.
Pike County SWCD personnel encouraged the use of terraces, no-till cultiva-
tion, contour plowing, and water control structures. Many terraces were con-
structed and most farmers adopted contour plowing. However, greater
adoption of no-till and other soil conserving BMPs is still needed.
Land Use
Agricultural
Forest
Pasture/Rangeland
Residential
Reservoir/Farm Ponds
Roads/Construction
Park
TOTAL
Acres
3,706
861
1,563
180
266
189
191
6,956
53
12
23
2
4
3
3
100
Pollutant Source(s)
Source: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Springfield, IL.
Crop land, .pasture, shoreline, and streambanks
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Information and education will be conducted by a private organization (Farm
Bureau) and the Pike County SWCD. Two public meetings have been held to
inform producers about the project. Articles about the project have appeared
in the local newspaper. Currently, farmers are being surveyed about their
attitudes on water quality. This survey is being conducted by University of
Illinois Extension personnel.
67
-------
LakePittsfield. Illinois
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Description
The nonpoint source control strategy is based on reducing sediment movement
off-site and limiting the transport of sediment into the water resource, Lake
Pittsfield.
Section 319 funds will be used to build between 25 and 35 small (approximately
two acres each) sediment retention basins. These basins will be used to limit the
transport of sediment into Lake Pittsfield. In addition, a larger basin, capable
of trapping 90% of the sediment entering Lake Pittsfield at the upper end, will
be constructed with 319 funds.
Funds from the ASCS's WQIP will be used to encourage the adoption of BMPs
that will reduce the movement off-site of sediment, fertilizer, and pesticides.
These BMPs include conservation tillage, integrated crop management, live-
stock exclusion, filter strips, and wildlife habitat management.
In order to reduce shoreline erosion, shoreline stabilization BMPs will be
implemented using Section 314 funds. Old rip rap will be repaired, and new rip
rap will be installed along the shoreline.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Variables Measured
Storm sampling at four stations on the main channel into Lake Pittsfield
(Blue Creek), and three stations at major ravines to Blue Creek (Figure 9).
Trend monitoring during baseflow of Blue Creek at one station.
Trend monitoring at the three stations located in Lake Pittsfield.
Lake sedimentation studies conducted prior to and after dredging.
A shoreline and ravine erosion severity survey will be conducted. The
results of this survey will allow shoreline and gully stabilization techniques
to be evaluated.
Biological
None
Chemical and Other
Orthophosphorus
Total phosphorus
Ammonia nitrogen (NHs-N) + ammonium nitrogen (NHU-N)
Ammonia nitrogen (NHs-N)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Nitrite (NOa-N) + nitrate (NOs-N)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Volatile suspended solids (VSS)
PH
68
-------
Lake Pittsfield. Illinois
Chemical and Other (Continued)
Total alkalinity
Phenolphthalein alkalinity
Specific conductivity
Water temperature
Air temperature
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Atrazine
Sampling Scheme
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
Explanatory Variables
Rainfall
Storm sampling is being conducted at four stations located on Blue Creek
(stations B, C, D, and H - see Figure 9). These stations are equipped with ISCO
automatic samplers and manual DH-59 depth-integrated samplers. A pressure
transducer triggers sampling as the stream rises. The samplers measure stream
height. In addition, the streams are checked manually with a gage during flood
events to determine the stage of the stream. During these flood events, the
stream is rated to determine flow in cubic feet per second. Stream stage is then
correlated with flow in order to construct a stream discharge curve. Water
samples are analyzed to determine sediment loads.
Three stations located on tributaries either into Blue Creek or Lake Pittsfield
(stations E, F, and I - see Figure 9) are also being monitored during storm
events. These stations are equipped with ISCO automatic samplers. Gaging of
these stations will be conducted for at least four years. ,-
Base stream flow is sampled monthly on Blue Creek at Site C (see Figure 9).
Three lake sampling stations are being established to reflect the most shallow
portion of the lake, a middle lake depth, and the deepest part ofthe lake. Water
quality grab samples are taken monthly from April through October.
Three variables are measured at two feet depth intervals: secchi disk transpar-
ency, water temperature, and dissolved oxygen.
In addition, water chemistry samples are taken from the surface of all three lake
stations, as well as the lowest depth at the deepest station, and analyzed for the
chemical constituents listed above (see Chemical and Other Variables Meas-
ured).
Rain gages will be placed near sampling sites C, D, and H (see Figure 9).
The water quality monitoring data will be entered into a database and then
loaded into the USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) water quality
data base, STORET. Data will also be stored and analyzed with the USEPA
NonPoint Source Management System (NPSMS) software..
69
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Project Element
Proj Mgt
I&E
LT(319)
WQ Monit
Cultural Practices
(WQIP)
Dredge/Shoreline/
Aeration (314)
TOTALS
Federal
NA
NA
620,100
235,000
32,000
132,110
1,019,210
Funding Source ($)
State
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Local
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA 904,000
NA 904,000
Sum
NA
NA
620,100
235,000
32,000
1,036,110
1,923,210
Source: State of Illinois, 1993; State of Illinois, 1992
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
In 1979, the Pike County SWCD began a Special Water Quality Project that
encouraged the implementation of terraces, no-till cultivation, contour plow-
ing, and water control structures. This project was instrumental, along with
drier weather conditions, in reducing soil erosion from an average of 5.8 tons
per acre to 3.3 tons per acre (a 45% decrease).
In addition to the sediment-reducing shoreline BMPs, Section 314 funds will
also be used to install three destratifiers (aerators) in Lake Pittsfield to increase
oxygen concentrations throughout the lake, thereby increasing fish habitat. The
lake will be dredged in 1995 to reclaim the original capacity of the lake.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
Many organizations have combined resources and personnel in order to protect
Lake Pittsfield from agricultural nonpoint source pollution. These organiza-
tions are listed below:
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service:
Cost share assistance (Water Quality Incentive Program)
City of Pittsfield:
Administer Phase II of the Section 314 funds
Some project funding
Project support
70
-------
Lake Pittsfield. Illinois
Farm Bureau:
Information and education
Project support
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency:
Overall project coordination
Illinois State Water Survey:
Water Quality Monitoring
Geographical Information System support
Landowners:
Project support
Pike County Soil and Water Conservation District:
Implement NFS control strategy
Information and education
Technical assistance
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Information and
Education
GaryEicken
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 19276
(217) 782-3362; Fax (217) 785-1225
Pat Woods
Pike County Soil and Water Conservation District
1319 W.Washington
Pittsfield, IL 62363
(217) 285-4480
Donald Roseboom
Illinois State Water Survey
Water Quality Management Office
P.O. Box 697
Peoria, IL 61652
(309) 671-3196; Fax (309) 671-3106
Pat Woods
Pike County Soil and Water Conservation District
1319 W.Washington
Pittsfield, IL 62363
(217) 285-4480
71
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
REFERENCES
Illinois State Water Survey. 1993. Lake Pittsfield: Watershed Monitoring Project.
Illinois State Water Survey, Peoria, IL.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Lake Pittsfield. Watershed
Watch 1:4-6.
State of Illinois. 1992. Environmental Protection Agency Intergovernmental
Agreement No. FWN-3019.
State of Illinois. 1993. Environmental Protection Agency Intergovernmental
Agreement No. FWN-3020.
72
-------
Iowa
Sny Magill Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Project Area
Iowa
Figure 10: Sny Magill and Bloody Run (Iowa) Watershed Project Locations
73
-------
Bloody Run
Sny
Macgill
Watershed
Legend
9 WMUyMonitodngSlta
^. Monthly Monitoring SHe
" Porenniol SUcam
• InttmiJtw* Stream
....... ,. wxtntxxlDfalnedby
Gag* Station
..,„...... watanlwd Drained by
SwppEng Locations
Clayton
The U SG S gage stations are SN1 and BR1. Supp le-
mental discharge is being measured monthly at all
other monitoring sites.
Figure 11: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Sny Magill'and Bloody Run
(Iowa) Watersheds
74
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Sny Magill watershed project is an interagency effort designed to monitor
and assess improvements in water quality (reductions in sedimentation) result-
ing from the implementation of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USD A) land
treatment projects in the watershed. The project areas include Sny Magill Creek
and North Cedar Creek basins (henceforth referred to as the Sny Magill
watershed) (Figure 10).
Sny Magill and North Cedar creeks are Class "B" cold water streams located in
northeastern Iowa. North Cedar Creek is a tributary of Sny Magill Creek. The
creeks are managed for "put and take" trout fishing by the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources (IDNR) and are two of the more widely used streams for
recreational fishing in the state.
Sny Magill Creek drains a 22,780-acre watershed directly into the Upper Mis-
sissippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge and part of Effigy Mounds National
Monument. The refuge consists of islands, backwaters, and wetlands of the
Mississippi River. These backwaters are heavily used for fishing and also serve
as an important nursery area for juvenile and young largemouth bass.
The entire Sny Magill watershed is agricultural, with no industry or urban areas.
There are no significant point sources of pollution in the watershed. Land use
consists primarily of row crop (for cropland) (26%), cover crop, pasture (24%),
forest, forested pasture (49%), farmstead (1%). Half of the cropland is in corn,
with the rest primarily in oats and alfalfa in rotation with corn. Row crop
acreage planted to corn has increased substantially over the past 20 years. There
are about 140 producers in the watershed, with farm sizes averaging 275 acres.
Animals in the watershed include dairy cattle, beef cattle, and hogs.
Water quality problems result primarily from agricultural nonpoint source
(NFS) pollution; sediment is the primary pollutant. Nutrients, pesticides, and
animal waste are also of concern.
The USD A land treatment projects being implemented in the watershed are the
Sny Magill Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA) project and the North Cedar Creek
Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) - Water Quality Special Project
(WQSP). The purpose of the two projects is to provide technical assistance, cost
sharing, and educational programs to assist agricultural producers in the water-
shed to implement voluntary changes in farm management practices that will
result in improved water quality in Sny Magill Creek. Sediment control meas-
ures, water and sediment control basins, animal waste management systems,
stream corridor management improvements, bank stabilization, and buffer strip
demonstrations around sinkholes will be utilized to reduce agricultural NPS
pollution. A long-term goal of a 50% reduction in sediment delivery to Sny
Magill Creek has been established. The land treatment projects are also focus-
ing on nutrient and pesticide management to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and
pesticide loading.
75
-------
Sny Maglll Watershed, Iowa
A paired watershed approach is being used with the Bloody Run Creek water-
shed (adjacent to the north and draining 24,064 acres) serving as the compari-
son watershed (Figure 11). Weekly nitrate samples collected between February
and December 1991 by the IDNR indicate that the two watersheds respond
similarly to precipitation events in terms of nitrate concentrations. However, the
large size of the two watersheds will create significant challenges in carrying out
a true paired watershed study. Land treatment and land use changes will have
to be kept to a minimum in the Bloody Run Creek watershed throughout the
project period and for the first two years of water quality monitoring in the Sny
Magill watershed.
Subbasins within the Sny Magill watershed will be compared using up-
stream/downstream stations.
Primary monitoring sites, equipped with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
stream gages to measure discharge and suspended sediment, have been estab-
lished on both SnyMagill and Bloody Run creeks. The primary sites and several
other sites on both creeks will be sampled for chemical and physical water
quality variables on a weekly to monthly basis. An annual habitat assessment will
be conducted along stretches of both stream corridors. Biomonitoring of
macroinvertebrates will occur on a bimonthly basis and an annual fisheries
survey will be conducted.
Coordination of land treatment and water quality data collection, management,
and analysis among the many participating agencies is being handled by the
IDNR - Geological Survey Bureau (IDNR-GSB) in an effort to maximize the
probability of documenting linkage between land treatment and water quality
improvements. To the extent practicable, the agencies will coordinate land
treatment application with water quality monitoring to focus implementation in
particular subbasins, attempting to maintain other subbasins in an unaltered
state for a longer period of time for comparison.
This profile is based primarily on information contained in the project work
plan (Seigleyetal., 1992).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
Sny Magill and North Cedar creeks are Class "B" cold water streams located in
northeastern Iowa.
SnyMagill and North Cedar creeks are managed for "put and take"trout fishing
by the IDNR and are two of the more widely used streams for recreational
fishing in Iowa. SnyMagill Creek ranks ninth in the state for angler usage.
The SnyMagill watershed drains an area of 35.6 square miles directly into the
Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge. The refuge consists of
islands, backwaters, and wetlands of the Mississippi River. The creek also
drains into part of Effigy Mounds National Monument. These backwaters are
76
-------
Sny Maglll Watershed, Iowa
heavily used for fishing and also serve as an important nursery area for juvenile
and young largemouth bass.
The creeks are further designated as "high quality waters" to be protected
against degradation of water quality. Only 17 streams in the state have received
this special designation. The state's Nonpoint Source Assessment Report indi-
cates that the present classifications of the creeks as protected for wildlife, fish,
and semi-aquatic life and secondary aquatic usage are only partially supported.
The report cites impairment of the creeks'water qualityprimarilybynonpoint
agricultural pollutants, particularly sediment, animal wastes, nutrients, and
pesticides. There are no significant point sources of pollution within the Sny
Magill watershed.
Sediment delivered to the creek includes contributions from excessive sheet and
rill erosion on approximately 4,700 acres of cropland and 1,600 acres of pasture
and forest land in the watershed. Gully erosion problems have been identified
at nearly 60 locations.
There are more than 30 locations where livestock facilities need improved
runoff control and manure management systems to control solid and liquid
animal wastes. Grazing management is needed to control sediment and animal
waste runoff from over 750 acres of pasture and an additional 880 acres of
grazed woodland.
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Streambank erosion has contributed to significant sedimentation in the
creek(s). Improved stream corridor management, to keep cattle out of the
stream and repair riparian vegetation, is needed in critical areas to mitigate
animal waste and nutrient problems and improve bank stability.
Water quality evaluations conducted by the University Hygienic Laboratory
(UHL) in 1976 and 1978 during summer low-flow periods in Sny Magill and
Bloody Run creeks showed elevated water temperatures and fecal coliform
levels (from animal wastes) in Sny Magill Creek. Downstream declines in
nutrients were related to algal growth and in-stream consumption. An inventory
of macroinvertebrate communities was included from several reaches of the
streams (Seigley et al., 1992).
Assessments in North Cedar Creek during the 1980s by IDNR and the USD A
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) located areas where sediment is covering the
gravel and bedrock substrate of the streams, lessening the depth of existing
pools, increasing turbidity, and degrading aquatic habitat. Animal waste de-
composition increases biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in the streams to
levels that are unsuitable for trout survival at times of high water temperature
and low stream flows. The IDNR has identified these as the most limiting factors
contributing to the failure of brook trout to establish a viable population
(Seigley etal., 1992).
Project staff are currently preparing a summary of pre-project water quality
studies mentioned above plus baseline data collected during the summer of
1991. A paper on sedimentation rates and analysis of STORET data from
surrounding tributaries will also be included in the report.
77
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
Project objectives include the following:
• To quantitatively document the significance of water quality improvements
resulting from the implementation of the Sny Magill HUA Project and
North Cedar Creek WQSP;
• To develop the protocols and procedures for a collaborative interagency
program to fulfill the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
standards for Nonpoint Source Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
for Watershed Implementation Projects;
• To refine monitoring protocols to define water quality impacts and the
effectiveness of particular management practices;
• To develop Iowa's capacity for utilization of rapid habitat and biologic
monitoring;
• To use the water quality and habitat monitoring data interactively with
implementation programs to aid targeting, and for public education to
expand awareness of the need for NFS pollution prevention by farmers;
and
• To provide Iowa and the U SEP A with needed documentation for measures
of success of NPS control implementation (Seigley et al., 1992).
Specific quantitative water quality goals need to be developed that are directly
related to the water quality impairment and the primary pollutants being ad-
dressed by the land treatment implemented through the USD A projects.
None.
1991 -unknown
(approximately 10 years, if funding allows)
1992
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
The watershed drains an area of 22,780 acres directly into the Upper Mississippi
River Wildlife and Fish Refuge and part of Effigy Mounds National Monument.
Average yearly rainfall in the area is 33 inches.
The creeks are marked by high proportions (70-80% or more of annual flow) of
ground water base flow, which provides their cold water characteristics. Hence,
ground water quality is also important in the overall water resource manage-
ment considerations for area streams.
The watershed is characterized by narrow, gently sloping uplands that break
into steep slopes with abundant rock outcrops. Up to 550 feet of relief occurs
across the watershed. The landscape is mantled with approximately 10-20 feet
of loess, overlying thin remnants of glacial till on upland interfluves, which in
turn overlie Paleozoic-age bedrock formations. The bedrock over much of the
area is Ordovician Galena Group rocks, which compose the Galena aquifer, an
78
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
important source of ground water and drinking water in the area. Some sink-
holes and small springs have developed in the Ordovician-age limestone and
dolomite.
The stream bottom of Sny Magill and its tributaries is primarily rock and gravel
with frequent riffle areas. Along the lower reach of the creek where the gradient
is less steep, the stream bottom is generally silty. The upstream areas have been
degraded by sediment deposition.
Land Use
The entire watershed is agricultural, with no industry or urban areas. There are
no significant point sources in the watershed. Half of the cropland is corn, with
the rest primarily in oats and alfalfa in rotation with corn. There are about 140
producers in the watershed, with farm sizes averaging 275 acres.
Land use is variable on the alluvial plain of Sny Magill Creek, ranging from row
cropped areas, to pasture and forest, to areas with an improved riparian
right-of-way where the IDNR owns and manages the land in the immediate
stream corridor. The IDNR owns approximately 1,800 acres of stream corridor
along approximately eight miles of the length of Sny Magill and North Cedar
creeks. Some of the land within the corridor is used for pasture and cropping
through management contracts with the IDNR.
Row crop acreage planted to corn has increased substantially over the past 20
years. Land use changes in the watershed have paralleled the changes elsewhere
in Clayton County, with increases in row crop acreage, fertilizer and chemical
use, and attendant increases in erosion and runoff and nutrient concentrations.
Forest Service data show a four percent decline in woodland between 1974 and
1982. Much of this conversion to more erosive row crop acreage occurred
without adequate installation of soil conservation practices.
Land Use
Rowcrop (for cropland)
Cover crop, pasture
Forest, forested pasture
Farmstead
Other
Total 22,567 100 24,215 100
Source: Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 1994
Sny Magill
Acres
5,842
5,400
11,034
263
28
%
25.9
23.9
48.9
1.2
0.1
BloodvRun
Acres
9,344
6,909
7,171
415
376
%
38.6
28.5
29.6
1.7
1.6
Pollutant Source(s)
Sediment - cropland erosion, streambank erosion, gully erosion, animal
grazing
Nutrients - animal waste from livestock facilities (cattle), pasture, and
grazed woodland; commercial fertilizers; crop rotations
Pesticides - cropland; brush cleaning
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
79
-------
Snv Maaill Watershed. Iowa
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
Information and education efforts in the watershed will focus on the following:
• Demonstration and education efforts in improved alfalfa haymanagement
(to reduce runoff potential on hayland and increase profitability and
acreage ofhayproduction);
• Improved crop rotation management and manure management (to reduce
fertilizer and chemical use);
• Implementation of the Farmstead Assessment System [SCS, Iowa State
University Extension (ISUE)];
• Woodland management programs (to enhance pollution-prevention ef-
forts on marginal cropland, steep slopes, riparian corridors, and buffer
areas in sinkhole basins); and
• Intensive Integrated Crop Management (ICM) assistance services to pro-
ducers in the watershed (ISUE).
Information will also be disseminated through newsletters, field days, special
meetings, press/media releases, and surveys of watershed project participants.
Additional resources for technical assistance and educational programs will be
provided in the area through the Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project, di-
rected by ISUE, and the Big Spring Basin Demonstration Project, directed by
IDNR.
Through FFY93, the following have been completed in Sny Magill and North
Cedar Creek watersheds:
various management plots, including manure, nitrogen, tillage, and weed,
have been maintained for demonstration and educational purposes in the
watershed area;
numerous field days were held at plot sites, and the plots were designed to
be toured on a self-guided basis;
Water Watch, a bi-monthly newsletter for the area, included relevant arti-
cles on farmstead assessment, ICM, nutrient management of manure, etc.;
a series of articles on wellhead protection was printed in local newspapers;
a baseline survey of farming practices for farm operators in the Sny Magill
Creek area was completed during the winter of 1992; and
ICM plans were developed for 44% of cropland in the project area through
one-on-one meetings with farmers.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Description
The project is intimately connected to two ongoing land treatment projects in
the watershed: the Sny Magill Hydrologic Unit Area project and the North
Cedar Creek Agricultural Conservation Program - Water Quality Special Pro-
ject. The HUA Project is a five-year project begun in 1991 and covering 19,560
80
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
acres (86%) of the Sny Magill watershed. The remainder of the watershed is
included in the WQSP, which began in 1988. The purpose of the projects is to
provide technical and cost sharing assistance and educational programs to assist
farmers in the watershed in implementing voluntary changes in farm manage-
ment practices that will result in improved water quality in Sny Magill Creek.
No special critical areas have been defined for the HUA Project. Highly
credible land has been defined and an attempt is being made to treat all farms,
prioritizing fields within each farm to be treated first. Structural practices, such
as terracing and a few animal waste systems, are being implemented. Extension
staff are assisting farmers with farmstead assessment and with ICM, in the hope
of reducing fertilizer and pesticide inputs by at least 25% while maintaining
production levels.
The WQSP is essentially completed. Remaining funded projects will be com-
plete in 1994. Practices implemented were structural (primarily terraces). No
ICM or other .information and education programs were implemented. Farmer
participation was 80-85%. Data on actual acreage treated are being compiled.
The long-term sediment delivery reduction goal for Sny Magill Creek is 50%.
Fertilizer and pesticide inputs are expected to be reduced by more than 25%.
Agencies participating in the Sny Magill Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution
Monitoring Project and their roles are listed below:
Clayton County USD A Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service Committee:
Administer ACP cost share for ,
approved management practices
Iowa State University Extension:
Survey/evaluate current farm practices
and attitudes regarding water quality
Provide intensive ICM assistance
services to producers in the watershed
Coordinate implementation of the
Farmstead Assessment System
Coordinate the farm well-water quality
sampling program
Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship:
Participate in program reviews and
coordination with other state programs
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division:
Provide overall coordination and
oversight for 319 programs
Coordinate an interagency group to
develop quantitative habitat monitoring
protocols and training for interagency
staff to conduct annual habitat monitoring
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Fisheries Bureau:
Conduct annual fisheries survey
Assist in annual habitat monitoring
81
-------
Snv Maaill Watershed. Iowa
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Geological Survey Bureau:
Provide overall monitoring project
coordination and management, data
management and data reporting to the
USEPA-NPS data system, including
implementation program reporting, and
annual project reporting and data synthesis
Coordinate/conduct the water quality
monitoring and coordinate sampling
with the biomonitoring program
Preventive Medicine - Analytical
Toxicology Lab (University of Iowa):
Program reviews and planning and
development of habitat protocols
Soil Conservation Service:
Accelerated technical assistance and
leadership for development and
implementation of water quality improve-
ment practices to control sediment and
animal manure runoff in the watershed
University Hygienic Laboratory:
Provide laboratory analytical work and
lab QA/QC
Conduct macroinvertebrate monitoring
Provide annual reports on biomonitoring
May assist in implementation of annual
habitat assessment
U.S. Forest Service:
Assist in improving forest management
and markets for forest products
Aid in demonstrations on buffer strip
establishment
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
Support the water quality monitoring
Assist habitat monitoring
Provide technical support for habitat
evaluation procedure models
U.S. Geological Survey:
Install/operate surface water gage sites,
precipitation collectors, variable moni-
tors, and suspended solids measurements
Provide cooperative expertise for
monitoring data interpretation/analysis
Annual reports on streamflow, suspended
solids loading, and other variables
U.S. National Park Service:
Assist in the water quality monitoring
The IDNR-GSB is establishing a coordinated process for tracking the imple-
mentation of land treatment measures with SCS, Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (ASCS), and ISUE. SCS is utilizing the "CAMPS" data-
base to record annual progress for land treatment and may link this to a
geographic information system (GIS), as well. ISUE will conduct baseline farm
82
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
management surveys and attitude surveys among watershed farmers and wJJJ
also have implementation data from ICM - Crop System records. IDNR-GSB
will transfer the annual implementation records to the project GIS, ARC/INFO,
to provide the necessary spatial comparisons with the water quality monitoring
stations.
Participating agencies will meet in work groups as needed, typically on a
quarterly basis, to review and coordinate needs and problems. Monitoring
results will be reviewed annually by an interagency coordinating committee to
assess needed changes.
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
None.
Through FFY93, the following have been completed in Sny Magill and North
Cedar Creek watersheds:
• 216,775 feet of terraces
• nitrogen, phosphorous, and pesticide management on 3,428 acres
• 88 grade stabilization structures installed
• 21 water and sediment control basins installed
• well testing of 169 private wells
• 2 agricultural waste structures installed
ISUE conducted baseline survey of farming practices for farm operators in the
Sny Magill Creek area in the winter of 1992. A mid-project survey of the farm
operators will be completed in the summer of 1994 as will an initial survey of
farm operators in the Bloody Creek area ("control" watershed).
Linkage of SCS "CAMPS" database to IDNR-GSB GIS has been completed.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
The Sny Magill watershed is amenable to documentation of water quality
responses to land treatment. The cold water stream has a high ground water
baseflow which provides year-round discharge, minimizing potential missing
data problems. These conditions also make possible analysis of both runoff and
ground water contributions to the water quality conditions. Because of the
intimate linkage of ground and surface water in the region, the watershed has a
very responsive hydrologic system and should be relatively sensitive to the
changes induced through the implementation programs.
A paired watershed study is planned to compare Sny Magill watershed to the
(control) Bloody Run Creek watershed (adjacent to the north and draining
22,064 acres). Watershed size, ground water hydrogeology, and surface hydrol-
ogy are similar; both watersheds receive baseflow from the Ordovician Galena
aquifer. The watersheds share surface and ground water divides and their
proximity to one another minimizes rainfall variation. However, the large size
83
-------
Snv Maqil! Watershed. Iowa
of the two watersheds will create significant challenges in conducting a true
paired watershed study. Land treatment and land use changes will have to be
kept to a minimum in the Bloody Run Creek watershed throughout the project
period and for the first two years of water quality monitoring in the Sny Magill
watershed.
Within the Sny Magill watershed, subbasins will be compared using up-
stream/downstream stations.
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
Variables Measured
Biological
Fecal Coliform bacteria
Habitat assessment
Fisheries survey
Benthic macroinvertebrates
Chemical and Other
Suspended sediment (SS)
Nitrogen (N)-series (NOs + NOa-N, NH4-N, Organic-N)
Anions
Total phosphorus (TP)
Biological oxygen demand (BOD)
Immunoassay for triazine herbicides
Water temperature
Conductivity
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Turbidity
Explanatory Variables
Sampling Scheme
Stream discharge
Precipitation
Primary monitoring sites (SN1, BR1) (Figure 11) have been established on both
Sny Magill and Bloody Run. The sites are equipped with USGS stream gages to
provide continuous stage measurements and daily discharge measurements.
Suspended sediment samples are collected daily by local observers and weekly
by water quality monitoring personnel when a significant rainfall event has
occurred.
Monthly measurement of stream discharge will be made at seven supplemental
sites (NCC, SN2, SNT, SNWF, SN3, BRSC, and BR2).
Baseline data were collected duringthe summer of 1991. A report documenting
these data will be published in 1994. The monitoring program as described
below began in October of 1991.
Weekly grab sampling is being conducted at the primary surface water sites
(SN1, BR1) for fecal coliform bacteria, N-series (NOs + NOa-N, NH4-N,
Organic-N) anions, TP, BOD, and immunoassay for triazine herbicides.
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Four secondary sites are being monitored weekly (three on Sny Magi]]; SN3,
SNWF, and NCC; and one on Bloody Run: BR2).* Grab sampling will be
conducted for fecal coliform, partial N-series (NOs + NOa-N, NEU-N), and
anions.
A
Weekly samp ling will be conducted by the USNPS (weeks 1 and 3) and IDNR-
G SB (weeks 2,4, and 5).
Three additional sites are being monitored on a monthly basis (two on Sny
Magill: SN2, SNT; and.one on Bloody Run: BRSC).* These are grab sampled
for fecal coliform, partial N-series, and anions.
Temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity are measured at all
sites when sampling occurs.
An annual habitat assessment will be conducted along stretches of stream
corridor, biomonitoring of macroinvertebrates will occur on a bi-monthly basis,
and an annual fisheries survey will be conducted.
* Note: Originally, site BRSC was monitored weekly and site BR2 was moni-
tored monthly. However, after one water-year of sampling, the invertebrate
biomonitoring group requested (in March of 1992) that the sites be switched.
Thus, since October 1, 1992, BRSC has been monitored monthly and BR2 has
been monitored weekly.
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
Data Management
Data management and reporting will be handled by the IDNR - GSB and will
follow the Nonpoint Source Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for Wa-
tershed Implementation Grants.
USEPA Nonpoint Source Management System (NPSMS) software will be
used to track and report data to USEPA using their four information "files":
the Waterbody System File, the NPS Management File, the Monitoring Plan
File, and the Annual Report File.
All water quality data will be entered in STORET. Biological monitoring data
will be entered into BIOS. All U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data will be en-
tered in WATSTORE, the USGS national database.
Data transfer processes are already established between USGS, UHL, and
IDNR-GSB. Coordination will also be established with SCS and ISUE for re-
porting on implementation progress.
Data Analysis
For annual reports, data will be evaluated and summarized on a water-year
basis; monthly and seasonal summaries will be presented, as well.
Statistical analysis and comparisons will be performed as warranted using rec-
ommended SAS packages and other methods for statistical significance and
time-series analysis.
85
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 1994. Sny Magill Nonpoint Source
Pollution MonitoringProject, Clayton County, Iowa 1992 Annual ReportforWater
Year 1992.
87
-------
Modifications Since
Project Started
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Paired watershed analysis will begin after sufficient data have been collected.
In addition to the pairing between Sny Magill and Bloody Run, and the intra-
basin watersheds, data can be compared with the long-term watershed re-
cords from the Big Spring basin. This will provide a temporal perspective on
monitoring and provide a valuable frame of reference for annual variations.
None.
-------
Maryland
Warner Creek Watershed
Section 319 Project
(Pending Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project Approval)
o-
Project Area
Maryland
Figure 12: Warner Creek (Maryland) Watershed Project Location
89
-------
X
Warner Creek Watershed
Legend
Monitoring Station
Stream
------ Watershed Boundary
Scale
Figure 13: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Warner Creek (Maryland) Watershed
90
-------
Warner Creek Watershed, Maryland
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Warner Creek watershed is located in the Piedmont physiographic region
of northcentral Maryland (Figure 12). Land use in the 830-acre watershed is
almost exclusively agricultural, consisting of beef and dairy production and
associated activities.
Agricultural activities related to dairy production are believed to be the major
nonpoint source of pollutants to the small stream draining the watershed. This
situation is particularly apparent in one of the headwater subwatersheds, which
will be compared to the other subwatershed that primarily contains beef farms.
Proposed land treatment includes conversion of cropland to pasture, installa-
tion of watering systems, fencing to exclude livestock from tributary streams,
and the proper use of newly constructed manure slurry storage tanks.
Water quality monitoring involves both paired watershed and upstream/down-
stream experimental designs. Sampling will occur at the outlets of the paired
watersheds (stations 1A and IB) and at the upstream/downstream stations (1C
and 2A) once per week (Figure 13). Storm-event sampling by an automatic
sampler will occur at station 2A. Water samples will be analyzed for sediment,
nitrogen, and phosphorus.
Monitoring data will be used to evaluate the suitability of a modified version of
the CREAMS and/or ANSWERS model for its application in the larger Mono-
cacy River basin.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Warner Creek is a small stream with a drainage area of about 830 acres, all of
which are included in the study area. Its average discharge is 30 gallons per
minute.
The project is more of a watershed study than an implementation project;
therefore, the water resource has no significant use, except for biological
habitat.
Seven weeks of pre-project water quality monitoring at four stations yielded the
following data:
Nitrate Nitrite Ammonia TKN TKP Orthophosphorus
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
3.3-6.7 .01-.05 0-23.0 0-73.0
Source: Shirmohammadi and Magette, 1993
0-6.7
0-3.6
91
-------
Warner Creek Watershed, Maryland
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
The objectives of the project are to:
• develop and validate a hydrologic and water quality model capable of
predicting the effects of agricultural best management practices (BMPs)
on water quality, both at the field and basin scales;
• collect water quality data for use in the validation of the basin-scale
hydrologic and water quality model;
• apply the validated model to illustrate relationships between agricultural
BMPs and watershed water quality in support of the Monocacy River
demonstration project.
May, 1993-June, 1997
June, 1993
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
Land Use
Pollutant Source(s)
Approximately 830 acres.
The watershed is in the Piedmont physiographic province. Geologically, bed-
rock in this area has been metamorphosed. Upland soils in the watershed
belong to the Penn silt loam series with an average slope of three to eight
percent. Average annual rainfall near the watershed is 44-46 inches.
Land use in the upper part (upstream of 1C) of the watershed is mostly pasture
and cropland, with a few beef and dairy operators. The subwatershed upstream
of station IB contains a dairyoperation, and a recent survey indicated that about
sixty-five percent of the land was used for corn silage production. Downstream
of station 1C, land use is also mostly pasture and cropland, which is used to
support dairy and beef production.
The major sources of pollutants are thought to be the dairy operations and the
associated cropland. Pastures in which cows have unlimited access to the
tributary streams also contribute significant amounts of pollutants.
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
The project will draw support from the University of Maryland Cooperative
Extension Service (CES) agents, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) District
office in Frederick, Maryland, and project specialists located in the Monocacy
River Water Quality Demonstration office. Several of the office's personnel
have already established lines of communication between watershed farmers
and the local personnel of the relevant USDA agencies. Education and public
awareness will be accomplished through the CES in the form of tours, press
releases, scientific articles, and oral presentations.
92
-------
Warner Creek Watershed, Maryland
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND PESIGN
Description
Upstream/downstream Study Area (1C and 2A):
BMPs planned for this area include construction of watering systems for ani-
mals, fencing animals from streams, and the proper use of newly constructed
manure slurry storage tanks. Conversion of cropland to pasture is also antici-
pated in this area.
Paired Watershed HA and 1B^:
The implementation of BMPs in the treatment (IB) paired watershed is uncer-
tain; however, a concerted effort will be made to install an animal waste
management system and cropland conservation practices in this watershed.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Variables Measured
The water quality monitoring component incorporates the following two de-
signs:
• Upstream/downstream on Warner Creek
• Paired watersheds in the uppermost areas of the watershed
Chemical and Other
Ammonia (NHs)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Nitrate/Nitrite (NOa+ NOa)
Nitrite(NO2)
O rthophosphorus(O P)
Total Kjeldahl phosphorus(TKP)
Sediment
Sampling Scheme
Explanatory Variables
Rainfall
Discharge: instantaneous (1 A, IB and 1C) continuous (2A)
Upstream/Downstream Study Area (1C and 2A)(Figure 13):
Type: grab (1C and 2A) automated storm event (2A)
Frequency and Season: weekly from February to June and biweekly for the
remainder of the year
Paired Watershed (1A and lB)(Figure 13):
Type: grab (1A and IB)
Frequency and season: weekly from February to June and biweekly for the
remainder of the year
93
-------
Warner Creek Watershed, Maryland
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
Monitoring data are stored and analyzed at the University of Maryland. In
addition, data will be entered into the STORET data base and reported using
the Nonpoint Source Management System (NPSMS) software.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
First Year
Project Budget
Project Element
Monitoring
Personnel
Equipment
Other
Yearl Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
41,600 32,500 45,000
10,000 3,000 NA
26,733 35,938 37,140
TOTALS 78,333 71,438 82,140
Source: FFY94 Work Plan (6/23/94).
49,000 51,500 54,500
NA NA NA
34,190 35,215 36,445
83,190 86,715 90,945
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
The USDA Monocacy River Demonstration Watershed Project will facilitate
the dissemination of information gained from the project and help provide
cost-share funds for implementing BMPs.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
None.
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Adel Shirmohammadi/William Magette
The University of Maryland
Agricultural Engineering
1419 ENAG/ANSC Building (# 142)
College Park, MD 20742-5711
301-405-1185; Fax 301-314-9023
Internet (Shirmohammadi): as31@umail.umd.edu
(Magette): wm3@umail.umd.edu
94
-------
Warner Creek Watershed, Maryland
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Susan Claus
Maryland Department of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
(410) 631-3902
Adel Shirmohammadi/William Magette
The University of Maryland
Agricultural Engineering
1419 ENAG/ANSC Building (# 142)
College Park, MD 20742-5711
301-405-1185; Fax 301-314-9023
Internet (Shirmohammadi): as31@umail.umd.edu
(Magette): wm3@umail.umd.edu
Adel Shirmohammadi/William Magette
The University of Maryland
Agricultural Engineering
1419 ENAG/ANSC Building (# 142)
College Park, MD 20742-5711
301-405-1185; Fax 301-314-9023
Internet (Shirmohammadi): as31@umail.umd.edu
(Magette): wm3@umail.umd.edu
REFERENCES
Shirmohammadi, A. and W.L. Magette. 1994. Work plan for project entitled
Monitoringand Modeling Water Quality Response of the Mixed Land Use Basin,
June 23,1994.
Shirmohammadi, A. and W.L. Magette. 1993. Background Data and Revision
to the Monitoring Design for the project entitled Modeling the Hydrologic and
Water Quality Response of the Mixed Land Use Basin.
95
-------
-------
Michigan
Sycamore Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 14: Sycamore Creek (Michigan) Project Location
97
-------
Scale
kilometers
Figure 15: Paired Water Quality Monitoring Stations for the Sycamore Creek
(Michigan) Watershed
98
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Sycamore Creek is located in southcentral Michigan (Ingham County) (Figure
14). The creek has a drainage area of 67,740 acres, which includes the towns of
Holt and Mason, and part of the city of Lansing. The major commodities
produced in this primarily agricultural county are corn, wheat, soybeans, and
some livestock. Sycamore Creek is a tributary to the Red Cedar River, which
flows into the Grand River. The Grand River discharges into Lake Michigan.
The major pollutants of Sycamore Creek are sediment, phosphorus, nitrogen,
and agricultural pesticides. Sediment deposits are adversely affecting fish and
macroinvertebrate habitat and are depleting oxygen in the water column. Syca-
more Creek has been selected for monitoring, not because of any unique
characteristics, but rather because it is representative of creeks throughout
lower Michigan.
Water quality monitoring will occur in three subwatersheds: Haines Drain,
Willow Creek, and Marshall Drain (Figure 15). The Haines subwatershed,
where best management practices (BMPs) have already been installed, will
serve as the control and is outside the Sycamore Creek watershed. Stormflow
and baseflow water quality samples from each watershed will be taken from
March through July of each project year. Water will be sampled for turbidity,
total suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand, nitrogen, and phosphorus.
Land treatment will consist primarily of sediment-and-nutrient-reducing BMPs
on cropland, pastureland, and hayland. These BMPs will be funded as part of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USD A) Sycamore Creek Hydrologic Unit
Area (HUA) project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Sycamore Creek is a tributary of the Red Cedar River. The Red Cedar River
flows into the Grand River, which flows into Lake Michigan.
Sycamore Creek is protected by Michigan State Water Quality Standards for
warm-water fish, body contact recreation, and navigation. Currently the pollut-
ant levels in the creek are greater than prescribed standards. In particular,
dissolved oxygen levels (the minimum standard level is 5 milligram per liter) are
below the minimum standard, primarily because of sediment but also, in some
cases, nutrients (Suppnick, 1992).
The primary pollutant is sediment. Widespread aquatic habitat destruction
from sedimentation has been documented. Nutrients (nitrogen and phospho-
rus) are secondary pollutants. Pesticides may be polluting ground water; how-
ever, evidence of contamination by pesticides is currently lacking. Low levels of
dissolved oxygen in the creek are a result of excess plant growth and organic
matter associated with the sediment.
99
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
Sediment and Phosphorus Content of Sycamore Creek Under Routine (dry)
and Storm (wet) Flow Conditions:
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
DryP
• mg/1
0.01-0.09
WetP
mg/1
0.04-0.71
Dry Sediment
mg/1
4-28
Wet Sediment
mg/1
6-348
Source: SCS/CES/ASCS, 1990
A biological investigation of Sycamore Creek, conducted in 1989, revealed an
impaired fish and macroinvertebrate community. Fish and macroinvertebrate
numbers were low, suggesting lack of available habitat.
Channelization of Sycamore Creek is causing unstable flow discharge, signifi-
cant bank-slumping, and erosion at sites that have been dredged.
The water quality objective is to reduce the impact of agricultural nonpoint
source (NFS) pollutants on the surface and in ground water of Sycamore Creek.
The goal of the project is to reduce sediment delivery into Elm Creek by 52%.
None.
Monitoring will be conducted for a minimum of six years, contingent upon
federal funding.
1993
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
Land Use
The project, located in southcentral Michigan, includes 67,740 acres.
The geology of the watershed consists of till plains, moraines, and eskers
(glacially deposited gravel and sand that form ridges 30 to 40 feet in height).
The Mason Esker and associated loamy sand and sandy loam soil areas are the
major ground water recharge areas for Ingham County residents. Eskers are
the predominant geologic feature near the stream. These grade into moraines
that are approximately one-half to one mile in width. The moraines have sandy
loam textures with slopes of 6 -18%. The moraines grade into till plains.
Interspersed within the area, in, depressional areas and drainageways, are
organic soils.
Approximately 50% of the land in this primarily agricultural watershed is used
for crops, forage, and livestock.
Critical areas for targeting BMPs are agricultural fields (cropland, hayland, or
pasture) within one-half mile of a stream.
100
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
Pollutant Source(s)
Modifications Since
Project Started
Major BMPs already implemented in the project area are pasture and hayland
planting, pasture and hayland management, diversions, cover and green manure
crops, critical area plantings, conservation tillage, grade stabilization structures,
grassed waterways, and integrated crop management.
Crop and residue cover will be recorded on a 10-acre cell basis in each of the
three monitored subwatersheds.
Land Use
Agricultural
Forest
Residential
Business/Industrial
Idle
Wetlands
Transportation
Open land
Gravel pits and wells
Water
Other
Total
Acres
35,453
8,017
9,336
2,562
6,381
2,324
1,349
826
806
359
325
67,738
Source: SCS/CES/ASCS, 1990
Streambanks, urban areas, agricultural fields
None.
52
12
14
4
10
3
2
1
1
0.5
0.5
100
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
The Ingham County Cooperative Extension Service (CES) is responsible for all
information and education (I&E) activities within the watershed. These I&E
activities have been developed and are being implemented as part of the
Sycamore Creek HU A project. Activities include public awareness campaigns,
conservation tours, media events such as news releases and radio shows, display
set-ups, workshops, short courses, farmer-targeted newsletters, homeowner-
targeted newsletters, on-farm demonstrations, meetings, and presentations.
Ingham County CES will assist producers with nutrient management plans and
integrated pest management.
1994 activities include:
• ten on-farm demonstrations;
• one watershed tour;
• one watershed winter meeting;
• monthly newsletters for area farmers;
• one homeowners newsletters; and
• twenty-five farm plans for nutrient and pesticide management.
101
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Description
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
The Sycamore Creek U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Section
319 National Monitoring Program project is nested within the Sycamore Creek
HUA project. The nonpoint source control strategy will include: 1) identifica-
tion and prioritization of significant nonpoint sources of water quality contami-
nation in the watershed and 2) promotion of the adoption of BMPs that
significantly reduce the affects of agriculture on surface water and ground water
quality.
Selection of the BMPs will depend on land use: cropland, hayland, pasture land,
or urban land. BMPs for the cropland will include conservation tillage, conser-
vation cropping sequence, crop residue use, pest management, nutrient man-
agement, waste utilization, critical area planting, and erosion control structures.
Hayland- area BMPs will consist of conservation cropping sequence, conserva-
tion tillage, pest management, nutrient management, pasture/hayland manage-
ment, and pasture/hayland planting. BMPs to be utilized on pastureland are
conservation cropping sequence, conservation tillage, pasture/hayland manage-
ment, pasture/hayland planting, fencing, waste utilization, filter strips, and
critical area planting. The following practices will be eligible for ACP funding:
• Permanent Vegetative Cover Establishment
• Diversions
• Cropland Protective Cover
• Permanent Vegetative Cover on Critical Areas
• Reduced Tillage
• No-Till Systems
• Sediment Retention Erosion or Water Control Structure
• Sod Waterways
• Integrated Crop Management
Practice installation and the effect on water quality will be tracked using the
database ADSWQ (Automatic Data System for Water Quality). The EPIC
model (Erosion Productivity Index Calculator) will be interfaced with a Geo-
graphical Information System (GIS), GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis
Support System), to estimate changes in edge-of-field delivery of sediment,
nutrients, and pesticides and bottom of root zone delivery of nutrients and
pesticides resulting from BMP implementation.
None.
To date, 23,000 acres have been treated with BMPs, a 5,000-acre increase from
last year.
102
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
Variables Measured
A paired watershed design will be used to document constituent changes in
Sycamore Creek. Two subwatersheds within the project, Willow Creek and
Marshall Drain, will be compared to a control subwatershed, Haines Drain, that
is outside the boundaries of the project (Figure 15). BMPs were installed in the
Haines Drain prior to the commencement of water quality monitoring in 1990.
The Willow Creek and Marshall Drain subwatersheds were selected among all
subwatersheds in the Sycamore Creek watershed because they contained the
most excessive sediment loads and the largest percentage of erodible land
within one-quarter mile of a channel.
None.
Biological
None
Chemical and Other
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Turbidity
Total phosphorus
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Nitrite (NO2-N) + Nitrate (NC-3-N)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Orthophosphorus (OP)
Ammonia
Sampling Scheme
Explanatory Variable(s)
Rainfall
Flow
Erosion-intensity index
Sampling during storm events will be conducted from after snow melt (ground
thaw) through the appearance of a crop canopy (sometime in July). Samples
will be collected every one to two hours. For each location and storm, six to
twelve samples will be selected for analysis from each storm. Automatic storm-
water samplers equipped with liquid level actuators will be used.
Twenty evenly spaced weekly grab samples will also be taken for trend determi-
nation. Sampling will begin in March when the ground thaws and continue for
the next 20 weeks.
A continuous record of river stage will be obtained with Isco model 2870 flow
meters. The river stage will be converted to a continuous flow record using a
stage discharge relationship already determined by field staff of the Land and
103
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
Water Management Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Re-
sources.
One recording rain gage will be installed in each agricultural subwatershed
(Figure 15).
Prior to 1993, weekly grab samples were not collected, but occasional grab
samples during base flow were collected.
Data will be stored in the STORE! system and in the USEPA Nonpoint Source
Management System.
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
None.
Five years of sampling have been completed.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Modifications Since
Project Started
Project Element
Project Mgt
I&E
LT
WQ Monit
Totals
Federal
Funding Source: (S)
State Local
129,370 122,000
159,900 NA
978,300 NA
285,000 222,000
1,552,570 344,000
Source: John Suppnick (Personal Communication), 1993
None.
Sum
3,130 254,500
9,935 169,835
500,751 1,479,051
NA 507,000
513,816 2,410,386
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
Modifications Since
Project Started
The funds for the 319 project will provide for the water quality monitoring in the
HUA project area. The county Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Committee has agreed to use Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) funds
for erosion control, water qualityimprovement, and agricultural waste manage-
ment.
None.
1Q4
-------
Svcamore Creek Watershed Michiaan
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
Agency responsibilities are as follows:
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service:
Provide ACP funds
Ingham County Cooperative Extension Service:
I&E
Farmer survey
Ingham County Health Department (Environmental Division):
Well testing
Ingham Soil Conservation District:
Technical assistance
AGNPS and EPIC modeling
CIS-GRASS
ADSWQ maintenance and reports
Landowners within the Sycamore Creek Watershed:
Project support
Michigan Department of Natural Resources:
Water quality monitoring, assessment, and reporting
Data interpretation
PROJECT CONTACTS
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Bob Hicks (Land Treatment for the HUA Project)
Ingham County District Conservationist
USDA-SCS
521 N. Okemos Rd.
P.O. Box236
Mason, MI 48554
(517)676-5543
Vicki Anderson (GIS for the HUA Project)
USDA-SCS
State Office
1405 S. Harrison Rd.
East Lansing, MI 48823-5202
(517) 337-6701, Ext. 1208; Fax (517) 337-6905
John Suppnick
Department of Natural Resources,
Surface Water Quality
P.O. Box 30273
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-4192; Fax (517) 373-9958
105
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
Information and
Education
Jack Knorek (I & E for the HU A Project)
Ingham County Extension Service
121 East Maple Street
P.O.Box319
Mason, MI 48909
(517) 676-7207; Fax (517) 676-7230
REFERENCES
SCS/CES/ASCS. 1990. Sycamore Creek Watershed water quality plan. Soil Con-
servation Service, Michigan Cooperative Extension Service, Agricultural Stabi-
lization and Conservation Service.
Suppnick, J.D. 1992. A nonpoint source pollution load allocation for Sycamore
Creek, in Ingham County, Michigan; inj. The Proceeding; of the WEF 65th
Annual Conference. Surface Water Quality Symposia, September 20-24, 1992,
New Orleans, p. 293-302.
106
-------
Nebraska
Elm Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Nebraska
Project Area
•o
Figure 16: Elm Creek (Nebraska) Watershed Project Location
107
-------
Elm Creek Watershed
Legend
Site?
Streams
Watershed Boundary
Figure 17: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Elm Creek (Nebraska) Watershed
108
-------
Elm Creek Watershed. Nebraska
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Elm Creek is located in southcentral Nebraska, near the Kansas border (Figure
16). The creek flows in a southerly direction through agricultural lands of
rolling hills and gently sloping uplands. The creek has a drainage area of 35,800
acres, consisting mainly of dryland crops of wheat and sorghum and pas-
ture/range lands with some areas of irrigated corn production.
A primary water use of Elm Creek is recreation, particularly as a coldwater
trout stream. Sedimentation, increased water temperatures caused by the
increased sedimentation, and high peak flows are impairing aquatic life by
destroying habitat and thus the creek's recreational use by reducing trout
productivity.
Land treatment for creek remediation will include non-conventional best man-
agement practices (BMPs), water quality and runoff control structures, water
quality land treatment, and conventional water quality management practices
(see section on nonpoint source control strategy). Many of these BMPs will be
funded as part ofthe U.S. Department of Agriculture (USD A) Hydrologic Unit
Area (HU A) Project. Land use will be inventoried. Cropland and BMP imple-
mentation will be tracked. Additionally, land treatment monitoring will include
tracking land use changes based on the 40-acre grid system ofthe Agricultural
Nonpoint Source (AGNPS) model.
Water quality monitoring will include an upstream/downstream design as well
as a single station downstream design for trend detection. Grab samples will be
collected weekly from March through September to provide water quality data.
Additional biological and habitat data will be collected on a seasonal basis.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Elm Creek flows through cropland and pasture/range into the Republican
River. Flow in the creek is dominated by inflow springs. The average discharge
of Elm Creek is 21.4 cubic feet per second and the drainage area is 56 square
miles.
Water Uses and
Impairments
Elm Creek is valued as a coldwater aquatic life stream, as an agricultural water
supply source, and for its aesthetic appeal. It is one of only two coldwater
habitat streams in southcentral Nebraska. Sedimentation, increased water
temperatures, and peak flows are impairing aquatic life by destroying stream
habitat ofthe macroinvertebrates and trout. These negative impacts on the
stream result from farming practices that cause excessive erosion and overland
water flow.
109
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame.
Project Approval
A thorough water quality analysis of Elm Creek conducted in the early 1980s
indicated that the water quality of Elm Creek was very good. There was,
however, short-term degradation of water quality following storm events. The
coldwater habitat use assignment of Elm Creek appeared to be attainable if it
was not impaired bynonpoint source (NFS) pollution, particularly sedimenta-
tion and scouring of vegetation during storm events.
The NFS management objective in the Elm Creek watershed is to implement
appropriate and feasible NFS control measures for the protection and enhance-
ment of water quality in Elm Creek. Project goals are to:
• Reduce maximum summer water temperature,
• Reduce instream sedimentation,
• Reduce peak flows, and
• Improve instream aquatic habitat.
None.
Monitoring will be conducted from April, 1992 through 1996. Two additional
years of monitoring have been planned, contingent upon availability of funding.
1992
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
Land Use
The project area, in southcentral Nebraska, consists of 35,800 acres of rolling
hills, gently sloping up lands, and moderately steep slopes.
Elm Creek, which receives 26.5 inches of rainfall per year, lies in a sub-humid
ecological region. Seventy-five percent of this rainfall occurs between April and
September. The average temperature is 52 degrees Fahrenheit with averages of
25 degrees in January and 79 degrees in July. The soils are derived from loess
and the predominant soil types are highly erosive.
Wheat and sorghum are the primary dryland crops produced. Corn is the
primary irrigated crop. Range and pasture dominate the more steeply sloping
lands.
Land Use Acres %
Agricultural
Dryland 14,630 42
Irrigated 2,680 7
Pasture/Range 16,170 44
Forest 650 2
Other 1,670 5
Total 35,800 100
Source: Elm Creek Project, 1992
110
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
Pollutant Source(s)
Modifications Since
Project Started
Streambank erosion, irrigation return flows, cattle access, cropland runoff
None.
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
Information and education (I&E) activities have been developed and are being
implemented as part of the Elm Creek HUA Project. The University of
Nebraska and Cooperative Extension in Webster County are in charge of I&E
activities. I&E activities will include: newsletters, a NFS video, slide shows,
programs, questionnaires, fact sheets, demonstration sites, field days, and meet-
ings.
I&E activities implemented in the Elm Creek watershed include the following:
• Seven procedures have agreed to host field days and BMP demonstration
plots. To encourage no-till practices, a no-till drill is available for rent at $8.00
per acre.
• A videotape on no-till crop planting practices is currently being produced.
• Two newsletters are currently being produced for the project. One newslet-
ter is sent to all landowners and operators in the project area and includes
articles on BMPs, cost share funds available, and updates on project progress
and upcoming events. In addition, a quarterly project newsletter detailing
relevant project activities (i.e., budget, progress, etc.) is mailed to all coop-
erators.
• A series of educational programs have been held to provide producers with
background information to encourage the adoption of BMPs. Other pro-
gram topics included: New Tools for Pasture Production, Rotational Graz-
ing Tour, and a Prescribed Burn Workshop.
• An Ecofarming Clinic was held where no-till drills were demonstrated.
Topics of discussion for the program included: winter wheat production and
weed control, diseases, cultivar selection, insect control, and soil fertility.
• Eight demonstration plots exhibiting various BMPs are currently being used
as an educational tool. Practices being demonstrated include: Nitrogen
Management, Integrated Crop Management - Irrigated, Integrated Crop
Management - Dryland, No-till Milo Production, No-till Wheat Production,
Conservation Tillage Wheat Production, Cedar Revetments for Streambank
Protection, and Sediment Retention Basin Restoration.
• Twenty-two news stories, articles, meeting announcements and updates have
been printed in local newspapers.
Ill
-------
Elm Creek Watershed. Nebraska
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Description
Sediment-reducing BMPs will be installed. These BMPs have been divided into
four BMP types, which will include upland treatment measures and riparian and
instream habitat management measures.
Non-conventional
Vegetative Filter Strips
Permanent Vegetative Cover on
Critical Areas
Streambank Stabilization
Livestock Access & Exclusion
Ground Water Recharge
Abandoned Well Plugging
Trickle Flow Outlets
Sediment Barriers
Grade Stabilization
Water Quality & RunoffControl Structures
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
Water Quality Land Treatment
Tree Planting
Permanent Vegetative Cover
Terraces
Stripcropping
Conventional Water Quality Management Programs
Irrigation Management
Conservation Tillage
Range Management
Integrated Pest Management
Non-conventional BMPs will be funded under the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (USE PA) Section 319 grant. Other BMPs will be funded with 75%
cost share funds from the HUA Project. Finally, selected BMPs will be cost
shared at 100% [75% from the Section 319 grant and 25% from Lower Repub-
lican Natural Resource District (LRNRD)]. The number and types of BMPs
implemented will depend on voluntary farmer participation.
Land use will be inventoried. Cropland and BMP implementation will be
tracked over the life of the project. Tracking will be based on the 40-acre grid
system used for AGNPS modeling.
None.
Currently, 52 producers have applied for EPA 319 funds. Since January 1,1994,
25 cooperators have requested HUA technical funds. From 1991 through 1993,
the practices and activities outlined in Table 1 have been implemented primarily
for erosion control in the Elm Creek Watershed. Modeling of erosion in the
watershed has been completed using the AGNPS model. Another model run,
112
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
again with AGNFS, will be done at project's end. Most goals have been met,
but more work must be done with rotational grazing, livestock exclusion, and
no-till and stubble mulch wheat.
Application of Practices/Activities for Erosion Control in the Elm Creek Wa-
tershed.
SCS PRACTICE/ACTIVITY
ANDI.D.#
Contour Farming (328)
Conservation Tillage (329)
Contour Farming (330)
Critical Area Plantings (342)
Crop Residue Use (344)
Deferred Grazing (352)
Diversion (362)
Pond (378)
Fencing (382)
Field Border (386)
Filter Strip (393)
Grassed Waterway (412)
Irrigation Water Management (449)
Livestock Exclusion (472)
Pasture and Hayland Management (510)
Pasture and Hayland Planting (512)
Pipeline (516)
Proper Grazing Use (528)
Range Seeding (550)
Planned Grazing System (556)
Terrace (600)
Tree Plantings (612)
Trough or Tank (6 14)
Underground Outlet (620)
Well (642)
Wildlife Upland Habitat Management (645)
Cross-Slope Farming
UNITS
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
feet
number
feet
feet
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
feet
acres
acres
acres
feet
acres
number
feet
number
acres
acres
NUMBER
INSTALLED
4,217
3,554
1,644
7
927
161
3,825
4
6,663
24,827
1
1
2,231
195
112
71
1,400
1,394
91
742
70,130
2
4
1,200
3
59
134
113
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Variables Measured
Modifications Since
Project Started
Sampling Scheme
Upstream/downstream: The two sampling sites (sites 2 & 5) are located two
miles apart (Figure 17)
Single downstream for trend detection (site 5) (Figure 17)
Biological
Qualitative and quantitative macroinvertebrate sampling
Fish collections
Artificial redds
Creel survey
Chemical and Other
Water temperature
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Substrate samples (% Gravel, % Fines)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Atrazine/Alachlor
Stream morphological characteristics (width, depth, velocity) and habitat
Continuous recording thermograph (June - September)
Explanatory Variables
Rainfall (recording rain gage): April - September
Stream discharge (United States Geological Survey gaging station)
Future use of artificial salmonid redds will be discontinued. Initial monitoring
results indicate substrates are not suitable for salmonid spawning.
(See Figure 17 for sampling site locations.)
Qualitative and quantitative macroinvertebrate sampling spring, summer, fall,
and winter at sites 2 and 5.
Fish collections spring and fall at sites 1,2,3,4, 5, 6.
Artificial salmonid redds (sites 2,4,5).
Rainbow trout eggs will be placed in the redds during the spring. Brown
trout eggs maybe placed in the redds during the fall. Comparison redds will
be placed in the Snake River and/or Long Pine Creek.
Creel survey (passive).
DO (sites 2,5): Weekly grab samples from April through September.
Monthly samples from October through March.
Substrate samples spring and fall at sites 2,4,5.
TSS (sites 2,5): Weekly grab samples from April through September and
monthly samples, October through March. Selected runoff samples will be
collected April through September.
Atrazine/Alachlor (sites 2,5): Grab and runoff samples will be analyzed selec-
tively in the spring for these pesticides.
Stream morphological characteristics (width, depth, velocity) and habitat:
Spring/summer at sites 2,5.
114
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
Rainfall (recording rain gage): The main rain gage will be placed in the upper
or middle part of the watershed. A volunteer network for recording rainfall
amounts has also been established.
Continuous recording thermograph (hourly water temperatures for at least
60% of the period June through September and at least 80% of the period
July through August) at sites 2 and 5.
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
Future use of artificial salmonid redds will be discontinued. Initial monitoring
results indicate substrates are not suitable for salmonid spawning.
Ambient water quality data will be entered into USEPA STORET. Biological
data will be stored in USEPA BIOS. Other data will be stored using either
Lotus or dBase IV files. All data will be stored and analyzed with the USEPA
NonPoint Source Management System (NPSMS). These data will be managed
by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) (formerly
called the Department of Environmental Control or DEC).
Data assessment and reporting will consist of quarterly activity reports, yearly
interim reports focusing on land treatment, and a final report that will assess
and link water quality and land treatment results.
None.
The following water quality monitoring goals have been met:
• Ambient water quality data is currently being entered and stored in USEPA
STORET.
• Biological data is currently being entered and stored in USEPA BIOS.
• Quarterly and yearly interim reports have been developed as planned.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Project Element
Proj Mgt
I&E
Reports
LT
WQ Initiative
Program (WQIP)
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Funding Source ($)
Federal
11,200
0
6,300
*375,000
30,000
100,000
522,500
State
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Local
0
3,400
0
101,600
0
15,000
120,000
Sum
11,200
3,400
6,300
476,600
30,000
115,000
642,500
Modifications Since
Project Started
* $260,000 from HUA Project funds, $115,000 from 319 project funds
Source: Elm Creek Project, 1991
None.
115
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
This USEPA 319 National Monitoring Program project will provide the water
quality monitoring for the area HUA project. Agricultural Conservation Pro-
gram (a USDA program) funding will be used for approved, conventional
BMPs.
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
The HUA activities will be jointly administered by the University of Nebraska
Cooperative Extension and the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Em-
ployees of these two agencies will work with local landowners, Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service personnel, personnel of the NDEQ, and
personnel of the LRNRD. Section 319 project activities will be administered by
the NDEQ.
Project responsibilities are outlined below:
ASCS (Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Services):
Provides and administers HUA ACP cost-share
Landowners within the Elm Creek Watershed:
Project support
Lower Republican Natural Resources District:
Local project sponsor
Monitoring
Cost share responsibilities
Little Blue Natural Resources District:
Technical assistance
Cost share assistance
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission:
Water quality monitoring
Data interpretation
Soil Conservation Service:
AGNPS Modeling
Technical assistance
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality:
Technical assistance
Overall Section 319 project coordination
Water quality monitoring, assessment,
and reporting
Nebraska Natural Resources Commission:
Technical assistance
Cost share assistance
116
-------
Elm Creek Watershed. Nebraska
U.S. Geological Survey:
Technical assistance
University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension:
Technical assistance
Local information and education
United States Environmental Protection Agency:
Provides Section 319 funds for monitoring and
innovative practices
Webster County Conservation Foundation (WCCF):
Primary sponsor of Elm Creek adopt-a-stream program
Future Farmers of America Chapters and 4-H Clubs:
Complete conservation and environmental projects
Center for Semi-Arid Agroforestry and Nebraska Forest Service
Provide professional woodland management and streambank
stabilization recommendations for project riparian zones
Webster County Board of Commissioners
Plan to provide matching funds to reduce road damage and
maintenance costs at specified sites
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Dave Jensen
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
1200 N Street, Suite 400, The Atrium
P.O. Box98922
Lincoln, NE 68509
(402) 471-4700; Fax (402) 471-2909
Land Treatment
Scott Montgomery (Land Treatment for the project)
USDA-SCS
20 N.Webster
Red Cloud, NE 68970-9990
(402) 746-2268
Water Quality
Monitoring
Dave Jensen / Greg Michl
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
1200 N Street, Suite 400, The Atrium
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509
(402) 471-4700; Fax (402) 471-2909
Information and
Education
Robert Ramsel (I & E for the HU A project)
Webster County Extension Service
621 Cedar
Red Cloud, NE 68970
(402) 746-3345; Fax (402) 746-3417
117
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
REFERENCES
Elm Creek Project. 1991. Elm Creek Watershed Section 319 NFS Project: Over-
view and Workplan. Lower Republican Natural Resource District, Nebraska
Department of Environmental Control, Soil Conservation Service, Nebraska
Game and Park Commission, Cooperative Extension Service, Lincoln Ne-
braska.
Elm Creek Project. 1992. Elm Creek Watershed Section 319 NFS Project: Moni-
toring Project Plan. Nebraska Department of Environmental Control, Lincoln,
Nebraska.
118
-------
North Carolina
Long Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
North Carolina
Project Area
Figure 18: Long Creek (North Carolina) Watershed Project Location
119
-------
Long Creek Watershed
O Dairy
A Sampling Location
Strip Mine
Paired A A,
tersheds F G /
Figure 19: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Long Creek (North Carolina) Watershed
120
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
PROJ EOT OVERVI EW
The Long Creek Watershed Section 319 National Monitoring Program project
(28,480 acres), located in the southwestern Piedmont of North Carolina, con-
sists of an area of mixed agricultural and urban/industrial land use (Figure 18).
Long Creek is a perennial stream that serves as the primary water supply for
Bessemer City, a municipality with a population of about 4,800 people (1990
est.).
Agricultural activities related to crop and dairy production are believed to be
the major nonpoint sources of pollutants to Long Creek. Sediment from erod-
ing cropland is the major problem in the upper third of the watershed. Cur-
rently, the water supply intake pool must be dredged quarterly to maintain
adequate storage volume. Below the intake, Long Creek is impaired primarily
by bacteria and nutrients from urban areas and animal-holding facilities.
Proposed land treatment upstream of the water supply intake includes imple-
menting the land use restrictions of the state water supply watershed protection
law and the soil conservation provisions of the Food Security Act.
Below the intake, land treatment will involve implementing a comprehensive
nutrient management plan on a large dairy farm and installing fence for live-
stock exclusion from a nearby tributary to Long Creek. Land treatment and
land use tracking will be based on a combination of voluntary farmer record-
keeping and frequent farm visits by extension personnel. Data will be stored
and managed in a geographic information system (GIS) located at the county
extension office.
Water quality monitoring includes a single-station, before-and-after-land treat-
ment design near the Bessemer City water intake (Figure 19), upstream and
downstream stations above and below an unnamed tributary on Long Creek,
stations upstream and downstream of a dairy farmstead on an unnamed tribu-
tary to Long Creek, and monitoring stations on paired watersheds at a cropland
runoff site. Continuous composite and grab samples are being collected at
various sites to provide the chemical, biological, and hydrologic data needed to
assess the effectiveness of the land treatment program.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
The study area encompasses approximately seven miles of Long Creek (North
Carolina stream classification index# 11-129-16). Typical mean discharges at
the outlet of the study area range between 10 and 45 cubic feet per second.
Long Creek is the primary water supply for Bessemer City. Water quality
impairments include high sediment, bacteria, and nutrient levels. The stream
channel near the water supply intake in the headwaters area requires frequent
dredging due to sediment deposition. The section of Long Creek from the
121
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Bessemer City water supply intake to near the watershed outlet sampling station
(Figure 19) is listed as support-threatened by the North Carolina Nonpoint
Source Management Program. Biological (macroinvertebrate) habitat is de-
graded in this section due to the presence of fecal coliform, excessive sediment,
and nutrient loading from agricultural and urban nonpoint sources.
Water quality variables change with time and location along Long Creek, but
generally are close to the following averages:
Fecal
Coliform
#/100ml
2100
BOD
(mg/1)
TSS
(mg/1)
14
TKN
(mg/1)
0.35
NOs-N
(mg/1)
0.41
TP
(mg/1)
< 0.17
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
Note: These average values were computed from the analyses of twelve
monthly grab samples taken from three locations along Long Creek.
The objectives of the project are to quantify the effects of nonpoint source
pollution controls on:
• Bacteria, sediment, and nutrient loadings to a stream from a working dairy
farm;
• Sediment and nutrient loss from a field with a long history of manure
application; and
• Sediment loads from the water supply watershed (goal is to reduce sedi-
ment yield by 60 percent).
In addition, biological monitoring of streams will attempt to show improve-
ments in biological habitat associated with the implementation of nonpoint
source pollution controls.
None.
January, 1993 to September, 2001
1992
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
About 44.5 square miles or 28,480 acres
The average annual rainfall is about 43 inches. The watershed geology is typical
of the western Piedmont, with a saprolite layer of varying thickness overlaying
fractured igneous and metamorphic rock. Soils in the study area are well
drained and have a loamy surface layer underlain by a clay subsoil.
122
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
Land Use.
Land Use
Agricultural
Forest
Residential
Business/Industrial
Mining
Total
Acres
6,975
15,289
3,985
1,842
516
28,607
%
24
54
14
6
2
100
Pollutant Source(s)
Modifications Since
Project Started
Source: Jennings et al, 1992
The monitored area contains the following four dairy farms:
Dairy Name
Dairy 4
Dairy 3
Dairy 2
Dairy 1
Cows (# )
125
85
100
400
Source: Jennings et al., 1992
None.
Feedlot Drainage
Open lot into
holding pond
Open lot across
pasture
Open lot across
grass buffer
Under roof and open
lot across grass buffer
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
Cooperative Extension Service (CES) personnel will conduct public meetings
and media campaigns to inform the general public, elected officials, community
leaders, and school children about the project and water quality in general. In
addition, project personnel will make many one-to-one visits to cooperating and
non-cooperating farmers in the watershed to inform them of project activities
and address any questions or concerns they may have.
An education plan for Gaston County has been developed that includes activi-
ties in the Long Creek watershed. Also, a Watershed Citizens Advisory Com-
mittee has been formed to: 1) educate other watershed residents and 2)
participate in citizen monitoring. The project was also presented at several
state, local, and regional water conferences.
The Gaston Conservation District has presented "hands-on" conservation re-
source programs to 1,553 students (grades K.-8) in the eight schools within the
watershed.
123
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Description
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
Water Supply Watershed (site H):
Bessemer City has recently purchased 13 acres of cropland immediately up-
stream of the intake with the intention of implementing runoff and erosion
controls. Also, to comply with the North Carolina Water Supply Watershed
Protection Act, strict land use requirements will be implemented on land within
one-half mile of and draining to the intake; less strict requirements such as the
conservation provisions of the Food Security Act will be implemented in the
remainder of the watershed.
Up/downstream of Dairy 1 Tributary on Long Creek (sites B and C):
The control strategy will be to design and implement a comprehensive nutrient
management plan on the land between the sampling stations including construc-
tion of a new waste holding facility.
Dairy 1 Farmstead (sites D and E):
A larger waste storage structure has been constructed. After April, 1995,
improved pasture management' and livestock exclusion from the unnamed
tributary between sites D and E will be implemented.
Paired Cropland Watersheds (sites F and G):
The control strategy on the paired watersheds involves implementing improved
nutrient management on the treatment watershed while continuing current
nutrient management and cropping practices on the control watershed. The
number and types of best management practices (BMPs) implemented will
depend on voluntary farmer participation..
None.
Work has begun on developing farm plans for more than 20 farms within the
watershed. Twenty-five Water Quality Incentive Project (WQIP) applications
have been submitted by landowners in the Long Creek Watershed. Eight plans
have been prepared representing $12,942.96 of BMP installations to control
NPS pollution on these sites.
Water Supply Watershed (site H):
A land use survey of the agricultural portion (88%) of the water supply water-
shed has been completed. Upon completion of the resource inventory, the
North Carolina Division of Soil and Water Conservation will develop a Water-
shed Management Plan. Installation of 90% of the recommended cropland
BMPs is expected to occur by the end of 1994. However, visual inspection of
the watershed tributaries indicates that considerable work remains in control-
ling stream channel erosion. This will be the emphasis of future NPS control
efforts.
Dairy 1 Farmstead (sites D and E):
The Conservation District and the landowner completed the installation of a
Waste Holding Pond in September, 1993. North Carolina Agriculture Cost
124
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
Share Funds were utilized for this project. In addition, an underground main
and hydrant with a stationary gun for applyingwaste effluent on the pasture/hay-
land areas was installed in July, 1994.
A solid waste storage structure was completed in July, 1993. North Carolina
Agricultural Cost Share Funds were utilized for the construction of this project.
A Resource Management System Plan will be completed by October, 1994 on
the Kiser Dairy Farm to control nonpoint pollution sources and enhance the
natural resources.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
Variables Measured
The water quality monitoring effort incorporates the following three designs:
• Single downstream station at water supply intake and watershed outlet
• Upstream/downstream on Long Greek and unnamed tributary
• Paired watersheds on Dairy 1 cropland
None.
Biological
Percent canopy and aufwuchs (organisms growing on aquatic plants)
Invertebrate taxa richness: ephemeroptera, plecoptera, trichoptera, coleoptera,
odonata, megaloptera, diptera, oligochaeta, Crustacea, mollusca, and other taxa
Bacteria: Fecal Coliform and Streptococci
Chemical and Other
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Total solids (TS)
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) (1991-92)
pH
Conductivity
Nitrate-nitrogen + nitrite-nitrogen (NOa + NOa)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total phosphorus (TP)
Physical stream indicators: width, depth and bank erosion
125
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
Sampling Scheme
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
Explanatory Variables
Rainfall
Flow rate of Long Creek at several locations
Rainfall and runoff rate at paired watersheds
Water Supply Watershed (Figure 19):
Type: grab (site H)
Frequency and season: weekly from December through May and monthly for
the remainder of the year for total solids (TS), total suspended solids (TSS),
fecal coliform, fecal streptococci, temperature, conductivity, DO, pH, and
turbidity; occasional storm event sampling for total sediment
Upstream/downstream of Dairy 1 Tributary on Long Creek (Figure 19):
Type: grab (sites B and C)
Frequency and season: weekly from December through May and monthly for
the remainder of the year for fecal streptococci and coliforms, temperature, pH,
conductivity, turbidity, DO, TSS, TP, TKN, and NO2+ NOs
Annual biological for sensitive species at station C only
Dairy 1 Farmstead (Figure 19):
Type: grab and continuous (sites D and E)
Frequency and season: weekly from December through May and monthly for
the rest of the year for fecal streptococci and coliforms, temperature, pH,
conductivity, and DO; continuous for TSS, TS, TKN, NO2+ NOs, and TP;
several storm events may also be sampled
Paired Cropland Watersheds (Figure 19):
Type: storm event (sites F and G)
Frequency and season: stage-activated storm event for flow, TSS, TS, TKN,
NO2+ NOs, TP, and total sediment.
Single Downstream Station at Watershed Outlet (Figure 19):
Type: grab (site I)
Frequency and season: weekly from March through August and monthly for the
rest of the year for temperature, pH, conductivity, turbidity, DO, TSS, TP, TKN,
NO2+ NOs, and fecal streptococci and coliforms; annual biological for sensi-
tive species
In May - June, 1994, four monitoring wells were installed at the paired water-
shed to gain a better understanding of ground water movement. The installa-
tion of approximately 20 wells above the water supply intake is also being
planned.
The water quality monitoring stations have been established and one year of
data have been collected. Also, climatic and flow measurements are being
made at several points in the watershed.
Data are stored locallyatthe county Extension Service office. The data are also
stored and analyzed at North Carolina State University using the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency's (USEPA) NonPoint Source Management System
126
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
Modifications Since
Project Started
software. The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management will also
store the water quality data in the USEPA STORET system. Data will be
shared among all participating agencies for use in their data bases. Data
analysis will involve performing statistical tests for detection of long term-trends
in water quality.
None.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Modifications Since
Project Started
Project Element
Proj Mgt
I&E
LT
WQ Monit
Totals
Federal
Source: Jennings et al., 1992
None.
Funding Source (S)
State Local
340,300 147,360 98,240
0 20,000 80,000
0 370,000 80,000
561,186 0 12,000
901,486 537,360 270,240
Sum
585,900
100,000
450,000
573,186
1,709,086
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
State and probably federal USDA - Agricultural Conservation Program cost
share programs will be essential for the implementation of BMPs. The provi-
sions of the North Carolina Water Supply Watershed Protection Act (see
section below) and the threat of additional regulation will motivate dairy farm-
ers to implement animal waste management and erosion control BMPs.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
The North Carolina Water Supply Watershed Protection Act, as applied to this
class of watershed, requires that 1) agricultural activities within one-half mile
and draining to the water intake maintain at least a 10-foot vegetated buffer or
equivalent control and 2) animal operations of more than 100 animal units must
use BMPs as determined by the North Carolina Soil and Water Conservation
Commission. Other regulations in the Act apply to activities such as forestry,
transportation, residential development, and sludge application.
Project responsibilities are outlined below:
127
-------
Lona Creek Watershed North
Landowners within the Long Creek Watershed:
Project support
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service:
Modeling
Analysis of technical data
Technical support
Gaston County Cooperative Extension Service:
Project administration
Educational and policy development programs
Technical assistance
Soil Conservation Service:
Sediment modeling
NPS control strategies
Technical assistance & evaluation
Gaston Soil & Water Conservation District:
Implement NPS control strategies
Land treatment priorities
BMP cost share priority
North Carolina Division of Soil and Water Conservation:
Administration of North Carolina
Agricultural Cost Share funds
Watershed Protection Plan
United States Geological Survey:
Install stream gauges at continuous monitoring sites
Technical assistance
Gaston County Quality of Natural Resources Commission:
Plan educational and policy
development programs
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management:
Conduct biological/habitat monitoring
Technical assistance
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service:
Water Quality Incentive Program
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
David Harding
DEHNR
Department of Environmental Management
P.O.Box29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
(919) 733-5083; Fax (919) 715-5637
Martha A. Burris
County Extension Director
P.O. Box 476
Dallas, NC 28034
(704) 922-0301
128
-------
Long Creek Watershed. North Carolina
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Information and
Education
Gregory D. Jennings
Assistant Professor
NCSU Box 7625
Raleigh, NC 27695-7625
(919) 515-6795; Fax (919) 515-6772
Internet: jennings@bae.ncsu.edu
Glenda M. Jones, Administrator
Gaston Soil & Water Conservation District
1303 Cherryville Highway
Dallas, NC 28034-4181
(704) 922-4181
Steven W. Coffey
Extension Specialist
NCSU Water Quality Group
615 Oberlin Road, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27605-1126
(919) 515-3723; Fax (919) 515-7448
Internet: steve_coffey@ncsu.edu
William A. Harman
Associate Extension Agent
Natural Resources
P.O. Box476
Dallas, NC 28034
(704) 922-0301; Fax (704) 922-3416
Internet: wharman@gaston.ces.ncsu.edu
Daniel E. Line
Extension Specialist
NCSU Water Quality Group
615 Oberlin Road, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27605-1126
(919) 515-3723; Fax (919) 515-7448
Internet: dan_line@ncsu.edu
William A. Harman
Associate Extension Agent
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 476
Dallas, NC 28034
(704) 922-0301; Fax (704) 922-3416
Internet: wharman@gaston.ces.ncsu.edu
129
-------
Lona Creek Watershed North Carolina
REFERENCES
Jennings, G.D., W.A. Harman, M.A. Burris, and F.J. Humenik. 1992. Long
Creek Watershed Nonpoint Source Water Quality Monitoring Project. Project
Proposal. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, NC. 21p.
130
-------
Pennsylvania
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Pennsylvania
Project Area
Figure 20: Pequea and Mill Creek (Pennsylvania) Watershed Project Location
131
-------
Big Spring Run Watershed
\ Control Watershed
%
i
Scale
.5
(
.5
Kilometers
0
.5
Miles
Legend
• Water Quality Site and
Continuous Flow Gage Station
• Water Quality Site and
Intermittent Flow Station
A Precipitation Gage
• Nest of 3 Wells
Streams
Watershed Boundary
Figure 21: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Pequea and Mill Creek (Pennsylvania) Watershed
132
-------
Peguea and Mill Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Big Spring Run is a spring-fed stream located in the Mill Creek Watershed
of southcentral Pennsylvania (Figure 20). Its primary uses are livestock water-
ing, aquatic life support, and fish and wildlife support. In addition, receiving
streams are used for recreation and public drinking water supply. Sampling of
benthic macroinvertebrate communities indicated poor water quality at five of
six sites. Other stream uses (recreation and drinking water supply) are im-
paired by elevated bacteria and nutrient concentrations.
Uncontrolled access of more than 220 dairy cows and heifers to each of the two
watershed streams is considered to be a major source of pollutants. Pastures
adjacent to streams also are thought to contribute significant amounts of non-
point source (NPS) pollutants. Therefore, proposed land treatment will focus
on streambank fencing to exclude livestock from streams. This will allow a
natural riparian buffer to become established, which will stabilize streambanks
and potentially filter pollutants from pasture runoff.
Water quality monitoring will employ a paired watershed design in which the
proposed NPS control is to implement livestock exclusion fencing on 100
percent of the stream miles in the treatment subwatershed (Figure 21). Grab
samples will be collected every 10 days at the outlet of each paired subwatershed
from April through November. Storm event, ground water, biological, and
other monitoring is planned to help document the effectiveness of fencing in the
treatment subwatershed.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
The study area encompasses about 2.8 and 2.7 miles of tributary streams in the
treatment and control subwatersheds, respectively. One-time measurements of
summer base flow documented discharges of 0.81 and 2.24 cfs at the outlets of
the treatment and control subwatersheds.
Sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates at three sites in each subwatershed
indicated poor water quality (organic enrichment) except for the most upstream
site in the treatment subwatershed. The subwatershed streams have relatively
high nutrient and fecal coliform concentrations that contribute to use impair-
ments of receiving waters.
133
-------
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
One-time baseflow grab sampling at four and seven locations in the control and
treatment subwatershed are presented in tabular form:
Fecal Coliform TP OP TKN NO3+ NO2
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
Treatment 1,100-38,000 .06-.25 .03-. 15 .3-1.6 10-18
Control 10,000 .02-.04 .01-.03 .1-.3 4-12
The overall objective is to document the effectiveness of livestock exclusion
fencing at reducing NFS pollutants in a stream. Another objective is to reduce
annual total ammonia plus organic nitrogen and total phosphorus loads from
the project watershed by 40 percent.
October, 1993 to September, 1998-2003
July, 1993
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
Land Use
Total area is 3.2 square miles (mi ); Control = 1.8 mi ; Treatment =
1.4 mi2
The average annual precipitation is 43 inches. The watershed geology consists
of deep well-drained silt-loam soils underlain by carbonate rock. About five
percent of each subwatershed is underlain by noncarbonated rock.
Type
Agricultural
Urban
Commercial
Total
Control Watershed
Acres %
922 80
150 13
80 7
1152 100
Treatment Watershed
Acres %
762 85
116 13
18 2
896 100
Pollutant Source(s)
Source: Pequea and Mill Creek Watersheds Project Proposal, 1993.
The primary source of pollutants is believed to be pastured dairy cows and
heifers with uncontrolled access to stream and streambanks. Approximately
260 and 220 animals are pastured in the treatment and control watersheds. It is
estimated that grazing animals deposit an average of 40 pounds of nitrogen and
8 pounds of phosphorus annually per animal.
Other (commercial and urban) sources of pollutants are considered insignifi-
cant.
134
-------
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
The Lancaster Conservation District and the Pennsylvania Cooperative Exten-
sion Service maintain active information and education (I&E) programs in the
area. Also, as part of the Pequea-Mill Creeks Hydjologic Unit Area (HUA),
the landowners in the watersheds will receive additional efforts.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Description
The control strategy involves installing streambank fencing on 100 percent of
the pasture land adjacent to the stream draining the treatment subwatershed.
All of the farmers in this watershed have agreed to install fencing. A stabilizing
vegetative buffer is expected to develop naturally soon after the fencing is
installed.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Variables Measured
The water quality monitoring effort is based on a paired watershed experimen-
tal design (Figure 21).
Biological
H abitat survey
Benthic invertebrate monitoring
Chemical and Other
Suspended sediment(SS)
Total and dissolved ammonia plus organic nitrogen
Dissolved ammonia (NHs-N)
Dissolved nitrate plus nitrite (NC-2-N + NOs-N)
Dissolved nitrite (NO2-N)
Total and dissolved phosphorus (TP)
Dissolved orthophosphorus (OP)
Fecal Streptococcus bacteria (only during base flow)
Explanatory Variables
Continuous discharge
Continuous precipitation
Ground water level
135
-------
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania
Sampling Scheme
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
Continuous Discharge Sites:
Type: grab and storm event composite
Frequency and season: every 10 days from April through November. Ten to 15
composite storm flow samples per year will also be collected.
Upstream Site:
Type: grab and storm event composite
Frequency and season: every 10 days from April through November. Two to
four composite stormflow samples per year..
Ground Water:
Type: grab
Frequency and season: monthly and analyzed for nitrate.
Habitat and benthic invertebrate surveys will be conducted twice per year,
preferably during May and August, at the outlet of each subwatershed and at
points upstream in the treatment subwatershed.
Continuous discharge at watershed outlets and one tributary site and periodic
flow at one upstream site.
Continuous precipitation amount will be recorded at one site.
Additionally, ground water level will be continuously monitored in four to eight
wells.
Data will be stored and maintained locally byU.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
entered into the USGS WATSTORE database and STORET. Data will also
be entered into the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) Non-
Point Source Management System (NPSMS) software and submitted to
USEPA Region III.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
First Year
Project Budget
Project Element
Personnel
Equipment and Supplies
Contracted Services
USGS (lab and gaging)
USGS Overhead
Other
TOTAL
Funding Required*
$ 57,508
20,300
16,200
25,100
115,192
2,000
$236,300
*$103,500 of this is USGS matching funds
(1st year funding only - other years unknown.)
Source: Pequea and Mill Creek Watersheds Project Proposal, 1993.
136
-------
Peauea and Mill Creek Watershed. Pennsylvania
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
The Chesapeake Bay program, which has set a goal of a 40% reduction in
annual loads of total ammonia plus organic nitrogen and total phosphorus to the
Bay, should have a significant impact on the project. The Bay program is
expected to provide up to 100% cost-share money to help landowners install
streambank fencing.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
None.
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Barbara Lathrop
Water Quality Biologies
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources
Bureau of Land and Water Conservation
P.O. Box 8555
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555
(717) 787-5259
Frank Lucas
Project Leader
USDA-SCS
P.O. Box207
311 B Airport Drive
'Smoketwn, PA 17576
(717) 396-9427; Fax (717) 396-9427
Robert Heidecker
USDA-SCS
1 Credit Union Place, Suite 340
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 782-3446; Fax (717) 782-4469
Patricia L. Lietman
U.S. Geological Survey
840 Market Street
Lemoyne.PA 17043-1586
(717) 730-6960; Fax (717) 730-6997
137
-------
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania
REFERENCES
Pequea and Mill Creek Watersheds Project Proposal. 1993. U.S. Geological
Survey.
138
-------
Vermont
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 22: Lake Champlain Basin (Vermont) Watersheds Project Location
139
-------
Legend
Monitoring
A Station
Water
Watershed
_ _ _ Boundary
0
1
Scale
1
Kilometers
1
i
2
t
Miles
Figure 23: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Lake Champlain Basin (Vermont) Watersheds
140
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds Section 319 National Monitoring Pro-
gram project (also known as the Lake Champlain Agricultural Watersheds Best
Management Practice Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Project)
is located in northeastern Vermont in an area of transition between the lowlands
of the Champlain Valley and the foothills of the Green Mountains (Figure 22).
Agricultural activity, primarily dairy farming, is the major land use in this area
ofVermont.
The streams in these watersheds drain into the Missisquoi River, a major
tributaryof Lake Champlain. The designated uses of many of the streams in this
region are impaired by agricultural NFS pollution. The pollutants responsible
for the water quality impairment are nutrients, particularly phosphorus, fecal
coliform bacteria, and organic matter. The source of most of the agricultural
NFS pollution is the manure generated from area dairy farms,livestock activity
within streams and riparian areas, and crop production. The Missisquoi River
has the second largest discharge of water and contributes the greatest nonpoint
source (NFS) load of phosphorus to Lake Champlain.
The Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds 319 National Monitoring Program
project is designed to evaluate two treatments to control the pollutants gener-
ated by agricultural activities. Treatment # 1 is a system of BMPs to exclude
livestock from selected critical areas of streams and to protect streambanks.
Individual BMPs for treatment # 1 will include watering systems, fencing, the
minimization of livestock crossing areas in streams, and the strengthening of the
necessary crossing areas. Treatment # 2 will implement intensive grazing man-
agement through rotation of the pastures.
The water quality monitoring is a three-way paired design: there will be one
control watershed and two treatment watersheds (treatment # 1 and # 2)(Fig-
ure 23). The watersheds will be monitored during a two-year calibration period
prior to BMP implementation. Implementation monitoring will occur for one
year and post-treatment monitoring will extend for three years.
Biological, chemical, and explanatory variables are being monitored during all
three monitoring phases. Fish, macroinvertebrates, fecal streptococcus, fecal
coliform, and E. coli bacteria are the monitored biological variables. The
chemical variables monitored are total phosphorus, total kjeldahl nitrogen, total
suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and temperature. Two ex-
planatory variables, precipitation and continuous discharge, are also being
monitored.
Nutrients and sediment are monitored weeklyin a flow-proportional composite
sample. Bacteria grab samples are collected twice weekly, with concurrent
in-situ measurements of temperature, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity.
Macroinvertebrate communities will be sampled annually and fish will be evalu-
ated twice each year. Invertebrate and fish monitoring will also be conducted
at an unimpaired reference site.
141
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
The study streams are small second- or third-order permanent streams that
drain to the Missisquoi River, a major tributary of Lake Champlain. The
streams are generally 10-15 feet wide at the monitoring stations. Historical
stream flow data do not exist for these streams; discharge has ranged from 1-125
cubic feet per second (cfs) since May, 1993.
Because of their size, the study streams themselves are subject to very limited
use for agricultural purposes (livestock watering) and recreation (swimming
and fishing). No historical data exist to document support or nonsupport of
these or other uses. Initial project data indicate that Vermont water quality
(bacteriological) criteria for body contact recreation are consistently violated in
these streams.
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Early biological data for fish and macroinvertebrates indicate moderate to
severe impact by nutrients and organic matter. These particular small water-
sheds were selected to represent agricultural watersheds in the Lake Champlain
Basin, which often violate state water quality criteria (Clausen and Meals, 1989;
Meals, 1990; Vermont RCWP Coordinating Committee, 1991) and contribute
nutrient concentrations and areal loads that generally exceed average values
reported from across the United States (Omernik, 1977) and in the Great Lakes
Region (PLUARG, 1978).
The receiving waters for these streams - the Missisquoi River and Lake Cham-
plain - have very high recreational use that is being impaired by agricultural
runoff (Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, 1994). The Missisquoi River is
the second largest tributary to Lake Champlain in terms of discharge (mean
flow = 1450 cfs) and contributes the highest annual NFS phosphorus load to
Lake Champlain among the major tributary watersheds (75.1 mt/yr) (VT and
NY Departments of Environmental Conservation, 1994). Lake Champlain
currently fails to meet state water quality standards for phosphorus, primarily
due to excessive nonpoint source loads (Vermont Agency of Natural Resources,
1994). About 66% of the NFS phosphorus load to Lake Champlain has been
attributed to agricultural land (Budd and Meals, 1994).
No historical physical/chemical data exist for the study streams. Early pretreat-
ment monitoring data show the following ranges:
E. Coli Fecal Coliform
(# 7100 ml)
110-39,000 130-20,000
TP(mg/l)
0.08 - 0.50
TKN (mg/1)
0.32-1.27
Fecal Strep.
40-10,000
TSS (mg/1)
25 - 150
Current Water
Quality Objectives
(Note: these values represent the range observed in May- June, 1994 and do not
include any observations from spring runoff or major storm events).
The overall goal of the project is a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness
of two livestock/grazing management practices in reducing concentrations and
142
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
loads of nutrients, bacteria, and sediment from small agricultural watersheds.
Major water quality objectives are to: 1) Document changes in sediment,
nutrient, and bacteria concentrations and loads due to treatment at the water-
shed outlets; and 2) Evaluate response of stream biota to treatment.
September 1993 - September, 1999 (Approximate)
September 1993
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
Land Use
Pollutant Source(s)
1705ac(WSl)+ 3513ac(WS2)+ 2358ac(WS3)= 7576 ac
The project area is in northwestern Vermont (Franklin County) in an area of
transition between the lowlands of the Champlain Valley and the foothills of the
Green Mountains. Average annual precipitation is about 41 inches; average
annual temperature is about 42°F. Frost-free growing season averages 118
days.
Most of the watershed soils are till soils, loamy soils of widely variable drainage
characteristics. There are significant areas of somewhat poorly drained silt/clay
soils in the lower portions of the watersheds.
The three watersheds are generally similar in land use:
Land Use
Corn/hay
Pasture/
hay-pasture
Forest
Other
WS1
Acres %
369
60
1135
141
22%
4%
67%
8%
WS2
Acres %
860
426
2118
110
25%
12%
60%
3%
WS3
Acres %
569
167
1408
213
24%
7%
60%
9%.
Source: 1993 ASCS aerial photography, unverified
Nonpoint sources of pollutants are from streambanks; degraded riparian zones;
and dairy-related agricultural activities, such as field-spread and pasture-de-
posited manure and livestock access. Some agricultural point sources such as
milkhouse waste or corn silage leachate are thought to exist.
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Pre-project activity included letters to all watershed agricultural landowners
followed by small "kitchen table" meetings with farmers in each watershed.
143
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
The purpose of these meetings was to assess landowner interest and acceptance
of the project.
Two articles have been published in the weekly county newspaper concerning
the project.
In July, 1994, a station "open-house" was held to present the project, monitoring
hardware, and some early monitoring results.
The project includes a Project Advisory Committee with representatives from
United States Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service (USDA-
SCS), Extension, Vermont Dept. of Agriculture, Vermont Dept. of Environ-
mental Conservation, Vermont Natural Resources Conservation Council, and
others. The committee meets quarterly to reviewprogress and assist in program
direction.
Because the project is in the beginning of a two-year pretreatment calibration
phase, information and education efforts will focus on laying the groundwork
for treatment by presenting demonstrations and information concerning rota-
tional grazing and livestock access control. Additional contact with farmers will
occur through routine collection of agricultural management data.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Design
The project is designed to test two treatments: 1) livestock exclusion/stream-
bank protection, and 2) intensive grazing management. In the first treatment
watershed, work will focus on selective exclusion of livestock from the streams,
improvement or elimination of heavily used stream crossings, and revegetation
of streambanks. This treatment will require fencing, watering systems, minimiz-
ing livestock crossing areas, and strengthening necessary crossing areas.
In the second treatment watershed, intensive rotational grazing management
will be implemented as a means to minimize the time spent by livestock in or
near the streamcourse without complete exclusion.
During the two years of pretreatment monitoring, treatment needs will be
assessed, specific plans and specifications developed, and agreements with
landowners pursued. It is anticipated that the project will provide 100% cost
support for cooperating landowners. Agricultural management activity - both
routine and treatment implementation - will be monitored by farmer record-
keeping and semi-annual interviews.
It is also anticipated that some work will be done as necessary on agricultural
point sources if and when such pollutant sources are identified.
144
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Variables Measured
Sampling Scheme
The study is based on a three-way paired watershed design, with a control
watershed and one watershed for each of the two treatments to be evaluated
(Figure 23). The design calls for two years ofpretreatment calibration, one year
of implementation, and three years of post-treatment monitoring.
Biological
E. Coli bacteria
Fecal Coliform bacteria
Fecal Streptococcus bacteria
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Chemical and Other
Total phosphorus (TP)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Conductivity
Temperature
Explanatory Variables
Precipitation
Discharge (continuous)
Automated sampling stations are located at three watershed outlets for continu-
ous recording of streamflow, automatic flow-proportional sampling, and weekly
composite samples for sediment and nutrients. The watersheds are as follows:
WS3 is the control, WS1 is the rotational grazing (treatment # 2), and WS2 is
the streambed protection (treatment l)(Figure 23). Twice-weekly grab samples
for bacteria will be collected. Concurrent in-stream measurement of tempera-
ture, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity will also occur at the same time that the
grab samples are collected. Three precipitation gages have been installed. All
monitoring systems will operate year-round.
The macroinvertebrate community at each site and a fourth "background refer-
ence" site will be sampled annually using a kick net/timed eifort technique.
Methods and analysis will follow U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(USEPA) Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Protocol III). Fish will be sampled
twice a year by electroshocking and evaluated according to Rapid Bioassess-
ment Protocols Protocol V.
Physical habitat assessments will also be performed during each sampling run.
145
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
Primary data management will be done by an in-house spreadsheet system. The
USEPA Nonpoint Source Management System (NPSMS) software will be used
to track and report data to USEPA. Requisite data entry into STORET and
BIOS has not yet been explored.
Water quality data will be compiled and reported for quarterly project advisory
committee meetings, including basic plots and univariate statistics. For annual
reports, data will be analyzed on a water-year basis.
Data analysis will be performed using both parametric and nonparametric
statistical procedures in standard statistical software.
PROJECT BUDGET
Project Element
LT
WQ Monit
Totals
Federal
33,539
180,554
214,093
Funding Source (S)
State University
NA
68,401
68,401
NA
52,597
52,597
Source: Don Meals (Personal Communication), 1994
(Years one and two only.)
33,539
301,552
335,091
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
The project area is within the area of the Lake Champlain Basin Program, a
program modeled after the Chesapeake Bay Program, directed toward the
management of Lake Champlain and its watershed. Considerable effort on
agricultural NPS control is associated with this program, including funding for
pollution control/prevention demonstration projects.
Additionally, the state of Vermont's phosphorus management strategy calls for
targeted reductions of phosphorus loads from selected subbasins of Lake
Champlain.
Because this 319 National Monitoring Program project contributes to two
on-going projects (the Lake Champlain Basin Program and the phosphorus
reduction program), it is anticipated that some support - technical assistance,
funding, or other - will be actively sought from these programs.
146
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
None.
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Richmond Hopkins
Vermont Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Water Quality Division
Building 10 North 103 South Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05671
(802) 241-3770; Fax (802) 241-3287
Donald Meals
School of Natural Resources
, University of Vermont
UVM-Aiken Center
Burlington, VT 05405
(802) 656-4057; Fax (802) 656-8683
Internet: dmeals@clover.uvm.edu
Donald Meals
School of Natural Resources
University of Vermont
UVM-Aiken Center
Burlington, VT 05405
(802) 656-4057; Fax (802) 656-8683
Internet: dmeals@clover.uvm.edu
REFERENCES
Budd, L. and D.W. Meals. 1994. Lake Champlain Nonpoint Source Pollution
Assessment. Technical Report No. 6, Lake Champlain Basin Program, Grand
Isle, Vermont.
Clausen, J.C. and D.W. Meals. 1989. Water Quality Achievable with Agicultural
Best Management Practices. J. Soil and Water Cons. 44:594-596.
Meals, D.W. 1990. LaPlatte River Watershed Water Quality Monitoring and
Analysis Program Comprehensive Final Report. Program Report No. 12, Ver-
mont Water Resources Research Center, University of Vermont, Burlington.
Omernik, J.M. 1977. Nonpoint Source Stream Nutrient Level Relationship: A
Nationwide Study. EPA-600/3-77-105. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
147
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
PLUARG. 1978. Environmental Management Strategy for the Great Lakes
System. Final Report to the International Joint Commission from the Interna-
tional Reference Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities,
Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. 1994. State of Vermont 1994 Water
Quality Assessment, 305(b) Report. Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion, Water Quality Division, Waterbury, VT.
Vermont RCWP Coordinating Committee. 1991. St. Alban's Bay Rural Clean
Water Pro&am Final Report, 1980-1990. Vermont Water Resources Research
Center, University of Vermont, Burlington.
148
-------
Wisconsin
Otter Creek
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 24: Otter Creek (Wisconsin) Project Location
149
-------
Otter Creek Watershed
Scale
.5
1
I
Miles
0
I
1
I
Kilometers
Legend
Rain Gage
Quarry
Monitoring Site
Forest
Swamp
"-•--•*"
Figure 25: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Otter Creek (Wisconsin)
150
-------
Otter Creek, Wisconsin
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Otter Creek Monitoring Evaluation Project is in east central Wisconsin
(Figure 24), with a project area of 11 square miles. Otter Creek drains into the
Sheboygan River, which then drains into Lake Michigan. The topography of the
project area is mostly level. Land use mainly consists of dairies and croplands.
Otter Creek has a warmwater forage fishery and is also used for partial body
contact recreation. The fish community is degraded by poor habitat, including
lack of cover, disturbed streambanks, and the absence of pools. Silt and sedi-
ment deposits in the streambed have also reduced habitat quality. Fecal coli-
form levels frequently exceed the state standard of 400 counts per 100 ml, and
dissolved oxygen often drops below 2 mg/1 during runoff events.
Otter Creek delivers high concentrations of total phosphorus and fecal coliform
to the Sheboygan River. These pollutants then travel to the near shore waters
of Lake Michigan, which serves as a water supply and also supports recreational
fisheries.
Streambed sediments originating from eroding streambanks and over-grazed
dairy pastures are reducing the reproductive potential for a high quality fishery
with abundant forage fish. (Forage fish are non-sport fish such as chubs, dace,
and sticklebacks. Sport fish are bass and trout). Recent biological monitoring
shows that water quality conditions in Otter Creek are producing tolerant to
very tolerant forage fish. (Tolerance is the ability of a species to tolerate or
survive environmental degradation and severe environmental conditions. Tol-
erant species offish persist under degraded conditions). The stream fisheries
rating, which is based on the Indexof Biotic Integrity (Lyons, 1992), is verypoor
to fair.
The fisheries habitat evaluation (Simonson et al., 1994) for Otter Creek is fair
to good. Deposits of sediment in pools have been found to be over one foot
deep. Embeddedness, a measure of substrate quality, measures between 25 and
100 percent. Highly embedded streambeds, as found in pastured areas, are
detrimental to macroinvertebrates and fish. Macroinvertebrate monitoring and
analysis (Hilsenhoff, 1987) resulted in water quality ratings of fair to good, with
better ratings in headwaters and poorer ratings near the watershed outlet.
Otter Creek is further degraded by total phosphorus and fecal coliform export
from dairy barnyards, pastures, cropland, and alfalfa fields. The mean concen-
tration of 22 runoff events is 104 mg/1 for suspended solids and 0.39 mg/1 for total
phosphorus. Levels of fecal coliform often exceed the state standard of 400
counts/100 ml. Runoff from dairy operations is causing organic enrichment,
severe degradation, and cultural eutrophication of Otter Creek.
Land treatment is being monitored using an ARC/INFO geographical informa-
tion system (GIS) and will be updated annually. Specific pollutant source
inventory methods are used to evaluate current conditions and land treatment
implementation. Inventory methods include a procedure for evaluating up land
sediment sources, streambank erosion, barnyard runoff, and runoff from the
151
-------
Otter Creek, Wisconsin
land application of animal waste. The status of conservation contracts and
extent of land treatment implementation will be evaluated at the field and
farmstead levels.
Land" treatment design is based on the pollutant type and the source of the
pollutant. Upland soils will be treated with cropland erosion control practices
to reduce sediment loss. Streambanks will be stabilized and cattle access
limited by fencing. Barnyard structural practices will be installed and nutrient
management practices will be used for improvements in manure-spreading
operations.
Critical area criteria are designed to reduce phosphorus and sediment loading
to project area streams. Five of the six dairy operations in the project area were
classified as critical; two of the five critical dairy operations spread enough
manure so that their cropland was classified as critical. Critical areas also
include steeply sloped fields (6%), land in flood plains, and areas with depth to
bedrock less than 24 inches. Streambank critical areas are the 6,200 feet of
streambank trampled by cattle.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Otter Creek is 4.2 miles long with an average gradient of .0023 ft/ft or 12.4 ft/mile
(Figure 2). The project area is 11 square miles. The creek originates from a
small spring-fed lake called Gerber Lake.
Otter Creek is used for fishing and for secondary body contact recreation. The
fishery is impaired bypoor habitat, while contact recreation is impaired by high
fecal coliform counts. Both uses are also impaired by eutrophic conditions.
The Otter Creek project area is part of the larger Sheboygan River watershed,
identified as a priority watershed in 1985. The watershed is characterized by
streambank degradation due to cattle traffic and excessive phosphorus, fecal
coliform, and sediment runoff from manure spreading and livestock operations.
Fisheries are impaired because of degraded aquatic habitat that limits repro-
duction. Recreation is limited by degraded fisheries and highly eutrophic and
organically enriched stream waters.
The Otter Creek project water quality objectives are to:
• Increase the numbers of intolerant fish species byimprovingthe fish habitat
and water quality.
• Restore the endangered fish species (striped shiner) by improving the fish
habitat and water quality.
• Improve the recreational uses by reducing the bacteria levels.
• Reduce the loading of pollutants to the Sheboygan River and Lake Michi-
gan by installation of best management practices (BMPs) in the Otter
Creek watershed.
• Improve the wildlife habitat by restoring riparian vegetation.
152
-------
Otter Creek. Wisconsin
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
Spring, 1994 through Spring, 2001
July, 1993
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorological Factors
Land Use
Pollutant Source(s)
The Otter Creek watershed is about 11 square miles. Each of the control areas,
the Meeme and Pigeon River watersheds, is about 16 square miles.
Average annual precipitation is 29 inches. Fifteen inches of rain falls during the
growing season between May and September. About 42 inches of snow (five
inches of equivalent rain) falls during a typical winter.
The topography of the watershed is nearly level. The soils are clay loams or silty
clay loams that have poor infiltration and poor percolation but high fertility.
Soils are glacial drift underlain by Niagara dolomite.
Land Use
Agricultural
Forest
Suburban
Wetland
Water
Total
72
13
11
3
1
100
The current conservation status of the watershed is unknown.
Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1993a
There are five critical dairy operations that serve as important pollutant
sources. Trampled streambanks and cropland and pastureland receiving dairy
manure are also critical sources.
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
The information and education (I&E) activities for this watershed project will
be targeted towards key audiences and potential users of the information.
Different I&E activities will be employed for the diverse audiences that will be
involved in the Otter Creek watershed project. Combining public and private
efforts in an effective educational approach will be an important component of
the I&E strategy.
Details of the I&E strategy are outlined in the Sheboygan River Water Priority
Watershed Project plan (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1993b).
Activities for the first three years of the project are listed along with the level of
effort required to complete the task. Important activities include developing a
153
-------
Otter Creek, Wisconsin
watershed folder for producers in the critical area, fact sheets, tours of animal
waste facilities, workshops, meetings, and youth activities.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Description
Streambank erosion and cattle access practices include shoreline and stream-
bank stabilization; barnyard management includes barnyard runoff manage-
ment and manure storage facilities; and cropland practices include grassed
waterways, reduced tillage, and nutrient and pesticide management.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Variables Measured
Monitoring will be done at two baseline or control watersheds and at six sites in
Otter Creek. Water quality monitoring designs for the Otter Creek watershed
include multiple paired, above and below, and single outlet (before and after)
monitoring (Figure 23).
Biological
Fisheries survey
Macroinvertibrate survey
Habitat assessment
Chemical
Total phosphorus (TP)
Dissolved phosphorus (DP)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Ammonia-N (NHU-N)
Nitrogen series (NOa-N and NOs-N)
Turbidity
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Fecal Coliform bacteria (FC)
Sampling Scheme
Explanatory Variables
Stream discharge
Precipitation
Automatic, continuous water chemistry sampling will occur on an event basis.
The schedule for chemical grab sampling and biological and habitat monitoring
varies by station and by year. Chemical grab sampling occurred at a time
characterized as midsummer-fall for 1990 and 1994 and during spring-midsum-
mer in 1991. Future plans are for spring-midsummer monitoring in 1995 and
1999 and monitoring midsummer-fall for 1998. Fisheries, macroinvertebrate,
154
-------
Otter Creek, Wisconsin
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
and habitat monitoring has been scheduled for midsummer in 1990, 1994, and
1998, and for the spring of 1991, 1995, and 1999.
Biological and habitat sampling will occur monthly. There are sixsampling sites
on Otter Creek and one site each at the outlet of the Meeme and Pigeon River
watershed. One of the sampling sites on Otter Creek is also an outlet station
that serves as the site for the single station before and after monitoring site.
There are two mainstem sites above and below a critical area dairy.
Fisheries monitoring includes sampling fish species and frequencies. Fisheries
data are summarized and interpreted based on the Index of Biotic Integrity
(Lyons, 1992). Macroinvertebrate monitoring criteria includes macroinverte-
brate species or genera and numbers. Macroinvertebrate data are summarized
and interpreted using the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (Hilsenhoff, 1987). Habitat
variables include riparian buffer width, bank erosion, pool area, stream width
to depth ratio, riffle-to-riffle or bend-to-bend rating, percent fine sediments,
and cover for fish. Habitat information is rated using the fish habitat rating
system established for Wisconsin streams by Simonson et al. (1994).
Grab and continuous samples will be used for water chemistry monitoring.
Variables to be sampled include total phosphorus, fecal coliform bacteria,
dissolved oxygen, suspended sediments, and biological and habitat variables.
All water chemistry data will be entered into the Wisconsin DNR data manage-
ment system, WATSTORE (the U.S. Geological Survey national database),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Nonpoint Source Management Sys-
tem software (NPSMS), and STORET.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The total estimated cost of needed land treatment practices is $221,000. Funds
through the state of Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Program will be used to fund
cost-share practices.
Project Element
Proj Mgt
LT
I&E
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Federal
NA
NA
NA
60,000
60,000
State
30,000
221,000
2,000
NA
253,000
Funding Source($)
Local Total
NA 30,000
NA 221,000
NA 2,000
NA 60,000
NA 313,000
Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1993a and
Mike Miller (Personal Communication), 1994
155
-------
Otter Creek, Wisconsin
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND
STATE PROGRAMS
State grants will be provided to cover the cost of land treatment technical
assistance and information and educational support.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
Cooperating agencies include the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection, Sheboygan
County Land Conservation Committees, and the U.S. Geological Survey.
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Roger Bannerman
Nonpoint Source Section
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
101 South Webster St., Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 266-2621; Fax (608) 267-2800
Michael Miller
Surface Water Standards and Monitoring Section
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
101 South Webster St., Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 267-2753; Fax (608) 267-2800
Patrick Miles
County Conservationist
Sheboygan County Land Conservation Dept.
650 Forest Ave.
Sheboygan Falls, WI 53805
(414) 459-4360; Fax (414) 459-2942
Dave Graczyk
USGS Water Resources Division
6417 Normandy Lane
Madison, WI 53719
(608) 276-3833; Fax (608) 276-3817
156
-------
Otter Creek, Wisconsin
Information and
Education
AndyYenscha
University of Wisconsin - Extension
1304 S. 70th St., Suite 228
WestAllis,WI 53214
(414) 475-2877
REFERENCES
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1987. AN Improved Biotic Index Of Organic Stream Pollution.
The Great Lakes Entomologist, p. 31-39.
Lyons, J. 1992. USingThe Index OfBiotic Integity (ibi) To Measure The Envi-
ronmental Quality Of Warmwater Streams In Wisconsin. US Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, General
Technical Report NC-149. 51p.
Simonson, T.D., J. Lyons, and P.D. Kanehl. 1994 . Guidelines For Evaluating
Fish Habitat In Wisconsin Streams. US Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report
NC-164. 36p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1993a. Otter Creek Evaluation
Monitoring Project. Bureau of Water Resources Management, Nonpoint
Sources and Land Management Section, Madison, Wisconsin, 27p.
157
-------
-------
Appendices
159
-------
-------
Appendix I
Minimum Reporting Requirements
For Section 319 National Monitoring
Program Projects
161
-------
-------
Appendix I: Minimum Reporting Requirements
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U SEP A) has developed
the NonPoint Source Management System (NPSMS) software to support the
required annual reporting of water quality and implementation data for Section
319 National Monitoring Program projects (USEPA, 1991). The software
tracks NFS control measure implementation with respect to the pollutants
causing the water quality problem.
Currently, NPSMS can accept and track the following information (USEPA,
1991):
Management Area Description:
• State, USEPA Region, and lead agency.
• Watershed management area description (management area name,
management area identification, participating agencies, area
description narrative).
• 305 (b) waterbodyname and identification.
• Designated use support for the waterbody.
• Major pollutants causing water quality problems in waterbody and
relative source contributions from point, nonpoint, and background
sources.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Nonpoint Source (NFS) Pol-
lution Control Measures:
• Best management practices (BMP name, reporting units,
indication whether the life of the practice is annual or multi-year).
• Land treatment implementation goals for management area.
• Pollutant source(s) causing impaired use(s) that is (are) controlled
by each BMP. Each control practice must be linked directly to the
control of one or more sources of pollutants causing impaired uses.
Funding Information:
• Annual contributions from each funding source and use of funding
for each management area.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan:
• Choice of monitoring approach (chemical/physical or biological/habitat).
• Monitoring design and monitoring station identification (paired water-
sheds, up stream-downstream, reference site for biological/habitat moni-
toring, single downstream station). The paired watershed approach is
recommended; the single downstream station is discouraged.
• Drainage area and land use for each water quality monitoring station.
• Delineation of monitoring year, seasons, and monitoring program dura-
tion.
• Variables measured (variable name; indication if the variable is an explana-
tory variable; STORET, BIOSTORET, or 305(b) WaterbodySystem code;
reporting units).
163
-------
Appendix I: Minimum Reporting Requirements
Quartile values for chemical/physical variables. Quartile values are estab-
lished cutoffs based on historical or first-year data for each season and
monitoring station.
Maximum potential and reasonable attainment scores for biological moni-
toring variables. Indices scores that correspond to full, threatened, and
partial use supports are required.
Monitoring frequency. Chemical/physical monitoring, with associated ex-
planatory variables, must be performed with at least 20 evenly-spaced grab
samples in each season. Fishery surveys must be performed at least one to
three times per year. Benthic macroinvertebrates must be performed at
least once per season, with at least one to three replicates or composites
per sample. Habitat monitoring and bioassays must be performed at least
once per season.
Annual Reporting:
• The NPSMS software is used to report annual summary information. The
raw'chemical/physical and biological/habitat data are required to be en-
tered into STORET and BIOSTORET, respectively.
• Annual chemical/physical and explanatory variables. The frequency count
for each quartile is reported for each monitoring station, season, and
variable.
• Annual biological/habitat and explanatory variables. The scores for each
monitoring station and season are reported.
• Implementation tracking in the watershed and/or subwatersheds that con-
stitute the drainage areas for each monitoring station. Implementation
reported corresponds to active practices in the reporting year and includes
practices with a one-year life span and practices previously installed and
still being maintained.
REFERENCES
USEPA. 1991. Watershed Monitoring and Reporting for Section 319 National
Monitoring Program Projects. Assessment and Watershed Protection Division,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, USEPA, Washington, D.C.
164
-------
Appendix II
Abbreviations
165
-------
-------
Appendix II: Abbreviations
ACP Agricultural Conservation Program
ADSWQ Automatic Data System for Water Quality
AGNPS Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Pollution Model
ASCS Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service, USD A
BMP(s) Best Management Practice(s)
BIOS USEPA Natural Biological Data
Management System
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Cai Poly California Polytechnic State University
CES Cooperative Extension Service, USDA
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
CU Copper
DO Dissolved Oxygen
EPIC Erosion Productivity Index Calculator
FC Fecal Coliform Bacteria
GIS Geographic Information System
GRASS Geographic Resources Analysis Support System
HUA Hydrologic Unit Area
I&E Information and Education Programs
ICM ,., Integrated Crop Management
IDNR Iowa Department of Natural
Resources
IDNR-GSB Iowa Department of Natural
Resources Geological Survey
Bureau
ISUE Iowa State University Extension
ISWS Illinois State Water Survey
LRNRD Lower Republican Natural Resource
District
LT , Land Treatment
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
m/1 Milligrams Per Liter
N , Nitrogen
NA Information Not Available
NCSU North Carolina State University
NDEQ Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality
167
-------
Appendix II: Abbreviations
NH4 Ammonium - Nitrogen
NOa Nitrite-Nitrogen
NOs Nitrate -Nitrogen
NFS Nonpoint Source
NPSMS NonPoint Source Management System
OP Orthophosphorus
Pb Lead
Proj Mgt Project Management
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RCWP Rural Clean Water Program
SCS Soil Conservation Service, USDA
Section 319 Section 319 of the Water Quality Act of
1987
SS Suspended Sediment
STORET EPA STOrage and RETrieval Data
Base for Water Quality
SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District
IDS Total Dissolved Solids
TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TN Total Nitrogen
TOC Total Organic Carbon
TP Total Phosphorus
TSS Total Suspended Solids
UHL University Hygienic Laboratory
(Iowa)
USDA United States Department of
Agriculture
USEPA United States Environmental
Protection Agency
USGS United States Geologic Survey
VSS Volatile Suspended Solids
WATSTORE United States Geological Survey
Water Data Storage System
WQ Monit Water Quality Monitoring
WQIP Water Quality Incentive Program
WQSP Water Quality Special Project
Zn Zinc
168
-------
Appendix III
Glossary of Terms
169
-------
-------
Aooendix III: Glossary of Terms
AGNPS (Ag/icultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Model) - an event-based, wa-
tershed-scale model developed to simulate runoff, sediment, chemical oxygen
demand, and nutrient transport in surface runoff from ungaged agricultural
watersheds.
Animal unit (AU) - One mature cow weighing 454 kg or the equivalent. For
instance, a dairy cow is 1.4 AU because it weighs almost 1.5 times a mature beef
cow. The animal units of smaller animals than beef cows is less than one: pigs
= 0.4 AU and chickens = 0.033 AU.
Anadromous - Fish that return to their natal fresh water streams to spawn.
Once hatched, these fish swim to the ocean and remain in salt water until sexual
maturity.
Artificial redds - An artificial egg basket fabricated of extruded PVC netting and
placed in a constructed egg pocket. Artificial redds are used to measure the
development of fertilized fish eggs to the alevin stage (newly hatched fish).
Alachlor- Herbicide (trade name Lasso) that is used to control most annual
grasses and certain broadleaf weeds and yellow nutsedge in corn, soybeans,
peanuts, cotton, woody fruits, and certain ornamentals.
Atmzine - Herbicide (trade name Atrex, Gesa prim, or Primatol) that is a widely
used for control of broadleaf and grassy weeds in corn, sorghum, sugar cane,
macadamia orchards, pineapple, and turf grass sod.
Autocorrelation - The correlation between adjacent observations in time or
space.
Bedload - Sediment or other material that slides, rolls, or bounces along a
stream or channel bed of flowing water.
Before-after design - A term referring to monitoring designs that require collec-
tion of data before and after BMP implementation.
Beneficial uses - Desirable uses of a water resource such as recreation (fishing,
boating, swimming) and water supply.
Best management practices (BMPs) - Practices or structures designed to reduce
the quantities of pollutants — such as sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, and
animal wastes — that are washed by rain and snow melt from farms into nearby
surface waters, such as lakes, creeks, streams, rivers, and estuaries. Agricultural
BMPs can include fairly simple changes in practices such as fencing cows out of
streams (to keep animal waste out of streams), planting grass in gullies where
water flows off a planted field (to reduce the amount of sediment that runoff
water picks up as it flows to rivers and lakes), reducing the amount of plowing
in fields where row crops are planted (in order to reduce soil erosion and loss
of nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizers applied to the crop land). BMPs can
also involve building structures, such as large animal waste storage tanks that
allow farmers to choose when to spread manure on their fields as opposed to
having to spread it based on the volume of manure accumulated.
171
-------
Appendix III: Glossary of Terms
BMP system - A combination of individual BMPs into a "system" that functions
to reduce the same pollutant.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) - Quantitative measure of the strength of
contamination by organic carbon materials.
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) - Quantitative measure of the strength of
contamination by organic and inorganic carbon materials.
Cost sharing- The practice of allocating project funds to pay a percentage of the
cost of constructing or implementing a BMP. The remainder of the costs are
paid by the producer.
County ASC Committee - County Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Committee: a county-level committee, consisting of three elected members of
the farming community in a particular county, responsible for prioritizing and
approving practices to be cost shared and for overseeing dissemination of
cost-share funds by the local USDA-Agricultural Stabilization and Conserva-
tion Service office.
Critical area - Area or source of nonpoint source pollutants identified in the
project area as having the most significant impact on the impaired use of the
receiving waters.
Demonstration project - A project designed to install or implement pollution
control practices primarily for educational or promotional purposes. These
projects often involve no, or very limited, evaluations of the effectiveness of the
control practices.
Designated use - Uses specified in terms of water quality standards for each
water body or segment.
Drainage area - An area of land that drains to one point.
Ecoregion - A physical region that is defined by its ecology, which includes
meteorological factors, elevation, plant and animal speciation, landscape posi-
tion, and soils.
EPIC (Erosion Productivity Index Calculator) - A mechanistic computer model
that calculates erosion from field-size watersheds.
Erosion - Wearing away of rock or soil by the gradual detachment of soil or rock
fragments by water, wind, ice, and other mechanical or chemical forces.
Eskers - Glacially deposited gravel and sand that form ridges 30 to 40 feet in
height.
Explanatory variables - Explanatory variables, such as climatic, hydrological,
land use, or additional water quality variables, that change over time and could
affect the water quality variables related to the primarypollutant(s) of concern
or the use impairment being measured. Specific examples of explanatory vari-
172
-------
Appendix III: Glossary of Terms
ables are season, precipitation, streamflow, ground water table depth, salinity
pH, animal units, cropping patterns, and impervious land surface.
Fecal coliform (FC) - Colon bacteria that are released in fecal material. Spe-
cifically, this group comprises all of the aerobic and facultative anaerobic,
gram-negative, nonspore-forming, rod-shaped bacteria that ferment lactose
with gas formation with 48 hours at 35 degrees Celsius.
Fertilizer management - A BMP designed to minimize the contamination of
surface and ground water by limiting the amount of nutrients (usually nitrogen)
applied to the soil to no more than the crop is expected to use. This may involve
changing fertilizer application techniques, placement, rate, and timing.
Geographic information systems (GIS) - computer programs linking features
commonly seen on maps (such as roads, town boundaries, water bodies) with
related information not usuallypresented on maps, such as type of road surface,
population, type of agriculture, type of vegetation, or water quality information.
A GIS is a unique information system in which individual observations can be
spatially referenced to each other.
Goal - a narrowly focused measurable or quantitative milestone used to assess
progress toward attainment of an objective.
Land treatment - The whole range of BMPs implemented to control or reduce
NFS pollution.
Loading- The influx of pollutants to a selected water body.
Macroinvertebrate - Any non-vertebrate organism that is large enough to been
seen without the aid of a microscope.
Mechanistic - Step-by-step path from cause to effect with ability to make
linkages at each step.
Moraine - Glacial till (materials deposited directly by ice) which is generally
irregularly deposited.
Nitrogen - An element occurring in manure and chemical fertilizer that is
essential to the growth and development of plants, but which, in excess, can
cause water to become polluted and threaten aquatic animals.
Nonpoint source (NFS) pollution - Pollution originating from diffuse areas (land
surface or atmosphere) having no well-defined source.
Nonpoint source pollution controls - General phrase used to refer to all methods
employed to control or reduce nonpoint source pollution.
NonPoint Source Management System (NPSMS) - A software system designed
to facilitate information tracking and reporting for the USEPA 319 National
Monitoring Program.
173
-------
Appendix III: Glossary of Terms
Objective - A focus and overall framework or purpose for a project or other
endeavor, which may be further defined by one or more goals.
Paired watershed design - In this design, two watersheds with similar physical
characteristics and, ideally, land use are monitored for one to two years to
establish pollutant-runoffresponse relationships for each watershed. Following
this initial calibration period, one of the watersheds receives treatment while the
other (control) watershed does not. Monitoring of both watersheds continues
for one to three years. This experimental design accounts for many factors that
may affect the response to treatment; as a result, the treatment effect alone can
be isolated.
Pesticide management - A BMP designed to minimize contamination of soil,
water, air, and nontarget organisms by controlling the amount, type, placement,
method, and timing of pesticide application necessary for crop production.
Phenopthalein alkalinity - A measure of the bicarbonate content.
Phosphorus - An element occurring in animal manure and chemical fertilizer
that is essential to the growth and development of plants, but which, in excess,
can cause water to become polluted and threaten aquatic animals.
Post-BMP implementation - The period of use and/or adherence to the BMP.
Pre-BMP implementation - The period prior to the use of a BMP.
Runoff- The portion of rainfall or snow melt that drains off the land into ditches
and streams.
Sediment - Particles and/or clumps of particles of sand, clay, silt, and plant or
animal matter carried in water.
Sedimentation - Deposition of sediment.
Single-station design - A water quality monitoring design that utilizes one station
at a point downstream from the area of BMP implementation to monitor
changes in water quality.
Subbasins - One of several basins that form a watershed.
Substrate sampling- Sampling of streambeds to determine the percent of fine
particled material and the percent of gravel.
Subwatershed - A drainage area within the project watershed. It can be as small
as a single field or as large as almost the whole project area.
TaUwater management - The practice of collecting runoff, "tailwater," from
irrigated fields. Tailwater is reused to irrigate crops.
Targeting - The process of prioritizing pollutant sources for treatment with
BMPs or a specific BMP to maximize the water quality benefit from the
implemented BMPs.
174
-------
Appendix IH: Glossary of Terms
Total alkalinity - A measure of the titratable bases, primarily carbonate, bicar-
bonate, and hydroxide.
Total kjeldahl nitmgen (TKN) - An oxidative procedure that converts organic
nitrogen forms to ammonia by digestion with an acid, catalyst, and heat.
Total kjeldahl phosphorus (TKP) - An oxidative procedure that converts organic
phosphorus forms to phosphate by digestion with an acid, catalyst, and heat.
Tracking- Documenting/recording the location and timing of BMP implemen-
tation.
Upstream/downstream design - A water quality monitoring design that utilizes
two water quality monitoring sites. One station is placed directlyupstream from
the area where the implementation will occur and the second is placed directly
downstream from that area.
Vadose zone - The part of the soil solum that is generally unsaturated.
Variable - A water quality constituent (for example, total phosphorus pollutant
concentration) or other measured factors (such as stream flow, rainfall).
Watershed - The area of land from which rainfall (and/or snow melt) drains into
a stream or other water body. Watersheds are also sometimes referred to as
drainage basins. Ridges of higher ground generally form the boundaries be-
tween watersheds. At these boundaries, rain falling on one side flows toward the
low point of one watershed, while rain falling on the other side of the boundary
flows toward the low point of a different watershed.
175
-------
-------
Appendix IV
Project Documents And
Other Relevant Publications
177
-------
. Appendix IV: Project Documents
This appendix contains references to publications addressing the Section 319
National Monitoring Program projects. Project document lists appear in alpha-
betical order by state. All lists are organized in alphabetical order.
178
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
OAK CREEK CANYON
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. April 1991. Oak Creek Water-
shed. NFS 319 Project. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Non-
point Source Program.
Harrison, T.D. 1994. The Oak Creek 319(h) Demonstration Project: National
Monitoring Program Work Plan. The Northern Arizona University Oak Creek
Watershed Team.
CALIFORNIA MORRO BAY WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1993. Nonpoint Source
Pollution and Treatment Measure Evaluation forthe Mono Bay Watershed.
Haltiner, J. 1988. Sedimentation Processes in Mom Bay, California. Prepared
by Philip Williams and Associates for the Coastal San Luis Resource Conserva-
tion District with funding by the California Coastal Conservancy.
SCS. 1989a. Morro Bay Watershed Enhancement Plan. Soil Conservation Serv-
ice.
SCS. 1989b. Erosion and Sediment Study Morro Bay Watershed. Soil Conser-
vation Service.
SCS. 1992. FY-92 Annual Progress Report Morro Bay Hydrologic Unit Area.
Soil Conservation'Service.
The Morro Bay Group. 1987. Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Final Envi-
ronmental Impact Report. County of San Luis Obispo, Government Center.
The Morro Bay Group. 1990. Freshwater Influences on Morro Bay, San Luis
Obispo County, California. Prepared for the Bay Foundation of Morro Bay,
P.O. Box 1020, Morro Bay, CA 93443.
USEPA. California's Higi on Coastal Nonpoint Source Karma! 1991. In EPA
News-Notes, # 14.
Worcester, K. 1994. Morro Bay, California: Everyone's Pitching In. In EPA
News-Notes, # 35.
Worcester, K., T.J. Rice, and J.B. Mullens. 1994. Morro Bay Watershed 319
National Monitoring Program Project. NWQEP Notes 63:1-3. North Carolina
State University Water Quality Group, North Carolina Cooperative Extension
Service, Raleigh, NC.
179
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
IDAHO EASTERN SNAKE RIVER PLAIN
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Brook, R.H. 1993. Idaho Snake River Plain USDA Water Quality Demonstration
Project Newsletter. Water Line: Vol 2., No. 4.
Brook, R.H. 1994. Idaho Snake River Plain USDA Water Quality Demonstration
Project Newsletter. Water Line: Vol 3., No. 2.
Camp, S.D. 1992. Management Practices on Your Farm: A Survey ofMinidoka
and Cassia County fanners about theirfarmingpractices. The Idaho Snake River
Water Quality Demonstration Project.
Camp, S.D. 1992. Urban Survey: Minidoka and Cassia County.. Idaho Snake
River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project.
Camp, S.D. 1993. Idaho Snake River Plain USDA Water Quality Demonstra-
tion Project Newsletter. Water Line: Vol 2., No. 1.
Cardwell, J. 1992. Idaho Snake River Plain USDA Water Quality Demonstration
Project Water Quality Monitoring Prog-am DRAFT. Idaho Division of Environ-
mental Quality.
Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. 1991. Plan of
Work. April 1991.
Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. 1991. FY 1991
Annual Report.
Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. 1992. FY 1992
Annual Report.
Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. 1991. FY 1992
Plan of Operations.
Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. 1992. FY 1993
Plan of Operations.
Mullens, J.B. 1993. Snake River Plain, Idaho, Section 319 National Monitoring
Program Project. NWQEP Notes 61:5-6. North Carolina State University
Water Quality Group, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh,
N.C.
Osiensky, J. 1992. Ground Water Monitoring Plan: Snake River Plain, Water
Quality Demonstration Projects. University of Idaho and Idaho Water Re-
sources Research Institute.
Osiensky, J.L. and M.F. Baker. 1993. Annual Progress Report: Ground Water
Monitoring Prog-am for the Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration
Project, February 1,1992 through January 31,1993. University of Idaho and Idaho
Water Resources Research Institute.
180
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Osiensky, J. and M.F. Long. 1992. Quarterly Process Report for the Ground
Water Monitoring Plan: Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration
Project. University of Idaho and Idaho Water Resources Research Institute.
ILLINOIS LAKE PITTSFIELD
SECTION 319 PROJECT
(Approval Pending as a 319 National Monitoring Program Project)
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Lake Pittsfield. Watershed
Watch l(l):4-6.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Lake Pittsfield Project Draws
International Attention. Watershed Watch l(2):l-2.
Illinois State Water Survey. 1993. Lake Pittsfield: Watershed MonitoringProject.
Illinois State Water Survey, Peoria, IL.
State of Illinois. 1992. Environmental Protection Agpncy Intergovernmental
Agreement No. FWN-3019.
State of Illinois. 1993. Environmental Protection Agency Intergovernmental
Agreement No. FWN-3020
IOWA SNY MAGILL WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 1991. SnyMagill Watershed Nonpoint
Source Pollution Monitoring Project Workplan. Iowa Department of Natural
Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, November, 1991.
Littke, J.P. and G.R. Hallberg. 1991. Big Spring Basin Water Quality Monitoring
Program.-Design and Implementation. Open File Report 91-1, Iowa Department
of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, July 1991, 19p.
Schueller, M.D., M.C. Hausler and J.O. Kennedy. 1992. Sny Magill Creek
Nonpoint Source Pollution MonitoringProject: 1991 Benthic BiomonitoringPilot
Study Results. University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory, Limnology Section,
Report No. 92-5. 78p.
Schueller, M.D., M.W. Birmingham and J.O. Kennedy. 1993. SnyMagill Creek
Nonpoint Source Pollution MonitoringProject: 1992 Benthic BiomonitoringRe-
sults. University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory, Limnology Section, Report No.
93-2. In Press.
Seigley, L.S. and D.J. Quade. 1992. Northeast Iowa Well Inventory Completed.
Water Watch, December 1992. p. 2-3.
181
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Seigley, L.S., G.R. Hallberg and J.A. Gale. 1993. SnyMagill Watershed (Iowa)
Section 319 National MonitoringPrvgram Project. NWQEP Notes 58:5-7. North
Carolina State University Water Quality Group, Cooperative Extension Serv-
ice, Raleigh, N.C.
Seigley, L.S., G.R. Hallberg, T. Wilton, M.D. Schueller, M.C. Hausler, J.O.
Kennedy, G. Wunder, R.V. Link, and S.S. Brown. 1992. SnyMagill Watershed
Nonpoint Source Pollution MonitoringProject Workplan. Open File Report 92-1,
Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, August
1992.
SCS. 1986. North Cedar Creek Critical Area Treatment and Water Quality Im-
provement: Clayton County Soil Conservation District, Iowa Department of
Natural Resources, and the Upper Exploreland Resource Conservation and
Development Area. 31p.
SCS. 1991. Sny Magill Creek Cold Water Stream Water Quality Improvement
Agricultural Non-Point Source Hydmlogic Unit Area: Fiscal Year 1991. Hydro-
logic Unit Plan of Operations, Iowa State University Extension, Iowa Agricul-
tural Stabilization and Conservation Service, 15p.
SCS. 1992. Sny Magill Creek Cold Water Stream Water Quality Improvement
Agricultural Non-Point Source Hydrohgic Unit Area: Fiscal Year 1992. Hydro-
logic Unit Plan of Operations, Iowa State University Extension, Iowa Agricul-
tural Stabilization and Conservation Service. 15p.
University of Iowa, State Hygienic Laboratory. 1977. Summer Water Quality of
the Upper Mississippi River Tributaries, 77-20. 9p.
University of Iowa, State Hygienic Laboratory. 1977. Summer Water Quality
Survey of the Bloody Run Creek and SnyMagill Creek Basins, 79-14. 24p.
MARYLAND WARNER CREEK WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Shirmohammadi, A. and W.L. Magette. 1993. Modeling the Hydrohgic and
Water Quality Response of the Mixed Land Use Basin: Background Data and
Revision to the Monitoring Design.
Shirmohammadi, A. and W.L. Magette. 1994. Work Plan for Monitoring and
Modeling Water Quality Response of the Mixed Land Use Basin.
Shirmohammadi, A. and W.L. Magette. 1994. Work Plan for Monitoring and
Modeling Water Quality Response of the Mixed Land Use Basin: FY 91 Annual
Report.
182
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
MICHIGAN SYCAMORE CREEK WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. TMDL Case Study: Sycamore Creek,
Michigan. EPA 841-F-92-012, Number 7.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1990.^4 Biological Investigation of
Sycamore Creek and Tributaries, Ingham County, Michigan, May-August, 1989.
SCS/CES/ASCS. 1990. Sycamore Creek Watershed Water Quality Plan. Soil
Conservation Service, Michigan Cooperative Extension Service, Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service.
Suppnick, J.D. 1992. A Nonpoint Source Pollution Load Allocation for Syca-
more Creek, in Ingham County, Michigan; j/LL-TTie Proceedings of the WEF 65th
Annual Conference. Surface Water Quality Symposia. September 20-24, 1992.
New Orleans, p. 293-302.
Suppnick, J.D. 1993. Sycamore Creek 319 Monitoring Grant Annual Report.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division.
Suppnick, J.D. 1993. A Status Report on Michigan's Comprehensive Water
Quality Plan for Sycamore Creek; in WA TERSHED '93 Proceedings: A National
Conference on Watershed Management. USEPA 840-R-94-002.
Suppnick, J.D. and D.L.Osmond. 1993. Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan,
319NationalMonitoringProgram Project. NWQEP Notes 61:5-6. North Caro-
lina State University Water Quality Group, North Carolina Cooperative Exten-
sion Service, Raleigh, N.C.
Sycamore Creek Water Quality Program. \992.Annual Progress Report: Syca-
more Creek Water Quality Program .-Fiscal Year 1992. Ingham County, Michigan.
NEBRASKA ELM CREEK WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Elm Creek Project. 1991. Elm Creek Watershed Section 319 NPS Project: Over-
view and Workplan. Lower Republican Natural Resource District, Nebraska
Department of Environmental Control, Soil Conservation Service, Nebraska
Game and Park Commission, Cooperative Extension Service, Lincoln Ne-
braska.
Elm Creek Project. 1992. Elm Creek Watershed Section 319 NPS Project: Moni-
toring Project Plan. Nebraska Department of Environmental Control, Lincoln,
Nebraska.
Jensen, D. and C. Christiansen. 1983. Investigations of the Water Quality and
Water Quality Related Beneficial Uses of Elm Creek, Nebraska. Nebraska De-
partment of Environmental Control, Lincoln, Nebraska.
183
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Jensen, D., G. Michl, and D.L. Osmond. 1993. Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska,
Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project, NWQEP Notes 60:4-6.
North Carolina State University Water Quality Group, North Carolina Coop-
erative Extension Service, Raleigh, N.C.
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control. 1988. Surface Water Quality
Monitoring Strategy. Surface Water Section, Water Quality Division, Nebraska
Dept. Environmental Control, Lincoln, Nebraska, April 1988.
. 1991a. Title 117 - Nebraska Surface Water Quality Standards. Nebraska
Dept. of Environmental Control, Lincoln, Nebraska, September 15,1991.
. 1991b. Nebraska Stream Inventory. Surface Water Section, Water Quality
Division, Nebraska Dept. of Environmental Control, Lincoln, Nebraska.
(Draft)
. 1992. Procedure Manual. Surface Water Section, Water Quality Division,
Nebraska Dept. of Environmental Control, Lincoln, Nebraska. Revised and
Updated April 1992.
USEPA. 1991. Watershed Monitoring and Reporting for Section 319 National
Monitoring Program Projects. Assessment and Watershed Protection Division,
Office Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Office of Water, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Young, R.A., C.A. Onstad, D.D. Bosch, and W.P. Anderson. 1987. AGNPS,
Agricultural Non-point Source Pollution Model: A Watershed Analysis Tool.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Conservation Research Report 35. 80 p.
NORTH CAROLINA LONG CREEK WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Danielson, L.E., L.S. Smutko, and G.D. Jennings. 1991. An Assessment of Air,
Surface Water, and Groundwater Quality in Gaston County, North Carolina; is:
Proceedings of 'theNational Conference on Integrated WaterInformation Manage-
ment. USEPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC. p. 101-107.
Jennings, G.D., W.A. Harman, M.A. Burris, and F.J. Humenik. 1992. Long
Creek Watershed Nonpoint Source Water Quality Monitoring Project. Project
Proposal. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, NC. 21p.
Levi, M., D. Adams, V.P. Aneja, L. Danielson, H. Devine, T.J. Hoban, S.L.
Brichford, M.D. Smolen. 1990. Natural Resource Quality in a Gaston County.
Phase 1: Characterization of Air, Surface Water and Groundwater Quality. Final
Report. North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina. 174p.
184
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Levi, M., G.D. Jennings, D.E. Line, S.W. Coffey, L.S. Smutko, L. Danielson, S.S
Quin, H.A. Devine, T.J. Hoban, V.P. Aneja. 1992. Natural Resource Quality in
Gaston County - Phase 2: Implementation of Natural Resource Education and
Policy Development Programs - Final Report. North Carolina Cooperative Ex-
tension Service, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 181p. (plus a
stand alone Volume for Appendix 5 of 112p.)
Line, D.E. and S.W. Coffey. 1992. Targeting Critical Areas with Pollutant Runoff
Models and CIS. ASAE Paper No. 92-2015. American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan. 21p.
Line, D.E. 1993. LongCreek, North Carolina National 319MonitoringProgram
Project. NWQEP Notes:59,4-6. North Carolina State University Water Quality
Group, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, N.C.
Smutko, L.S. 1992. Evaluating the Feasibility of Local Wellhead Protection
Programs: Gaston County Case Study, p. 37-41. In: Proceedings oftheNational
Symposium on the Future Availability of Ground Water Resources. American
Water Resources Association, Bethesda, Maryland.
Smutko, L.S. and L.E. Danielson. 1992. An Evaluation of Local Policy Options
for Groundwater Protection; in: Proceedings of the National Symposium on the
Future Availability of Ground Water Resources. American Water Resources
Association, Bethesda, Maryland, p. 119-128.
Smutko, L.S. and L.E. Danielson. 1992. Involving Local Citizens in Developing
Groundwater Policy, in: Proceedings of the National Symposium on the Future
Availability of Ground Water Resources. American Water Resources Associa-
tion, Bethesda, Maryland, p. 185-188.
Smutko, L.S., L.E. Danielson, and W.A. Harman. 1992. Integration of a
Geographic Information System in Extension Public Policy Education: A North
Carolina Pilot Program; in: Computers in Agricultural Extension Programs, Pro-
ceedings of the Fourth International Conference. Florida Cooperative Extension
Service, University of Florida, Gainesville,Florida. p. 658-663.
Smutko, L.S., L.E. Danielson, J.M. McManus, and H.A. Devine. 1992. Use of
Geographic Information System Technology in Delineating Wellhead Protec-
tion Areas; in: Proceedings of the National Symposium on the Future A vailability
of Ground Water Resources. American Water Resources Association, Be-
thesda, Maryland, p. 375-380.
PENNSYLVANIA PEQUEA AND MILL CREEK WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Line, D.E.. 1994. Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed Section 319 National
Monitoring Program Project. NWQEP Notes 65:3-4. North Carolina State
University Water Quality Group, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Serv-
ice, Raleigh, N.C.
U.S. Geological Survey. Pequea and Mill Creek Watersheds Project Proposal.
1993. USGS.
185
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
VERMONT LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Budd, L. and D.W. Meals. 1994. Lake Champlain Nonpoint Source Pollution
Assessment. Technical Report No. 6, Lake Champlain Basin Program, Grand
Isle, Vermont.
State of Vermont. 1993. Lake Champlain Agricultural Watersheds BMP Imple-
mentation and Effectiveness Monitoring Project: Section 319 National Monitor-
ingProgram.
WISCONSIN OTTER CREEK
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1982. Using a Biotic Index to Evaluate Water Quality in
Streams. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Technical Bulletin No.
132, Madison Wisconsin. 22p.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1987. An improved Biotic Index of organic stream pollution.
The Great Lakes Entomologist, p. 31-39.
Lyons, J. 1992. Using the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) to Measure the Environ-
mental Quality of Warmwater Streams in Wisconsin. US Department of Agricul-
ture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, General
Technical Report NC-149. 51p.
Simonson, T.D., J. Lyons, and P.D. Kanehl. 1994 . Guidelines for Evaluating
Fish Habitat in Wisconsin Streams. US Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report
NC-164. 36p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1993. Otter Creek Evaluation
Monitoring Project. Bureau of Water Resources Management, Nonpoint
Sources and Land Management Section, Madison , Wisconsin. 27p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1993. Nonpoint Source Control
Plan for the Sheboygan River Priority Watershed Project. Bureau of Water
Resources Management, Nonpoint Sources and Land Management Section,
Madison, Wisconsin. 227p.
186
------- |