1995 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 Jo Beth Mullens Daniel E. Line
Steven W. Coffey Judith A. Gale Jean Spooner
Jean Spooner, Group Leader - Co-Principal Investigator
Frank J. Humeriik, 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 1995
-------
Disclaimer
This publication was developed by the North Carolina State University Water Quality Group, 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. The mention of trade names for products or software does not
constitute their endorsement.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank all project personnel of the 319 National Monitoring Program projects, who
have provided information, updated profiles, and reviewed documents. Additional thanks to Cathy Akroyd,
who edited this publication, to Jim Roberson, who provided the graphics, and to Jill Saligoe-Simmel for
compiling the matrix in Appendix V. We would also like to thank the following people for their contributions
to the Third National Nonpoint Source Watershed Monitoring Workshop Proceedings in Chapter 3 of this
document: Lynette Seigley, Martha Burris, Greg Jennings, Scott Montgomery, Rick Mollahan, Joan
Drinkwin, Rick Hafele, Randy Brooks, Robin Woods, Daniel Salzler, Karen Worcester, Dave Paradies, Todd
Stuntebeck, Linda Hofstad, Sue Davis, Thomas Harrison, Roger Bannerman, Will Harman, Michelle Baker,
Stanley Miller, Kerry Rappold, Walt Bremer, Jim Karr, Leska Fore, Jack Clausen, Kathleen Kilian, Don
Meals, Pat Lietman, Pete Richards, John McCoy, Richard Gannon, and Janet Young.
This publication should be cited as follows: Osmond, D.L., J.B. Mullens, D.E. Line, S.W. Coffey, J.A. Gale,
and J. Spooner. 1995.1995 Summary Report: Section 319 National Monitoring Program Projects,
Nonpoint Source Watershed Project Studies, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural
Engineering Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Desktop Publishing and Design by:
Janet Young
-------
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 2: Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project Profiles 5
Arizona — Oak Creek Canyon
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 7
California — Morro Bay Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 21
Idaho — Eastern Snake River Plain
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 35
Illinois — Lake Pittsfield
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 49
Iowa — Sny Magill Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 59
Maryland — Warner Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 75
Michigan — Sycamore Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project ..83
Nebraska — Elm Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 95
North Carolina — Long Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 109
Oklahoma — Peacheater Creek
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 121
Pennsylvania — Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 129
Vermont — Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 139
Washington — Totten and Eld Inlet
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 151
Wisconsin - Otter Creek
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 161
111
-------
Chapter 3: Proceedings of the Third Annual Section 319
National Monitoring Program Conference 171
Chapter 4: Rural Clean Water Program Technology Transfer Fact Sheets 237
1. Contributions and Successes of the
Rural Clean Water Program 239
2. Planning and Managing a Successful '.
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Project 245
3. Selecting an Agricultural Water Quality Project 251
4. Identifying and Documenting a Water Quality Problem 257
5. Critical Areas in Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control Projects 263
6. Systems of Best Management Practices for
Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution 269
7. The Role of Information and Education in Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Projects 275
8. Farmer Participation in Solving the Nonpoint
Source Pollution Problem 281
9. Monitoring Land Treatment in Agricultural Nonpoint
Source Pollution Control Projects 287
10. Linking Water Quality Trends with
Land Treatment Trends 293
Appendices • 299
I. Minimum Reporting Requirements for
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Projects 301
II. Abbreviations 303
III. Glossary of Terms 307
IV. Project Documents and Other Relevant Publications 313
V. Matrix for Section 319
National Monitoring Program Projects 335
IV
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Field Map
Field Map
Figure 7:
Figure 8:
Figure 9:
Figure 10:
Figure 11:
Figure 12:
Figure 13:
Figure 14:
Figure 15:
Figure 16:
Figure 17:
Figure 18:
Figure 19:
Figure 20:
Oak Creek Canyon (Arizona) Project Location
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
1: (Idaho)
2: (Idaho)
Lake Pittsfield (Illinois) Location
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 ...
Elm Creek (Nebraska) Watershed
Project Location
...7
...8
.21
.22
.35
.36
.47
.48
.49
.50
.59
.60
.75
,.76
..83
Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Elm Creek (Nebraska) Watershed
Long Creek (North Carolina) Watershed
Project Location
Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Long Creek (North Carolina) Watershed
Peacheater Creek (Oklahoma)
Project Location
Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Peacheater Creek (Oklahoma) Watershed.
..84
..95
..96
109
,110
.121
.122
-------
List of Figures (Continued)
Figure 21: Pequea and Mill Creek (Pennsylvania) Watershed
Project Location 129
Figure 22: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Pequea and
Mill Creek (Pennsylvania) Watershed : 130
Figure 23: Lake Champlain Basin (Vermont) Watersheds
Project Location 139
Figure 24: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Lake Champlain Basin (Vermont) Watersheds. 140
Figure 25: Totten and Eld Inlet (Washington)
Project Location 151
Figure 26: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Totten and Eld Inlet (Washington) 152
Figure 27: Otter Creek (Wisconsin) Watershed
Project Location 161
Figure 28: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Otter Creek (Wisconsin) 162
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 Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) Section 319 National Monitoring Program is de-
signed 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
NPS 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 NPS 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 NPS 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 NPS 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.
Well-established institutional arrangements and multi-year, up-front funding
for project planning and implementation.
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
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 Moni-
toring Program projects (USEPA, 1991). These requirements should be considered
minimum guidelines for those projects whose objective is to evaluate water quality
changes at a watershed or subwatershed level occurring as a result of land treat-
ment 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 thirteen Section 319 National Monitor-
ing Program projects and one ground water pilot project approved as of October
31,1995 (Chapter 2). Project profiles were prepared by the North Carolina State
University (NCSU) Water Quality Group under the USEPA grant entitled
Nonpoint Source Watershed Project Studies, and by the Oregon State University
Water Resource Research Institute. Profiles have been reviewed and edited by
personnel associated with each project.
The thirteen surface water monitoring projects selected as Section 319 National
Monitoring Program projects are Peacheater Creek (Oklahoma), Warner Creek
Watershed (Maryland), Totten and Eld Inlet (Washington), Elm Creek (Nebraska),
Lake Champlain (Vermont), Lake Pittsfield (Illinois), Long Creek (North Caro-
lina)., Morro Bay (California), Oak Creek Canyon (Arizona), Otter Creek (Wis-
consin), Pequea and Mill Creek (Pennsylvania), Sny Magill (Iowa), and Sycamore
Creek (Michigan). The fourteenth project, Snake River Plain, Idaho, is a pilot
ground water project.
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 quality monitoring pro-
gram is outlined. Project budgets and project contacts are also included in the
description.
Proceedings of the Third Annual Section 319 National Monitoring Program
conference, held in Seattle, Washington, from October 2-6, 1995, are contained in
Chapter 3. Chapter 4 consists often fact sheets on agricultural nonpoint source
pollution control concepts developed from the Rural Clean Water Program.
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. Appendix V contains a matrix for the Section 319
National Monitoring Program Projects.
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
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. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
-------
Chapter 2
Section 319
National Monitoring Program
Project Profiles
-------
i Chapter 2: Project Profiles
This chapter contains a profile of each of the Section 319 National Monitoring
Program projects approved as of October 31, 1995 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 monitoring; 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.
-------
Arizona
Oak Creek Canyon
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 1: Oak Creek Canyon (Arizona) Project Location
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Sampling Site (Upstream]
Sampling Sile (Downstream}
Stream
Watershed Boundary
Figure 2: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Oak Creek Canyon (Arizona)
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Oak Creek flows through the southern rim of the Colorado Plateau (Figure 1). 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 that extends from the city limits of Sedona to the
Mogollon Rim, thirteen miles northward. Although Oak Creek Canyon watershed
encompasses 5,833 acres, only 907 primarily recreational acres are considered
critical for the Oak Creek Canyon water.
The Oak Creek National Monitoring Program project focuses on the implementa-
tion 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 and Pine Flats Campground accommodates
approximately 10,000 campers each season. Such use at both locations causes
excess fecal coliform and nutrient levels in 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 implemented at Slide Rock State Park and Pine Flats Campground
include enhanced restroom facilities, better litter control through more intense
monitoring by State Park officials of park visitors, and the promotion of visitor
compliance with park and campground regulations on facilities' use, littering, and
waste disposal. The BMPs 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 is used to
evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs for improving water quality at Slide Rock State
Park. Grasshopper Point, a managed water recreation area similar to Slide Rock
State Park, serves as the control. Water quality monitoring stations are located
upstream and downstream of both the Slide Rock (treatment) and Grasshopper
Point (control) swimming areas. A paired-site upstteam/downstream water quality
monitoring design is also used for Pine Flats Campground and Manzanita Camp-
ground. Pine Flats Campground is the treatment site, while Manzanita serves as
the control site. As before, monitoring stations are upstream/downstream of
campground sites. For these two studies, weekly grab samples are taken from May
15 through September 15 for seven years.
The Slide Rock Parking Lot study evaluates the effectiveness of a detention basin
designed to limit pollutants from entering the Creek. An event-based BMP-
effectiveness monitoring scheme is being used. Automatic samplers, triggered by
rainfall, have been installed at inflow and outflow points of the detention basin.
Each one collects samples of the first flush and composite periodic samples of the
rainfall.
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
Pre-Project
Water Quality
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 about 13 cubic feet per second
(cfs) at the study area, but increases to 60 cfs downstream at its confluence with
the Verde.
The study sites for this project are located in Oak Creek Canyon (Figure 1). 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 uniqueness: (1) Oak
Creek Canyon is susceptible to irreparable or irretrievable loss due to the ecologi-
cal fragility of 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 technical 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 Septem-
ber. Excessive nutrients, particularly phosphorus, which exceeds 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 and
consists of heavy metals (such as lead and zinc), petroleum hydrocarbons, and
total organic carbons. The pollution originates from the estimated four million
vehicles traveling along State Highway 89A each year, as well as from drainage of
numerous parking lots in the Oak Creek Canyon area during rainstorms and snow
melts. This threatens all designated uses.
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 Grass-
hopper Point, the two managed "swimming holes" in the area. Fecal coliform
counts peak in the summer during the height of the tourist season.
10
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Fecal Coliform Levels by Season
Fecal Coliform Count
Date (#7100 ml)
July 15 463.7
August 15 392.5
June 61.2
September 54.3
Nutrient levels, especially phosphorus, are also of concern, as shown below:
Pine Flats Campground phosphorus (P) concentrations (the annual average
standard is 0.10 mg/1)
Date
June, 1993
July, 1993
August, 1993
February, 1993
March, 1993
April, 1993
Slide Rock Parking Lot
Preliminary data suggest that the Slide Rock Parking Lot detention basin (a large,
baffled concrete vault) is contributing to environmental damage rather than
reducing it. Approximately four feet of stagnant water remains in the vault at all
times. The data collected (see table below) indicate that the heavy rainfall cleanses
the parking lot of pollutants and also flushes out significant amounts of pollutants
contained in the detention basin.
Water Quality of the Detention Basin
Time
Before Rain
July, 1993
After Rain
October, 1993
DO(mg/D
0.0
4.5
EH
4.79
6.6
Zn(ug/
222
38
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Water Recreation Project Objectives:
• A 50% reduction in fecal coliform
• A 20% reduction in nutrients, particularly ammonia
• A 20% reduction in total organic carbons corresponding with a reduction in
biological oxygen demand
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
11
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
None.
1994 to 2001
1994
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
Land Use
The entire Oak Creek watershed contains 300,000 acres. The project area, Oak
Creek Canyon, encompasses 5,833 acres. However, the critical area comprises
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 separated by long dry
periods. In a normal summer season, over twenty rainfall events 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 artesian. Within the Oak Creek watershed,
ground water flow is generally to the south, paralleling topography toward the low-
lying valley floor.
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 Program Work
Plan, 1994
Pollutant Source(s)
Modifications Since
Project Started
Pollutants in Oak Creek addressed in this study originate mainly from swimmers,
campers, and motor vehicles.
None.
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.
12
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
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 into areas of concern; and learn about the suggested BMPs that are being
implemented as part of the 319 National Monitoring Program.
With respect to the proposed Public Education Campaign for the Oak Creek
Canyon Section 319 National Monitoring Program project, the following events
have transpired:
• The U.S. Forest Service prepared a Public Education Plan for Slide Rock
State Park and hired a Public Education Specialist to continue and expand the
public education effort.
• The Arizona State Parks continue to develop a signage system and a brochure
aimed at educating Slide Rock visitors.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY
Slide Rock and Grasshopper Point (Water Recreation Project)
The access and ambience of restroom facilities located at the Slide Rock swim-
ming area are being enhanced. Park officials are attempting to reduce the amount
of trash disposal in unauthorized areas. Finally, social strategies have been imple-
mented to promote compliance with 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 campground
facilities. The BMPs implemented include the installation 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 help accomplish
these goals.
Modifications Since
Project Started
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 is cleaned out before and after the
rainy season. An aerobic environment within the basin has been promoted and
street sweeping of the parking lot is also occurring.
Subsequent to plan approval, and 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 Sendee,
Arizona Department of Transportation, Arizona Park Service and others, con-
firmed 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 to reduce future fecal
levels.
13
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
An instrument for sampling visitors was prepared for the 1994 tourist season.
However, Slide Rock State Park swimming area was closed for three weeks,
beginning August 26, 1994, when fecal coliform levels became sufficiently high to
pose a threat to public health (i.e. 3400 cfu/lOOml). The closing of Slide Rock
brought about a number of changes in the project. The Oak Creek Task Force was
immediately formed and a number of BMPs were rapidly implemented, including:
• Complete closure of Slide Rock State Park recreational water area for three
weeks.
• Erecting nearly one mile of permanent barricades on State Highway 89 A,
reducing the number of visitors having access by approximately one-half.
• Modernizing the single restroom located at the swimming area and
constructing a more convenient path to the facility.
• Restricting the number of swimmers in the water at one time to 100 from
September, 1994 through May, 1995. This BMP was based upon data
provided by Northern Arizona University, which showed a high correlation
between fecal coliform levels and number of swimmers in the water.
Perhaps most significantly, the Oak Creek Task Force formed two subgroups. The
Management Team has assumed responsibility for planning and implementing the
BMPs. The Sampling Team has responsibility for identifying pollutant sources,
measuring the effectiveness of BMPs, and extending the water quality monitoring
to other areas of Oak Creek Canyon. The unanticipated series of events have
crystallized the original National Monitoring Plan (NMP) plan with respect to
BMP planning and implementation.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
The water recreation project, which is a paired-site upstream/downstream monitor-
ing design, is used to document the change in water quality as a result of the
application of BMPs (Figure 2). The swimming sites at Slide Rock State Park
(treatment site) and Grasshopper Point (the control site) are the paired compari-
son. Water quality monitoring stations are located above and below each swim-
ming area.
The camping area project also uses 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. Upstream/downstream
water quality monitoring stations have been installed at both sites.
A BMP effectiveness water quality monitoring design is being used for the Slide
Rock Parking Lot study. Sampling will take place at the inflow point and the
outflow point of the detention basin.
The three-year post-BMP implementation phase entails 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 treat-
ment has reduced nonpoint source pollution.
None.
14
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Variables Measured
Slide Rock and Grasshopper Point (Water Recreation Project)
Biological
Fecal coliform
Chemical and Others
Nitrate (NOs-N)
Total phosphorus (TP)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Biological oxygen demand (BOD)
Explanatory Variables
Water temperature
Stream velocity and level
Number of users of the sites
Weekly precipitation
Pine Flats and Manzanita (Campgrounds Project)
Biological
Fecal coliform
Chemical and Other
Total nitrogen (TN)
Total phosphorus (TP)
Ammonia (Ntfe-N)
Nitrate (NOs-N)
Orthophosphate
Explanatory Variables
pH
Water temperature
Conductivity
Water flow rate
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Total dissolved solids
Precipitation
Slide Rock Parking Lot Project
Chemical and Other
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Biological oxygen demand (BOD)
Total phosphorus (TP)
Soluble phosphorus
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Nitrite (NOa-N)
Nitrate (NOs-N)
Lead (Pb)
Copper (Cu)
Zinc (Zn)
15
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Sampling Scheme
Explanatory Variables
Precipitation (Amount and Duration)
Runoff velocity
pH
Park attendance
Slide Rock/Grasshopper Point (Water Recreation Project)
and Pine Flats/Manzanita (Campgrounds Project)
Grab samples are collected weekly from May 15 through September 15. Samples
are taken in the deepest part of the stream at each sampling site the first Saturday
of every month from November through April.
Slide Rock Parking Lot Project
An event-based scheme is used to monitor runoff from the parking lot. An auto-
matic sampler has been placed at the inflow point of the detention basin and at the
outflow point of the basin. The samplers are triggered by rainfall events. A sample
of the "first flush" is deposited in the first bottle. Thereafter, a sample will be
taken every twenty minutes and composited in the second bottle, "post flush."
Sample bottles are 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
Design
Paired-site
upstream/
downstream
Paired-site
upstream/
downstream
Activity/
Sites*
Water Recreation
Slide Rock (T)
Grasshopper
Point (C)
Camping
Pine Flats (T)
Manzanita (C)
Variables
Sampled**
Fecal coliform
NOs-N
TP
Organic Carbons
Fecal coliforms
NO3-N
TP
Covariates***
Water temp.
PH
Level & flow
Rainfall
Visitor count
PH
Water temp.
Conductivity
Water flow rate
Dissolved oxygen
Total dissolved
solids
Weekly rainfall
Frequency Time
9/1 5-5/1 5 monthly 12pm- 5pm
5/15-9/15 weekly Saturdays
9/15-5/15 monthly; 12pm-5pm
5/15-9/15 weekly Saturdays
Duration
1-2 years pre-BMP
1-2 years BMP
3 years post-BMP
1-2 years pre-BMP
1-2 years BMP
3 years post-BMP
BMP
effectiveness
Parking Runoff
Slide Rock
Parking Lot
TSS, BOD, COD, pH Minimum of 20 event
TP, SP.TKN, Rainfall amt. driven samples with
NO2-N,NO3-N, Rainfall dur. priority to:
Cu, Pb, and Zn Runoff velocity 1. 7/4 to 9/15
Event driven;
usually in the
afternoon or
early evening
2. 9/15 to 7/4
2 years pre-BMP
1-2 years BMP
3 years post-BMP
* T «the treatment site; C = the control site
** Basic pollution parameters will remain constant throughout the 6-7 years of the project with the exception of the parking lot project. The number 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 vary with basic parameters will be dropped from statistical analysis after Year I of the project.
16
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
NPSMS Data
Summary
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
None.
The project team stores all raw data in STORET and reports the project results in
USEPA's Nonpoint Source Management System (NPSMS) software. Additionally,
data is entered in a Geographical Information System (GIS).
Currently unavailable.
None.
The DOS SYSTAT for Windows program (Wilkinson, Leland. SYSTAT: The
System for Statistics, Evanston, IL: SYSTAT, Inc., 1990) was used for statistical
analysis. Multiple correlations for each factor were obtained. Sufficient data points
(at least twenty for each factor) were available to provide valid and reliable data.
Generally, analysis revealed extremely high correlations for most water quality
parameters at all locations.
Project personnel have concluded that a significant amount (30.79%) of the
ammonia recorded at the Slide Rock downstream is deposited in the water column
between the upstream and downstream location. The ammonia source is uncon-
firmed. The most probable source is visitors urinating in the water or on the
terrain nearby; however, other possibilities have not been eliminated. Perhaps the
"black water" vault at the restroom is leaking. Ammonia may be released into the
water column from roiled sediments; however, the probability is slight since (1)
ammonia is highly soluble and retention in sediments is slight and (2) ammonia is
assimilated into the environment quite rapidly. Therefore, ammonia may be
produced from some other source. Ammonia source determination will continue.
Approximately 98% of the time, fecal coliform is deposited in significant amounts
(88.2%) into the water column between upstream and downstream sites at Slide
Rock.
Identifying fecal coliform sources is difficult. Slide Rock visitors are, undoubtedly,
a source of pollution (i.e., discarding dirty diapers in the water and defecating in
the water or on land nearby). However, visitor behavior cannot account for the
cyclical nature of elevated fecals in this area. High levels of fecals (i.e., levels
approaching the current water quality standard of 800 cfu/100 ml for a single
measure) historically and in Year 1 of this project were only detected during the
"monsoon season" — roughly between July 15 and September 15 of each year.
There are no exceptions. If visitors were the sole source of elevated fecals, then
high levels should have occurred between Memorial Day and My 4, when visitor
counts are as high as during the monsoon season. This has not occurred; there-
fore, there must be one or more other sources of fecal coliform. Northern Arizona
University is currently exploring the monsoon season source of fecal coliform in a
project separate from the Oak Creek National Monitoring Program project.
Personnel from the Oak Creek National Monitoring Program project continue to
explore two possible sources of fecal pollution occurring at downstream Slide
Rock: 1) visitors pollute the water directly by depositing excrement into the water
or on the land nearby (which is washed into the water) and 2) visitors pollute the
water indirectly by roiling fecal-laden sediments washed downstream to the Slide
Rock area.
17
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The estimated budget for the Oak Creek Canyon Nonpoint Source Pollution
Monitoring Program project for the life of the project is:
Project Element
Federal
Funding Source (S)
State Local
Source: Tom Harrison (Personal Communication), 1994
Total
Proj Mgt
LT
WQMonit
TOTALS
70,000
30,200
424,800
525,000
70,000
65,000
NA .
135,000
70,000
35,500
608,140
713,640
210,000
130,700
1,032,940
1,373,640
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
Modifications Since
Project Started
The Oak Creek National Monitoring Project complements several other programs
(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 Watershed Watch Program, a 319(h) funded program ran by
Northern Arizona University. The program is designed to train students and
teachers from seven high schools (located within the river basin) in
macroinvertebrate and water chemistry sampling to evaluate the effects of
BMP implementation.
• The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality has established the Verde
Nonpoint Source Management Zone in the state.
• 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 coordinate these efforts.
None.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
None.
18
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Information and
Education
Daniel Salzler
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Nonpoint Source Unit
3033 N. Central, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85012-0600
(602) 207-4507; Fax: (602) 207-4467
Tom Harrison
Director, Grants and Contracts
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ 86011
(520) 523-6727; Fax: (520) 523-1075
Dr. Richard D. Foust
Department of Chemistry and Environmental Science
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ 86011
(520) 523-7077; Fax: (520) 523-2626
Dr. Gordon Southam
Department of Biology
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ 86011
(520) 523-8034; Fax: (520) 523-7500
WilbertOdem
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ 86011
(520) 523-4449; Fax: (520) 523-2600
19
-------
-------
California
Morro Bay Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 3: Morro Bay (California) Watershed Project Location
21
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Chorro Flats
I RoodptatVSedimenl
t Retention Project
.' • ?jr .-'''• Pai-ed Watersheds' " .'.'." .' .•
Legend
Watershed Boundary
Urban Boundary Line
Creek
Intermittent Creek
Marsh
C Chumash Creek
W Walters Creek
Figure 4: Paired Watersheds (Chorro Creek and Los Osos Creek) in Morro Bay (California)
22
-------
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 popula-
tion in San Luis Obispo County, have placed increased pressures on water re-
sources 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 sediment,
and Chorro Creek contributes twice as much sediment to the Bay as does 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 Treatment Measure
Evaluation Program is to reduce the quantity of sediment entering Morro Bay.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Section 319 National
Monitoring Program project for the Morro Bay watershed was developed to
characterize the sedimentation rate and other water quality conditions in a portion
of Chorro Creek, to evaluate the effectiveness of several best management 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 Walters
Creeks) evaluates the effectiveness Of a BMP system in improving water quality
(Figure 4). BMP system effectiveness is being evaluated for sites outside the
paired watershed. In addition, water quality samples taken throughout the water-
shed will 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 gauges are opera-
tional in the Chorro Creek watershed: one each on the San Luisito, San Bernardo,
and Chorro creeks. Annual discharge is highly variable, ranging from approxi-
mately 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).
23
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Mono 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 fish-
ing, 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 sur-
vival rates, and increasing gill abrasion and stress on adult fish. Although trout
are still found in both streams, ocean-run fish have not been observed in a number
ofyears.
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 (NRCS, 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 impact on streams is heavy.
The Tidewater Goby, a federally endangered brackish-water fish, has been elimi-
nated 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 by sedimentation, temperature, and agricultural nonpoint
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 Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) Hydrologic Unit Areas (HUA) study show that the rate of sedi-
mentation has increased tenfold during the last 100 years (NRCS, 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). NRCS estimated the current quantity
of sediment delivered to Morro Bay to be 45,500 tons per year (NRCS, 1989b).
The overall goal of the USEPA Section 319 National Monitoring Program project
is to evaluate improvements in water quality resulting from implementation of
BMPs. 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 under Water Quality
Monitoring), 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
improving water quality in one of the paired sub-watersheds (Chumash
Creek).
24
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
Evaluate thie effectiveness of three implemented BMP systems in
improving water or habitat quality at selected Morro Bay watershed
locations.
• Monitor overall water quality in 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
Land Use
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 4 miles long
and 1 3/4 miles wide 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 (NRCS, 1989a). A
postglacial 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 watershed
are predominantly coarse-textured, shallow, and weakly developed. Deeper me-
dium- or fine-textured soils are typically found in valley bottoms or on gently
rolling hills. Earthquake activity and intense rain events increase landslide poten-
tial and severity in sensitive areas.
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 precipitation
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 about 15 to 20 miles per hour.
Approximately 60% of the land in the watershed is classified as rangeland. Typi-
cal rangeland operations consist of approximately 1,000 acres of highly productive
grasslands supporting cow-calf enterprises. Brushlands makeup 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.
25
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Land Use
Agricultural Crops
Woodland
Urban
Brushland
Rangeland
Total
Source: NRCS, 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 sedi-
ment reaching Morro Bay (NRCS, 1989b). An NRCS Erosion and Sediment Study
identified sources of sediment to the Bay, which include activities on rangeland,
cropland, and urban lands (NRCS, 1989b). The greatest contribution of sediment
to the Bay originates from upland brushlands (37%) because of the land's steep-
ness, parent material, and lack of undercover, as well as from 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 watershed sources that
contribute to sediment transport into Morro Bay include abandoned mines, poorly
maintained roads, agricultural croplands, and urban activities.
None.
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 agency personnel), and a
presentation before the Central Coast Regional Water Board. Future public pre-
sentations about the Morro Bay 319 National Monitoring Program project will be
made to groups such 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 Community College.
Presentations on the monitoring program were made at a Regional Water Quality
Control Board public hearing and at the annual Soil and Water Conservation
Society Conference (California Chapter). In addition, educational outreach 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, a Morro Bay Task Force meeting, and Cal Poly Coastal
Resources and Marine Biology classes. Publicity generated includes an excellent
article in the local newspaper and a featured spot on the local evening news.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Paired Watershed
In the paired watershed, a BMP system is being used to control nonpoint source
pollutants. Cal Poly is responsible for implementing the BMP system on Chumash
Creek, which is one of the streams in the paired watershed. The implemented
26
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
BMP Systems at Sites
within the Morro Bay
Watershed
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
BMPs include: 1) fencing the 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 revegetating
portions of the streambank; and 5) installing water bars and culverts on farm
roads where needed. During the project, riparian vegetation is expected to in-
crease from essentially zero coverage to at least 50% coverage. The project team
has established a goal of a 50% reduction in sediment following BMP implemen-
tation.
The MRCS has designed three different BMP systems throughout the watershed.
These three systems are being 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, has been fenced and revegetated (cattle
exclusion project). Fences have been installed to allow rotational grazing of
pastures 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 sedi-
ment yield from the sediment retention project, a 66% reduction in sediment yield
from the cattle exclusion project, and a 30% reduction in sediment as a result of
the managed grazing project.
Modifications occurred at Chorro Flats due to emergency post-fire concerns. An
existing level breech was widened so that the flood plain could serve as a sedi-
ment deposition area.
Paired Watershed Study: Funding has been acquired through CWA 319(h) for
implementation of improvements on the paired watershed. A Technical Advisory
Committee has been formed, and implementation for land improvements on the
Chumash Creek watershed is underway.
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 and engineering design is under-
way, but installation is still a few years away. Engineering design is underway.
$300,000 has been acquired through 319(h) funds towards project implementa-
tion.
Cattle Exclusion Project: Dairy Creek fencing for riparian exclusion was com-
pleted in the summer of 1995.
Managed Grazing Project: In 1994, the Maino Ranch completed installation of
watering devices and fencing and 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 activi-
ties. The property surrounding these two creeks is under the management of Cal
Poly. Because the rangeland being treated is owned by Cal 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-
27
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Modifications Since
Project Started
Variables Measured
cal/habitat monitoring. The duration of the calibration period (the period during
which the two watersheds are monitored to establish statistical relationships
between them), has been completed within the past two years. After the calibra-
tion period was completed, a BMP system was installed in one of the watersheds
(Chumash Creek). The other watershed, Walters Creek, will serve as the control.
Other systems of BMPs will be or have been 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 has been adopted to monitor the water quality effect of a
floodplain/sediment retention project and a cattle exclusion project. A single
station design on a subdrainage is being used to evaluate changes in water quality
from implementation of a managed grazing program.
In addition to BMP effectiveness monitoring, ongoing water quality sampling is
taking place at selected sites throughout the Morro Bay watershed to document
long-term changes in overall water quality and to discern problem areas in need of
further restoration efforts.
Because of very limited runoff during the 1993-1994 sampling year, only one
sampling event occurred. However, because of extreme wetness during the 1994-
1995 rainy season, sufficient data for baseline information was collected.
Biological
Fecal coliform
Riparian vegetation
Sampling Scheme
Chemical and Other
Suspended sediment (total filterable solids)
Turbidity
Nitrate (NOs-N)
Phosphate (P)
Conductivity
pH
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Temperature
Explanatory Variables
Precipitation
Stream flow
Evaporation
Animal units
Weekly grab samples are taken for at least 20 weeks during the rainy season,
starting on November 15 of each year or after the first runoff event. The samples
from the paired watershed are analyzed for suspended sediment, turbidity, nitrate,
phosphate, fecal coliform, and other physical parameters. The Dairy Creek cattle
exclusion is being analyzed for suspended sediment, turbidity, nutrients, fecal
coliform, and other physical parameters. Suspended sediment and turbidity is
being monitored at the Chorro Flats sediment retention area. In addition, year-
round samples for pH, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, temperature, and fecal coliform
are conducted every two weeks at several additional sampling sites throughout the
Morro Bay Watershed.
28
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
In the paired watershed, suspended sediment samples are collected during storm
events using automated sampling equipment set at even intervals (30-minute).
The water collected from each individual sample are analyzed for suspended
sediment, turbidity, and conductivity.
Bedload sediment is sampled after each flow event (4 to 10 events per rainy
season) for total mass. Physical (particle size) analysis is performed on composite
bedload samples.
Vegetation is assessed via aerial photography conducted biannually 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 transects are
conducted two times each year to sample vegetation and document changes during
the life of the project.
Monitoring Scheme for the Morro Bay Watershed 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Design
Paired
Upstream/
downstream
Upstream/
downstream
Single
downstream
Sites or
Activities
Chumash
CreekTand
Walters Creek c
Chorro Flats:
Sediment
Retention
Project
Dairy Creeks
Cattle Exclusion
Project
Maino Ranch:
Managed
Grazing
Project
Primary
Variables
Fecal coliform
Riparian vegetation
Suspended sediment
& bedload sediment
Turbidity
Nitrate
Phosphate
Conductivity
PH
Dissolved oxygen
Suspended sediment
Turbidity
Sediment deposition
Suspended sediment
Turbidity
Fecal coliform
Nitrate
Phosphate
Physical parameters
Suspended sediment
Turbidity
Fecal coliform
Riparian vegetation
Covariates
Precipitation
Stream flow
Evaporation
Animal units
Precipitation
Stream flow
Evaporation
Animal units
Precipitation
Stream flow
Evaporation
Animal units
Precipitation
Stream flow
Evaporation
Animal units
Frequency for
WQ Sampling
Start after first run-
off and weekly grab
samples thereafter
for 20 weeks.
Storm event based
monitoring
(every 30 minutes).
Storm event
monitoring
(hourly)
Weekly during
rainy season
starting around
Nov. 15.
Weekly during
the rainy season.
Frequency
for Vegetation
Sampling
March & Sept.
aerial photography
in 1st, 5th, &
10th year.
Vegetation transects
twice per year.
March & Sept.
aerial photography
in 1st, 5th, &
10th year.
March & Sept.
aerial photography
in 1st, 5th, &
10th year.
March & Sept.
aerial photography
in 1st, 5th, &
10th year.
Vegetation transects
twice per year.
Duration
2 yrs pre-BMP
lyrBMP
6 yrs post-BMP
4 yrs pre-BMP
lyrBMP
4 yrs post-BMP
1 yr pre-BMP
1/2 yr BMP
7 yrs post-BMP
0-1 yr pre-BMP
8 yrs post-BMP
^Treatment watershed
GControl watershed
29
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
NPSMS Data
Summary
Modifications Since
Project Started
Modifications will be made to sediment analysis techniques in upcoming years.
This year, evaporation was used to process suspended sediment samples; however,
dissolved solids are high in this watershed and contribute significantly to the total
weight of the samples. In the future, analysis will be for total filterable solids. A
relationship between conductivity and dissolved solids is being developed to
convert this year's data to filterable solids. In addition to suspended solids and
turbidity, conductivity is being measured for each suspended sediment sample
during event monitoring. However, composite samples from event monitoring will
no longer be analyzed for total N, total P, or pH. Grab sampling continues un-
changed for nitrate, total P, pH, conductivity, and turbidity.
The winter of 1993-1994 was atypical; only one rainfall event produced significant
runoff. Sediment, turbidity, and flow data from this event were collected. A year of
even interval grab sampling (winter 1994-1995) was obtained, ^ ith 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 *he study design requires
even-interval sampling year round, this is not feasible in several locations (includ-
ing the paired watersheds) because the flow becomes intermittent or ceases entirely
during summer months.
Data Management
Data and BMP implementation information is handled by the project team. As
required by the USEPA Section 319 National Monitoring Program Guidance, data
is entered into STORET and reported using the M ipoint Source Management
System Software (NPSMS). A Geographical Information System (GIS), ARC/
INFO, is 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,
has been developed by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The plan is used to assure the reliability and accuracy of sampling, data recording,
and analytical measurements.
Data Analysis
Parametric and nonparametric statistical tests are being adopted to analyze the
data. Possible tests include simple regression, analysis of variance, paired T-tests
between turbidity, suspended sediment, flow, and other variables. A two-way
contingency table for comparison of the levels of pollutant concentrations and
levels of explanatory variables will be used in the future as trends appear. Three
variable contingency tables were prepared; these include time (season or year),
pollutant concentration, and an explanatory variable (such as flow or land treat-
ment).
NPSMS quartile data has not yet been developed due to the lack of adequate trend
data. Data will be entered into STORET using NPSMS software as trends appear.
None.
30
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
A revised Quality Assurance Plan has been developed, implemented, and submit-
ted to USEPA for review. It is available at the Regional Water Quality Control
Board office. CIS data layers entered this past year (using ARC/INFO) include
sample site locations, streams, flood zones, ground water basins, geology, soils,
vegetation, land use, and topography. Initial analysis of the data is relatively
simple, including basic statistics and graphical representation of water quality
parameters versus flow and precipitation.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The estimated budget for the Morro Bay watershed National Monitoring Program
project for the period of FY95 is:
Project Element
Proj Mgt
I&E
*LT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Funding Source ($)
Federal State
20,000
25,000
130,000
55,000
230,000
N/A
N/A
1,593,500
20,000
1,613,500
Sum
20,000
25,000
1,723,500
75,000
1,843,500
* Land Treatment dollars are largely to be used for permanent structures. These funds will
be used for matching funds throughout the duration of the project, not just for the fiscal
year. The amounts shown will be utilized over the entire project period.
Source: Karen Worcester (Personal Communication), 1995
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Board is conducting a study of the
abandoned mines in the watershed with USEPA 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 provided funding
($48,000) for steelhead habitat enhancement on portions of Chorro Creek. The
State Department of Parks and Recreation funded studies on exotic plant inva-
sions in the delta as a result of sedimentation. The California Coastal Commission
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 Amendments of 1990.
The California Assembly Bill 640 became law in January, 1995. This bill was
written by the Friends of the Estuary and carried by Assemblywoman, now Con-
gresswoman, Andrea Seastrand. It establishes Morro Bay as the first "State
Estuary," and mandates that a comprehensive management plan be developed for
31
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Modifications Since
Project Started
the bay and its watershed by locally involved agencies, organizations, and the
general public. On July 6, 1995, Morro Bay was accepted into the National
Estuary Program. This "National Estuary" designation provides 1.3 million
dollars for planning over a three year period. Current effort is under way by the
Morro Bay State Estuary Watershed Council to create the foundation for this
planning process.
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 NRCS
Range Conservationist was hired through 319(h) funds ($163,000) to manage the
range and farm land improvement 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 NRCS ($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 up-
stream of the Morro Bay delta, which is being 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.
Twin Bridges, a major passage to Morro Bay which has undergone heavy sedi-
ment deposition and flooding, will be modified as design plans to reroute South
Bay Boulevard over Chorro Creek are currently being developed.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
In addition to state and federal support, the Morro Bay watershed receives tremen-
dous support from local citizen groups. The Friends of the Estuary, a citizen
advocacy group, is invaluable in its political support of Morro Bay, including an
effort to nominate the Bay for the National Estuary Program. The Bay Founda-
tion, a nonprofit group dedicated to Bay research, funded a $45,000 study on the
freshwater influences on Morro Bay, 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 project in development of a watershed
GIS database. The Bay Foundation 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 monitoring program for the Bay itself, which includes water
quality monitoring.
32
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
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
Gary Ketcham
Farm Supervisor
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
(805) 756-2548
Scott Robbins
NRCS-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
33
-------
-------
Idaho
Eastern Snake River Plain
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 5: Eastern Snake River Plain (Idaho) Demonstration Project Area Location
35
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Figure 6: Eastern Snake River Plain (Idaho) Demonstration Project Area
36
-------
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 an important source of
water for irrigation. In 1990, this aquifer was designated by the U.S. Environmen-
tal 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 potential
for nitrate and pesticide leaching and/or runoff. Ground water monitoring indi-
cates the presence of elevated nitrate levels in the shallow aquifer underlying the
project area.
The objective of a seven-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 coordi-
nated implementation of nutrient and irrigation water management (Figure 6). As
part of this project, two paired-field monitoring networks (constructed to evaluate
best management practices (BMPs) for nutrient and irrigation water management
effects) are funded under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
Pre-Project
Water Quality
In the intensely irrigated areas overlying the Eastern Snake River Plain aquifer,
shallow, unconfined ground water systems have developed primarily from irriga-
tion water recharge. Domestic water is 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 is 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 concentrations
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.
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 October
1991, 195 samples were taken from 54 area wells and analyzed for nitrate. Aver-
age 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 concentrations 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 con-
tinuously exceeded the MCL during the sampling period.
37
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Current Water
Quality Objectives
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 Advisory for that
compound. Even though the wells now meet MCL standards, pesticide concentra-
tions 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 study, 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
comparison of water quality conditions between the amount of nitrogen
leached to ground water as a result of growing beans after alfalfa, which
generate nitrogen, and the growing of grain after alfalfa, which utilizes
excess nitrogen in the soil.
Source: James Osiensky (Personal communication), 1993.
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
An original objective was to compare the effects of sprinkler versus gravity
applied irrigation water on ground water nitrate-nitrogen concentrations, but was
deleted because project personnel felt that this information was apparent and
available.
October 1991 - October 1997
1992
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
The USDA Demonstration Project comprises 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 National Monitoring Program 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 "M"
field soils are silty loams. The "F" field soils are fairly clean, fine to medium
sands. Due to the differences in soils and the traditional irrigation methods
employed on these fields (flood and furrow respectively), the "M" field has rela-
tively lower spatial variability of existing water quality than the "F" field. The "F"
field also shows greater influences from adjacent fields.
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.
38
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Land Use
Pollutant Source(s)
Modifications Since
Project Started
In the project area, over 99% of the land is irrigated. Of the irrigated cropland, at
least 85% of the land is in sprinkler irrigation and the other 15% is in furrow. A
diversity of crops are grown in the area: beans, wheat, barley, potatoes, sugar
beets, alfalfa, and commercial seed.
Within the project area, there are over 1,500 farms with an average size of 520
acres. Nutrient management on irrigated crops is intensive. Heavy nitrogen
application and excessive irrigation are the primary causes of water quality
problems in the shallow aquifer system. In addition, over 80 different agrochemi-
cals 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).
None.
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
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 is included in the Demon-
stration Project I & E program.
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 both the general public and farmers. The results of these surveys have
been published. In addition, presentations have been conducted and Demonstra-
tion Project displays have been exhibited in the area.
The USDA 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 partici-
pants, cooperators, and interested individuals. Information has been disseminated
through local and regional television and radio programs and newspaper articles.
Presentations have also been made ]to local and regional agricultural producers,
local irrigation districts and canal companies, 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
displayed during the numerous project organized field trips for targeted audiences.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Description
The NPS control strategy for the demonstration project 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.
39
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
Fertilizer evaluations and recommendations based on soil tests, petiole
analysis, crop growth stage, crop type, rotation, and water sampling are being
adopted.
Farmers have been asked to incorporate pesticide management strategies into
their farming practices.
An irrigation management program has been implemented for each
participating farm in the Demonstration Project.
The NFS control strategy for the 319 National Monitoring Program project is to
reduce applied water in the "F" field and to plant grain in the "M" field. Sugar
beets, potatoes, and grains are grown in the "M" field. Alfalfa, dry beans, and
grains are grown in the "F" field.
The "M" paired field is used to establish existing baseline conditions which exist
using a "wheel line" sprinkler system. After baseline conditions have been estab-
lished, the water application rate to the "BMP" side of the paired field will be
approximately half that of the control side.
Baseline conditions, which exist under sprinkler-irrigated alfalfa production, are
being 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.
Farmstead Assessment System and Homestead Assessment System (Farm*A*Syst/
Home*A*Syst), a wellhead protection program, have been added to the demon-
stration project. These programs will aid in ground water risk assessment for the
rural homeowner.
Thirty farms within the Eastern Snake River Plain demonstration area were
targeted to receive BMPs. Seventy-five farms currently have received direct
technical and financial assistance for BMP installation on their farm.
Both fields, which are part of the Eastern Snake River Plain National Monitoring
Program project, were converted to sprinkler from furrow and flood irrigation in
1993. Comparison demonstrations between sprinkler and gravity irrigation
systems are not occurring because project personnel feel that this information is
apparent and available.
Nonpoint source control strategy and design problems in the paired-field water
quality monitoring design are associated with coordination between project
personnel and producers. This occurs because landowners lack long term commit-
ments to production activity scheduling and, during the producers growing
season, heavy daily schedules lead to a lack of accessibility to producers.
Changes in the type of crops produced and the production methods employed
during baseline monitoring have been detrimental to the experimental design.
Scheduled crop rotations have been changed to meet commodity market demands
on the "F" field, and cost share negotiations with the "M" field land owner for
project participation lead to implementation of the same irrigation water supply
system in both the BMP test field and the control field. These events have lead to
extension of the monitoring project in order to reestablish baseline water quality
data.
Additionally, full monitoring has been problematic. Producers are required to act
on uncontrollable events which hamper the logistics of rigidly scheduled sampling
40
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
activities. For example, weather or available labor or equipment may cause a
producer to perform unscheduled field activities during a scheduled ground water
sampling event. Monitoring information obtained on spatial soil variability has
lead to installation of additional infield instrumentation. The number and ar-
rangement of the field instrumentation has complicated production field work as
producers are forced to manipulate production equipment around monitoring
instrumentation.
The dynamics of NFS ground water quality monitoring of land use changes has
complicated project progress. As the monitoring project proceeds, new informa-
tion is obtained, analyzed, and applied. The original monitoring design was based
on the best available understanding of the local ground water system. Ground
water quality information gained during baseline monitoring demonstrated a high
degree of spatial variability in the paired fields. In order to address the spatial
variability of the system and document ground water quality changes resulting
from land use, the monitoring system has been expanded to provide a more
intensive monitoring system based on a geostatistical evaluation of data obtained.
Sampling and maintenance of this more intensive system has required more time
and resources than originally planned.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
The 319 National Monitoring Program portion of the Demonstration Project
incorporates two field networks consisting of 24 constructed wells, 8 of which are
centrally located "permanent" wells, and 4 of which are peripheral "temporary"
wells, installed on both fields.
The scope of work has been increased to evaluate spatial variability within the two
paired fields. In addition to monthly ground water sample collection, a statisti-
cally designed soil water sampling program has been initiated. Soil water
samples, using a suction lysimeter (soil water samplers), are collected during the
growing season at both the "F" and "M' paired fields. The soil water sampling
program is important in the interpretation of the ground water samples collected
from in-field monitoring wells.
Twenty three lysimeters were installed at the "F" field during June, 1994. Each
lysimeter is 12 inches in length and is installed at a 60 degree angle with the
horizontal. This method of installation places the ceramic cup approximately one
meter below land surface, which is within one meter of the water table. The
lysimeters are the pressure vacuum type. The areal distribution of lysimeters
installed in June, 1994, is based upon grain size analyses of soil samples collected
at the "F" field.
Nitrate samples were collected from the lysimeters for the months of July, August,
September, and October, 1994. Basic univariate statistics were computed and a
preliminary geostatistical analysis was conducted. Based on these results, the
following modifications of the sampling plan were necessary:
Reduce the length of the shortest lags.
Increase the overall number of short lags produced by the sampling
configuration.
• Include a greater number of the original soil sample locations as lysimeter
installation locations.
41
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
Variables Measured
To accomplish these goals, 22 additional lysimeters were installed at the "F" field
in May, 1995 (Field Map 1). The lysimeters are 12 inches in length and are the
pressure vacuum type. The lysimeters are installed vertically with the ceramic
cups positioned at one meter below land surface. Installation of the additional
lysimeters will help to more adequately define spatial dependence at short dis-
tances.
Six lysimeters were installed at the "M" field in July, 1994. The lysimeters were
installed vertically to a depth of one half meter below ground surface. Placement
of the lysimeters was based upon particle size analyses of soil samples collected
from the "M" field.
Samples were collected from the lysimeters in August, September, and October,
1994. Analysis of the data showed the following modifications of the sampling
plan were necessary:
• Installation of additional lysimeters in a more dispersed distribution across
the test field.
• Incorporation of the original soil sample locations in the lysimeter
distribution.
To accomplish these goals, the original 6 lysimeters were removed and reinstalled
as part of the 25 placed at the "M" field in May, 1995 (Field Map 2). The lysim-
eters are the pressure vacuum type and are installed to a total depth of one half
meter below land surface. Installation of the new sampling network will assist in
the characterization of the spatial dependence of nitrate at the "M" field.
Baseline data is still being collected.
Chemical and Other
Nitrate (NOs-N)
pH
Temperature
Conductivity
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Total dissolved solids (TDS) on a monthly basis
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and Ammonium (NfiU-N) on a quarterly basis
Organic scans for pesticide on a semiannual basis
Sampling Scheme
Explanatory Variables
Precipitation
Crop
Soil texture
Nutrient content of the irrigation water
Paired Field Networks
Type: Grab
Frequency and season: Monthly, third week of each month starting April, 1992
A number of explanatory variable monitoring activities have been undertaken by
some of the other agencies participating in the project. Variables to be considered
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.
42
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Monitoring Scheme for the Eastern Snake River Plain 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Design
Site
Primary
Variables
Covariates
Frequency of
WQ Sampling
Duration
Paired field "M" field
Nitrate
PH
Temperature
Conductivity
Dissolved oxygen
Total dissolved solids
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Ammonium
Pesticides
Precipitation Monthly for primary 4yrspre-BMP
Crop pollutants except 1 yr BMP
Soil texture Pesticides (sampled) 2 yrs post-BMP
Nutrient content of semiannually)
the irrigation water and Nitrogen
(quarterly)
Paired field "F" field
Nitrate
PH
Temperature
Conductivity
Dissolved oxygen
Total dissolved solids
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Ammonium
Pesticides
Precipitation
Crop
Soil texture
Nutrient content of
the irrigation water
4yrspre-BMP
lyrBMP
2 yrs post-BMP
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
NPSMS Data
Summary
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
None.
The Idaho Division of Environmental Quality is entering raw water quality data
in the USEPA STORET system. Data is also entered into the USDA Water Quality
Project's Central Data Base, and the Idaho Environmental Data Management
System. Because this is a ground water project, the NonPoint Source Management
System (NPSMS) software has limited utility.
This project is using geostatistical analysis to evaluate ground water quality
influences from land use activities. Geostatistics is the branch of applied statistics
that focuses on the characterization of spatial dependence of attributes that vary in
value over space (or time) and the use of that dependence to predict values at
unsampled locations. The usefulness of a geostatistical analysis is dependent upon
the adequate characterization of the spatial dependence and of the parameter of
interest in the given environment. The degree to which spatial dependence is
characterized is a function of the configuration of the sampling locations. Thus,
the bulk of the effort of a geostatistic investigation centers around designing an
area! distribution of sampling locations which ensures that spatial dependence of
the parameter of interest can be recognized if it exists. Geostatistical factors,
which must be considered in the design of a sampling plan, include the number of
samples and the magnitude and density of separation distances provided by a
given configuration.
None.
None.
Baseline data are still being collected.
43
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The estimated budget for the Eastern Snake River Plain National Monitoring
Program project for the period of FY 92 - 95:
Project Element
Proj Mgt
I&E
LT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Funding Source (S)
Federal
NA
NA
NA
278,291
278,291
State
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Local
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sum
NA
NA
NA
278,291
278,291
Source: Osiensky and Long, 1992; John Card-well (Personal Communication, 1995)
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
None.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
The Eastern Snake River Plain Demonstration Project is led by the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the University of Idaho Cooperative
Extension Service (CES), and the Consolidated Farm Service Agency (CFSA). In
addition to the three lead agencies, this project involves an extensive state and
federal interagency 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 Depart-
ment of Water Resources, U.S. Geological Survey, and Idaho Department of
Agriculture, have taken on various project tasks.
The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and the Idaho Water Resource
Research Institute will be responsible for the 319 National Monitoring Program
portion of the project.
An institutional advantage of this project is that the NRCS and the CES 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 Consolidated Farm Service Agency (CFSA), county committees and the
Cassia County Farm Bureau make up the Project State Committee.
A regional well monitoring network consisting of existing domestic sandpoint
(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. This network consists of 25 wells which
44
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
have been monitored for nitrogen-nitrate concentrations on a quarterly basis for
an average of 12 sampling events.
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 domes-
tic wells. The herbicide Dacthal has been detected at low levels in samples col-
lected 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 con-
taining nitrate-nitrogen as high as 30 mg/1. Concern generated by this data has
led to site-specific ground water investigations by the Idaho Division of Environ-
mental Quality and Idaho Department of Agriculture. This investigation demon-
strated that the Dacthal contamination in the ground water originated on-site. The
elevated nitrate-nitrogen levels measured in samples obtained from the site's
monitoring network indicate that the nitrate-nitrogen concentration measured in
the ground water decreases as ground water moves from the adjacent agricultural
production fields toward the homestead.
The Mann-Kendall nonparametric statistical trend test was used to determine if a
significant trend exists in the concentration of nitrate-nitrogen measured in the
samples collected from these wells. Each data set was evaluated for the existence
of outliers using a standard T-test. Data outliers were removed from data sets
prior to subjecting the data to trend analysis. At the 90% confidence level, 9
(36%) of the wells show a statistically significant decreasing trend and 6 (24%)
show a decreasing trend at the 95% confidence level. One well (4%) shows an
increasing trend in nitrate-nitrogen concentrations measured in collected samples
from the well at both the 90 and 95% confidence levels. The remaining wells do
not show a statistically significant trend at the 90 or 95% confidence levels. In the
future, when adequate data points are available, the Mann-Kendall statistical
trend analysis will be used to analyze these data.
In addition, limited sampling and analyses of ground water drainage systems,
irrigation return flows, and injection wells have identified nutrients and pesticides
in certain surface water bodies within the project area. Nitrate-nitrogen concentra-
tions in subsurface tile drain effluent as high as 8 mg/1 have been measured. The
herbicides MCPA and 2,4-D were detected in return flow irrigation water entering
into an injection well. The 2,4-D was measured at levels greater than the allow-
able Safe Drinking Water MCL of 70 ppb. Concern generated from evaluation of
this data has prompted Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to request an
expansion of the existing surface water quality monitoring efforts.
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Water Quality
Monitoring
JeffBohr
USDANRCS
1369 East 16th St.
Burley, ID 83318
(208) 678-7946; Fax (208) 678-5750
Randall Brooks
University of Idaho
Cooperative Extension
1369 East 16th St.
Burley, ID 83318
(208) 678-7946; Fax (208) 678-5750
45
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Land Treatment
Information and
Education
John Cardwell
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 Hilton
Boise, ID 83706
(208) 373-0533; Fax (208) 335-0576
Randall Brooks
University of Idaho
Cooperative Extension
1369 East 16th St.
Burley, ID 83318
(208) 678-7946; Fax (208) 678-5750
46
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Snake River Plain
Water Quality Demonstration Project
Porgeon Test Field: Hurley Idaho
Lysimeter and Monitoring Well Location Map
FPNE
•
PPW
•
FW4 7X
• A
5X J^,
FK3 A4JT
FW2 A14W
•
FW1
FPNW
FPS
FE4
FE3
FE2
FBI
i IA
Clnstrument locations surveyed^
• Monitoring Wells
completed at a depth of 10 ft.
FBI, FE2, FE3, FE4,
FW1, FW2, FW3, FW4,
FPS, FPW, FPNE, FPNW
A Lysimeters
installed at a depth of 3 ft
1A to 23W
IX to 13Z
Field Map 1.
47
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Snake River Plain
Water Quality Demonstration Project
Honour Test Field: Hurley, Idaho
Lysimeter and Monitoring Well Location Map
MPWN
A32
A22
A12
MPWS
1 1
MW4 ME4 MPEN
.82 . 19Z . 24Z
A A 25Z £•
A72
MW3 ME3
• ,8Z •
9Z 13Z A A202
10Z
MW2 A142 ME2
A«A. 12Z A •
A2,Z
MW1 A1IZ 15Z A ME, A222
• ' •
MPES
I I I 1 1
(Instrument locations are approximate)
^^^^^^•••••^^•fl )
0 200
• Monitoring Wells A Lysimeters
ccmpJeced at a depth of 10 ft. installed at a depth of i.s ft
KW1, MH2, MM3, MW4, 1Z to 2SZ
KS1, ME2, ME1, ME4,
MPES, MPEN, MPWS, MPWN
400 ft
Field Map 2.
48
-------
Illinois
Lake Pittsfield
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 7: Lake Pittsfield (Illinois) Location
49
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
Blue Creek
Lake Pittsfield
Figure 8: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Blue Creek Watershed and Lake Pittsfield (Illinois)
50
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Lake Pittsfield was constructed in 1961 to serve both as a flood control structure
and a public water supply for the city of Pittsfield, a western Illinois community of
approximately 4,000 people. The 6,956.2-acre watershed (Blue Creek Watershed)
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 surface
area of Lake Pittsfield from 262 acres to 219.6 acres in the last 33 years. Other
water quality problems are excessive nutrients and atrazine contamination. The
lake is classified as hypereutrophic, a condition 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 Consolidated Farm Service Agency, is being
used to fund conservation tillage, integrated crop management, livestock exclu-
sion, filter strips, and wildlife habitat management. An information and education
program on the implementation of all of the best management practices (BMPs)
used to control sediment, fertilizer, .and pesticides is being conducted by the Pike
County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD).
The Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS) is conducting the Blue Creek Watershed
water quality monitoring program in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the
settling basins. Water quality monitoring consists of storm event tributary sam-
pling, lake water quality monitoring, and lake sedimentation rate monitoring.
Land-based data are being used by the ISWS to develop watershed maps of sedi-
ment 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
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Lake Pittsfield is a 219.6-acre lake located near the city of Pittsfield in Pike
County (western Illinois) (Figure 7).
Lake Pittsfield serves as the primary drinking water source for the city of
Pittsfield. Secondarily, the lake is used for recreational purposes (fishing and
swimming). Decreased storage capacity in Lake Pittsfield, caused by excessive
sedimentation, is the primary water quality impairment. Lake eutrophication and
occasional concentrations of atrazine above the 3 ppb Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL) also impair lake uses.
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.
51
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
Lake Pittsfield Sedimentation Studies.
Year of
Survey
1961
1974
1979
1985
1992
Lake Age Lake
(Years) Volume
ac-ft MG
3563 1161
13.5 3069 1000
18.3 2865 933
24.3 2760 899
31.5 2679 873
Sediment
Volume
ac-ft MG
494
697
803
884
161
227
262
288
Original
Volume
Loss (%)
13.9
19.6
22.5
24.8
Source: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 1993
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Modifications Since
Project Initiated
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
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 the Illinois Pollution Control Board's general use water quality stan-
dards for total phosphorus (0.05 mg/1). Total phosphorus standards of 0.05 mg/1
were exceeded in 70% of the samples. The 0.3 mg/1 standard for inorganic nitro-
gen was exceeded in 60% of the water samples. Water quality samples collected in
1979 had similar concentrations in terms of phosphorus and nitrogen.
The objectives of the project are to:
• reduce sediment loads into Lake Pittsfield and
• evaluate the effectiveness of sediment retention basins.
None.
March 1, 1993 - September 30, 1995 (Watershed)
September 1, 1992 -1994 (Monitoring Strategy)
Note: Money for monitoring is approved yearly. Contingent upon funding, moni-
toring is expected to be continued through 1999. This will allow monitoring for a
period of four years past installation of sediment retention basins.
Initially funded in 1992 as a 319 Watershed Project. Monitoring began in 1992
and was officially approved in 1994.
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 7). 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 developed
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 cultivation,
52
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
contour plowing, and water control structures. Many terraces were constructed and
most farmers adopted contour plowing. However, greater adoption of no-till and
other soil conserving BMPs is still needed.
Land Use
Agricultural
Forest/Shrub
Pasture/Rangeland
Residential
Reservoir/Farm Ponds
Roads/Construction
Park
TOTAL
48
21
20
2
4
2
3
100
Source: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Springfield, IL.
Pollutant Source(s)
Modifications Since
Project Started
Cropland, pasture, shoreline, and streambanks
None.
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Information and education is being 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 newspapers. Currently, farmers are being surveyed about their attitudes on
water quality. This survey is being conducted by University of Illinois Extension
personnel.
Information and education activities are ongoing.
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 are being used to build between 25 and 35 small (approximately
two acres each) sediment retention basins. These basins are 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, is being
constructed with 319 funds.
Funds from the WQIP are 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, livestock exclusion,
filter strips, and wildlife habitat management.
In order to reduce shoreline erosion, shoreline stabilization BMPs will be imple-
mented using Section 314 Clean Lakes Program funds. Old rip rap will be re-
paired, and new rip rap will be installed along the shoreline.
53
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Due to heavy rains and flooding in 1993, the section 319 fund ending date was
extended from February 28, 1995 to September 30, 1995.
A total of 29 sediment basins and the large riprap basin will be completed by
September 30, 1995.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
Variables Measured
• Storm sampling at four stations on the main channel into Lake Pittsfield
(Blue Creek) and three stations at major tributaries to Blue Creek (Figure 8).
• Trend monitoring during baseflow of Blue Creek at one station.
• Trend monitoring at the three stations located in Lake Pittsfield.
• Lake sedimentation studies were conducted before and after dredging and will
be conducted again.
A shoreline severity survey is being conducted. The results of this survey
allow shoreline to be evaluated.
Ravine erosion stabilization techniques are not being evaluated.
Biological
None
Chemical and Other
Lake
Orthophosphorus (OP)
Total phosphorus (TP)
Dissolved phosphorus
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Nitrite (NC-2-N) + nitrate (NOa-N)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Volatile suspended solids (VSS)
pH
Total alkalinity
Phenolphthalein alkalinity
Specific conductivity
Water temperature
Air temperature
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Atrazine
Sampling Scheme
Explanatory Variables
Rainfall
Storm sampling is being conducted at four stations located on Blue Creek (sta-
tions B, C, D, and H — see Figure 8). 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 gauge during flood
events to determine the stage of the stream. During these flood events, the stream
54
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
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 of either Blue Creek or Lake Pittsfield (sta-
tions E, F, and I - see Figure 8) are also being monitored during storm events.
Station I is equipped with an ISCO automatic sampler, while stations E and F are
sampled manually. Base stream flow is sampled monthly on Blue Creek at Site C
(see Figure 8).
Three lake sampling stations have been established to reflect the most shallow
portion of the lake, a middle lake depth, and the deepest part of the lake. Water
quality grab samples are taken monthly from April through October.
In Lake Pittsfield, in-situ observations are made for Secchi disk transparency and
temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles at 2-foot intervals.
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 Measured).
Rain gauges have been placed near sampling sites C, D, and H (see Figure 8).
Monitoring Scheme for the Lake Pittsfield 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Design
Storm
sampling
Single station
Single
station
Sites or
Activities
Stations B, C,
D,E,F,H,&I
Station C
Lake stations
1,2,&3
Primary
Variables
Suspended sediments
Total suspended solids
Secchi disk transparency
Dissolved oxygen
Covariates
Rainfall
Rainfall
Rainfall
Frequency
During storms
Monthly
Monthly,
April through
Duration
2 yrs pre-BMP
lyrBMP
3 yrs post-BMP
2 yrs pre-BMP
lyrBMP
3 yrs post-BMP
2 yrs pre-BMP
lyrBMP
Lake
sedimentation
study
Shoreline erosion
severity survey
Orthophosphorus
Total phosphorus
Ammonia + ammonium
Ammonia nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Nitrite + nitrate
Total suspended solids
Volatile suspended solids
pH
Total alkalinity
Phenolphthalein alkalinity
Specific conductivity
Water temperature
Air temperature
Dissolved oxygen
Atrazine
Lake depth
October
Prior to
dredging
Once
55
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
NPSMS Data
Summary
None.
The water quality monitoring data is entered into a database and then loaded into
the USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) water quality database,
STORET. Data is also stored and analyzed with the USEPA NonPoint Source
Management System (NPSMS) software.
Monitoring Station Parameters Report
PERIOD: Spring Season, 1994
STATION TYPE: Upstream Station
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Parameter Name
FLOW, STREAM, INSTANTANEOUS, CFS
INSTANTANEOUS YIELD
PRECIPITATION, TOTAL
SEDIMENT, PARTICLE SIZE FRACT.
<.0625MM%dtywgt
STATION TYPE: Downstream Station
Parameter Name
FLOW, STREAM, INSTANTANEOUS, CFS
INSTANTANEOUS YIELD
PRECIPITATION, TOTAL
SEDIMENT, PARTICLE SIZE FRACT.
< .0625 MM % dry wgt.
PRIMARY CODE: Station C
Parm Reporting
Type Units
cfs
Ibs/seo
in/day
mg/L
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
13.3 12.0 10.7
.017 .004 .002
.200
49 24 10
PRIMARY CODE: Stations
Parm Reporting
Type Units
cfs
Ibs/sec
in/day
mg/L
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
9.5 4.5 2.4
.042 .022 .007
000
133 69 40
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Included NFS national monitoring strategy for spring season at B and C sampling
stations 2 years pre, 1 year during, and 3 years past.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The estimated budget for the Lake Pittsfield National Monitoring Program project
for the period of FY 92-99 is:
Project Element
Proj Mgt
I&E
LT(319)
WQ Monit
Cultural Practices (WQIP)
Dredge/Shoreline/
Aeration (314)
TOTALS
Funding Source (S)
Federal
NA
NA
620,100
470,000
32,000
132,110
State
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Local
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
904,000
Sum
NA
NA
620,100
470,000
32,000
1,036,110
1,254,210 NA 904,000 2,158,210
Source: State of Illinois, 1993; State of Illinois, 1992; Gary Eicken (Personal
Communication), 1995
56
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
Modifications Since
Project Started
In 1979, the Pike County SWCD began a Special Water Quality Project that
encouraged the implementation of terraces, no-till cultivation, contour plowing,
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 are being
used to install one destratifier (aerator) in Lake Pittsfield to increase oxygen
concentrations throughout the lake, thereby increasing fish habitat. The lake will
be dredged in 1996 to reclaim the original capacity of the lake.
None.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
Many organizations have combined resources and personnel in order to protect
Lake Pittsfield from agricultural nonpoint source pollution. These organizations
are listed below:
Consolidated Farm Service Agency (CFSA)
City of Pittsfield
• Farm Bureau
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois State Water Survey
Landowners
Pike County Soil and Water Conservation District
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Gary Eicken
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217) 782-3362; Fax (217) 785-1225
Brad Smith
Pike County Soil and Water Conservation District
1319 W.Washington
Pittsfield, IL 62363
(217) 285-4480
57
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
Water Quality
Monitoring
Information and
Education
Donald Roseboom
Illinois State Water Survey
Water Quality Management Office
P.O. Box 697
Peoria, IL 61652
(309) 671-3196; Fax (309) 671-3106
Brad Smith
Pike County Soil and Water Conservation District
1319 W.Washington
Pittsfield, IL 62363
(217) 285-4480
58
-------
Iowa
Sny Magill Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Project Area
Iowa
Figure 9: Sny Magill and Bloody Run (Iowa) Watershed Project Locations
59
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
i " •-.
\
\
\
- JT\
S, .
X *"-
Bloody Run
Watershed
- ,
* *-.
\ "*
\ \
* "^<*v. •' '
i - *"" *
• '*' "X\"l "
\\ '
^ \
•^ —
• •*• •
*:
'•.
.
\
: \
J *-" \ \ "
\ ^-—,'—
-S /^if.y^ri'- >,.
V /'"""'Cx "74-;'"
j • t *t \ f ; /
Scale
0
i_
kilometers
o 1
miles
Legend
^ Weekly MorilomgSile
^^ Monlhly Monitoriia St-
-^—— Perennral Stream
— — Intermittent Stream
Watershed Drained by
Gage Station
Watershed Drained by
Sampfrx) Locations
Figure 10: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Sny Magill and Bloody Run (Iowa) Watersheds
60
-------
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) resulting 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
9). 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, managed for "put and take" trout fishing by the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources (IDNR), are two of the more widely used recreational fishing
streams in the state.
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, cover crop, pasture, and forest. There are about
140 producers in the watershed, with farm sizes averaging 275 acres.
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.
Two USDA land treatment projects being implemented in the watershed allow
producers to make voluntary changes in farm management practices that will
result in improved water quality. Sediment control measures, water and sediment
control basins, animal waste management systems, stream corridor management
improvements, bank stabilization, and buffer strip demonstrations around sink-
holes will be utilized to reduce agricultural NFS pollution. A long-term goal of a
50% reduction in sediment delivery to Sny Magill Creek has been established.
A paired watershed approach is being used with the Bloody Run Creek watershed
serving as the comparison watershed (Figure 10). Subbasins within the Sny
Magill watershed are being compared using upstream/downstream stations.
Primary monitoring sites, equipped with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream
gauges to measure discharge and suspended sediment, have been established on
both Sny Magill and Bloody Run creeks. The primary sites and several other sites
on both creeks are being sampled for chemical and physical water quality vari-
ables on a weekly to monthly basis. An annual habitat assessment is being con-
ducted along stretches of both stream corridors. Biomonitoring of
macroinvertebrates occurs on a bimonthly basis and an annual fisheries survey
will be conducted.
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.
Sny Magill 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. Sny Magill Creek ranks sixth in the state for angler usage.
61
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Pre-Project
Water Quality
The Sny Magill 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 heavily used for
fishing and also serve as an important nursery area for juvenile and young large-
mouth 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 indicates 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 quality primarily by nonpoint 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 Sny Magill 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 50 locations.
There are more than 13 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.
Streambank erosion has contributed to significant sedimentation in the creek(s).
In order to mitigate animal waste and nutrient problems and improve bank
stability in critical areas, improved stream corridor management designed to
repair riparian vegetation and keep cattle out of the stream is necessary.
Water quality evaluations conducted by the University Hygienic Laboratory (DHL)
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
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) located areas where sediment is
covering the gravel and bedrock substrata of the streams, lessening the depth of
existing pools, increasing turbidity, and degrading aquatic habitat. Animal waste
decomposition 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
et al., 1992).
Several reports summarize pre-project water quality studies conducted in the two
watersheds (i.e., water quality, including available data from STORET - Seigley
and Hallberg, 1994; habitat assessment - Wiltpn, 1994; benthic biomonitoring -
Schueller et al., 1994, and Birmingham and Kennedy, 1994; fish assessment -
Wunder and Stahl, 1994) and Hallberg and others (1994) provide perspectives on
water quality monitoring in northeast Iowa.
62
-------
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 of best management practices
(BMPs), and for public education to expand awareness of the need for NFS
pollution prevention by farmers; and
To provide Iowa and the USEPA with needed documentation for measures of
success of NFS 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 USDA 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 30.6 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 management
considerations for area streams.
The watershed is characterized by narrow, gentry 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 Ordovi-
cian Galena Group rocks, which compose the Galena aquifer, an important source
63
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Land Use
of ground water and drinking water in the area. Some sinkholes 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.
The entire watershed is agricultural, with no industry or urban areas. There are no
significant point sources in the watershed. Sixty-five percent 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 corri-
dor. 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, runoff, and nutrient concentrations. Forest
Service data show a 4% 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
TOTALS
Snv Magill
Acres %
5,842 25.9
5,400 23.9
11,034 48.9
263 1.2
28 0.1
Bloodv Run
Acres %
9,344 38.6
6,909 28.5
7,171 29.6
415 1.7
376 1.6
22,567 100 24,215
100
Source: Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 1994
Pollutant Source(s)
Modifications Since
Project Started
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
Funding to encourage BMP implementation was lost in 1993; however, applica-
tions for alternative funding sources were filed in 1994. Funding for sediment
reducing practices, such as terraces, was secured through the Iowa Department of
Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Division of Soil Conservation, for Fiscal
Years 1995-1997. An application for funding was filed through the USEPA
Section 319 Program for animal manure structures, Integrated Crop Management
(ICM), and streambank stabilization practices. At this time, the USEPA Section
319 application has yet to be approved; however, all indications would suggest
that final approval will soon be granted.
64
-------
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
The focus of information and education efforts in the watershed are:
• demonstration and education efforts in improved alfalfa hay management (to
reduce runoff potential on hayland and increase profitability and acreage of
hay production);
• improved crop rotation management and manure management (to reduce
fertilizer and chemical use);
implementation of the Farmstead Assessment System [NRCS, Iowa State
University Cooperative Extension Service (ISU-CES)];
• woodland management programs (to enhance pollution-prevention efforts on
marginal cropland, steep slopes, riparian corridors, and buffer areas in
sinkhole basins);
expand interest in the environmental and economic benefits of ICM, BMPs,
and sinkhole and wellhead protection; and
• implementation of an educational program to bring information and results of
the Sny Magill HUA project to the widest possible audience in the watershed
and adjacent areas of the state.
Information is also disseminated through newsletters, field days, special meetings,
press/media releases, and surveys of watershed project participants.
Additional resources for technical assistance and educational programs is pro-
vided in the area through the Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project, directed by
ISU-CES, and the Big Spring Basin Demonstration Project, directed by IDNR.
Through FY94, 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.
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.
ICM plans were developed for 44% of cropland in the project area through
one-on-one meetings with farmers.
• An initiative was created to conduct a soil bioengineering demonstration on a
stretch of Sny Magill Creek. The initiative centers on comparing the long-
term stabilizing effectiveness of various lower cost, more aesthetically
pleasing streambank stabilizing practices to traditional practices such as rip
rap. The initiative will also serve as a training workshop for various agency
personnel. Representatives from the NRCS Midwest Technical Center
(Lincoln, NE) and the NRCS state office (Des Moines) provided technical
support.
Manure fertility demonstrations were conducted at seven new cooperator
farms to try to get growers to take full nutrient credit for manure applied.
65
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
A Family Education Fun Day was conducted in the watershed to give
landowners in the Sny Magill watershed and the people living in the nearby
town of McGregor a chance to meet agency representatives of the
demonstration project and water quality monitoring project, learn more about
each agency's involvement in the project, and to see what their neighbors are
doing in order to improve the water quality of Sny Magill Creek.
Transferring ICM to the private sector: training was provided by ISU-CES
coordinator to ag-business firms and other individuals to develop ICM service
providers. A major goal of the project is the development of ICM service
providers to ensure that this management practice is available after the
project is no longer directly providing the ICM service. There are now five
ICM service providers as a result of this program; previously there were none.
The media outreach program has included preparation of demonstration plot
brochures, press releases, booklets for the "self-guided" tours, and articles for
local newspapers. Water Watch, a bimonthly newsletter, is disseminated to
over 1,750 subscribers. Article topics have included upcoming project
activities, ongoing demonstrations and other conclusions or trends that
develop from these efforts, chemical and biological rootworm control, well-
water analyses, proper use of soil test, how various agronomic practices affect
yields, water quality monitoring results, results of producer case studies
where various ICM practices have been applied, farmstead assessment, and
nutrient management of manure.
The Clayton County Register, circulation 12,000, publishes an annual
conservation issue. The 1994 issue centered on the various components of the
Sny Magill HUA project activities. The subjects covered included: the ICM
program, timber stand improvement practices, water monitoring programs,
manure management techniques, and the proper handling and disposal of ag-
chemicals and waste.
Manure management workshop was conducted to assist interested producers
in quantifying the potential nutrient benefits provided by the manure
generated from their livestock operations. A manure management work sheet
was developed as a simple method to determine how well manure nutrients
are being credited and managed.
Tours of the Sny Magill watershed and presentations on the Sny Magill
Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA) have included information on the water quality
monitoring, tillage and manure structures, ICM, manure management, and
nutrient and pest management.
• Participation in the program "CONNECTIONS: Linking Science and
Mathematics with Careers" (partnership between The University of Iowa
Department of Pediatrics and the Cedar Rapids Community School District)
led to the development of a video to help motivate high school girls and
minorities to take more science and mathematics. In the video, several
locations in both the Sny Magill and Bloody Run watersheds were included
along with discussion about the design of the water quality monitoring project
and the land treatment projects.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Description
The Sny Magill HUA has 10,468 acres of Highly Erodible Land (HEL), all of
which have a conservation plan. Of these conservation plans, 7,303 acres, or 70%,
are written to the Tolerable, or T, level. Conservation plans have been fully
implemented on 3,660 acres, or 35% of the project area. There are 98 landowners
in the Sny Magill HUA, of which 81% have chosen to participate in the HUA
project.
66
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
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 Project. The
HUA Project is a five-year project begun in 1991 and covering 19,560 acres (86%)
of the Sny Magill watershed. The remainder of the watershed is included in the
WQSP, which began in 1988. The purpose of these projects is to provide technical
and cost sharing assistance and educational programs to assist farmers in the
watershed in implementing voluntary changes in farm management practices that
will result in improved water quality in Sny Magill Creek.
No special critical areas have been defined for the HUA Project. Highly erodible
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, as well as a variety of
management practices such as crop residue management and contour
stripcropping. 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 Water Quality Special Project (WQSP) has been completed. Practices imple-
mented were primarily structural (terraces). No ICM or other information and
education programs were implemented. Farmer participation was 80-85%.
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%.
None.
Through FY94, the following have been completed in North Cedar Creek and Sny
Magill Creek watersheds:
269,685 feet of terraces
89 grade stabilization structures installed
32 water and sediment control basins installed
2 agricultural waste structures installed
nitrogen, phosphorus, and pesticide management on 3,428 acres
the more effective use or application of nitrogen, phosphorus, and pesticides
in the Sny Magill watershed has resulted in a reduction of 78,105 pounds of
total nitrogen, 40,905 pounds of total phosphorus, and a reduction in the
amount of alachlor and atrazine applied
water testing of 151 private wells
Crop consultant model of ICM was implemented. The model included
nutrient and pest management planning sessions with cooperators, intensive
soil sampling, nutrient and insecticide application equipment calibration and
maintenance, and regular field observations during the growing season to
monitor insects, weeds, and crop development. Twelve cooperators enrolled
2,750 acres in 1994.
A coalition of various Federal, State, and County agencies has decided to work
together to develop, install, maintain, and evaluate a series of diverse stabilization
practices along certain stretches of the stream. The goal of this initiative is to pool
our resources to develop more cost-effective, aesthetically pleasing, lower mainte-
nance forms of streambank stabilization.
67
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
ISU-CES conducted a 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 was completed in the summer of 1994 as was an initial survey of farm
operators in the Bloody Run Creek area ("control" watershed).
The IDNR-GSB has established a coordinated process for tracking the implemen-
tation of land treatment measures with NRCS, Consolidated Farm Service Agency
(CFSA), and ISU-CES. NRCS is utilizing the "CAMPS" database to record
annual progress for land treatment and may link this to a geographic information
system (GIS), as well. ISU-CES conducts baseline farm management surveys and
attitude surveys among watershed farmers and has implementation data from ICM
- Crop System records. IDNR-GSB is transferring the annual implementation
records to the project GIS, ARC/INFO, to provide the necessary spatial compari-
sons with the water quality monitoring stations.
Participating agencies meet in work groups as needed, typically on a quarterly
basis, to review and coordinate needs and problems. Monitoring results are
reviewed annually by an interagency coordinating committee to assess needed
changes.
Funding restrictions in the Sny Magill HUA for FY94 affected cost-share funding
to assist cooperating producers to install BMPs. The HUA was able to operate in
FY94 on limited funding that remained from previous years. The full impact of
this reduction will be felt in FY95. The project has applied for alternate funding
to meet the unmet needs of producers to install BMPs.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
The Sny Magill watershed is amenable to documentation of water quality re-
sponses 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 compares Sny Magill watershed to the (control) Bloody
Run Creek watershed (adjacent to the north and draining 24,064 acres). Water-
shed size, ground water hydrogeology, and surface hydrology 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 mini-
mizes rainfall variation. However, the large size of the two watersheds creates
significant challenges in conducting a true paired watershed study. Land treat-
ment and land use changes need 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 are compared using upstream/
downstream stations.
None.
68
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Variables Measured
Sampling Scheme
Biological
Fecal coliform bacteria
Habitat assessment
Fisheries survey
Benthic macroinvertebrates
Chemical and Other
Suspended sediment (SS)
Nitrogen (N)-series (NOs+NO2-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
Stream discharge
Precipitation
Primary monitoring sites (SN1, BR1) (Figure 10) are established on both Sny
Magill and Bloody Run. The sites are equipped with USGS stream gauges 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 occurs.
Monthly measurements of stream discharge are made at seven supplemental sites
(NCC, SN2, SNT, SNWF, SN3, BRSC, and BR2).
Baseline data were collected during the summer of 1991. A report documenting
these data was published (Seigley and Hallberg, 1994). The monitoring program
as described below began in October of 1991.
Weekly grab sampling is conducted at the primary surface water sites (SN1, BR1)
for fecal coliform bacteria, N-series (NO3 +NO2-N, NH4-N, Organic-N) anions,
TP, BOD, and immunoassay for triazine herbicides.
Four secondary sites are monitored weekly (three on Sny Magill: SN3, SNWF,
and NCC; and one on Bloody Run: BR2).* Grab sampling will be conducted for
fecal coliform, partial N-series (NO3 + NO2-N, NH4-N), and anions.
Weekly sampling is conducted by the USNPS (weeks 1 and 3) and IDNR-GSB
(weeks 2,4, and 5).
Three additional sites are 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.
69
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
An annual habitat assessment is conducted along stretches of stream corridor,
biomonitoring of macroinvertebrates occurs on a bimonthly basis, and an annual
fisheries survey is conducted.
* Note: Originally, site BRSC was monitored weekly and site BR2 was monitored 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 is
monitored monthly and BR2 is monitored weekly.
Monitoring Scheme for the Sny Magill and Bloody Run Watershed 319 National Monitoring Program
Project
Design
Sites
Primary
Variables
Frequency of
Covariates WQ Sampling
Frequency of
Habitat/Biological
Assessment
Duration
Paired
watershed
with
upstream/
downstream
stations (for
each creek)
Sny MagilF Habitat assessment
and Bloody Runc Fishery survey
Benthic macro-
invertebrates
Suspended sediment
Nitrogen series
Anions
Total phosphorus*
Biochemical oxygen
demand*
Triazine herbicides*
Water temperature
Conductivity
Dissolved oxygen
Turbidity
Fecal coliform
Stream discharge Weekly (for SN1,
(daily at sites
SN1&BR1;
monthly at
sites NCC,SN2,
SNT, SNWF,
SN3,BRSC,
BR2)
Stage
(continuous
atSNl,BRl)
Precipitation
BR1, SN3, SNWF,
NCC, BR2)
Monthly
(forSN2,SNT,
BRSC)
Habitat and
fisheries data
collected annually.
Macroinvertebrate
data collected
every two months.
1 yrpre-BMP
6yrsBMP
2 yrs post-BMP
""Treatment watershed
cControl watershed
* These variables are only sampled at sites SN1 and BR1
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
Data Management
Data management and reporting is handled by the IDNR - GSB and follows the
Nonpoint Source Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for Watershed Imple-
mentation Grants.
USEPA Nonpoint Source Management System (NPSMS) software is used to track
and report data to USEPA using their four information "files": the Waterbody
System File, the NFS Management File, the Monitoring Plan File, and the Annual
Report File.
All water quality data is entered in STORET. Biological monitoring data is
entered into BIOS. All U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data is entered in
WATSTORE, the USGS national database.
70
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Data transfer processes are already established between USGS, UHL, and IDNR-
GSB. Coordination is also established with NRCS and ISU-CES for reporting 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 recom-
mended SAS packages and other methods for statistical significance and time-
series analysis.
Paired watershed analysis has begun. In addition to the pairing between Sny
Magill. and Bloody Run, and the intra-basin watersheds, data is being compared
with the long-term watershed records from the Big Spring basin. This provides a
temporal perspective on monitoring and a valuable frame of reference for annual
variations.
Significant differences in rainfall between water years 1992 and 1993 affected the
monitoring components of the project, and made it difficult to assess whether any
changes in water quality that did occur are attributable to improvements in farm
management practices. Water Year 1993 was much wetter than 1992 and resulted
in significant increases in stream discharge and suspended sediment concentration
loads of both Sny Magill and Bloody Run creeks, as well as greater nitrate-N and
triazine pesticide concentrations. For Sny Magill, annual mean discharge in-
creased from 17.1 CFS (cubic feet per second) in 1992 to 36.6 CFS in 1993;
Bloody Run discharge increased from 26.3 CFS to 42.1 CFS. Total suspended
sediment discharge for Sny Magill increased from 1,940 tons in 1992 to 13,086
tons in 1993, and increased from 2,720 tons to 22,174 tons on Bloody Run. The
number of benthic macroinvertebrate taxa sampled increased from 60 taxa in
Water Year 1992 to 73 taxa in Water Year 1993. Based on the benthic
macroinvertebrate data, the water quality in Sny Magill and Bloody Run water-
shed was rated "good" to "very good" for both years. Sites located on the tributar-
ies to Sny Magill tended to have better water quality than the main stem sites on
Sny Magill. Benthic data from 1993 suggests the water quality may have im-
proved from 1992; however, this improvement is speculative because of the short
period of record and the unusual climatic conditions. The fish assessment showed
a decline from 1992 to 1993 in the number offish sampled. This decline is
considered a normal response to variations in precipitation, runoff, water clarity,
and water stage. The fish sampled in both Sny Magill and Bloody Run creeks are
fish typically found in coldwater streams. For both years, the fish population was
dominated by a single species, the fantail darter. The habitat assessment for Water
Year 1993 reflected the above normal rainfall conditions of that year. Stream flow,
stream width, and stream depth measurements were higher during Water Year
1993 than during Water Year 1992. Noticeable silt deposition and scouring had
occurred along many of the stream reaches in response to the above normal
rainfall during Water Year 1993.
71
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
NPSMS Data
Summary
Monitoring Station Parameters Report
STATION TYPE: Control Station
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Parameter Name
FECAL COLIFORM, MEMBR FILTER, M-FC BROTH, 44.5 C
FLOW, STREAM, MEAN DAILY, CFS
NITROGEN, AMMONIA, TOTAL (MG/L AS N)
NITROGEN, ORGANIC, TOTAL (MG/L AS N)
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL (MG/L AS P)
PRECIPITATION, TOTAL (INCHES PER DAY)
TEMPERATURE, WATER (DEGREES CENTIGRADE)
STATION TYPE: Study Station
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Parameter Name
FECAL COLIFORM, MEMBR FILTER, M-FC BROTH, 44.5 C
FLOW, STREAM, MEAN DAILY, CFS
NITROGEN, AMMONIA, TOTAL (MG/L AS N)
NITROGEN, ORGANIC, TOTAL (MG/L AS N)
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL (MG/L AS P)
PRECIPITATION, TOTAL (INCHES PER DAY)
TEMPERATURE, WATER (DEGREES CENTIGRADE)
Farm Reporting QUARTILE VALUES
Type Units
S
S CFS
S
S
S
S
S
-75-
275
28
<0.1
0.4
0.2
0.03
14
-50- -25-
85 10
24 20
0.2 <0.1
0.1 <0.1
0 0
10 5
Farm Reporting QUARTILE VALUES
Type Units
S
S CFS
S
S
S
S
S
-75- -50- -25-
300 110 18
18 15.5 13
0.2
0.2
0.03
15
0.2
<0.1
0
10
Annual Reports Detail
Water Quality Parameter
Year: 1995
State Farm Kxp SEASON 1SEASON2 SEASONS SEASON4
Type Type Var Units <-High Low-> <-BHghLow-> <-High Low-> <-High Low->
FECAL COLIFORM, MEMBR FILTER, M-FC BROTH CNTL S N
FLOW, STREAM, MEAN DAILY, CFS CNTL S Y CFS
NITROGEN, AMMONIA, TOTAL (MG/L AS N) CNTL S N
NITROGEN, ORGANIC, TOTAL (MG/L AS N) CNTL S N
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL (MG/L ASP) CNTL S N
PRECIPITATION, TOTAL (INCHES PERDAY) CNTL S Y
TEMPERATURE, WATER (DEGREES CENTIGRADE) CNTL S N
FECAL COLIFORM, MEMBR FILTER, M-FC BROTH STDY S N
FLOW, STREAM, MBANDAILY, CFS STDY S Y CFS
NITROGEN, AMMONIA, TOTAL (MG/L AS N) STDY S N
NITROGEN, ORGANIC, TOTAL (MG/L AS N) STDY S N
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL (MG/L ASP) STDY S N
PRECIPITATION, TOTAL (INCHES PER DAY) STDY S Y
TEMPERATURE, WATER (DEGREES CENTIGRADE) STDY S N
62
13
2
3
15
82
13
7
1
15
1
23
3
77
3
1
4
12
77
3
12
5
8
10
8
8
5
6
8
2
2
4
1
2
1
12
13
1
3
21
44
13
2
2
21
27
3
5
69
2
15
10
69
1
11
21
9
5
4
2
27
11
2
30
7
11
4
10
6
9
13
1
4
24
9
4
78
13
5
4
24
8
2
33
7
3
67
2
1
13
9
67
3
5
44 5
5
6
1
6 2
8
2
5
13
13
1
1
26
11
8
56
13
5
2
26
12
6
28
5
2
66
2
3
20
10
66
1
2
50
7
9
2
16
8
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
None.
The nonpoint source monitoring and reporting requirements for watershed imple-
mentation grants have been completed for the data from Water Years 1992 and
1993. A technical report on data from water years 1992 and 1993 has been com-
pleted (Seigley et al., 1994).
72
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Estimated budget for the Sny Magill Watershed National Monitoring Program
project for the period FY91-94:
Project Element
I&E
LT (cost share)
LT (technical assist.)
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Funding Source (S)
Federal
210,000
533,604
395,000
*274,700
State
105,000
NA
NA
NA
Local
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sum
315,000
533,604
395,000
274,700
1,413,304 105,000
NA 1,518,304
Modifications Since
Project Started
* from 319 funds
Source: Lynette Seigley (personal communication, 1995)
Funding restrictions in the Sny Magill HUAfor FY94 affected cost-share funding
to assist cooperating producers to install BMPs. The HUA was able to operate in
FY94 on limited funding that remained from previous years. The full impact of
this reduction will be felt in FY95. The project has applied for alternate funding
to meet the unmet needs of producers to install BMPs.
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
Modifications Since
Project Started
Please refer to the section entitled Nonpoint Source Control Strategy.
None.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
Agencies participating in the Sny Magill Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution
Monitoring Project and their roles are listed below:
Clayton County USDA Consolidated Farm Service Agency Committee
Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service
Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship:
Participate in program reviews and provide funding to aid in
BMP installation
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
• Iowa Department of Natural Resources:
Preventive Medicine - Analytical
Natural Resources Conservation Service
University Hygienic Laboratory
• U.S. Forest Service
73
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. National Park Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
Funding to aid in BMP installation
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Information and
Education
Lynette Seigley
Geological Survey Bureau
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
109 Trowbridge Hall
Iowa City, IA 52242-1319
(319) 335-1575; Fax (319) 335-2754
Internet: lseigley@gsbth-po.igsb.uiowa.edu
Jeff Tisl (Land Treatment for the HUA Project)
USDA-NRCS
Elkader Field Office
117 Gunder Road NE
P.O. Box 547
Elkader, IA 52043-0547
(319) 245-1048; Fax (319) 245-2634
Lynette Seigley
Geological Survey Bureau
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
109 Trowbridge Hall
Iowa City, IA 52242-1319
(319) 335-1575; Fax (319) 335-2754
Internet: lseigley@gsbth-po.igsb.uiowa.edu
Nick Rolling (I&E for the HUA Project)
Sny Magill Watershed Project
111 W. Greene Street
P.O. Box 417
Postville, IA 52162-0417
(319) 864-3999; Fax (319) 864-3992
74
-------
Maryland
Warner Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 11: Warner Creek (Maryland) Watershed Project Location
75
-------
i Warner Creek Watershed, Maryland
Legend
Monitoring Station
Stream
Watershed Boundary
Figure 12: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Warner Creek (Maryland) Watershed
76
-------
i Warner Creek Watershed, Maryland
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Warner Creek watershed is located in the Piedmont physiographic region of
northcentral Maryland (Figure 11). 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, installation 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 12). 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 Monocacy
River basin.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Current Water
Quality Objectives
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; there-
fore, 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
(mg/l) (mg/1)
3.3-6.7 .01-.05
Ammonia
(mg/1)
0-23.0
TKN
(mg/l)
0-73.0
TKP Orthophosphorus
(mg/1) (mg/1)
0-6.7 0-3.6
Source: Shirmohammadi and Magette, 1993
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; and
77
-------
i Warner Creek Watershed, Maryland
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
• 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, bedrock
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 dairy operation, 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 Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) 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 USD A agencies. Education and
public awareness will be accomplished through the CES in the form of tours,
press releases, scientific articles, and oral presentations.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Description
Upstream/downstream Study Area (1C and 2A):
BMPs planned for this area include construction of watering systems for animals,
fencing animals from streams, and the proper use of newly constructed manure
slurry storage tanks. Conversion of cropland to pasture is also anticipated in this
area.
Paired Watershed (1A and IB):
The implementation of BMPs in the treatment (IB) paired watershed is uncertain;
however, a concerted effort will be made to install an animal waste management
system and cropland conservation practices in this watershed.
78
-------
i Warner Creek Watershed, Maryland
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Variables Measured
Sampling Scheme
The water quality monitoring component incorporates the following two designs:
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)
Orthophosphorus (OP)
Total kjeldahl phosphorus (TKP)
Sediment
Explanatory Variables
Rainfall
Discharge: instantaneous (1A, IB and 1C) continuous (2A)
Upstream/Downstream Study Area (1C and 2A) (Figure 12):
Type: grab (1C and 2A) automated storm event (2A)
Frequency and Season: weekly from February to June and biweekly for the remain-
der of the year
Paired Watershed (1A and IB) (Figure 12):
Type: grab (1A and IB)
Frequency and season: weekly from February to June and biweekly for the remain-
der of the year
Monitoring Scheme for the Warner Creek Watershed 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Sites or
Design Activities
Paired
Upstream/ Warner
downstream Creek
Primary
Variables
Ammonia
Total Kjeldahl
nitrogen
Nitrate/nitrite
Nitrite
Orthophosphorus
Total Kjeldahl
phosphorus
Sediment
Frequency of
Covariates WQ Sampling
Rainfall Weekly Feb. to
discharge June and bi-
weekly the
remainder of
the year.
Frequency of
Habitat/Biological
Assessment Duration
? yrs. pre-BMP
? yrs. BMP
? yrs. post-BMP
79
-------
i Warner Creek Watershed, Maryland
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
Monitoring data are stored and analyzed at the University of Maryland. In addi-
tion, data will be entered into the STORET data base and reported using the
Nonpoint Source Management System (NPSMS) software.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Project Element
Yearl Year! Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
Monitoring
Personnel 41,600 32,500 45,000 49,000 51,500 54,500
Equipment 10,000 3,000 NA NA NA NA
Other 26,733 35,938 37,140 34,190 35,215 36,445
TOTALS
78,333 71,438 82,140 83,190 86,715 90,945
Source: EFY94 Work Plan (6/23/94).
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
The University of Maryland
Agricultural Engineering
1419 ENAG/ANSC Building (#142)
College Park, MD 20742-5711
(301)405-1185; Fax (301) 314-9023
Internet: as3 l@umail.umd.edu
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: wm3@umail.umd.edu
80
-------
i 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; Fax (410) 631-3873
Adel Shinnohammadi
The University of Maryland
Agricultural Engineering
1419 ENAG/ANSC Building (#142)
College Park, MD 20742-5711
(301)405-1185; Fax (301) 314-9023
Internet: as31@umail.umd.edu
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: wm3@umail.umd.edu
Adel Shirmohammadi
The University of Maryland
Agricultural Engineering
1419 ENAG/ANSC Building (#142)
College Park, MD 20742-5711
(301)405-1185; Fax (301) 314-9023
Internet: as31@umail.umd.edu
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: wm3@umail.umd.edu
81
-------
-------
Michigan
Sycamore Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 13: Sycamore Creek (Michigan) Project Location
83
-------
i Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
Columbia Drain
Harper Rd.
City of Mason
Rayner Creek
Figure 14: Paired Water Quality Monitoring Stations for the Sycamore Creek (Michigan) Watershed
84
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Sycamore Creek is located in southcentral Michigan (Ingham County) (Figure
13). 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 live-
stock. 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. Sy-
camore Creek has been selected for monitoring, not because of any unique charac-
teristics, but rather because it is representative of creeks throughout lower
Michigan.
Water quality monitoring occurs in three subwatersheds: Haines Drain, Willow
Creek, and Marshall Drain (Figure 14). The Haines subwatershed, where best
management practices (BMPs) have been installed, serves as the control and is
outside the Sycamore Creek watershed. Stormflow and baseflow water quality
samples from each watershed are from March through July of each project year.
Water is sampled for turbidity, total suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand
(COD), nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P).
Land treatment consists primarily of sediment-and-nutrient-reducing BMPs on
cropland, pastureland, and hayland. These BMPs are 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 pollutant
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, nutri-
ents (Suppnick, 1992).
The primary pollutant is sediment. Widespread aquatic habitat destruction from
sedimentation has been documented. Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) are
secondary pollutants. Pesticides may be polluting ground water; however, evi-
dence 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 associ-
ated with the sediment.
85
-------
i Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
Sediment and Phosphorus Content of Sycamore Creek Under Routine (dry)
and Storm (wet) Flow Conditions:
DryP
mg/1
WetP
mg/1
0.01-0.09 0.04-0.71
Source: NRCS/CES/CFSA, 1990
Dry Sediment Wet Sediment
mg/1 mg/1
4-28
6-348
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
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, significant
bank-slumping, and erosion at sites that have been dredged.
The water quality objective is to reduce the impact of agricultural nonpoint source
(NPS) pollutants on the surface and in ground water of Sycamore Creek.
The goal of the project is to reduce sediment delivery into Sycamore Creek by
52%.
None.
Monitoring is 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 (gla-
cially 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 pre-
dominant 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.
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.
86
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
Pollutant Source(s)
Modifications Since
Project Started
Crop and residue cover are recorded on a 10-acre cell basis in each of the three
monitored subwatersheds.
Land Use Acres
Agricultural 35,453
Forest 8,017
Residential 9,336
Business/Industrial 2,562
Idle 6,381
Wetlands 2,324
Transportation 1,349
Open land 826
Gravel pits and wells 806
Water 359
Other 325
Total 67,738
Source: NRCS/CES/CFSA, 1990
Streambanks, urban areas, agricultural fields
None.
To],
52
12
14
4
10
3
2
1
1
0.5
0.5
100
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Progress Towards
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 HUA project. Activities include public awareness campaigns, conservation
tours, media events such as news releases and radio shows, display set-ups, work-
shops, short courses, farmer-targeted newsletters, homeowner-targeted newsletters,
on-farm demonstrations, meetings, and presentations. Ingham County CES assists
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' newsletter; and
• twenty-five farm plans for nutrient and pesticide management.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Description
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 includes: 1) identification and
prioritization of significant nonpoint sources of water quality contamination 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.
87
-------
i Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
Selection of the BMPs depends on land use: cropland, hayland, pasture land, or
urban land. BMPs for the cropland include conservation tillage, conservation
cropping sequence, crop residue use, pest management, nutrient management,
waste utilization, critical area planting, and erosion control structures. Hayland-
area BMPs consist of conservation cropping sequence, conservation tillage, pest
management, nutrient management, pasture/hayland management, and pasture/
hayland planting. BMPs to be utilized on pastureland are conservation cropping
sequence, conservation tillage, pasture/hayland management, pasture/hayland
planting, fencing, waste utilization, filter strips, and critical area planting. The
following practices are eligible for ACP funding:
• Permanent Vegetative Cover Establishment
• Diversions
• Cropland Protective Cover
• Permanent Vegetative Cover on Critical Areas
• Sediment Retention Erosion or Water Control Structure
• Sod Waterways
• Integrated Crop Management
Practice installation and the effect on water quality is tracked using the database
ADSWQ (Automatic Data System for Water Quality). The EPIC model (Erosion
Productivity Index Calculator) is being used to estimate changes in edge-of-field
delivery of sediment, nutrients, and bottom of root zone delivery of nutrients
resulting from BMP implementation.
None.
The Ingham County Drain Commission has received an implementation grant
under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act for the installation of streambank
stabilization in Willow Creek. A variety of vegetative and structural BMPs are
considered and used to see which work best to stabilize streambanks. Work will be
concentrated upstream of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
monitoring station, and is scheduled to begin in September of 1995.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
A paired watershed design is used to document constituent changes in Sycamore
Creek. Two subwatersheds within the project, Willow Creek and Marshall Drain,
have been compared to a control subwatershed, Haines Drain, that is outside the
boundaries of the project (Figure 14). 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 credible land within one-
quarter mile of a channel.
An additional station was added in 1995 at the United States Geological Survey
gauging station at Holt Road. Sampling is conducted year round using a flow
stratified strategy. The purpose of this station is to determine the annual load of
pollutants near the mouth of the stream and compare these loads with various
88
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
Variables Measured
models for estimating pollutant loads in the watershed. Automatic sampling
equipment is used to collect samples and the USGS flow data are used to deter-
mine loads. The parameters tested for are the same as the other three stations.
Biological
None
Sampling Scheme
Chemical and Other
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Turbidity
Total phosphorus TP)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Nitrite (NOz-N) + Nitrate (NOa-N)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Orthophosphorus (OP)
Ammonia (NHs)
Explanatory Variable(s)
Rainfall
Flow
Erosion-intensity index
Sampling during storm events is conducted from after snow melt (ground thaw)
through the appearance of a crop canopy (sometime in My). Samples are col-
lected every one to two hours. For each location and storm, six to twelve samples
are selected for analysis. Automatic stormwater samplers equipped with liquid
level actuators are used.
Twenty evenly spaced weekly grab samples are also taken for trend determination.
Sampling begins in March when the ground thaws and continues for the next 20
weeks.
A continuous record of river stage is being obtained with Isco model 2870 flow
meters. The river stage converts to a continuous flow record using a stage dis-
charge relationship already determined by field staff of the Land and Water
Management Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
One recording rain gauge is installed in each agricultural subwatershed (Figure
14).
Monitoring Scheme for the Sycamore Creek 319 National Monitoring Program
Design
Three-way
paired
Sites*
Willow Creek1
Haines Drain0
Marshall Drain T
Primary
Variables**
Total suspended solids
Turbidity
Total phosphorus
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Nitrite + nitrate
Chemical oxygen demand
Orthophosphorus
Ammonia
Covariates***
Rainfall flow
Erosion-intensity
index
Frequency of
WQ Sampling
Weekly for 20
samples starting
after snow melt
Storm sampling
(from after snow melt
until canopy closure)
Duration
6 yrs pre-BMP
lyrBMP
lyr post-BMP
3 yrs pre-BMP
3 yrs BMP
1 yr post-BMP
T Treatment watersheds
c Control watershed
89
-------
i Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
NPSMS Data
Summary
Prior to 1993, weekly grab samples were not collected, but occasional grab
samples during base flow were collected.
Preliminary exploratory analysis includes a linear regression of control values
versus target values for storm loads, storm event mean concentrations, storm
rainfall amounts, storm runoff volume, and storm runoff coefficients. Storm loads
were also compared to the AGNPS model for the first two years of data. Land use
and cover data are recorded each year on a 10 acre grid scale.
A summary of quartile data through 1993 is presented in the table below. These
summaries include all data including storm event data for 1990-1993, base flow
grab samples for 1990-1992, and weekly sampling in 1993. Differences can be
seen among the watersheds such as the stable flow and NCte+NOs levels in
Willow Creek compared to the other stations and the higher flows in Haines Drain
compared to the other stations.
Monitoring Station Parameters Report
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
STATION NAME: Haines Drain (Control; 848 acres)
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
NO3+NO2
COD
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
NO3 + NO2
COD
YEAR: 1990
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
STATION NAME: Haines Drain (Control; 848 acres) YEAR: 1991
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
STATION NAME: Haines Drain (Control; 848 acres) YEAR: 1992
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
NO3+NO2
COD
Reporting
Units
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
STATION NAME: Haines Drain (Control; 848 acres) YEAR: 1993
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
NO3 + NO2
COD
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
N
85
84
84
84
84
N
44
43
45
45
15
N
N
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -SO- -25-
8
38
0.196
3.8
35.5
6
15
0.107
3.5
29
2
7
0.048
2.9
22
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
8
147
0.64
36.
55
5
46
0.34
3.3
36
4
20
0.178
3
29
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
31
31
31
31
31
14
270
0.8
4.2
59
6
95
0.47
3.4
37
0.9
24
0.126
2.9
20
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
67
66
67
66
66
8.3
91
0.48
7.4
45
2
45
0.24
2.9
31
1
15
0.105
1.82
23
90
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
STATION NAME: Marshall Drain (Target; 422 acres) YEAR: 1990
Parameter Name
Reporting
Units
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
NO3 + NO2
COD
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
NO3 + NO2
COD
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
NO3 + NO2
COD
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
NO3 + NO2
COD
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
NO3 + NO2
COD
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
NO3 + NO2
COD
eft
mg/1
mg/I
mg/1
mg/1
STATION NAME: Marshall Drain (Target; 422 acres) YEAR: 1991
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
STATION NAME: Marshall Drain (Target; 422 acres) YEAR: 1992
Reporting
Units
cfs
rng/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
STATION NAME: Marshall Drain (Target; 422 acres) YEAR: 1993
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
STATION NAME: Willow Creek (Target; 1087 acres) YEAR: 1990
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
STATION NAME: Willow Creek (Target; 1087 acres) YEAR: 1991
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
44
44
44
36
44
N
40
39
41
41
23
N
23
23
23
23
23
N
52
52
52
51
52
N
83
82
83
83
83
N
47
47
50
50
21
0.5 0.4 0.2
98.5 29 16.5
0.059 0.04 0.029
5.8 2.55 1.9
19 16 14
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
2 1 0.8
115 29 17
0.35 0.118 0.062
7.5 6.4 5
40 31 17
QUARTILEVALUES
-75- -50- -25-
5 0.9 0.3
100 30 7
0.4 0.152 0.046
6.2 4.8 2.4
49 26 16
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
4.87 0.57 0.32
60 26 7
0.27 0.177 0.06
12 3.9 3
32 22 12
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
543
44 32 18
0.075 0.055 0.036
2.7 2.4 2.1
31 24 18
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
443
197 80 44
0.36 0.137 0.066
3 2.3 2.3
67 51 32
91
-------
i Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
STATION NAME: Willow Creek (Target; 1087 acres) YEAR: 1992
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
N03 + N02
COD
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
NO3 + NO2
COD
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
STATION NAME: Willow Creek (Target, 1087 acres) YEAR: 1993
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
N
37
37
37
37
37
N
74
74
73
72
74
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
6
150
0.26
3.5
82
4
70
0.135
1.94
45
3
28
0.052
1.75
27
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
7.36 4.98
130 80
0.21 0.128
2.5 2.2
76 49
4.14
40
0.069
1.9
33
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
None.
Six years of sampling have been completed in the paired watersheds.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Modifications Since
Project Started
The estimated budget for the Sycamore Creek Watershed National Monitoring
Program project for the life of the project is:
Project Element
Federal
Funding Source: ($)
State Local
122,000
NA
NA
222,000
344,000
Source: John Suppnick (Personal Communication), 1993
None.
Project Mgt
I&E
LT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
129,370
159,900
1,078,300
285,000
1,652,570
Sum
3,130
9,935
500,751
NA
513,816
254,500
169,835
1,579,051
507,000
2,510,386
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
Modifications Since
Project Started
The funds for the 319 project provide for the water quality monitoring in the HUA
project area. The county Consolidated Farm Service Agency Committee has
agreed to use Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) funds for erosion control,
water quality improvement, and agricultural waste management.
None.
92
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
Agency responsibilities are as follows:
• Consolidated Farm Service Agency (CFSA)
• Michigan State University Extension - Ingham County
• Ingham County Health Department (Environmental Division)
• Ingham Conservation District
• Landowners within the Sycamore Creek Watershed
• Michigan Department of Natural Resources
PROJECT CONTACTS
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Information and
Education
Bob Hicks (Land Treatment for the HUA Project)
Ingham County District Conservationist
USDA-NRCS
52IN. OkemosRd.
P.O. Box 236
Mason, MI 48554
(517) 676-5543
Ruth Shaffer
USDA-NRCS
State Office
1405 S. Harrison Rd.
East Lansing, MI 48823-5202
(517) 337-6701, Ext. 1216; 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
Jack Knorek (I & E for the HUA Project)
Ingham County Extension Service
121 East Maple Street
P.O. Box 319
Mason, MI 48909
(517) 676-7207; Fax (517) 676-7230
93
-------
-------
Nebraska
Elm Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Nebraska
Project Area
Figure 15: Elm Creek (Nebraska) Watershed Project Location
95
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
Legend
Sis 7
Streams
Watershed Boundary
Figure 16: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Elm Creek (Nebraska) Watershed
96
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Elm Creek is located in southcentral Nebraska, near the Kansas border (Figure
15). 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 pasture/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 increases water temperatures and high peak flows thus
impairing aquatic life by destroying habitat, which reduces the creek's recreational
use due to lowered trout productivity.
Land treatment for creek remediation includes non-conventional best management
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 are being funded as part of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA) Project.
Land use is being inventoried. Cropland and BMP implementation is being
tracked. Additionally, land treatment monitoring will include tracking land use
changes based on the 40-acre grid system of the Agricultural Nonpoint Source
(AGNPS) model at the end of the project.
Water quality monitoring includes an upstream/downstream design as well as a
single station downstream design for trend detection. Grab samples are collected
weekly from March through September to provide water quality data. Additional
biological and habitat data are being collected on a seasonal basis.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Current Water
Quality Objectives
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.
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 of the
macroinvertebrates and trout. These negative impacts on the stream result from
farming practices that cause excessive erosion and overland water flow.
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 im-
paired by nonpoint source (NPS) pollution, particularly sedimentation and scour-
ing of vegetation during storm events.
The NPS management objective in the Elm Creek watershed is to implement
appropriate and feasible NPS control measures for the protection and enhance-
ment of water quality in Elm Creek. Project goals are to:
97
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Reduce maximum summer water temperature,
• Reduce in-stream sedimentation,
• Reduce peak flows, and
• Improve in-stream aquatic habitat.
None.
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
Monitoring is being 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
Pollutant Source(s)
Modifications Since
Project Started
The project area, in southcentral Nebraska, consists of 35,800 acres of rolling
hills, gently sloping uplands, 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
Agricultural
Dryland
, Irrigated
Pasture/Range
Forest
Other
Total
Acres
14,630
2,680
16,170
650
1,670
35,800
%
42
7
44
2
5
100
Source: Elm Creek Project, 1992
Streambank erosion, irrigation return flows, cattle access, cropland runoff
None.
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
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 include: newsletters, an NFS video, slide shows, programs, ques-
tionnaires, fact sheets, demonstration sites, field days, and meetings.
98
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
The process of addressing nonpoint source issues in the Elm Creek watershed
through information and education activities has been coordinated by the Univer-
sity of Nebraska Cooperative Extension as part of the USDA Hydrologic Unit Area
(HUA) effort. In addition to those activities listed below, a newsletter promoting
implementation of NFS pollution prevention practices continues to be developed
and delivered to owners/operators in the watershed.
I&E activities implemented in the Elm Creek watershed include the following:
Seven producers 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 newsletter
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 cooperators.
A series of educational programs have been held to provide producers with
background information to encourage the adoption of BMPs. Other program
topics included: New Tools for Pasture Production, Rotational Grazing 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.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Description
Sediment-reducing BMPs are being installed. These BMPs have been divided into
four BMP types, which will include upland treatment measures and riparian and
in-stream 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
99
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Water Quality & Runoff Control Structures
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 are being funded under the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (USEPA) 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 Republican
Natural Resource District (LRNRD)]. The number and types of BMPs imple-
mented 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.
As originally proposed, land use and BMP implementation were to be tracked
based on a 40-acre grid system of the Agricultural Nonpoint Source (AGNPS)
model. This scheme was to be used since a pre-project inventory of current land
uses had been completed by the NRCS to run the AGNPS model. The goal was to
then rerun the model with updated land use and BMP implementation data during
the projects. However, once the Section 319 and HUA projects were initiated, it
was quickly realized that annual tracking of land use changes and BMP imple-
mentation on a 40 acre basis in such a large watershed could not be accomplished
with the resources available. The NRCS plans to reran AGNPS with the updated
information once the projects are complete.
Currently, 52 applications have been processed for USEPA 319 funds. Since
January 1, 1994, 25 cooperators have requested HUA technical funds. From 1991
through 1993, the practices and activities outlined in the following table 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, again with AGNPS, 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.
100
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
Application of Practices/Activities for Erosion Control in the Elm Creek
Watershed.
NRCS PRACTICE/ACTIVITY
AND LD. #
Conservation Cropping Sequence (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)
Grade Stabilization Structure (410)
Grassed Waterway (412)
Irrigation Water Management (449)
Livestock Exclusion (472)
Pasture and Hayland Management (510)
Pasture and Hayland Planting (512)
Pipeline (5 16)
Proper Grazing Use (528)
Range Seeding (550)
Planned Grazing System (556)
Streambank and Shoreline Protection
Terrace (600)
Tree Plantings (6 12)
Trough or Tank (614)
Underground Outlet (620)
Well (642)
Wildlife Upland Habitat Management (645)
UNITS
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
feet
number
feet
feet
acres
number
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
feet
acres
acres
acres
feet
feet
acres
number
feet
number
acres
NUMBER
INSTALLED
5,369
3,904
2,496
25
1,739
169
4,236
9
35,768
32,977
5
5
5.3
2,260
199
176
78
1,400
3,314
93
1,635
280
116,892
4
11
2,325
6
89
Significant strides have also been made in implementing NPS control measures
throughout the watershed (see following table).
Though significant progress has been made, a few problems have also been
identified with monitoring efforts. Preliminary evaluation of the project monitor-
ing design (upstream-downstream and single downstream) and water qualify data
tend to suggest that the large watershed size above the upstream monitoring
station (approximately 31,142 acres) inhibits documenting water quality improve-
ments. More specifically, this problem can be attributed to the variability associ-
ated with regional and watershed conditions. The majority of non-structural
BMPs recommended by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
which have been implemented in the Elm Creek watershed, are designed only to
control up to one-in-ten year storm events. When these types of storm events occur
in the watershed, water quality (including in-stream habitat) remains good.
However, with such a large watershed area above the perennial stream reach
(which starts within a mile above the upstream monitoring station), even slightly
larger storm events generally contribute to high flows, which degrade water and
habitat quality, making it difficult to detect improvements.
101
-------
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 16)
Single downstream for trend detection (site 5) (Figure 16)
Biological
Qualitative and quantitative macroinvertebrate sampling
Fish collections
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 gauge): April - September
Stream discharge (United States Geological Survey gauging station)
Future use of artificial salmonid redds will be discontinued. Initial monitoring
results indicate substrates are not suitable for salmonid spawning.
(See Figure 16 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).
Creel survey (passive).
Dissolved Oxygen (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.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) (sites 2,5): Weekly grab samples from April
through September and monthly samples, October through March. Selected runoff
samples are collected April through September.
Atrazine/Alachlor (sites 2,5): Grab and runoff samples are analyzed selectively in
the spring for these pesticides.
Stream morphological characteristics (width, depth, velocity) and habitat: spring/
summer at sites 2, 5.
102
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
Rainfall (recording rain gauge): The main rain gauge 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.
Monitoring Scheme for the Elm Creek 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Design
Upstream/
downstream
Single
downstream
Sites
2,5
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
2,5
2,4,5
2,5
2,5
2,5
2,5
Primary
Variables Covariates
Macroinvertebrate Stream
survey discharge
Fish survey
Creel survey
Water temperature
Substrate samples
Dissolved oxygen
Total suspended
solids
Atrazine/alachlor
Stream morphological
characteristics
Continuous recording
thermograph
Frequency of
Frequency of Habitat/Biological
WQ Sampling Assessment
Spring & fall
Weekly (April-Sept.) &
monthly (Oct.-March)
Spring & fall
Spring
Spring/summer
4times/yr
spring & fall
passive
Duration
0 yrs pro-BMP
SyrsBMP
3 yrs post-BMP
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
Plans to place a recording rain gauge in the Elm Creek watershed have been
cancelled because of the variability associated with its large size. For the same
reason, the volunteer network for recording rainfall amounts has also been discon-
tinued.
Ambient water quality data is entered into USEPA STORET. Biological data is
stored in USEPA BIOS. Other data will be stored and analyzed using Microsoft
Excel 5.0 spreadsheet program and USEPA NonPoint Source Management System
(NPSMS). Water quality data is being analyzed using SAS statistical software.
These data are being managed by the Nebraska Department of Environmental
Quality (NDEQ).
Data assessment and reporting consists of quarterly activity reports, yearly interim
reports focusing on BMP implementation, and a final report that will assess and
link water quality and land treatment results.
103
-------
Elm Creek Watershed; Nebraska
NPSMS Data
Summary
Monitoring Station Parameters Report
PERIOD: 1993
STATION TYPE: Upstream Station
CHEMICAL, PARAMETERS
Parameter Name
FLOW, STREAM, INSTANTANEOUS, CFS
OXYGEN, DISSOLVED (METER)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS, TOTAL
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
13.3 12.0 10.7
8.7 7.75 6.9
51.0 16.5 2.0
TEMPERATURE, WATER (DEGREE CENTIGRADE) 15.7 14.3 11.5
BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS (Non-Chemical)
INDICES
Parameter Name Fully Threatened Partially
INDEX OF BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY 30 •!- 22
INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY INDEX 31 - 17
TROUT HABITAT QUALITY INDEX -
STATION TYPE: Downstream Station
Counts/Season:
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Scores/Values
1
24
2
0
0
13
6
3
3
8
9
g
0
8
3
9
5
1
33
_
_
2
6
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
6
2
-
24
—
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
29
38
4.1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
-
-
-
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Parameter Name
FLOW, STREAM, INSTANTANEOUS, CFS
OXYGEN, DISSOLVED (METER)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS, TOTAL
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
13.3 12.0 10.7
9.9 8.85 8.5
65.3 20.75 6.0
TEMPERATURE, WATER (DEGREE CENTIGRADE) 16.6 14.8 11.2
BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS (Non-Chemical)
INDICES
Parameter Name Fully Threatened Partia
INDEX OF BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY 30 - 22
TROUT HABITAT QUALITY INDEX ~
Counts/Season:
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Scores/Values
1
24
2
0
0
8
10
3
4
g
10
7
1
9
3
9
5
1
29
-
2
6
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
2
0
2
2
0
0
0
6
2
-
_
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
29
2.2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
-
-
104
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Quartile data for all chemical and physicochemical parameters indicate water
quality conditions are relatively good. The values presented are accurate for water
quality under baseflow conditions, but not necessarily reflective of impacts caused
by runoff events. After heavy rainfall events, the stream is often subject to high
flows and the associated NFS pollutants seemingly have only a short-term degrad-
ing impact on the in-stream chemical and physiochemical water quality. However,
long lasting impacts not reflected in the data are the scouring and sedimentation
resulting from these events which impair designated aquatic life uses.
Metrics comprising the biological indices used to assess aquatic communities are
currently being refined for the State of Nebraska. Once this process is complete,
more definitive conclusions can be drawn from the data collected in Elm Creek.
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
The estimated budget for the Elm Creek Watershed National Monitoring Program
project for the life of the project is:
Project Element Funding Source (S)
Proj Mgt
I&E
Reports
LT
WQ Initiative
Program (WQIP)
WQ Monit
TOTALS
* $290,000 from HUA Project funds, $232,500 from 319 project funds
Source: Elm Creek Project, 1991
Time frame for funding sources:
• Local/Section 319 — April, 1992 to October, 1996
• HUA — May, 1990 to October, 1997 (The HUA project was scheduled to end
in September, 1995, but has received a three year extension)
WQIP - Contracts were written for cropping years 1992, 1993, and 1994. All
funds were allocated in 1992.
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
None.
105
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
Modifications Since
Project Started
This USEPA 319 National Monitoring Program project provides the water quality
monitoring for the area HUA project. Agricultural Conservation Program (a
USDA program) funding will be used for approved, conventional BMPs.
None.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
The HUA activities are jointly administered by the University of Nebraska Coop-
erative Extension and the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS).
Employees of these two agencies will work with local landowners, Consolidated
Farm Service Agency (CFSA) personnel, personnel of the NDEQ, and personnel
of the LRNRD. Section 319 project activities are administered by the NDEQ.
Agencies or groups involved in the project are listed below:
CFSA (Consolidated Farm Services Agency)
• Landowners
• Lower Republican Natural Resources District:
Monitoring
Little Blue Natural Resources District
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service)
• Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
• Nebraska Natural Resources Commission
• U.S. Geological Survey
• University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension
• United States Environmental Protection Agency
• Webster County Conservation Foundation (WCCF)
Future Farmers of America Chapters and 4-H Clubs
Center for Semi-Arid Agroforestry and Nebraska Forest Service
Webster County Board of Commissioners
106
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Information and
Education
Dave Jensen
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
Scott Montgomery (Land Treatment for the project)
USDA-NRCS
20 N. Webster
Red Cloud, NE 68970-9990
(402) 746-2268
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
Chuck Burr (I & E for the HUA project)
Webster County Cooperative Extension (CE)
621 Cedar
Red Cloud, NE 68970
(402) 746-3345; Fax (402) 746-3417
107
-------
-------
North Carolina
Long Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 17: Long Creek (North Carolina) Watershed Project Location
109
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
Dairy
Sampling Location
Strip Mine
Figure 18: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Long Creek (North Carolina) Watershed
110
-------
i Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Long Creek Watershed Section 319 National Monitoring Program project
(28,480 acres), located in the southwestern Piedmont of North Carolina, consists
of an area of mixed agricultural and urban/industrial land use (Figure 17). Long
Creek is a perennial stream that serves as the primary water supply for Bessemer
City, a municipality with a population of about 4,888 people (1994 estimate).
Agricultural activities related to crop and dairy production are believed to be the
major nonpoint sources of pollutants to Long Creek. Sediment from eroding
cropland is the major problem in the upper third of the watershed. Currently, the
water supply intake pool must be dredged semiannually 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 implement-
ing 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 livestock
exclusion from a 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 geo-
graphic 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 18), upstream and
downstream stations above and below an unnamed tributary on Long Creek (B
and C), stations upstream and downstream of a dairy farmstead on an unnamed
tributary to Long Creek (D and E), and monitoring stations on paired watersheds
at a cropland runoff site (F and G). Storm-event and weekly 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). Annual mean discharges at the
outlet of the study area (I) range between 17 and 59 cubic feet per second over a
40 year period of record.
Long Creek is the primary water supply for Bessemer City. Water quality impair-
ments 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 Bessemer City
water supply intake to near the watershed outlet sampling station (Figure 18) is
listed as support-threatened by the North Carolina Nonpoint Source Management
Program. Biological (macroinvertebrate) habitat is degraded in this section due to
the presence of fecal coliform, excessive sediment, and nutrient loading from
agricultural and urban nonpoint sources.
Ill
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Water quality variables change with time and location along Long Creek, but
generally are close to the following averages:
Fecal BOD TSS TKN
Coliform (mg/I) (mg/1) (mg/1)
#/100ml
2100 2 14 0.35
NO3-N TP
(mg/1) (mg/1)
0.41
0.17
Note: These average values were computed from the analyses of twelve monthly grab
samples taken from three locations along Long Creek.
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
The objectives of the project are to quantify the effects of nonpoint source pollu-
tion 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 sediment
yield by 60 percent).
In addition, biological monitoring of streams will attempt to show improvements
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
Land Use
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.
Land Use Acres °/o_
Agricultural 6,975 24
Forest 15,289 54
Residential 3,985 14
Business/Industrial 1,842 6
Mining 516 2
Total 28,607 100
Source: Jennings et al., 1992
112
-------
' Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
Pollutant Source(s)
The monitored area contains the following four dairy farms:
Dairy Name
Dairy 4
Dairy 3
Dairy 1
Cows (#)
125
85
400
Feedlot Drainage
Open lot into
holding pond
Open lot across
pasture
Under roof and open
lot across grass buffer
Source: Jennings et al., 1992
Modifications Since
Project Started
Dairy 2 went out of business and was purchased by Gaston County for conversion
to a biosolids application area.
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Cooperative Extension Service (CES) personnel conducts 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 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 activities
in the Long Creek watershed. Also, a Watershed Citizens Advisory Committee has
been formed to: 1) educate other watershed residents and 2) participate in citizen
monitoring. Project overviews continue to be presented at state, local, and regional
water-related conferences.
The Gaston Conservation District is continuing an extensive natural resources
education outreach program to local schools. Eighty-five percent of schools (100%
of elementary and junior high) located in the Long Creek Watershed participate in
District programs.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Description
Water Supply Watershed (site H):
Bessemer City has recently purchased 13 acres of cropland immediately upstream
of the intake with the intention of implementing runoff and erosion controls. Also,
to comply with the North Carolina Water Supply Watershed Protection Act, land
use requirements are 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 are implemented in the remainder of the watershed.
Up/downstream of Dairy 1 Tributary on Long Creek (sites B and O:
In addition to the best management practices (BMPs) planned for the dairy 1
farmstead, the control strategy is to design and implement a comprehensive
nutrient management plan on the land between the sampling stations.
113
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Dairy 1 Farmstead (sites D and E):
A larger waste storage structure has been constructed. After April, 1995, im-
proved pasture management, livestock exclusion from the unnamed tributary, and
stream bank stabilization 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 nutri-
ent management and cropping practices on the control watershed. The number
and types of BMPs implemented depends 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 more than $50,000 of BMP installations to control
NFS pollution on these sites.
Water Supply Watershed (site H):
A land use survey of the agricultural portion of the water supply watershed has
been completed. This data was then used by the North Carolina Division of Soil
and Water Conservation to develop a Watershed Management Plan. Along with
developing the plan, data from 1984 and 1994 were used to estimate erosion and
sediment delivery rates in the watershed. The comparison indicated a 52% reduc-
tion in estimated annual erosion and a 51% reduction in sediment delivery to
stream channels. However, visual inspection of the watershed tributaries indicates
that considerable work remains in controlling 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 Share
Funds were utilized for this project. In addition, an underground main and hy-
drant with a stationary gun for applying waste effluent on the pasture/hayland
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 was completed for the Kiser Dairy Farm to
control nonpoint pollution sources and enhance the natural resources. As part of
the plan, watering system and stream bank restoration projects will begin this fall.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
The water quality monitoring effort incorporates the following three designs:
• Single downstream station at water supply intake and watershed outlet
• Upstream/downstream design on Long Creek and unnamed tributary
• Paired watersheds on Dairy 1 cropland
114
-------
i Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
Modifications Since
Project Started
Variables Measured
Sampling Scheme
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 colifbrm 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 (NOs-N+NOa-N)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total phosphorus (TP)
Physical stream indicators: width, depth and bank erosion
Explanatory Variables
Rainfall, humidity, solar radiation, air temperature, and wind speed
Discharge rate of Long Creek and a tributary
Rainfall at paired watersheds and Dairy 1 farmstead
Water Supply Watershed (Figure 18):
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, dissolved oxygen (DO),
pH, and turbidity; occasional storm event sampling for total sediment
Upstream/downstream of Dairy 1 Tributary on Lone Creek (Figure 18):
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, dissolved oxygen (DO), total suspended solids (TSS), total
phosphorus (TP), total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and nitrate + nitrogen
(NO2+NO3)
Annual biological survey for sensitive species at station C only
Dairy 1 Farmstead Storm Event:
Type: grab (sites D and E)
Frequency and season: weekly all year for fecal streptococci aind coliforms, tem-
perature, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO), total suspended solids (TSS),
total solids (TS), total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrate + nitrogen (NO2+NO3),
and total phosphorus (TP); storm events for total suspended solids (TSS), total
solids (TS), total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrate + nitrogen (NO2+NO3), and
total phosphorus (TP)
115
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
Paired Cropland Watersheds (Figure 181:
Type: storm event (sites F and G)
Frequency and season: stage-activated storm event for runoff, total suspended
solids (TSS), total solids (TS), total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrate + nitrite
(NO2+NO3), and total phosphorus (TP)
Single Downstream Station at Watershed Outlet (Figure 18):
Type: grab (site D
Frequency and season: weekly from December through May and monthly for the
rest of the year for temperature, pH, conductivity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen
(DO), total suspended solids (TSS), total phosphorus (TP), total kjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN), nitrate + nitrite (NO2+NO3), and fecal streptococci and coliforms; annual
biological for sensitive species
Monitoring Scheme for the Long Creek 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Sites or
Design Activities
Single Water supply
downstream watershed
Primary
Variables
Total solids
Total suspended solids
Fecal colifomi
Fecal streptococci
Frequency of
Frequency of Habitat/Biological
Covariates WQ Sampling Assessment Duration
Discharge Weekly Annually
(weekly) (Dec.-May)
Monthly
2 yrs pre-BMP
6 yrs BMP
Upstream/ Dairy 1
downstream Tributary in
Long Creek
Total phosphorus
Nitrate + nitrite
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Total suspended solids
Fecal coliform
Fecal streptococci
Discharge
(weekly)
Weekly
(Dec. - May)
Monthly
(June-Nov.)
Annually
(downstream)
2 yrs pre-BMP
4 yrs BMP
2 yrs post-BMP
Upstream/ Dairy 1
downstream Farmstead
Total phosphorus
Nitrate-t-nitrite
Total solids
Total suspended solids
Fecal coliform
Fecal streptococci
Discharge
(continuous)
Rainfall
Weekly
and storm event
2 yrs pre-BMP
2 yrs post-BMP
Paired Paired Total phosphorus
cropland Nitrate + nitrite
watershed Total solids
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Discharge
(continuous)
Rainfall
Storm event
2 yrs pre-BMP
6 yrs post-BMP
Single Watershed
downstream outlet
Total phosphorus
Nitrate + nitrite
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Total suspended solids
Fecal coliform
Fecal streptococci
Discharge
(continuous)
Weekly
(Dec.-May)
Monthly
(June-Nov.)
Annually
2 yrs pre-BMP
6 yrs BMP
116
-------
i Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
In May - June, 1994, four monitoring wells were installed at the paired watershed
to gain a better understanding of ground water movement. Approximately 16
wells above Site B are also being installed on a Biosolids Application site.
The water quality monitoring stations have been established and two years of data
have been collected. Also, climatic and flow measurements are being made at
several points in the watershed.
Data are stored locally at the 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
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.
NPSMS Data
Summary
STATION TYPE: Upstream Station
Chemical Parameters
PRIMARY CODE: SiteB
Parameter Name
Fecal Coliform, Membr Filter, M-FC Broth, 44.5 C
Fecal Streptococci 9230C
Nitrate + Nitrite (353.1 EPA, 1983)
Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, Total (MG/L as N)
Phosphorus, Total (MG/L as P)
Total Suspended Solids (2540c 17th SMEWWW)
Farm
Type
S
U
U
S
S
U
STATION TYPE: Downstream Station PRIMARY CODE:
Chemical Parameters
Parameter Name
Fecal Coliform, Membr Filter, M-FC Broth, 44.5 C
Fecal Streptococci 9230C
Nitrate + Nitrite (353.1 EPA, 1983)
Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, Total (MG/L as N)
Phosphorus, Total (MG/L as P)
Total Suspended Solids (2540C 17th SMEWWW)
Parm
Type
S
U
U
S
S
U
STATION TYPE: Upstream Station PRIMARY CODE:
Chemical Parameters
Parameter Name
Fecal Coliform, Membr Filter, M-FC Broth, 44.5 C
Fecal Streptococci 9230C
Flow, Stream, Instantaneous, CSF
Nitrate + Nitrite (353.1 EPA, 1983)
Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, Total (MG/L as N)
Phosphorus, Total (MG/L as P)
Total Solids (Residue) 2540B (17th SMEWWW)
Total Suspended Solids (2540C 17th SMEWWW)
Parm
Type
S
U
S
U
S
S
U
U
Reporting
Units
CFU/100ML
CFU/100ML
MG/L
MG/L
SiteC
Reporting
Units
CFU/100ML
CFU/100ML
MG/L
MG/L
SiteD
Reporting
Units
CFU/100ML
CFU/100ML
CFS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
QUARTILE VALUES
-75-
3600
3700
.53
.3
.3
8
-50-
1700
1400
.49
.22
.18
5.0
-25-
810
270
.45
.15
.1
4.0
QUARTILE VALUES
-75-
3400
4150
.56
.35
.29
11
-50-
1350
1650
.51
.22
.2
7
-25-
940
495
.46
1.7
.13
3
QUARTILE VALUES
-75-
81000
28000
.169
2.7
3.2
.745
145
44.5
-50-
31000
10000
.04
2.085
1.3
.45
102
12.5
-25-
7700
2600
.018
1.405
.615
.285
90
2
117
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
NPSMS Data Summary (Continued)
STATION TYPE: Downstream Station
Chemical Parameters
PRIMARY CODE: SiteE
Parameter Name
Fecal Coliform, Membr Filter, M-FC Broth, 44.5 C
Fecal Streptococci 9230C
Flow, Stream, Instantaneous (CFS)
Nitrate + Nitrite (353.1 EPA, 1983)
Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, Total (MG/L as N)
Phosphorus, Total (MG/L as P)
Total Solids (Residue) 2540B (17th SMEWWW)
Total Suspended Solids
Farm
Type
S
u
S
u
S
S
u
u
Reporting
Units
CFU/100ML
CFU/100ML
CFS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
QUARTILE VALUES
-75-
485000
215000
.171
3.275
12.00
2.865
309
71.5
-50-
60000
42500
.075
1.925
2.80
.815
139
13
-25-
21000
8150
.042
1.28
1.65
.59
114
3
STATION TYPE: Upstream Station
Chemical Parameters
PRIMARY CODE: SiteH
Parameter Name
Fecal Coliform, Membr Filter, M-FC Broth, 44.5 C
Fecal Streptococci 9230C
Total Solids (Residue) 2540B (17th SMEWWW)
Total Suspended Solids (2540C 17th SMEWWW)
Farm
Type
S
U
U
u
Reporting
Units
CFU/100ML
CFU/100ML
MG/L
MG/L
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
910 630 270
1300 360 100
75 68 61
853
Modifications Since
Project Started
Several ground water monitoring wells have been added. Beginning in the spring
of 1996, selected grab samples will be analyzed for cryptosporidium, giardia, and
E. coli.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The estimated budget for the Long Creek Watershed National Monitoring Pro-
gram project for the life of the project is:
Project Element
Federal
Proj Mgt 340,300
I&E 0
LT 0
WQMonit 561,186
TOTALS 901,486
Source: Jennings et al., 1992
Funding Source (S)
State Local
147,360
20,000
370,000
0
537,360
98,240
80,000
80,000
12,000
270,240
Sum
585,900
100,000
450,000
573,186
1,709,086
Modifications Since
Project Started
A 319(h) grant has been awarded to provide cost share for BMP implementation.
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 provisions
of the North Carolina Water Supply Watershed Protection Act (see section below)
and the threat of additional regulation will motivate dairy farmers to implement
animal waste management and erosion control BMPs.
118
-------
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
i Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
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 equiva-
lent control and 2) animal operations of more than 100 animal units must use
BMPs as determined by the North Carolina Soil and Water Conservation Commis-
sion. Other regulations in the Act apply to activities such as forestry, transporta-
tion, residential development, and sludge application.
Project contributors are listed below:
• Landowners
• North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service
• Gaston County Cooperative Extension Service
• Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
• Gaston Soil & Water Conservation District
• North Carolina Division of Soil and Water Conservation
• United States Geological Survey
• Gaston County Quality of Natural Resources Commission
• North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
• Consolidated Farm Service Agency (CFSA)
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
David Harding
DEHNR
Department of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
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
Gregory D. Jennings
Assistant Professor
NCSU Box 7625
Raleigh, NC 27695-7625
(919) 515-6795; Fax (919) 515-6772
Internet: jennings@bae.ncsu.edu
119
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
information and
Education
Glenda M. Jones, Administrator
Gaston Soil & Water Conservation District
1303 Cherryville Highway
Dallas, NC 28034-4181
(704) 922-4181
Garland Still
Natural Resources Conservation Service
1303 Cherryville Highway
Dallas, NC 28034-4181
(704)922-3104
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
Daniel E. Line
Extension Specialist
NCSU Water Quality Group
615 OberlinRoad, 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
120
-------
Oklahoma
Peacheater Creek
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 19: Peacheater Creek (Oklahoma) Project Location
121
-------
i Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
Tyner Creek
Legend
• Chemical Monitoring Site
^ Biological Monitoring Site
Peacheater Creek
Figure 20: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Peacheater Creek (Oklahoma) Watershed
122
-------
Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Peacheater Creek is located in eastern Oklahoma. The watershed is primarily
pastureland and forestland with little cropland and rangeland. There are 51
poultry houses and 9 dairies in the watershed, along with 1200 beef cattle. Fish
and macroinvertebrate habitat quality is impaired by large gravel bars generated
from streambank erosion. Cattle traffic and forestry activities are thought to be
major contributors to streambank erosion. Baseflow monitoring shows intermit-
tent nutrient levels that contribute to creek eutrophication. Eutrophication impacts
downstream of Peacheater Creek include nuisance periphyton growth in the
Illinois River and phytoplankton blooms in Lake Tenkiller.
The project has completed an extensive natural resource and stream corridor
inventory. Data from the inventory has been digitized and mapped in a geographic
information system. A distributed parameter watershed model has been used for
determining critical areas for treatment. Critical areas are pasturelands, riparian
areas, and dairies. Nutrient management planning is underway to improve poultry
and dairy waste utilization on cropland and pastureland. A paired watershed study
is planned using chemical variables. Biological and habitat monitoring is planned
for tributaries and the main stem stream.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Water resources of concern are the Illinois River and Lake Tenkiller, a down-
stream impoundment of the river. The project water resource is Peacheater Creek,
a fourth order stream, with baseflow ranging from 5 to 10 cubic feet per second.
Peacheater Creek flows into the Illinois River upstream of Lake Tenkiller.
Peacheater Creek is used for recreation and aquatic life support. Such use of
Peacheater Creek is impaired by nutrient enrichment and loss of in-stream habitat.
The Illinois River has been degraded by loss of water clarity and nuisance per-
iphyton growth. Lake Tenkiller has had phytoplankton blooms and the hypolim-
nion becomes anoxic during the summer.
Baseflow monitoring for both Peacheater Creek (treatment watershed) and Tyner
Creek (control watershed) for 1990-1992 shows that dissolved oxygen levels are
high (e.g. generally well above 5 mg/1), indicating little concern about oxygen
demanding pollutants. Turbidity was very low, with all samples taken less than 8
NTU. Specific conductivities range from 120 to 183. Nitrate-nitrogen concentra-
tions for Peacheater Creek range from 0.82 mg/1 to 3.4 mg/1. Nitrate-nitrogen
levels, if near 3 mg/1, may be considered elevated if significantly above back-
ground for the area. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) levels range from the detec-
tion limit of 0.2 mg/1 to 1.5 mg/1. Eleven of the thirty TKN observations were
equal to or greater than 0.3 mg/1, which is sufficient organic nitrogen to promote
eutrophication. Generally, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) concentrations for Tyner
Creek were lower than for Peacheater Creek. Three of the thirty baseflow samples
showed total phosphorus (TP) levels were above 0.05 mg/1, which may be consid-
ered a minimum level for eutrophication. Storm sample TP concentrations are
likely to be higher.
Both Peacheater and Tyner Creeks have poor in-stream habitat. Large chert gravel
bars cover expansive portions of the streambed in Peacheater Creek. These gravel
bars continue to grow and shift after major runoff events. The gravel covers
natural geologic and vegetative substrates, reducing habitat quality for macro-
123
-------
i Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
invertebrates and fish. Peacheater Creek has extensive streambank erosion due to
forestry activities and cattle traffic.
Restore recreational and aquatic life beneficial uses in Peacheater Creek and
minimize eutrophication impacts on the Illinois River and Lake Tenkiller.
1995 to 2000
Approved October, 1995
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic and
Meteorological Factors
Land Use
Pollutant Source(s)
The Peacheater Creek watershed area is 16,209 acres. The creek drains to the
Illinois River which then becomes Lake Tenkiller.
Average baseflow for Upper Tyner and Peacheater Creeks is 5-10 cubic foot per
second.
Rocks in the project area are chert rubble. Surface rocks are from the Boone
Formation, the Osage Series, and the Mississippian Age.
Project area soils are generally sandy loams and silt loams with high infiltration
rates. Typical slopes range from 2-5%, and a large portion of the watershed is
steeply sloped land.
Land Use %
Forest land 36
Pastureland 14
Brushy pastureland 40
Cropland 3
Rangeland 7
TOTAL 100
Primary sources of pollution include poultry houses and dairies in the treatment
and control watersheds. Other sources of nutrients could be from septic systems by
private residents. Peacheater Creek has 51 poultry houses and 9 dairies, along
with 176 private residences. Upper Tyner Creek has 65 poultry houses, 7 dairies,
and 150 private residences.
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Several methods are being used to educate the general public and the agricultural
community about pollution control and water quality management. A primary
concern in the watershed is animal waste and nutrient management. Producer
meetings are used to provide updates on regulations for concentrated animal
feeding operations, which includes egg laying poultry operations. Records must be
kept on waste cleanout operations and litter applications. Cooperative Extension
Service and the US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation
Service are working together to promote the use of waste holding ponds for dairies
in the watershed. Soil nutrient sampling is free and is conducted to identify fields
with excessive phosphorus levels. Litter testing is also available for broiler and
laying operations. Litter application demonstrations are being used to illustrate
nutrient management principles on bermuda grass and fescue.
124
-------
Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
Rainfall simulator studies and demonstrations have been held to show the effect of
cropland best management practices (BMPs) on water quality. The effect of
nutrient application rate and filter strips was demonstrated during a summer field
day. Future rainfall simulator study demonstrations are planned.
Newsletters provide general information on agriculture and selected water quality
topics. Producers in the watershed receive newsletters from the Adair County
Extension Service and the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service Unit.
Annually, a three-day summer youth camp is planned to provide water quality
education. An inner tubing excursion was used to show the extent and effect of
streambank erosion on stream habitat quality. Youth camp participants also tested
the chemical quality of Peacheater Creek using portable kits.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY
Description
Land treatment plans include a description of BMPs already in place and the
BMPs being planned for installation. Practices for dairies, poultry operations, beef
operations, riparian areas, and home sites are described below.
In total, the eight dairies in the Peacheater Creek watershed have approximately
800 cows. Seven of the eight dairies have animal waste management plans. A
total of seven waste management systems, including waste storage structures, are
recommended, and three have been installed to date. Eight planned grazing
systems have been recommended, and one planned grazing and one cell grazing
system have been adopted.
There are 60 poultry houses in the watershed with a total of approximately
1,300,000 birds. Types of poultry grown in the watershed include broilers, layers,
pullets, and breeder hens. Seventy five percent of the producers have current
Conservation Plans of Operation. Fifteen mortality composters have been recom-
mended and five have been installed. Buffer zones along streams have been
recommended to reduce nutrient runoff from land applied manure. The current
extent of buffers in the watershed is not reported. For the sole layer operation, a
waste holding pond has been recommended but has not yet been constructed.
Short term storage for litter is recommended when poultry house cleaning occurs
during wet weather or outside the crop growth season.
There are approximately 1,200 beef cattle in the watershed. Best management
practices recommended include planned grazing systems, cell grazing systems,
buffer zones adjacent to streams, watering facilities, critical area vegetation, and
soil testing to support nutrient management planning in pastures receiving land
applied litter.
Twelve critical riparian areas have been identified. Streambank erosion has been
caused by riparian area forestry practices, cattle traffic, and cattle grazing in
riparian areas. Best management practices recommended include fencing, no land
application of litter in riparian areas, off-site watering systems, and vegetative
establishment.
125
-------
i Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Variables
Measured
Sampling Scheme
Monitoring will be done at the outlet of one control watershed (Tyner Creek) and
one treatment watershed (Peacheater Creek). The chemical variable monitoring
design at Peacheater Creek is the paired watershed and single outlet (before and
after). Biological monitoring of both streams will be used to assess subwatershed
impact and recovery. Bank erosion will be monitored on the entire length of each
stream.
Biological
Periphyton productivity
Fisheries survey
Macroinvertebrate survey
Intensive and extensive habitat assessment
Bank erosion and soil bank sampling
Chemical
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Specific conductance (SC)
pH
Alkalinity
Turbidity
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Nitrate + nitrite nitrogen (NOa and NOs)
Total phosphorus (TP)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Sulfate
Chloride
Hardness
Explanatory Variables
Stream discharge
Precipitation
Chemical variables will be monitored weekly from July through January, monthly
during February through June, and during storm events, for a duration of 20
weeks. Storm event monitoring is stage-activated and samples are taken on the
rising and falling limbs of the hydrograph. Concentration samples are flow-
weighted composites.
Biological monitoring varies considerably with assemblage being sampled.
Periphyton productivity will be measured in the summer and the winter.
Macroinvertebrates will be monitored twice per year; once in the summer and
once in the winter. Fish will be monitored once per year. Intensive habitat will be
monitored annually. Extensive habitat will be monitored on alternate years. Bank
erosion and bank soil sampling will be monitored on alternate years.
126
-------
Monitoring Scheme for the Peacheater Creek 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
Design
Paired
Sites or
Activities
Tyner Creekc
Peacheater CreekT
Primary
Variables
Periphyton productivity
Fisheries survey
Macroinvertebrate survey
Habitat assessment
Bank erosion
Turbidity
Dissolved oxygen
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Nitrate + nitrite nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Total suspended solids
Covariates
Stream discharge
Precipitation
Frequency of
WQ Sampling
Frequency of
Habitat/Biological
Assessment Duration
Summer/winter
Yearly
Summer / winter
Alternate years
Alternate years
1995-2000
Weekly (July-Jan.)
Monthly (Feb.-June)
Storm event
cControl watershed
TTreatment watershed
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis <*
NPSMS Data
Summary
Chemical variables will be entered into the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) STORET system, the Oklahoma Conservation Commission
(OCC) Fox Pro Water Quality Data Base and OCC office library. Biological
variables will be entered into the OCC Fox Pro Water Quality Data Base, the
collections at the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, and archived in the
BIOS data base.
The OCC will prepare data and summary statistics for entry into the USEPA
Nonpoint Management System Software (NPSMS).
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Currently unavailable.
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
Currently unavailable.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
None.
127
-------
i Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Information and
Education
John Hassell
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
1000 W. Wishire St. Suite 123
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73116-7026
(405) 858-2004; Fax (405) 858-2012
Internet: hassellj@ionet.net
Otis Bennett
Cherokee County Conservation District
1009 S. Muskogee Avenue
Tahlequah, OK 74464-4733
(918) 456-1919; Fax (918) 456-3147
Ann Colyer
USDA-NRCS
102 W. Pine St.
Stilwell, OK 74960-2652
(918) 696-7612; Fax (918) 696-6114
Andy Inman
USDA-NRCS
Sequoyah County Conservation District
10 IMcGee Drive
Sallisaw, OK 74955-5258
(918) 775-3045
Phillip Moershel
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
1000 W. Wishire St. Suite 123
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73116-7026
(405) 858-2008; Fax (405) 858-2012
Internet: phmoersh@ionet.net
Dan Butler
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
1000 W. Wishire St. Suite 123
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73116-7026
(405) 858-2006; Fax (405) 858-2012
Dean Jackson
Adair County Extension Service
Box 702
Stilwell, OK 74960
(918) 696-2253; Fax (918) 696-6718
Mike Smolen
Oklahoma State University
218 Agricultural Hall
Box 702
Stillwater, OK 74078-0469
(405) 744-5653; Fax (405) 744-6059
Internet: smolen@agen.okstate.edu
128
-------
Pennsylvania
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Pennsylvania
Project Area
Figure 21: Pequea and Mill Creek (Pennsylvania) Watershed Project Location
129
-------
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania
\
Conlrol Watershed
Scale
0 .5
Kteneterc
0
Was
Legend
Water Quality Site and
Continuous Flow Gage Station
Water Quality Site and
Intermittent Flow Station
Precipitation Gage
Nest of 3 Wells
Streams
Watershed Boundary
Figure 22: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Pequea and Mill Creek (Pennsylvania) Watershed
130
-------
Pequea 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 21). Its primary uses are livestock watering,
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 impaired 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 nonpoint
source (NFS) 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 employs a paired watershed design in which the pro-
posed NFS control is to implement livestock exclusion fencing on 100 percent of
the stream miles in the treatment subwatershed (Figure 22). Grab samples are
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 subwater-
shed.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
Pre-Project
Water Quality
The study area encompasses about 2.8 and 2.7 miles of tributary streams in the
treatment and control subwatersheds, respectively. Onetime 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 impairments of
receiving waters.
Onetime baseflow grab sampling at four and seven locations in the control and
treatment subwatershed are presented in tabular form:
Fecal coliform TP
(mg/1)
Treatment
Control
1,100-38,000
10,000
.06-.25
.02-.04
OP
(mg/1)
.03-.15
.01-.03
TKN NO3+NO2
(mg/1) (mg/1)
.3-1.6
.1-.3
10-18
4-12
Current Water
Quality Objectives
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.
131
-------
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania
Modifications Since
Project Initiated
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
None.
October, 1993 to September, 1998-2003
July, 1993
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
Total area is 3.2 square miles (mi2 ); Control = 1.8 mi2; 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 noncarbonate rock.
Land Use
Type
Pollutant Source(s)
Modifications Since
Project Started
Control Watershed
Acres
Agricultural
Urban
Commercial
Total
922
150
80
1152
80
13
7
100
Treatment Watershed
Acres %.
762 85
116 13
18 2
896 100
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 insignificant.
None.
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
The Lancaster Conservation District and the Pennsylvania State University
Cooperative Extension Service maintain active information and education (I&E)
programs in the area. Also, as part of the Pequea-Mill Creeks Hydrologic Unit
Area (HUA), the landowners in the watersheds will receive additional efforts.
The Pennsylvania State University Cooperative Extension Service has produced
an educational video which includes information about the project and participat-
ing farmers.
132
-------
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Description
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
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 vegeta-
tive buffer is expected to develop naturally soon after the fencing is installed.
None.
The project is still in pre-BMP phase.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
Variables Measured
Sampling Scheme
The water quality monitoring effort is based on a paired watershed experimental
design (Figure 22).
None.
Biological
Habitat survey
Benthic invertebrate monitoring
Chemical and Other
Suspended sediment (SS)
Total and dissolved ammonia plus organic nitrogen
Dissolved ammonia (NHs-N)
Dissolved nitrate + nitrite (NO3-N + NOa-N)
Dissolved nitrite (NO2-N)
Total and dissolved phosphorus (TP)
Dissolved orthophosphorus (OP)
Fecal streptococcus bacteria (only during base flow)
Explanatory Variables
Continuous streamflow
Continuous precipitation
Ground water level
Continuous Streamflow Sites (3):
Type: grab and storm event composite
Frequency and season: grab every 10 days from April through November. Monthly
grab December through March. Ten to 15 composite storm flow samples per year
will also be collected.
Partial Streamflow Site (1):
Type: grab
Frequency and season: every 10 days from April through November. Monthly grab
December through March.
133
-------
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania
Ground Water:
Type: grab
Frequency and season: monthly and analyzed for nitrate.
Habitat and benthic invertebrate surveys are conducted twice per year, preferably
during May and August, at the outlet of each subwatershed and at points upstream
in the treatment subwatershed.
Continuous streamflow at watershed outlets and one tributary site and partial
streamflow at one upstream site.
Continuous precipitation amount is recorded at one site.
Additionally, ground water level is continuously monitored in four to eight wells.
Monitoring Scheme for the Pequea and Mill Creek 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Sites or
Design Activities
Paired Treatment
watershed watershed
Control
watershed
Primary
Variables
Habitat survey
Benthic invertebrate survey
Suspended sediment
Total organic nitrogen
Ammonia
Nitrate + nitrite
Nitrite
Total phosphorus and
Dissolved phosphorus
Orthophosphorus
Fecal streptococcus
bacteria
Frequency of
Frequency of Habitat/Biological
Covariates WQ Sampling Assessment Duration
Discharge
(continuous)
Precipitation
Ground water
level
Sampling
every 10 days
from April to
November
Storm event '
samples (2-1 5)
Twice per 3 yrs pre-BMP
year (May & 5 yrs post-BMP
August)
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
None.
Data are stored and maintained locally by U.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) NonPoint
Source Management System (NPSMS) software and submitted to USEPA Region
HI.
134
-------
NPSMSData STATION TYPE: control station PRIMARY CODE: 01575521
Summary CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Parameter Name
FECAL, STREP KF AGAR
FLOW, STREAM, INSTANTANEOUS, CFS
NITROGEN, AMMONIA+ORGANIC DISSOLVED
NITROGEN, KJEDAHL, TOTAL
NITROGEN, NITRITE DISSOLVED
NITROGEN, NO2 + NO3 DISSOLVED
NO. COWS IN PASTURE PER 24 HRS PER ACRE
OXYGEN, DISSOLVED
PASTURE STREAM MILES FENCED
PHOSPHORUS, DISSOLVED
PHOSPHORUS, DISSOLVED ORTHOPHOSPHATE
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL
PRECIPITATION, TOTAL (INCHES PER DAY)
SUSPENDED SEDIMENT
Parm
Type
S
S
S
S
S
S ,
u
S
u
S
S
S
S
S
Reporting
Units
COLS/100ML
CFS
MG/LASN
MGL/N
MG/LASN
COWDAY/AC
MG/L
MI
MG/L ASP
MG/L ASP
MG/L ASP
MG/L
TEMPERATURE, WATER (DEGREES CENTIGRADE) S
TOTAL ALKALINITY AS CALCRJM CARBONATE
TOTAL NITROGEN APPLICATION/ACRE TO
WATERSHED
TOTAL P APPLICATION/ACRE FOR WATERSHED
TURBIDITY, HACK TURBIDIMETER
(FORMAZIN TURB UNIT)
S
u
u
S
MG/L CAC03
N/ACRE
P/ACRE
QUARTILE VALUES
-75-
5,720
2.2
0!30
0.05
0.40
0.04
10.8
0
0.04
0.03
0.08
0.64
107
15.9
-50-
3,580
1.8
<0.20
0.04
0.30
0.03
10.1
0
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.31
84
15.2
-25-
2,190
1.4
<0.20
0.02
<0.20
0.02
9.4
0
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.11
20
12.5
STATION TYPE: Study Station PRIMARY CODE: 01576529
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Parameter Name
FECAL, STREP KF AGAR
FLOW, STREAM, INSTANTANEOUS, CFS
NITROGEN, AMMONIA+ORGANIC DISSOLVED
NITROGEN, AMMONIA, DISSOLVED
NITROGEN, KJEDAHL, TOTAL
NITROGEN, NITRITE DISSOLVED
NITROGEN, NOa + NOs DISSOLVED
NO. COWS IN PASTURE PER 24 HRS PER ACRE
OXYGEN, DISSOLVED
PASTURE STREAM MILES FENCED
PHOSPHORUS, DISSOLVED
PHOSPHORUS, DISSOLVED ORTHOPHOSPHATE
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL
PRECIPITATION, TOTAL (INCHES PER DAY)
SUSPENDED SEDIMENT
Parm
Type
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
u
S
u
S
S
S
S
S
Reporting
Units
COLS/1 OOML
CFS
MG/LASN
MG/LASN
MG/LASN
MG/LASN
MG/LASN
COWDAY/AC
MG/L
MI
MG/L ASP
MG/L ASP
MG/L ASP
MG/L
TEMPERATURE, WATER (DEGREES CENTIGRADE) S
TOTAL ALKALINITY AS CALCIUM CARBONATE
TOTAL NITROGEN APPLICATION/ACRE TO
WATERSHED
TOTAL P APPLICATION/ACRE FOR WATERSHED
TURBIDITY, HACK TURBIDIMETER
(FORMAZIN TURB UNIT)
S
u
u
S
MG/L CAC03
N/ACRE
P/ACRE
QUARTILE VALUES
-75-
98,320
1.5
0.42
0.06
0.70
0.07
12.2
12.4
0
0.06
0.05
0.10
0.64
54
20.5
-50-
10,880
0.9
0.30
0.035
0.55
0.06
11.0
11.4
0
0.025
0.025
0.06
0.31
26
18.7
-25-
1,710
0.6
0.20
0.03
0.38
0.05
9.4
9.8
0
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.11
6
13.0
135
-------
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania
NPSMS Data Summary (Continued)
STATION TYPE: Control Station
BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS (Non-Chemical)
PRIMARY CODE: 01576521
Parameter Name
EFT INDEX
EPT/CHIRONOMIDE ABUNDANCE
H1LSENHOFF B10TIC INDEX (HBI)
PERCENT DOMINANT TAXA
SCRAPERS/FILTER COLLECTORS
SPECIES RICHNESS
Farm Reporting Expl.
INDICES-
Max. Reason. Ref/
Type Units
Var. Fully Threatened Partially Pot. Attn. BPJ
u
u
u
u
u
u
SCORE
RATIO
SCORE
PERCENT
RATIO
COUNT
N
N
N
N
N
N
6
2.0
0.00-6.5
20
0.8
20
4
0.6
6.51-8.5
35
0.4
11
1
0.2
8.51-10
50
0.2
10
11.00
13.00
0.00
10.00
3.00
30.00
6.00
2.00
5.00
20.00
0.80
20.00
B
B
B
B
B
B
STATION TYPE: Study Station PRIMARY
BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS (Non-Chemical)
Parameter Name
EPT INDEX
EPT/CHIRONOMIDE ABUNDANCE
HILSENHOFF BIOTIC INDEX (HBI)
PERCENT DOMINANT TAXA
SCRAPERS/FILTER COLLECTORS
Farm
Type
U
U
U
u
u
Reporting
Units
SCORE
RATIO
SCORE
PERCENT
RATIO
CODE:
Expl.
Var.
N
N
N
N
N
01576529
Fully
6
2.0
0.00-6.5
20
0.8
INDICES
Threatened
4
0.6
6.51-8.5
35
0.4
Partially
1
0.2
8.51-10
50
0.2
Max. Reason.
Pot.
11.00
13.00
0.00
10.00
3.00
Attn.
6.00
2.00
5.00
20.00
0.80
Ref/
BPJ
B
B
B
B
B
SPECIES RICHNESS
U
COUNT N
20
11
10
30.00 20.00
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
None.
1994 water quality data has been entered into WATSTORE and NPSMS software.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Project Element
Personnel
Equipment and Supplies
Contracted Services
USGS (lab and gauging)
USGS Overhead
Other
TOTAL*
1993
$ 57,508
20,300
16,200
25,100
115,192
2,000
$236,300:
Funding Required
1994
$ 91,970
5,600
14,200
38,800
139,834
2,000
292,404
1995
$ 67,656
5,020
6,200
40,770
109,214
3,000
231,860
*50% of total funds are USGS matching funds
Source: Pequea and Mill Creek Watersheds Project Proposal, 1993.
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
136
-------
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
Modifications Since
Project Started
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.
None.
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-NRCS
P.O. Box 207
311 B Airport Drive
Smoketown, PA 17576
(717) 396-9427; Fax (717) 396-9427
Robert Heidecker
USDA-NRCS
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
Edward Koerkle
U.S. Geological Survey
840 Market Street
Lemoyne, PA 17043-1586
(717) 730-6956; Fax (717) 730-6997
137
-------
-------
Vermont
Lake Cham plain Basin Watersheds
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 23: Lake Champlain Basin (Vermont) Watersheds Project Location
139
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
Legend
Monitoring Station
Water
- - Watershed Boundary
..- Watershed
3 (Control Watershed)
Figure 24: 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 northcentral Vermont in an area of transition between the lowlands of
the Champlain Valley and the foothills of the Green Mountains (Figure 23).
Agricultural activity, primarily dairy farming, is the major land use in this area of
Vermont.
The streams in these watersheds drain into the Missisquoi River, a major tributary
of Lake Champlain. The designated uses of many of the streams in this region are
impaired by agricultural NPS pollution. The pollutants responsible for the water
quality impairment are nutrients, particularly phosphorus, E. coli, fecal strepto-
coccus, fecal coliform bacteria, and organic matter. The source of most of the
agricultural NPS pollution is the manure generated from area dairy farms, live-
stock 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 (NPS) 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 generated by
agricultural activities. Treatment #1 is a system of best management practices
(BMPs) to exclude livestock from selected critical areas of streams and to protect
stream crossings and streambanks. Individual BMPs for treatment #1 include
watering systems, fencing, the minimization of livestock crossing areas in
streams, and the strengthening of the necessary crossing areas. Treatment #2
implements intensive grazing management through planned rotation of multiple
pastures.
The water quality monitoring is a three-way paired design: there is one control
watershed and two treatment watersheds (treatment #1 and #2) (Figure 24). The
watersheds are monitored during a two-year calibration period prior to BMP
implementation. Implementation monitoring will occur for one year and posttreat-
ment 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 explanatory vari-
ables, precipitation and continuous discharge, are also being monitored.
Nutrients and sediment are monitored weekly in 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 are being sampled annually and fish are evaluated
twice each year. Invertebrate and fish monitoring are also being conducted at an
unimpaired reference site.
141
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Current Water
Quality Objectives
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 1-288 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 (bacteriologi-
cal) criteria for body contact recreation are consistently violated in these streams.
Early biological data for fish and macroinvertebrates indicate moderate to severe
impact by nutrients and organic matter. These particular small watersheds 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 concen-
trations 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
Champlain - 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 exces-
sive nonpoint source loads (Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, 1994). About
66% of the NFS phosphorus load to Lake Champlain is 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
10 - 66,000
TP(mg/l)
0.05 - 1.05
Fecal Coliform
(#7100 ml)
2 - 49,000
TKN (mg/1)
0.32-2.08
Fecal Strep.
10-200,000
TSS (mg/1)
2-150
(Note: these values represent the range observed in May, 1994 - June, 1995.)
The overall goal of the project is a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of
two livestock/grazing management practices in reducing concentrations and 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 watershed outlets; and 2)
Evaluate response of stream biota to treatment.
142
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
None.
September 1993 - September, 1999 (Approximate)
September 1993
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
Land Use
1705 ac (WS 1) + 3513 ac (WS 2) + 2358 ac (WS 3) = 7576 ac
The project area is in northcentral 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:
WS1
Land Use
Com/hay
Pasture/
hay-pasture
Forest
Other
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%
Pollutant Source(s)
Modifications Since
Project Started
Source: 1993 CFSA aerial photography, unverified
Nonpoint sources of pollutants are from streambanks, degraded riparian zones,
and dairy-related agricultural activities, such as field-spread and pasture-deposited
manure and livestock access. Some agricultural point sources such as milkhouse
waste or corn silage leachate are thought to exist.
None.
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. The
purpose of these meetings was to assess landowner interest and acceptance of the
project.
143
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Two articles have been published in the weekly county newspaper concerning the
project. A semiannual project newsletter was initiated in the summer of 1995.
In July, 1994, a monitoring station "open-house" was held to present the project,
monitoring hardware, and some early monitoring results.
The first annual winter lunch meeting was held in February, 1995, where water-
shed farmers discussed the project and heard a talk by a local farmer engaged in
rotational grazing.
The project includes a Project Advisory Committee with representatives from
United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service
(USDA-NRCS), Extension, Vermont Dept. of Agriculture, Vermont Dept. of
Environmental Conservation, Vermont Natural Resources Conservation Council,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Vermont Pasturelands Outreach Program, and
a watershed dairy farmer. The committee meets quarterly to review progress 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 rotational
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
Modifications Since
Project Started
The project is designed to test two treatments: 1) livestock exclusion/streambank
protection, and 2) intensive grazing management. In the first treatment water-
shed, work will focus on selective exclusion of livestock from the streams, im-
provement or elimination of heavily used stream crossings, and revegetation of
streambanks. This treatment requires fencing, watering systems, minimizing
livestock crossing areas, and strengthening necessary crossing areas.
In the second treatment watershed, intensive rotational grazing management is
being 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 are being
assessed, specific plans and specifications are being developed, and agreements
with landowners are being pursued. It is anticipated that the project will provide
100% cost support for cooperating landowners. Agricultural management activity
- both routine and treatment implementation - are monitored by farmer record-
keeping and semiannual 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.
None.
144
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
The water quality monitoring component of the project is fully operational and is
currently meeting project goals. A severe drought and elevated temperatures
during June and July, 1995 have slightly interfered with chemical and physical
monitoring, and may have some lasting influence on biological communities in
the monitored streams.
Land use/agricultural activity monitoring is lagging somewhat behind schedule. A
baseline farm inventory has been completed and the watersheds were flown for
aerial videography in June, 1995 to update land use/land cover and to assess and
classify stream corridors as part of an evaluation of treatment needs. The process
of identifying specific treatment needs, designs, and negotiating agreements with
landowners will begin in the fall of 1995.
The principal impediment to project progress is funding, both mechanism and
quantity. While in principle, Section 319 National Monitoring Program funding is
intended to be set up for the entire project period, this has not been the case in this
project. The requirement to renew funding each year causes significant problems,
including accounting confusion over fiscal vs. project vs. monitoring "years",
inefficient expenditure of staff time, and, most importantly, difficulty in account-
ing for and documenting required match. This is a particular problem in the
implementation budget, since actual implementation (and associated match) will
not take place until project year 3, while funds have been allocated in project year
1 and 2 budgets. Budgeting over the entire project lifetime would substantially
alleviate these problems.
The other financial impediment to the project involves significant increases in
charges for sample analysis from the state Department of Environmental Conser-
vation (DEC) laboratory. These costs have increased dramatically (on the order of
$11,000 - $16,500 per year) since the first funding year and, with no correspond-
ing increase in overall funding, other budget categories have had to be cut. In the
current FY96 budget, this has required elimination of all nonsignificant principal
investigator support, limiting available time commitment to the project. The
increase in analytical costs also reduces the previous match contributions from
DEC. Annual funding from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
however, has been essentially level and nonnegotiable for the last two years. Some
flexibility in funding, i.e. increasing USEPA funding to cover such cost increases,
would be helpful.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
The study is based on a three-way paired watershed design, with a control water-
shed and one watershed for each of the two treatments to be evaluated (Figure 24).
The design calls for two years of pretreatment calibration, one year of implemen-
tation, and three years of posttreatment monitoring.
None.
Variables Measured
Biological
E. coli bacteria
Fecal coliform bacteria
Fecal streptococcus bacteria
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
145
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
Sampling Scheme
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 continuous
recording of streamflow, automatic flow-proportional sampling, and weekly
composite samples for sediment and nutrients. The watersheds are as follows:
WS1 is the rotational grazing (treatment #2), WS2 is the streambed protection
(treatment #1), and WS3 is the control (Figure 24). Twice-weekly grab samples
for bacteria are collected. Concurrent in-stream measurement of temperature,
dissolved oxygen, and conductivity also occur at the same time that the grab
samples are collected. Three precipitation gauges have been installed. All moni-
toring systems operate year-round.
The macroinvertebrate community at each site and a fourth "background refer-
ence" site are sampled annually using a kick net/timed effort technique. Methods
and analysis follow USEPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Protocol III). Fish
are sampled twice a year by electroshocking and evaluated according to Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols Protocol V.
Physical habitat assessments are performed during each sampling run.
Monitoring Scheme for the Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Design
Three-way
paired
watershed
Site or
Activities
Samsonville
BrookT
Godin BrookT
Berry Brookc
Primary
Variables
E. coli bacteria
Fecal coliform
Fecal streptococcus
Macroinvertebrates
Fish survey
Total phosphorus
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Total suspended solids
Dissolved oxygen
Conductivity
Temperature
Covariates
Precipitation
Discharge
(continuous)
Frequency of
WQ Sampling
Weekly except
bacteria
temperature,
dissolved oxygen,
and conductivity
which will be
twice weekly
Frequency of
Biological
Assessment
Fish sampled
twice per year
Macroinvertebrates
sampled once per
year
Duration
2 yrs pre-BMP
lyrBMP
3 yrs post-BMP
^Treatment watershed
cControl watershed
146
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
None.
NPSMS Data
Summary
Primary data management is 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 when it is upgraded to handle three watersheds and a
version provided that runs on the available PC. Requisite data entry into STORET
and BIOS has been completed through file transfer. Biological data are being
formatted for transfer to BIOS.
Water quality data are being compiled and reported for quarterly project advisory
committee meetings, including basic plots and univariate statistics. For annual
reports, data is analyzed on a water-year basis.
Data analysis is being performed using both parametric and nonparametric
statistical procedures in standard statistical software.
Monitoring Station Parameters Report
DATE: 08/04/95 PERIOD: 5/94-6/95
STATION TYPE: Treatment Watershed #1 (Samsonville Brook)
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Reporting
Parameter Name Units
CONDUCTANCE uS/CM
E. COLI CFU/100ML
FECAL COLIFORM CFU/100ML
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS CFU/100ML
FLOW, STREAM, WEEKLY MEAN CFS
OXYGEN, DISSOLVED MG/L
PRECIPITATION, TOTAL IN/WEEK
NITROGEN, TOTAL KJELDAHL MG/L
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL MG/L
TEMPERATURE, WATER oC
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L
STATION TYPE: Treatment Watershed #2 (Godin Brook)
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Parameter Name
CONDUCTANCE
E. COLI
FECAL COLIFORM
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS
FLOW, STREAM, WEEKLY MEAN
OXYGEN, DISSOLVED
PRECIPITATION, TOTAL
NITROGEN, TOTAL KJELDAHL
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL
TEMPERATURE, WATER
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
QUARTILE VALUES
-75-
120
200
180
1040
3.7
13.0
0.58
1.24
0.160
0.8
59.6
-50-
95
120
82
300
2.3
11.8
0.29
1.00
0.076
9.1
26.8
-25-
80
24
26
60
1.4
9.9
0.07
0.69
0.052
17.1
13.8
Reporting
Units
uS/CM
CFU/100ML
CFU/100ML
CFU/100ML
CFS
MG/L
IN/WEEK
MG/L
MG/L
oC
MG/L
QUARTILE VALUES
-75-
139
4500
4450
1200
7.7
13.1
0.76
1.15
0.185
18.0
36.0
-50-
117
610
600
520
4.8
11.5
0.40
0.89
0.088
10.4
14.4
-25-
90
39
41
50
3.1
9.7
0.09
0.66
0.037
2.3
5.2
147
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
NPSMS Data Summary (Continued)
STATION TYPE: Treatment Watershed #3 (Berry Brook)
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Reporting
Parameter Name Units -75-
CONDUCTANCE uS/CM 130
E. COLI CFU/100ML 3850
FECAL COLIFORM CFU/100ML 2800
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS CFU/100ML 1900
FLOW, STREAM, WEEKLY MEAN CFS 9.2
OXYGEN, DISSOLVED MG/L 12.6
PRECIPITATION, TOTAL IN/WEEK 0.75
NITROGEN, TOTAL KJELDAHL MG/L 1.06
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL MG/L 0.179
TEMPERATURE, WATER oC 17.4
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L 31.0
QUARTILE VALUES
-SO-
111
490
630
405
5.9
10.6
0.48
0.77
0.058
10.6
8.6
-25-
94
33
31
60
3.7
9.2
0.12
0.68
0.040
2.7
5.0
Modifications Since None.
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
PROJECT BUDGET
Modifications Since
Project Started
The estimated budget for the Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds National Moni-
toring Program project for years 1-3 is:
Project Element
LT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Funding Source ($)
Federal ,
106,100
273,400
379,500
State
3,400
85,500
88,900
University
22,400
75,600
98,000
Sum
131,900
434,500
566,400
Source: Don Meals (Personal Communication), 1994
(Dollar figures are rounded.)
Project budget continues to be renewed yearly.
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 man-
agement of Lake Champlain and its watershed. Considerable effort on agricultural
NFS control is associated with this program, including funding for pollution
control/prevention demonstration projects.
148
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
Modifications Since
Project Started
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 ongoing
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.
Two other activities may contribute to this project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has an active riparian zone restoration program, Pastures for Wildlife, in
the area. The UVM Extension Pasturelands Outreach Program is engaged in
active promotion and technical assistance in implementing rotational grazing in
northern Vermont. Individuals from other programs serve on the Project Advisory
Committee.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
None.
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Richmond (Rick) 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
Don 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
Don 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
149
-------
-------
Washington
Totten and Eld Inlet
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 25: Totten and Eld Inlet (Washington) Project Location
151
-------
• Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
Legend
• Watershed Boundary
• Sample Site Location
Figure 26: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Totten and Eld Inlet (Washington)
152
-------
i Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Totten and Eld Inlets are located in southern Puget Sound (Figure 25). These
adjacent inlets are characterized by enriched marine waters that make them
exceptional shellfish production areas. The rural nature of the area makes it an
attractive place in which to live. Consequently, stream corridors and shoreline
areas have experienced considerable urban, suburban, and rural growth in the past
decade. Located in the area are many recreational, noncommercial farms that keep
varying numbers of large animals (primarily horses). Upland and lowland areas
are highly productive forest lands.
The most significant nonpoint source pollution problem in these inlets is bacterial
contamination of shellfish production. Totten Inlet is currently classified as an
approved shellfish harvest area but is considered threatened due to bacterial
nonpoint source pollution. The southern portion of Eld Inlet is currently classified
as conditional for shellfish harvest. This conditional classification means shellfish
may not be harvested for 3 days following rain events that are greater than 1.25
inches in 24 hours. The major sources of fecal coliform (FC) bacteria are failing
on-site wastewater treatment systems and livestock-keeping practices along stream
corridors and marine shorelines.
The Totten and Eld Inlet Clean Water Projects have evolved from the combined
efforts and resources of local and state government. Watershed action plans were
completed in 1989 for both Totten and Eld Inlet. While a significant level of
public involvement and planning has occurred, material resources for implement-
ing on-the-ground best management practices (BMPs) have been scarce. In 1993,
substantial funding from property assessments and grants provided funds to
implement remedial actions in targeted areas within these watersheds. The goal of
the remedial efforts is to minimize the impacts of nonpoint source pollution by
implementing farm plans on priority farm sites and identifying and repairing
failing on-site wastewater treatment systems. These focused efforts are expected to
last into 1999.
In 1993, a water quality monitoring program was started to evaluate the effective-
ness of remedial land treatment practices on water quality. This monitoring effort
was formalized in 1995 into a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Section 319 National Monitoring Program project. The monitoring effort targets
six sub-basins within the larger Totten and Eld Inlet watersheds. The goals of
water quality monitoring are to detect, over time: 1) trends in water quality and
implementation of land treatment practices, and 2) associated changes in water
quality to changes in land treatment practices. A paired watershed design is being
used for two basins while a single site approach will be used for four basins. Water
quality monitoring has been and will continue to be conducted from November to
April on a weekly basis for at least 20 consecutive weeks each year. Fecal coliform
bacteria, suspended solids, turbidity, flow, and precipitation are the main variables
of interest. Best management practices are also being tracked.
153
-------
• Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Totten/Little Skookum and Eld Inlets are estuaries separated by peninsulas in
southern Puget Sound. The total drainage basin for the two inlets is approximately
67,200 acres. Six sub-basins have been selected for this monitoring project. They
are as follows:
Burns 150 acre single site
Kennedy 13,000 acre paired site
Pierre 80 acre single site
Schneider 4,000 acre paired site
McLane 9,600 acre single site
Perry 4,000 acre single site
Important beneficial uses of the Totten and Eld Inlet marine waters include
shellfish culturing, finfish migration and rearing, wildlife habitat, and primary
and secondary contact recreation.
Important beneficial uses of the freshwater streams that drain into the Totten and
Eld Inlets include: finfish migration, spawning, and rearing; domestic and agri-
cultural water supply; primary and secondary contact recreation; and wildlife
habitat.
Three of the six project streams (Burns, Pierre and Schneider) failed to meet water
quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria for the 1992-93 and 1993-94 monitor-
ing seasons. The water quality standard for fecal coliform (FC) bacteria for these
streams requires that the geometric mean value not exceed 50 cfu/100 mL and
that not more than 10% of samples exceed 100 cfu/100 mL.
% samples
Site
Burns
Kennedy
Pierre
Schneider
McLane
Perry
Class
AA
AA
AA
AA
A
A
GMV
92-93
94
5
52
24
37
14
93-94
206
6
55
17
27
10
Part 1 greater than Part
meet standard? 2 of standard
92-93
No
Yes
No .
Yes
Yes
Yes
93-94
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
92-93
35
0
22
17
4
0
93-94
74
0
42
11
4
0
Part 2
meet standard?
92-93
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
93-94
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Class AA Standard:
Part 1—geometric mean value (GMV) shall not exceed 50 colonies/1 OOmL.
Part 2—not more than 10% of the samples used for calculating the GMV
shall exceed 100 colonies/1 OOmL.
Class A Standard:
Part 1—geometric mean value shall not exceed 100 colonies/1 OOmL.
Part 2—not more than 10% of the samples used for calculating the GMV
shall exceed 200 colonies/1 OOmL.
154
-------
i Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
Pierre Creek
• reduce median FC concentration by 69% (reduce to 10 cfu/lOOmL)
Burns Creek
reduce median FC concentration by 63% (reduce to 20 cfu/100 mL)
Schneider Creek
reduce median FC concentration by 50% (reduce to 10 cfu/100 mL)
McLarie Creek
• reduce median FC concentration by 44% (reduce to 22 cfu/100 mL)
1993 to 2002
1995
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic and
Meteorologic Factors
The Totten and Eld Inlets Section 319 National Monitoring Program project area
consists of six sub-basins within the Totten and Eld Inlets. The Totten watershed
is approximately 44,300 acres and the Eld Inlet watershed is approximately
22,900 acres.
The topography of the project area includes the rugged Black Hills area southwest
of the city of Olympia, upland prairies, fresh and estuarine wetlands, high and low
gradient stream reaches, and rolling hills. Pleistocene glacial activity was the
most recent major land forming process.
The predominant till formations generally consist of compact silts and clays.
Wet, mild winters and warm, dry summers are characteristic of the Puget Sound
region. The climate and precipitation of the project area are similar. Rainfall
ranges from about 50 to 60 inches per year, depending on elevation and longitude.
The precipitation received in the areas mostly occurs between October and April.
Land Use
Pollutant Source(s)
Land Use
Forest
Residential
Agriculture
Public Use
Undeveloped
Other
Totten/Littie Skookum Inlet Eld Inlet
82.0% 63.0%
4.3% 6.3%
5.0% 5.1%
0.3% 5.1%
7.5% 19.8%
0.9% 0.7%
The major sources of fecal coliform bacteria are failing on-site wastewater treat-
ment systems and livestock-keeping practices along stream corridors and marine
shorelines. Wet season (October-April) soil saturation hampers the ability of many
on-site systems to operate correctly. Saturated soils and stormwater runoff also
contribute to water quality problems associated with overgrazed pastures, manure-
contaminated runoff, and livestock access to streams. The major source of pollu-
tion in the monitoring sub-basins is considered to be animal-keeping practices.
155
-------
• Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
There are a variety of educational and informational activities within the project
counties (Thurston and Mason Counties) that address land and water stewardship.
Local and state initiatives over the past six years have resulted in stewardship
activities that cover the spectrum of personal commitment activities, including
awareness, learning, experience, and personal action programs. Many educators
involved with these activities share ideas, resources, and programs through a
stewardship-focused Regional Education Team.
A Section 319 Clean Water Act grant funded a watershed resident survey in
August, 1994. The survey explored public awareness and opinions regarding
water quality and environmental issues. The survey targeted the Totten and Eld
Inlet watersheds in southern Puget Sound as well as northern Puget Sound water-
sheds in Whatcom, Skagit, and Snohomish counties. Approximately 1300 resi-
dents responded to the mail survey. The survey was designed to help state and
local governments evaluate levels of public awareness and effectiveness of current
educational programs, and determine where educational efforts, and efforts to
involve the public, should be directed (Elway Research, 1994).
The objective of the project's public involvement and education component is to
participate in and lend support to established public information and education
activities addressing environmental stewardship in the project areas and in the
larger South Puget Sound area.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY
Description
The nonpoint source treatment in the project area is designed to minimize the
impacts of nonpoint source pollution by repairing failing on-site wastewater
treatment systems and implementing farm plans on priority farm sites. Priority
farm sites are those farms that potentially threaten the quality of a receiving water
due to a variety of physical and managerial properties such as closeness to stream,
numbers of animals, and lack of pollution prevention practices. The nonpoint
source control strategy involves surveying all potential pollution sources in critical
areas, estimating the water quality impact, and finally planning and implementing
corrective actions.
Resource management plans (farm plans) are developed cooperatively by the
landowner and local conservation districts. The farm planning process identifies
potential water quality impacts and recommends BMPs to mitigate those impacts.
District staff and the landowner discuss implementation costs and schedules of
BMPs and cost-share opportunities. The landowner then chooses what he or she is
willing to implement and agrees to implement the plan as funding allows. Spe-
cific BMPs most likely to be employed for nonpoint source control in project
watersheds include pasture and grazing management, stream fencing, stream
buffer zones, rainwater and runoff management, livestock density reduction, and
animal waste management. Monies from the Farm Service Agency, State Revolv-
ing Fund, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other sources may be available for
cost-share or low interest loan contracts.
_
156
-------
i Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
Voluntary participation (due to education/outreach activities and local ordinances)
is anticipated to be the major mechanism for implementation of farm plans. Farm
owners who have impacts on water quality and do not comply with local ordi-
nances become involved in a formal compliance procedure, which is outlined by a
memorandum of agreement between the Ecology Water Quality Program and each
conservation district. Legal recourse is seldom needed.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
A paired watershed approach is being used for the Kennedy/Schneider sub-basins
to document the change in water quality as a result of BMP implementation.
Kennedy is a background (control) sub-basin, while Schneider is the treatment
basin (Figure 26). A single site approach will be used for Burns, Pierre, Perry and
McLane sub-basins (Figure 26).
Variables
Measured
Chemical and Other
Biological
Fecal conform
Sampling
Scheme
Explanatory Variables
Conductivity
Daily precipitation
Flow
Temperature
Total suspended solid (TSS)
Turbidity
Water quality monitoring is conducted from early November through mid-April.
Grab samples will be collected on a weekly schedule (Tuesdays) for at least 20
consecutive weeks each year of the project. Up to six additional samples will be
collected each season during runoff events at each site. The rain-event sampling is
based on the criterion of previous 24-hour precipitation amounting to greater than
0.2 inches. The sample sites are located at the mouth of each stream. Historically,
sampling has occurred at this location.
The Puget Sound Protocols for freshwater and general quality assurance/quality
control (Tetra Tech, 1986) will be followed for water sample collection, identifica-
tion, preservation, storage, and transport. Replicate samples (two samples taken
from the same location at nearly the same time) for at least 10% of the total
number of laboratory samples will be taken and analyzed each week. All sample
sites are represented every sampling season.
157
-------
i Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
Monitoring Scheme for the Totten and Eld Inlet 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Design
Single
downstream
Paired
watershed
Sites or Primary
Activities Variables
Bums Fecal coliform
Pierre
Perry
McLane
Kennedy/ Fecal coliform
Schneider
Frequency of Primary
Covariates Variable Sampling Duration
Conductivity
Daily precipitation
Flow
Temperature
Total suspended solids
•Turbidity
Weely Schneider
(Nov. to mid-April) Bums
during storms Pierre:
1 yr. pre-BMP
3yrsBMP
2 yrs post-BMP
Perry:
3 yrs pre-BMP
3 yrs BMP
1 yr post-BMP
McLane:
lyr pre-BMP
5 yrs BMP
1 yr post-BMP
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
NPSMS Data
Summary
Water quality data will be stored and managed in spreadsheet formats and later
transferred to USEPA's STORET and NonPoint Source Management System
(NPSMS) databases. Other reporting formats for the Ecology Water Quality
Program and local use may involve spreadsheet tabulation and graphic presenta-
tions. Data evaluation and analysis strategies include:
• Determining statistically significant temporal trends in water quality by
comparison of 95% Confidence Interval about seasonal medians using
notched boxplots (single site approach); linear regression of monthly or
seasonal medians over time, and the significance of slope tested to indicate a
decreasing trend of FC concentrations over time (single site approach);
change in linear relationship of FC concentrations between paired basins
(paired watershed approach); and, comparison of frequencies of water quality
standards violations between years.
Determining temporal trends in BMP implementation by: bar graph of BMPs
(individual or grouped) implemented over time; and plot of cumulative
histogram of BMPs implemented over time (individual measures or groups of
measures).
• Evaluating combined water quality and BMP trends by: linear regression of
FC as a function of BMPs (individually or grouped) such as livestock
management, acres treated, farm plans implemented, and streambank
protected; and, graphical expression of water quality and BMP information
plotted over the same time scale (e.g. seasonal median FC values with
cumulative histogram of fully implemented farm plans).
Currently unavailable.
158
-------
i Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The estimated budget for the Totten and Eld Inlet National Monitoring Program
project for the period of FY 1993 - 1999 (six years):
Project Element
Proj Mgt
I&E
LT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Funding Source ($)
Federal State Local Total
NA NA NA NA
NA • NA NA NA
NA 300,000 100,000 400,000
250,000 50,000 NA 300,000
250,000 350,000 100,000 700,000
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
In response to increased and persistent closures of shellfish harvest areas and
threats to close additional areas, state and local groups developed the Shellfish
Protection Initiative (SPI). This program provides $3 million from State Referen-
dum 39 funds for implementing BMPs in targeted watersheds. The Totten Basin,
a targeted watershed, will receive $1.3 million in grant funds as part of the SPI.
Eld Inlet, although not selected as an SPI project, will receive $260,000 from the
SPI program to augment ongoing NFS control efforts in specific areas. In addi-
tion, $331,000 will be targeted for farm planning and implementation activities in
the Eld watershed from 1996 to 1999.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
None.
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Theresa Fisher
Ecology Water Quality Program
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
(360) 407-6406; Fax: (360) 407-6426
Mariiou Pivirotto/Jeannette Barreca
Ecology Southwest Region Office
PO Box 47775
Olympia, WA 98594-7775
(360) 407-6787; Fax: (360) 407-6305
Linda Hofstad/Jane Hedges
Thurston County Environmental Health Services
2000 Lakeridge Drive SW
Olympia, WA 98502-6045
(360) 754-4111; Fax: (360) 754-2954
159
-------
• Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
Water Quality
Monitoring
Management Team
Thurston Conservation District
6128 Capitol Blvd.
Tumwater, WA 98501
(360) 754-3588; Fax: (360) 753-8085
Keith Seiders
Ecology Watershed Assessments Section
P.O. Box 47710
Olympia, WA 98504-7710
(360) 407-6689; Fax: (360) 407-6884
Internet: kese461@ecy.wa.gov
160
-------
Wisconsin
Otter Creek
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 27: Otter Creek (Wisconsin) Project Location
161
-------
Otter Creek, Wisconsin
Scale
Gerber Lake
OC-1
(Single
Downstream
; Station)
; i.e. outlet
OC-5
OC-6
Figure 28: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Otter Creek (Wisconsin)
162
-------
Otter Creek, Wisconsin
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Otter Creek Section 319 National Monitoring Program project is in east
central Wisconsin (Figure 27), with a project area of 11 square miles. Otter Creek
drains into the Sheboygan River, which then drains into Lake Michigan. Land use
mainly consists of dairies and croplands.
Otter Creek has a warmwater forage fishery. The fish community is degraded by
lack of cover, disturbed streambanks, and siltation. Fecal coliform levels fre-
quently 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 concen-
trations of phosphorus and fecal coliform to the Sheboygan River. These pollut-
ants then travel to the near shore waters of Lake Michigan, which serves as a
water supply for municipal use and also supports recreational fisheries.
Streambed sediments originating from cropland erosion, eroding streambanks,
and overgrazed dairy pastures are reducing the reproductive potential for a high
quality fishery with abundant forage fish. Otter Creek is further degraded by total
phosphorus and fecal coliform export from dairy barnyards, pastures, cropland,
and alfalfa fields. The mean concentration of 22 runoff events is 104 mg/1 for
suspended solids and 0.39 mg/1 for total phosphorus.
Critical area criteria are being used 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 that their cropland was classified as critical. Streambank critical areas are
the 6,200 feet of streambank trampled by cattle.
Land treatment design is based on the pollutant type and the source of the pollut-
ant. Upland fields will be treated with cropland erosion control practices to reduce
sediment loss. Streambanks are being fenced to limit cattle access, and barnyard
structural practices are being installed to reduce nutrient runoff into Otter Creek.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Otter Creek is 4.2 miles long with an average gradient of .0023 ft/ft or 12.4 fit/
mile (Figure 28). The creek flows into and out of a small spring-fed lake called
Gerber Lake.
Otter Creek is used for fishing and for secondary body contact recreation. The
fishery is impaired by degraded 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. Excessive phosphorus, fecal coliform,
and sediment runoff originate from manure spreading and cropland. Fisheries are
impaired because of degraded aquatic habitat that limits reproduction. Recreation
is limited by degraded fisheries and highly eutrophic and organically enriched
stream waters.
163
-------
i Otter Creek, Wisconsin
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
The Otter Creek project water quality objectives are to:
Increase the numbers of intolerant fish species 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 Michigan
by installation of best management practices (BMPs) in the Otter Creek
watershed.
Improve the wildlife habitat by restoring riparian vegetation.
None.
Spring, 1994 through Spring, 2001
July, 1993
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorological Factors
The Otter Creek watershed area is about 11 square miles. The Meeme River is the
control watershed, and its area 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 ranges from rolling hills to nearly level. The
soils are clay loams or silty clay loams that have poor infiltration and poor perco-
lation but high fertility. Soils are glacial drift underlain by Niagara dolomite.
Land Use
Land Use
Agricultural
Forest
Suburban
Wetland
Water
Total
72
13
11
3
1
100
Pollutant Source(s)
Modifications Since
Project Started
Best management practices are being installed on critical dairies. Livestock
exclusion practices are also being installed.
Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1993s.
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. Some critical area cropland is in need of erosion control
practice installation.
None.
164
-------
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Otter Creek, Wisconsin
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
The Sheboygan County Land Conservation Department has developed and imple-
mented an effective educational program to reach project dairymen. Project
personnel have achieved a high level of participation through education, technical
assistance, effective communication, and cost-share assistance.
• A watershed tour was held for landowners.
• Watershed newsletters were sent to landowners.
• The watershed advisory committee meeting was held.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Description
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Streambank erosion and cattle access practices include shoreline and streambank
stabilization; barnyard management includes barnyard runoff management and
manure storage facilities; and cropland practices include grassed waterways,
reduced tillage, and nutrient and pesticide management.
None.
Five critical barnyards have installed runoff controls.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
There are three monitoring studies being conducted in the Otter Creek National
Monitoring Program project. They include a paired watershed study, a single
downstream station, and an above and below study (Figure 28).
There are six sampling 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.
The above and below watershed study is being conducted using stations OC2 and
OC4. Station OC2 is below the dairy where BMPs are being installed. Station
OC4 is above this dairy. Station OC5 is a background station, and station OC6 is
below a dairy where BMPs are being installed.
The paired watershed study is being conducted using stations OC1 and MR1.
Station OC1 is the outlet of the Otter Creek Watershed where animal waste
management and nutrient management BMPs are being installed. It also serves as
the monitoring site for a single downstream station study. The only station not
shown on Figure 28 is MR1, which is the outlet for the Meeme River watershed.
MR1 is being used as the control site for the paired watershed study.
165
-------
i Otter Creek, Wisconsin
Modifications Since
Project Started
Variables Measured
Sampling Scheme
The paired watershed study is used to assess the overall impact of best manage-
ment practices on water quality. The treatment watershed is 11 square miles and is
being monitored at station OC1. The control watershed area is 16 square miles of
the Meeme River with monitoring station MR1. Biological, bacterial, and chemi-
cal variables are primary variables and precipitation and water discharge are
covariates for the paired watershed study.
The following table provides details on the sampling design for the paired study,
the upstream/downstream and the single downstream station. The monitoring
sites are listed for reference. The primary variables are very similar for each study
except for methods used for macroinvertebrates. The frequency of sampling, the
covariates, and the duration of each study are also listed.
None.
Biological
Fisheries survey
Macroinvertebrate survey
Habitat assessment
Chemical
Total phosphorus (TP)
Dissolved phosphorus (DP)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Ammonia-N (Nfib-N)
Nitrogen series (NOz-N and NOa-N)
Turbidity
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Fecal coliform bacteria (FC)
Explanatory Variables
Stream discharge
Precipitation
Automatic, continuous water chemistry sampling occurs 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-midsummer in 1991.
Future plans are for spring-midsummer monitoring in 1995 and 1999 and mid-
summer-fall monitoring for 1998. Fisheries, macroinvertebrate, and habitat
monitoring has been scheduled for midsummer in 1990, 1994, and 1998, and for
the spring of 1991, 1995, and 1999.
Fisheries monitoring includes sampling fish species, frequencies, and biomass.
Fisheries data are summarized and interpreted based on the Index of Biotic
Integrity (Lyons, 1992). Macroinvertebrate monitoring criteria includes
macroinvertebrate 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).
166
-------
Otter Creek, Wisconsin
Grab and continuous samples are being used for water chemistry monitoring.
Variables sampled include total phosphorus, fecal coliform bacteria, dissolved
oxygen, and suspended sediments.
Monitoring Scheme for the Otter Creek 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Design
Paired
watershed
design
Sites or
Activities
Otter CreekT
OC1
Meeme Riverc
MR1
Primary
Variables
Biological
Fisheries index
MacroinvertebratesH
Habitat
Bacterial & Chemical
Fecal coliform bacteria
Total phosphorus
Dissolved phosphorus
Total Kjehldahl nitrogen
Ammonia nitrogen
Nitrate nitrogen
Nitrite nitrogen
Turbidity
Total suspended solids
Dissolved oxygen
Frequency of Primary
Covariates Variable Sampling
Precipitation Annually
discharge Annually
Annually
30 samples per
monitoring season;
weekly April-Oct.
Duration
1990-1999
Upstream/
downstream
Above Dairyc
OC4
Below DairyT
OC2
Fisheries index
MacroinvertebratesF
Habitat
Same bacterial & chemical
variables as paired watershed
study
Precipitation
discharge
Annually
Annually
Annually
30 samples per
monitoring season;
weekly April-Oct.
1990-1999
Single
downstream
Otter Creek
OC1
Fisheries index
Macroinvertebrates
Habitat
Same bacterial & chemical
variables as paired watershed
study
Precipitation
discharge
Annually
Annually
30 samples per
monitoring season;
weekly April-Oct.
1990-1999
Treatment AreaT
Control Areac
HilsenhoffBiotic Index level; kick samples*1
Family level; kick samples'1
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
NPSMS Data
Summary
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
All water chemistry data is being 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 System
software (NPSMS), and STORET.
Not available.
None.
167
-------
i Otter Creek, Wisconsin
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
The water quality data is being collected and will be added to 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. The estimated budget for the Otter Creek National Monitor-
ing Program project for the period FY94-FY95 (2 years) is:
Project Element
Proj Mgt
LT
I&E
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Funding Source(S)
Federal State Local Total
NA 30,000 NA 30,000
NA 221,000 NA 221,000
NA 2,000 NA 2,000
120,000 NA NA 120,000
120,000 253,000 NA 373,000
Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1993a
(M. Miller, Personal Communication, 1994)
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
Modifications Since
Project Started
State grants are being provided to cover the cost of land treatment technical
assistance and information and educational support.
None.
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.
168
-------
Otter Creek, Wisconsin
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Information and
Education
Roger Baiinerman
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
Andy Yenscha
University of Wisconsin - Extension
1304 S. 70th St., Suite 228
WestAllis,WI 53214
(414) 475-2877
169
-------
-------
Chapter 3
Proceedings of the
Third Annual Section 319
National Monitoring Program Conference
171
-------
Linking Land and Water:
Third National Nonpoint Source
Watershed Monitoring Workshop
October 2-6,1995
Seattle, Washington
•Chapters: Proceedings
Co-sponsored by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
State of Washington Department of Ecology
State of Washington Water Research Center
USD A - Natural Resource Conservation Service
In cooperation with
North Carolina State University
Oregon State University
172
-------
• Chapters: Proceedings
SESSION A
PROJECT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
Iowa's Approach to Project Planning and Management
Lynette Seigley
Iowa Department of Natural Resources-Geological Survey Bureau
Since 1991, the Sny Magill Creek Watershed has been the focus of an interagency effort to encourage landowner
adoption of a wide variety of Best Management Practices and to monitor and measure the resulting improvement in
water quality. The following have made the Sny Magill Project work: the interagency approach, flexibility/creativity,
andcommunication/communication/communication.
Interagency Approach: During the planning stages of the project, all the necessary players were identified. Each
agency identified resources they could and would contribute to the program. Currently, 15 agencies are involved in
the project.
Shared resources and budgets have enhanced project efforts more than individual resources or budgets would
have allowed.
An interagency approach has brought a variety of expertise to the project.
A common message needs to be communicated by all agencies. The interagency effort to monitor a watershed
forces individual agencies to think beyond their normal agency confines and to understand the project goals and
how their information contributes to the big picture.
When managing large interagency projects, it is important to give credit where credit is due.
Acknowledge the efforts of others.
Flexibility/Creativity; Iowa State University Extension developed the phrase "Manure Happens, Take Credit" as part
of their manure management program. When it comes to project planning and management, the phrase could be
modified to read "Manure Happens, Make the Most of It."
Allow for flexibility in the project. Despite the best-laid efforts in planning, not everything was anticipated and
not everything has gone as planned.
There isn't always adequate time when initially developing a project. Understand what didn't happen in the
initial stages of the project that should have. How can the project implementation be adjusted?
Allow for creative solutions to your problems. What can be tried that wasn't considered in the initial work plan?
What can be done in response to the unforeseen changes that have occurred to the project?
Communication/Communication/Commiunication: Limit surprises.
Good communication is needed both within the interagency group and with those outside the interagency group.
As with coordination, communication has taken an enormous amount of time, but it is time that needs to be
invested for project success.
Stress the importance of presenting project information so that others can understand it. The message means
little if its significance is not understood.
Communication involves both talking and listening.
Further Discussion;
Give credit where credit is due for work performed: When a collaborating agency had done an extremely good
job, project personnel designed and presented a special award to the agency.
Be sure to distribute the work load throughout the agencies and personnel.
Continual education of locals plus other agency personnel is essential in order to maintain the momentum of the
project.
173
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
Be sure to communicate deadlines to all project personnel.
To gain volunteer participation, use hands-on workshops. In this project, project personnel were able to train
interested citizens and other agency personnel in streambank stabilization techniques. The course participants
installed streambank stabilization devices within the project area and received training at the same time.
• A family education day was used to gain stakeholder support of project activities.
• To overcome producer resistance to state agency intrusion, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources has
conducted residential well testing. This allowed producer and agency personnel to establish communication and
begin to build trust.
General Discussion;
• Projects have learned that in some cases agencies are willing to work without funding to minimize unforeseen
land use changes.
• The presenter described how a road crew had cleaned the stream near a monitoring site. When asked how this
activity could have been prevented, the presenter stressed the importance of including all players that work
within the boundaries of the watershed.
Successful Watershed Project Management: Lessons Learned in Long Creek
Gregory D. Jennings and Martha Burris
North Carolina State University and North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service
The Long Creek Watershed Project in Gaston County, North Carolina, is directed by a team of researchers, educators,
government officials, and private interests. Since the project began in 1992, we have learned several valuable lessons
about project management. Among these are:
• Teamwork. The project team must include all interested parties, including local landowners. It must work
together as a unit to meet common objectives. This is sometimes difficult due to conflicting priorities among
team members. The team must reach consensus on project objectives, team member roles, and operating
procedures early in the project. The Long Creek Project Steering Committee has evolved into an effective
management team as members have become more comfortable with their own and others' roles and abilities.
• Project Leadership. The leader must be organized, motivated, respected, responsible, team-oriented, and an
excellent communicator. The leader should have local ties to the project and general knowledge of all aspects of
the watershed project. The Long Creek Project Leader is Will Harman, a County Extension Natural Resources
Agent. He is an effective leader because of his dedication and willingness to improve his leadership abilities.
• Objectives and Scope. These must be clearly defined and understood by all team members at the beginning of the
project. Team members must know their responsibilities in meeting the objectives. The Long Creek Project team
has worked to overcome early difficulty agreeing on project objectives and scope.
Work Plan. The plan must define measurable units of work, assign responsibilities, and provide a schedule of
expected accomplishments. The work plan must be flexible to account for unexpected changes in watershed land
use weather conditions or project team membership. In Long Creek, we have experienced delays and problems
resulting from an unclear project work plan.
• Budget. One team member must be responsible for tracking expenditures and reporting on the budget. Full
funding to meet all project objectives in monitoring, land treatment, and education must be available from the
beginning of the project. In Long Creek, we have spent considerable time and energy seeking additional funding
to meet objectives identified by team members since the beginning of the project.
Communication. The project leader must facilitate open communications so that team members know what is
expected of them and so that problems can be addressed efficiently and effectively. The Long Creek project team
communicates via bimonthly meetings, teleconferences, electronic mail discussions, and newsletters.
• Quality. Team members and funding agencies must expect quality results from the project. Members should seek
expert assistance from public agencies and private sources to make the project as successful as possible. Because
of the high level of government, industry, and media interest in the Long Creek Project, we have worked hard to
ensure quality control in all of our efforts.
174
-------
• Chapters: Proceedings
Further Discussion;
• The Long Creek project grew from a local concern about degradation of environmental quality.
• The project is managed at the local level by a steering committee. This keeps the perspective local. It took a long
time to coalesce the committee into a functional group. At the beginning of the project, each agency brought their
own agenda into the committee. It has taken over two years to clarify project goals in order to focus people on the
project and not the needs of their agencies.
In order to reduce the time it took for the steering committee to coalesce as a group, the decision making
processes should have been formalized at the start of the project.
Subcommittees were tried and failed because everyone needed to be part of the decision making process and to
have a stake in the project's success.
General Discussion;
• Most project personnel in the audience admitted that they are still struggling with BMP implementation and
farmer cooperation.
• An audience participant stated that although you can't control the land use activities in your watershed, you must
be very certain that you document the activities so you can explain your data.
• Most conference participants agreed that the 25% producer cost share contribution for BMPs is too expensive for
producers to justify.
Experiences from the Elm Creek (HUA) Project
Scott Montgomery
Natural Resource Conservation Service-Nebraska
Achievements:
• Local Coordinating Committee (LCC) was established to provide a Local input process.
• Elm Creek Hydrologic Unit Area Project developed a Watershed Land Treatment Plan. The Elm Creek
Watershed Land Treatment Plan was provided to the Lower Republican Natural Resources District (LRNRD) for
implementation.
• The primary agencies (i.e. Lower Republican Natural Resource District, Nebraska Department of Environmental
Quality, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Cooperative Extension, Consolidated Farm Service Agency,
Local Coordinating Committee) requesting this Project reached consensus on nonpoint source pollution & runoff
treatment goals and objectives. Elm Creek Watershed Land Treatment Plan was a document established through
team building among agencies and consensus planning.
• Almost all the funds targeted to the Elm Creek Watershed have been obligated to install conservation practices.
Challenges:
• The lack of timely and adequate staffing continues to hamper project management and conservation land
treatment efforts.
• Lack of proper Local Coordinating Committee function, because only land owners with vested interests in the
Project participated.
• "Strings attached" to various funds targeted to the Elm Creek Watershed. Many owners are not willing to "jump
through the hoops" to get cost-share assistance, thus limiting nonpoint source treatment opportunities.
• Time limitations on how long targeted funds were/are available has lead to cost-share assistance being provided
for the installation of conservation practices that cost more and yield lessor NFS pollution reduction benefits.
Elm Creek Hydrologic Unit Area land owners, operators, and area citizens still do not recognize that Elm Creek
is a very unique resource that needs protection. Local "Buy-In" has not significantly occurred.
• Continued insufficient funding to fully implement the Elm Creek Watershed Land Treatment Plan.
Area citizens continue to ask me "Is the water quality improvement worth what it will cost to make Elm Creek
trout habitat "clean?" Agricultural production "pays the bills" and keeps the local economy going; thus many
175
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
agricultural producers in the Elm Creek Watershed have expressed concerns that this project has wasted tax
money (especially if they have not received cost-share assistance).
• Various institutional pressures against the application of appropriate and cost effective conservation (i.e. CAB's,
production financing, property taxes, producer's attitude, etc.).
Further Discussion;
Local buy-in is essential and the local buy-in is usually based on the local population recognizing the value of the
water resource. In this project, the designated water use of the stream, cold-water fishery, is not valued by the
local population.
Elm Creek is a large watershed and, therefore, it has been difficult to show results. The Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality stated that a smaller watershed should have been chosen.
The lack of a designated project leader from the start of this project has been problematic to the success of the
project.
There is no violation of water quality standards in Elm Creek; therefore there is no impetus for producers to
participate in the project. The incentive that project personnel have used to increase participation is a 75% -
100% cost share for BMP implementation from national and local sources.
• When the project started, the local coordinating committee was composed largely of a diverse representation of
the county population. Over time, only persons that had vested interests in the watershed continued to participate
in the local coordinating committee activities. In order for the community to become vested in conserving the
stream, the committee needed to be rediversified.
SESSION B
INSTITUTIONAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES
Combining of Resources to Maximize Efforts
Rick Mollahan
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
In spite of all good intentions on the part of local interests, financial resources are limited due to overall community
needs and the political acceptability of increased fees on consumers. To maximize resources, the City of Pittsfield,
Illinois (City), the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA), Consolidated Farm Service Agency
(CFSA), and Pike County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) combined efforts in a single watershed.
Lake Pittsfield was originally constructed under P.L. 566 as a flood control structure. It later served as the City's
water supply as well as a recreational area. The City of Pittsfield performed a Diagnostic Feasibility Study under
Section 314 of the Clean Water Act. The Illinois EPA contacted the Pike County SWCD and the City to consider a
holistic approach to lake protection restoration and watershed management. Utilizing the water quality data provided
in the Section 305(b) Report prepared by the Illinois EPA, the parties applied for a Section 319 grant for construction
of 37 detention basins throughout the watershed, and a Section 314 grant for in-lake implementation. The Illinois
EPA presented the watershed as a candidate for Water Quality Incentive Payments through the CFSA. Based on the
involvement of the other organizations, the documentation of the water quality issues, and the strong local support,
funding was obtained.
The City and the SWCD have also committed resources to this effort. At a cost of approximately $1 million, the City
will be dredging the existing lake to remove in-place contaminants and reestablish capacity. The SWCD has commit-
ted staff time and facilities to work with the landowners in the development of extended operation and maintenance
agreements with the landowners. The Natural Resource Conservation Service is preparing the designs for the deten-
tion basins, and is assisting the SWCD where needed.
176
-------
• Chapters: Proceedings
Coordination of these organizations and their resources has assured a blanketed approach to correction and manage-
ment of the total watershed resource concerns. Execution of operation and maintenance agreements to assure proper
function of the systems will hopefully instill responsibility for the continued care of the system as well as promote
positive communication between the urban and rural community.
Further discussion;
Sediment from cropland erosion and in-stream erosion impacts roadways and recreation areas greatly.
• Soil types, slope, and land use practices were taken into consideration as decisions were made about placement of
retention basins.
The project offers 100% funding for BMP implementation (sediment retention basins). Landowners signed 10
year agreements to maintain the basins and to install and pay for the fencing. Farmers have finished installing all
sediment basins except the largest basin upstream of the lake.
Raw water samples, taken from the deepest lake station, near the water intake are also analyzed for Atrazine,
along with other chemicals. To date, the dredging of the Lake has not occurred.
Blue Creek - Due to the construction of sediment basins and the resulting reduction of sediment loads, some
bottom scouring and streambank destabilization has been noticed in the main tributaries. Due to the stream
dynamics, it is not yet known if fixing one problem has created another. Further analysis of the project will
answer whether corrective actions will be necessary within the watershed.
General Discussion:
Project personnel are modeling the watershed to look at hydrological changes resulting from the decreased
sediment load. They are looking at pool riffling as a way of addressing the hydrological changes.
What has the effect of the hydrological changes been on the aquatic community in stream? The focus has been on
water chemistry. They haven't yet looked at the biological communities. Upland streams are zero flow streams.
Main stem has some water flow. They are waiting for the new system to equilibrate and then will study the
biological communities.
The question of long-term management of the retention basins was raised. Farmers have signed 10 year
agreements to maintain stable banks and intact fencing. At 10 years, the project team intends to reevaluate
functional capabilities of the basins. Basins are designed for a 20 year life by Natural Resource Conservation
Service. The state can recover the full costs of BMP installation from landowners if the basins are not maintained
for 10 years.
Citizen Monitoring and Urban BMP Evaluation
Joan Drinkwin
Texas Watch Program
Texas Watch is the volunteer environmental monitoring program of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Com-
mission, supporting more than 5,000 citizen monitors throughout the state. The program was developed as an EPA
approved Quality Assurance Project Plan which calls for standardized equipment, training, quality control checks,
and data checks. The program recently ventured into nonpoint source pollution monitoring and is currently imple-
menting five projects funded through Section 319.
The East Bouldin Creek BMP Implementation and Demonstration Project entails implementing non-structural BMPs,
such as community education, as well as citizen monitoring. The goal of the project is to decrease the NFS pollutant
load entering Town Lake from East Bouldin Creek in Austin, Texas. Citizen monitors are being trained specifically to
evaluate whether these goals are being met by implementation of BMPs. Throughout the project, volunteer monitors
will sample for benthic macroinvertebrates on a quarterly basis and chemical and physical variables on a weekly
basis. A paired watershed design is being employed.
Working with the City of Austin is a critical element in the success of this project. While Texas Watch has been
successful coordinating with the city's own monitoring program, there remain differences in monitoring techniques
which will hamper data analysis. Coordinating with other city departments has been more challenging. It has been
177
-------
•Chapter 3: Proceedings
difficult, for example, to coordinate with various city departments regarding community education and BMP con-
struction. These challenges represent institutional barriers inherent in implementing a project in an urban area.
Texas Watch has learned that you can train volunteers to conduct water quality monitoring for either community
education or good water quality monitoring data. The Texas Watch program has always been focused on good water
quality data.
One powerful technique for community education is using the media to get the message across. The conflict that
arises is the need to promote the project in the treatment area, but not have an impact on the control area. Because of
this contradiction, it is necessary to clearly explain to citizens in both control and treatment watersheds the philoso-
phy behind the experimental design and the importance of having a control. Through successful documentation of
BMP effectiveness, which requires a treatment and a control, we can gather sufficient evidence to support requests for
funds for treatment in all watersheds.
Implementation of BMPs by other agencies before the calibration period for a water quality monitoring project has
been completed is a problem that has been raised. Joan noted that the Texas Watch had been able to coordinate with
the city's professional monitors for adequate historical data for the calibration phase. A participant noted the impor-
tance of pre-project coordination among agencies before any of the agencies implements anything in the project area.
It was noted that it is important to emphasize educating the community and agencies about the value of pre-BMP
monitoring.
General Discussion:
• Texas Watch has learned that you can train volunteers to conduct water quality monitoring for either community
education or good water quality monitoring data. The Texas Watch program has always been focused on good
water quality data.
One powerful technique for community education is using the media to get the message across. The conflict that
arises is the need to promote the project in the treatment area, but not have an impact on the control area.
Because of this contradiction, it is necessary to clearly explain to citizens in both control and treatment
watersheds the philosophy behind the experimental design and the importance of having a control. Through
successful documentation of BMP effectiveness, which requires a treatment and a control, we can gather
sufficient evidence to support requests for funds for treatment in all watersheds.
• Implementation of BMPs by other agencies before the calibration period for a water quality monitoring project
has been completed is a problem that has been raised. Joan noted that the Texas Watch had been able to
coordinate with the city's professional monitors for adequate historical data for the calibration phase. A
participant noted the important of pre-project coordination among agencies before any of the agencies
implements anything in the project area. It was noted that it is important to emphasize educating the community
and agencies about the value of pre-BMP monitoring.
178
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
Farmers and Cows
Summary of presentation made by
Patricia Lietman, U.S. Geological Survey
(summary prepared by Judith A. Gale and Janet M. Young, NCSU Water Quality Group)
Svnonsis of the Peauea-Mill Creek Basin Project (Pennsylvania)
The Big Spring Run is a spring-fed stream: located in the Mill Creek Watershed of south central Pennsylvania. Its
primary uses are livestock watering, 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 indi-
cated poor water quality at five of six sites. Other stream uses are impaired by elevated bacteria and nutrient concen-
trations.
Land use in the project area is primarily agricultural. 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. It is estimated that grazing ani-
mals deposit an average of 40 pounds of nitrogen and 8 pounds of phosphorus annually per animal. Pastures adjacent
to streams also are thought to contribute significant amounts of nonpoint source 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 stream banks and potentially filter pollutants from pasture runoff.
Water quality monitoring will employ a paired watershed design in which the proposed nonpoint source control
approach is implementation of livestock exclusion fencing on 100% of the stream miles in the treatment
subwatershed. 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.
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 Pennsylvania State
Chesapeake Bay Program is expected to provide up to 100% cost-share money to help landowners install streambank
fencing.
General Discussion:
The project team is facing challenges posed by land use changes in both the control and treatment watersheds. These
changes include changes in cow numbers, changes in land ownership or tenancy, an unexpected housing
development, and changes in length of pasture rotations.
• In response to the land use changes, the project team has installed an additional water quality monitoring station
below the housing development and has negotiated the placement of 30-foot buffers around the development, in
the hope that the buffers will reduce the impact of the development on water quality data. The team considered
adding an extra year to the pre-BMP (best management practice) monitoring period, but was not convinced that
lengthening both the pre- and post-BMP periods of monitoring would improve the water quality data, since
additional land use changes are likely to take place during the post-BMP period.
• The team is considering stratifying the water quality data to allow analysis of early pasture season data separately
from late pasture season data. This may help decrease the impact of the changes in pasture rotations, which have
generally involved some farmers not pasturing their cows until later in the summer.
• The possibility of placing another new monitoring station above the housing development was discussed, but
would probably not be feasible (lack of funds) or necessary, since there are no cows in the subwatershed above the
housing development.
• The differences in fecal strep data from one time to another have been as great as three orders of magnitude,
making the data hard to interpret.
• The possibility of switching from a paired watershed to an upstream-downstream before-after design was
discussed. It was noted that some of the land use changes may not create data analysis problems because of the
built-in redundancy of the monitoring design, which includes both paired watersheds and upstream-downstream
sampling.
179
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
SESSION C
THE COOPERATIVE EFFORT
Common Ground on Private Land - Is It Possible?
Rick Hafele
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
The Grande Ronde River is a 5,265 square mile watershed in the northeastern tip of Oregon. As in most basins in
Eastern Oregon, the major land uses are logging, grazing, and agriculture. In 1992, an NFS assessment and restora-
tion project began on five tributaries to the upper Grande Ronde River. Stream and site selection followed a combina-
tion of the paired watershed and upstream-downstream approaches.
Land ownership in the selected tributaries covers both U.S. Forest Service and private ranches, with Forest Service
land making up most of the upper timbered portions of the watersheds and private land comprising lower elevation
pasture and rangeland. Because important areas of the streams, as well as the greatest restoration opportunities, are
on private land, cooperation of private landowners is critical to the overall success of the project.
What have been the critical issues in dealing with the landowners? First, there are typically very different perceptions
between landowners and agencies about basic ideas such as:
Who does the land really belong to?
* What is the land used for?
Secondly, there are often differences in the levels of trust and cooperation between old landowners and new landown-
ers. Finally, some of the basic questions and problems that have come up include many common sense, issues that are
not easily addressed. For example: '
How many agencies does a landowner want to deal with?
• Clear communication of study objectives is important so that landowners understand them.
Watersheds are generally owned by more than one owner and not all are willing to participate. Thus, entire
watersheds cannot be studied and treated, and control of problems is only partial.
Maintaining consistent land use activities in study areas throughout the life of the project is difficult since
scientific controls are not considered by landowners.
• Lengthy turnaround of data and results is difficult for landowners to understand.
• What do you do when you find an endangered species?
The long term success of most NFS projects is dependent upon the attitude and cooperation of private landowners.
Failure to start on the right foot can create years of difficulty and ultimately lead to a lack of improvements in land
use or stream conditions.
The speaker noted the difficulty of making water quality improvements with the cooperation of landowners when
upstream landowners are not interested in working on repairing the stream.
Issues
Landowners:
Lack of consistency within and between agencies
• Too many agencies
Too much red tape
• Data analysis takes too long to be completed and reported
• Don't trust data or recommendations
Landowners don't trust Agencies (hidden agenda)
180
-------
• Chapters: Proceedings
Agencies:
Changing objectives and funding
Who takes the lead (the level of communication among agencies needs to be quite sophisticated so that the
objectives of each agency are articulated by the lead agency, -which has direct contact with the landowner)
Complex criteria for funding
Land use changes take too long
• Don't trust commitment to land use changes
Agencies don't trust landowners (hidden agenda)
Communication is the key issue for building trust between landowners and agencies. In order to successfully involve
landowners, it is important to first identify and agree on problems. Once problems are agreed upon, it is easier to
identify and agree on solutions.
The Cooperative Effort: Working With Producers
Randy Brooks
University of Idaho
The Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project staff works with over 30 producers/cooperators
involved in production agriculture. Many diverse crops are produced in the project area. Excessive irrigation, a
common practice in the area, creates the potential for nitrate and pesticide leaching and/or runoff. Groundwater
monitoring indicates the presence of elevated nitrate levels in the shallow aquifer underlying the project area. The
NFS control strategy focuses on voluntary implementation of nitrogen, pesticide, and irrigation water management
BMPs that will reduce the amount of nutrients and pesticides moving into surface water groundwater. Project objec-
tives are to demonstrate these BMPs so producers will voluntarily adopt them. Getting producers to adopt BMPs on a
voluntary basis, without any guarantee that the BMPs will not adversely affect yields, can be challenging. To date,
this has been accomplished through cost-share incentives for record keeping. Producers are required to act on uncon-
trollable events which hamper the logistics of rigidly scheduled sampling activities. The number and arrangement of
field instrumentation has complicated production field work as producers are forced to manipulate production equip-
ment around monitoring instrumentation. One of the biggest obstacles to overcome while monitoring the effectiveness
of implemented BMPs has been changes in the types of crops produced and the production methods employed.
Scheduled crop rotations designed to monitor BMP effectiveness have been changed spontaneously to meet commod-
ity market demands. Finally, one of the largest obstacles to overcome when working with producers has been the
existence of long established traditions.
While there have been several challenges to overcome, there have also been numerous achievements. The greatest
advancements have come in the area of record keeping and irrigation water management. With advances being made
in those areas, a trend towards reductions in agri-chemical use has been noted. A trend towards reductions in ground-
water nitrate concentrations has also been observed in conjunction with this. Current demonstrations and I&E efforts
conducted by project staff has heightened water quality awareness not only among producers, but among the urban
populations as well.
Further Discussion;
Barriers to technology transfer include: water cost, availability, and delivery schedule.
• Barriers to technology adoption include: landowner or farm manager attitudes and the level of cost-share funds
available.
• Gains have been made in the Snake River Plain project in:
1 - Irrigation scheduling: irrigating on basis of soil moisture.
2 - Recordkeeping.
3 - Reduction in water usage.
For a farmer, in order for a practice to be a BMP, it has to be technically feasible, economically feasible, and
socially acceptable.
181
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
Benefits and Disadvantages of
Coordinating University Environmental Science Students
for the Collection and Analysis of Water Monitoring Samples
Robin Woods
Northern Arizona University
This presentation will discuss the benefits and disadvantages of coordinating University Environmental Science
students for the collection and analysis of water monitoring samples for the Oak Creek National Water Monitoring
Project versus using trained professionals.
The discussion will focus on three key issues:
1. Properly trained and supervised students in the collection and analysis of water monitoring sampling provides
the Oak Creek National Water Monitoring Project with accurate and reliable data.
• In August of 1994, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality engaged in split sampling procedure with
the students of the National Water Monitoring Team and the results of this procedure were a 95%
confidence interval.
Data collected by Northern Arizona's National Water Monitoring Team can be used to draw correlations
among the seasons, high-use periods, and a rise in pathogens.
2. Who benefits from using students as a resource for the Oak Creek National Water Monitoring Project?
• The project benefits because a dependable trained team is created to do the sampling and analysis at a
minimum of the cost.
The students benefit because they can receive one or all of the following benefits: the opportunity to
"network" with agency representatives and receive "hands-on training" which they do not receive in
classroom or lab environments; development and polishing of their skills in their selected profession; and
provision of a possible stepping stone for their future careers.
3. What are the controversies over using students rather than trained professionals for the Oak Creek National
Water Monitoring Project, and what tools are used to ensure that students are capable, competent, and
performing to their full capacity?
• Undoubtedly, there is a learning curve. Students have to have strict supervision and guidance. At all times
there is at least one paid Graduate Research Assistant or a University Professor either present or available
during sample collection and analysis.
There is doubt about the competency of the students because they are students rather than trained
professionals. To ensure competent students are participating on the project we provide a mandatory
Sampling Training Workshop in conjunction with ADEQ, we select students who have been recommended
by Professors, and our Quality Assurance/Quality Control plan was designed in anticipation of using
students.
General Discussion;
General discussion covered ways of addressing skepticism about student-collected data. One suggestion made was to
include skeptics in the training sessions for the students so that the skeptics can be more aware of the quality of the
training. Another participant noted that there is a double standard in this sense, because industries are allowed to
conduct self-monitoring without being required to attend training sessions. The presenter followed this statement by
noting that the same professional water quality sampling training workshops that are conducted for volunteers are
also provided for homeowners and land facilitators, who live and work in the project area.
General discussion regarding Concurrent Session C. The Cooperative Effort, is listed below:
• Get cooperators involved early in the planning process.
• Be flexible in terms of integrating cooperatof comments into your monitoring plan.
• Threat of regulatory action can provide motivation for landowners or stake holders to participate in a project.
182
-------
• Chapters: Proceedings
Correspond frequently with the landowners. Share results with landowners because if you don't, they may
suspect you're building a case against them.
Sharing results with landowners helps educate them about the limitations of scientific studies and what we can
realistically expect to learn from water quality data.
Results of data analysis should be used as part of a feedback loop for refining and improving a water quality
monitoring plan.
Don't change the sampling program too quickly before you are sure that you have enough data to detect a trend,
if there is one.
SESSION D
WATER QUALITY AND DATA EVALUATION
Interstitial Loadings of Fecals in the Cold Water Lotic Ecosystem
of Oak Creek in Sedona, Arizona
Daniel Salzler
Hydrologist/Environmental Program Specialist
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
The study area of the Oak Creek National Monitoring Program includes the upper reaches of Oak Creek Canyon and
the cold water lotic ecosystem of Oak Creek. This 12 mile stretch of the canyon is one of Arizona's most popular
recreational areas. Approximately 7,000,000 automobiles travel this scenic highway through the canyon every year.
At Slide Rock State Park and the US Forest Service's Grasshopper Point water recreation areas, approximately
550,000 people pay to enjoy the recreational experiences Oak Creek has to offer. It is estimated that another 700,000
enjoy the cold waters from junctures along the highway.
The Oak Creek National Monitoring Program has measured significantly higher levels of ammonia downstream of
the water recreation area of Slide Rock State Park than upstream levels. This has been attributed to human excretions
of urine. Fecal coliform levels are also higher downstream than upstream. Parallel complementing research has
revealed significantly large numbers of fecal coliform colony forming units within the sandstone/basalt sediments of
Oak Creek. The interstitial zone of the sediments appears to be the breeding ground for fecal coliforms that enter a
suspended state when stirred by human activity or natural storm events.
The method of determining the source of fecal coliform continues to be researched. Possible sources are warm
blooded animals that live within the watershed of the canyon, human excretion by recreatiordsts, human excrement
dumped by RV tourists, and septic systems. Discussion will be centered on research findings and a theory of fecal
coliform reproduction.
Further Discussion;
• Project personnel have found increases in fecal coliform from May through the swimming season.
There are several potential sources of fecals: septic systems in adjacent residential areas, a herd of elk, intentional
recreational-vehicle septic discharge, diaper disposal, recreatiordsts relieving themselves, and dog feces.
Project personnel have found that ammonia levels increase from upstream to downstream, thus suggesting direct
ammonia input into the stream by swimmers.
Project personnel efforts to explain fecal coliform data have lead them to the supposition that the fecal coliform
are using nutrients within the interstitial zones of the sediment to grow or possibly reproduce.
If the supposition is true, then how do you treat the interstitial growth of fecal coliform within the stream
sediments? It was suggested that limiting nutrients would limit fecal coliform growth. However, the data does not
consistently show a correlation between high nutrient concentrations and fecal coliform spikes. Project personnel
have tried to reduce nutrients by educating recreationists, upgrading the bathroom facilities, and other types of
activities.
183
-------
•Chapter 3: Proceedings
• Lab experiments performed using sediments from Oak Creek demonstrated continuous growth of the fecal
coliform for more than 150 days. These results suggest that sediments may serve as an on-going source of fecal
coliform.
• It was suggested by a conference participant that the project verify the presence of human pathogens and another
participant suggested that they determine whether the fecal coliform was derived from an animal or human
source.
Chumash and Walters Creek Stormwater Analysis
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Karen Worcester
Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Luis Obispo, CA
and
Dave Paradies
Bay Foundation of Morro Bay
Los Osos, CA
Storm water data was collected by Cal Poly State University over a two year baseline period (1993-94 and 1994-95) at
Chumash and Walters creeks in the Morro Bay watershed, San Luis Obispo County, California. Establishing baseline
flow and water quality relationships between the two creeks is a critical component of the "paired watershed" study
design, and must be developed prior to implementation of Best Management Practices on the treatment watershed. In
this paper, we examine the relationships between the two creeks defined by this data set, and consider the question,
"How much data is enough?"
Because of low rainfall during 1993-94, only one storm data set was collected. Flow data was not yet available at the
time of this storm, so data from this year is incomplete and of limited usefulness. Fortunately, the winter of 1994-95
was an extremely wet one, and provided a considerable amount of data on storms of varying intensities.
Water quality samples were collected at 30-minute intervals when flow levels rose high enough to trigger activation
of automated sampling devices. Flows were also measured at 30-minute intervals, and precipitation data was collected
at 5-minute intervals. Samples were analyzed for total filterable solids, turbidity, and conductivity.
Although 784 30-minute interval data records were collected in total, only 139 time based pairs could be developed
between the two creeks. This resulted for a variety of reasons, including flume design errors, equipment failure, and
differing equipment activation thresholds between creeks. Flow data lost when the Chumash Creek flume overtopped
was simulated using the regression relationship between the two creeks (y= 0.6958x - 2.18; r 2= 0.84); 36 data pairs
were recovered in this fashion. Because of the flow activated data collection strategy, lack of sample time synchroni-
zation, and loss of data records, the data stream used for analysis contains a number of time interval gaps.
A "storm event delimiter" algorithm was developed to define storm events in the data stream in a repeatable, non-
subjective way. Flow, turbidity and sediment data from the control watershed were utilized in the algorithm to estab-
lish the boundaries between flow events.
Data was examined in various ways to evaluate the relationships between flow, turbidity and sediment concentration
in the two creeks. Double mass curves were developed both for the entire paired data set and for individual storm
events. A variety of statistical analyses were performed in order to characterize the distinction between variability in
the data resulting from watershed to watershed differences versus storm to storm differences. Prior to initiating BMP
treatments on the treatment watershed, we will utilize the results of these analyses to determine whether the existing
data collected to date contains enough information to serve as a baseline characterization.
184
-------
• Chapters: Proceedings
Further Discussion;
The statistical analyses that were performed on the paired watershed data demonstrated a consistent performance
between the two watersheds in terms of discharge, sediment, and turbidity. Additional sensitivity analyses need
to be performed in order to confirm the suitability of the pairing.
• BMP implementation is occurring in the treatment watershed due to grant obligations to spend out the money.
An additional year of baseline water quality monitoring would have been useful to establish a stronger
relationship between the paired watersheds.
The use of several statistical software packages has made data analyses difficult. Project personnel will be trying
to standardize their statistical software.
Evaluating Barnyard Best Management Practices in Wisconsin Using
Upstiream-Downstreara Monitoring
Todd D. Stuntebeck
U.S. Geological Survey
This presentation discusses the results of a study by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, to evaluate water-quality improvements that result from implementation of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) at barnyards. Automated water-quality sampling equipment was used to collect
discrete water samples during 10 storms at stations on Otter Creek and Halfway Prairie Creek before BMPs were
implemented. On each stream, one sampling station is located upstream from a single barnyard-runoff source and the
other station is downstream from that same source.
Continuous streamflow and instantaneous water-quality data were used to estimate event-mean concentrations for
individual storms. Event-mean concentrations of total phosphorus, ammonia nitrogen, and biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) downstream from the barnyard at Otter Creek and Halfway Prairie Creek were generally higher than
event-mean concentrations upstream from each barnyard. Paired Student's /-tests performed on these data indicate
that average downstream event-mean concentrations of total phosphorus, ammonia nitrogen, and BOD were signifi-
cantly greater than average upstream event-mean concentrations at the 95-% confidence level for both creeks. Using
the pre-BMP data, an equation was developed to estimate the minimum amount of change in post-BMP average
downstream event-mean concentrations necessary to be considered statistically significant. For Otter Creek, this
"minimum detectable change" is 50 % for total phosphorus and ammonia nitrogen and 40 % for BOD. Minimum
detectable changes of 10, 30, and 40 percent were estimated for Halfway Prairie Creek, respectively. The pollutant
reductions expected from BMP implementation at each site are greater than the changes needed to observe a statisti-
cally significant improvement in water quality.
Further Discussion;
• Upstream pollutant sources may mask the barnyard sources. A good sampling design is necessary to detect water
quality changes, because the upstream/downstream design is not very sensitive.
However, for this barnyard, there is a visual difference between the upstream and downstream samples: the
downstream samples were much darker.
• The time at which sampling is initiated is extremely important to distinguish between the upstream water quality
and barnyard runoff into the stream.
If sampling is initiated by stage, it is important to use a sufficiently low threshold to capture high initial barnyard
inputs downstream. Later, downstream constituent values may be swamped by upstream concentrations.
Statistical analyses were done by taking the difference between downstream and upstream water quality for all
storms and determining significance. A statistical difference for phosphorus, ammonia-nitrogen and biological
oxygen demand was detected.
185
-------
•Chapter 3: Proceedings
SESSION E
POLLUTION SOURCES-NONPOINT
Thurston County Intensive Dye-Trace Method for
On-Site Sewage System Evaluation
Linda Hofstad and Sue Davis
Thurston County Environmental Health Division
Olympia, WA
Effluent from failing on-site sewage systems is one of the primary sources of nonpoint pollution along the shorelines
of Thurston County, Washington. Located at the southern terminus of Puget Sound, Thurston County has an abun-
dance of natural resources which includes a valuable shellfish resource—both commercial and recreational. These
resources depend upon excellent water quality in order to be safe for consumption. Nonpoint pollution sources,
primarily storm water, agricultural runoff, and failing on-site sewage systems, threaten these areas. As part of the
coordinated effort with Conservation Districts and others to remediate the nonpoint sources, the Health Department
has focused on identifying the failing on-site sewage systems, getting the systems repaired, and providing the
homeowner with information on how to properly operate and maintain their systems. Blatant failures of septic sys-
tems are easy to find with most any method of sanitary survey. The intermittent and seasonal failures caused by
system component problems and general subsurface failure are much more difficult, if not impossible, to find.
However, in order to address nonpoint pollution remediation, these failing systems need to be identified, evaluated
and repaired. Thurston County has developed an intensive sanitary survey procedure which includes a dye-trace
method using small mesh charcoal-filled packets placed in probable pathways of surfacing effluent. The fluorescent
dye used to establish the hydraulic pathway of effluent is absorbed onto the charcoal in the packets if the effluent
surfaces. Dye concentration is measured and then fecal coliform sampling is done to confirm the presence of sewage.
This method has been used in over 1600 surveys and has been proven to be a sensitive test which identifies failing
sewage systems. Statistical analysis of the survey results has shown that there is little to no correlation of failure with
age, type, or distance from water of the systems. A special study was conducted during the wet season 1994-95 which
looked at correlations between dye concentrations and fecal coliform levels from identified failing systems. The study
also considered additional parameters (nitrates, ammonia, total dissolved phosphorus, chlorides, and specific conduc-
tance) which might be better indicators of failing systems. Preliminary results will be presented at the conference.
Further Discussion;
The study concentrated on systems within 200 feet of the shoreline. No correlation was found between septic
system failure and either distance from the shoreline or antecedent rainfall. The conclusion was that nutrients
were not going to help define further failures.
• The speaker indicated that types of support needed for this type of program include: a clear definition of system
failure, political support, legal support, and a specific staff person assigned to follow-up with homeowners.
Challenges of Monitoring Bacteria
Thomas D. Harrison
Northern Arizona University
A spate of biological pollution incidents have occurred in numerous water recreation areas located on the southern
Colorado Plateau region (AZ, NV, UT) during the past two seasons. In 1994 the Bull Head City lake area was closed
because of high fecal coliform counts. One hundred and forty-three rafters developed intense gastrointestinal illness
in the Grand Canyon area of the Colorado River. Nineteen Las Vegas residents died from cryptosporidia from drink-
ing "purified" Lake Mead water. This past summer, Bull Head City was closed as was the Utah northern shore of
Lake Powell as a result of high fecal coliform counts. The Oak Creek Canyon National Monitoring Project falls into
this general pattern. Slide Rock State Park, the most popular water recreation area, was closed for three weeks in late
186
-------
• Chapters: Proceedings
summer, 1994, when fecal coliform counts reached 3400 cfu/lOOml. Warning signs were posted in the same area over
the July 4th holiday. Coconino County Environmental Health Department closed off Grasshopper Point, a smaller
water recreational area in the Canyon, on September 7, 1995.
Using the Arizona Project as a case study, this discussion focuses on basic issues entailed in attempts to remediate and
to prevent these incidents from recurring:
Identifying biological pollution sources. In the case of Slide Rock, a significant amount of previous research—to
a person—assumed that the water recreationists themselves were the pollution source. Results from Year I
baseline study strongly suggest that:
Fecal coliforms are introduced into the system in significant numbers above Slide Rock State Park; and
High downstream fecal coliform counts may be the result of roiled sediment transported downstream to Slide
Rock during the rainy "monsoon" season.
Is the fecal coliform a valid and reliable indicator organism of the presence of other water borne pathogens? EPA
selected fecal coliform as a standard indicator organism under the assumption that the organism multiplies only
in the intestines of warm blooded animals.
One season of sediment research calls this assumption into serious question.
• NAU is currently conducting experiments designed to determine if fecal coliforms do multiply in sediments
under certain conditions.
Using state-of-the-art equipment, Northern Arizona University is attempting to rapidly and reliably identify
water borne pathogenic bacteria.
How does the Arizona project balance the responsibility to inform the public of potential health risks with these
uncertainties?
• There are those who have financial risk in closure—concessionaires, local business people, and even state
managers; others tend to overreact to a degree bordering on hysteria.
Further Discussion;
• The goals of the Oak Creek Canyon project are to show success in reducing fecal coliform counts and to apply
data to other problems arising in the future.
• Participants pointed out that fecal coliform counts can be high due to waterfowl and other natural sources. The
consensus was that much more research is needed on 1) the use of fecal coliform as an indicator variable, 2)
distinguishing between human and nonhuman fecal coliform, and 3) the means by which fecal coliform multiply.
Biological Monitoring in Otter Creek, Wisconsin
Roger Bannerman
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Otter Creek is a low gradient warmwater forage fishery located in east central Wisconsin. Dairy farming and cash
grain crops are the main landuse activities in the watershed. These activities have impacted the biological integrity of
Otter Creek by degrading the stream habitat and causing excessive growth of aquatic plants. Evaluation monitoring
of Otter Creek began in 1990, and is expected to be completed in 2001. Methodologies have been developed for
sampling fish habitat and communities that provide a good balance between the precision needed to see change and
the amount of field time required to collect each sample. We have published manuals describing these fish habitat and
community sampling protocols. A Before-After-Control Impact (BACI) experimental design is being used to deter-
mine the effect of the BMPs in Otter Creek. The specific design is called a "beyond" BACI design because multiple
control sites (eight) are being used for the five test sites on Otter Creek. The paired and regional control sites are
located on four streams. Most of the sites have a poor to fair Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) value, while the
habitat ratings are more variable and they range from fair to good. Control and test sites will be compared using a two
way analysis of variance having site type (control vs. test) and time period (before and after) as the main effects. To
date, best management practices have been installed at all critical barnyards in the Otter Creek watershed. Comple-
tion of the upland erosion control practices will mark the start of the "after" watershed monitoring period.
187
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
Further Discussion:
Heavy macrophyte growth is being caused by excess fertilization on surrounding land. Another problem is highly
degraded habitat caused by siltation and bank erosion. Sources of sediment include cows in the stream and
upland erosion.
The experimental design includes five treatment sites in the Otter Creek Watershed and eight reference sites
within the same ecoregion. A before and after / control and impact (BACI) design is being used with treatment
and control sites.
• A fish habitat assessment protocol has been established based on the following considerations: spatial scale
(including field trials to determine sampling size); sampling effort (to determine how many transects and how
long a reach should be sampled); and accuracy and precision (visual measurement was determined to be
acceptable in terms of accuracy).
Quality control procedures are being critically evaluated.
SESSION F
SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF DATA
Spatial Analysis of Data: Tracking Agricultural Activity
William A. Harman III
Associate Extension Agent, Natural Resources
NC Cooperative Extension Service
The Long Creek National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program Project is near completion of the two year back-
ground monitoring phase. Thus far, spatial analysis has included targeting critical areas for BMP installation. A few
achievements are listed below. As we move into the BMP installation and post BMP monitoring phase, new opportu-
nities and challenges arise as to tracking these BMPs and relating them to improvements in water quality.
Achievements:
• Base maps have been digitized into Atlas GIS, Strategic Mapping, Inc. including watershed boundaries,
monitoring sites, soil surveys, streams, roads, land use (limited) and topography (limited).
Implementation of the Universal Soil Loss Equation in a GIS. A graduate student from UNCC worked on this
project for her MA degree in Geography. She used one of our project watersheds for a case study, providing us
with a watershed scale prediction of agricultural field erosion.
Targeting Critical Areas with Pollutant Runoff Models and GIS. The AGNPS model was used to determine
critical and near critical NPS pollution source areas. AGNPS output was imported into Atlas GIS for display and
georeferencing.
GIS Procedures for the Analysis of Fecal Coliform Bacteria Transport and Fate. A Ph.D. student from NCSU is
working in Long Creek to understand the mechanisms which contribute to bacterial fate (die off) and transport in
the terrestrial environment, which will help in the interpretation of water quality indicators. A geographic
information system (GIS) model will be used to determine the effect of temperature, exposure , rainfall, and soil
type on die off and transport of bacteria.
Challenges;
Cooperating agencies use different GIS systems, i.e. Atlas GIS, Arc-Info, Intergraph and Microstation, which can
make data analysis and transfer difficult.
Land use data at multiple scales (field to large watershed scale). What is the best source of data? How do you
track detailed land use changes at a large watershed scale?
Using GIS to integrate land use changes with BMP installations and water quality changes (spatially and
temporally).
• GIS model validation. Does this map mean anything?
188
-------
• Chapters: Proceedings
Further Discussion;
How do you monitor a watershed with rapidly changing land use patterns? No one in the audience had an answer
to this problem.
You must field verify your data. For example, a piece of land on which a building is identified is insufficient
data. The use of the building must be known in order to interpret the data correctly.
Project personnel have found that fecal coliform was found to survive for up to three months in the soil system,
making it difficult to track.
• Everyone agreed that tracking land applications of commercial fertilizers, manure, and pesticides is very
difficult. Different projects use different sources to determine land application of commercial fertilizers and
pesticides: some projects use consulting agencies, some use farmer surveys, some use averaged county data, some
use commodity organizations.
How do you monitor dynamic land use changes, such as cows with free access to the stream? When the cows are
in the stream there is a direct correlation with water quality parameters.
Geostatistical Sampling and Assessment of Nitrate in an Agricultural Environment
Michelle F. Baker
Dr. Stanley M. Miller
Department of Geology and Geological Engineering
College of Mines and Earth Resources
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho
Geostatistics is an applied statistical method used to measure spatial dependence and to make spatial predictions of an
attribute of interest. Geostatistical methods are being used to describe nitrate occurrence in the vadose zone at an
agricultural demonstration project in southern Idaho. The goal is to assist in evaluating the effectiveness of manage-
ment practices, as related to irrigation and fertilizer application, for mitigating high nitrate levels in subsurface
waters. Geostatistical tools provide a means to assess the hypothesis that nitrate concentrations are spatially depen-
dent in the vadose zone across the study site.
The initial phase of the investigation consisted of the development of a geostatistically based sampling network of
lysimeters for obtaining soil-water samples, subsequent installation of the monitoring network, and collection of
monthly nitrate data over the four-month growing season in 1994. Results indicated that nitrate concentrations as
sampled in August and September, 1994, did exhibit some spatial dependence. The existing sampling network then
was modified to better define that spatial dependence. Nitrate samples collected thus far in 1995 show some spatial
dependence in July, as well as a notion of spatial anisotropy in the nitrate levels measured in the vadose zone.
Geostatistical spatial simulation procedures have been used to describe the spatial distribution of nitrate concentra-
tions across the study site. This description includes contour maps of expected mean values of nitrate and of the
probability of exceeding any specified threshold value. The overall study illustrates that the effectiveness of a
geostatistical investigation depends on both the number of, and the locations of, sampling points. A multi-phase
sampling program allows the development of an efficient and rationally based monitoring network conducive to an
appropriate description of the spatial attribute.
Further Discussion:
Geostatistics is being used to help evaluate BMP's for agricultural water and fertilizer applications based on
improved spatial sampling design.
Soils in the unsaturated zone across the study site were sampled for particle-size characteristics, and then
geostatistical criteria were used to assign locations for lysimeters used to sample soil water at a depth of 1 m
below the ground surface.
Initially, there were just barely enough lysimeters to obtain the desired spatial information, so additional
lysimeters were installed for the second field season.
189
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
• Geostatistical simulations based on the field measurements of nitrate concentration verify the heterogeneity of
nitrate across the site; these simulation also were used to generate exceedance probability maps for nitrate
concentrations in soil water. Such information will be compared to groundwater nitrate levels measured in
monitoring wells at the site.
Techniques for Quantifying Nonpoint Sources of Pollutants
and Tracking Land Treatment Practices
Kerry F. Rappold
U.S. Geological Survey
Landuse and land treatment practices can have a significant effect on the water quality of agricultural watersheds.
Quantifying and tracking these effects is a key element of the Otter Creek (Wisconsin) National Monitoring Program
project. The Otter Creek project area is part of the larger Sheboygan River watershed, which has been included in
Wisconsin's Priority Watershed Program since 1985.
Constituent loadings from agricultural nonpoint sources of pollutants were quantified by a variety of techniques.
These techniques rely on collection of site-specific nonpoint-source pollutant data and computation of pollutant loads
from simple equations or models. The constituent-load data are used to identify critical sites that require the imple-
mentation of best management practices (BMP's). Nonpoint-source pollutant data were collected primarily by local
Land Conservation Department (LCD) staff; sources not quantified by local staff or in need of updating were com-
piled by activities of the monitoring team.
Land-treatment practices are tracked through a cooperative effort between the monitoring team and the local LCD
staff. BMP's funded by state and federal agencies are updated in the spring and fall. Maintenance of accurate and
timely information on BMP implementation is crucial to interpretation of existing and new water-quality data.
The data collected on nonpoint sources of pollutants and land treatment practices are maintained in a geographic
information system (GIS). Spatial-data layers created within the GIS include the basin boundary, nonpoint sources of
pollutants, hydrologic features, land-treatment practices, soil types and topographic features. The GIS provides a
useful tool for updating information and presenting graphical depictions of the current conditions and changes
occurring within the Otter Creek project area.
Further Discussion;
• Project personnel inventoried barnyard runoff, manure spreading, streambank, and gully erosion.
• Barnyard data was collected by the local LCD and estimates of pollutants were generated. They were able to
estimate phosphorus deposition based on manure spreading locations.
• The LCD inventoried agricultural land use and modeled sediment deposition delivery.
• Currently the monitoring team is updating sediment delivery using a new model that allows for both in-stream
sediment delivery and deposition.
• Other data collected by the monitoring team demonstrated that there are insignificant gulley erosion sites.
• Few conservation practices have been implemented in the upland regions of the watershed, which is the primary
source of sediment.
• The land survey must be updated because some of the information and models are outdated.
• Techniques for tracking land use consist of biannual updates of BMP implementation and field surveys.
• Tabular and spatial data are used in graphical representation, water quality modeling and statistical analysis.
• The inventory has allowed pollution sources to be identified and BMPs tracked. However, there is some field
level information not inventoried (i.e. pesticide and nutrient application). Project personnel also have problems
with incompatible data and old information.
190
-------
• Chapter3: Proceedings
SESSIONS Gl AND G2
Use Of Spatial Data - GIS Tools
Walter Bremer
Landscape Architecture Department
Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA
Session Overview
This session will familiarize participants with the use of spatial data and geographic information system (GIS) tools
for manipulating and displaying spatial data related to watershed monitoring. GIS tools are becoming more and more
important to watershed activities. They provide a different look at the watershed and bring many disciplines together
to understand and solve problems.
This session will use lecture/demonstration and discussion, together with some "hands on" interaction with GIS
technology. The session will also take a peek into the future to see what new data and ways of working with data are
just around the corner.
Organization
The sessions will be broken into four topics:
1. Introduction - GIS for data management and use in NMP. How can GIS be used?
2. Organization of GIS data - Spatial and database organization
3. GIS Data - Representation, structure, automation, precision, display
4. GIS Tools - Overview of systems, Arc View 2.1 to access and represent data, the future
The sessions will use watershed data from the San Luis Obispo County area on the central coast of California to
illustrate concepts. The watersheds include the Morro Bay Watershed and San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed, both of
which have numerous ongoing projects at this time.
Group Participation
Although the format will be primarily lecture/demonstration and discussion, there will be four computers with soft-
ware and data to provide an opportunity for the participants to try out the technology and to use "real" data. The
computers should also be available during the breaks. The "hands on" experience will help participants to more fully
understand the information.
Additional information provided bv the speaker
WHAT IS A CIS?
A Geographic Information System is a form of Information System utilizing geographic data.
• System - group of components working together, e.g.., stereo components forming a system
• Information System - set of processes (components) executed on raw data to produce information useful in
decision making
GIS - uses geographically referenced and non-spatial data and includes operations for spatial analysis to:
aid in decision making, managing land resources, transportation, oceans, anything spatially distributed...
191
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
A CIS System is:
An organized collection of computer hardware, software, geographic data, and personnel
designed to efficiently
capture,
store,
update,
manipulate,
analyze, and
display
all forms of geographically referenced information." Environmental Systems Research Institute
or
"A computer system capable of holding and using data describing places on the earth's surface."
Environmental Systems Research Institute
Users
Geographic Information System
Our
World
WHY IS CIS IMPORTANT?
"CIS technology is to geographical analysis what the microscope, the telescope, and the computer have been to
other sciences.... (It) could therefore be the catalyst needed to dissolve the regional-systematic and human-physical
dichotomies that have long plagued geography" and other disciplines -which use spatial information." Dangermond
GIS:
• integrates spatial and non-spatial data into one system
enables us to look at data geographically, and gain new insights, explanations, connections
• enables us to look at geographic proximities, i.e. what land uses are within 1/4 mile of Diablo Canyon
Why are computers used for GIS?
* computers are fast
• computers are accurate
• computers are able to store lots of information, efficiently
Types of questions GIS can answer:
• location - What is at...?
condition - Where is it...?
trends - What has changed since ....?
patterns - What spatial patterns exist...?
• modeling - What if... ?
192
-------
• Chapters: Proceedings
A GIS is not:
• just a system for making maps
just a system for storing conventional maps
Types of databases:
• environmental/ natural resources
land records
transportation facilities
military
etc.
CIS IS AN INTERDISCIPLINARY ACTIVITY
Traditional disciplines are brought together. The related disciplines offer the techniques which make up GIS technol-
ogy: some emphasize data gathering, others analysis.
GIS brings together disciplines by emphasizing:
• integration
modeling
• analysis
display/ communication
DATA IN GIS
SAMPLING DATA
• The world is infinitely complex.
• The database represents a particular view of the world.
Representing Reality
• A database consists of digital representations of discrete objects.
• Many features on a map are fictitious and do not exist in the real world.
boundaries, contours, direction of slope, etc.
Contents of the database include:
digital versions of real objects, e.g. roads
digital versions of artificial map features, e.g. contours
artificial objects created for purposes of the database e.g. cells
Spatial Data
• Geographic phenomena can be observed on 3 "modes" or can have 3 characteristics:
Spatial (locational) characteristic
Descriptive (attribute) characteristic
Temporal (time) characteristic
Types of Geographic Data
• Line, point, area
Measurement Scales
It is important to recognize scales of measurement used in GIS to determine the kinds of mathematical operations
which can be performed.
193
-------
• Scales of Measurement
- Nominal
- name, establish identity
- Ordinal
- numbers establish order
- Interval
- the intervals or difference between numbers is significant
- subtraction makes sense but division does not
- Ratio
- measurement has an absolute zero, and the difference between
numbers is significant
- division makes sense
Errors and Accuracy
• There is a tendency to lose sight of errors when any data are in digital form
• Types of errors
Original Sin
- errors in sources of the data; maps, etc.
Boundaries
- lakes fluctuate, soil boundaries are transition zones, etc.
Classification errors
- wrong attributes, particularly in tabular data
Data capture errors
- manual data input can induce error, e.g. in digitizing
DATA INPUT
Data input is the largest task (time & $) in the application of GIS technology
* Costs can consume 80% or more of project costs
• Data input is labor intensive and prone to error
• Activities include encoding of both locational (spatial) and descriptive (attribute) data
Modes of data input:
keyboard - usually only attribute data but also some coordinate entry
manual locating devices - digitizing
automated devices - scanning
conversion - from other digital sources, e.g. magnetic tape
Digitizing
• uses cursor
• points interpreted as x and y coordinates
table uses grid of wires to generate electromagnetic field, detected by cursor
• $500-$5,000
•Chapter 3: Proceedings
• process:
map taped to table
three or more control points digitized
stream mode - points captured at set time interval
point mode - operator identifies points to be captured; most common mode
• time/cost - industry "rule-of-thumb" is one boundary (polygon) per minute
Scanning
• Video scanners - (the kind we will use)
- black and white, or color
- fast and inexpensive - $500 - $10,000
- typically have poor geometrical and radiometrical characteristics
194
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
Electromagnetic scanners
- accurate and expensive $6,000 - $100,000
- resolution of up to 25 microns
Requirements for scanning
- clean documents
- lines at least 0.1 mm wide, and crisp
- contours cannot be broken with text
Other Sources of Data
USGS digital products
- DLG's Digital Line Graphs - roads, hydrography, boundaries
- OEM's Digital Elevation Models - elevation
DIME & TIGER - census data
• CAD/ CAM systems (DXF, IGES)
• LANDSAT, SPOT satellites
Other GIS products
DATA STRUCTURES - GRID & VECTOR
A GIS database consists of digital representations of discrete objects
Current GIS's differ in the way they organize reality
• Through the data model - GRID/RASTER or VECTOR - each type of model tends to fit certain types of data
and applications
- A GRID/RASTER model indicates what occurs at each place in the geography (landscape) - occupies space
- A grid can be thought of as
a special case of point sampling where the points are regularly spaced
a special case of the same size zones
- A VECTOR model indicates where every object occurs in the geography (landscape) - location of objects
GRID Data Model
Process for converting data map into GRID format:
1. Overlay uniform grid (cells) registered to the earth
- high resolution means small cells and large grid (overall grid)
2. Assign values
values representing measurements, i.e. elevation
values as "pointers", (e.g. 1 = deciduous forest; 2 = grassland
usually one value per cell)
3. Arrange in map layers - THEMES (from other readings)
Cell Size
Resolution of data
Types of analysis and modeling
Personnel and equipment limitations
Coding Rules
Predominant type
Presence/ absence
Percent
Centroid
195
-------
•Chapter 3: Proceedings
VECTOR Data Model
• Based on vectors, with the fundamental unit as a point (a primitive)
Points are connected with straight lines
Areas are defined by sets of lines
• Process for entering VECTOR data
1. Georeference with coordinates (x, y)
2. Map is digitized by recording points and lines to define general data types:
• points
• lines
• areas (polygons)
3. Edit line work
4. Label, or attach attribute data to points, lines, areas
• Types of storage:
1. "POLYGON" Storage
- every polygon stored as sequence of coordinates - all internal shared polygon boundaries digitized twice,
once for each adjacent polygon
- used in some current GIS's, many automated mapping packages
2. "ARCS" Storage
- "smart" - have attributes which identify polygons on either side
- digitizing direction is important
- areas "built" by linking arcs, calculating the relationships between points, lines, areas and to the RDBMS (e.g.
INFO, Oracle)
- only one version of internal shared boundary is input and stored
- used in most current vector-based system
• Database
- Attribute data - description of what the points, lines, and areas represent
- Often a RDBMS - relational data base management system
MAP PROJECTIONS
A map projection is a system in which locations on the curved surface of the earth are displayed on a flat sheet or
surface according to some set of rules
Relevance to GIS
Maps are a common source of data input
Often the size of our study site is large enough that the earth's curvature is significant
Distortion Properties
- angles, areas, directions, shapes and distances will become distorted when transformed from sphere to a plane,
to a flat map
- map projections attempt to represent these surfaces but a single projection cannot keep all properties undistorted
- usually, a projection can keep one property from being too distorted but the other properties become very
distorted
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)
- UTM provides georeferencing at high levels of precision for the entire globe
- established in 1936 by the Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
- adopted by the US Army in 1947
- adopted by many national and international mapping agencies, including NATO
- is commonly used in thematic and topographic mapping, for referencing satellite imagery
Transverse Mercator Projection
- results from wrapping a cylinder around poles rather than the equator
- the central meridian is where the cylinder touches the sphere
196
-------
• Chapters: Proceedings
Zone System
- to reduce distortion, 60 zones, 6 degrees of longitude wide
- each zone is further divided into 8 degree strips of latitude
Coordinates
- coordinates in meters
- eastings (x) are displacements eastward
- northings (y) are displacements northward
- advantages
UTM is frequently used
consistent for the globe
a universal approach to accurate georeferencing
- disadvantages
full georeferencing requires zone, easting, northing
adjacent zones are skewed with respect to each other
State Plane Coordinates (SPC)
- SPC's are individual coordinate systems adopted by the US state agencies
- each state's shape determines the projection
- projections are chosen to minimize the distortion
- units are in feet
- advantages
SPC may give better representation than UTM for the state's area
coordinates may be simpler than UTM
- disadvantages
SPC are not universal from state to state
problems may arise at the boundaries of projections
North American Datum
-NAD 27-1927
- NAD 83 - 1983 (current datum for many projects)
THE FUTURE
Although there are many changes or trends in GIS in the near future, the following are some related to watershed
monitoring projects.
GPS - Global Positioning Systems
quicker and more accurate determination of locations
More Network Access
acquisition to existing data (World Wide Web - WWW)
provide access to information by others
3D Visualization
visual understanding and display of phenomenon
Multilayer Views Of Data
better understanding of complex systems
More Portable/Laptop Support
better field access to GIS
Better, Easier To Use GIS Tools
better user interfaces
easier to use modeling and display tools
Access To GIS By Non-Technical Users
197
-------
•Chapter 3: Proceedings
REFERENCES
Geographic Information Systems, An Introduction, Star, Estes, 1990
NCGIA Core Curriculum Lecture Notes, 1990
Understanding CIS: The ARC/INFO Method, ESRI, 1990
SESSIONS HI AND H2
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING TO PROTECT WATER RESOURCES
James R. Karr and Leska S. Fore
Institute for Environmental Studies, U. of Washington
Since the Clean Water Act amendments of 1972, federal and state agencies have been mandated to monitor the
chemical, physical and biological integrity of rivers and streams. The emphasis until recently has been on chemical
criteria such as nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved oxygen. Continued loss of aquatic species and degradation of
aquatic resources has shifted the focus of monitoring to biological criteria.
To assess the biological integrity of Northwestern streams, we collect benthic invertebrates to evaluate the species
richness and composition of the biota. Sites with high numbers of mayfly, stonefly, and caddisfly taxa, for example,
indicate excellent in-stream conditions. These invertebrates require conditions that are also favorable to salmon—
cool, clean, fast-moving water with complex cobble substrates. Juvenile salmon also favor these organisms in their
diet. Stream sites that have been damaged by timber harvest, grazing, and urbanization have higher proportions of
tolerant organisms such as soft-bodied flies (tipulids and simuliids), worms, some snails, and small crustaceans
(amphipods). We evaluate attributes of invertebrate (or fish) assemblages and score them in reference to minimally
disturbed sites. Attribute scores are then integrated into an overall numeric index, the index of biotic integrity (ffll),
that is used to rank streams or stream reaches according to their biological condition. IBI scores reflect, for example,
logging and road building in forested watersheds, the effects of impervious surface area in urbanized watersheds, and
agricultural practices in agricultural landscapes.
Participants in this workshop will evaluate data from Puget Sound lowland streams. We will construct testable hy-
potheses about how invertebrates respond to human-induced degradation and test them with real data. We will
construct an index and test its relationship with impervious surface area. In conclusion, we will present evidence of
IBI's ability to respond to other types of degradation.
Additional information provided by the sneakers
Existing water-quality programs have made substantial progress in improving the quality of water resources in the
United States, especially in controlling point sources of contamination. But inadequacies in analysis of the effects of
nonpoint sources, and in their management, result in continued degradation of water resources. The most important
gap between accomplishments and legislative intent is in the area of biological integrity.
Three problems are responsible for the gap; all deserve increased attention. First, we have used a conceptual frame-
work to control contamination based on point-source strategies that is not effective in controlling nonpoint sources.
Second, the primary focus on chemical water quality has allowed other factors responsible for water resource degrada-
tion to go unchecked. Third, we undervalue the importance to society of healthy biological systems and, as a result,
biological integrity continues its steep decline.
A broader conceptual framework is needed if we are to attain the goals of the Clean Water Act because biological
resources are not being protected by current programs.
Humans influence the biological integrity of water resource systems by altering: 1) water quality, 2) habitat structure,
3) energy sources, 4) flow regime, and 5) biotic interactions. Biological integrity is the sum of the elements of biologi-
198
-------
• Chapters: Proceedings
cal systems (biodiversity) and the biological processes that generate and maintain those elements. Until programs to
protect and improve the quality of water resources focus on all those factors, water resource degradation seems
inevitable.
Several years ago EPA called for states to develop narrative and numeric biocriteria. Substantial progress has been
made by some states but others are just initiating biocriteria programs. Early efforts to focus on rapid assessment are
changing. Effectiveness rather than speed should be the core of biological monitoring. Costs of implementation of
biocriteria are very competitive with chemical evaluations and they provide a more comprehensive assessment of
resource condition.
Bioassessment can be accomplished using any major taxonomic group (e.g., fish, benthic invertebrates, algae). The
primary limiting factor is the nature of the ecological insight that goes into the study design, data analysis, and
project synthesis. In the Pacific Northwest, we focus on invertebrates, but earlier work in the Midwest concentrated
on fish. Salmon, or other fish, may be the primary focus of society but invertebrates provide a better approach to
evaluate biological condition in Northwest streams because they are resident year around, are easier to sample, and
are present in a diverse array of species. In addition, the process involved in obtaining sampling permits is simplified
with invertebrates relative to the many endangered stocks of salmonid fishes.
Both managers and researchers have successfully used biological monitoring and assessment to evaluate the condition
of water resources. Ohio EPA uses both invertebrates and fish in their monitoring programs while other states use
only one or the other. Linda Deegan at Woods Hole has developed a prototype IBI for estuarine environments, and
John Lyons has adapted the fish IBI for use in Wisconsin. Many other water resource managers and scientists have
developed approaches that are reliable in their regions.
An early step in the design of an effective program is to generate hypotheses about the relationship between human
actions and the condition of the aquatic biota. Work throughout North America has demonstrated the generality of
patterns, such as the total number of taxa and the number of stonefly taxa decline as human actions increase within a
watershed. We have used a variety of measures of human influence: percent impervious area in urban environments;
grazing intensity in rangeland; percent of watershed logged in forested areas; and condition of riparian corridors in a
number of areas. By plotting, for example, taxa richness (number of kinds offish or invertebrates in a stream sample)
against a measure of human influence (% impervious area) one can document very robust indicators of water quality.
The following metrics work well in the Northwest as measures of biotic integrity of streams:
Metric Response
Taxa Richness
Total number of taxa decrease
Number of Ephemeroptera taxa decrease
Number of Plecoptera taxa decrease
Number of Trichoptera taxa decrease
Number of long-lived taxa decrease
Number of intolerant taxa decrease
Number of sediment intolerant taxa decrease
Community Structure
Percent predator individuals decrease
Percent tolerant individuals increase
Percent sediment tolerant individuals increase
Percent dominance (3 most common species) increase
Workshop participants were given sample data (benthic invertebrate samples) from six lowland streams in Puget
Sound. Streams were selected to represent the range from the best to worst streams in the region along a gradient of
urbanization. The metrics listed above were calculated for each station and scoring criteria were developed to define
each site based on the range of values within the data set. These metrics are essentially hypotheses about the effects of
human activities on invertebrate assemblages. After each site was evaluated and scored for each metric, an IBI was
calculated for each stream and the ranking of streams was compared to the conditions within each watershed (as
ranked by % impervious area). This IBI is referred to as B-IBI (benthic IBI) to distinguish it from the original IBI
199
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
based on fish assemblages. B-D3I values were ranked according to impervious area, indicating the ability of biological
data to reflect watershed condition.
Although the influence of human activities varies from watershed to watershed in the region, analysis of invertebrate
data demonstrates that diverse human actions (e.g., forestry, grazing, urbanization, and the cumulative impacts of
these and other actions) have predictable and easily detected influences on benthic organisms. Conversely, sampling
aquatic organisms provides a convenient and reliable evaluation of the condition of streams and the landscapes they
drain. Biological integrity varies in predictable ways with measures of the extent of human influence within a water-
shed (e.g., percent impervious area, percent of watershed logged, grazing intensity, or chlorine concentration in
effluent water). Other factors that also influence biotic integrity include time since logging, drainage from mined
lands, presence of wetlands or intact riparian areas, and number of stream crossings by roads in areas involving
timber harvest.
Some states begin by establishing a set of reference stations to define reference condition. We do not begin with
reference streams per se. Rather, we identify and sample the full range of stream conditions in the sample region. By
sampling the best and worst and a range of intermediate streams, we can observe which biological attributes vary as a
function of intensity of human activity, that is, along a gradient of human influence. One cannot discover how biology
changes (i.e., which components of biology provide signal about biological integrity) by only measuring reference
streams. By integrating the results of studies in grazed, logged, and urbanized landscapes, biologists can develop a
general B-EBI useful in watersheds with diverse cumulative impacts.
Success in use of the multimetric IBI has changed the framework of monitoring and analysis of water resource
condition in many states. Use of biological monitoring has been limited in the past, in part because of the following
factors: 1) dominance of water pollution engineers; 2) lack of a defensible definition of biological integrity; 3) lack of
standardized field methods; 4) lack of indexes successful in measuring attainment of biological integrity; and 5)
misconceptions about the cost of biological monitoring. The development of multimetric approaches like IBI clearly
demonstrates that these problems have been overcome.
Societal well-being has long been evaluated by examination of the health of individual humans. In recent decades,
economic health has been the focus of efforts to assess societal well being. IBI provides a way to assess ecological or
environmental health, upon which both human health and economic health ultimately depend.
SESSION Kl & K2
APPLYING THE PAIRED-WATERSHED AND UPSTREAM-DOWNSTREAM
MONITORING DESIGNS
Moderators: Pat Lietman, U.S. Geological Survey, Lemoyne, PA
Jean Spooner, NCSU Water Quality Group, Raleigh, NC
Jack Clausen, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
Paired Watershed Study Design
Jack Clausen, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
The criterion of a paired watershed study design will be described. Jack's own Fmit-of-the-Loam presentation will be
included. Statistical analysis approaches will be summarized. An example from a conservation tillage paired water-
shed site in Vermont will be used.
Discussion;
Experimental Designs
Single Station Design: a single station below the treatment area compares baseline and post-treatment data. The
major disadvantage is that the cause of water quality changes can't be isolated; results may be due to BMPs or to
climatic factors.
200
-------
• Chapters: Proceedings
Above and Below — Before and After: analysis can be similar to the paired watershed design.
Above and Below Design: monitoring occurs on receiving waters both above and below the treatment area. The major
disadvantage is that the cause of water quality changes can't be isolated; results may be due to BMPs or to inherent
differences in the watershed between above and below positions (e.g., geology). The exception to this is the case of
above and below design with both before and after sampling, allowing two periods of comparison.
Two Different Watersheds: comparison of two watersheds with different land uses (e.g., agriculture and forestry),
where one receives BMP implementation and the other remains the same. The major disadvantage is that the cause of
water quality changes can't be isolated; results may be due to BMPs or to the inherent differences in the watersheds.
There are many examples of these flawed studies in the literature.
Paired Watershed Design: two similar, nearby watersheds are used. A calibration period occurs where the watersheds
are treated the same in terms of land use and management. From this a regression relationship is developed for their
hydrology. The watersheds do not need to be identical, they just need to respond similarly to rainfall. Regression
relationships are compared between the two watersheds before and after land treatment, based on slope and intercept.
The advantage of this method is that rather than performing a comparison of absolute parameter values, changes in
the relationship of values between the two watersheds are analyzed. The method factors out confounding variables,
narrowing the cause of water quality changes more closely to the treatment BMPs. One weakness of this method is
the lack of replication (such as is used in plot- or field-scale efforts).
Nested Watershed Design: this method is useful where there are distinct geological zones within a basin (e.g., coastal
plain, piedmont, and montane). Analysis is similar to the paired watershed design. The treatment area is a
subwatershed in the head waters. The larger watershed outlet is monitored to evaluate relative change in the smaller
subwatershed.
Multiple Watershed Design: the use of numerous watersheds within a basin allows a substantive understanding of the
basin-wide big picture.
Paired Watershed Issues
The prior existence of water quality-oriented BMPs in the control watershed should not be considered a disqualifying
factor. Prior level of BMP use is not as important as a lack of change in BMPs in the control watershed during the 6
to 10 year monitoring period. This feature is attributable to the comparison of relationships between watersheds, not
simply values. Ideally, both watersheds should have the same land uses, but they can be different provided land uses
don't change during the project. Watersheds with significantly different land uses will show different hydrologic
responses, but as long as the relationship between them is established, the design can be workable.
In an above/below — before/after watershed design, the control watershed may be more desirably located up- or
downstream, depending on the treatment. For example, the "anti-BMP" of spreading manure on frozen ground should
be done downstream from the control, whereas restoration of riparian areas should occur upstream of the control.
A completed case study of a paired watershed in Starksboro, VT was presented. The project evaluated the effects of
conservation tillage on pesticide movement in surface water. Conservation tillage was defined in terms of residue
management, the leaving of at least 30 % residue on the surface. The design actually used paired fields of approxi-
mately 2 ha in size. H-flumes collected surface runoff. In evaluating pesticides, the desired focus is on the decay in
pesticide movement in runoff over time following application. Use of paired watersheds allows this comparison of
temporal effects because the effect occurs on both watersheds. The calibration period was 19 months, the treatment
period 30 months. A useful method of evaluating the data involved generating plots of residual errors for the treat-
ment vs. the control. In this example, plots represented the observed deviations from predicted total mass export of
atrazine based on the control watershed, and provided a visual illustration of the change in that deviation over the
project's lifetime. The individual errors in these plots could be summed to give the total reduction in mass export of
atrazine for the given time period due to the treatment.
201
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
Downstream-Upstream Study Design - Long Creek Watershed, 319 NMP,
North Carolina Case Study
William A. Harman, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service - Gaston County, Dallas, NC
Jean Spooner, NCSU Water Quality Group, Raleigh, NC
Monitoring data from a management area of the Long Creek, NC project, which has an upstream-downstream moni-
toring design, are presented to illustrate various aspects of water quality data analysis. One of the preliminary, but
important, steps in the analysis of monitoring data is to plot the data in different ways such as upstream parameters
versus downstream parameters, all parameters versus covariates, and all parameters versus time. Plots of the data
from our project indicated that concentrations of total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrite+nitrate (NOz+NOs), total
phosphorus (TP), and levels of fecal coliform bacteria (FC) were generally greater at the downstream (site E) com-
pared to the upstream (site D) sampling station; however, considerable variability was apparent.
Observation and then regression analysis showed a relatively strong (^=0.64) linear relationship between upstream
and corresponding downstream concentrations of NO2+NOs. Further statistical analysis will be discussed to test
sample frequency requirements, minimum detectable change that will be required in the post-BMP period to docu-
ment a change in water quality, length of pre-BMP monitoring, and usefulness of storm water samples for trend
analysis.
Workshop Discussion:
Long Creek drains a 28,500 ac mixed agriculture/urban watershed in southwestern piedmont North Carolina, and
serves as the primary water supply for a small city of 5,000. Water quality problems include high sediment, bacteria,
and nutrient levels, and sections of the Creek are listed as support-threatened.
The study was designed as an upstream-downstream study. The upstream watershed contains pastures, single family
homes, and apartments. Extreme bank and bed erosion is occurring within upstream pasture area that supports 300-
400 dairy cows. Major sediment transport action causes filling in behind the weir that was established for the up-
stream sampling site, compromising stage-discharge relationships. The weir is a v-notch to allow accurate gauging of
low flows, but it also lends to sediment accumulation. The downstream or treatment watershed contains a milking
barn and a loafing area which receives heavy use. Land management focuses on reducing erosion, largely from
streambanks, by providing alternative watering sites and by fencing and restoring riparian corridors.
The current dilemma is two-fold: 1) whether to approach the project as a paired watershed design with the control
upstream instead of as an upstream-downstream arrangement, and 2) whether to fence the entire study area stream
corridor, both up- and downstream, or fence only the treatment area corridor. On the first question, a paired design
could give more valuable results. On the latter question, there is a concern that sediment loading from the upstream
watershed is so great and highly variable that it will not only compromise the stage-discharge relationship at the
upstream weir, but also that sediment values at the downstream station will be swamped.
The concern was expressed that changing practices upstream by fencing the riparian area, while acceptable for
upstream-downstream design, would nullify a paired approach. Given that results under any approach might be
difficult to interpret if upstream fencing doesn't occur because of swamping of downstream values, some felt that
upstream-downstream and complete fencing was a good alternative. Mr. Harman pointed out that considering practi-
cal realities, the fanner would very likely want to fence all of the corridor, given the short-term availability of 75%
cost-share. While discussing the experimental design concerns and the fact that most of the pollutant source was
below the upstream and downstream monitoring locations, the general consensus was to minimize treatment above
upstream site D and to maximize treatment below the 2 monitoring locations.
A separate issue involves an inconsistent relationship among the nitrate data. At low flows, downstream values are
lower than upstream, while at high flows, downstream values become higher. Some discussion focused on minimiz-
ing variability in the data. The suggestion was made to stratify the data seasonally, and to factor out flow. The up-
stream weir was identified as another potential source of data variability; under high flows it could become a
sediment source as opposed to a sink at low flows.
202
-------
• Chapters: Proceedings
Changes to the upstream weir design were discussed, such as modification to a rectangular notch with a v-cut, to
allow sediment to pass while retaining the ability to gauge low flows for a rating curve and mass load calculations.
The use of different upstream (weir) and downstream (culvert) structures was identified as undesirable and a potential
source of data variability. The upstream weir could actually act as a BMP. As long as there were no significant de-
fined inputs between up- and downstream, and given the relatively short flow distance of approximately two hundred
yards between sampling sites, it was suggested that the downstream stage relationship be used for the upstream site as
well, and that the upstream weir be removed.
Paired Watershed Study Design - Sny Magill Watershed, 319 NMP, Iowa Case Study
Lynette Seiglej', Geological Survey Bureau, Iowa City, IA
Data from the paired watershed study in the Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa project will be examined. Two large water-
sheds are being used for the paired watershed study. Sny Magill watershed consists of 22,780 acres; the Bloody Run
Creek watershed is adjacent and drains 24,064 acres. Preliminary data analysis will be presented, using one year as
the pre-BMP data set and two years as the post-BMP data set. The challenges and benefits of utilizing a short pre-
BMP period and having large watersheds will be discussed. :
Workshop Discussion; '
Sny Magill is a paired watershed design, with Bloody Run as the control. This example illustrated the issues of
appropriate watershed size (keeping them as small as possible) and minimum sufficient baseline data. At 34 and 27
mi , respectively, both Bloody Run and Sny Magill watersheds are extremely large, and therefore hard to control in
terms of unwanted land use changes during the study. Implementation of BMPs over a significant portion of the
treatment watershed is a real challenge. Also, 70 to 80% of the flow out of the watersheds is base flow.
Another complicating factor was the ability to collect only one year of baseline data before BMPs had to be imple-
mented due to time limitations on the HUA cost-share moneys. Regarding the question of minimum sufficient
baseline data, Jack Clausen provided some guidelines. He stated that the calibration period ends when:
a significant regression relationship is obtained. It may not be obtained for all constituents, and it may be
obtained for mass load but not concentration. While the F statistic is important, a reasonable r for water quality
work was felt to be in the .6 to .7 range;
regression errors are less than BMP effects. Two means; of measuring this are confidence intervals and minimum
detectable concentration;
• there is a sufficiently large sample size; and
the full range of anticipated values for each parameter has been spanned by data points (the high end being of
concern).
Jack Clausen also gave some guidance on improving the correlation coefficient of regressions to improve baseline
calibrations:
paired observations may not show a significant relationship in concentration, but be acceptable in terms of mass
load;
perform flow adjustment of concentration, if concentration varies in some way with flow;
aggregate the data. Use means or totals, use weekly or monthly aggregation;
stratify the data - by season (e.g., 4 seasons, or ice and non-ice, or planting and non-planting) or by process
period (e.g., separate initial spike in values due to ephemeral flushing associated with BMP installation from
later stabilization of values); ;
• use multivariate regression and add explanatory variables (covariates).
203
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
Sharing the Paired Watershed Experience
All session participants will be encouraged to briefly describe problems and success with their paired watershed
studies. Pat Lietman, of USGS (PA), shared the results of her study with the group, as summarized below:
This is a paired watershed design with watersheds of 1.48 and 1.8 mi2, much smaller and more manageable than the
Sny Magill areas. Pat Lietman made a brief presentation to illustrate the effects of sampling design on parameter
values obtained. Graphs of various parameters were shown, obtained from time-based (@10 day intervals) instanta-
neous samples contrasted with those obtained from composite grab samples. Significant differences were apparent in
concentration between the two methods for all constituents. Poor regression relationships existed for the time-based
composite data, while the storm composite sample regressions showed r2 values in the 0.6 to 0.7 range. She then
illustrated use of the EPA factsheet, Paired Watershed Study Design, on the Mill Creek site.
SESSIONS II AND 12
LAND TREATMENT MONITORING: DATA NEEDS, COLLECTION, AND
MANAGEMENT
Jack Clausen, University of Connecticut
Kathleen Kilian, NRCS Liaison to EPA Region 10
Objectives
1. Participants will be able to develop a land use monitoring plan.
2. Participants will interact with others having similar issues in land use monitoring.
Process
This session is intended to give hands-on experience in developing a land use monitoring plan for water quality
monitoring projects. The session will be highly participatory and involve group activities.
I. Facilitators give lecturette on land use monitoring (30 min.)
II. Facilitators divide the entire group into smaller groups of five members each
with similar interests. (15 min.)
III. The groups will begin the first of three exercises. (30 min.)
IV. Groups will report their findings.
V. Break
VI. Groups will begin the second of three exercises.
VII. Groups complete the exercises.
VIII. Groups present results of their plans.
204
-------
• Chapters: Proceedings
Group Findings
A land use monitoring program for a watershed project was developed by each group. The following information was
compiled:
Information Needed
Base map
hydrology: surface and
groundwater; soils; cover type
Current and projected land use
Historical data - water quality
and biological
Water quality standards:
criteria and biological
Inventory of farm practices
Runoff
Upstream contributions
Manure (nutrient) application
timing of application
location of application
rate of application
Crop type and rotations
BMPs
Irrigation methods
Spatial land use / cover
Critical site selection
BMPs (current and historic) data
Determine the water use
Characterize leachate
Soil type / leaching interactions
Names of land managers and
operators
Current list of management units
BMPs applied
EIS documents
Consult literature reviews,
theses, and on-line
computer data
Pump logs (existing
monitoring wells and
ground water data)
Determine leachate
Select pilot project sites
Method
Personal observation
of site characteristics
Field logs
Stream monitoring data
Conservation districts, NRCS
Field surveys
Operator interviews
Remote sensing: NRCS, FSA
On-site visits
Previous data - USGS
Other agency files and data
Field logs
Follow-up with personal
interviews
Follow-up with agencies
Personal contact with the
county government (tax
lots), NRCS, FSA !
Ground tracking - interview
local specialists
Build on existing data
Quad maps - USGS
Contact the Forest Service,
local universities, and
data archives
Build trust through
personal contact: interview
local agencies
Time log
Cost vs. benefits
Data Management
Dedicated staff
Dedicated resources
Dedicated technology
(spreadsheets, Access
databases)
Photographs
Spreadsheets
GIS and AutoCad
Acetate overlays
BIA GIS for existing
physical and chemical
characteristics, and
monitoring well and
pilot project locations
Personnel
Existing university
agencies
Communities
Coordinators
GIS - store spatially
and temporally
Contractor for
format (in-out), trend
analysis, evolution of
data
GIS - Macintosh software
Buy information
Arclnfo
205
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
SESSIONS Jl AND J2
LINKING LAND TREATMENT WITH WATER QUALITY AT THE WATERSHED
LEVEL
Don Meals, University of Vermont
OPENING DISCUSSION (first 20-30 minutes of Jl)
I. Spatial and temporal issues at the landscape/watershed level
A. Scale issues: edge-of-field vs. watershed
B. Factors influencing pollutant delivery to watershed outlet
1. Hydrologic system
a. Where do pollutants come from? Possibilities include highly erodible
land, areas that receive manure, and riparian zones.
b. How do pollutants get there? Variable Source Areas - runoff contributing areas
(consider rainfall and soil conditions for surface water) and ground water flow systems.
c. How long do pollutants take to get there? Consider ground water time of travel.
2. Pollutant behavior
a. Nutrients - phosphorus sorption to soil or sediment particles, erosion transport, bioavailability
b. Bacteria - sources; die-off
c. Pesticides - toxicity, partition/leaching potential, persistence
3. Flow collector processes
How do pollutants get from where they are generated to the stream?
4. In-stream processes
How are materials processed (physical, biological processing of nutrients) once they are in the
stream?
5. Management
What actions are taken to influence supply, availability, and losses?
What BMPs are used to manage these sources? NOTE: Management is only one factor
influencing what you see at the watershed outlet.
Good news: most other factors are relatively constant, within some bounds.
Bad news: other factors are often unknown or unknowable.
n. Measures of land treatment/management to relate to water quality
A. What are the independent variables of interest? They are not the amount of dollars spent or the number of
structures built, but are the activities that affect pollutant inputs, generation, availability, transport, or
delivery.
B. Arithmetic measures - variable selection exercise:
1. Hypothesize potential relationships
2. Hypothesize mechanisms
3. Select variables and measurement scales
C. Spatial measures
1. Cookie-cutters (e.g. all corn land, 100 m. buffer around streams, aquifer recharge area)
2. Runoff contributing areas
3. GIS applications
a. Designation of Hydrologic Response Units - land areas having similar response to
precipitation/snowmelt based on combination of physical properties (e.g. altitude, slope,
aspect, soil, cover, and climate).
b. Mapping critical areas (e.g. erosion rates as a function of a soil and cropping system).
c. Integrating distance/attenuation factors regarding pollutant export.
d. Riparian condition map based on slope, vegetation, and bank conditions.
e. Air video and GIS for mapping watersheds and identifying riparian condition.
D. Temporal measures
1. Timing of management activities
2. Timing of storms
3. Trends through time
206
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
III. Linking land treatment and water quality
A. Constraints
1. Differences in scale/precision of data
2. Confounding interactions
a. Obvious: hydrologic variations, e.g. precipitation, seasonal differences.
b. Subtle: weather vs. agricultural activities, e.g. manure vs. spring runoff, bacteria vs. pasture
season or temperature.
3. Unknown landscape-level influences
a. How does position affect influence on water quality?
b. Landscape level processes - phosphorus and nitrogen attenuation, wetlands, storage.
B. Possible approaches
1. If variables and covariates are chosen carefully, association will equal correlation and regression.
C. Examples of success and failure
1. Success: TVA Watershed Index of Pollution, Pennsylvania RCWP lag, Vermont RCWP
(animals and bacteria)
2. Failure: Manure applications and phosphorus, pasture and bacteria
GROUP EXERCISE (remaining time of Jl and continuing through J2)
Participants divided up into groups of 6 to 10 people
Each group was provided with a unique scenario, including:
watershed baseline description
• water quality problem statement
• water quality monitoring system
hypothetical "rules" governing pollutant behavior, land treatment, practice efficiency, hydrologic system,
etc. in their watershed
limited amount of money
Each group did the following:
1. Sketched out their land treatment program and land treatment monitoring program.
2. Formulated their hypothesis on the effect(s) of their land treatment program on water quality.
3. Bought land treatment implementation and positioned it within the watershed (within the typical
limitations and constraints of a voluntary program).
4. Bought land use/land treatment information/data.
5. Bought analytical tools such as maps, spreadsheets, and GIS.
6. Made choices regarding measures of management to use, how to quantify and display, and how to relate
to water quality.
7. Reported back to entire group.
Team Project Reports
Team#l:
Planning process: This project team operated at the direction of watershed people. They collected, reviewed, and
analyzed information related to watershed. Problems were identified and water quality monitoring information,
land use, and existing farm practices were reviewed.
Goal and objective: To improve and enhance the water quality of the watershed. The main focus was on the lower
portion of the watershed and on direct BMP application. Prioritization of actions and educational development
was also important.
Specific project elements: A map was developed, indicating the problem areas treated. Farm practices were
focused upon. All money was spent on implementation and restoration activities. It was discovered that the main
contributor to load degradation was livestock. One-hundred % of the problem areas received BMP
implementation. Two stream crosses were eliminated and ten crossings were armored. All pastureland and those
areas with degraded streambanks were fenced. There was intensive management on pasturelands. An educational
outreach program was implemented, with the hope of changing cultural viewpoints of current residents and those
arriving in new housing developments. There was enough funding to complete stream restoration on three
kilometers of degraded streams.
207
-------
•Chapter 3: Proceedings
• Team summary: The requirements for monitoring effectiveness became academic. A windshield survey was
implemented, all farmers complied, and there was a 90% reduction of loadings, 75% reduction in phosphorus
and 90% reduction of e. coli.
learn #2:
• This group focused on fencing units, armored crossings (eliminating one), and stabilizing streambanks.
• Land use monitoring: By looking at discharge and storm events, it was determined that the sources identified
would not account for loads. Farmer log books, interviews, photographs, and windshield surveys were used to get
information about potential sources in the watershed. A GIS approach was used for analyses (ARCINFO, SAS,
etc.).
Effectiveness: Calculations showed a 20% reduction in phosphorus.
Team #3:
• Goals were discussed as to reduce or eliminate impairment for fishing, swimming, and aesthetics. The major
pollutants were sediment, phosphorus, and e. coli.
• BMPs: Cost, effectiveness, and land use considerations were discussed. There were correlations among land use,
riparian conditions, and targeted areas where BMPs should be implemented. It was decided that BMPs would not
be used for corn land. While looking at the upstream distribution of stream crossings, it was determined that one
stream with less priority should be eliminated. A secondary targeting process began, based on BMP effectiveness.
Two additional crossings were eliminated, nine crossings were armored, and four kilometers of fencing, six
rotational grazing packages, and two kilometers of streambank restoration packages were purchased.
• Budget: The allotted money was spent first and documented later. Site specific and overall reductions of
parameters were made. There was an eight percent reduction in phosphorus and a ten percent reduction in e. coli.
Focus was aimed on smaller areas of the watershed. In some areas, loading was reduced by 100%.
• Monitoring plan: The money was targeted on aerial photography, GIS, and education and outreach. The
photography was downloaded into GIS and used as an educational tool.
• One farmer pulled out of the program. The remaining money was used to bring the farmer back to make the
program more effective and to expand the outreach program to other farmers. A conclusion was not drawn on
how to quantify the level of treatment because the team believed the data to be insufficient.
Team #4:
• Total suspended solids, total phosphorus, and e. coli loadings were calculated by adding stream meters on a map.
• The allotted funds were spent on eliminating 2 allowable crossings and armoring 11 others, fencing 5.6
kilometers of streambank, stabilizing 4 kilometers of streambank, and converting 8 pastures to rotation grazing.
Arclnfo was also purchased.
• The group was successful in reducing pollutants. One armored crossing was lost, and one farmer dropped out.
Extra efforts were made to have close farmer contact for cooperation.
Team #5:
• Budget: The allotted money was primarily used on streambank fencing. Armored crossings were installed and
one was eliminated. All riparian areas were fenced.
• Education in the watershed: GIS and Arclnfo were used to generate reports to show farmers that their actions
benefited the entire watershed. These reports would be presented annually. Log books were provided for the
farmers, aerial photographs were taken, and annual interviews were done. The aerial photographs were used to
show where fencing was in place.
• After data analysis, the group discovered that total suspended solids were reduced by 85%, total phosphorus by
55%, and e. coli by 80%.
Session Leader's Observations:
• Goal setting and assessments were utilized, prioritizing the target, and pollution reduction percentages were
targeted. Information on how to measure the extent of land treatment and how it affected water quality was not
presented.
208
-------
• Chapters: Proceedings
For future use, it should be noted, with emphasis, that not every problem has a regulatory or mandatory solution.
Perhaps some loaded questions should be included, but don't include all information.
SESSIONS LI AND L2
STATISTICS: CONCEPTS AND APPLICATIONS
Pete Richards, Heidelberg
John McCoy, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
The title first suggested for this session was "Statistics Made Easy", but we decided that statistics really cannot be
made easy, and we might just as well admit it. In fact, applying formal statistics correctly is difficult without ad-
vanced training, and knowing that you've applied statistics correctly is even more difficult. Most of us do not have
that level of training, and should acknowledge this reality and consult with experts when we need to.
One thing that is considerably easier to do without advanced training is to explore your data and find many of the
patterns in it. Once the patterns are discovered and documented graphically, formal statistical treatment may not be
necessary. Or, if it is, the appropriate techniques will be more apparent, and consultation with a "real" statistician will
be more efficient. Throwing statistical tests at a data set without a prior notion of what the patterns are and what you
want to evaluate is like fishing without bait - it's usually not very successful, and if you do come up with something, it
may well not be what you were after!
We support the two-step approach first suggested by Tukey: exploratory data analysis followed by confirmatory
analysis. Exploratory analysis seeks to identify patterns and leads to the generation of hypotheses; confirmatory
analysis applies formal statistical testing to evaluate the probability that the patterns represent something real, rather
than being a result of random variation alone. Many programs for exploratory data analysis are now available for
personal computers, offering a number of features which make the exploration process an easy and powerful one.
Most programs also offer formal statistical tests.
This session will be an introduction to techniques of exploratory data analysis on personal computers, using a
Macintosh program as an example of the kind of tools available. We will present a step-by-step approach to exploring
a data set, seeking whatever stories it may have to tell. After a short introductory presentation, we will interactively
explore three data sets, at least two of them from NMP projects, and including ground and surface water data. In the
second half, we will explore another NMP data set, and consider some of the special issues related to load estimation
and working with Biomonitoring results. Audience participation is expected and will help make this session
successful as well as take it in directions where it can do participants the most good.
Some Useful References:
Helsel, D.R. and R.M. Hirsch. 1992. Statistical Methods in Water Resources. Elsevier Studies in Environmental
Science 49. (Exploratory data analysis, non-parametric statistics, and other novel approaches applied specifically to
water resources questions. A very valuable guide, worth even Elsevier's price.)
Hoaglin, D.C. and D.S. Moore, Eds. 1992. Perspectives on Contemporary Statistics. Mathematical Association of
America Notes #21. (See especially Chapter 2 on Data Analysis. You'll recognize the source of some of our introduc-
tory remarks.)
Hoaglin, D.C., Mosteller, E, and J.W. Tukey, Eds. 1983. Understanding Robust and Exploratory Data Analysis. John
Wiley & Sons. (The basic introduction to exploratory data analysis approaches, more technical and theoretically
oriented than the other two references.)
(The following pages are copies of overheads used during this presentation.)
209
-------
Q.
0
jz:
CO
Q_
"co
c
,g
•z.
"E
CO
1
c
T5
f"*
CO
O)
c
Zi
CO
o
HH
STATIST
CO
o
HH
H
< d
O \
HH r.;
hJ ^
0. ^
PH c
5 CT5 ^
=s ™ 1
0) ^
^ '
eu *
{r\
O
*^r
O
O
•rH
C/)
^^^ ^HHV
™ ^^^1
1 ^^^
"A ^^^
5 O
T .^^J
5 ^
' "o
3 rt
58
a
*^H
UfllJJ=
£r
s
E
5
.£•
lo
O
a3
to
0)
O)
a>
I Peter Richards • Heidelberg Coll
LJ_
210
-------
Q.
O
.c
CO
o
^"^
Q.
"co
c
o
1
&»
CO
s
CO
5
T3
C
T3
C
>__
Tl
v^
C
CO
rrt
•2
co
T3 CO
^ S
B m t J jl
"CO ^
O
O)
0
^
c~ :
2 0
58-
•* . tsf
to
•§• ^
2 2
I •• Q_ rt
• ^^^•1 O ^
C i I
0 d
CO I
_O |
w 1
r^ -°
^~" •"
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
Q
O
JC
CO
1_
||V^
Q_
&£^m
"Z.
16
c
0
tg
"S
CO
fVnii
£
05
5
<
c
D)
JZ
12
c
LJ
i.
•
t
•N
CO
• ••«•§
CO
• • * ^^^
fTi
^OD
Q. <>•
o 2? z
co.E **
_O O ^2
""— ^*^
^^^_. v«
HH^ ^^
Q_ //%
.-J.
03
1
CD
TD
1P_B^
•«— •
CO
c
03
0
E
c
CO
O ^vf
IT) K
C) T-
T— T—
CO K
O 00
f"*- O
T-" CM
0 0
LO IO
T- CM
C C
CO CO
"V
o
+=•
CO
o
£)
"co
o
1
1
J>
0)
"o
O
S>
0)
JO
0)
'55
~r
•
-------
"Chapters: Proceedings
Q.
O
-C
CO
•S£
Q
•ij
^^^~
CL
•*5
z
"as
c.
___
• •
to
z:
x_
^ j
m m
^_
0
"as
^>
^i*^
•a
£1
<
•a
c
as
a>
15
c
LJ
-^
V
i^
"CO
vx
"•&)
• • "
"™"~ ff*
^^1
^^"1— '
f*m r ^^\ ^^*
§-0) I
ff\ ^— C/)
\J J H Hlllllll ^^^
0 O
*"" O
•^^ ^1
^ ^*%
•MMH \Jj
m •^•H
_J___1
05
c~*
•^i,.
>
V
\ "
I
\
' "\ "".
.. \ " '
m\ ,
' .\ ».
^ •
• ^ • • "
"' " •
• * •
C ' .
E
2
T-i CO • * --
^J VJL/ • . —
c > »•.•••
CO ^| • • x •
^C o
i r ~r~ ~"i - - - -,
•^- m >N — < o
(N
C
CO*
•
"
•
*
I
•
• >
. - •• •
. "•• »
• • .,
• «
. " •
• «
a*- -" • -
QDl
^1" ro CN •— i O
C
co'
-'*
CO
— '
-CM g,
CO
- -I—
- 0
"*
-co
-CM 1,
CO ,
- 1 —
-o
>
^
^
CO
to
g
c
ft
>
0 ^
0 T-
•t— T—
CO' N*r
^o
o o
U) ,IO
T- CM
CO CO
^
^
Q
"S
o
^^
5
"ca
8
i
^
a>
"0)
"D
'0
I
.
C/}
•g
CO
•5
ir
0)
CL
ff
213
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
Q.
O
.C
£
CL
c
o
z
"S
CO
CO
c
CO
O)
c
S
c
Hi
CO
"S
o o
C/)
*
•'V
.. -\"
cncu
£5
• CM g.
oo
^
T- CM
CO CO
CO O)
-co
-CM
-O
ri
rl
a
—" o
-o
CO
-CM
- o
rl — o
£•
I
S
(0
o
1
CD
D)
"o
O
£
CD
•a
w
CO
DC
CD
^5
a.
DC
214
-------
• Chapters: Proceedings
Q.
O
I
CO
c
O
to
CO
CO
C
CO
O)
Q.CO
O'+3
CO 05
O
Q
O-
_w
•*-•
V)
\ "Ti
"i
0
(0
S
0)Q>
S5
'^? • _
'•^r~ .
,^•" '
g£
O O
t- CM
rl
?.
oo
eo
-CM g.
00
* * V
r)
a
-CM
-o
CO
CM
-O
—i O
rl
1/3
-CM
•*
-------
CL
O
CO
s__
^
^>
CL
^^>
Z
"co
c
.0
•i— *
to
2
••••M
•o
v_
CO
LI
1
T3
T3
C
, \
O)
c
lid
c
LJ
CO
0
:5
•o
• o
o
0
."co -.5
to ^°
"["""i .,
O5 °
• » ^_
»-__• ^i^
0) 1
•
B
co
"O
M—
O
*2
0
CO
i « 1
P ° o
g g
_0
"co
CO
o __
_^c:
"cO ^
*n "^
CO
"CO °-
s*
*-• co
la
*_* cO
o
o CO
co .j3
0 CO
§£
0 -C^
M— O
.EZ
CO O
E co
M—
O
£
0
CO
0
O o)
E gJ
^— *_I
O 0
5 13
•+-* v_
CO o
£ CO
^> *—
"— ._
15 to
-Q Q.
2 o
£ 2
•^ti
O) ° o 5 m P
C
">
CL
CL
co
•
:
0
o
CO
0
"D
•
•^^j ^J
"cO ^
13 0
CO CO
=JjQ
. O
Vfc^ AM.
20
0 *
*C |M
O CO
. "O
— i-1-nrrT..-.-.L - -.-,_-„,_ - - - J
tiUlllt.
§
2
o
"to
i
To
O
I
0)
D)
CD
"o
O
B
CD
"OJ
I
w
o
ir
Jij
D.
CC
216
-------
Q.
O
V
••*••
|
>
CL
^
2
"OS
c
.g
"05
•o
CO
CD
i
T3
c
•a
as
— '
O)
c
i
••wl
l-
v2 w
8^
o-B
O ^
«Z1 •*-•
6<^
^^^^** ^fa^Mi
B o
i|
"O C-
c o
§0
LL
CO
c
co
a:
c
0
o
^^^
"vZ
•1— »
CD
E
CO
CO
a.
WN
.0
*&_
"55
CO
CL
C
O
'ZL
<3
"s— .
H— •
CD
E
co
co
CL
;
E
o
M—
CO
c
CO
o
h-
"o
"Z.
0
E
o
Hh-
CO
c
co
h-
O
h-
j
hTO
>,
1
O
75
3
0)
O)
CD
s
CD
T3
'CD
X
•
co
•E
OS
£Z
o
ir
k.
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
Q_
O
I
P
ationa
a
CO
T5
C
"O
C
D)
15
c
CO
o
Hh- »
03
•55
CO
CD
CO
CD
0)
it
b
CO
•»-*
co
0
CO
co
"o
Ti
0
~a
c
CO
0
•»-*
0
o
0
JZ
0
N
1
2
co
JZ
O
co
T3
0
T3 -=
CO
CO
O
C CO
P W
.C CO
?!
(D :
S^
2 co
0 r
0 w
co o
co
_CD
<*E
8§
IQ
c
= fis.&
00) g jz
o co co
•
>«0 0 m
jc co co c:
^000
CO JZ ^I JZ
0 4-J 4^ 4-1
h- ' ' '
.CO
"co
Dl
+3
CO
'x
0
s-
0
•»—•.
_CO
o
CL
LU
O
o>
I
0)
3
E5
CD
4
to
"S
CO
•5
DC
I
D.
o:
218
-------
Q.
O
CO
.V£
1
Q_
"co
c
_g
"S
CO
JJ
1
T3
C
T3
C
D)
C
• MM
C
LJ
„
•
CO
.12
"•+- *
cd
•*— *
jz 0
o CO
OZ>
^^1^^ ^^^^^»
•= cd
o-'a
0
Q
Q
CD
••^•M
H
CO
«<
CO
•4— •
co
•*-•
c
0
"S
0
0
1
•^
^
c
0
Q.
2
' 0)
0
CO
0)
c
•»-•
0
E
o
CO
&
JZ
CO
0
0
0
CO
1
T3
CO
0
C
'£
S
O
CO
•
0
c,
•!-•
OL
•2
thing...) impressive
>^
^ •
c
^
"D
0
Q.
0
0
O,
C
CO
0
'-i— •
0
"0
to evaluate objectiv
•
>.
JD
0
C
co
£
0
.n
+-»
"x
>^
i relationship actual
ice
^-* ii~
£ o
Q.
Ic
CO
C
"43
CO
0
CO
'o
O)
JZ
tive understand!
o
0
COT3
0 0
N-C
•— •*-•
fe-D
0 0
0"0
O
sal
• CL
"O
0
"0
O
0
Q.
CO
M—
O
0
JD
CO
O
0
"c
0
T3
M—
O
o
^n
^ Q.
CO "^
> CO
•fM^
— "CD
0 1—
^r
<4—
"O^s
"*~* •+-*
0 -^— i
= O
he relationship
have a sample,
r 0
to evaluate whethei
jniverse of which w
__>
• ^
"unapter j:
ri
"c
"o
p
E
0
2
CO
CL
0
CO
CD
•
i
H—
0
.-§
0
CL
CO
rro
£r
r^
1
o
&
75
eidelberg College Water Q
^
R. Peter Richards •
219
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
Workshop
CL
1 National NIV
1_
CO
* •
0
1
T3
C
"D
JZ
CO
_J
D)
£Z
1_J
f« CD
- ci £
CO o CO
0 -a co
T3 c CO
§ ,£* T3 f
ro CO 02
£ ^ "5 £
^ ^ E E
a> -^ E :
CO C ^ ^
CO g> ^ T3 x
; J» s . . •*-* CD
3 •• ~ = M
H^ O ^ 0 °
IT™1 r- c~ is o
n s ^ co *i
LI" 2 0 co 5
C0 3; ^ o
3= ^ CO i
0^0 "° o
E i1 ^ "1 j
O co" lo 01
/• N CO CO *- '§
0 S 3. g> »
0 o ~co •== e
E T3 0 Jrt •§.
CO £Z JD CD -2
CO CO ITS — *
> c--= .2 8
o o g E I
r* "+-> "*^ ^_, in
CO CO O) 0
-i_, ci) C O)
~£Z b^ £Z
CO O ^ CO
O/"i .~ ( "\
\-J X \*J
*
9
• *
• •
*
•
C
•
O
****!*
• * •
•
• • * • •
* •
• •
•
•
0
• *
• *
• *
9 •
* • »
•V.;
•
• « •
«
0 * .
•
*
•
•
. •
.aboratory
£,
ro
O
CD
I
CD
O)
_CD
'o
O
S>
.Q
ter Richards • Heide
CD
a.
DC
220
-------
• Chapters: Proceedings
Q.
O
CO
O
CL
CO
C
g
to
"Z.
T3
C
TJ
C
CO
O)
C
CD
O
C
05
O
g>
CO
15
.o
to
0
o
C
03
Q_
3^-4
E
>,
GO
co
**—
o
CD
CO
C
'CO
•e
o
o
(O
CO
o
CO
o
.D)
O
0
CO
O
ance does
rence is
c
0
g>"0
"CO 0
"cor
co
33
o
Q.
E
o
JD
CO
8
1
0)
O)
"o
o
en
CD
T3
CO
E
CO
o
be
D.
rr
221
-------
>Chapter3: Proceedings
Q.
O
JZ
CO
O
CL
1
co
c
o
to
"Z.
•o
CO
• •
1
c
CO
O)
.s
.£
OS
Hh- '
CO
Q
V ,
MMMM
O
H—
_Cf)_CO
"O ^
CD ^^
c5 jS
^<
0
13
0
-d
i~"
0)
"55
"5
c
coi^
CTt *-
^^ O
^
^^>"~"
os.
"en
j^*
o
Q.
X
UJ
CO
.2
to
OT-
^^ ~
^ JC
2 -55
frt ^^
E^
V—
H—
C
o
O
ality Laboratory
O
i—
to
0)
s
O
O)
1_
£
-------
• Chapters: Proceedings
Q.
O
.C
CO
Q.
c
.0
"CO
TJ
CO
CD
T3
C
C
CO
O)
c
- CD
o
0
0"O
£j 0
gco
-° Q.
0.0
SlS"
0GC
CD
- to
co 0
is
Pi
§•&•§
x c
0 £
c o
answer
u
to
s
§c.«
•=,0 «_,
•*=; > 0
O 0 —
5^2
«•&•£
® co S
to c *
-5-n «
> T3 +-•
> C CO
. co-a
0
"o
>,
0
CO
JC
CD
s§?
to Q.CO
o 7T.Q
+i CO
CO C O
0 g co
_ 01—
T3 (0
B-S c
w o E
2log
CD 3 crt
t t
new
tell i
A!
PLOT THE DA
>. en
scr^ c
CO C'-=
-8d)OB
2 C 0
co co J2
> co o
. T3 O O
CO CO O
*.i'-§
j*^X 0
ID o u
•6)0.°"
'C Q.O)
-j-i CO C
?te8
0= CO
l
m
ov
ll
n
esti
to b
es
q
are
T3 >>
potheses
goal of the proc
wers to the righ
H
le
CO
CO
-
CO
t= •£ o
CO 0 ^
- • O ?
+-* CO
C CD CD
-J- ^-
7D °-
CT3
03 C ,„
OjCO^^
^i .L c-;=
ea
n".
il^
^>CO 0
JQ c i-
•x co g>
^
j)
ID "CD o
co>
Z5 _
0 CO 13 0<"§ E
r-* in v-r- -?-^ r~ ^ .ir
s tends to
is process
hat y ca
peel o
ou
the
toQ0P
•^UJ 0-
cO co
HS.?3
g^§ =
S|8-8
lroJ|
lss«
0 = 8:^
. O CO ^
ato
15
O
a5
to
0)
o
O
21
CD
.a
0)
2
'(D
I
R. Peter Richards
223
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
O.
o
.C
CO
i ,
S
>
CL
z:
To
c
o
to
i—
CD
•a
T3
C
C
co
O)
C
C
Lj
o5
"0 (0
O .—i
^^^^^^ m fm
Characteristic Aspects of M
Exploratory Data Anaiyi
EVERYBODY PLOTS THE DATA!
CD
Q_
"5
E
£
_o
"CO
m
Use of interactive computer programs which
raphs which are hot-linked and self-updating
. 0)
.*t±
.r... , p
CO W c 0 CD
^ ^ o ££:£
S 4r! 0 *J5 O D)
^ »- JZ 4-, .E
^ "- O CO C >
& T5 CO^-J=S g
^•^ ^^K. «** ^^^ ^J' V^ ^^»
The four R's:
-Revelation: display the data in a variety of <
can reveal unexpected patterns.
-Residuals (= data - model): remove perceiv
and examine what remains for further patter
-Re-expression: use a scale or transformati<
variable which simplifies the analysis e.g. lo
-Resistance: use approaches which are resi
effects of unusual observations, including re
£r
o
S
o
.a
ca
_i
R. Peter Richards • Heidelberg College Water Quality 1
224
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
o
O
.C
CO
V
o
^^
Q.
Z
"CO
c
.0
Z
•p
1
c
•o
c
CO
O)
c:
%£
c:
i
CO
"77% f"
i£o
— ctf
SB
«-i* QL
Exploratory Data }
A Sequential Ap
D)
c
c
o
c
CD
Q.
O
C
'co
E
2
•*-*
CO"
1
CD
X:
2
M—
O
C +J
-^ o
® I"
CO O
.c nJ
£"CJ
CO +=
_. frt
Qj _ „
.J ^_J j
^j* -—
]> £
CD
.„
CO
c
o
to
E
:i_
0
H>—
(0
k-
HH*
1_
0)
"O
Data Quality
stribution properties of the data, consi
and enhanced display properties.
CD 13 CD
_N (jj O
E o 0>
CO 8-S
iu X CD
C
. o
T- CM 0
d
0)
co"
CO
>»
"c
2
It
jasonality, d
bgroups of individual variables e.g. se
^
CO
to
o
o
CO
d
CD
d.
,| ,,r
nX
°u
CO
CO
c"
o
trt
& concentr;
;lationships among variables e.g. flow
^
,0
o
o
B
"*
d .._
Is
"co^
c_ **~
C0~~ CO
•^ o "5
•| -,-. ^"^ "~~
0 CD 2"
f 8"!
•pr O O
f*> CO ^~
i'i:i
|lf
CD "5 *"
CD**- 2
C 0 CD
•g: co c-
O 0 5
ECD -»
vji: m
S|8
CO^^
§0°-
CD **— CD
3= CO C
CD CD O
CDJ3 £Z
o-g«
x>l
CD ^>O
, *JPCL
^"^"CO
-D.3,W
CD^ C
*" O «*-
-C O
••^ CO x_
>- ^3 to
^^L •— ••• "^^
^> ^~ ^ *i
i i- f \^j
Q- > CO
r
U)
CD
CO
CO"
OJ
"O
CD
x:
*"*
c
_co
to
>*—
o
CO
0)
c
think you have some good understan
iistics to test these understandings.
O •*•-'
clo
"^* r^
^ *2
CD
j
^
^?
Q
o
J
"co
O
cD
I
R. Peter Richards • Heidelberg College
225
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
Q.
O
CO
CL
CO
C
O
to
z:
CO
» *
i_
0
to
1
O)
c
j*:
c
LJ
0)
o
(DQ
I
o
(0
O
1
0)
I
o
O
CD
.Q
CD
•g
'
CO
g
ir
o5
«
0.
CC
226
-------
• Chapters: Proceedings
SESSIONS M AND N
DECISION CASE: THE WATERING TROUGH
Jack Clausen, University of Connecticut
Don Meals, University of Vermont
"The Watering Trough" is a real Decision Case that brings out the issues of water quality monitoring to document the
changes associated with BMP implementation in an agricultural watershed. A facilitator will lead a discussion of the
Case. Participants will be given a few minutes to read the information presented, including a description of the Case,
maps, tables, and figures.
This session will be highly participatory and will serve as a summary to most aspects of water quality monitoring,
including linkages between water quality and land treatment. Participants will apply knowledge regarding water
quality monitoring to a real situation and discuss alternatives.
Case Study: The Watering Trough
by John C. Clausen, University of Connecticut
It was another one of those meetings. Rob, who works for EPA, had just gotten off another road trip. He had a pile on
the desk, including three letters to write for members of Congress. That project from Vermont had come in for some
additional RCWP funding. They had a slick presentation with lots of slides and some pretty hot CIS maps. The room
was starting to fill up. There were people from Extension, NRCS, CFSA. as well as EPA. Together that group com-
prised the RCWP National Coordinating Committee. They would make the decision on funding, but Rob was unsure
whether to support the request. There were some competing projects for the money, including one from Rob's home
state. Everyone pretty much knew everyone else there. Bill from CFSA introduced the project people; there was Dick
from the SCS state office and Jack and Don from the University. Oh-oh, someone invited the staffer from Sen.
Leahy's office.
Dick led it off. He began, "Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to discuss the St. Albans Bay Watershed
project." Dick went on to explain that they were in the tenth year of the project. The St. Albans Bay watershed is
32,000 acres in area, 65% of which is agricultural, consisting of corn, hayland, and pasture (Exhibit 1). Dairy opera-
tions (102 farms) dominate the agriculture. St. Albans Bay is eutrophic due to phosphorus loading from a WWTP and
agricultural runoff. In addition, high bacteria counts in the Bay closed a State swimming beach. Best Management
Practices (BMPs) have been established on 76% of the critical acres in the watershed, involving 61 farms, which
exceeds the original project goals. Most of the targeted farms were on contract. He showed a pretty slick GIS map of
the locations of farms with BMPs, but it looked like they were scattered all over the watershed (Exhibit 2). The
primary BMP is animal waste management, although other practices were used, including nutrient management,
streambank protection and conservation cropping (Exhibit 3).
Jack described the water quality monitoring program. The paired watershed study is located within the project area
and is aimed at evaluating the effects of best manure management on phosphorus export. Two small watersheds,
nested with each other, are being used for the study. He mentions that the farmer could not get manure out of the pit
in the winter to spread it and they had to buy some manure.
At that point Rob started to take notice. Jack went on and explained the intricacies of the paired watershed approach.
Rob had trouble staying focused on what was going on and began drafting one of those letters for the Senator's
constituent.
Jack also reported on the St. Albans Bay monitoring stations. There are four levels of monitoring. Level 1 is sampling
within the Bay (Exhibit 4). Besides chemical monitoring at the four Bay stations, plankton and chlorophyll 'a'
samples are taken. Once a year macrophytes are surveyed in the Bay. Level 2 is tributary monitoring and the WWTP.
Level 3 is the paired watershed study. Level 4 is the random sampling. Jack indicated that the Level 4 sampling had
been terminated. They are using three times per week composite samples made up from 8 hour composites for the
227
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
chemical and physical monitoring, which includes suspended sediment and total phosphorus analysis. Fecal coliform
bacteria are sampled during a weekly grab sample. Benthic macroinvertebrates are sampled at the stream stations at
the beginning of the project, during the middle of the study, and at the end of 10 years. Rain gauges are located in the
watershed and discharge is recorded continuously at the level 2 stations.
Don stood up to explain the results from the project. Bacteria standard violations have declined in the Bay, he stated.
In the tributary streams, bacteria abundance has also declined significantly. Suspended solids has declined in the
streams, but there has been no reduction in phosphorus concentrations in the streams or the Bay or phosphorus
loading to the Bay during the past 10 years (Exhibit 5). This includes the period following the treatment plant
upgrade to tertiary treatment in 1987. The Bay itself continues to be eutrophic.
One of the NRCSers asked if the locations of the BMPs made a difference. Don indicated that based on the current
study design, it was difficult to evaluate that question.
Jack went on to discuss the paired watershed results. He indicated that during the calibration period when both
watersheds were in best manure management, significant regressions were obtained between the control and treat-
ment watersheds for discharge, and suspended sediment and phosphorus concentrations and mass exports. Winter
spreading of manure was found to significantly increase phosphorus concentrations but discharge decreased due to a
mulching effect.
One of the biological types asked about the macroinvertebrates. Jack indicated that the organisms present in the
tributary streams are indicative of highly polluted waters. The number of organisms have declined during the project
but the species have pretty much remained the same. He also mentioned that the methods varied somewhat during the
three sampling years. The biologist followed up by asking what the indices showed. Jack stated that the indices did
not show any clear trends (Exhibit 6).
The guy from Extension asked what was the effect of the WWTP upgrade on St. Albans Bay. Don stood up and said
that although the plant has been upgraded to tertiary treatment, and the phosphorus load from the WWTP declined by
over 95%, no change in phosphorus in the Bay has been seen.
Rob wondered why the nutrients didn't change in 10 years. That is such a long time. He asked why the BMPs weren't
effective. Jack got up and indicated that they didn't know if the lack of change was due to whether the BMPs were not
effective or if enough time hadn't been allowed to flush out the watershed. Somewhat humorously, he added that
"Ethan Allen started farming in this watershed over 200 years ago. Why would we expect change in just 10?"
The staffer from Leahy's office indicated that the Senator had been watching this project closely and saw it as a
landmark project in the country. He also mentioned that local residents in the Bay have seen a return of the smelt
fishery to the Bay.
Dick took over the meeting again, indicating that they would like to continue the project for five more years and need
additional RCWP money to do that. They also would like to add some additional BMPs and perhaps saturate one
watershed with BMPs. One of the additional BMPs could be riparian buffer zones. They could also further limit the
timing of manure applications. Dick mentions that a proposal outlining the extended project has been submitted to
the RCWP Coordinating Committee.
Rob looked up from his notes and wondered whether to support their request for funding. Recently there had been
increasing pressure to show results from the RCWP to Congress. Can this project do it? Why haven't they done it
already? If we give them the money what should they do?
228
-------
• Charters: Proceedings
OO
oa
CO
GO
in
en
-=t
*
co
LJL!
CO
ce:
ID
O
ct:
CD
Exhibit 1
229
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
U S DEPARTMENT Of AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
ST. ALBANS BAY WATERSHED
FRANKLIN COUNTY. VERMONT
RCWP FARM STATUS
AUGUST 1989
zTJ Subwatershed Stations
A Non-Contract Farms
f RCWP Contract Farms:
Fully Implemented
Fully Implemented
Cancelled
-------
St. Albans Bay Watershed
RCWP Goals, Accomplishments, and Projections
August 1989
• Chapter3: Proceedings
Critical Acre Treatment
Critical Source Treatment
BMPs
1. Permanent Vegetative Cover
2. Animal Waste Mgmt System
3. Stripcropping System
4. Terrace System
5. Diversion System
6. Grazing Land Protective System
7. Waterway
8. Cropland Protective System
9. Conservation Tillage System
10. Stream Protection System
11. Permanent Vegetative Cover
on Critical Areas
12. Sediment Retention, Erosion
or Water Control Structures
14. Tree Planting
15. Fertilizer Management
*A.S. = Acres Served
Units
Ac.
No.
Ac.
No.
A.S.
Ac.
A.S.
A.S.
No.
A.S.
Ac.
Ac.
A.S.
Ac.
Goals
11,443
64
4,500
70
—
—
—
25
6
15
6,400
10
500
75
Under
Contract
11,277
61
4,021
66
9,397
0
—
25
6
132
7,074
10
483
63
Completed
10,101
62
4,021
66
9,397
0
—
25
6
132
6,867
10
483
63
Projected
('19901
11,277
61
4,021
66
9,397
0
—
25
6
132
7,074
10
384
63
No.
Ac.
Ac.
50
7,000
55
7,610
52
7,610
55
7,610
Exhibit 3
231
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
ST. ALBANS BAY WATERSHED
FRANKLIN COUNTY. VERMONT
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
LEVEL 1
LEVEL
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
{§) PRECIP
-------
• Chapters: Proceedings
tr 0.01
O
£
t/3
O
I O.C4
INNER BAY (STATION T2)
MEAN MONTHLY PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS
JUNE 1981-AUGUST 1990
Legend
D PO4P
1981 1982 1983 19M 1985 1986 1987 1988 1S89 1990
TIME
1991
s_
o
O
(J
JEWETT BROOK (STATION 21)
WEAN MONTHLY PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS
DECEMBER 1981-AUGUST 1990
Legend
• TP
D FO4P
136! 1S82 1983
198X
1985
1986 1987
TIME
1988 1989 1990
Exibit 5
233
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
Table 2 Mean benthic macroinvertebrate density, biomass, and number of taxa from three samples taken at each site
in the spring of 1983 and 1986. * = significant yearly difference (alpha = .05). i = significant year by site interaction
(alpha = .05).
Spring
Density
Biomass (g/sq m)
#Taxa
Mill
1983 1986
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
13,017
8,041
3.57
2.48
18
32
3,789
492*
1.72
0.34*
4*
12*
Rugg/Mill
1983 1986
34,905
9,390
13.69
3.87
29
28
2,339 j
2,045*
1.25*
0.66*
10*
17
Jewett
1983 1986
25,877
441
4.65
0.55
13
7
1,536
2,716
0.99*
0.82
3*
10
Overall
1983 1986
24,600
5,957
7.31
2.30
20
22
2,555
1,751*1
1.32*
0.61*1
6*
13*1
Values of diversity indices for fall invertebrate collections in 1982 and 1986. Each is the average of three
samples. ND=NoData * = significant yearly difference (alpha = .05)
i- Significant year by site interaction (alpha = .05)
Fall
1982 1986
1982
1986
1982
1986
1982
1986
Shannon-Wiener H'
Simpson's D
Evenness, J
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
1.11
1.37
0.47
0.41
0.46
0.45
0
1
0
0
0
0
.89
.04
.54
.46
.58
.61
1.52
1.17
0.34
0.53
0.60
0.42
1.01
1.98
0.50
0.18
0.64
0.80*
0.81
ND
0.58
ND
0.58
ND
1.32
ND
0.41
ND
0.62
ND
1
1
0
0
0
0
.15
.27
.46
.47
.55
.43
1.07
1.51
0.48
0.32
0.61
0.71*
Exhibit 6
234
-------
"^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*^^^mmaemx^smmaBK*a^m^^^^^^Bmmim^m^nt^^^^^m:^m^^mamm Chapter 3: Proceedings
After the participants read the case study the question was asked, "should funding of this project be continued?"
Questions and comments by the audience fell into four major categories: the political/policy realm, unanswered
questions that must be addressed before proceeding with project funding, concrete suggestions for improving the
water quality monitoring design, and technical considerations.
Political/Policy Considerations
• It appears that Senator Leahy's staff has better information on the impaired use of Lake Champlain, and since it
seems that the Senator would support additional funding, the water quality monitoring should continue.
Many decisions are based on the politics of the situation, not the facts. Therefore, the political climate ought to be
considered when making the decision about continued funding.
The project team needs to make a better case for the public benefit of continued funding.
Answer Unanswered Questions Before Funding is Continued
• Rob can't decide because he has insufficient information.
Monitoring should continue, but it should be targeted toward answering the unanswered questions.
• The project needs better data on pollution sources if a case is to be made for continued funding.
• Before funding the project further, wait and see or do more investigation before the water quality monitoring
work is continued.
More information is needed on the actual BMP compliance by the producers. Also, information is needed on
whether or not BMPs are effective in reducing the loading of phosphorus into the streams.
The role of non-contract farms in phosphorus loading should be determined before further money is spent on
monitoring activities.
• It is important to determine whether land treatment goals (75% of the critical area) are sufficient for the change
that was expected.
• It is difficult to tell if the project has met its goal of decreasing phosphorus, because the project never established
a numerical value for a decrease in phosphorus concentrations. Before proceeding any further, project personnel
should establish numerical goals for lowering phosphorus concentrations.
• Monitoring results so far suggest a potential ground water role in stream recharge because, although fecal
coliform and total suspended solids are declining, the nitrogen concentrations are increasing. Determine the
contribution of ground water to the stream system before proceeding.
Improving Water Quality Design
• Water quality monitoring should continue but focus only on the wet season.
More intensive biological monitoring is needed, although the project had no goals related to habitat improvement
nor any baseline habitat information. Further, more work needs to be done in order to determine why the
macroinvertebrate community isn't thriving.
• Continue to monitor the water quality, but concentrate activities on first and second order streams.
• The water quality monitoring should be scaled back to a subwatershed scale and focused on a pollutant source
assessment.
Technical Considerations
Because of the phosphorus attached to the sediments in Lake Champlain and the associated wetland, it is
unrealistic to expect to see a decrease in lake phosphorus concentration. In order to detect changes in phosphorus
concentrations, long-term lake monitoring will be necessary.
• An immediate downward response in fecal coliform amounts and total suspended sediments has been seen. The
lack of phosphorus response suggests that the residual phosphorus response is slower.
Additional farms should be treated with BMPs, and monitoring should continue. However, if additional funding
is approved, a better watershed plan should be developed that contains regulations for noncompliance by
producers.
235
-------
•Chapters: Proceedings
After comments and questions had been received from the audience, participants were encouraged to present
concrete suggestions for continuing or discontinuing funding of water quality monitoring activities. Five
suggestions were received from the participants and then the proposals were voted on. Based on the vote, the
audience recommended that funding be continued, but with some modifications to land treatment and water
quality monitoring.
Continue monitoring but at a reduced level of effort The monitoring should focus on a smaller land area. More
project effort should be placed on information and outreach to landowners to ensure BMP implementation and
compliance. (Received 17 votes)
Continue monitoring at same level but redirect funds for monitoring to unanswered questions, such as how much
of the phosphorus is derived from lake sediments. (Received 18 votes)
Allocate one-half million dollars for short-term data collection. Convene a conference in November of 1996 to
discuss the collected data and determine the future monitoring strategy for the project. (Received 2 votes)
Minimize the size of the watershed, in order to better control variables and continue to monitor. This smaller
watershed should contain old monitoring sites in order for the project to maintain historical data. The focus of
the land treatment for this project should be on new BMPs. All monitoring efforts in the Bay should cease.
(Received 16 votes)
Discontinue the monitoring for a period of time and then start monitoring again in order to quantify the water
quality changes that have happened over time without any additional interventions. (Received 2 votes)
236
-------
Chapter 4
Rural Clean Water Program
Technology Transfer Fact Sheets
237
-------
i Chapter 4: RCWP Fact Sheets
238
-------
Contributions and Successes of
The Rural Clean Water Program
The Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP), a 15-year federally sponsored
nonpoint source (NFS) pollution control
program, -was initiated in 1980 as an
experimental effort to address agricultural
NFS pollution problems in watersheds
across the country, TheRCWPisbnportant
as one of the few national NPS control
programs to combine land treatment and
wafer quality monitoring to document NPS
pollution control effectiveness.
The RCWP was administered by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture -
Consolidated farm Services Agency
(formerly Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service) in consultation with
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The Natural Resource Conserva.-*
tion Service (formerly Soil Conservation
Service), Extension Service, Economic
Research Service, Agricultural Research
Service, U. S. GeologicalSutvey, andmany
state and local agencies also participated.
The 21 experimental RCWP projects,
representing a wide range of pollution
problems and impaired water usest were
located in Alabama, Delaware, Florida,
Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylva-
nia, South Dakota, Tennessee/Kentucky,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Appropriate best management practices
(BMPs) were used by producers to reduce
NPS pollution from their farms. Since
participation in the RCWP was voluntary,
cost-share funds and technical assistance
were offered to producers as incentives for
using or installing BMPs.
The Rural Clean Water Program
In 1980, the U.S. Congress established an experimental pro-
gram to address agricultural nonpoint source (NPS) pollution in
watersheds across the country. The experiment was called the
Rural Clean Water Program, usually referred to as the RCWP.
The objectives of the RCWP (45 Federal Register 14006,
March 4, 1980) were to:
• Achieve improved water quality in the most
cost-effective manner possible;
• Assist producers in reducing agricultural NPS
water pollutants; and
• Develop and test programs, policies, and procedures
for controlling agricultural NPS pollution.
Each of the 21 RCWP projects involved: 1) the implementa-
tion of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce NPS
pollution and 2) water quality monitoring to evaluate the effects
of the land treatment. BMP installation or adoption (often
referred to as land treatment) was targeted to land areas or
sources of NPS pollutants identified as having significant im-
pacts on the impaired or threatened water resource. These areas
are referred to as critical areas.
Contributions and Successes
The experience gained through the RCWP projects provides
valuable information for personnel involved in NPS control
programs and projects. The RCWP projects made significant
contributions to the body of knowledge about NPS pollution,
NPS pollution control technology, agricultural NPS pollution
monitoring design and data interpretation, and the effectiveness
of voluntary cost-share programs designed to assist producers in
reducing agricultural NPS pollution (Gale et al., 1993). The
purpose of this fact sheet is to present some of the many
contributions and successes of the RCWP projects.
RCWP Technology Transfer Fact Sheet No. 1
239
-------
Rural Clean Water Program Successes
The Taylor Creek - Nubbin
Slough RCWP Project
demonstrated that a. large project
can be successful if well
organized, tightly managed, and
well funded. Fencing, water
management, and animal-waste
management systems in the
Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough
project reduced phosphorus
levels in water entering Lake
Okeechobee by more than 50%.
Cost-share incentives helped
operators comply with stringent
state regulations.
By decreasing commercial
fertilizer applications, expanding
acreage under no-till, and
improving animal waste
management, farm operators in
the Appoquinimink River RCWP
Project significantly decreased
sediment and phosphorus
reaching critical water bodies.
Tlteproject combined excellent
inter-agency cooperation, an
effective information and
education program, and a high
rate of farmer participation.
Florida: Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough
Project
The Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Basin, located in south-
ern Florida directly north of Lake Okeechobee, covers 120,000
acres of flat, poorly drained land. Beneficial uses of the lake
include drinking and irrigation water, flood protection, com-
mercial and sport fishing, and wildlife habitat High phospho-
rus concentrations in runoff to the lake promote eutrophic
conditions, resulting in algal blooms and low levels of dis-
solved oxygen.
Land use is primarily agricultural, characterized by inten-
sive dairy and beef cattle farming. The critical area (63,109
acres) included dairy farms, drained and fertilized pastures,
and areas close to a waterway. The project water quality goal
was a 50% reduction in phosphorus and nitrogen concentra-
tions in water flowing into Lake Okeechobee. BMPs installed
included stream protection systems, reduction of barn waste,
animal waste management, diversions, grazing land protec-
tion, permanent vegetative cover, sediment retention struc-
tures, and water control structures.
An intensive water quality monitoring program was under-
taken to evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs in reducing phos-
phorus loads to the lake. The monitoring program was
designed to facilitate comparison of water quality data collect-
ed before, during, and after BMP implementation. Accounting
for changes in animal density, ground water table depth, and
upstream phosphorus concentrations during the project period
facilitated documentation of the effects on water quality of
BMPs installed. Land treatment tracking (recording BMP
implementation and location in relation to water bodies) aided
in the determination that changes in water quality resulted
from BMP implementation. The project exceeded its phos-
phorus reduction goals, despite substantial increases in animal
density.
Delaware: Appoquinimink River Project
The Appoquinimink River watershed (30,762 acres) lies in
the Atlantic Coastal Plain. The 16-mile stream meanders
through tidal marsh and is linked to several ponds and lakes.
Two-thirds of the watershed is agricultural land planted in
com and soybeans.
High nutrient concentrations in runoff from agricultural
land in the watershed were causing advanced eutrophication in
several lakes and ponds used for primary and secondary con-
tact recreation, such as swimming, boating, and fishing. Also
affected were maintenance and propagation offish and aquatic
240
-------
Rural Clean Water Program Successes
Water management and
sediment control BMPs reduced
sediment and phosphorus in
return flows from irrigated land
in the Rock Creek RCWP
Project* Monitoring of in-
stream habitats^ benthic
organisms, andfish populations
was Used to document
improvements in the ability of
the stream to support designated
uses, such as fishing andfish
spawning. Innovative techniques
to evaluate trout spawning
habitat by directly measuring
substrate oxygen were developed
by the RCWP project team.
life, industrial and agricultural water supply, drainage, navi-
gation (in the tidal portion of the river), and passage of anadro-
mous fish. Problems included bacterial contamination, fish
kills, and algal growth.
The objective of the RCWP project was to reduce cropland
erosion and nutrient transport, decrease nutrient applications,
and properly manage animal waste. The BMPs emphasized
were no-till, pesticide and fertilizer management, cover crops,
grassed waterways, and filter strips.
Producer participation was high and BMPs were applied to
over 85% of the 13,000-acre critical area. No-till acreage in-
creased from 50% of the cropland to 90%. Improved fertilizer
management cut the pre-project phosphorus application rate in
half. In one pond, sediment and phosphorus declined by 90%
and 65%, respectively. Suspended solids in the river decreased
by 60%.
The project combined excellent inter-agency cooperation
and an effective information and education program. Benefits
spread beyond the project area. By the end of the 10-year
project, most farmers in the county had voluntarily adopted no-
till techniques, although its use in corn production has since
decreased as a result of slug damage.
Idaho: Rock Creek Project
The Rock Creek RCWP Project covered 45,000 acres within
a 198,400-acre watershed in south central Idaho. Agriculture
includes irrigated pasture and cropland and rangeland. Irriga-
tion water diverted from the Snake River is delivered to farms
through a network of canals. Return flows empty into Rock
Creek, which discharges into the Snake River.
Poor water quality impairs recreation, salmon spawning, and
fishing. Rock Creek delivers a disproportionate load of sedi-
ment to Snake River. NFS pollutants are sediment, phosphorus,
and nitrogen from irrigation return flows, streambank erosion,
and animal waste.
The project objective was to reduce sediment, phosphorus,
and nitrogen discharging into Rock Creek. All irrigated crop-
land and animal operations were considered part of the critical
area (28,159 acres). Land treatment to prevent sediment from
entering irrigation drains by controlling erosion and trapping
sediment was implemented on 75% of the critical area. BMPs
included sediment retention structures, irrigation water man-
agement, vegetative filter strips, cover crops, conservation till-
age, and animal waste management.
The objectives of the water quality monitoring program were
to document: 1) changes in sediment and nutrient concentra-
tions and 2) beneficial use improvements. Water quality was
monitored both upstream and downstream of significant NFS
241
-------
Rural Clean Water Program Successes
TIte St. Albans Bay RCWP
Project employed a paired
Watershed study to document
the pollutant export reduction
associated -with changing from
the common practice of
spreading manure on frozen
ground to the manure
management BMP, which
allowed controlled timing of
application during the growing
season.
pollutant sources before, during, and after BMP implementa-
tion. Effectiveness of individual BMPs was measured in this
RCWP project.
Improvements in the ability of the stream to support desig-
nated uses were documented through monitoring of in-stream
habitats, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish populations. In-
novative techniques to measure trout spawning habitat by di-
rectly measuring substrate oxygen were developed in the course
of the project.
Management practices, such as conservation tillage and
water management, were found to be the most cost-effective
BMPs for reducing sediment loss on a per-acre basis. BMPs
implemented through the RCWP project decreased sediment
and phosphorus delivery to the river by 75% and 68%, respec-
tively. In addition, fish populations in Rock Creek below agri-
cultural areas appeared to improve during the course of the
project.
Vermont: St. Albans Bay Project
St. Albans Bay of Lake Champlain is located in northwestern
Vermont. The watershed draining to the Bay encompasses over
32,000 acres of mostly agricultural land. Bacteria, sediment,
and nutrients from dairy farms were causing high bacterial
counts, algal blooms, and prolific aquatic plant growth, result-
ing in beach closings, decreased shoreline property values, and
declining recreational use.
The RCWP project was aimed at reducing agricultural NPS
pollution by implementing BMPs on 15,000 critical acres.
Through the project, 74% of the critical area and 76% of the
manure were treated with cropland protection and animal waste
management system BMPs.
The extent and location of BMP implementation and land
use were tracked using a geographic information system. Perti-
nent farm data, such as the quantity and timing of manure
application and the number of cows under BMP manure man-
agement, were also recorded. These data were used to correlate
land treatment to water quality on a subwatershed scale. The
strongest correlation was between an increasing proportion of
animals under BMP manure management and decreasing bac-
terial contamination in streams. Sediment and bacteria de-
creased in most of the monitored streams feeding the Bay.
During the last three years of the project, bacterial counts near
the public beach (along the northern shore) of the bay decreased
to below state standards for swimming.
242
-------
Rural Clean Water Program Successes
A productive shettfishing resource
in northern Oregon was threatened
by fecal cottform in runoff from
surrounding dairy farms. The
strategy adopted by the Tittamook
Bay RCWP Project team and
critical area dairy farmers was to
keep the water off the manure and
keep the manure from entering the
streams. Innovative practices,
including roofed and guttered
manure storage areas, were
developed to reduce runoff under
extremely high rainfall conditions
(annual rainfall rangingfiom 90 to
150 inches). By the end of the
project period,, the number of
shellfish beds closed to commercial
and recreational harvesting had
been reduced.
Stream protection using cedar
revetments was an innovative
practice implemented in the
Long Pine Creek RCWP
Project. Farmers participating
in the project: 1) reduced
sedimentationfrom cropland
erosion by implementing
irrigation water management
BMPs and 2) reduced
streambank erosion by
installing cedar revetments
and fencing. This combination
of BMPs significantly reduced
the sediment load to a trout
stream.
Oregon: Tillamook Bay Project
Tillamook Bay, bounded by the Coast Mountain Range and
the Pacific Ocean, receives drainage from five watersheds
(363,520 acres). Water quality is impaired by high fecal
coliform levels caused by manure in runoff from dairy farms,
which produce 322,500 tons of manure annually. Coliform
levels threatened public health and resulted in closure of
commercially important shellfish beds.
The RCWP project objective was 70% reduction in fecal
coliform levels in the Bay. Farmers were highly motivated to
participate, both out of concern for the shellfish resource and
because of their awareness of the potential for state regulation
if the problem could not be solved through voluntary NPS
control measures. Manure storage and management BMPs
were installed on 96% of the farms in the watershed. Innova-
tive animal waste management practices developed for this
high rainfall area (such as roofed and guttered manure storage
areas) reduced bacterial contamination of the Bay. As a result,
the number of shellfish beds closed to harvesting was reduced.
Nebraska: Long Pine Creek Project
The Long Pine Creek RCWP Project area lies on the north-
eastern edge of the Nebraska Sandhills in north central Nebras-
ka. The Sandhills rest upon the Ogallala Aquifer, a 200-mile
wide corridor of ground water extending south through Kan-
sas, Oklahoma, and Texas. The aquifer is used for irrigation,
stock watering, and water supply. The watershed is drained by
Long Pine Creek, the longest self-sustaining trout stream in
Nebraska, which supports contact recreation, fishing, and
three threatened fish species.
Sediment, bacteria, and nutrients impair recreation and
fishing. The primary sources of sediment are intensive grazing
in riparian areas, streambank erosion, and irrigation return
flows. Animal feedlots and a sewage treatment plant contribut-
ed to high bacteria and nutrient levels.
A system of erosion control and stream protection BMPs
was implemented on 71% of the critical area (60,242 acres),
which was defined on the basis of high erosion rates and
proximity to waterways. Irrigation water management was
used to minimize total water usage, thereby reducing pollut-
ants entering streams and ground water. Installation of irriga-
tion tailwater re-use systems and construction of a secondary
water storage reservoir, which reduced irrigation water use,
were major components of the management program. An
effective information and education program resulted in re-
duced fertilizer and pesticide use.
243
-------
Rural Clean Water Program Successes
********************************
This fact sheet is one of a series of Rural
Clean Water Program Technology
Transfer fact sheets prepared by the
NCSU Water Quality Group \vith support
from the Extension Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture (Cooperative
AgreementNo. 93-EXCA-3-0241).
Copies of the fact sheet series may be
requested from: Publications, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Department of
Biological and Agricultural Engineering,
Box 7637, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7637,
Tel: 919-515-3723, Fax: 919-515-7448:
An innovative practice implemented by Long Pine Creek
Project participants was stream protection using cedar revet-
ments. Dried cedar trees were secured with cable and steel fence
posts along the edge of the stream to stabilize the streambank
and reduce erosion. In combination with grazing land protec-
tion and fencing, the revetments decreased streambank erosion.
Significant reductions in sediment delivery were achieved.
Trout habitat was improved and the creek's trout-carrying ca-
pacity increased. Comparison of pre-, during-, and post-project
water quality data is ongoing. The length of the monitoring
record (15 years) and a high level of land treatment in the critical
area provide the potential for documenting the effectiveness of
BMP systems.
Reference
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J. Spooner, J.A. Arnold, TJ. 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, (published by U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency) EPA-841- R-93-005, 559p.
Prepared by
Judith A. Gale
Water Quality Extension Specialist
NCSU Water Quality Group
March 1995
North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE & LIFE SCIENCES
Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914.
Employment and program opportunities are offered to all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, sex, age, or disability. North Carolina State University, North Carolina A&T
State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and local governments cooperating.
244
-------
Planning and Managing a
Successful Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control Project
The Rural Clean Water Program Experience
The Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP), a 15-year federally sponsored
nonpoint source (NFS) pollution control
program, was initiated in 1980 as an
experimental effort to address agricultural
NPS pollution problems in watersheds
across the country, The RCWP is important
as one of the few national NPS control
programs to combine land treatment and
water qualify monitoring to document NPS
pollution control effectiveness.
The RCWP was administered by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture -
Consolidated Farm Services Agency
(formerly Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service) in consultation with
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The Natural Resource Conserva-
tion Service (formerly Soil Conservation
Service), Extension Service, Economic
Research Service, Agricultural Research
Service, U. S. Geological Survey, andmany
state and local agencies also participated.
The 21 experimental RCWP projects,
representing a wide range of pollution
problems and impaired water uses, were
located in Alabama, Delaware, Florida,
Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylva-
nia, South Dakota, Tennessee/Kentucky,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Appropriate best management practices
(BMPs) were used by producers to reduce
NPS pollution from their farms. Since
participation in the RCWP was voluntary,
cost-share funds and technical assistance
were offered as incentives.
Significant progress has been made in reducing water pollution
caused by point sources since the Clean Water Act was passed.
However, much work remains to be done to reduce nonpoint source
(NPS) pollutants that impair the quality of streams, rivers, lakes,
ground water, and other bodies of water throughout the United
States.
Many local government officials, as well as citizens, are becom-
ing increasingly interested in taking action to address local water
quality problems caused primarily by nonpoint source pollutants.
There is also a heightened awareness that water quality problems do
not occur in isolation; many activities within a watershed affect the
quality of water resources. Surface and ground waters are frequent-
ly connected, so management strategies aimed at protecting water
quality must often be designed to address the impacts of human
activities on a watershed basis for both surface water and ground
water.
This fact sheet is designed to provide information to local and
state government officials and staff, concerned citizens, education-
al and technical assistance agencies, landowners, and farmers
interested in protecting or restoring water quality. Specific steps are
outlined for:
• Deciding whether a water quality project is
viable, based upon available information,
• Documenting the water quality problem and its
source,
• Defining specific project objectives and goals,
• Involving potential participants and other
community members in planning and
implementing the project,
• Securing funding,
• Clarifying agency roles and organizing a project,
• Defining the critical area,
• Choosing a land treatment approach, and
• Designing a monitoring and evaluation plan.
RCWP Technology Transfer Fact Sheet No. 2
245
-------
Project Planning and Management
CAUSES OF WATER
QUALITY PROBLEMS
Most watersheds encompass many
land uses (farms, homes, industries,
forests). Each land use has an impact
on water quality. Even in
uninhabited watersheds, natural
sources of pollution exist. These
include sediment from streambank
erosion and bacteria and nutrients
from wildlife.
Water pollution caused by human
activities results from point sources
or nonpoint sources. These terms
indicate how pollutants are released
to surface water or ground water.
A point source is a single
identifiable source of pollution, such
as a pipe through which factories or
treatment plants release water and
pollutants into a river. Point source
pollution is often controlled through
water quality standards and
programs requiring a permit, which
establish limits on the kind or
amount of pollutants each point
source may discharge into a body of
water.
Nonpoint sources are activities that
take place over a broad area and
result in the release of pollutants
from many different locations.
Agriculture, forestry, and residential
or urban development are examples
of nonpoint sources. Common
pollutants include:
• Sediment from cropland,
forestry activities, roadways,
construction sites, streambank
erosion
• Nutrients from cropland, lawns
and gardens, livestock
operations, wildlife, septic
systems, and land receiving
waste application
• Bacteria from livestock, wildlife,
septic systems, land receiving
waste application, urban runoff
• Man-made chemicals from
roadways, mining operations,
cropland, lawns and gardens,
forestry activities.
Designing a Successful Voluntary
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Project
Choose a Viable Project
The first step in planning a successful nonpoint source pollu-
tion control project is to identify a water resource with water
quality needing restoration or protection. Focus on a water re-
source that is valued by the community and a problem that is
neither too complex nor too difficult to solve in a reasonable
amount of time. Talk to or formally survey community members
who live and work in the vicinity of the water resource. Find out
whether they believe that there is a water quality problem and if it
is of concern to them. For example, find out if the water quality
problem impairs recreational uses, such as fishing, swimming, or
boating, or aesthetic enjoyment of the water resource.
If the source of the water quality problem is not clear, or if the
source is one that cannot be affected by changes in project
participants' behavior (for example, if the source is a point source
versus agricultural runoff), there may be dissension within the
community about the cause of the problem, how best to resolve it,
or the value of a NFS pollution control project. Documentation of
the problem and its source can help a community come together to
support a project designed to address a water quality problem (see
next section). If, however, consensus about the existence of a
problem cannot be reached, or agencies cannot work effectively
together, a project is unlikely to be successful. In such cases,
limited resources for addressing water quality problems may be
better spent on a different project or program.
If project funds are restricted to one source of nonpoint source
pollutants, such as agricultural sources, avoid choosing a water-
shed that contains major point sources or other nonpoint sources.
Pollutants from point sources can mask improvements in water
quality brought about by implementation of best management
practices (BMPs) aimed at reducing NPS pollution, thus making
it difficult to document the benefits of a nonpoint source pollution
control project. Other approaches designed to reduce both point
and nonpoint source pollutants, such as total watershed manage-
ment, can be very effective if adequate technical and financial
resources are available.
Select a watershed of a size that matches the level of available
funding for the project; if funds for installing BMPs are limited,
treating most or all of a small watershed (or a subwatershed
within a large watershed) will likely result in greater water quality
improvements than treating a small land area in a large watershed.
246
-------
Project Planning and Management
Document the Water Quality Problem
Clearly document the water quality impairment or
threat, and the source(s) of the problem. For example,
a popular swimming beach at the community lake
may have algal blooms (rapid growth of algae) at
certain times of year. The results are color changes,
odor, and fish kills, which impair swimming and
other uses of the lake for recreation. To plan an
effective approach to this problem, the specific
pollutant(s) causing the blooms must be identified
and the source(s) determined. Are nutrients causing
the problem? If so, is there too much nitrogen or
phosphorus? After identifying the pollutant, find out
where it is coming from. Possible sources of nutrients
include runoff from animal operations, over-applica-
tion of fertilizer, septic tank drain fields, sediments in
the lake bottom, or discharges from a treatment plant
or industry. The source(s) of the water quality prob-
lem must be identified before action is taken, so
available resources can be targeted to the critical area.
Trying to address a problem without knowing the
source can result in wasting limited funds and human
resources and losing support for future projects.
Existing water quality and other relevant data,
such as soils, geology, land use, and weather (and
assistance in interpreting such data), should be re-
quested from appropriate agencies, such as the state
water quality agency; U.S. Geological Survey; local
health department; county planning department; and
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Natural
Resource Conservation Service, USDA - Consolidat-
ed Farm Services Agency, USDA - Extension Ser-
vice, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and Soil and Water Conservation
District.
If adequate information about the problem and its
source(s) has not already been collected, seek techni-
cal and financial assistance in designing a water
quality monitoring program. Relevant state and feder-
al programs are discussed in the section entitled Ob-
tain Funding.
An effective approach to identifying the exact
nature of the problem and its source(s) is to imple-
ment a problem identification and assessment moni-
toring program lasting from six to 18 months.
Monitor sites suspected of contributing pollutants or
stressors during both baseflow and storm conditions,
especially during the seasons when the highest
amount of the pollutant enters the water and during
the season when water quality problems have been
noticed. For example, in winter and spring there is
often a great deal of runoff which carries nutrients,
sediment, and other pollutants. A walk through the
watershed may help identify problem areas with regard
to habitat. Creel surveys can identify fishery problems.
Before initiating a project, write a problem state-
ment that: 1) states what the impaired water use is, 2)
identifies the location of the problem, 3) specifies the
pollutant(s) or stressor(s), and 4) identifies the major or
suspected source(s). A written problem statement doc-
uments the problem for future reference and clearly
conveys the problem and source to participants and
community members, thereby contributing to consen-
sus about the problem and the approach being taken to
resolve it.
Define Objectives and Goals
Well-defined objectives and goals clearly convey
the purpose of the project to potential participants and
the public. Objectives and goals also provide a basis for
evaluating the project.
Objectives define the overall direction or purpose of
the project. Establish objectives that focus the project
on achieving water quality changes or meeting water
quality standards. Be sure that objectives are measur-
able and achievable. For example, a workable objective
might be "re-opening shellfish beds in Green Creek
estuary by 1998."
Goals provide milestones to be met during the course
of a project. Establish quantitative goals that provide a
way to measure progress. For example, progress toward
the goal "reduce the phosphorus load to Blue Reservoir
by 45%" can be measured, while achievement of the
goal "reduce pollution in the reservoir" is more difficult
to evaluate. Set specific goals early with assistance
from local agencies, project participants, and commu-
nity representatives.
Objectives and goals must be tailored to available
resources and to the nature of the problem. For exam-
ple, expecting to reduce eutrophication in a reservoir
when the project watershed supplies only 10% of the
phosphorus load is unrealistic, as is a goal of reducing
nutrient loss from a 500,000-acre watershed with 1,200
producers when resources consist of a $50,000 budget
and two staff members.
247
-------
Project Planning and Management
Involve the Community
Public support and a high rate of participation are key
in voluntary nonpoint source projects because of the
widespread nature of NFS pollution. The following
actions can increase participation:
• Educate potential participants and the community.
They need to agree that there is a water quality
problem, that it is important to solve it, and that the
project will help do so.
• Encourage potential participants to accept respon-
sibility for their contribution to the problem. On-
going education about land use impacts on water
quality is important, as awareness does not neces-
sarily translate into problem ownership or changes
in behavior.
• Involve potential participants early in the planning
process; involvement fosters a feeling of owner-
ship which often increases participation.
• Find out if federal, state, local, or private funds are
available. Financial assistance, such as cost-share
funding, is necessary to enable many potential
participants to implement BMPs.
• Recommend the lowest cost BMPs that can effec-
tively reduce the pollutant(s) of concern.
• One-to-one contact between project personnel and
potential participants is much more effective than
mass media for gaining cooperation in a project.
Because of their importance in encouraging par-
ticipation, information and education efforts should
be initiated early.
• Provide technical assistance valued by partici-
pants, such as soil testing and assistance in design-
ing site-specific affordable BMPs.
• Ask participants to talk with their neighbors about
the project and why they decided to become in-
volved.
• Where relevant, notify potential participants that
regulations may be instituted if voluntary mea-
sures do not improve water quality. This knowl-
edge can provide an incentive for participation.
Obtain Funding
Obtain funds to support each aspect of the project.
Cost-share funds that canbe used to assist participants in
installing BMPs are often critical to the success or
failure of a voluntary nonpoint source project. Funding
for pre-, during-, and post-implementation water quality
monitoring and educational activities is also important.
State cost-share funds may be available to support
implementation of agricultural or forestry BMPs for
nonpoint source pollution control. Federal programs
offering cost-share funds for forestry or agricultural
BMPs may be available through the USDA - Consoli-
dated Farm Services Agency. Section 319 funds allocat-
ed to each state by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) may be available from a state's water
quality agency (nonpoint source program) to support
nonpoint source pollution control projects.
Several EPA publications provide information on
federal programs for watershed protection (EPA, 1993)
and how state and local governments have funded non-
point source pollution control programs (EPA, 1992).
Clarify Agency Roles and
Administer the Project Effectively
Cooperation and coordination among local, state,
and federal agencies are essential. Potential participants
within the project area must receive clear messages
about the project, its purpose, and its value. Conflicting
messages from local, state, or federal agencies partici-
pating in a project can result in a low rate of participa-
tion. Clearly define each agency's role and how
agencies will interact to avoid confusion, duplication of
efforts, or competition. Urge agency administrators to
support the project and encourage inter-agency cooper-
ation. If key agencies cannot agree on the value of a
proposed project, or if turf battles seem unresolvable,
consider an alternative project choice.
Designate a project manager to coordinate the project
and assess progress. Ideally, the project manager should
have a background in water resources and project man-
agement.
Establish a local coordinating committee, consisting
of project participants, agency personnel, and commu-
nity leaders, to support the project. The committee
should set direction, set objectives and goals, assure
adequate public involvement, enlist agency assistance,
oversee information and education activities, determine
priorities for water quality monitoring, and develop
plans for critical area selection, choice of BMP systems,
and linkage of land treatment and water quality data.
248
-------
Project Planning and Management
LAND TREATMENT AND
BMP SYSTEMS
Water quality best management
practices (BMPs) are designed to
control the generation and delivery
of pollutants from land use activities
to water resources and to prevent
impacts to the physical and
biological integrity of surface and
ground water. BMPs can be either
structural (such as detention basins,
broad-based dips, waste lagoons.,
terraces, sediment basins, and
fencing) or managerial (such as
rotational grazing, pre-harvest
planning for silvicultural
operations, rapid vegetation of
construction sites, no-wake zones
for boating, fertilizer and pesticide
management, and conservation
tillage). .
Any two or more BMPs used
together to control a pollutant from
the same source constitute a BMP
system, A BMP system can be
tailored for a specific pollutant,
source, geographical location, and
cost requirement.
Systems of BMPs are more
effective at controlling nonpoint
source pollution than individual
BMPs because systems can
minimize the impact of the pollutant
at several points; at the source,
during transport from the source to
the water body, and at the water
body.
Systems of BMPs, however, are
just part of a land treatment
strategy to reduce nonpoint source
pollution. In addition to selection of
a BMP system that will effectively
address the primary pollutant(s),
project managers must be sure that
BMPs are placed in the correct
locations in the watershed (critical
areas contributing the most
pollutants) and that a sufficient
amount of land treatment is
implemented to achieve the desired
water quality improvement.
Define the Critical Area
Apply BMP systems to those areas where land treatment will
have the greatest effect. Where available, pre-project water quality
monitoring and modeling can be used to identify or refine the
critical area—the land area contributing most to the problem. In the
absence of such resources, critical areas can be roughly defined
based on distance to the water body and its tributaries, or other
location or land use characteristics. Within the critical area, signif-
icant pollutant sources (such as animal operations, farm fields, or
forestry operations) can be prioritized for BMP installation based
on the expected impact of each source on the water body.
Choose a Land Treatment Approach
Encourage participants to implement systems of BMPs. Systems
of practices often control loss of a pollutant from the critical area
more effectively than a single BMP. Resources for assistance in
identifying systems to effectively address a particular water quality
problem and source include Extension Service, Natural Resource
Conservation Service, and Soil and Water Conservation Districts
staff.
Design a Water Quality and Land
Treatment Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
Water quality and land treatment monitoring and evaluation
provide essential tools for assessing project effectiveness. Team
members who will conduct and interpret the monitoring effort must
be involved from the beginning of the project, not added as an
afterthought.
When limited resources are available for monitoring BMP effec-
tiveness, visual observations such as fewer algal blooms, clearer
water, or increased recreational use can be helpful in assessing the
effectiveness of the project. Monthly monitoring of a few key
factors (such as dissolved oxygen or chlorophyll a) can provide
useful information.
When funds are available for more extensive water quality
monitoring, essential tasks and elements include:
• Developing a monitoring plan based on clearly stated water
quality monitoring objectives. Include in the plan: monitoring
design, agency roles, laboratory and quality assurance and
control procedures, data storage plans, reporting require-
ments, personnel needs, and costs.
• Collecting sufficient pre-, during -, and post-project data to
document water quality changes. In large watersheds with
lakes, water quality changes often occur gradually and mon-
itoring for five to 10 years, or longer, may be required to
confirm changes that can be linked to land treatment.
249
-------
Project Planning and Management
KEYS TO SUCCESS
Choose a Viable Project
• Choose a water resource that needs
restoration or protection and is valued
by community members.
Document the Problem
• Document the water quality problem
and its source.
Define Objectives and Goats
* Define obtainable objectives and goals.
Involve the Community
• Involve potential participants and the
community early in project planning.
Obtain Funding
• Obtain funding for all project aspects.
Clarify Rotes and Administer Effectively
• Clarify agency roles.
* Designate a project manager.
• Form a local coordinating committee,
Define the Critical Area
• Define the critical area where
treatment will have the most impact
Choose a Land Treatment Approach
• Apply BMPs that will address the
water quality problem.
* Encourage participants to implement
systems of BMPs.
Monitor and Evaluate
• Design a water quality and land
treatment monitoring and evaluation
program, when possible, to document
the effects of BMPs installed.
********************************
Tliis fact sheet is one of a series of RCWP
Technology Transfer fact sheets prepared
with support from the Extension Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
(Cooperative Agreement No. 93-BXCA-3^
0241). Copies of the fact sheet series may be
requested from: NCSU Water Quality
Group, Dept. of Biological and Agricultural
Engineering, Box 7637, Horth Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7637,
Tel: 919-515-3723,
Assessing Project Effectiveness
Evaluate data with project objectives and goals clearly in mind.
A consistent improving trend in water quality after BMP system
implementation may provide evidence needed to attribute water
quality improvements to land treatment.
Consider interviewing (pre- and post-project) participants and
people who were eligible but chose not to participate in the project
to assess the effectiveness of education efforts.
Report successes and failures periodically to provide feedback
to project participants and agency staff on the results of their
efforts. Make results available to the community to enhance public
education and contribute to more effective management of water
quality problems in the future.
References
EPA. 1993. Watershed Protection: Catalog of Federal Programs. Assessment and Water-
shed Protection Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-841-B-93-002.
EPA. 1992. State and Local Funding ofNonpoint Source Control Programs. Nonpoint
Source Control Branch, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. EPA 841-R-92-003.
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, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, EPA-841-R-93-005, 559p.
Prepared by
Judith A. Gale, DeannaL. Osmond, Daniel E. Line, Jean Spooner,
Jon A. Arnold, Gregory D. Jennings, and Frank J. Humenik
NCSU Water Quality Group
March 1995
North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE & LIFE SCIENCES
Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914.
Employment and program opportunities are offered to all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, sex, age, or disability. North Carolina State University, North Carolina A&T
State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and local governments cooperating.
250
-------
Selecting an Agricultural Water
Quality Project
The Rural Clean Water Program Experience
The Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP), a 15-year federally sponsored
nonpoint source (NPS) pollution control
program, was initiated in 1980 as an
experimental effort to address agricultural
NPS pollution problems in 'watersheds
across the country. The RCWP is important
as one of the few national NPS control
programs to combine land treatment and
water quality monitoring to document NPS
pollution control effectiveness,
The RCWP was administered by the
Vt& Department of Agriculture -
Consolidated Farm Services Agency
(formerly Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service) in consultation with
the II.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The Natural Resource Conserva-
tion Service (formerly Soil Conservation
Service), Extension Service, Economic
Research Service, Agricultural Research
Service, U, & Geological Survey, andmany
state and local agencies also participated.
The 21 experimental RCWP projects,
representing a wide range of pollution
problems and impaired water uses, were
located in Alabama, Delaware, Florida,
Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylva-
nia, South Dakota, Tennessee/Kentucky,
Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Appropriate best management practices
(BMPs) were used by producers to reduce
NPS pollution from their farms. Since
participation in the RCWP was voluntary,
cost-share funds and technical assistance
were offered as incentives.
Restoring or protecting water resources from nonpoint sourc-
es of pollution is critical for good water quality. Watershed-
level projects are ideal for improving or protecting a water
resource from a total watershed perspective. However, control-
ling nonpoint source (NPS) pollution generally requires funding
from public appropriations. To assure the best use of scarce
financial resources, it is important to select 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
randomly. 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 probabil-
ity 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 involved in
the planning and completion of a successful project include:
• Accurate identification and documentation of the water qual-
ity problems or impairments;
• Analysis of the appropriate types and quantities of land-based
treatment in the critical areas (areas contributing the most
pollutants);
• Selection of a water quality problem on which significant
progress can realistically be achieved within the time frame
and monetary constraints of the project; 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 controlling
NPS pollution;
RCWP Technology Transfer Fact Sheet No. 3
251
-------
Selecting an Agricultural Water Quality Project
WATER RESOURCE
IMPAIRMENT AND WATER
QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND
GOALS
RCWP Project Examples
A well-defined water quality
problem statement was used to select
the Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough
(Florida) RCWP project. The
statement is: Lake Okeechobee (the
water resource of concern), a multi-
purpose freshwater lake, received
excessive quantities of phosphorus-
laden runoff from dairy farms (the
pollutant source) located on the
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough
tributaries. High phosphorus (P)
inputs (the magnitude of the
pollutant) from agricultural areas
were causing eutrophication (the
water use impairment) of Lake
Okeechobee. Lower dissolved oxygen
contents and increased plant growth
were affecting the acceptability of
water use for drinking water, the use
of the lake for recreation, and the
quality of aquatic habitats in the
lake.
Based on the water quality
problem statement, an effective land
treatment strategy was designed
with a quantitative goal of reducing
by 50% P concentrations in water
entering Lake Okeechobee from the
watershed. The goal was achieved
through implementation of best
management practices.
In the Massachusetts RCWP
project, the water quality problem
statement did not clearly state and
document the source of the fecal
coliform contamination (runoff from
dairy farms or leakage from septic
systems), so farmers were reluctant
to accept their role in causing the
water quality problem and thus were
not motivated to participate in
project activities. Because of poor
participation, no improvement in the
water quality of the estuary was
achieved.
• Implementation strategies selected by the sponsoring agen-
cies and the agencies' ability to work together; and
• Multi-year funding sufficient to offer technical assistance,
information and education, and cost-share for best manage-
ment 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) were successful in reducing the im-
pacts 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 Objectives and Goals
One of the most critical factors in the evaluation of a potential
NPS pollution control project is the development of a well-
defined water quality problem statement. In order to write a
problem statement, the water quality problem must be correctly
identified and clearly documented. A water quality problem
statement should describe, at a minimum, the following:
• The water resource(s) of concern;
« The water use impairment(s) or threatened impairment(s);
and
• The pollutant or pollutants, the sources of each pollutant, and
the magnitude of the pollutant(s) causing the water use im-
pairment.
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 delineat-
ed, then the project should not be chosen.
Clearly defined and realistic water quality objectives and
goals improve a project's probability of success. The water
quality problem statement should be used as 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 threatening designated uses of
the water resource.
252
-------
Selecting an Agricultural Water Quality Project
RCWP Project Examples
BMP IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGY
Bacteria, sediment, and nutrients
from dairy farms in the St. Albans
Bay (Vermont) project were
enriching the bay; causing high
bacteria counts, large algal blooms,
and prolific macrophyte growth; and
resulting 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, defined as
farmsteads delivering excessive
phosphorus (P) and fecal coliform
{FQ to the bay. Critical farms were
identified based on distance from a
watercourse, amount of manure
produced, manure management
practices, and manure-spreading
rates. The BMP system chosen
emphasized reducing P and FC from
animal operations and cropland, As a
result of targeting appropriate farms
and application of effective BMPs,
decreasing trends in fecal coliform
and fecal strep, bacteria have been
documented in bay tributaries.
WATER QUALITY PROBLEM
THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED
Lake Tholocco, a 600-acre
recreational lake, was closed to
contact water sports due to high fecal
coliform levels, the source of which
was surrounding area hog
operations. During the RCWP
project, most of the hog-producing
farms were treated with animal
waste management practices and
some of the animal-producing
operations closed. As a result of
treating the animal waste and a
decline in animal numbers, fecal
coliform counts dropped and the lake
was reopened to swimming.
BMP Implementation Strategy
Best management practices (BMPs) are essential for any
nonpoint source pollution control project. One of the criteria for
project selection should be the technical merits of the BMP
implementation plan, which should be 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 pollut-
ant 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 so 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. The project team should also clearly state (set a goal
for) the anticipated percent of BMP implementation (coverage)
planned for the critical area. Selection of recommended BMP
systems and estimation of the coverage necessary to accomplish
a documentable water quality change are important for two
reasons: 1) to estimate the effectiveness of the BMP systems to
meet water quality goals and 2) to determine if proposed appro-
priations are sufficient to fund the necessary types and numbers
of BMPs.
Water Quality Problems That Can Be
Adequately Addressed
Several factors establish the economic and technical feasibil-
ity of controlling water quality problems: assessment of the size
of the critical areas, sources of pollutants, extent of BMPs
needed in the critical area, cost per participant, and cost per acre.
The size of the selected watershed project should allow for a
large portion of the critical area to be treated. Small watersheds
(critical area of roughly 30,000 acres or less) are easier to treat
and monitor and should, therefore, be given special consider-
ation in the selection process.
The project time frame must be long enough to facilitate
adequate comparison between pre- and post-project conditions
in order to evaluate the water quality improvements. Multi-year
projects (usually 5 to 10 years) should be given priority in the
project selection process.
Nonpoint source pollution programs restricted to addressing
agricultural sources should avoid watersheds that contain signif-
icant non-agricultural nonpoint sources or point sources because
253
-------
Selecting an Agricultural Water Quality Project
RCWP Project Examples
WATER QUALITY AND LAND
TREATMENT MONITORING TO
DOCUMENT CHANGES IN
LAND TREATMENT, LAND
USE, AND WATER QUALITY
The Rock Creek, Idaho RCWP
project had a good monitoring design
for documenting changes in water
quality in subwatersheds and entire
project areas. Land treatment and
water quality monitoring occurred
throughout the 10-year project time
frame with consistent sampling before
and after BMP implementation at
multiple sites. Project personnel were
able to isolate the effects of water
management and sediment control
BMPs by monitoring explanatory
variables, including season, stream
discharge, precipitation, and land use
changes. Significant reductions in
sediment and phosphorus
concentrations in return flows from
irrigated lands improved the ability of
Rock Creek to support trout spawning
and fish production.
PARTICIPATION AND
COMMUNITY SUPPORT
Initially in Minnesota, only a few
farmers volunteered to participate in a
project to protect and restore a trout
stream (Garvin Brook RCWP project).
However, when the focus of the
Minnesota RCWP project changed
from restoration of a trout stream to
protection of the drinking water
resource (the ground water), many
farmers chose to participate.
pollutant loadings from these other sources often mask water
quality changes associated with NFS controls. Other approach-
es, such as total watershed management, which include treating
both point sources and all major nonpoint sources of pollution,
can be effective if adequate resources are available.
Monitoring to Document Changes in Land
Treatment, Land Use, and Water Quality
Water quality and land treatment monitoring plans that are
likely to result in adequate documentation of changes in land
treatment, land use, and water quality should be among the most
important selection criteria applied to experimental watershed
projects, particularly when the goal of the project being selected
is to document both water quality changes and an association
between land management and water quality improvements.
Water quality monitoring can provide important feedback on the
effectiveness of nonpoint source control efforts to project partic-
ipants, other citizens, and policy makers. The potential of the
project for meaningful water quality monitoring, including two
to three years of baseline data and evaluation feedback, should
also be carefully considered as part of the project selection
process.
Participation and Community Support
Assessing potential participation and community support is
important when evaluating the viability of a NFS pollution
control project. Adequate participation by landowners or farm
operators is essential for project success.
Predicting the likely rate of landowner participation in ad-
vance of project activities, in order to select a NFS pollution
control project, is a difficult task. One good indicator is how
highly valued a water resource is by the community. Community
support helps motivate potential participants to cooperate. To
ensure project participation, the community and landowners
must have a vested interest in solving the water quality problem.
Such an interest is generally present when the water resource is
valued, the pollutant source is understood, and participants
recognize that they are part of the solution. Benefits from the
project that can serve to increase public support for a project may
include decreased human health threats, improved recreational
use, or improved habitat or natural health of the water resource.
Another good indicator of potential project participation is
the existence of ongoing (pre-project) grass-root efforts to pro-
tect the water resource.
254
-------
Selecting an Agricultural Water Quality Project
RCWP Project Examples
PARTICIPATION AND
COMMUNITY SUPPORT
(continued)
Tillamook Bay, a shellfish-
producing estuary in Oregon, was
impaired by fecal coliform
contamination, which caused closing
of shellfish .beds and reduced
shellfish harvest. Prior to Tillamoofc
Bay RCWP project activities, a
citizen group, comprised of dairy
farmers, fishermen, and business
leaders, had been formed to protect
the estuary. Almost 100% of area
dairy farmers participated in the
RCWP project. Peer pressure from
the community (fishermen, bankers,
the dairy cooperative) was essential
in obtaining and maintaining project
participation. Fecal coliform was
reduced by over 50% and the
majority of the shellfish beds were
reopened for harvest.
INSTITUTIONAL
ARRANGEMENTS
In the Oregon RCWP project,
strong working relationships among
the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality, the USDA
Natural Resource Conservation
Service, the USDA Consolidated
Farm Services Agency, Oregon State
University, and the local dairy
cooperative were established before
the project was initiated. These
groups were already 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 by participating agency
personnel to the strong institutional
arrangements that had been forged
prior to the initiation of RCWP
project activities and that were
maintained throughout the project
period.
Institutional Arrangements
Institutional arrangements also affect the potential of a pro-
posed NFS pollution control project for success. Projects that
have a dedicated staff, positive interaction among agencies and
other groups, cooperative attitudes, well-defined organizational
strategies, and a long-term commitment to the project are gener-
ally more successful at gaining and maintaining producer and
community participation and support. The organizational strat-
egy should include strong inter-agency 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 and inter-agen-
cy relationships can be useful indicators of future interactions
and should be investigated prior to project selection.
Funding
Commitment of funds for the full project period is another
important criterion for the selection of a NPS pollution control
project. Nonpoint source pollution control projects need suffi-
cient funds to effectively address the land treatment needs based
on the size of the critical area and the severity of the water quality
problem to be addressed. lh the RCWP, the goal was to treat
75% of the critical area. For most of the 21 RCWP projects,
funding was sufficient, regardless of the problem, to support this
land treatment goal.
Reliable funding is needed to facilitate long-term planning
and budgeting, both essential components of NPS pollution
control watershed projects, which often require five or more
years to implement. A short funding cycle that does not ensure
full implementation of project activities reduces the effective-
ness of projects. Sufficient time and funds should be allocated to
pre-implementation planning and acquisition of pre-project
data, development of compatible / consistent data management
and evaluation procedures, and selection of the most appropriate
monitoring and modeling activities.
Best management practices are often too expensive for most
agricultural producers to implement. Cost-share funds ease the
economic burden of adopting BMPs. Results from a farm
operator survey (Gale et al., 1993) showed that access to cost-
share money was the primary reason producers participated in
the RCWP. Because the availability of cost-share funds signif-
icantly affects producer participation, one of the project selec-
tion criteria must include adequate funding or tax credits for
BMP implementation.
255
-------
Selecting an Agricultural Water Quality Project
RCWP Project Examples
FUNDING
Unlike most agricultural NPS
pollution control projects, 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. This allows multi-year project
planning and continuity in project
personnel.
Because technical assistance and
information and education (I&E)
activities are critical components of
successful NFS projects, it is essential
that potential NFS pollution control
projects include sufficient funding for
technical assistance and I&E, For
example, in Alabama, an extension
agent was credited with obtaining and
maintaining support for the RCWF
project from area farmers.
Tliis fact sheet is one of a series of Rural
Clean Water Program Technology
Transfer fact sheets prepared by the
NCSU Water Quality Group with support
from the Extension Service* U.S.
Department of Agriculture (Cooperative
Agreement No. 93-EXCA-3-0241).
Copies of the fact sheet series may be
requested from: Publications, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Department of
Biological and Agricultural Engineering,
Box 7637, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7637,
Tel: 919-515-3723, Fax: 919-515-7448.
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 com-
ponent, which includes information and education (I&E), NPS
projects will fail. Although state extension agencies and the
Natural Resource Conservation Service offer these technical
services free of charge, the additional workload presented by a
NPS project necessitates funding for technical assistance. Ad-
ditional funds may also be required for I&E activities designed
to inform and educate participants and citizens about the
project. Technical and I&E services funded through the RCWP
transferred important information to farmers, contributing sig-
nificantly to project success.
Reference
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Cofley, J. Spooner, J.A. Arnold, TJ. 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, (published by U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency) EPA-841- R-93-005, 559p.
Prepared by
DeannaL. Osmond and Jean Spooner
Water Quality Extension Specialists
NCSU Water Quality Group
March 1995
North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE & LIFE SCIENCES
Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914.
Employment and program opportunities are offered to all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, sex; age, or disability. North Carolina State University, North Carolina A&T
State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and local governments cooperating.
256
-------
Identifying and Documenting a
Water Quality Problem
The Rural Clean Water Program Experience
The Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP), a 15-year federally sponsored
nonpoint source (NFS) pollution control
program, was initiated in 1980 as an
experimental effort to address agricultural
NPS pollution problems in watersheds
across the country, TheRCWP is important
as one of the few national NPS control
programs to combine land treatment and
wafer quality monitoring to document NPS
pollution control effectiveness.
The RCWP was administered by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture -
Consolidated Farm Services Agency
(formerly Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service) in consultation with
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The Natural Resource Conserva-
tion Service (formerly SoU Conservation
Service), Extension Service, Economic
Research Service, Agricultural Research
Service, U. S. GeologicalSurvey, and many
state and local agencies also participated.
The 21 experimental RCWP projects,
representing a wide range of pollution
problems and impaired water uses, were
located in Alabama, Delaware, Florida,
Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylva-
nia, South Dakota, Tennessee/Kentucky,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Appropriate best management practices
(BMPs) were Used by producers to reduce
NPS pollution from their farms. Since
participation in the RCWP was voluntary,
cost-share funds and technical assistance
were offered to producers as incentives for
using or installing BMPs.
One of the most critical steps in controlling agricultural
nonpoint source (NPS) 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 or impairment
to the designated use of a water resource. 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 identification and documentation monitoring
program should be initiated. Monitoring should include both
storm and baseflow sampling of surface water over a 6-18 month
period. Ground water monitoring may also be needed. Depend-
ing on the pollutant(s) of concern, water quality monitoring may
require measurements of chemical, physical, and biological
factors.
Clear problem identification and documentation should lead
to a water quality problem statement 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 association between pollutants and im-
pairments should be stated. In addition, any habitat attributes
found to limit ecological health should also be included.
The water quality problem statement provides the basis for a
strategy to effectively remediate, or prevent, a water quality
impairment and enhance the designated water resource use. The
strategy is used to guide the selection and placement of best
management practices (BMPs) designed to reduce, remediate,
or retard specific pollutants. A well-crafted water quality prob-
lem statement is also essential to ensure community consensus
about the water quality impairment. Communities are generally
unwilling to expend the money and time necessary to combat
RCWP Technology Transfer Fact Sheet No. 4
257
-------
Water Quality Problem Documentation
THE IMPORTANCE OF A
WELL-CRAFTED WATER
QUALITY PROBLEM
STATEMENT
The Florida RCWP project is an
excellent example of how effective
water quality problem
identification and documentation
can lead to improvements in water
quality. Lake Okeechobee has been
studied since the early 1940V by the
U.S. Geological Survey. A 1969
study that assessed the nutrient
status of the lake indicated
eutrophic conditions (Fredrico et
al, 1981). High nutrient levels,
particularly phosphorus, were
leading to excess water plant
growth and depleted oxygen levels,
which were impairing fish and
migratory bird habitats. In
addition to other limnological
studies, the water quality of the
tributaries that flow into the lake
was monitored for seven years
(1973-1980). One tributary, the
Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough, was
contributing 28% of the total
phosphorus but only 5% of the
water into Lake Okeechobee (Allen
etal.,1982).
Animal waste and fertilizer
runoff from the large dairy farms
(averaging more than 1,000 cows
per herd) in the Taylor Creek-
Nubbin Slough watershed were the
primary sources of the phosphorus.
Land treatment consisted of an
aggressive system of BMPs
designed to reduce phosphorus
runoff from manure and fertilizer.
As a direct result of the BMPs
implemented during the RCWP,
phosphorus concentrations in the
Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough were
decreased by more than 50% (Gale
et al., 1993).
NFS pollution unless they are convinced that a significant
problem or threat exists and that it can be rectified.
The Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) (see sidebar on
page 1) was a national program that demonstrated the impor-
tance of water quality problem identification and documenta-
tion to agricultural NPS pollution control projects. 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. Pollut-
ant sources can be difficult to identify and impacts may be
subtle. Therefore, without adequate water quality problem
documentation, NPS pollution cannot be successfully con-
trolled.
Many of the projects selected to participate in the RCWP had
thorough water quality impairment investigations prior to
project selection (see sidebar). This allowed project teams to
prepare well-crafted water quality problem statements that led
to actions 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 ongo-
ing water quality studies. Any additional water quality studies
should also be reviewed and summarized. This existing infor-
mation 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.
Land use, soils, hydrologic, and climatic data should be
compiled. A land use map is one of the most important tools for
watershed managers. Land use classifications include agricul-
tural 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 loads are greatest and when drought
or other factors are affecting water resource data.
258
-------
Water Quality Problem Documentation
MONITORING COMPLEX
HYDROLOGIC SYSTEMS
The water quality problem in the
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP
project (South Dakota) initially
seemed straightforward. Lake
Poinsett and East & West Oakwood
Lakes were found to be hyper-
eutrophic by the TJ.S.EPA in 1977.
The hyper-eutrophic conditions had
occurred due to excess nutrient
runoff from surrounding croplands
and animal operations. Algae
blooms, aquatic weeds, dissolved
oxygen depletion, arid fish kills were
common in all of the lakes. Nutrient-
and sediment-reducing BMPs and
waste management BMPs were
implemented on the watershed's
critical areas. (Critical areas are
those portions of the watershed that
contribute disproportionate
amounts of the pollutants) to the
receiving water. A very
comprehensive monitoring program
was conducted to assess the water
quality of the lakes, tributaries,
Aground water, and runoff from
individual farm fields. Best
management practices reduced
sediment and nutrients associated
with the sediment and from animal
sources (Gale et at, 1993). However,
in spite of a reduction in pollutants,
there was no change in the trophic
status of the lakes: they remained
hyper-eutrophic. Further studies
revealed that phosphorus is trapped
and stored in lake sediments. This
phosphorus is continuously released
into the water column, promoting
hyper-eutrophic conditions. Even
without additional phosphorus
inputs, the recycling of phosphorus
will occur for many years and
continue to impair water qualify.
Although the project failed to
reduce the phosphorus levels of the
lakes, it did reduce the amount of
phosphorus delivered to the lakes
and provided information on the
water quality problem and the
eutrophication process in these
prairie lake systems.
Data for the watershed analysis may be available from local
health departments, county planning departments, state natural
resource agencies, USDA - Natural Resource Conservation
Service (state or local offices), USDA - Consolidated Farm
Services Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, or county or
regional Extension Service offices.
In cases where existing data are not adequate to identity or
document a water quality problem, additional monitoring will
be needed.
Monitoring for Problem Documentation
Program Design
The monitoring objective is to locate pollutant sources and
ecological conditions contributing to the problem. The monitor-
ing program must be designed such that at its conclusion a clear
statement of the water use impairment(s), the primary
pollutant(s), and the pollutant sources can be written.
The program should employ both ambient and stormwater
quality monitoring. Basefiow monitoring of surface water doc-
uments ambient water quality conditions and problems. Storm
sampling is useful for documenting the magnitude of hydrologic
and pollutant impacts. If ground water monitoring is needed,
specifically constructed monitoring wells generally yield more
reliable data than existing domestic wells.
The categories (physical properties, chemical constituents,
biological organisms, and habitat) and individual variables
monitored will depend on the water quality impairment and the
extent to which the water resource has already been studied.
Physical assessment monitoring includes such variables as
water temperature, turbidity, sedimentation, and ground water
elevation.
Chemical assessment consists of monitoring inorganic (ni-
trate, ortho-phosphate, metals) and/or organic constituents
(pesticides, benzene).
Biological monitoring should be used to assess impacts on
aquatic life, and may include monitoring variables such as
coliform bacteria, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish.
Habitat monitoring is important for characterizing the eco-
logical integrity of the water resource as well as in explaining
primary biological variation. Habitat monitoring variables
include stream, lake, or reservoir macroinvertebrate and fish
habitat.
Depending on the water resource being studied, to determine
the water quality impairment and the primary pollutant, and
259
-------
Water Quality Problem Documentation
THE IMPORTANCE OF
DETERMINING THE
POLLUTANT SOURCE
Lake Reelfoot (Tennessee/
Kentucky), -which supports
commercial and sport fishing and
migratory birds, is threatened by
siltation. The water quality problem
and primary pollutants were
identified and documented correctly
before the commencement of the
Lake Reelfoot RCWP project
However, contributing pollutant
sources were not sufficiently
quantified (Gale et alT, 1993). The
two primary sources of sediment in
the watershed are cropland and
naturally occurring gullies, A
sediment budget, indicating the
relative contributions of each
pollutant source, should have been
completed prior to project
implementation, A sediment budget
would have assisted the project team
in selecting the most effective
placement of BMPs for reduci&g
erosion.
Another study of the lake,
conducted during the RCWP time
frame, indicated that some 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 dechannelizing area streams and
tributaries would have reduced
sediment loading into the lake.
Had the studies mentioned above
been conducted prior to the
implementation of the RCWP
project, a more complete water
quality problem statement would
likely have been written, leading to
increased accuracy in critical area
definition and more appropriate
selection and placement of BMPS
possibly the pollutant source, monitoring stations for surface
water may be established at: edge of field; tributaries; main-
stem streams; or estuaries, lakes, reservoirs or wetlands. For
ground water, stations may be needed: aquifer-wide, in certain
portions of an aquifer, at specific sites or locations where
particular practices are in use, or at specific intervals within the
aquifer.
Tributary stations are often useful for identifying pollutant
sources and the magnitude (load) of the pollutant. Simply
monitoring the main-stem stream (primary drainage channel or
lake) may be inadequate to identify sources of pollutants be-
cause the receiving water dilutes and assimilates tributary
inputs, making identification of specific sources difficult. Trib-
utary stations should be located immediately above and below
suspected NPS 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 (see project example in the sidebar on
next page).
Data collected at main-stem stream stations provide an ag-
gregate of the water conditions upstream. The water quality
variables measured at the main-stem stream station should
match those monitored in the tributaries. In the Florida RCWP
project, for example, phosphorus, the major pollutant of con-
cern, was carefully monitored in both main-stem streams and
tributaries.
Monitoring stations located in reservoirs, lakes, estuaries, or
wetlands can provide useful information about the amount and
fate of pollutants reaching the water resource. These stations
should be strategically 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 contam-
ination could be monitored.
Monitoring Duration and Frequency
Monitoring aimed at problem identification and documenta-
tion should usually be conducted for at least 6 to 18 months.
However, watersheds with complex hydrologic conditions
may require more than 18 months of monitoring for adequate
water quality identification and documentation (see project
example in sidebar on page 3).
For continuous streams, monitoring of physical and chemi-
cal constituents should occur with sufficient frequency to en-
sure that water quality changes caused by climatic impacts and
watershed activities can be accounted for in the analysis. The
timing of biological monitoring should correspond to the type
and stage of the organism being documented. Guidance on
260
-------
Water Quality Problem Documentation
THE ROLE OF A STRONG
PROBLEM STATEMENT IN
ASSURING COMMUNITY
SUPPORT
Another RCWP project in which
the water quality impairment was
correctly identified and documented
was the Tillamook Bay RCWP
project Tillamook Bay, located in
northwestern Oregon, contains
important commercial and
recreational shellfish resources, Due
to fecal coliform contamination
originating from dairies located
near the estuary, shellfish beds were
frequently closed to harvesting. As
part of the water quality planning
for Section 208 of Public Law 95-
217 (The Clean Water Act), studies
conducted by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration, the Oregon
Department of Environmental
Quality, and U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Natural
Resource Conservation Service
quantified bacteria counts and the
tuning of the contamination and
delineated the major land areas that
were the primary source of the
bacteria.
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 et al., 1993). Detailed problem
identification and documentation
was instrumental in the
construction of a good water quality
problem statement. This statement
was used to convince all segments of
the community - dairy producers,
concerned citizens, fishermen, dairy
cooperative executives, lenders -
that the fecal coliform water quality
problem had to be solved by the
dairy farmers, working in
conjunction with federal, state, and
local agencies, to reduce
contamination of shellfish beds.
timing for biological monitoring should be available from the
state water quality agency.
The timing of water quality monitoring activities should
also be a function of the monitoring objective. For example,
timing of storm sampling is critical if the project team is trying
to determine load. Water quality samples should be taken
during the rise, peak, and fall of stream level during runoff.
Pollutant Budget
Existing watershed data and additional 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). 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 (see sidebar on page 4). 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 effec-
tive 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 comprehen-
sive 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 as a
guide in selecting and siting appropriate BMPs. A comprehen-
sive water quality problem statement can also be useful be-
cause 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 (see project example in the sidebar on page 5).
Sometimes the water quality problem statement is written
correctly the first time. In other cases, the statement may have
to be rewritten as additional information becomes available. In
•the Illinois RCWP project, for example, the project team
261
-------
Water Quality Problem Documentation
KEYS TO PROBLEM
IDENTIFICATION AND
DOCUMENTATION
• Prioritize problem identification
and documentation as a first
step to designing an NFS
pollution control project.
• Gather existing water quality
data. This information should
include a physical description
of the water resource and the
watershed, a designated use of
the water resource, and water
quality data that indicate a
water quality impairment or
potential threat to the water
resource.
• Water quality monitoring for
problem documentation should
ensue if existing data are
inadequate to identify and
document the water quality
problem.
• Water quality monitoring for
problem documentation should
include both storm and ambient
flow.
• Variables monitored will depend
on the suspected impairment.
• A clear water quality problem
statement should be written.
• Well-crafted water quality
problem statements should lead
the project team toward the
selection of the appropriate
systems and locations of BMPs.
********************************
This fact sheet is one of a series of Rural
Clean Water Program Technology Transfer
fact sheets prepared by the NCSU Water
Quality Group with support from the
Extension Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture (Cooperative Agreement No,
93-EXCA-3-0241). Copies of the fact sheet
series may be requested from: Publications,
NCSU Water Quality Group, Department of
Biological and Agricultural Engineering,
Box 7637, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC 27695-7637, Tel: 919-515-
3723, Fax: 919-515-7448.
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 written and land treatment efforts were redirect-
ed toward the natric soils.
References
Allen, L.H., Jr., J.M. Ruddell, G. J. Fitter, RE. 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.
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.
Prepared by
Deanna L. Osmond, Steven W. Coffey,
Judith A. Gale, and Jean Spooner
Water Quality Extension Specialist
NCSU Water Quality Group
March 1995
North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE & LIFE SCIENCES
Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914.
Employment and program opportunities are offered to all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, sex, age, or disability. North Carolina State University, North Carolina A&T
State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and local governments cooperating.
262
-------
Critical Areas in Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Projects
The Rural Clean Water Program Experience
The Rural Cleatt Water Program
(RCWP), a 15-year federally sponsored
nonpoint source (NFS) pollution control
program, -was initiated in 1980 as an
experimental effort to address agricultural
NPS pollution problems in watersheds
acrossthecountry. The RCWP is important
as one of the few national NPS control
programs to combine land treatment and
water quality monitoring to document NPS
pollution control effectiveness.
The RCWP was administered by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture -
Consolidated Farm Services Agency
(formerly Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service) in consultation with
the U,S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The Natural Resource Conserva-
tion Service (formerly Soil Conservation
Service), Extension Service, Economic
Research Service, Agricultural Research
Service, U. S. Geological Survey, andmany
state and local agencies also participated.
The 21 experimental RCWP projects,
representing a wide range of pollution
problems and impaired water uses, were
located in Alabama, Delaware, Florida,
Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylva-*
nia, South Dakota, Tennessee/Kentucky,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Appropriate best management practices
(BMPs) were used by producers to reduce
NPS pollution from their farms. Since
participation in the RCWP was voluntary,
cost-share funds and technical assistance
were offered as incentives for using or
installing BMPs.
A primary objective of a nonpoint source (NPS) pollution
control watershed project is to protect or restore the designated
use of a water resource by reducing pollutant delivery to the
water resource. Because nonpoint sources of pollution are usu-
ally widespread, intermittent, and undefined, mitigating a water
quality problem or potential problem caused by NPS pollution is
often difficult. The task is further complicated when sufficient
time and funding are not available to implement all the recom-
mended best management practices (BMPs). For this reason, a
land treatment strategy should be developed to guide the selec-
tion and implementation of BMPs. While strategies can vary
widely depending on hydrologic, sociologic, and agronomic
factors, a key component of the most effective strategies is
identification and appropriate treatment of NPS areas contribut-
ing disproportionately to the water quality problem. Concentrat-
ing land treatment efforts on these critical areas, or sources,
helps ensure that available resources are appropriated as effi-
ciently as possible.
All Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) projects were re-
quired to identify and treat critical areas. However, since explicit
guidance was not provided, project critical area criteria varied
widely from simply all land within a set distance from a water
resource to a complex set of factors applied to individual farms.
The experiences of the 21 RCWP projects provide the basis for
the following discussion of critical areas.
Reasons to Identify Critical Areas
All nonpoint sources of pollution are not equal. Many non-
point sources of pollution are insignificant, while other sources
contribute substantially to water resource impairment. Topo-
graphic, hydrologic, and agronomic factors often combine to
make some nonpoint sources more detrimental to the beneficial
use of water resources than others. Therefore, a method or
strategy to identify and prioritize for treatment NPS areas that
are more detrimental than others is desirable. Identifying and
treating, in order of priority, the sources that most adversely
affect the water resource help speed up the restoration process
and may save time and money by achieving the same pollutant
reduction by treating fewer sources.
RCWP Technology Transfer Fact Sheet No. 5
263
-------
Identifying Critical Areas
HYDRAULIC TRANSPORT OF
POLLUTANTS TO THE
WATER RESOURCE
Defining critical nonpoint
source pollutant areas
involves identifying major
pollutant sources and
assessing the hydrologic
transport system from the
source to the water
resource.
MAGNITUDE OF THE
POLLUTANT SOURCE
A source area that
contributes large amounts
of pollutants to a waterway
often has a significant
impact on a water
resource, regardless of the
efficiency of the hydrologic
system.
TYPE OF POLLUTANT
Identifying the primary
pollutant(s) facilitates the
focusing of land treatment
on the critical sources
causing the water quality
impairment.
Important Factors in Identifying and Defining
Critical Areas
Hydraulic Transport of Pollutants to Water
Resource of Concern
Defining critical NPS areas involves identifying the major
pollutant sources and assessing the hydrologic transport system
from the source to the water resource of concern. The purpose
of this assessment is to estimate the quantity of the pollutant(s)
of concern that will actually affect the water resource. For
example, if a pollutant source is on a small intermittent tributary
that is slow moving and drains through a large wetland and
several miles of stream before emptying into a lake, then the
pollutant source may not be as critical as a similar source on a
perennial stream within a mile of the lake. The difference in the
efficiency of the hydrologic transport system makes the delivery
of pollutants to the lake from one source much more likely than
from the other. Therefore, although both pollutant sources
should be treated, the source closer to the lake should be
considered a higher priority.
The transport mechanisms by which pollutants are carried to
a water resource help identify critical pollutant sources. Pollut-
ants that are sorbed to sediment or organic matter are much less
likely to be delivered to the water resource (because of settling
or filtering en route) than are pollutants in the dissolved phase,
such as nitrate.
Magnitude of the Pollutant Source
Another factor in determining critical sources is the magni-
tude of the source. A source area that contributes large amounts
of pollutants to a waterway often has a significant impact on a
water resource, regardless of the efficiency of the hydrologic
system. A few sources of large amounts of pollutants can
overload the filtering capability of natural waterways or, in the
case of ground water, overlying soils, thereby creating chronic
water quality problems. Thus, the magnitude of the source as
well as the hydrologic transport system must be considered in
determining whether the source is critical.
Type of Pollutant
Finally, the type of pollutant must be considered in critical
area selection. Examples of pollutants include: fine sediment
that causes turbidity, larger sediment that causes reduced reser-
voir-storage capacity, phosphorus that causes eutrophication,
and microbial pathogens or pesticides that cause health risks.
Identifying the primary pollutant(s) facilitates focusing of land
treatment on the critical sources causing the water quality
impairment. For instance, a single pollutant may be the primary
cause of the impairment; therefore, it would not be necessary to
treat source areas of other pollutants. For example, when bacte-
264
-------
Identifying Critical Areas
TYPE OF WATER
RESOURCE
Critical areas for ground
water versus surface water
problems may differ because
the pollutants causing the
impairment, sources of
pollutants delivered to the
water resource, and
hydrology of the recharge
area or watershed are
different.
SEVERITY AND TYPE OF
WATER QUALITY
PROBLEM
« The more severe the water
quality problem, the greater
the pollutant reduction and
extent of land treatment
required to reverse the
problem.
if peak concentrations are the
problem, critical areas may be
determined by the maximum
pollutant delivery rate.
METHODS FOR
IDENTIFYING CRITICAL
AREAS
Developing a set of scientific
criteria facilitates systematic
assessment of the factors
involved in critical area
identification.
ria are causing the impairment, critical areas need include only
those areas in which bacteria is a problem, such as in and around
animal operations.
Type of Water Resource
Critical areas are also determined by the type of water re-
source that is impaired. Critical areas for ground water versus
surface water problems may differ because the pollutants caus-
ing the impairment, sources of pollutants delivered to the water
resource, and hydrology of the recharge area or watershed are
different.
In the Minnesota RCWP project, the ground water recharge
area was significantly different from the surface watershed and
critical areas. The surface water resource, Garvin Brook, was a
trout stream impaired by high sediment and nutrient loads. The
surface watershed critical area was determined by distance to
flowing water, sinkholes, and abandoned wells, then refined
using the Agricultural Non-Point-Source Pollution Model (AG-
NPS) (Young et al., 1987). The impaired ground water resource
was a shallow aquifer. The recharge area for the aquifer (critical
area) extended outside the Garvin Brook watershed. Thus,
source areas critical to one type of water resource may not be
critical to another.
Severity and Type of Water Quality Problem
In general, the more severe the water quality problem, the
greater the pollutant reduction and extent of land treatment
required to reverse the problem. Also, the type of problem
affects critical area selection. If peak concentrations or standard
violations are the problem, critical areas may be determined by
the maximum pollutant delivery rate. For example, surface
drinking water supply impairments are often caused by peak
pollutant concentrations. Conversely, critical area selection that
minimizes pollutant accumulation can be important for address-
ing loss of reservoir storage capacity or destruction of benthic
habitat.
Methods Used to Identify Critical Areas
Developing a set of scientific criteria facilitates systematic
assessment of the factors involved in critical area identification.
The ideal criteria incorporate the efficiency of the hydrologic
system in pollutant transport, magnitude of the source, and type
of pollutant into guidelines that can be applied throughout the
watershed. However, due to the complexity of the task, criteria
are often simplified to the point that they are of little value. One
simple criterion used in the RCWP was to define as critical all
cropland within a quarter mile of the water resource. This
criterion ignored land use activities and potential pollutant
loading from sources along tributaries. Another simple criterion,
265
-------
Identifying Critical Areas
METHODS FOR
IDENTIFYING CRITICAL
AREAS
(continued)
The ideal criteria incorporate
the efficiency of the hydrologfc
system in pollutant transport,
magnitude of the source, and
type of pollutant into guidelines
that can be applied throughout
the watershed.
Critical area criteria for
watersheds with animal waste
problems are particularly
complex because these
watersheds often include two
or more pollutants and various
types of sources, such as land
application of animal waste,
untreated feedlots, and
livestock lounging in streams.
For watersheds in which
eroding cropland contributes
significant quantities of
sediment-attached phosphorus
runoff, the distance to the
nearest waterway is also
important.
Other important criteria include
cropping system, soil
erodibility, land slope, waste
application rate, soil fertility,
and current management
practice.
• Critical area criteria should be
applied consistently through-
out the project watershed.
identifying the entire watershed as critical, is usually not feasible
or efficient unless the project area is small and major pollutant
sources are uniformly widespread. Pollutant transport, source
magnitude, and pollutant type should each be addressed by the
simplest set of criteria.
Critical area criteria for watersheds with animal waste prob-
lems are particularly complex because these watersheds often
include two or more pollutants and various types of sources,
such as land application of animal waste, untreated feedlots, and
livestock lounging in streams. The major criteria used by several
RCWP projects with animal waste problems are presented in
Table 1. The presence of an untreated feedlot combined with its
distance from a watercourse (column 2) was the criterion used
most often to identify a critical pollutant source. Obviously, this
criterion is important because untreated feedlots are sources of
large quantities of nutrients and bacteria and, if untreated feed-
lots are near waterways, the probability of pollutant loading to
the drainage system is high.
For watersheds in which eroding cropland contributes signif-
icant quantities of sediment-attached phosphorus runoff, the
distance to the nearest waterway is also important. Other impor-
tant criteria include cropping system, soil erodibility, land slope,
waste application rate, soil fertility, and current management
practice. Cropland receiving excess fertilizer may also be
critical, depending on location. When nitrogen loading is a
major problem, losses are usually not directly related to soil
erodibility or sediment movement, but are more closely related
to manure or fertilizer application rate and timing, soil type and
texture, and area hydrology.
Critical area criteria should be applied consistently through-
out the project watershed. Applying all the criteria to each area
ensures not only that major pollutant sources receive priority for
treatment, but also that landowners whose farms do not meet the
criteria do not feel excluded from the program for non-scientific
reasons.
Occasionally, identifying critical pollutant sources is simply a
matter of observation. In the Utah RCWP project, a small critical
area was defined within a large watershed by observing that
animal holding corrals were located directly in or in close
proximity to drainage ways and, therefore, obviously constituted
high priority for treatment. However, critical pollutant source
areas are usually not so obvious. Several RCWP projects devel-
oped methods for applying criteria to animal waste problems
(Table 1). The Oregon and Vermont projects used rating systems
based primarily on manure management practices and distance
from a watercourse to prioritize farms for treatment. The Ver-
mont project identified critical areas based on a phosphorus (P)
load per farm considered treatable with BMPs.
For watersheds with complex hydrology and many different
types of pollutant sources, sophisticated computer models may
be needed to accurately identify critical areas. The Florida
RCWP project used pre-project monitoring and the Chemicals,
266
-------
Identifying Critical Areas
METHODS FOR
IDENTIFYING CRITICAL
AREAS
(continued)
For watersheds with complex
hydrology and many different
types of pollutant sources,
computer models may be
needed to accurately identify
critical areas.
Distributed parameter water
quality models, such as
AGNPS, are generally the
most accurate tools for
identifying critical pollutant
sources short of actually
monitoring the sources,
Runoff, and Erosion from Agricultural Management Systems
(CREAMS) model (Knisel, 1980) to identify critical sources of
phosphorus. This method identified as critical: all dairy opera-
tions in the project area, all fertilized and extensively ditched
beef cattle pastures, and all agricultural land within one-quarter
mile of major streams, ditches, and channels (Stanley and Gun-
salus, 1991). Other RCWP projects (Minnesota, Vermont, Illi-
nois, Wisconsin) used computer models after implementing at
least some BMPs to evaluate how well pollutant sources had
been targeted, or to adjust critical areas.
Distributed parameter water quality models, such as AGNPS,
are generally the most accurate tools for identifying critical areas
short of actually monitoring the sources. However, considerable
expertise and significant amounts of time and effort are required
to assemble the necessary model input and to interpret the
output. Often, this initial expense is worthwhile, considering the
time and money required to design, cost share, and implement
BMPs.
Spatial analysis of the watershed using land use survey and
hydrologic data in a geographic information system is often
useful as an initial estimate of critical areas and, when readily
available, can reduce the number of source areas requiring
further evaluation.
Table 1. Major Criteria Used By RCWP Projects With Significant Animal Waste Problems.
Major Critical Area Criteria
Feed lots
RCWP Without Feedlot
Project Treatment* Size
Alabama X
Delaware X&D X
Maryland X&D X
Michigan X&D
Utah X&D
Vermont X&D
Wisconsin X X&D
Florida X&D
Minnesota X&G X
Oregon X&D
Pennsylvania X&G
Virginia X&D
Waste Cropland
Application Erosion
X
X X
X
X&D X&D
X&D
X&D
X&D
X&D
Degree of
Pasture Adherence
Condition to Criteria
High
Low
High
High
High
High
High
X&D High
X High
High
Low
Medium
* In many projects this was simply any animal operation without treatment.
X Indicates criterion used by project.
D Indicates distance to watercourse used
in combination with major criterion.
G Indicates geologic criteria used in combination with major criterion.
267
-------
Identifying Critical Areas
METHODS FOR
IDENTIFYING CRITICAL
AREAS
(continued)
Spatial analysis of the
watershed using land use
survey and hydrologic data in
a geographic information
system is often useful as an
initial estimate of critical
areas.
Water quality monitoring is
useful for identifying
subwatersheds, tributaries, or
land areas that contribute
significant amounts of
pollutants.
SUMMARY
Proper identification,
prioritization, and treatment of
critical source areas will
significantly improve the
chances of mitigating a water
quality impairment in a
watershed project.
********************************
This fact sheet is one of a series of Rural
Clean Water Program Technology
Transfer fact sheets prepared by the
NCSU Water Quality Group with support
from the Extension Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture (Cooperative
Agreement No. 93-EXCA-3-0241).
Copies of the fact sheet series may be
requested from: Publications, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Department of
Biological and Agricultural Engineering,
Box 7637, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7637,
Tel: 919-515-3723, Fax: 919-515-7448.
Water quality monitoring is useful for identifying subwater-
sheds, tributaries, or land areas contributing significant amounts
of pollutants. The Florida and Nebraska RCWP projects used
monitoring to document major sources of sediment and nutri-
ents, which facilitated prioritization of critical subwatersheds.
Monitoring to confirm critical areas can be relatively simple,
such as collecting grab samples at a few key locations over
several months.
Summary
Proper identification, prioritization, and treatment of critical
areas will significantly improve the chances of mitigating a
water quality impairment in a NPS pollution control watershed
project. The Idaho, Florida, and Utah RCWP projects docu-
mented 40 to 90% reductions in pollutant concentrations by
identifying and treating critical areas based on the methods
outlined above.
References
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Cofiey, 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, 559p.
Knisel, W.G., ed. 1980. CREAMS: A field-scale model for chemical, runoff, and erosion
from agricultural managements systems. Conservation Research Report 26. Dept.
Agric. Science and Education Administration, Washington, D.C. 640p.
Stanley, J.W. and B. Gunsalus. 1991. Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Project, Rural Clean
Water Program Okeechobee, Florida Ten-year Report 1981-1990. Taylor Creek-Nubbin
Slough, Florida RCWP local coordinating committee, Okeechobee, FL. 231 p.
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. Conservation Re-
search Report 35. USDA Agricultural Research Service. Washington, D.C. 77p.
Prepared by Daniel E. Line and Jean Spooner
Water Quality Extension Specialists
NCSU Water Quality Group
March 1995
North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE & LIFE SCIENCES
Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914.
Employment and program opportunities are offered to all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, sex, age, or disability. North Carolina State University, North Carolina A&T
State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and local governments cooperating.
268
-------
Systems of Best Management
Practices for Controlling
Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Pollution
The Rural Clean Water Program Experience
The Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP), a 15-year federally sponsored
nonpoint source (NFS} pollution control
program, was initiated in 1980 as an
experimental effort to address agricultural
NFS pollution problems in watersheds
acrossihecountry, TheJICWP is important
a$ one of the few national NPS control
programs to combine land treatment and
•water quality monitoring to document NPS
pollution control effectiveness.
The RCWP was administered by the
U.& Department of Agriculture -
Consolidated Warm Services Agency
(formerly Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service) in consultation with
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency^ The Natural Resource Conserva-
tion Service (formerly Soil Conservation
Service), Extension Service, Economic
Research Service, Agricultural Research
Service, U. S. GeologicalSurvey, and many
state and local agencies also participated.
The 21 experimental RCWP projects,
representing a wide range of pollution
problems and impaired water uses, were
located in Alabama, Delaware, Florida^
Idaho, Ittinoist Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylva-
nia, South Dakota, Tennessee/Kentucky,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Best management practices were used
by producers to reduce NPS pollution from
their farms. Since participation was
voluntary, cost-share funds and technical
assistance were offered as incentives.
A significant portion of all pollutants entering streams,
lakes, estuaries, and ground water in the United States results
from agricultural activities. In order to solve the water pollu-
tion problem, agricultural nonpoint source (NPS) pollution
will have to be controlled. The solutions to the problem of
controlling runoff will require an integrated effort on the part
of the landowners, government, and private organizations
responsible for protecting and restoring soil and water.
The first step in reducing agricultural NPS pollution is to
focus on the primary water quality problem within the water-
shed: the water quality use impairment must be identified
and the type and source of the pollutant(s) must be defined.
Once the problem has been clearly defined and documented,
the critical area (the area that contributes the majority of the
pollutant to the water resource) can be identified. Land
treatment should then be implemented on these critical areas.
Land treatment consists of the installation or utilization of
best management practices (BMPs). Best management prac-
tices are used to control the generation or delivery of pollut-
ants from agricultural activities to water resources and to
prevent impacts to the physical and biological integrity of
surface and ground water. BMPs can be either structural (for
example: waste lagoons, terraces, sediment basins, or fenc-
ing) or they can be managerial (for example, rotational
grazing, fertilizer or pesticide management, or conservation
tillage). Both types of BMPs require good management to be
effective in reducing agricultural nonpoint source pollution.
The installation or use of one structural or management
BMP is rarely sufficient to control the pollutant of concern.
Combinations of BMPs that control the same pollutant are
generally most effective. These combinations, or systems, of
BMPs can be specifically tailored for particular agricultural
and environmental conditions as well as for a particular
pollutant.
The Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP), a federally
sponsored experiment in controlling agricultural NPS pollu-
tion conducted during the 1980s, demonstrated the impor-
RCWP Technology Transfer Fact Sheet No. 6
269
-------
BMP Systems
BMP SYSTEMS
BMP systems, as
opposed to individual
BMPs, are almost always
necessary for controlling
nonpoint source
pollution.
A BMP system is two or
more individual BMPs
that are used to control a
pollutant from the same
critical source.
If the pollutant is the
same, but the sources of
the pollutant are different,
BMP systems must be
designed for each source.
Systems of BMPs must
comprehensively address
the pollution problem.
(continued on page 4)
tance of using BMP systems to control agricultural NFS
pollution (Gale et al., 1993). In the RCWP projects, systems
of BMPs were used to control a range of pollutants, such as
sediment, nutrients, and bacteria. The following discussion
of BMP systems and their effectiveness is based on the
knowledge gained through the efforts of the 21 RCWP
project teams.
Systems of Best Management Practices
Systems of two or more BMPs are often required to
effectively control pollutant sources in critical areas. A BMP
system is any combination of BMPs that are used together to
comprehensively control a pollutant from the same source.
When a pollutant is coming from more than one source, a
separate BMP system should be designed to reduce pollutant
loss from each source.
In the Nebraska RCWP project, sediment in Long Pine
Creek was impairing fish production. Excess sediment orig-
inated from streambank erosion, irrigation return flows, and
intensive grazing in the riparian zone. Although the pollutant
(sediment) was the same, the pollutant sources were differ-
ent. Three BMP systems had to be devised: a BMP system to
control streambank sediment, a BMP system to control sed-
iment from irrigated farmland, and a BMP system to decrease
sediment from riparian zone grazing lands. Several individu-
al BMPs were combined into each of the three BMP systems
for controlling sediment. Nine individual BMPs were com-
bined for the streambank system, twenty-four BMPs were
used for the irrigated croplands system, and ten practices
were integrated for the grazing lands system (see Table 1). A
total of 37 individual BMPs were used during the project.
Some BMPs were specific for controlling sediment from a
single source (such as diversions), while other practices
controlled sediment from two or more sources (such as
fencing).
A system of BMPs designed to address a specific pollutant
from a particular source must comprehensively address the
pollution problem. In coastal Oregon, where rainfall often
exceeds 120 inches per year, dairy farmers installed animal
waste management BMPs to reduce fecal coliform runoff
into the nearby estuary. Although 12 individual BMPs com-
prised the animal waste management system (see Table 2),
these installations did not qualify as an effective BMP system
because they dealt only with manure storage and were not
comprehensive in controlling both the pollutant source and
delivery of the pollutant to the water resource of concern.
Complete and effective control of the bacterial and nutrient
contamination reaching Tillamook Bay required that waste
270
-------
BMP Systems
Table 1. Systems of Best Management Practices Used in the Nebraska
RCWP Project
Farm
Land
BMP Systems
Grazing
Land
(Irrigation)
NRCS Individual Best Management Practices
Code1
428 Irrigation Water Conveyance
430 Irrigation Water Conveyance Pipeline
443 Irrigation System (surface/subsurface)
447 Irrigation System (tailwater)
441 Irrigation Water System (drip)
449 Irrigation Water Management
382 Fencing
612 Tree Planting
410 Grade Stabilization
587 Structures for Water Control
350 Sediment Basins
638 Water and Sediment Control Basin
342 Critical Area Planting
484 Mulching
329 Conservation Tillage
344 Crop Residue Management
330 Contour Farming
328 Conservation Cropping
340 Cover Crops and Green Manure
412 Grassed Waterway
362 Diversion
620 Underground Outlet
660 Subsurface Drain
510 Pasture and Hayland Management
512 Pasture and Hayland Planting
550 Rangeland Seeding
556 Planned Grazing
516 Pipeline
614 Tank
642 Well
378 Pond
574 Spring
322 Channel Vegetation
382 Filter Strips
580 Streambank Protection
NC Cedar Revetments
1 NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture
Source: NRCS, 1994
NC = No NRCS Code
Stream-
banks
271
-------
BMP Systems
BMP SYSTEMS
(continued)
No single "best" BMP
system to control a
particular pollutant exists.
Rather the BMP system
should be determined
based on the pollutant
and its source; the
agricultural, climatic, and
environmental
conditions; economic
considerations; and the
experience of BMP
system designers.
(continued on next page)
application management be employed: land application of
manure had to be conducted at the appropriate season, time,
and rate. It was also necessary to include waste utilization as
part of the BMP system.
There is no single "best" BMP system to control a partic-
ular pollutant. Rather the BMP system should be determined
by the type of pollutant; the source of the pollutant; the
agricultural, climatic, and environmental conditions; the
economic situation of the farm operator; and the experiences
of the system designers. For example, a similar water quality
problem existed in both the Massachusetts and Oregon
RCWP projects. In both projects, shellfish production was
impaired in an estuary by fecal coliform contamination
caused by runoff from surrounding dairy farms. Animal
waste management BMPs were installed, along with other
types of BMPs. In the Oregon project, 12 individual BMPs
were needed to control the animal manure in the barnyard
area, whereas in Massachusetts only four were needed (see
Table 2). However, both projects implemented the most
appropriate set of BMPs for their environment. The regions
where these two projects are located have different climatic
and ecological characteristics, requiring different approach-
es to mitigate the animal waste problem. Some of the animal
waste management BMPs installed in Oregon were designed
to keep the rain off the manure (guttering and roofing).
Because rainfall in Massachusetts is much lower, these types
of structures were not needed. In addition, Oregon farmers
had to install extremely large waste storage structures to
contain the manure during continuous rain events. Because
Table 2. Animal Waste Management BMP Systems Used in the Oregon
and Massachusetts RCWP Projects
NRCS Individual Animal Waste Oregon Massachusetts
Code1 Management BMPs
313 Waste Storage Structure * *
312 Waste Management System * *
NC Roofing
561 Heavy Use-Area Protection *
NC Guttering
NC Buried Main Line *
359 Waste Treatment Lagoon *
NC Conduit
NC Curbing
412 Grassed Waterway or Outlet *
607 Subsurface Drain *
608 Subsurface Drain, Main, or Lateral *
NC = No NRCS Code
1 NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture
Source: NRCS, 1994
272
-------
BMP Systems
BMP SYSTEMS
(continued)
Systems of BMPs can be
designed to reduce the
amount of pollutant,
retard the transport of the
pollutant, or remediate
the pollutant, whereas
individual BMPs can only
affect one of these three
mitigation mechanisms,
Systems of BMPs can be
measured for their
effectiveness in reducing
agricultural nonpoint
source pollution.
For maximum
effectiveness, BMP
systems must be
selected correctly and
placed in the critical
pollutant source areas.
The extent of land
treatment must be
sufficient to achieve
water quality
improvements.
of the drier climatic conditions in Massachusetts, these large
waste storage structures were not necessary. Even though the
water quality problem was similar for the Oregon and
Massachusetts RCWP projects, each project had to design a
system of BMPs that was appropriate to the specific condi-
tions encountered.
Transport of agricultural chemicals to surface and ground
water can be controlled by reducing the pollutant load reach-
ing the water resource; retarding the transport of pollutant
(either by reducing water transported, and thus pollutant
transport, or through chemical or biological transformation);
or remediating the pollutant in the water system. An individ-
ual BMP can only control the pollutant at its source, during
transport, or in the water. Systems of BMPs are generally
more effective in controlling the pollutant since they can be
used at two or more points in the pollutant delivery system.
For example, the objective of the Iowa RCWP project was to
reduce the loss of soil from cropland, which was resulting in
sedimentation and turbidity in Prairie Rose Lake. A system of
BMPs was designed not only to reduce soil detachment, thus
reducing the potential for soil to erode, but also to retard off-
site transport of eroded soil. Critical area planting (NRCS
Code 342) and conservation tillage system (NRCS Code 329)
were used to reduce the amount of on-site soil loss. Terraces
(NRCS Code 600), underground outlets (NRCS Code 620),
diversions (NRCS code 362), grassed waterways (NRCS
code 412), and sediment retention basins (NRCS Code 350)
were installed to slow sediment transport to the lake.
Systems of BMPs can be measured for effectiveness. In the
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough RCWP project in Florida,
greater than 50% reductions in total phosphorus concentra-
tions were documented by water quality monitoring at the
project outlet and in subwatersheds where many BMPs had
been implemented. In contrast, water quality in subwater-
sheds with little BMP implementation or increased cattle
densities showed increases in total phosphorus concentra-
tions. These monitoring results supported the conclusion that
the system of BMPs implemented was effective in reducing
phosphorus delivery to Lake Okeechobee.
Conclusions
BMP systems are more effective at controlling agricultural
nonpoint source pollution than individual BMPs because
systems minimize the impact of the pollutant at several
points: the source, the transport process, the water body.
However, systems of BMPs are just part of the land treatment
strategy. Properly designed BMP systems must also be
placed in the correct locations in the watershed (critical
273
-------
BMP Systems
CONCLUSIONS
The placement of BMP
systems in the watershed
should be prioritized.
Locations contributing the
largest proportion of
pollutant(s) from the
critical area should be
treated first with the
appropriate system of
BMPs.
********************************
This fact sheet is one of a series of Rural
Clean Water Program Technology
Transfer fact sheets prepared by the
NCSU Water Quality Group with support
from the Extension Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture (Cooperative
Agreement No. 93-EXCA-3-0241).
Copies of the fact sheet series may be
requested from: Publications, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Department of
Biological and Agricultural Engineering,
Box 7637, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7637,
Tel: 919-515-3723, Fax: 919-515-7448.
pollutant source areas) and the extent of land treatment must
be sufficient to achieve water quality improvements.
Because financial resources are generally limited, BMP
system implementation should be prioritized. Systems of
BMPs should first be implemented at those locations in the
critical area that contribute the largest proportion of pollut-
ant^). The remaining critical area locations can then be
treated with BMP systems as feasible, given availability of
funds.
References
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coflfey, J. Spooner, J.A. Arnold, T.J. Hoban, and
R.C. Wimberley. 1993. Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Program.
National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC,
(published by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) EPA-841- R-93-005, 559p.
NRCS. 1994. National Handbook of Conservation Practices. Natural Resources Conser-
vation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service), U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Prepared by
Deanna L. Osmond, Jean Spooner,
and Daniel E. Line
Water Quality Extension Specialists
NCSU Water Quality Group
March 1995
North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE & LIFE SCIENCES
Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914.
Employment and program opportunities are offered to all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, sex, age, or disability. North Carolina State University, North Carolina A&T
State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and local governments cooperating.
274
-------
The Role of Information and
Education in Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Projects
The Rural Clean Water Program Experience
The Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP)t a 15-year federally sponsored
nonpoint source (NFS) pollution control
program, was initiated in 1980 as an
experimental effort to address agricultural
NFS pollution problems In watersheds
across the country. TheRCWPisimportant
as one of the few national NFS control
programs to combine land treatment and
waterqualuymonitoringtodacumentNPS
pollution control effectiveness.
The RCWP was administered by the
U,$, Department of Agriculture -
Consolidated Farm Services Agency
(formerly Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service) in consultation with
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, The Natural Resource Conserva-
tion Service {formerly Soil Conservation
Service), Extension Service, Economic
Research Service, Agricultural Research
Service, If. S. GeofogicalSurvey, andmany
state and local agencies also participated.
The 21 experimental RCWP projects},
representing a wide range of pottunon
problems and impaired water uses, were
located in Alabama, Delaware, Florida,
Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylva-
nia, South Dakota, Tennessee/Kentucky,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Appropriate bestmanagementpracaees
were used by producers to reduce NFS
pollution from their farms. Since
participation in the RCWP was voluntary,
cost-share funds and technical assistance
were offered as incentives*
Designing an Information and Education
Program for an Agricultural Nonpoint
Source Pollution Control Project
Most farm operators are aware of water quality issues, but
may not have all of the information they need to minimize
agricultural nonpoint source (NFS) pollution. For this reason,
information and education (I&E) programs are an essential
component of any project aimed at reducing NPS pollution.
The information element of any I&E program should be used
to share existing knowledge through the distribution of material.
The education element, which requires the active participation
of the audience, should be used to encourage participants to
incorporate new information into behavioral choices that en-
hance water quality. Although the two I&E program elements
have separate goals and functions, they are complementary.
Transfer of information should heighten the awareness of water
quality issues both within the agricultural community and
among the general public, while education should encourage
farmers to reduce agricultural NPS pollution through imple-
mentation of best management practices (BMPs).
The focus of I&E efforts often changes over the course of a
project. Initial efforts develop general awareness of the water
quality problem and public support and inform producers about
MRS controls and why they should be implemented. Next,
technical assistance is provided to the farmers in the manage-
ment and maintenance of the implemented BMPs.
In agricultural NPS pollution control projects, I&E should be
directed at a wide range of target audiences: producers, business
persons, local government officials, community members, and
school children. The overall I&E message should be the same
for these groups and should address the following questions.
What is NPS pollution? How do agricultural practices cause
NPS pollution? What is the water quality problem of concern to
the community? Why is it important to solve the water quality
problem? What changes in individual and collective behavior or
practices will result in a decrease in NPS pollutants in the water
RCWP Technology Transfer Fact Sheet No. 7
275
-------
Information and Education
DESIGNING AN
INFORMATION AND
EDUCATION PROGRAM
Educate the community
about the project and
seek widespread input
into the project planning
process.
Identify the target
audiences for I&E.
Determine the I&E
strategy for each
audience.
Tailor I&E activities and
methods to each
audience.
PRODUCER
PARTICIPATION
One-to-one contact
between producers and
I&E specialists is the most
effective method to
transfer information and
increase participation.
In order for one-to-one
contact to be effective,
land owners must believe
there is a water quality
problem that needs to be
corrected.
Effective educational
programs encourage farm
operators to accept
responsibility for the
effects of their farming
operations on water
quality.
body of interest? What are the objectives of the NPS pollution
control project? How will these project objectives be met?
Target audiences should be identified during the planning
period before project implementation, and specific I&E strate-
gies should be developed for each group based on its informa-
tion needs. Particular I&E activities should then be tailored to
each group. Farm operators must be educated about their role in
causing NPS water pollution and informed about ways to pre-
vent and solve the problem. Business leaders must be informed
about ways in which they can support changes in agricultural
practices that will enhance water quality. A better understand-
ing of the sources and causes of NPS pollution can assist local
government officials in making a wide range of governmental
decisions.
Community members need I&E to be informed citizens and
decision makers. Information about the impacts of land use on
water quality can enhance citizens' awareness of and willing-
ness to change behaviors that contribute to water quality degra-
dation. Finally, the most lasting way to affect lifetime attitudes
is to educate children. Information and education programs for
children represent an investment in the future.
A national program that has clearly demonstrated the impor-
tance of I&E programs to the successful outcome of agricultural
NPS pollution control projects is the Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram (RCWP) (Gale et ai, 1993). The I&E lessons presented
below are drawn primarily from the RCWP experience.
The Importance of Information and
Education for Producer Participation
The most effective I&E approach to gaining producer partic-
ipation is one-to-one contact between project personnel and
farmers. RCWP projects with successful I&E programs used
on-farm contacts between producers and agency or business
personnel to gain producer confidence and increase participa-
tion. In the South Dakota RCWP project, I&E funds were used
to hire a technical planner to work on a one-to-one basis with
farmers. His contact with producers resulted in an increase in
participation from 6 farms and 2,132 acres before the planner
was hired to 92 farms and 29,468 acres within one year after the
planner began working with area farmers.
If, however, farmers do not support the objectives of a
voluntary NPS pollution control project, one-to-one contact by
agency personnel will not be sufficient to change farming
practices and motivate farmers to participate in a water quality
project. In RCWP projects where producers either did not
believe that there was a water quality problem or were not
convinced that the water quality problem was caused by agricul-
276
-------
Information and Education
PRODUCER
PARTICIPATION
(continued)
Trusted local community
members are often the
most effective
transmitters of I&E.
I&E programs can be
effectively delivered by
government agencies,
When I&E is delivered by
several agencies, one
agency should be
designated as the lead
agency, agencies must
communicate with each
other, and all agencies
must deliver a uniform
message to the
producers.
Private sector
organizations can also
make valuable
contributions to I&E
efforts.
Farmers with large
successful operations
and full-time farmers are
most easily reached
through i&E activities.
Different I&E strategies
will have to be devised
for more economically
challenged farmers.
Specific services or
project support, such as
machinery loans, nutrient
management plans, and
soil testing, should be
provided to encourage
.producer participation
and educate farmers
about recommended
practices and objectives.
ture, one-to-one contact was only marginally effective in in-
creasing producer participation.
Results of a survey of farmers who participated in the RCWP
projects found that although most producers believed that a
water quality problem existed, many did not feel that their farm
was contributing to the problem (Gale et al., 1993). I&E pro-
grams must both educate producers about water quality issues
and assist producers in recognizing the ways in which their
farming practices contribute to the problem.
Information is often most successfully transmitted to produc-
ers by trusted members of the community. In some RCWP
projects, producer participation increased when local communi-
ty members were employed as I&E specialists. In other RCWP
projects, the trusted community member was a county Extension
Service or U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly called the
Soil Conservation Service) employee who had worked with the
producers for years and had gained their trust.
Information and education programs can be effectively con-
ducted by either the Extension Service or NRCS. Both agencies
conducted successful I&E outreach programs in the RCWP
projects, with the Extension Service taking the lead in most
cases.
When several agencies jointly deliver I&E services, it is
important that one agency is clearly identified as the lead agen-
cy, that personnel of all participating agencies communicate
with each other, and that all agencies convey a consistent
message to producers and the community. One RCWP project,
for example, had a very effective I&E program until the Natural
Resource Conservation Service and Extension Service stopped
coordinating efforts. Another project never got off the ground, in
part because farmers received conflicting messages about the
value of the project and the source of the water quality problem
from the staffs of two participating agencies.
Information and education can also be effectively delivered
by private organizations. A local dairy cooperative representa-
tive was an important source of I&E in one RCWP project. In
another project, the local fertilizer dealer was instrumental in
extending information about fertilizer calibration and rates.
Consulting firms that offered integrated pest management ser-
vices were also used to promote I&E in some RCWP projects.
It is more difficult to extend I&E to some farmers than to
others. In general, fanners who participated in the RCWP
projects were full-time farmers and had more assets (land,
machinery, and income) than farmers who were eligible but
chose not to participate (Gale et al., 1993). Farmers who had to
work off the farm to make ends meet and those with fewer assets
were less likely to participate. Specific I&E strategies must be
developed to target farmers who are more economically chal-
lenged, if NPS pollution is to be significantly reduced.
277
-------
Information and Education
PRODUCER
PARTICIPATION
(continued)
I&E programs should use
all information delivery
methods, even those that
may not be the most
effective methods (letters,
radio spots, newsletters,
videos) but which serve as
ongoing reminders of
project activities.
It is generally easier to
motivate farmers to install
structural BMPs than to
use BMPs that require
changes in farm
management.
I&E efforts must start in
advance of other project
activities.
Producers and members of
the community should be
brought into the project
planning process from the
very beginning.
I&E efforts must continue
after the project ends to
ensure that BMPs are
continued and maintained.
i&E programs must
educate community
members about
agricultural NPS pollution
and methods for
controlling such pollution.
A variety of techniques should be used to transfer technical
information about BMPs. Most of the RCWP projects offered
field or farm demonstrations of recommended practices. One
project loaned no-till equipment to farmers who wanted to try
conservation tillage before purchasing the necessary machinery.
Some projects hired nutrient management specialists to assist
farmers in utilizing animal manure as a source of fertilizer. Soil
and manure testing were provided free of charge as an additional
incentive to cooperating farmers.
All available media and forums should be used to extend
information about a nonpoint source project to producers. Print
media (newsletters and newspaper articles), electronic media
(radio and TV), meetings, tours, videos, slide shows, and dis-
plays were used in many RCWP projects. Although farm maga-
zines, USD A personnel, and newspaper articles provided the
fanners with more information on water quality than the other
sources (Gale et al., 1993), a combination of I&E techniques is
most likely to be effective in any agricultural NPS pollution
control project.
Introducing farmers to less familiar management practices
requires a higher level of I&E effort than does education about
structural practices. In most RCWP projects, terraces, animal
waste management systems, and other structural BMP compo-
nents were easier to "sell" to farmers than management practices
such as soil testing, nutrient and pesticide management, rota-
tional grazing, and conservation tillage. Although more difficult
to sell, management practices are generally more cost-effective
in reducing NPS pollution than are structural practices. Future
agricultural NPS pollution control projects should focus more
resources on promoting management practices that minimize
NPS pollutants.
A successful I&E program must start in advance of project
activities. RCWP project teams that involved producers and
community members in planning a project before it started
generally had a higher level of support and participation than
those projects in which I&E was delayed until after the project
was funded and initiated.
Once funding for an agricultural NPS pollution control
project ends, I&E efforts must continue to ensure that the BMPs
implemented are maintained. Agency personnel found that in
several RCWP projects, I&E support to the farmers was just as
important after the farmers implemented structures or learned
management practices as it was during BMP implementation.
For example, in several RCWP projects, farmers who had in-
stalled waste lagoons needed to learn how to maintain them
effectively. This maintenance required follow-up I&E beyond
that originally scheduled as part of the project.
278
-------
Information and Education
INFORMATION AND
EDUCATION IN THE
COMMUNITY
* I&E must inform the
community about project
objectives and progress.
Specific groups within the
community who will be
instrumental in providing
services and financing to
project participants
should be educated about
the project so that they
can support project
objectives.
EDUCATING THE NEXT
GENERATION
Education of the next
generation about water
quality has long-term
benefits and should be
part of the I&E program
for any NFS pollution
control project.
I&E programs should be
developed for
presentation in schools
and youth organizations.
The Role of Information and Education in
the Community
The amount and types of I&E that should be extended to a
community and to farm operators will vary from project to
project, depending on project objectives, and will vary over time
within a project. At a minimum, I&E was used in the RCWP
projects to inform the community about project objectives and to
update citizens on progress. Sometimes I&E was used to educate
the community about NPS pollution in general.
Some RCWP projects went beyond general information
transfer and educated specific community groups. In one
project, contractors responsible for building the animal waste
management systems were informed about the project. Better
understanding on the part of contractors about the goals and
technical requirements of the project resulted in construction of
higher quality, more effective waste management systems. In
this and another project, bank officials received information
about the RCWP project to better understand and evaluate
applications for loans to support BMP implementation. As a
result, farmers were able to obtain loans more easily. Communi-
ty groups that are perceived as instrumental for achieving project
objectives should be targeted and specific I&E outreach ap-
proaches should be designed for these groups.
The Role of Information and Education
Activities in Educating Children
One of the most effective ways to influence attitudes and
behavior is to educate the next generation. Several RCWP
projects specifically included outreach to children. Sometimes
information about NPS pollution and the RCWP was delivered
through school programs. Other times children were reached
through information delivered to particular organizations, such
as 4-H clubs. Information and education geared to children has
long-range benefits and should be instituted as part of all agricul-
tural NPS pollution control projects.
279
-------
Information and Education
********************************
This fact sheet is one of a series of Rural
Clean Water Program Technology
Transfer fact sheets prepared by the
NCSU Water Quality Group with support
from the Extension Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture (Cooperative
AgreementNo. 93-EXCA-3-0241).
Copies of the feet sheet series may be
requested from: Publications, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Department of
Biological and Agricultural Engineering,
Box 7637, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7637,
Tel: 919-515-3723, Fax: 919-515-7448.
Reference
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.
National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC,
(published by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) EPA-841- R-93-005, 559p.
Prepared by
DeannaL. Osmond and Judith A. Gale
Water Quality Extension Specialists
NCSU Water Quality Group
March 1995
North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE & LIFE SCIENCES
Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914.
Employment and program opportunities are offered to all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, sex, age, or disability. North Carolina State University, North Carolina A&T
State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and local governments cooperating.
280
-------
Farmer Participation in Solving
the Nonpoint Source Pollution
Problem
The Rural Clean Water Program Experience
The Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP), a 15-year federally sponsored
nonpoint source (NPS) pollution control
program, was initiated in 1980 as an
experimental effort to address agricultural
NFS pollution problems In watersheds
across thecountry. The RCWP is important
as one of the few national NPS control
programs io combine Und treatment and
water qualify monitoring to document NPS
pollution control effectiveness.
The RCWP was administered by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture -
Consolidated farm Services Agency
(formerly Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service) in consultation -with
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The Natural Resource Conserva-
tion Service (formerly Soil Conservation
Service), Extension Service, Economic
Research Service, Agricultural Research
Service, U. S. Geological Survey, andmany
state and local agencies also participated.
The 21 experimental RCWP projects,
representing a wide range of pollution
problems and impaired water uses, were
located in Alabama, Delaware, Florida,
Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylva-
nia, South Dakota, Tennessee/Kentucky,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Appropriate best management practices
(BMPs) were used by producers to reduce
NPS pollution from their farms. Since
participation in the RCWP was voluntary,
cost-share funds and technical assistance
were offered as incentives for using or
installing BMPs.
The Importance of Producer Participation
in Voluntary Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control Projects
The success or failure of any agricultural nonpoint source
pollution control project depends on the participation of many
landowners or farm operators. These producers must install or
utilize land-based treatments, or best management practices
(BMPs), that minimize the movement of agricultural pollutants
such as sediment, nutrients, and pesticides to water resources.
The degree of producer participation necessary to protect or
remediate water quality will depend not only on the total number
of land users employing BMPs in the watershed, but also on
several other factors: the location of the producers' farms in the
watershed, the types of BMPs selected, the extent of BMP
implementation, and the type and severity of the water quality
problem.
The first phase in a nonpoint source (NPS) pollution control
project is to accurately identify and clearly document the water
quality problem, the specific pollutant(s), and the sources of the
pollutant(s). Based on the water quality problem assessment,
the critical area (land area or areas contributing disproportion-
ately to the water quality problem) should be identified. High-
priority project participants are those producers who farm or
raise livestock in the critical area of the watershed.
A primary goal of any voluntary NPS pollution control
project is to engage a sufficient number of potential participants
in the project. The Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP), a
nationally recognized nonpoint source pollution control pro-
gram conducted between 1981 and 1995, established a target
voluntary producer participation rate of 75%. Many valuable
lessons were learned from the RCWP about how to recruit and
retain participants in voluntary NPS pollution control projects.
The information presented in this fact sheet is based on these
lessons learned.
RCWP Technology Transfer Fact Sheet No. 8
281
-------
Farmer Participation
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND
ATTITUDINAL FACTORS
AFFECTING
PARTICIPATION
* Farmers who work solely
on the farm or who
receive most of their
income from agricultural
sales are most likely to
participate in agricultural
nonpoint source (NFS)
pollution control projects.
• Project participants are
generally more aware of
water pollution than
farmers who choose not
to participate.
• Producers who receive
most of their water
quality and conservation
information from
government agencies and
farm magazines are most
likely to change
agricultural practices that
affect water quality.
INCENTIVES TO
PARTICIPATION
Financial incentives may
be the most important
factor in achievement of
voluntary implementation
ofBMPs,
Financial incentives
include cost-share funds,
tax relief, payment
transfers, and
government subsidies.
Farm Structure and Producer Attitudes
and Attributes that Affect Project Outcome
An extensive telephone survey of producers farming in the
critical areas of the 21 RCWP projects was conducted to evalu-
ate differences between farmers who chose to participate in the
RCWP and those who did not (Gale et aL, 1993). Farm
structure, farm operator characteristics, and water quality
awareness and attitudes were assessed.
Participation in RCWP projects was highly correlated with
strong economic indicators, such as comparatively larger total
acreage farmed, higher gross farm sales, and greater property
and farm equipment values. Producers who were employed off-
farm, or who received only part of their income from agricul-
ture, were less likely to participate in NPS pollution control
projects than were farmers who worked solely on the farm and
earned most of their income from agriculture.
Water quality awareness and attitudes were also important in
determining participation rates in the RCWP projects. Produc-
ers who were more aware of water pollution (in general, in the
specific area, or on individual farms) participated in greater
numbers than farmers who were less well informed. Producers
who received most of their water quality and conservation
information from government agencies and farm magazines
were more likely to change agricultural practices that affected
water quality than producers who did not receive information
from these sources.
Many of the results of the farm operator survey were similar
to conclusions of previous studies evaluating factors that influ-
ence conservation. Farmers who run large-scale operations, are
better educated and more willing to take risks, and have access
to government information generally participate at a higher rate
in conservation programs than producers without these charac-
teristics. Although farm structure and producer characteristics
were important factors in determining which farmers chose to
participate in the RCWP projects, external incentives also
affected participation.
Incentives To Producer Participation
Economic Factors
Financial incentives are extremely important, and may be the
most important factor, in obtaining voluntary implementation
of BMPs. Financial incentives for voluntary environmental
compliance include cost-share funds, tax relief, payment trans-
fers, and government subsidies.
The primary financial incentive in the RCWP projects was
federal cost-share funding. Each producer could receive up to
282
-------
Fanner Participation
ECONOMIC FACTORS
The cost of BMP
installation and
maintenance serves as a
disincentive to BMP
implementation.
THE IMPORTANCE OF
INFORMATION AND
EDUCATION PROGRAMS
information and education
programs increase
producer participation in
agricultural NPS pollution
control projects.
Information heightens
farmers' awareness of
water quality problems
and approaches to solving
them.
Education aids farmers in
selecting appropriate BMP
systems.
I&E programs must begin
prior to land-based project
activities to facilitate
development of a sense of
problem and project
ownership on the part of
the potential participants.
(continued on next page)
75% of the cost of each recommended BMP implemented (up to
a maximum per farm of $50,000).
The cost-share rate for the Alabama RCWP project was
originally set at 60%. Few farmers chose to participate until the
cost-share rate was raised to 75%. Participation then increased
to 100% of the producers in the critical area.
A significant barrier to implementation of BMPs is poor
economic status of producers. The farm operator survey (Gale et
al, 1993) found a lower rate of participation among farmers who
had relatively lower economic indicators. During the early
1980s, many farmers in Oregon were unable to participate in the
Tillamook Bay RCWP project because high interest rates limit-
ed cash flow, making it difficult for farmers to pay their portion
of the cost of installing BMPs. Another hindrance is the high
cost of some BMPs, such as animal waste management systems.
For many dairy farmers, the maximum cost-share payment of
$50,000 was insufficient to make the construction of animal
waste storage units economically feasible.
State or local cost-share assistance was offered in some
projects as a supplement to federal cost-share funds. To entice
absentee landlords to participate in the RCWP, Tennessee and
Kentucky officials added 25% to the federal 75% cost-share rate
for seeding alfalfa. Producers also received an additional one-
time payment of $75 per acre for converting cropland to pasture.
Florida dairy farmers participating in the Lake Okeechobee
RCWP project received substantial subsidies from the State of
Florida to assist them in installing expensive animal waste
management BMP systems.
Technology Transfer: The Importance of
Information and Education Programs
Information and education (I&E) is an essential component of
any agricultural NPS pollution control project. Information
should heighten farmers' awareness of water quality problems
and approaches to solving them. Education should increase
project participation and assist farmers in selecting and main-
taining appropriate BMP systems.
Strong and effective I&E programs in many of the RCWP
projects (for example, Maryland, Alabama, Nebraska, Idaho,
Utah, Vermont, Florida, and Oregon) contributed to high pro-
ducer participation and, consequently, to water quality improve-
ments.
I&E must begin prior to land-based project activities in order
to foster a sense of problem and project ownership on the part of
the potential project participants. Delaware and Iowa RCWP
project personnel reported that both pre-project meetings to
discuss the water quality problem and producer involvement in
283
-------
Fanner Participation
THE IMPORTANCE OF
INFORMATION AND
EDUCATION PROGRAMS
(continued)
• One-to-one contact
between producers and
I&E specialists is the most
effective method to
transfer information and
increase participation.
. New technologies can be
effectively shared with
producers through on-
farm demonstrations.
. Technical assistance
results in more effective
BMP implementation and
maintenance and better
participation in NPS
pollution control projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCERNS
Producers are most likely
to participate in NPS
pollution control efforts
when they understand
that their agricultural
practices affect the water
quality of a valued local
water resource.
Environmental
regulations, or the threat
of regulation, can
motivate participation by
producers in a NPS
control project.
project planning helped develop strong support for and partici-
pation in the project by area farmers.
The most effective way to increase producer participation is
one-to-one contact between project personnel and farmers.
On-farm demonstrations can be used effectively to educate
farmers about new technologies. Producer participation was
increased in the Maryland RCWP project through on-farm dem-
onstrations of BMP installation and maintenance.
To control agricultural runoff, producers must implement
additional, often new, BMPs. Technical assistance must help
participants with new BMPs, whether the BMPs are structural or
managerial. In the Oregon RCWP project, Natural Resource
Conservation Service personnel had to modify animal waste
storage systems for high-rainfall conditions. Extension Service
personnel in Pennsylvania developed nutrient management
plans for individual farmers and taught them how to implement
the plans. These technical assistance efforts resulted in more
effective implementation and maintenance of BMPs. Technical
assistance also served to strengthen producers' motivation to
participate in the project.
Environmental Concerns
Like air pollution, water pollution from nonpoint sources is a
complex issue. It is often difficult for land users to understand
how an individual's daily activities can contribute to nonpoint
source pollution. Producers are most likely to participate in
solving water quality problems when they understand that their
own agricultural practices affect the water quality of a local
water resource. The farm operator survey showed that the major
reason producers did not participate in the RCWP projects was
that they did not believe water pollution was a problem. Con-
versely, twice as many RCWP participants as non-participants
stated mat they believed water quality was a problem.
Producer participation also depends on farmers valuing the
impaired water resource. Because Iowa RCWP project partici-
pants valued a recreational lake that was decreasing in size and
depth due to sedimentation caused by cropland erosion, they
were willing to adopt new agricultural practices.
Environmental regulations, or the threat of regulation, can
provide incentives for producers to participate in agricultural
NPS pollution control projects. Farmers in the Chesapeake Bay
drainage area face possible regulation if voluntary efforts fail to
address the NPS pollution problem. As a result, over 50% of the
farmers eligible to participate in the Virginia RCWP project
were ready to get involved in the project as soon as cost-share
funding became available.
284
-------
Farmer Participation
COMMUNITY SUPPORT
The support of the entire
community is required for
NPS pollution control
project to be successful.
Community members can
apply pressure to local
farmers to adopt better
agricultural practices.
CONCLUSIONS
Water quality improve-
ments occur as the result
of many factors, including:
identification of a water
quality problem amenable
to remediation,
documentation of the
source of the major
pollutant(s), accurate
definition of the critical
area, correct selection and
placement of BMPs,
installation of sufficient
land treatment in the
critical area, and
maintenance of BMPs.
The rate of participation
necessary to achieve water
quality goals depends on
the pollutant, agro-
environmental conditions,
and the magnitude of the
water quality problem.
The RCWP experience
indicates that close to
100% participation is
needed when animal
operations are involved.
(continued on next page)
Community Support
An impaired or threatened water resource affects the entire
community. Nonpoint source pollution control projects must
have the support of the whole community. In Oregon, commu-
nity support of the Tillamook Bay RCWP project was instru-
mental in achieving 96% participation of critical area dairy
farmers. Pressure to participate in the project came from neigh-
bors and a local business. Fecal colifbrm contamination of the
bay, caused by runoff from dairies, threatened the local economy
by reducing shellfish harvests. Many of the fishermen losing
revenue were relatives and friends of local dairy farmers. These
fishermen were able to exert peer pressure on dairy farmers to
change their farming practices. In addition, all of the dairy
farmers sold their milk to a local cheese-producing cooperative
that reserved the right to discount milk prices paid to producers
who did not install BMPs. This high level of community support
played an important role in the achievement of a very high rate
of project participation.
Conclusions
Water quality changes require implementation of BMPs by a
large percentage of producers who farm in the critical area of a
watershed. However, a high rate of participation does not auto-
matically ensure water quality improvements. Improvements in
a degraded water resource, or protection of a threatened water
resource, occur as the result of the interaction of many factors:
identification of a water quality problem amenable to remedia-
tion, documentation of the source of the major pollutant(s),
accurate definition of the critical area, correct selection and
placement of BMPs, installation of a sufficient number of BMPs
in a substantial portion of the critical area, and maintenance of
BMPs.
The absolute number of participants necessary to reduce
pollutants by a stated amount will vary depending on the pollut-
ant, agro-environmental conditions, and the magnitude of the
problem. For some situations, almost 100% producer participa-
tion may be required to improve the water resource to its
designated use. In the Oregon RCWP project, approximately 60
dairies were considered critical at the start of the project. Dairies
having the greatest negative impact on water received cost-share
funds to implement BMPs first; then other critical farms were
added. However, the project goal of a 70% reduction in fecal
coliform counts was not being met. Consequently, additional
dairies were classified as critical. By the end of the project,
BMPs to control dairy runoff had been implemented on 96% of
109 dairies defined as critical and the project's water quality
goals were met. The experience of the Oregon, Florida, and Utah
RCWP projects indicates that close to 100% participation is
necessary in projects where the major source of the pollutants is
animal operations.
285
-------
Farmer Participation
CONCLUSIONS
(continued)
. Results from the RCWP
suggest that an absolute
minimum participation of
75% of critical area
farmers is necessary.
* Financial incentives are
extremely helpful in
reducing the economic
burden of BMP
implementation.
• Environmental regulations
or the threat of regulation
tend to result in higher
project participation.
• Technical assistance
helps producers select,
install, and maintain
appropriate BMP systems.
• information and education
is an essential component
of any NPS pollution
control effort.
Community support for
the project is essential.
********************************
This fact sheet is one of a series of Rural
Clean Water Program Technology
Transfer fact sheets prepared by the
NCSU Water Quality Group with support
from the Extension Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture (Cooperative
AgreementNo. 93-EXCA-3-0241).
Copies of the fact sheet series may be
requested from: Publications, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Department of
Biological and Agricultural Engineering,
Box 7637, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7637,
Tel: 919-515-3723, Fax: 919-515-744$.
Other RCWP projects successfully reduced pollutants with
lower participation rates. In Idaho, installation of BMP systems
on 75% of the critical area farms resulted in a 75% decrease in
sediment and a 68% decrease in phosphorus entering Rock
Creek, resulting in better habitat for fish.
While the amount of voluntary participation necessary to
successfully address agricultural NPS pollution must be deter-
mined for each individual watershed, results from the RCWP
suggest that an absolute minimum of 75% participation of
critical area farmers is necessary.
Many factors interact to determine the ultimate number of
producers who participate in a voluntary NPS pollution control
project. Financial incentives are extremely helpful in reducing
the economic burden of BMP implementation. Environmental
regulations, or the threat of regulations, can also increase partic-
ipation, although they are most often used as a last resort when
voluntary measures have failed. Technical assistance is an
important means for helping producers select, install, and main-
tain appropriate BMP systems. I&E is also an important means
for achieving adequate participation and helping potential par-
ticipants understand how their practices may degrade valuable
local water resources. Finally, community support is essential
for encouraging and sustaining producers throughout the project
period.
Reference
Gale, J.A, D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J. Spooner, J.A. Arnold, TJ. 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, 559p.
Prepared by Deanna L. Osmond, Daniel E. Line, and Judith A. Gale
Water Quality Extension Specialists
NCSU Water Quality Group
March 1995
North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE & LIFE SCIENCES
Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914.
Employment and program opportunities are offered to all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, sex, age, or disability. North Carolina State University, North Carolina A&T
State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and local governments cooperating.
286
-------
Farmer Participation in Solving
—v^- the Nonposnt Source Pollution
The Rural Clean Water Program Experience
The Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP), a 15-year federally sponsored
nonpolnt source (NFS) pollution control
program, was initiated in 1980 as an
experimental effort to address agricultural
NFS pollution problems in watersheds
across the country. The RCWP is important
as one of the few national NFS control
programs to combine land treatment and
water qualify monitoring to document NFS
pollution control effectiveness.
The RCWP was administered by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture -
Consolidated Farm Services Agency
(formerly Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service) in consultation with
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The Natural Resource Conserva-
tion Service (formerly Soil Conservation
Service), Extension Service, Economic
Research Service, Agricultural Research
Service, U. iS. Geological Survey* and many
State and local agencies also participated.
The 21 experimental RCWP projects,
representing a wide range of pollution
problems and impaired -water uses, were
located in Alabama? Delaware, Florida,
Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylva-
nia, South Dakota, Tennessee/Kentucky,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Appropriate best management practices
(BMPs) were used by producers to reduce
NFS pollution from their farms* Since
participation in the RCWP was voluntary,
cost-share funds and technical assistance
were offered to producers as incentives for
using or installing BMPs;
Changes in water quality resulting from the implementation
of nonpoint source (NPS) pollution controls can be determined
by monitoring the particular water resource of interest. Water
quality monitoring along with a simple inventory of land use and
land treatment (implementation of best management practices)
is usually sufficient in most agricultural NPS projects, especially
if the intent of a water quality project is merely to document
water quality improvements. However, monitoring the water
resource alone is insufficient to document a cause-and-effect
relationship between changes in water quality and changes in
land treatment or land use. To ascribe changes in water quality
to land treatment and land use, it is often necessary to intensively
monitor (track) and document both changes in water quality and
changes in land use and land treatment over an extended period
of time (at least four to eight years). Land-based data require-
ments include detailed, timely, and site-specific information
about land treatment practices and land use changes.
Few agricultural NPS pollution control programs before the
Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) attempted to correlate
water quality changes with the installation of land treatment
practices and land use changes on a watershed scale (Gale et al.,
1993). In several of the 21 RCWP projects, efforts were made to
correlate land treatment with water quality changes.
Land Treatment Monitoring in the Rural
Clean Water Program
One of the objectives of the RCWP was to document that NPS
controls can reduce pollutant loss from agricultural land. Only a
few RCWP projects participated in land treatment monitoring at
a level sufficiently detailed to correlate land-based activities
with water quality changes. Personnel in these projects had to
design experimental protocols for correlating land treatment
practices with water quality data. In addition, many of the
technical tools (personal computers, geographic information
systems, database software) that facilitate detailed land treat-
RCWP Technology Transfer Fact Sheet No. 9
287
-------
Monitoring Land Treatment
LAND TREATMENT
MONITORING STRATEGY
Intensive land treatment
and land use tracking is
necessary if water quality
changes are to be
ascribed to changes in
land-based activities.
A well-designed land
treatment monitoring
strategy must inciude the
variables to be monitored,
the frequency with which
each variable will be
monitored, and the
landscape scale of each
monitored variable.
The land-based variables
to be monitored should
correspond to the water
quality problem.
Monitoring frequency
should be based on the
specific characteristics of
the variable being
tracked.
(continued on next page)
ment and land use data analysis only became commercially
available or affordable during the period of the RCWP (1980-
1990). Many of the lessons that were learned about land treat-
ment and land use monitoring during the RCWP are presented
in this fact sheet. However, the science of land treatment
monitoring is in its infancy and can be expected to continue to
evolve for the foreseeable future.
Land Treatment Monitoring Strategy
A land treatment and land use monitoring strategy should
specify the variables to be monitored, the monitoring frequency
for each variable, and the landscape scale of each monitored
variable.
Variable Selection
The land-based variables selected for monitoring should
correspond to the identified water quality problem and should
include static, temporal, and spatial variables. For example, if
sediment deposition caused by cropland erosion is the water
quality problem, the variables should include position of the
field relative to the water resource, soil type, field slope, acres
under various cropping systems, soil conservation practices,
and timing of tillage activities. When the water quality problem
is caused by runoff of nitrogen, rates and timing of commercial
fertilizer and manure applications should be tracked.
Sample Frequency
The frequency with which a variable should be monitored
depends on the specific variable and its characteristics. In
general, monitoring should take place at the same time that land
use or land management changes occur. For example, each
fertilizer application during a given production season should
be recorded by field. The number of applications will depend on
management decisions made by the individual farm operator.
Crop type should be tracked on a yearly basis.
288
-------
Monitoring Land Treatment
LAND TREATMENT
MONITORING STRATEGY
(continued)
The landscape scale of
the monitored variable
will be determined by the
pollutant and the source
of the pollutant being
monitored.
Land-based activities in
critical areas should be
closely monitored.
Critical area monitoring
should include both
project participants and
non-participants.
DATA COLLECTION
Careful data collection is
essential for ensuring
accuracy.
More detailed tracking of
land-based activities is
necessary than what is
provided by yearly USDA
reporting requirements.
Data should be collected
and stored according to
subwatershed
boundaries to facilitate
water quality data
evaluation.
(continued on next page)
Landscape Scale
The appropriate landscape scale for each variable will be
determined by the pollutant being monitored and its source.
Land-based activities located within the delineated critical area
(the land area contributing most to the problem) should be
closely monitored for both project participants and non-partici-
pants. For example, since the Oregon RCWP project watershed
was very large (363,520 acres), and the pollutant of concern was
fecal coliform, the scope of the land treatment monitoring
focused exclusively on the dairy farm operations that constituted
6% of the watershed and 100% of the critical area. Data should
be collected by subwatershed in order to match land use and
land-based information with the water resource of concern.
Data Collection
Careful data collection is essential to ensure accuracy. There
are several ways to collect land-based data and the collection
method should be determined based on the intended use of the
data as well as the extent of financial and human resources
available.
During the RCWP, most of the land-based data were collected
by the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Natural Re-
source Conservation Service, Consolidated Farm Services
Agency, and Extension Service as part of the agencies' annual
reporting. These aggregated data included information on the
types of crops produced, number of acres grown, number and
types of animals in the watershed, and soil and water conserva-
tion practices installed under federal cost-share programs. Addi-
tional data on best management practices installed or utilized
were collected for each RCWP project by agency personnel.
Although this information provided an overall perspective on
land treatment activities and land utilization, by itself the data
were not sufficient to correlate changes in land-based activities
and water quality.
Consolidated Farm Services Agency (CFSA) reporting for-
mats allow description of annual aggregate agricultural informa-
tion by county, but are simply not detailed enough to support
reliable correlations between land-based activities and water
quality changes that occur on a seasonal basis. The Idaho RCWP
project enhanced the use of CFSA data by compiling the infor-
mation contained in CFSA annual reports on a drainage basis by
season. However, the drawback of this system was that detailed
land use and management data were not available for landown-
ers who did not accept cost share payments for best management
practices (those who did not participate in CFSA-administered
programs).
289
-------
Monitoring Land Treatment
DATA COLLECTION
(continued)
Producer log books are
a useful land-based data
collection tool.
Personal interviews are
an excellent source for
collecting land-based
data.
Aerial photography can
be used to monitor
amounts and types of
crops produced.
• Direct observation of the
land-based activities
may be necessary to
identify water quality
changes.
Producer log books, called field logs, are useful tools for data
collection. Using field logs for data collection increases the
precision of the land treatment information. The quality of data
collected through field logs, however, is dependent on each
individual's ability and desire to use the field log. The Vermont
RCWP project (one of only two RCWP projects that collected
detailed land treatment data using log books) distributed field
logs to all producers in a selected watershed, regardless of their
project participation status. Although frequently difficult to
obtain, land use data from non-cooperators within the watershed
can provide valuable data to explain water quality trends as well
as sociological information from farm operators who have de-
cided not to participate in a project. An added advantage of using
field logs is that further information can be obtained by project
personnel who talk directly with farmers when collecting the
field logs.
Land-based data can also be collected through personal inter-
views. Although the necessary data may be difficult to obtain
through interviews with producers, the effort should be made. In
the Vermont RCWP project, researchers found that two visits
per year, timed during less busy seasons, were more effective
than one annual visit at eliciting detailed land treatment informa-
tion from farm operators. If a project is small enough, detailed
land-based activity data can be collected by project personnel.
All eight dairy farmers located in the lower Snake Creek drain-
age basin participated in the Utah RCWP project. Because it was
feasible for project staff to visit this small number of farms
frequently, project personnel remained well informed about
land-based activities on all of the farms.
Aerial photography can be used to collect data about land use.
Photography must be supplemented with additional information
about land-based activities, such as fertilizer placement.
Sometimes direct observation is necessary. In the Alabama
RCWP project, a spike occurred in the fecal coliform data for
one of the tributaries to Lake Tholocco. Project personnel could
not account for the spike on the basis of the land uses that
surrounded the tributary. After walking along the tributary,
project personnel discovered that the source of the fecal coliform
was a new beaver colony. Without direct observation, project
personnel would not have been able to identify the source of the
pollutant.
290
-------
Monitoring Land Treatment
DATASTORAGE,
ANALYSIS AND
REPORTING
Computerized spread-
sheets and data bases
are effective tools for
storing land-based data.
Geographic information
systems applications
used in conjunction with
computerized data bases
assist in the representa-
tion of land use practices
and BMP implementation
tracking; data
accessibility,
presentation, analysis,
and reporting; and
aggregation of land
treatment and land use
data.
********************************
This fact sheet is one of a series of Rural
Clean Water Program. Technology
Transfer fact sheets prepared by (he
NCSU Water Quality Group with support
front the Extension Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture (Cooperative
Agreement No. 93-EXCA-3-0241),
Copies of the fact sheet series maybe
requested from: Publications, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Department of
Biological and Agricultural Engineering,
Box 7637, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7637,
Tel: 919-515-3723, Fax: 919-515-7448.
Data Storage, Analysis, and Reporting
In the early 1980's, most land-based data were stored onpaper
and in files. The majority of data analyses and reporting was
done manually. Personal computers have now simplified data
storage, analysis, and reporting. A computerized spreadsheet or
data base facilitates effective storage of data on a farm field and
watershed or subwatershed basis. However, handwritten file
sheets should be kept as back-up. Summaries of important land-
based information, such as acres under conservation tillage
within one-half mile of a stream, can be readily computed and
reported using database software. During the later stages of the
RCWP, the Natural Resource Conservation Service introduced
CAMPS, its computerized data base system, which significantly
reduced the work associated with data storage, retrieval, and
reporting.
Computerized databases and systems that synthesize spatial-
ly referenced data (geographic information systems) facilitate
representation of land use practices and tracking of best manage-
ment practice implementation; data accessibility, analysis, and
presentation; and aggregation of land treatment and land use
data. Geographic information systems are useful tools for data
display, analysis, and reporting. A few RCWP projects (Idaho
and Vermont) digitized project data to make possible spatial
representation of land treatment and land use practices over
time.
For smaller projects, such as the Utah RCWP project, which
included only eight dairy farms, spatially and temporally refer-
enced data can be obtained manually. Large-scale maps can be
utilized and updated regularly for spatial and temporal referenc-
ing of BMPs.
Reference
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,
National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC,
(published by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) EPA-841- R-93-005, 559p.
291
-------
Monitoring Land Treatment
Prepared by
DeannaL. Osmond, JeanSpooner, and Daniel E. Line
Water Quality Extension Specialists
NCSU Water Quality Group
March 1995
North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE & LIFE SCIENCES
Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914.
Employment and program opportunities are offered to all people regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. North Carolina State
University, North Carolina A&T State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and local governments cooperating.
292
-------
Linking Water Quality Trends
with Lang Treatment Trends
The Rural Clean Water Program Experience
The Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP), a 15-year federally sponsored
nonpolnt source (NPS) pollution control
program, was initiated in 1980 as an
experimental effort to address agricultural
NPS pollution problems in -watersheds
across the country. TheRCWPis important
as one of the few national NPS control
programs to combine land treatment and
water qualify monitoring to document NPS
pollution control effectiveness.
The RCWP -was administered by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture -
Consolidated Farm Services Agency
(formerly Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service) in consultation with
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The Natural Resource Conserva-
tion Service (formerly Soil Conservation
Service)^ Extension Service, Economic
Research Service, Agricultural Research
Service, U. S. Geological Survey, and many
state and local agencies also participated.
The 21 experimental RCWP projects,
representing a wide range of pollution
problems and impaired water uses, were
located in Alabama, Delaware, Florida,
Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylva-
nia, South Dakota, Tennessee/Kentucky,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Appropriate best management practices
(BMPs) were used by producers to reduce
NPS pollution from their farms. Since
participation in the RCWP was voluntary,
cost-share funds and technical assistance
were offered to producers as incentives for
using or installing BMPs.
Land use and land management affect the type and amount of
nonpoint source (NPS) pollution entering water bodies. Improve-
ments in land management (also referred to as land treatment) are
necessary to reduce the delivery of pollutants to impaired or threat-
ened water resources. Documentation of the magnitude of water
quality improvements from changes in land management, for at
least a few projects in each part of the country, is essential to
provide feedback to project coordinators and state, regional, and
national policy makers. Such feedback enhances the development
and implementation of land treatment programs that effectively
reduce delivery of pollutants causing water quality impairment. In
addition, demonstration that land treatment is effective in reducing
NPS pollution and improving water quality tends to increase polit-
ical and economic support for NPS pollution control measures.
Historically, it has been difficult to demonstrate the relationship
between land treatment and water quality changes, at least in part
because of a lack of well-designed water quality and land treatment
monitoring efforts. Two goals must guide the design of monitoring
networks and data analysis in programs and projects designed to
link water quality changes with implementation of best manage-
ment practices (BMPs): 1) detection of significant (or real) trends
in both water quality and land treatment and 2) Unking or associat-
ing water quality trends with land treatment trends.
This fact sheet outlines the principles for development of effec-
tive monitoring designs, and describes the land treatment and water
quality monitoring elements necessary for linking land treatment or
land use modifications with water quality changes. These monitor-
ing elements are essential for successful experimental watershed
projects designed to document the relationship between land treat-
ment and water quality changes.
Many of the recommendations for monitoring discussed in this
fact sheet are based on the 15-year Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP), an experimental, agricultural watershed, NPS pollution
control program that combined land treatment and water quality
monitoring in a continuous feedback loop to document NPS control
effectiveness (Gale et al., 1993; Spooner and Line, 1993).
RCWP Technology Transfer Fact Sheet No. 10
293
-------
Linking Water Quality and Land Treatment
Documenting a Cause-and-Effect
Relationship
Documenting that water quality changes at a water-
shed scale were caused by implementation of BMPs is
difficult. Not only must a strong correlation be estab-
lished, but the observed changes must be repeatable
over time and space in an experimental manner. The
only major changes made in the watershed during the
evaluation period should be changes in land treatment.
Observed changes in water quality should match pre-
dicted pollutant reductions based on the estimated land
treatment effectiveness. Some projects have been able
to document a strong relationship, increasing confi-
dence that appropriate land treatment can result in
(cause) improved water quality. The stronger the rela-
tionship, the more likely it is that a cause-and-effect
relationship exists and that water qualify changes are
caused by changes in land treatment rather than other
factors.
An association (statistically significant correlation
or relationship) between land treatment and water qual-
ity changes is required to demonstrate a cause-and-
effect relationship. As the implementation of land
treatment (specifically BMPs) occurs, improvements in
water quality are observed. However, an association by
itself is not sufficient to infer a cause-and-effect rela-
tionship. Other factors not related to BMP implementa-
tion may be causing the changes in water quality, such
as changes in land use or rainfall. If, however, the
association is consistent and responsive and has a mech-
anistic basis, causality may be supported (Mosteller
and Tukey, 1977).
Consistency means that the relationship between the
measured variables (such as total phosphorus and acres
treated with the nutrient management BMP) holds in
each data set in terms of direction and degree. A consis-
tent, multi-year, improving trend in water quality after
BMP implementation provides evidence needed to at-
tribute water quality improvements to land treatment.
Improvements in multiple watersheds treated with sys-
tems of BMPs provide strong evidence that water qual-
ity improvements resulted from land treatment.
Responsiveness signifies that as one variable chang-
es in a known, experimental manner, the other variable
changes similarly. For example, as the amount of land
treatment increases, further reduction of pollutant de-
livery to the water resource is documented.
Mechanistic means that the observed water quality
change is that which is expected based on the physical
processes involved in the installed BMPs. For example,
based on knowledge of absorption and solubility of
nutrients, greater reduction of nutrient delivery to the
water resource might be predicted as the result of imple-
mentation of the manure management BMP than a soil
erosion control practice alone.
Elements of Monitoring Needed
to Link Land Management
Modifications with Water Quality
Changes
Experimental Designs for Water
Quality and Land Treatment
An appropriate experimental design for water quality
and land treatment monitoring is essential to document
a clear relationship between land treatment and water
quality changes. The best designs to demonstrate link-
age are those that can isolate the effects of the land
treatment from other land use and climatic
changes. Such designs include: 1) paired -watershed
(Clausen and Spooner, 1993); 2) upstream-downstream
sites monitored before, during, and after land treat-
ment; and 3) multiple -watershed monitoring.
The paired watershed design is the best method for
documenting BMP effectiveness in a limited number of
years (three to five). Two or more similar subwater-
sheds (drainage areas) are monitored before and after
implementation of BMPs in one of the subwatersheds
(the treatment sub watershed). Paired drainage areas
should have similar precipitation and runoff patterns
and should exhibit a consistent relationship in terms of
the magnitude of pollutant losses with changes in hy-
drology and climate. Analysis of paired pollutant data
from treatment vs. control areas should show a statisti-
cally significant correlation. Ideally, a paired water-
shed monitoring program is characterized by:
• Simultaneous monitoring at the outlet of each
drainage area;
• Monitoring prior to land treatment to record the
relative hydrologic response of each drainage area
(calibration period);
• Calibration period of one to three years, depend-
ing on the consistency of the data relationships
between drainage areas;
• Subsequent monitoring where at least one drain-
age area continues to serve as a control (that is,
receives significantly less land treatment than the
other drainage area); and
294
-------
Linking Water Quality and Land Treatment
GOOD EXPERIMENTALDESIGNS
RCWP Examples
In the Taylor Creek - Nubbin
Slough (Florida) RCWP project,
upstream and downstream stations
were installed in multiple
subwatersheds and at the watershed
outlet to document water quality
improvements resulting from BMP
installation on dairy farms. Water
quality monitoring conducted for
five years before BMP
implementation and five years after
implementation documented a
greater than 50% reduction in total
phosphorus concentrations entering
Lake Okeechobee from the
watershed.
The St Albans Bay (Vermont)
RCWP project team found that the
paired watershed design was the
most effective design for
documenting a linkage between land
treatment and water quality changes
in small watersheds over a relatively
short tune period. The paired
watershed study confirmed that
winter spreading of manure on corn
land resulted in significantly higher
nitrogen and phosphorus
concentrations and loads in edge-of-
field runoff compared to application
of manure during the growing season
only.
The Rock Creek (Idaho) RCWP
project watershed contributed high
sediment loads to Rock Creek,
impairing salmonid spawning,
contact recreation, and fishing.
Critical sediment sources were the
irrigated cropland and streambank
erosion. The experimental design
chosen for the chemical monitoring
was an upstream/ downstream
strategy with monitoring before,
during, and after BMP
implementation in multiple
subwatersheds and on Rock Creek.
Similar land management in both drainage areas both before
and after BMP implementation (for example, similar crops),
except for BMPs implemented in the treatment drainage area.
Land Management and Water Quality Monitoring
Before and After BMP Implementation
Monitoring for several years both before and after BMP imple-
mentation is essential for documentation of water quality changes.
The pre-BMP period is the time prior to installation of new land
treatment practices. Monitoring of water quality and land use prior
to BMP implementation is required to establish baseline data for
statistical comparison with post-implementation data. The post-
BMP period starts once BMPs have been implemented on critical
areas and are reducing pollutant delivery to the water resource.
Sampling frequency and collection must be consistent across
seasons and years. Year-to-year variability is often so large that at
least two to three years each of pre- and post-implementation
monitoring is required to indicate a consistent water quality change
following implementation and maintenance of BMPs. Documenta-
tion of changes over multiple years increases confidence that
observed water quality improvements are due to land treatment.
Short-term monitoring is seldom effective because climatic and
hydrologic variability can mask water quality changes. However,
in small watersheds affected by relatively few large pollutant
sources, the monitoring period may be shorter. Longer duration
monitoring is necessary where water quality changes are likely to
occur gradually, such as large watersheds with lakes in which lag
times may occur due to buffering effects of long hydraulic resi-
dence times and pollutant recycling.
Quantitative Monitoring of Land Management
The importance of recording the amount and type of land treat-
ment cannot be overlooked when trying to establish documented
water quality improvements. Best management practices must be
targeted to treat specific sources of pollutants causing the water
quality impairment; these pollutants, in turn, must be monitored in
the water resource. A high level of appropriate NFS pollution
control implementation in critical areas is usually required to
achieve substantial water quality improvements.
Monitoring of land treatment and land use is needed to quantify
the pollutant reduction impacts of BMPs. Quantitative monitoring
of BMP implementation facilitates documentation, of land treat-
ment trends and is a necessary step in linking water quality to land
treatment. Methods of reporting and quantifying land treatment and
land use should be consistent .throughout a project.
Careful planning is required to determine which land treatment
variables should be monitored to best reflect the extent of actual
295
-------
Linking Water Quality and Land Treatment
RCWP Examples
MULTIPLE YEARS OF
MONITORING BEFORE AND
AFTER BMP IMPLEMENTATION
In the Rock Creek (Idaho) RCWP
project, irrigated cropland and
streambank erosion were causing
high sediment loads in Rock Creek,
impairing salmonid spawning,
contact recreation, and fishing. Ten-
year monitoring encompassed pre-,
during-, and post-BMP
implementation periods in multiple
subwatersheds and on Rock Creek.
Through its water quality
monitoring program, the Taylor
Creek - Nubbin Slough (Florida)
RCWP project documented a
greater than 50% reduction in total
phosphorus concentration leaving
the watershed. At least five years of
biweekly water quality monitoring
was collected for both the pre- and
post-BMP periods.
QUANTITATIVE MONITORING OF
LAND TREATMENT AND USE
In the Rock Creek (Idaho)
project, land use (crop type) and
BMPs were recorded in a data base
for each farm field and each year. A
rating system was used that ranked
each BMP on a scale of1 to 5
relative to its effectiveness in
controlling sediment delivery to
Rock Creek.
SPATIAL MATCHING OF LAND
TREATMENT AND WATER
QUALITY DATA
The Rock Creek (Idaho) project
team collected annual land
treatment and land use data on a
subwatershed basis. These data were
then summarized using a geographic
information system, which
facilitated spatial and hydrological
linkage of land treatment and water
qualify monitoring data.
changes in agricultural practices. Land treatment data must be
reported in quantitative units that reflect BMP effectiveness and
changes from previous practices. Examples of quantitative units
include: application, method, tons of manure spread per acre,
pounds of fertilizer applied per acre, acres served by each BMP,
and acres served by each BMP system. The acres served unit
includes all treated acres (those acres with actual implementation)
plus all acres whose pollutant delivery is being reduced by the
BMP. Documenting the assumptions used in calculating the acres
served is important so that these units can be calculated consistent-
ly from year to year, thus ensuring valid year-to-year comparisons.
When reporting acres served, care should be taken to avoid
double counting acres when multiple BMPs are serving the same
acres, as this could artificially inflate the reported number of acres
served. In addition, correction should be given for differences in
the effectiveness of the BMPs in controlling pollutant delivery.
Operation, management, and maintenance of BMPs should be
tracked because these factors affect BMP effectiveness and, there-
fore, the water quality impacts of the land treatment.
Changes in land use should be recorded to help isolate the water
quality changes associated with the NFS controls from water
quality changes due to other land use factors. Land use modifica-
tions that affect water quality include acres converted from row
crops to pasture (permanently or based on rotation), set-aside
acres, changes in the number of animals or animal units per acre,
closure of animal operations, changes in impervious land areas,
implementation of soil and water conservation practices not being
recorded as part of the project, and changes in non-agricultural
land uses.
Matching of Land Treatment and Water Quality
Data on a Spatial (Drainage) Scale
Land treatment data must be collected on a hydrologic or
drainage basis so that the land area being tracked corresponds to
the drainage area served by each water quality monitoring station.
Water quality and land treatment data must be matched if water
quality changes are to be attributed to BMP implementation.
Linkage of land treatment and water quality impacts can be
made at different spatial scales (such as farm field, subwatershed,
or watershed). Spatial scale should be determined based on project
goals and desired interpretations, hi general, the larger the drain-
age area, the harder it is to identify and quantify a water quality -
land treatment linkage. Water quality changes are more likely to be
observed at the subwatershed than watershed level. Confounding
effects of external factors, other pollutant sources, and scattered
BMP implementation are minimized at the subwatershed level. If
the goal is to document changes at the entire watershed level, a
monitoring station must be located at the watershed outlet.
296
-------
Linking Water Quality and Land Treatment
RCWP Examples
TEMPORAL MATCHING OF DATA
In the Taylor Creek - Nubbin
Slough (Florida) project, a reduction
in total phosphorus concentrations
was documented following
implementation of BMP& on dairy
farms draining to tributaries of Lake
Okeechobee. Fencing, shade, and
alternative water facilities (to keep
dairy cows from waterways), control
of wastewater runoff from dairy
barns, and nutrient management
were the primary BMPs. BMP
implementation and land use changes
were documented annually on a
subwatershed basis.
MATCHING MONITORED
POLLUTANTS WITH TARGETED
POLLUTANTS
The Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough
RCWP project documented a greater
than 50% reduction in total
phosphorus (P) concentrations
entering Lake Okeechobee.
Reduction of P was achieved through
fencing, shade, and alternative water
facilities (to keep dairy cows from
waterways}; control of wastewater
runoff from barns; and nutrient
management. The water quality
monitoring program, in turn,
incorporated measurement of P in
tributaries to the lake.
Bacteria and nutrients from
dairies and cropland were impairing
recreationin St Albans Bay
(Vermont). The RCWP project
focused on manure management and
cropland protection BMPs. Manure
logs and interviews with farmers
were used to monitor land
management and document
reductions in nutrients and bacteria.
Water quality monitoring data
indicated a downward trend in
stream bacteria counts with an
increasing proportion of watershed
animals under manure management
BMPs.
Matching of Land Treatment and Water Quality
Data on a Temporal Scale
Water quality and land treatment data should be collected during
the same time periods so both data sets are temporally related.
Actual implementation of land treatment needs to be recorded at
least seasonally or annually. Land treatment data (such as timing of
manure or commercial fertilizer applications, construction of a
lagoon storage structure, or a dairy closure) should be collected
more frequently than annually or seasonally if the effect on water
quality is more short-term or has a large, immediate impact.
Water quality samples are usually collected weekly or biweekly.
These data do not have to be summarized on the same time scale as
the land treatment data; land treatment data can be added to the
trend analysis as repeating explanatory variables. Alternatively,
water quality data can be aggregated to the same time scale as the
land treatment data for analysis. Data aggregation is particularly
useful for plotting and explanatory data analysis.
Matching Monitored Pollutants with Pollutants
Addressed by Land Treatment
Pollutants monitored at water quality stations must correspond
to pollutant(s) being treated by the BMP systems implemented.
Monitoring Explanatory Variables
Accounting for all major sources of variability in water quality
and land treatment data increases the likelihood of isolating water
quality trends resulting from BMPs. Correlation of water quality
and land treatment changes by itself is not sufficient to infer causal
relationships. Other factors not related to BMPs may be causing
water quality changes, such as changes in animal numbers, crop-
ping patterns, land uses, known pollutant sources, or amount of
impervious land surface; season; stream discharge; precipitation;
ground water table depth; salinity; or other climatic or hydrologic
variables. Factoring explanatory variables into trend analyses
yields water quality trends closer to those that would have been
measured had no changes in climatic or other explanatory variables
occurred over time. Accounting for variability in water quality due
to known causes also decreases variation in adjusted water quality
data, facilitating documentation of statistically significant trends.
Explanatory variables should be monitored at the same frequency
as the principle water quality variables.
297
-------
Linking Water Quality and Land Treatment
RCWP Examples
MONITORING EXPLANATORY
VARIABLES
High sediment loads from irrigated
cropland and streambank erosion
were impairing salmon spawning and
recreation in the Rock Creek (Idaho)
project. Explanatory variables,
monitored as part of the 10-year
upstream/downstream monitoring
program, included stream flow and
precipitation. These variables were
used in the analysis to adjust for
climatic variability.
In the Taylor Creek - Nubbin
Slough (Florida) RCWP project,
changes hi dairy cow numbers on a
subwatershedl basis, water table
depth, and upstream phosphorus
(P)concentrations were the most
important explanatory variables.
Water table depth measurements in
poorly drained, coastal soils were
responsive to antecedent rainfall.
These measurements were especially
useful in confirming that total P
concentrations in tributaries
increased as tile water table rose to
within two feet of the surface.
Incorporation of explanatory
variables in the analyses helped
demonstrate that BMP
implementation contributed
significantly to the decreased P
concentrations in tributaries draining
into Lake Okeechobee.
*#****************#********#**#*
This feet sheet is one of a series of Rural
Clean Water Program Technology
Transfer feet sheets prepared by the
NCSU Water Quality Group with support
from the Extension Service,. U.S.
Department of Agriculture (Cooperative
Agreementtfo, 93-EXCA-3-0241),
Copies of the fact sheet series may tie
requested from: Publications, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Department of
Biological and Agricultural Engineering)
Box 7637, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7637,
Tel: 919-515-3723, Fax: 919-515-7448.
Summary
A good experimental design for water quality and land treatment
monitoring is essential in order to provide clear documentation of
the relationship between land treatment and water quality changes.
The paired watershed monitoring design can best demonstrate the
relationship between land treatment and water quality in the short-
est period of time.
To determine if the trends in water quality match the mechanis-
tic prediction of trends, pre- and post-BMP implementation moni-
toring and data analysis must combine water quality, land
treatment, and land use data on suitable spatial and temporal scales.
Incorporation of explanatory variables facilitates isolation of water
quality changes that result from land treatment.
References
Clausen, J.C. and J. Spooner. 1993. Paired Watershed Study Design. Office of Water, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA 841-F-93-009. 8 p.
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.
National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC,
EPA-841-R-93-005. 559 p.
Mosteller, F. and J.W. Tukey. 1977. Data Analysis and Regression: Second Course in
Statistics. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Reading, MA. 588 p.
Spooner, J. and D.E. Line. 1993. Effective Monitoring Strategies for Demonstrating
Water Quality Changes from Nonpolnt Source Controls on a Watershed Scale. Water
Science Technology, 28(3-5): 143-148.
Prepared by
Jean Spooner, Daniel E. Line,
Steven W. Coffey, DeannaL. Osmond, and Judith A. Gale
Water Quality Extension Specialists
NCSU Water Quality Group
March 1995
North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE & LIFE SCIENCES
Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914.
Employment and program opportunities are offered to all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, sex, age, or disability. North Carolina State University, North Carolina A&T
State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and local governments cooperating.
298
-------
Appendices
299
-------
-------
Appendix I
Minimum Reporting Requirements
For Section 319 National Monitoring
Program Projects
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has developed the
NonPoint Source Management System (NPSMS) software to support the required
annual reporting of water quality and implementation data for Section 319 Na-
tional 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) waterbody name 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 (BMPsl and Nonpoint Source (NFS)
Pollution 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.
301
-------
Appendix I: Minimum Reporting Requirements
REFERENCES
Water Quality Monitoring Plan:
• Choice of monitoring approach (chemical/physical or biological/habitat).
• Monitoring design and monitoring station identification (paired watersheds,
upstream-downstream, reference site for biological/habitat monitoring, 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 duration.
• Variables measured (variable name; indication if the variable is an
explanatory variable; STORET, BIOSTORET, or 305(b) Waterbody System
code; reporting units).
• Quartile values for chemical/physical variables. Quartile values are
established cutoffs based on historical or first-year data for each season and
monitoring station.
• Maximum potential and reasonable attainment scores for biological
monitoring variables. Indices scores that correspond to full, threatened, and
partial use supports are required.
• Monitoring frequency. Chemical/physical monitoring, with associated
explanatory 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 entered 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
constitute 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.
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.
302
-------
Appendix II
Abbreviations
ACP Agricultural Conservation Program
ADSWQ Automatic Data System for Water Quality
AGNPS Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Model
ANSWERS Area! Nonpoint Source Watershed
Environment Response Simulation
ASCS Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service, USDA
BMP(s) Best Management Practice(s)
BIBI Biological Index of Biotic Integrity
BIOS USEPA Natural Biological Data Management
System
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Cal Poly California Polytechnic State University
CES Cooperative Extension Service, USDA
cfs Cubic Feet per Second
CFSA Consolidated Farm Service Agency
cfu Colony Forming Units
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
CREAMS Chemicals, Runoff, and Erosion from
Agricultural Management Systems Model
DEC Department of Environmental Conservation
DO Dissolved Oxygen
DP Dissolved Phosphorus
DNR Department of Natural Resources
EPIC Erosion Productivity Index Calculator
FC Fecal Coliform
GIS Geographic Information System
GMV Geometric Mean Value
GRASS Geographic Resources Analysis Support
System
303
-------
i Appendix II: Abbreviations
HEL Highly Erodible Land
HUA Hydrologic Unit Area
I&E Information and Education Programs
IBI Index of Biotic Integrity
ICM Integrated Crop Management
IDNR Iowa Department of Natural Resources
IDNR-GSB Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Geological Survey Bureau
ISU-CES Iowa State University Cooperative Extension
Service
ISUE Iowa State University Extension
LRNRD Lower Republican Natural Resource District
LT Land Treatment
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
Mgfl Milligrams Per Liter
N Nitrogen
NA Information Not Available
NCSU North Carolina State University
NDEQ Nebraska Department of Environmental
Quality
NH4 Ammonium - Nitrogen
NMP National Monitoring Program
NO2 Nitrite-Nitrogen
NOs Nitrate -Nitrogen
NPS Nonpoint Source
NPSMS NonPoint Source Management System
OCC Oklahoma Conservation Commission
OP Orthophosphorus
P Phosphorus
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
SPI Shellfish Protection Initiative
SS Suspended sediment
STORET EPA STOrage and RETrieval Data Base for
Water Quality
TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TP Total Phosphorus
304
-------
Appendix II: Abbreviations
TSS Total Suspended Solids
DHL University Hygienic Laboratory (Iowa)
USD A 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
WCCF Webster County Conservation Foundation
WQIP Water Quality Incentive Project
WQ Monit Water Quality Monitoring
WQSP . Water Quality Special Project
305
-------
-------
Appendix
Glossary of Terms
AGNPS (Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Model) — an event-based,
watershed-scale model developed to simulate runoff, sediment, chemical oxygen
demand, and nutrient transport in surface runoff from ungauged 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.
Atrazine — Herbicide (trade name Atrex, Gesa prim, or Primatol) that is
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.
Eefore-after design — A term referring to monitoring designs that require
collection of data before and after BMP implementation.
Beneficial uses — Desirable uses of a water resource such as recreation
(fishing, boating, swimming) and water supply.
307
-------
Appendix III: Glossary of Terms
Best management practices (BMPs) — Management or structural practices
designed to reduce the quantities of pollutants — such as sediment, nitrogen,
phosphorus, bacteria, and pesticides — 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),
and 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.
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 Conserva-
tion 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 Conservation
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.
308
-------
Appendix III: Glossary of Terms
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, hydrologi-
cal, land use, or additional water quality variables, that change over time and
could affect the water quality variables related to the primary pollutant(s) of
concern or the use impairment being measured. Specific examples of explanato-
ry variables 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.
Specifically, this group comprises all of the aerobic and facultative anaerobic,
gram-negative, nonspore-forming, rod-shaped bacteria that ferment lactose with
gas formation within 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 Unking fea-
tures commonly seen on maps (such as roads, town boundaries, water bodies)
with related information not usually presented 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 observa-
tions 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 be
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.
309
-------
Appendix HI: Glossary of Terms
Nonpolnt 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 de-
signed to facilitate information tracking and reporting for the USEPA 319
National Monitoring Program.
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 physi-
cal characteristics and, ideally, land use are monitored for one to two years to
establish pollutant-runoff response 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.
Phenolphthalein 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.
310
-------
Appendix III: Glossary of Terms
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.
Ta'dwater 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.
Total alkalinity — A measure of the titratable bases, primarily carbonate,
bicarbonate, and hydroxide.
TotalKjeldahl nitrogen (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 directly
upstream 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 between
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.
311
-------
-------
Appendix IV
Project Documents And
Other Relevant Publications
This appendix contains publication references for the
Section 319 National Monitoring Program projects. Project
document lists appear in alphabetical order by state.
ARIZONA OAK CREEK CANYON
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
April, 1991. Oak Creek Watershed, NFS 319 Project, Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality Nonpoint Source Program.
1994. Oak Creek National Monitoring Project Workplan (Revised), June. Work-
plan.
Dressing, S. A. 1994. Review of Project III (Camping) in Oak Creek Project, 7/13.
Memorandum from Steve Dressing to Chris Heppe.
Dressing, S. A. 1994. Approval of Project II of Oak Creek, AZ as National Monitor-
ing Project, 7/18. Memorandum from Steve Dressing to Jovita Pajarillo.
Dressing, S. A. 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program, 11/16.
Dressing, S. A. 1994. Oak Creek, AZ National Monitoring Project Proposal: Review
and Recommendations, 6/23. Memorandum from Steve Dressing to Chris Heppe.
Dressing, S. A. 1994. Approval of 'Oak Creek, AZ as a National Monitoring Project,
7/7. Memorandum from Steve Dressing to Jovita Pajarillo.
Dressing, S. A. 1994. Oak Creek: Comments on the Slide Rock Parking Lot, 7/12.
Memorandum from Steve Dressing to Chris Heppe.
Dressing, S. A., E. Liu, and R. Frederick. 1994. Review of Proposal for Section 319
National Monitoring Program.
Harrison, T. D. 1994. Oak Creek, AZ National Monitoring Proposal: Response to
Steve Dressing's Memorandum of July 13, 1994, 7/15. Memorandum from Tom
Harrison to Chris Heppe.
Harrison, T. D. 1993. Equivalencies of Slide Rock and Grasshopper Point: Two
Popular Swimming Holes in Oak Creek Canyon, 10/7. Memorandum from Tom
Harrison to Benno Warkentin and Jean Spooner.
313
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
Harrison, T. D. 1993. Slide Rock/Grasshopper Point Comparative Data, 10/11.
Memorandum from Tom Harrison to Jean Spooner and Benno Warkentin.
Harrison, T. D. 1993. Fecal Coliforms: Slide Rock and Grasshopper Point—1977 to
1980,10/12. Memorandum from Tom Harrison to Jean Spooner.
Harrison, T. D. 1994. The Oak Creek 319(h) Demonstration Project: National
Monitoring Program Work Plan, February. Replaces 9AZ002. The Northern Arizo-
na University Oak Creek Watershed Team.
Harrison, T. D. 1994. Oak Creek, AZ National Monitoring Project Assurances, 7/5.
Memorandum from Tom Harrison to Chris Heppe.
Harrison, T.D., S. Salzler, J.B. Mullens, and D. Osmond. 1995. Oak Creek Canyon
(Arizona) Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project. NWQEP Notes 71:1-
3, North Carolina State University Water Quality Group, North Carolina Coopera-
tive Extension Service, Raleigh, NC.
Heppe, C. 1994. Approval letter for Project I, 7/12. Letter from Chris Heppe to Dan
Salzler.
Warkentin, B. P. 1993. Arizona Oak Creek Project, Recommendation for adoption
into the 319 National Monitoring Project, 10/1. Memorandum from Benno Warken-
tin to Ed Liu.
CALIFORNIA MORRO BAY WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
State of California: Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Morro Bay briefing
materials.
1987. Waste-water Treatment Facilities: Final Environmental Impact Report. The
Morro Bay Group, County of San Luis Obispo, Government Center.
1989. Erosion and Sediment Study: Morro Bay Watershed, September. Soil Conser-
vation Service.
1989. Morro Bay Watershed Enhancement Plan, September. Soil Conservation
Service.
1990. Freshwater Influences on Morro Bay, San Luis Obispo County, The Morro
Bay Group, Prepared for the Bay Foundation of Morro Bay, P.O. Box 1020, Morro
Bay, CA 93443.
1991. Proposed Monitoring Program, 7/1.
1991. Workplanfor Water Quality Management Planning Program [Section 205(j)]
on Non-Point Source Evaluation and Treatment Effectiveness for Land Treatment
Measures for the Morro Bay Watershed, Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation
District, 6/4. Workplan.
1991. California's High on Coastal Nonpoint Source Karma! In EPA News-Notes,
#14.
1992. Nonpoint Source Pollution Evaluation and Treatment Measures for the Morro
Bay Watershed, 2/18.
314
-------
' Appendix IV: Project Documents
1992. Morro Bay Watershed Program, Watershed Educational Program, December.
Fact Sheet No. 1.
1992. FY-92: Annual Progress Report, Morro Bay HUA. Soil Conservation Service.
1993. Workplanfor Non-Point Source Pollution and Treatment Measure Evaluation
for the Morro Bay Watershed, Revised 3/15. Workplan.
1993. Morro Bay Sedimentation Project Progress Report, 5/3.
1993. Approach for San Luis Obispo Creek, 8/21.
1993. Report on Morro Bay Project in California, 2/3, by Oregon.
1993. NonpointSource Pollution and Treatment Measure Evaluation for the Morro
Bay Watershed. Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.
1994. Report on Visit to the California 319 Monitoring Site at Morro Bay, 3/14.
Dressing, S. A. 1992. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program (Morro Bay, CA), 9/11. Fax Transmittal to Jovita Pajarillo.
Haltiner, J. 1988. Sedimentation Processes in Morro Bay, Prepared by Philip
Williams and Associates for the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District
with funding by the California Coastal Conservancy.
USEPA. 1991. California's High on Coastal Nonpoint Source Karma! In EPA
News-Notes, #14.
Worcester, K. 1994. Morro Bay, California: Everyone's Pitching In. From Nonpoint
Source 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.
IDAHO EASTERN SNAKE RIVER PLAIN
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Idaho Snake River Plain, USDA Demo Project Flyer.
Idaho Snake River Plain USDA Water Quality Demonstration Project Newsletter.
Newsletter, Vol. 1,1-4 and Vol. 2, 1-2.
1991. Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project Proposal,
September.
1991. Idaho Snake River Plain USDA Water Quality Demonstration Project, Sep-
tember. Pamphlet.
1991. FY1992 Plan of Operations. Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demon-
stration Project.
April, 1991. Plan of Work. Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration
Project.
315
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
October, 1991. FY 1991 Annual Report. Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality
Demonstration Project.
1992. 1992 Annual Progress Report. Snake River Plain USDA Water Quality
Demonstration Project.
1992. FY 1993 Plan of Operations. Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demon-
stration Project.
October, 1992. FY 1992 Annual Report. Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality
Demonstration Project.
Brooks, R. 1994. Water Line: Idaho Snake River Plain USDA Water Quality Demon-
stration Project Newsletter. Water Line, Vol. 3 No. 2.
Brooks, R. ed. April 1995. Water Line.
Brooks, R. H. 1993. Water Line: Idaho Snake River Plain USDA Water Quality
Demonstration Project Newsletter. Newsletter, Vol. 2 No. 4.
Brooks, R. H., ed. October 1994. Water Line.
Camp, S. and R. L. Mahler. 1991. Idaho Snake River Plain: USDA Water Quality
Demonstration Project. WQ-3 Brochure.
Camp, S. D. 1992. Urban Survey: Minidoka and Cassia County. Idaho Snake River
Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project.
Camp, S. D. 1992. Management Practices on Your Farm: A Survey of Minidoka and
Cassia County Farmers About their Farming Practices. The Idaho Snake River
Water Quality Demonstration Project.
Camp, S. D. 1993. Idaho Snake River Plain USDA Water Quality Demonstration
Project Newsletter. Water Line, Vol. 2 No. 1.
Cardwell, J. 1992. Idaho Snake River Plain USDA Water Quality Demonstration
Project Water Quality Monitoring Program DRAFT. Idaho Department of Environ-
mental Quality.
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, NC.
Osiensky, J. 1992. Ground Water Monitoring Plan: Snake River Plain Water Quality
Demonstration Projects. University of Idaho and Idaho Water Resources Research
Institute.
Osiensky, J. and M. F. Long. 1992. Quarterly Progress Report for the Ground Water
Monitoring Plan: Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project.
University of Idaho Water Resources Research Institute.
Osiensky, J. L. and M. F. Baker. 1993. Annual Progress Report: Ground Water
Monitoring Program 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.
Osiensky, J. L. and M. F. Baker. 1994. Annual Progress Report: Ground Water
Monitoring Program for the Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration
Project.
316
-------
' Appendix IV: Project Documents
ILLINOIS LAKE PITTSFIELD
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
1992. FY-92 319(h) Workplan: Illinois River Watershed Monitoring Program.
Workplan.
1992. Monitoring Lake Pittsfield to Determine the Effectiveness of Erosion and
Sediment Control Measures Adjacent to the Lake Shore.
1992. Quality Assurance Program Plan for the Lake Pittsfield Watershed Monitoring
Project, FY-1992.
1992. Revisions to Pittsfield Monitoring Project, Letter to EPA.
1992. Articles in the Pike Press Regarding Atrazine in the Water Supply.
1992. Lake Pittsfield Resource Plan (Draft).
1992. National Monitoring Contract.
1993. Watershed Watch. Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 1.
1993. Lake Pittsfield Watershed Monitoring Project: Response to EPA Questions.
1993. Quality Assurance Program Plan for the Illinois EPA Grant to Perform a
Sedimentation and Water Quality Study at Lake Pittsfield, Pike County,
1993. Lake Pittsfield. In Watershed Watch, Vol. 1, No. 1.
1993. Section 319 Implementation Contract.
1993. Effects of Land Management on Lake Pittsfield Sedimentation and Water
Quality: Annual Report, September.
1993. Lake Pittsfield: Watershed Monitoring Project. Illinois State Water Survey,
Peoria, Illinois.
Fall 1994. Watershed Watch.
Spring 1995. Watershed Watch.
Dressing, S. A. 1992. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program.
Dressing, S. A. 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program (Revised).
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Lake Pittsfield Project Draws
International Attention. Watershed Watch, 1(2): 1-2.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Lake Pittsfield. Watershed Watch
Osmond, D. L. 1994. Lake Pittsfield Meeting Notes, 7/6. Attendance Notes.
Roseboom, D.P., R. K. Raman, and R. Sinclair. Sept. 30, 1994. Effects of Land
Management on Lake Pittsfield Sedimentation and Water Quality.
317
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Roseboom, D.P., G. Eicken, andD. Osmond. 1995. Lake Pittsfleld (Illinois) Section
319 National Monitoring Program Project. NWQEP Notes 70:4-6, North Carolina
State University Water Quality Group, North Carolina Cooperative Extension
Service, Raleigh, NC.
Roseboom, D.P., R. Sinclair, and G. Eicken. 1995. Are Erosion Control Programs
Reducing Sedimentation. Internal report.
State of 1992. Environmental Protection Agency Intergovernmental Agreement No.
FWN-3019.
State of 1993. Environmental Protection Agency Intergovernmental Agreement No.
FWN-3020.
Taylor, A. G. 1992. Illinois Water Quality Sampling Update: Pesticides.
IOWA SNYMAGILL WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Animal Waste Nutrient Inventories and Crop Fertilizer Needs for the Northeast
Iowa Demonstration Project andSnyMagill Watershed, Clayton County.
1977. Summer Water Quality of the Upper Mississippi River Tributaries. University
of Iowa, State Hygienic Laboratory, p 77-90.
1977. Summer Water Quality Survey of the Bloody Run Creek andSnyMagill Creek
Basins. University of Iowa, State Hygienic Laboratory, 24 p.
1986. North Cedar Creek Critical Area Treatment and Water Quality Improvement.
Clayton County Soil Conservation District, Iowa Department of Natural Resources,
the Upper Exploreland Resource Conservation and Development Area. 31 p.
1991. Proposal, 3/91 and 11/27.
1991. Summary of EPA-Headquarters Review Comments, 5/29.
1991. Big Spring Basin Water-Quality Monitoring Program: Design andlmplemen-
tation, July.
1991. SnyMagillCreek Cold Water Stream Water Quality Improvement Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Hydrologic Unit Area: Fiscal Year 1991. Soil Conservation Ser-
vice, Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa Agricultural Stabi-
lization and Conservation Service, 15 p.
November, 1991. Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitoring Project Workplan. Iowa
Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau.
1992. Summary of EPA-HeadquartersReview Comments, 5/29.
1992. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, SnyMagill Watershed, and
Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No. 40.
1992. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, SnyMagill Watershed, and
Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No. 41.
1992. SnyMagill Creek Cold Water Stream Water Quality Improvement, 1992 HUA
Annual Report.
318
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
1992. SnyMagill Creek Cold Water Stream Water Quality Improvement Agricultur-
al Nonpoint Source Hydrologic Unit Area: Fiscal Year 1992. Soil Conservation
Service, Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service, 35 p.
1993. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, SnyMagill Watershed, and
Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No. 45.
1993. Water Watch: A newsletter for. Big Spring Basin, SnyMagill Watershed, and
Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No. 46.
1993. Mailing List for SnyMagill, revised 10/18.
1993. SnyMagill Creek Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitoring Project: 1992 Benth-
ic Biomonitoring Results. Report No. 93-2. Report.
1993. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, SnyMagill Watershed, and
Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No. 47.
1993. Sny Magill Creek Cold Water Stream Water Quality Improvement: FY-93
Hydrologic Unit Area Annual Report, October. Report.
1993. SnyMagill Creek Cold Water Stream water quality improvement (fiscal year
1993 hydrologic unit area annual report). Submitted by the Soil Conservation, Iowa
State University Cooperative Extension Service, and the Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service, 53 p.
1994. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, SnyMagill Watershed, and
Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No. 49.
1994. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, SnyMagill Watershed, and
Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No. 48.
1994. Memo from L. Seigley to Sny Magill Monitoring Project Cooperators.
Memorandum.
1994. Summary of Sny Magill Annual Meeting Held June 24. Contains updated
project bibliography.
1994. Sny Magill Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitoring Project: Clayton County,
Iowa 1992 Annual Report for Water Year 1992, June. Report.
1994. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, SnyMagill Watershed, and
Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No. 50.
1994. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, SnyMagill Watershed, and
Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No. 51.
1994. SnyMagill Creek Cold Water Stream water quality improvement (fiscalyear
1994 hydrologic unit area annual report). Submitted by the Soil Conservation, Iowa
State University Cooperative Extension Service, and the Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service, 52 p.
June 24, 1994. Status of Stream Habitat Assessment for the Sny Magill Creek
Monitoring Project.
7-27-94. Sny Magill Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitoring Project Bibliography.
319
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
October, 1994. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, Sny Magill
Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No.
52.
December, 1994. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, Sny MagiII
Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No.
53.
February, 1995. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, Sny Magill
Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No.
54.
Bettis, E. A. III. 1994. Paleozoic Plateau erosion perspective. In: Seigley, L.S. (ed.),
Sny Magill watershed monitoring project: baseline data. Iowa Department of
Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, Technical Information Series 32, p.
19-27. .
Bettis, E. A. ffl, L. S. Seigley, G. R. Hallberg, and J. D. Giglierano. 1994. Geology,
hydrogeology, and landuse of Sny Magill and Bloody Run watershed. In: Seigley,
L.S. (ed.), Sny Magill watershed monitoring project: baseline data. Iowa Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, Technical Information Series
32, p. 1-17.
Birmingham, M. W. and J. O. Kennedy. 1994. Historical biological water quality
data for Sny Magill and Bloody Run creeks. In: Seigley, L.S. (ed.), Sny Magill
watershed monitoring project: baseline data. Iowa Department of Natural Resourc-
es, Geological Survey Bureau, Technical Information Series 32, p. 125-130.
Hallberg, G. R., L. S. Seigley, R. D. Libra, Z. J. Liu, R. D. Rowden, K. D. Rex, M. R.
Craig, and K. O. Mann. 1994. Water quality monitoring perspectives for northeast
In: Seigley, L.S. (ed.), Sny Magill watershed monitoring project: baseline data. Iowa
Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, Technical Informa-
tion Series 32, p. 29-41.
Hallberg, G. R., R. D. Libra, Zhi-Jun Liu, R. D. Rowden, and K. D. Rex. 1993.
Watershed-scale water quality response to changes in landuse and nitrogen manage-
ment In: Proceedings, Agricultural Research to Protect Water Quality, Soil and
Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, IA, p. 80-84.
Kalkhoff, S. J. and D. A. Eash. 1994. Suspended sediment and stream discharge in
Bloody Run and Sny Magill watersheds: wateryear 1992. In: Seigley, L.S. (ed.), Sny
Magill watershed monitoring project: baseline data. Iowa Department of Natural
Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, Technical Information Series 32, p. 73-89.
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, 19 p.
McKay, R. M. 1993. Selected Aspects of Lower Ordovician and Upper Cambrian
Geology inAllamakee and Northern Clayton Counties, 4/25.
Newbern, D. T. 1991. North Cedar Creek watershed 1990 annual report. Soil
Conservation Service, Elkader, IA, 3p.
Newbern, D. T. 1992. North Cedar Creek Watershed Annual Report.
Newbern, D. T. 1992. North Cedar Creek watershed 1991 annual report. Soil
Conservation Service, Elkader, IA, 6p.
320
-------
' Appendix IV: Project Documents
Newbern, D. T. 1993. North Cedar Creek watershed 1992 annual report. Soil
Conservation Service, Elkader, IA, 3p.
Newbem, D. T. Feb. 3, 1993. North Cedar Creek Watershed Annual Report.
Newbem, D. T. 1994. North Cedar Creek -watershed 1993 annual report. Soil
Conservation Service, Elkader, IA, 2 p.
Newbern, D. T. Feb. 10,1994. North Cedar Creek Watershed Annual Report.
Prior, J. C. 1993. Iowa Geology 1993.
Prior, Jean C., ed. 1993. Iowa Geology 1993.
Rodecap, J. andK. Bentley. 1994. Northeast Iowa Water Quality Demonstrations: A
Guide to 1994 Project Sites. Pamphlet.
Rolling, N. andK. Bentley. 1994. Integrated Crop Management. Fact Sheet.
Rolling, N. G. Hanson, andK. Bentley. 1994. Manure Management Workshop, fact
Sheet.
Rowden, R. D., R. D. Libra, and G. R. Hallberg. January, 1995. Surface Water
Monitoring in the Big Spring Basin 1986-1992, A Summary Review.
Schueller, M. D. 1994. Sny Magill Creek nonpoint source pollution monitoring
project: 1993 benthic biomonitoring results. University Hygienic Laboratory, Lim-
nology Section, Report No. 94-1, 123 p.
Schueller, M. D., M. C. Hausler, and J. O. Kennedy. 1992. Sny Magill Creek
Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitoring Project: 1991 Benthic Biomonitoring Pilot
Study Results. University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory, Limnology Section, Report
No. 92-5, 78 p.
Schueller, M. D., M. C. Hausler, and J. O. Kennedy. 1994.1991 benthic biomonitor-
ing pilot study results. In: Seigley, L.S. (ed.), Sny Magill watershed monitoring
project: baseline data. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey
Bureau, Technical Information Series 32, p. 111-123.
Schueller, M. D., M. W. Birmingham, and J. O. Kennedy. 1993. Sny Magill Creek
Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitoring Project: 1992 Benthic Biomonitoring Re-
sults. University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory, Limnology Section, Report No. 93-2.
Schueller, M. D., M. W. Birmingham, and J. O. Kennedy. Dec. 1994.
Seigley, L. 1994. Sny Magill Nonpoint Source Monitoring Project 1992 Annual
Report and Disk, 6/14. Report and diskette.
Seigley, L. 1994. Sny Magill Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitoring Project 1992
Annual Report for Water Year 1992, 6/14. Memorandum to Sny Magill Monitoring
Project Cooperators.
Seigley, L. July 6,1994. Summary of Sny Magill annual meeting held June, 24,1994.
Seigley, L. and G. Hallberg. 1994. Water Watch. February Issue No. 48.
Seigley, L. S. and D. J. Quade. 1992. Northeast Iowa Well Inventory Completed.
Water Watch, December, 1992, p. 2-3.
321
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
Seigley, L. S. and G. R. Hallberg. 1994. Monitoring continues on Sny Magill and
Bloody Rim Creek. Water Watch, No. 48, February, p. 1-2.
Seigley, L. S. and G. R. Hallberg. 1994. Summary of baseline water quality data for
Sny Magill and Bloody Run watersheds and surrounding locations. In: Seigley, L.S.
(ed.), Sny Magill-watershed monitoring project: baseline data. Iowa Department of
Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, Technical Information Series 32, p.
43-62.
Seigley, L. S. and G. R. Hallberg. 1994. Water quality of private water supplies in
Sny Magill and Bloody Run watersheds. In: Seigley, L.S. (ed.), Sny Magill water-
shed monitoring project: baseline data. Iowa Department of Natural Resources,
Geological Survey Bureau, Technical Information Series 32, p. 63-72.
Seigley, L. S. and J. J. Wellman. 1993. Sny Magill Watershed Nonpoint Source
Pollution Monitoring Project: an EPA Section 319 National Monitoring Program
Project. Geological Society of Iowa spring field trip, Stop 8, p. 46-54.
Seigley, L. S.andM.D. Schueller. 1993. Aquatic life andcold-water stream quality.
Iowa Geology, No. 18, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey
Bureau, p. 22-23.
Seigley, L. S. (ed.). 1994. Sny Magill-watershed monitoring project: baseline data.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, Technical Infor-
mation Series 32, p. 43-62.
Seigley, L. S., ed. Dec. 1994. Sny Magill Watershed Monitoring Project: Baseline
Data.
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. Sny Magill Watershed
Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitoring Project Workplan. Open File Report 92-1,
Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, August 1992.
Seigley, L. S., G. R. Hallberg, R. D. Rowden, R. D. Libra, J. D. Giglerano, D. J.
Quade, and K. O. Mann. 1993. Agricultural Landuse and Nitrate Cycling in Surface
Water in Northeast In: Proceedings, Agricultural Research to Protect Water
Quality, p. 85-88.
Seigley, L. S., G. R. Hallberg, R. D. Rowden, R. D. Libra, J. D. Giglierano, D. J.
Quade, and K. O. Mann. 1993. Agricultural landuse and nitrate cycling in surface
water in northeast In: Proceedings, Agricultural Research to Protect Water Quality,
Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, IA, p. 85-88.
Seigley, L. S., G. R. Hallberg, and J. Gale. 1993. Sny Magill Watershed (Iowa}
Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project. NWQEP Notes 58:5-7, North
Carolina State University Water Quality Group, Cooperative Extension Service,
Raleigh, NC.
Seigley, L. S., J. J. Wellman, T. Munson, and W. M. Furnish. April 25,1993. Selected
Aspects of Lower Ordovician and Upper Cambrian Geology in Allamakee and
Northern Clayton Counties. Sny Magill Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution Mon-
itoring Project: An EPA Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project.
Seigley, L. S., M. D. Schueller, M. W. Birmingham, G. Wunder, L. Stahl, T. F.
Wilton, G. R. Hallberg, R. D. Libra, and J. O. Kennedy. 1994. Sny Magill Nonpoint
Source Pollution Monitoring Project, Clayton County, Iowa: Water Years 1992 and
1993. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, Technical
Information Series 31,103 p.
322
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
Seigley, L. S., M. D. Schueller, M. W. Birmingham, G. Wunder, L. Stahl, T. F.
Wilton, G. R. Hallberg, R. D. Libra, and J. O. Kennedy. December 1994. SnyMagill
Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitoring Project, Clayton County, Iowa: Water Years
1992 and 1993.
Wilton, T. F. 1994.1991 habitat evaluation results - baseline information. In: Seigley,
L.S. (ed.), SnyMagill watershed monitoring project: baseline data. Iowa Department
of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, Technical Information Series 32,
p. 91-110.
Wunder, G. and L. Stahl. 1994. 1991 fish assessment for Sny Magill Creek. In:
Seigley, L.S. (ed.), Sny Magill watershed monitoring project: baseline data. Iowa
Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, Technical Informa-
tion Series 32, p. 131-135.
Wunder, G. and L. Stahl. 1994. 1992 fish assessment for Sny Magill Creek and
Bloody Run watersheds. In: Seigley, L.S. (ed.), Sny Magill watershed monitoring
project: baseline data. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey
Bureau, Technical Information Series 32, p. 137-143.
MARYLAND WARNER CREEK WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Living Resources Targeted Watersheds Project.
Final Work Plan, Bird River Watershed Water Quality Management Plan. Work-
plan.
Cooperators Communications and Audience Involvement Plans.
3.2 Living Resources Targeted Watersheds Project, pp. 44-48.
Living Resources Targeted Watershed Project.
Section II, Cooperators Communications and Audience Involvement Plans.
Living Resources Targeted Watershed Project.
1989. Sawmill Creek: Aquatic Resource Assessment and Water Monitoring Plan,
May.
1990. Aquatic Resource Assessment and Monitoring Plan: Targeted Watershed
Project Monitor ing Team, April.
1990. Water Quality Demonstration Project, Monocacy River Watershed,
1990. Piney andAlloway Creeks—Aquatic Resource Assessment and Monitoring
Plan, October.
1991. State of Maryland Grant Application for Section 319 Federal FY91 Funding-
Appendices to Work Plans, 5/31 (1989 National Water Quality Special Project
Request—Piney/Allo\vay Creek Project).
1991. German Branch Water Quality Hydrologic Unit Area, Queen Anne's County,
Maryland, FY91 Plan of Operations, 2/15.
323
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
1991. Regional Monitoring Set-Aside Grant Proposal, Monocacy Watershed.
1991. Monocacy Watershed Demonstration Work Plan—Supplemental Information
on the Project Titled Modeling the Hydrologic and Water Quality Response of the
Mixed Land Use Basin, 12/30.
1991. Restoration Plan for Sawmill Creek Watershed (draft).
1991. Mononcacy Watershed Demonstration Project Encourages Adoption of Agri-
cultural Management Practices, la: EPA News-Notes, #16.
1991. Comments from Roger Thoma, 8/29.
1992. Forestry Project Assists in Improving Water Quality in the Monocacy River
Watershed In: EPA News-Notes, #18.
1993. QAPJPSupplemental: Response to EPA Region Ill's Request Dated June 16,
1992. Revised January 25, 1993.
Dressing, S. A. 1991. Summary of EPA-Headquarters Review Comments, 8/13.
Dressing, S. A. 1991. Summary of EPA-Headquarters Review Comments, 8/8.
Dressing, S. A. 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program.
Shirmohammadi, A. 1994. Project Information, 6/29. Memorandum from A. Snir-
mohammadi to D. Osmond.
Shirmohammadi, A. and W. L. Magette. 1993. Background Data and Revision to
the Monitoring Design for the Project Titled "Modeling the Hydrologic and Water
Quality Response of Mixed Land Use Basin ".
Shirmohammadi, A. and W. L. Magette. 1993. Modeling the Hydrologic 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. FY1991 Annual Report on "Model-
ing and Monitoring the Hydrologic and 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.
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.
Shirmohammadi, A., W.L. Magette, and D.E. Line. 1994. Warner Creek Watershed
(Maryland) Section 319 Project. NWQEP Notes 68:1-3. North Carolina State
University Water Quality Group, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service,
Raleigh, NC.
Shirmohammadi, A. W. L. Magette, R. A. Weismiller, J. McCoy, and R. James.
1994. Monocacy Rivt.r Watershed Initiative: Monitoring and Modeling Water
Quality Response of the Mixed Land Use Basin, 6/23. Proposal.
A. Shirmohammadi and W.L. Magette. 1994. Modeling and Monitoring the Hydro-
logic and Water Quality Response of the Mixed Land Use Basin: FY 1991 Annual
Report, 3/21. Report.
324
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
Shirmohammadi, A. and W. L. Magette. 1992. Supplemental Information on
QAPJPfor Maryland's 319 Project Plan on Modeling the Hydrologic and Water
Quality Response of the Mixed Land Use Basin.
Shirmohammadi, A. and W. L. Magette. 1993. Quality and Assurance and Quality
Control Plan for the Project Titled "Modeling the Hydrologic and Water Quality
Response of the Mixed Land Use Basin ".
Shirmohammadi, A. and W. L. Magette. 1993. Monocacy Watershed Demonstration
Work Plan: Revised Workplan Information of the Project Titled "Modeling the
Hydrologic and Water Quality Response of the Mixed Land Use Basin ".
Shirmohammadi, A. and W. L. Magette. 1993. Supplemental Information on QAPJP
for Maryland's 319 Project Plan on "Modeling the Hydrologic and Water Quality
Response of the Mixed Land Use Basin" (Revised).
Thoma, R. 1991. Region III Section 319 National Monitoring Program Proposal
Recommendations, to Hank Zygmunt, 8/29.
MICHIGAN SYCAMORE CREEK WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
1989. Biological Investigation of Sycamore Creek and Tributaries, May-August.
1990. A Biological Investigation of Sycamore Creek and Tributaries, Ingham Coun-
ty, Michigan, May -August, 1989. Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
January, 1990. Sycamore Creek Watershed Water Quality Plan. Soil Conservation
Service, Michigan Cooperative Extension Service, Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service.
1992. Summary of EPA-HeadquartersReview Comments, 6/5.
1992. Remaining Issues, 12/8.
1992.1992 Section 319 Set-Aside.
1992. Revisions for Sycamore Creek, MI.
1992. Memo Response to Steve Dressing, 12/8. Memorandum.
1992. Annual Progress Report: Sycamore Creek Water Quality Program: Fiscal
Year 1992. Sycamore Creek Water Quality Program.
1992. Sycamore Creek Watershed Monitoring Program: FY-92.
1992. Revisions for the Sycamore Creek Watershed National Monitoring Project.
1992. Correspondence, 3/23.
1992. The Sycamore Creek Water Quality Program: A Model for the State TMDL
Case Study, Sycamore Creek, EPA841-F-92-012.
1992. TMDL Case Study: Sycamore Creek, EPA 841-F-92-012, number 7.
1993. EPA Approval, 2/11.
325
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Spring 1994. A Local, State and Federal Cooperative Effort to Restore and Protect
the Saginaw Bay Watershed.
Allen, D. 1993. Michigan'sResponse to Steve Dressing's 9/8/92Memo Regarding
the Sycamore Creek Monitoring Plan. Letter.
Dressing, S. A. 1992. Sycamore Creek, MI—Remaining Issues. Faxtransmittal.
Dressing, S. A. 1992. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program.
Dressing, S. A. 1993. Approval of Sycamore Creek, Michigan as National Monitor-
ing Project. Memorandum.
Shaffer, M. J., M. K. Brodahl, and B. K. Wylie. 1993. Integration and Use of the
Nitrate Leaching and Economic Analysis Package (NLEAP) in the GIS Environ-
ment. In: Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Workshop on Hydrologic Model-
ing for the 90 's, USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 93-4018.
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: WATERSHED '93 Proceedings: A National Confer-
ence on Watershed Management. EPA 840- R-94-002.
Suppnick, J. D. and D. L. Osmond. 1993. Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan,
319 National Monitoring Program Project. NWQEP Notes 61:5-6, North Carolina
State University Water Quality Group, North Carolina Cooperative Extension
Service, Raleigh, NC.
Suppnick, J. D. 1992. A Nonpoint Source Pollution Load Allocation for Sycamore
Creek, in Ingham County, In: The Proceedings of the WEF 65th Annual Conference,
Surface Water Quality Symposia, September 20-24, 1992, New Orleans, p. 293-302.
Velleux, M. L., J. E. Rathbun, R. G. Kreis Jr, J. L. Martin, M. J. Mac, and M. L.
Tuchman. 1993. Investigation of Contaminant Transport'from the Saginaw Con-
fined Disposal Facility. From"! Great Lakes Res." 19(1): 158-174.
NEBRASKA ELM CREEK WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Proposal.
Investigations of the Water Quality and Water Quality Related Beneficial Uses of
Elm Creek, NE. Elm Creek Project.
September, 1991a. Title 117-Nebraska Surface Water Quality Standards. Nebraska
Department of Environmental Control, Lincoln,
April, 1988. Surface Water Quality Monitoring Strategy. Surface Water Section,
Water Quality Division, Nebraska Department of Environmental Control, Lincoln,
1991. Summary of EPA-Headquarters Review Comments, 5/29.
1991. Proposal, October. Elm Creek Project.
1991. EPA-Headquarters Review Comments 8/27 and 5/29. Elm Creek Project.
326
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
1991. Elm Creek Water Quality Treatment Plan, 9/12. Elm Creek Project.
1991. Elm Creek Project, Annual Progress Report: FY91. Elm Creek Project.
1991. Elm Creek Watershed Section 319 Nonpoint Source Project: Overview and
Workplan. Lower Republican Natural Resource District, Nebraska Department of
Environmental Control, Soil Conservation Service, Nebraska Game and Park Com-
mission, Cooperative Extension Service, Lincoln, NE.
1991b. Nebraska Stream Inventory. Surface Water Quality Division, Nebraska
Department of Environmental Control, Lincoln, Nebraska (Draft).
1992. Elm Creek Project, Annual Progress Report: FY 92. Elm Creek Project.
1992. Elm Creek Watershed Section 319 Nonpoint Source Project: Monitoring
Project Plan. Nebraska Department of Environmental Control, Lincoln,
1992. Procedure Manual. Surface Water Section, Water Quality Division, Nebraska
Department of Environmental Control, Lincoln, Revised and Updated April, 1992.
1993. Elm Creek Project, Annual Progress Report: FY 93. Elm Creek Project.
1994. Elm Creek Project: Project Extension Request, 2/23. Elm Creek Project.
1994. Elm Creek HUA Field Tour Informational Packet and Handouts. Elm Creek
Project.
Dressing, S. A. 1991. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program (Elm Creek, NE), 10/16.
Jensen, D. andC. Christiansen. 1983. Investigations of 'the Water Quality and Water
Quality Related Beneficial Uses of Elm Creek, Nebraska Department of Environ-
mental Control, Lincoln, Nebraska.
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 Cooperative Exten-
sion Service, Raleigh, NC.
Moreland, R. E., 1C. R. Bolen, andF. Johannsen. Feb. 23,1995. Elm Creek Hydrolog-
ic Unit Area Annual Progress Report.
Thoma, R. 1991. Nebraska Elm Creek Study, Monitoring Project Plan, 10/31.
Memorandum from Roger Thoma to Steve Dressing.
USEPA. 1991. Watershed Monitoring and Reporting for Section 319 National
Monitoring Program Projects.
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 Agricultural, Conservation Research Report 35, 80 p.
NORTH CAROLINA LONG CREEK WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Long Creek Watershed Project Kickoff Luncheon.
1992. Summary ofEPA-Headquarters Review Comments, 3/12.
327
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Brichford, S. L. 1990. Gaston County Water Quality Data Base Development and
Assessment. NWQEP Notes 46:1-2. North Carolina State University Water Quality
Group, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Brichford, S. L., M. D. Smolen, L. E. Danielson, and H. A. Devine. 1991.
Development of a Water Quality Database and Assessment Strategy for County-
Level Environmental Management, pg. 277-286. In: Proceedings, Application of
Geographic Information Systems, Simulation Models, and Knowledge-based Sys-
tems for Landuse Management. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Department of Agricultural Engineering, Blacksburg, VA. 555 pp.
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. In:
Proceedings of the National Conference on Integrated Water Information Manage-
ment. USEPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC. p. 101-107.
Dressing, S. A. 1993. Potential Problems. Memorandum.
Jennings, G. D. 1992. Appendix 3-Gaston County Well Survey, p. 3.1- 4.47. In:
Natural Resource Quality in Gaston County. Phase 2: Implementation of Natural
Resource Education and Policy Development Programs-Final Report. North Caro-
lina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
181 pp.
Jennings, G. D. 1992. Appendix 4-Ground Water Analysis, p. 4.1-4.7. In: Natural
Resource Quality in Gaston County. Phase 2: Implementation of Natural Resource
Education and Policy Development Programs-Final Report. North Carolina Coop-
erative Extension Service, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 181 pp.
Jennings, G. D., D. E. Line, S. W. Coffey, J. Spooner, W. A. Harman, and M. A.
Burris. 1994. Nonpoint Source control in the Long Creek EPA National Monitoring
Project. ASAE Paper 942187. Am. Soc. Ag. Eng., St. Joseph, MI.
Jennings, G. D., D. E. Line, S. W. Coffey, J. Spooner, N. M. White, W. A. Harman,
and M. A. Bums. 1995. Water quality and land treatment in the Long Creek
Watershed Project. In: Proceedings of the Clean Water - Clean Environment - 21st
Century Conference, Am. Soc. Ag. Eng., St. Joseph, MI.
Jennings, G. D., D. E. Line, S. W. Coffey, J. Spooner, N. M. White, W. A. Harman,
and M. A. Burris. 1995. Lang Creek Watershed Nonpoint Source Monitoring
Project. Poster presentation at the National Nonpoint Source Forum, Arlington, VA.
Jennings, G. D., W. A. Harman, M. A. Burris, andF. J. Humenik. March, 1992. Long
Creek Watershed Nonpoint Source Water Quality Monitoring Project Proposal.
With letters from processing agencies.
Jennings, G. D., W. A. Harman, M. A. Burris, and F. J. Humenik. June, 1992. Long
Creek Watershed Nonpoint Source Water Quality Monitoring Project Proposal
(Revision). 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 Gaston County -
Phase 1: Characterization of Air, Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - Final
Report. North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, North Carolina State Uni-
versity, Raleigh, NC. 174 p.
328
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
Levi, M. G. Jennings, D. E. Line, S. W. Coffey, L. S. Smutko, L. Danielson, S. S.
Qian, 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 Exten-
sion Service, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 181 p.
Line, D. E. 1993. Long Creek, North Carolina National 319 Monitoring Program
Project. NWQEP Notes 59:4-6, North Carolina State University Water Quality
Group, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, NC.
Line, D. E. and S. W. Coffey. 1992. Targeting Critical Areas with Pollutant Runoff
Models and GIS. ASAE Paper No. 92-2015. American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, St. Joseph, MI. 21 p.
Qian, S. S. 1992. Appendix 5-Confirmation of SWRRBWQ for Long Creek Water-
shed, 44 pp. In: Natural Resource Quality in Gaston County. Phase 2: Implementa-
tion of Natural Resource Education and Policy Development Programs-Final
Report. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State Uni-
versity, Raleigh, NC. 112 pp.
Smolen, M. D., S. L. Brichford, W. Cooter, and L. Danielson. 1990. Appendix 4-
Water Quality, p. 4.11-4.96. In: Natural Resource Quality in Gaston County. Phase
1: Characterization of Air, Surface Water, and Groundwater Quality-Final Report.
North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC.
Smutko, L. S. 1992. Evaluating the Feasibility of Local Wellhead Protection Pro-
grams: Gaston County Case Study. In: Proceedings of the National Symposium on
the Future Availability of Ground Water Resources. American Water Resources
Association, Bethesda,
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, 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 Association,
Bethesda, p. 185-188.
Smutko, L. S., L. E. Danielson, and W. A. Harman. 1992. Integration of a Geograph-
ic Information System in Extension Public Policy Education: A North Carolina Pilot
Program. In: Computers in Agricultural Extension Programs, Proceedings of the
Fourth International Conference. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, University
of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 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 Protection
Areas. In: Proceedings of the National Symposium on the Future Availability of
Ground Water Resources. American Water Resources Association, Bethesda, p.
375-380.
White, N. M., D. E. Line, C. Stallings, and G. D. Jennings. 1995. GIS Procedures for
the spatial analysis of fecal coliform bacteria ecology, Phase I: Land form model
development. In: Proceedings of the ASAE International Water Quality Modeling
Conference. Am. Soc. Agr. Eng., St. Joseph, MI.
329
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
White, N. M., G. D. Jennings, and W. A. Harman. 1994. Ecological modeling of
riparian systems using a GIS: Data needs and processing. In: Computers in Agricul-
ture 1994: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference. ASAE Pub. No. 03-
94, Am. Soc. Agr. Eng., St. Joseph, MI.
Line, D. E. 1992. Gaston County Water Quality Assessment. NWQEP Notes, 54:3-
4, North Carolina State University Water Quality Group, North Carolina Coopera-
tive Extension Service, Raleigh, NC.
Line, D. E., S. W. Coffey, and S. S. Qian. 1992. Appendix 2-Surface Water Quality
Assessment, p. 2.1-2.35. In: Natural Resource Quality in Gaston County. Phase 2:
Implementation of Natural Resource Education and Policy Development Programs-
Final Report. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC. 181 pp.
OKLAHOMA PEACHEATER CREEK
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
1992. Second Workplan dated July 1992: FY-1992 Section 319 Work Program.
Workplan.
1993. Illinois River Watershed Monitoring Program. FromNonpoint Source Water-
shed Project Workshop, Gastonia and Charlotte, NC.
1993. Third Workplan Dated March 1993, Monitoring of 319 Project Watersheds
and Matched Pairs: Illinois River, OK.
1993. Monitoring of 319 Project Watersheds and Matched Pairs: Fourth Workplan
Dated May 1993. Workplan.
1993. FY-1992 Section 319 Work Program, Illinois River Watershed Monitoring
Program: Monitoring of 319 Project Watersheds and Matched Pairs.
1993. FT1992 Section 319 Work Program for the Illinois River Watershed Monitor-
ing Program: Final Workplan, 5/11. Workplan and letters.
March 5,1993. Illinois River Watershed Monitoring Program. FY1992 Section 319
Work Program for review.
1994. FY 1992 Section 319 Work Program for the Illinois River Watershed Monitor-
ing Program: Approved Workplan, Revised 6/8. Workplan and letters.
June 8, 1994. Illinois River Watershed Monitoring Program.
Dressing, S. 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program, 4/13.
Dressing, S. 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program, 7/20.
Dressing, S. 1994. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program, 7/13.
Dressing, S. A. 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program: Illinois River Watershed, OK.
330
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
Dressing, S. A. 1993. Headquarters Review of Proposal for Section 319 National
Monitoring Program: Review of March 1993 Workplan.
Dressing, S. A. 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program: Headquarters Review of May 1993 Workplan.
Dressing, S. A. 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program (Illinois River), 1/25. Fax Transmittal to Wes McQuiddy.
Dressing, Steve. April 13, 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National
Monitoring Program.
Dressing, Steve. July 20, 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National
Monitoring Program.
Dressing, Steve. July 13, 1994. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National
Monitoring Program, review of proposal.
Hassell, J. May 11, 1993. Illinois River Watershed Monitoring Program, work plan
to be reviewed.
Hassell, J. June 8,1994. Illinois River Watershed Monitoring Program, review.
Knudson, M. O. 1993. Region VI Approval Letter of May 1993 Workplan. Letter.
McQuiddy, W. 1992. FY-1992 Section 319 Work Program: FY-92 319(h) Work-
plan—Pollution Control Coordinating Board, Oklahoma Department of Pollution
Control, July. Fax Transmittal to Steve Dressing, 11/25/92.
PENNSYLVANIA PEQUEA AND MILL CREEK WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Evaluation of Agricultural Best-Management Practices in the Conestoga River
Headwaters, PA. In: Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4131.
1991. Work Plan for Characterizing Baseline Water Quality, and Evaluating the
Cause/Effect Relations of the Implementation of Agricultural Management Practic-
es on Surface- and Ground-Water Quality in the Mill Creek, May. Workplan.
1991. Summary of EPA-Headquarters Review Comments, 8/14.
1991. Comments from Roger Thoma, 8/29.
1992. Memo from T. Reichgott to S. Dressing, 6/11. Memorandum.
1992. Detailed Workplan, 6/2. Workplan.
1993. Project Application, 7/14.
1993. Approval ofPequea and Mill Creek Watersheds, 7/30.
1993. Draft Workplan, 1/15. Workplan.
1993. Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed Project Proposal. U.S. Geological Survey.
Leitrnan, P. L. Evaluating Effects of Selected Agricultural-Management Practices
on Surface- and Ground-Water Quality in the Pequea and Mill Creek Watersheds,
Lancaster and Chester Counties.
331
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Line, D. E. 1994. Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed Section 319 National Monitor-
ing Program Project. NWQEP Notes 65:3-4, North Carolina State University Water
Quality Group, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, NC.
VERMONT LAKE CHAM PLAIN WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Long-term Monitoring Projects, From Bob Morehouse to Steve Dressing. Memo-
randum.
1991. St. Alban's Bay Rural Clean Water Program Final Report, 1980- 1990.
Vermont RCWP Coordinating Committee, Vermont Water Resources Research
Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT.
1992. EPA Review of Proposal 7/8.
March, 1992. Lake Champlain Agricultural Watersheds BMP Implementation and
Effectiveness Monitoring Project.
1993. EPA Review of the Lake Champlain Project, 5/26.
1993. Clean Water Act Section 319 Nonpoint Source Project Summary: Lake
Champlain Agricultural Watersheds BMP Implementation and Effectiveness Moni-
toring Project (Draft).
1993. EPA-HQ Informational Needs for Lake Champlain Section 319 NPS Monitor-
ing Project.
May, 1993. State of Vermont: Lake Champlain Agricultural Watersheds BMP
Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Project: Section 319 National Mon-
itor ing Program.
1994. State of Vermont 1994 Water Quality Assessment, 305(b) Report. Vermont
Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation, Water
Quality Division, Waterbury,
Budd, L. and D. W. Meals. 1994. Lake Champlain Nonpoint Source Pollution
Assessment. Technical Report No. 6, Lake Champlain Basin Program, Grand Isle,
Clausen, J. C. andD. W. Meals. 1989. Water Quality Achievable with Agricultural
Best Management Practices. J. Soil and Water Cons. 44: 594-596.
Dressing, S. A. 1993. Approval of Lake Champlain, VT as National Monitoring
Project. Memorandum.
Meals, D. W. 1990. LaPlatte River Watershed Water Quality Monitoring and
Analysis Program Comprehensive Final Report. Program Report No. 12, Vermont
Water Resources Research Center, University of Vermont, Burlington.
Omernik, J. M. 1977. Nonpoint Source Stream Nutrient Level Relationship: A
Nationwide Study. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA-
600/3-77-105.
PLUARG. 1978. Environmental Management Strategy for the Great Lakes System.
Final Report to the International Joint Commission from the International Reference
Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities, Windsor, Ontario,
Canada.
332
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
WASHINGTON TOTTEN AND ELD INLET
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
1991. Review ofKamm Slough Proposal, 10/29.
1992. Draft Quality Assurance Project Plan for Washington State, 10/20.
Cleland, B. 1992. Review of Plan for Washington's National NPS Monitoring
Project (Puget Sound, WA), 11/6. Fax Transmittal to Keith Seiders.
Dressing, S. A. 1992. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program (Puget Sound, WA), 11/18. Fax Transmittal to Keith Seiders 11/18/92 and
Elbert Moore 11/20/92.
Seiders, K. 1991. 1988-1989 Data from the Kamm Slough Watershed Study, 11/4.
Fax Transmittal to Steve Dressing.
Seiders, K. 1991. Proposed Quality Assurance Project Plan for Kamm Watershed
BMP Evaluation Project, Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services
Program Watershed Assessments Section, 9/26. Memorandum to Will Kendra.
Seiders, K. 1994. Screening Study Results and Quality Assurance Project Plan for
the National Monitoring Program in Washington State (draft).
Seiders, K. 1994. Screening Study Results and Quality Assurance Project Plan for
the National Monitoring Program in Washington State (Draft).
Seiders, K. Jan. 18, 1995. Screening Study Results and Final Quality Assurance
Project Plan.
Seiders, K. and J.B. Mullens. 1995. Totten and Eld Inlet (Washington) Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project. NWQEP Notes 73:1-3, North Carolina State
University Water Quality Group, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service,
Raleigh, NC.
WISCONSIN OTTER CREEK
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
A Nonpoint Source Control Plan for the Sheboygan River Watershed.
1993. Otter Creek Evaluation Monitoring Program (Revised).
1993. Section 319 National Monitoring Proposal—Otter Creek Evaluation Moni-
toring Project, 6/12 and Revised 6/15. Memorandum from Roger Bannerman to
Steve Dressing.
1993. Fields & Streams. April, Newsletter.
1993. Otter Creek Evaluation Monitoring Project. Wisconsin Department of Natu-
ral Resources, Bureau of Water Resources Management, Nonpoint Sources and
Land Management Section, Madison, 27 p.
1993. Nonpoint Source Control Plan for the Sheboygan River Priority Watershed
Project. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Water Resources
Management, Nonpoint Sources and Land Management Section, Madison, 227 p.
333
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
1994. Section 319 National Monitoring Program Proposal: Lincoln Creek Evalua-
tion Monitoring Project.
Dec. 1994. Farmstead Pollution Prevention Update.
Baker, B. 1992. Section 319 National Monitoring Program Proposal, 3 pp., 9/16.
Memorandum to Tom Davenport.
Baker, B. 1992. Section 319 National Monitoring Program Proposal, 9 p., 2/4.
Memorandum to Tom Davenport.
Bannerman, R. and M. Miller. 1995. Otter Creek (Wisconsin) Section 319 National
Monitoring Program Project. NWQP Notes 69:2-4, North Carolina State University
Water Quality Group, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, NC.
Besadny, C. D. 1992. Grant Application for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program, 20p., 9/29. Memorandum to Valdus Adamkus.
Dressing, S. A. 1992. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program.
Dressing, S. A. 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program.
Dressing, S. A. 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program (Revised).
Dressing, S. A. 1993. Approval of Otter Creek, Wisconsin as National Monitoring
Project. Memorandum.
Dressing, S. A. 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program (Bower Creek), 2/12. Fax Transmittal by Steve Dressing to Tom Daven-
port.
Dressing, S. A. 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program (Eagle Creek andJoos Valley Creek), 2/12. Fax Transmittal from Steve
Dressing to Tom Davenport.
Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1982. Using a Biotic Index to Evaluate Water Quality in Streams.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Technical Bulletin No. 132, Madison,
WI. 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 Environmen-
tal Quality of Warmwater Streams in U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report NC-
149. 51 p.
Nevers, L. March 1995. Farm and Home Pollution and Prevention Update.
Simonson, T. D., J. Lyons, and P. D. Kanehl. 1994. Guidelines for Evaluating Fish
Habitat in Wisconsin Streams. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
North Central Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report NC-164. 36 p.
334
-------
Appendix V
Matrix for Section 319
National Monitoring Program Projects
335
-------
i Appendix V: Matrix
Section 319 National Monitoring Program Projects
PROJECT
Mian*:
Oak Ccaak Canyon
California:
Mofto Bay Watatahad
Uaho:
Eaatam Snakt
Rfvar Plain
mtnola:
Laka Pilltfi.ld
SnyMagtIIWatarahad
Maiyland:
WamarCraak
Watarahad
Michigan:
Sycamor* Craak
Watarahad
Nabraaka:
8m Craak Watarahad
North Carolina:
L9ng Cra*k
Watarahad
Pannaylvanla:
Paquaa and Mill
CtaakWatatahada
V«rmon1°
Laka Champlaln Baaln
Wataiahada
Waahtngton:
Tottan and Eld Intat
ClaanWatarProjacta
Wlaeonaln:
OnarCnak
BASIN
9
q.mftes
76
q.rr»1«
3.041
q. mites
11
q,m3«
38
«q mT*s
1
somites
106
sq.mlJe*
58
sq.rrtks
44
*q. rriks
3.2
sq trite
12
sq. mile
lotil
Tottefv*6S
sq mile
Dd = 30
11
sq mite*
pf-SJGNATED
Primary contact recreation
Aquatic Ife support
DrfnWng water supply
[ndangef ed species habitat
SheWih harvesting
Primary and secondary contact
cereal! on
DrinWng water supply
ground water)
DrtnWno water supply
Primary and secondary contact
recreation
Aquatic ife support ("put »nd
take" recreational trout fishing)
Biological habitat
Aquatic Ife support
Primary contact recreation
•Recreation
•Aquatic ife support
(cold water trout habitat)
•Drinking water supply
•Aquatic ife support
•Aquatic ife support
•Recreation
»DrinWng water supply
•Aquatic ife support
•Lake Cramctaln recreation
and aesthetics ( NPS pofutant
loading)
•SheRftsh harvesting
•Aquatic ife support
•Secondary contact recreation
WATER QUALITY
acteria
Nutrients
Accelerated sedmentallon
Nutrients
Bacteria
Nitrates
Low-level pesticide
oncentrations
n-ptace contaminants
Nutrients
Sedment
Nutrients
Animal wastes
Pesticides
Sediment
Nitrogen
Phcsphorus
Sediment
Dissolved Oxygen
•Sediment
•Increased water temperatures
•High peak flows
•Sediment
•Bacteria
•Nutrients
•Nutrients
•Bacteria
•Nutrients (particularly
phosphorus)
•Bacteria
•Organic matter
•Bacteria
•Sediment
•Phosphorus
•Bacteria
Hflh-Impact recreational
ampgrounds and
wimming areas
Jattle grazing
loads
Cropland
Stream bank erosion and
rrigated cropland
Cropland
Smal ivestodc operations
Cropland
Livestock operations
Streambank erosion
Dairy operations
Streambanks
•Urban areas
•Cropland
•Croptand
•Rangetand
•Streambank erosion
•Irrigation return flows
and cattle access
•Cropland
•Dairy operations
•Pastures
•Streambank erosion
•Urbanization
•Dairy operations
•Pastures
•Streambanks
•Dairy operations
•Livestock activity within
stream and riparian areas
•Cropland
•Livestock operations
•Failing on-stte sewage
systems
•Cropland
•Dairy operations
•Streambank erosion
WATER QUALITY GOALS
AND OBJECTIVES
Reduce fecal coiform by 50%
Reduce nutrient levels by 20%
Decrease sediment entering project streams
Evaluate the effects of Irriflation water
management on nitrate-N around water teaching
Evaluate the effects of crop rotation
on nitrate-N ground water leaching
Decrease nitrate and pesticide concentrations
Reduce sediment loads Into take
Evaluate the effectiveness of
ecfiment retention basins
Quantitativery document WQ improvements
Develop protocol and procedures for NPS monitoring
Develop capacity for rapid habitat
and biologic monitoring
Reduce sednw* by 50%
Decrease nitrogen, phosphorus, and
pesticide loading by 25%
Develop and validate a hydrotogic and water quality
model capable of predicting effects of BMP on WQ
Colect WQ data for use In model validation
tlustrate relationships between BMP and WQ
Reduce impact of agricultural NPS poHutants on
surface and ground water on Sycamore Creek
•Reduce sedment In Sycamore Creek by 52%
•Implement appropriate and feasible NPS control
measures for protection and enhancement of WQ
•Reduce summer max. water temperature
•Reduce instream sedimentation
•Reduce peak flows
•Improve instream aquatic habitat
•Quantify the effects of NPS polution controls on:
-Bacteria, sediment, and nutrient loading to a
stream from a local dairy farm
-Sediment and nutrient loss from field with a. long
history of manure application
-Sediment loads from the water supply watershed
•Reduce sediment yield by 60%
•Document the effectiveness of ivestock exclusion
fencing at reducing NPS polution in a stream
•Reduce annual total ammonia plus organic
nitrogen and total phosphorus loads by 40%
•Quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of two
livestock/grazing management practices
•Document changes in nutrients, bacteria, and
sediment concentrations and loads due to treatment
•Evaluate response of stream biota to treatment
•Reduce median 1992-93 fecal coliform values on:
-Pierre Creek by 69%
-Bums Creek by 63%
-Schneider Creek by 50%
-McLaneCreckby44%
•Increase numbers of intolerant fish species
•Improve recreational uses
•Reduce toacing to the Sheboygan River
and Lake FAchigan
•Restore riparian vegetation
WATER QUALITY
ONITORING DESIGN
Paired sites
upstream / downstream
Paired site
Single site
2 Upstream/downstream
2 Paired 5 acre plots
3 Lake stations
3alred watersheds
Jp stream/downstream
on sub-basins
Upstream/downstream
on Warner Cr.
•Paired watersheds
•Paired watersheds
•Upstream/downstream
•Single station
downstream
•Single downstream
station
•Upstream/downstream
•Paired watersheds
•Paired watersheds
•Three-way paired
watershed design
•Paired watersheds
•4 Single stations
•Paired watersheds
•Above and below
•Single station
336
-------
i Appendix V: Matrix
Section 319 National Monitoring Program Projects
•Weekly grab samples
fromMay15-Sept.15
:orm events (30 mfn. intervals)
•20 WeeHy grab samples (start Nov.)
•Macromvertebrate and habitat monitoring
•Monthly groundwater grab samples
•Growing season soil water samples
•Storm events (automatic samplers)
lase flow sampled monthly
•Lake grab samples monthly from
April - October
•Continuous stage, dally discharge and
suspended sediment measurements
•Weekly grab samples
•Annual habitat assessment
•Annual fisheries survey
• Bi-monthly macroinvertebrates
•Automated storm event - weeMy from
Feb.-June; bi-weekly remainder of year
•Grab - weekly from Feb.-June; bi-weekly
remainder of year
•Storm events (1-2 hr. intervals) using
automated samplers March - July
•20 Evenly spaced weeMy grab samples
•Weekly grab samples April - September
-Seasonal biological, habitat data
coBection, and stream morphology
•Weekly grab Dec.- May and monthly
remainder of year
•Stage activated storm event and weekly
grab Dec. - May (year-round on trib.)
•Grab samples every 1 0 days April - Nov.
•Monthly storm evert composite
•Monthly grab Dec. - March
•Macfdnvertebrate and habitat May
•Automated continuous sampling stations
•Weekly flow-proportional sampling
•Bi-weekly grab sampling
•20 Weekly grab samples (starting Nov.)
•Event based automatic
•Continuous chemistry sampling
•Fisheries
•Macroinvertebrate and habitat monitoring
PRIMARY WATER QUALITY
cal Coiform, Nitrate, Orthophosphorus,
TP, Ammonia
spended Sediment, Turbidity, Nitrate.
rate, Organic Pesticides, DO
rthophosphorus, TP, Ammonia, TKN,
cal Cofform, Habitat Assessment,
sheries Survey, Benthic Macroinvertebrates
ediment, TP, Nitrogen (N) Series
Ammonia, TKN, Nitrate+Wtrite, Nitrate,
rthophosphorus, TKP, Sediment
urbidity,TSS
Qualitative and Quantitative Macroinvertebrate
Sampfing, Fish CoHedJons, Creel
Survey, Substrate Samples,
TSS, Morphology Characteristics.
Percent Canopy and Aufwuchs, Invertebrate Taxa
Richness, Fecal Cofiform, Fecal Streptococci,
TSS, Total Soids, DO, Nitrate+Nitrite,
TKN, TP, Temperature
Suspended Sediment, Total and Dissolved Ammonia
plus Organic Nitrogen, Dissolved Ammonia, Dissolved
Orthophosphorus, Fecal Streptococcus, Total and
Fecal Coiform, Fecal Streptococcus,
E. CoS Bacteria, Macroinvertebrates, Fish,
Fecal Cofform
Dissolved Phosphorus, TKN,
Ammonia-N, Nitrogen Series. Turbidity, TSS,
BMP
inhance rest room facilities
Enforce ftter laws
iparian cattle exclusion
otational grazing of pasture
:loodptain restoration
)ecrease water use
>esticide management strategies
rrigation management program
Sediment retention basins
ntegrated crop management
Livestock exclusion
Filter strips
Structural erosion control practices
Farmstead assessment
Water and sediment control structures
iducation and assistance
Conversion of cropland to pasture
nstaKation of watering systems
Manure slurry storage tanks
Diversions
Reduced tillage
•No-tin systems
•Water and sediment control structures
•Conventional BMP
*WQ and runoff control structures
•WQ land treatment
•Conventional WQ management practices
•Land use requirements upstream of intake
•Comprehensive nutrient management
•Waste holding structures
•Pasture management and livestock exdusi
•Streambank fencing on 100% of pasture
land adjacent to the stream draining the
•Livestock exclusion/stream bank protection
•Intensive grazing management
•Repair failing on-site sewage systems
•Shorefine and streambank stabtEzatton
•Barnyard runoff management and manure
storage facilities
•Grassed waterways
•Reduced tillage
•Nutrient and pesticide management
IMPLEMENTING INSTITUTIONS
AZ Department of Environmental Quality
aKfomia Polytechnic State University
SDA NRCS
Division of Environmental Quaity
U. of Idaho Cooperative Extension Service
31 9 Project Is part of the Hydrologic Unit Area
Demonstration Project)
L Environmental Protection Agency
Pike Co. Soil and Water Conservation District
A DNR-Geologic Survey Bureau
!A State University Extension
USDANRCS
Unit Area Project and North Cedar Creek
Ag. Conservation. Program-WQ Special Project)
MD Department of the Environment
J. of Maryland Agricultural Engineering
Ingham Co. Health Dept.(Environmental Division)
Ingham Soil Conservation District
•Michigan Department of Natural Resources
•Michigan State University
•USDANRCS
•NB Department of Environmental Quality
*USDA NRCS
•Webster County Extension
•Gaston Co. Cooperative Extension
*NC Cooperative Extension Service
•NC Division of Environmental Management
•USOANRCS
•PA Department of Environmental Protection-
Bureau of Land and Water Conservation
•USGS
•Frankfin County Conservation District
*U. of Vermont School of Natural Resources
•VT Department of Agriculture
*VT Department of Environmental Conservation
•Department of Ecology
•Thurston County Environmental Health Services
•Thurston Conservation District
•USDA NRCS
•Sheboygan Co. Land Conservation Committees
•U. of Wisconsin Extension
•USGS
•Wl Department of Natural Resources
PROJECT
TIME FRAME
1994 - 2001
19 Project Approval
1994
1993-2003
319 Project Approval
1993
Oct. 1991 -
Oct. 1997
319 Project Approval
1992
1992-1995
31 9 Project Approval
1993
1991 -unknown
Approximately 10 yrs.
with funding)
319 Project Approval
1992
May 1993-
June 1997
319 Project Approval
1995
1993 -1997
319 Project Approva
1993
April 1992- 1996
(2 additional years
contingent upon
funding)
31 9 Project Approva
1992
January 1993-
Sept. 2001
319 Project Approval
1992
October 1993 -
Sept. 1998-2001
319 Project Approval
1993
Sept. 1993-
Sept. 1999
319 Project Approval
1993
1993-2002
319 Project Approval
1995
Spring 1994-
Spring 2001
319 Project Approval
1993
337
-------
------- |