United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(4503F)
EPA-841-S-96-002
September 1996
EPA
Section 319
National Monitoring Program
Projects
1996 Summary Report
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
-------
1996 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 Daniel E. Line Steven W. Coffey
Jo Beth Mullens Judith A. Gale Jill Saligoe-Simmel Jean Spooner
Jean Spooner, Group Leader - Co-Principal Investigator
Frank J. Humenik, Program Director - Co-Principal Investigator
U.S. EPA - NCSU-CES Grant No. X818397
Steven A. Dressing
Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Washington, DC
September 1996
-------
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 Melinda Pfeiffer,
Cathy Akroyd, and Judith Gale, who edited this publication.
Citation
This publication should be cited as follows: Osmond, D.L., D.E. Line, S.W. Coffey, J.B. Mullens, J.A. Gale,
J. Saligoe-Simmel, and J. Spooner. 1996.1996 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 Nertional Monitoring Program Project Profiles 5
Alabama — Lightwood Knot Creek
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 7
Arizona — Oak Creek Canyon
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 15
California — Morro Bay Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 29
Connecticut — Jordan Cove Urban Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 43
Idaho — Eastern Snake River Plain
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 49
Illinois — Lake Pittsfield
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 63
Iowa — Sny Magill Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 73
Iowa — Walnut Creek
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 89
Maryland — Warner Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 97
Michigan — Sycamore Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 105
Nebraska — Elm Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 117
North Carolina — Long Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 129
Oklahoma — Peacheater Creek
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 141
Oregon — Upper Grande Ronde Basin
Section 319 Project
(Pending Section 319 National
Monitoring Program Project Approval) 151
in
-------
Pennsylvania — Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 161
Vermont — Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 171
Washington — Totten and Eld Inlet
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 183
Wisconsin - Otter Creek
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project....". 195
Appendices . 205
I. Minimum Reporting Requirements for
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Projects 207
II. Abbreviations 209
III. Glossary of Terms 213
IV. Project Documents and Other Relevant Publications 219
V. Matrix for Section 319
National Monitoring Program Projects 245
IV
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Figure 8:
Figure 9:
Figure 10:
Field Map
Field Map
Figure 11:
Figure 12:
Figure 13:
Figure 14:
Figure 15:
Figure 16:
Figure 17:
Figure 18:
Figure 19:
Figure 20:
Figure 21:
Lightwood Knot Creek (Alabama) Project Location.
Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Lightwood Knot Creek (Alabama)
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)
Jordan Cove Urban Watershed (Connecticut)
Project Location
Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Jordan Cover Urban Watershed (Connecticut)
Eastern Snake River Plain (Idaho)
Demonstration Project Area Location
Eastern Snake River Plain (Idaho)
USDA 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
Walnut Creek (Iowa) Project Location
Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Walnut Creek (Iowa)
Warner Creek (Maryland) Watershed
Project Location
...8
.15
.16
.29
.30
.43
.44
.49
.50
.61
.62
.63
.64
.73
.74
,.89
..90
..97
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
..98
105
,106
,117
-------
List of Figures (Continued)
Figure 22: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Elm Creek (Nebraska) Watershed 118
Figure 23: Long Creek (North Carolina) Watershed
Project Location 129
Figure 24: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Long Creek (North Carolina) Watershed 130
Figure 25: Peacheater Creek (Oklahoma)
Project Location 141
Figure 26: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Peacheater Creek (Oklahoma) Watershed 142
Figure 27: Upper Grande Ronde Basin (Oregon) Project Location 151
Figure 28: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Upper Grande Ronde Basin (Oregon) 152
Figure 29: Pequea and Mill Creek (Pennsylvania) Watershed
Project Location 161
Figure 30: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Pequea and
Mill Creek (Pennsylvania) Watershed 162
Figure 31: Lake Champlain Basin (Vermont) Watersheds
Project Location , 171
Figure 32: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Lake Champlain Basin (Vermont) Watersheds 172
Figure 33: Totten and Eld Inlet (Washington)
Project Location 183
Figure 34: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Totten and Eld Inlet (Washington) 184
Figure 35: Otter Creek (Wisconsin) Watershed
Project Location 195
Figure 36: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Otter Creek (Wisconsin) 196
VI
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
-------
Chapter 1: introduction
Monitoring of both land treatment and water quality is the best way to document
the effectiveness of nonpoint source (NFS) pollution control efforts. The purposes
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Section 319
National Monitoring Program (NMP) are to provide credible documentation of the
feasibility of controlling nonpoint sources, and to improve the technical under-
standing of NFS pollution and the effectiveness of NPS control technology and
approaches. These objectives are to be achieved through intensive monitoring and
evaluation of a subset of watershed projects funded under section 319 (USEPA,
1991).
The Section 319 NMP projects comprise a small subset of NPS pollution control
projects funded under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act as amended in 1987.
The development of NMP projects has largely been accomplished through nego-
tiations among States, USEPA Regions, and USEPA Headquarters.
The selection criteria used by USEPA for Section 319 NMP projects are primarily
based on the components listed below. In addition to the specific criteria, empha-
sis 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 pollutants of primary concern, the sources 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 pollutants causing the impairment, the
sources of the pollutants, and the delivery system of the pollutants to the
impaired water resource.
A watershed implementation plan that uses appropriate best management
practice (BMP) systems. A system of BMPs is a combination of individual
BMPs designed to reduce a specific NPS problem in a given location. These
BMP systems should address the primary pollutants 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.
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 NMP projects
(USEPA, 1991). These requirements (see Appendix 1) were set forth based upon
past efforts (e.g. Rural Clean Water Program) to evaluate the effectiveness of
watershed projects.
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
USEPA developed a software package, the NonPoint Source Management System
(NPSMS), to help the 319 National Monitoring Program projects track and report
land management and water quality information (Dressing and Hill, 1996).
NPSMS has three data files: 1) a Management File for information regarding
water quality problems within the project area and plans to address those prob-
lems; 2) a Monitoring Plan File for the monitoring designs, stations, and param-
eters; and 3) an Annual Report File for annual implementation and water quality
data.'NPSMS version 3.01 is currently used by National Monitoring Program
projects, operating in a DOS™ environment. USEPA has recently developed a
beta-version 4.2 that runs under MS Windows™ Version 3.1 or better (USEPA,
1996a).
This publication is an annual report on seventeen Section 319 NMP projects
approved as of September 1,1996, and one Section 319 NMP project pending
approval. Project profiles (Chapter 2) 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 sixteen surface water monitoring projects selected as Section 319 NMP
projects are Lightwood Knot Creek (Alabama), Oak Creek Canyon (Arizona),
Morro Bay (California), Jordan Cove Urban Watershed (Connecticut), Lake
Pittsfield (Illinois), Sny Magill (Iowa), Walnut Creek (Iowa), Warner Creek
Watershed (Maryland), Sycamore Creek (Michigan), Elm Creek (Nebraska), Long
Creek (North Carolina), Peacheater Creek (Oklahoma), Pequea and Mill Creek
(Pennsylvania), Lake Champlain (Vermont), Totten and Eld Inlet (Washington),
and Otter Creek (Wisconsin). A report on the Upper Grande Ronde Basin (Or-
egon) 319 project, which is pending Section 319 National Monitoring Program
project approval, is also included. The seventeenth project, Snake River Plain,
Idaho, is a pilot ground water project.
One of the projects focuses on urban sources, while the others primarily address
agricultural sources. Nearly all of the projects address river or stream problems,
while seven projects are intended to directly benefit a lake, estuary, or bay. One of
the projects is focused on ground water protection. Most projects are still in the
pre-implementation phase, but a few have begun to implement nonpoint source
controls. The progress made by these projects will be showcased in this report.
Each project profile includes a project overview, project description, and maps
showing the location of the project in the state and the location of water quality
monitoring stations. In the project description section, water resources are identi-
fied, water quality and project area characteristics are described, and the water
quality monitoring program is outlined. Project budgets and project contacts are
also presented.
The Appendices include the minimum reporting requirements for Section 319
NMP 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 NMP Projects.
-------
REFERENCES
Chapter 1: Introduction
Dressing, S.A. and J. Hill. 1996. Nonpoint Source Management System Software: A
Tool for Tracking Water Quality and Land Treatment. IN: Proceedings Watershed
'96 Moving Ahead Together Technical Conference and Exposition. Water Environ-
ment Federation, Alexandria, VA, p. 560-562.
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.
USEPA. 1994. Section 319 National Monitoring Program Projects. EPA-841-S-94-
006, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1996a. NonPoint Source Management System — NPSMS Version 4.0
User's Guide. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1996b. Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance for Fiscal Year
1997 and Future Years. Office of Water, 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 September 1, 1996, arranged in alphabetical
order by state. A profile of the Upper Grande Ronde Basin (Oregon) 319 project,
which is pending Section 319 National Moniotirng Program project approval, is
also included.
Each profile begins with a brief project overview, followed by detailed informa-
tion about the project, including water resource description; project area charac-
teristics; information, education, and publicity; nonpoint source control strategy;
water quality monitoring program information; total project budget; impact of
other federal and state programs; other pertinent information; and project con-
tacts.
Sources used in preparation of the profiles include project documents and review
comments made by project coordinators and staff.
i
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.
-------
Alabama
Lightwood Knot Creek
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Alabama
Project Area
o
Figure 1: Lightwood Knot Creek (Alabama) Project Location
-------
Lighwood Knot Creek, Alabama
.V •
SCALE
0
EXPLANATION
Lightwood Knot Creek- 4-5,
W. F. Jackson Lake A.
Watershed
_J:c
Specific project area • Control sampling site
and number
1 MILES
1 KILOMETERS
Figure 2: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Lightwood Knot Creek (Alabama) Watershed
-------
Lightwood Knot Creek, Alabama
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Lightwood Knot Creek is a tributary of the 1,100-acre W.F. Jackson Lake in
Southeastern Alabama (Figure 1). Jackson Lake was constructed for recreational
uses in 1987. The 47,300-acre watershed is approximately half forested and half
in agriculture. Pasture, hayland, cropland, and poultry production are the domi-
nant agricultural land uses.
Erosion in the Lightwood Knot Creek watershed and resulting sedimentation of
Jackson Lake are major water quality problems. Numerous agricultural fields have
been identified as sources of sediment. Types of erosion occurring include sheet,
rill, ephemeral, and erosion along unpaved roads. Nutrients and bacteria from
poultry operations are also potential sources of pollution.
Land treatment is scheduled to begin two years after the start of baseline monitor-
ing. Erosion control practices to be implemented include runoff and sediment
control structures, critical area planting, cover and green manure crops, and
pasture and hayland management. For animal waste management, practices
include poultry litter storage and waste utilization.
The Geological Survey of Alabama is conducting physical, chemical, and biologi-
cal monitoring at two sets of paired watersheds. Each of the watersheds has a
control and treatment watershed. These watersheds are small, ranging from 75 to
240 acres. Monitoring will be conducted weekly for all parameters (see Water
Quality Monitoring section below) from April through August. Only inorganic
parameters will be monitored for the remainder of the year.
A geographic information system (GIS) will be used to map soil, land use prac-
tices, underlying geology, slope, monitoring site, and best management practice
(BMP) implementation data for the two-paired watersheds that each consist of a
control watershed and treatment watershed
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Water resources of concern are Lightwood Knot Creek and other tributary streams
to Jackson Lake, a reservoir created in 1987. Four branches of Lightwood Knot
Creek will be monitored in this study. Median seven-day low flow of these
branches, sustained by ground water seepage, is approximately 0.32 cubic feet per
second per square mile of watershed.
Lightwood Knot Creek and Jackson Lake are used for recreation. Sedimentation
of tributaries and the lake is a primary concern. Excessive sediment impairs
aquatic life habitat, increases bridge maintenance costs, increases flooding poten-
tial, and reduces the capacity of Jackson Lake. Elevated levels of nitrogen and
phosphorus have been found in Lightwood Knot tributaries. No lake quality data
were available.
Very little background water quality information is available; however, tributary
sampling in July of 1994 provides some indication of pre-project water quality.
Turbidity ranged from 41 to 55 NTU. Total nitrogen ranged from 0.8 to 5.0 mg/1
and total phosphorus ranged from 0.03 to 0.51 mg/1. Fecal coliform and fecal
streptococcus ranged from approximately 500 to nearly 9,000 counts per 100 ml.
-------
Lighwood Knot Creek, Alabama
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
Project monitoring started in April of 1996 and no pre-project data are presently
available on current water quality conditions.
Temporary project time frame is January to December, 1996.
Project will be eligible for consideration for long-term funding after monitoring in
1996 is completed. Background data at present is not sufficient for long-term
funding.
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorological Factors
Land Use
The Lightwood Knot watershed draining into Jackson Lake covers 47,300 acres.
Jackson Lake is 1,100 acres in size.
Soils consist of a thin sandy loam topsoil and a sandy clay subsoil with a depth of
six feet. Average annual rainfall is 56 inches and average annual runoff is 23
inches.
Land Use
Crop
Pasture/hay
Forest
Residential
Lake
Total
Percent
23
26
47
2
2
100
Pollutant Sources
Pollutant sources vary from agricultural fields and roads to confined animal
operations. Numerous fields have been identified for erosion control BMPs. There
are 15 poultry operations and one dairy that are potential sources of nonpoint
source pollution.
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
A program of educational outreach and information distribution was initiated in
April, 1996.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY
Description
Many BMPs could be used for erosion control in the watershed, depending upon
site conditions. Runoff and sediment control structures, critical area planting,
cover and green manure crops, and pasture and hayland management are potential
erosion control practices.
For control of nutrients, poultry litter storage, mortality composting, and waste
utilization practices, such as adjusting the rate and timing of poultry litter applica-
tion to match realistic yields and crop uptake, are needed.
10
-------
Lightwood Knot Creek, Alabama
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Parameters
Measured
Two paired watershed studies being conducted on tributaries of Lightwood Knot
Creek (Figure 2). There are two control watersheds and two treatment watersheds.
No additional BMPs will be installed in the treatment watersheds for two years.
No additional BMPs will be installed in the control watersheds until the monitor-
ing study has been completed (approximately seven years).
Biological
Fecal coliform (FC)
Fecal streptococcus (FS)
Chemical
Aluminum (Al)
Ammonia (NHs)
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Beryllium (Be)
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Chloride (Cl)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Ma)
Nickel (Ni)
Nitrite (NO2)
Nitrate + nitrite (NOs + N02)
Orthophosphate (OP)
pH
Selenium (Se)
Silica (Si)
Silver (Ag)
Sulfate (SO4~)
Tin (Sn)
Total dissolved phosphorus (TOP)
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Turbidity
Zinc (Zn)
Covariates
Bedload sediment
Flow
Precipitation
Specific conductance
11
-------
Lighwood Knot Creek, Alabama
Sampling Scheme
Samples will be taken weekly for all parameters from April through August. Total
dissolved solids, total suspended solids, and covariates will be monitored monthly
during the remainder of the year.
Monitoring Scheme for the Lightwood Knot Creek Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Sites or
Design Activities
Frequency of
Primary Frequency of Habitat/Biological
Parameters Covariates WQ Sampling Assessment Duration
Two paired Tributary
watersheds subwatersheds
NHs Discharge Weekly
NO2 Precipitation
N03 + N02
OP
TDP
Turbidity
TSS
FC
FS
Annual 1 year
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
NPSMS Data
Summary
Chemical monitoring results will be entered into the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agencies' (USEPA) STORET database and the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management's database. Biological data will be stored in the
USEPA BIOS database.
The project intends to track water quality parameters and land use activities with
the NonPoint Source Management System (NPSMS).
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The estimated budget for the Lightwood Knot Creek Section 319 National Moni-
toring Program project for the life of the project is:
Project Element
Proj Mgt
I&E
LT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Federal
120,693
NA
100,000
544,307
775,000
Funding Source ($)
State Local
Sum
59,305
NA
NA
715,695
775,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
179,998
NA
NA
1,270,002
1,550,000
Source: Geological Survey of Alabama, 1995
12
-------
Lightwood Knot Creek, Alabama
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
In 1994, a Water Quality Incentive Project (WQIP) was approved for the Yellow
River basin. The project includes funding for BMPs in the Lightwood Knot Creek
watershed to improve erosion control and implementation of animal waste man-
agement practices.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
None.
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Information and
Education
Marlon Cook
Geological Survey of Alabama
420 Hackberry Lane
BoxO
Tuscaloosa, AL 35486-9780
(205) 349-2852
Steve Yelverton
USDA-NRCS
Box 1796
Andalusia, AL 36420
(205) 222-9451
Jack Goolsby
USDA-FSA
Box 1127
Andalusia, AL 36420
Marlon Cook
Geological Survey of Alabama
420 Hackberry Lane.
BoxO
Tuscaloosa, AL 35486-9780
(205) 349-2852
Chuck Simon
Covington County Extension Agent
Box 519
Andalusia, AL 36420
13
-------
Lighwood Knot Creek, Alabama
14
-------
Arizona
Oak Creek Canyon
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 3: Oak Creek Canyon (Arizona) Project Location
15
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
s.___^
~]
v_^'
s
/
^- /
1
J
„•>
X
\
1
1
\
\
•\
/
/
Cocortlno County
Yovapal County
/
\
n
\
Legend
Sampling Site (Upstream)
Sampling Site (Downstream)
Stream
Watershed Boundaiy
Figure 4: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Oak Creek Canyon (Arizona)
16
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Oak Creek flows through the southern rim of the Colorado Plateau (Figure 3). 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 to
impact the water quality of Oak Creek Canyon water.
The Oak Creek Section 319 National Monitoring Program project focuses on the
implementation and documentation of integrated best management practice
(BMP) systems for three locations: Slide Rock State Park, Pine Flats Campground,
and Slide Rock Parking Lot. The eleven-acre Slide Rock State Park is used by
more than 350,000 swimmers and sunbathers each season and Pine Flats Camp-
ground accommodates approximately 10,000 campers each season. Such heavy
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 use of facilities, 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.
An 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 swimming areas at both Slide Rock (treatment) and Grasshop-
per Point (control). An upstream/downstream water quality monitoring design is
also being used for Pine Flats Campground and Manzanita Campground. Pine
Flats Campground is the treatment site, while Manzanita serves as the control
site. Monitoring stations are upstream/downstream of campground sites. For these
two studies, weekly grab samples are taken from May 15 through September 15
for six years.
The Slide Rock parking lot study evaluates the effectiveness of a detention basin
designed to limit pollutants from entering Oak 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
runoff.
17
-------
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 River.
The study sites for this project are located in Oak Creek Canyon. This portion of
the watershed is characterized by steep canyons and rapid water flows with sharp
drops forming waterfalls and deep, cold pools. Oak Creek Canyon is the primary
recreational area in the watershed.
Designated beneficial uses of Oak Creek include full body contact (primarily in
Oak Creek Canyon), cold water fishery and wildlife habitat (primarily Oak Creek
Canyon), drinking water (along the entire course), agriculture (the lower third), and
livestock watering (lower third).
Oak Creek 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 were considered in the designation: 1) Oak Creek
Canyon is susceptible to irreparable or irretrievable loss due to the ecological
fragility of its location and 2) it is a surface water segment that can be managed as
a unique water. Management considerations must include technical feasibility and
the availability of management resources.
Biological, nutrient, and vehicular pollutants pose the most serious and pressing
current threats 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 from May through September. Excessive nutrients, particularly
phosphorus, which exceeds the 0.10 mg/1 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. Vehicular pollution consisting of heavy
metals (such as lead and zinc), petroleum hydrocarbons, and total organic carbons
originates from the estimated four million vehicles traveling along State Highway
89 A each year, as well as from drainage of numerous parking lots in the Oak
Creek Canyon area during rainstorms and snow melts. These sources of pollution
threaten 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.
18
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Fecal Coliform Levels During the Tourist Season (1993)
Fecal Coliform Count fcfu)
Date (#/100 ml)
July 434
August 393
June 61
September 54
Nutrient levels, especially phosphorus, are also of concern, as shown below:
Phosphorus (P) Concentrations at Pine Flats Campground During
1993 (the annual average standard is 0.10 mg/l)
Date
February, 1993
March, 1993
April, 1993
June, 1993
July, 1993
August, 1993
P(mg/l)
0.12
0.20
0.12
0.14
0.28
0.41
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. Preliminary data (see table below) indicates that heavy rainfall cleanses the
parking lot of pollutants and also flushes out significant amounts of pollutants
contained in the detention basin into Oak Creek.
Water Quality of the Detention Basin
Time
Before Rain (7/93)
After Rain (10/93)
DO(mg/I)
0.0
4.5
IlH
4.79
6.6
Znfug/1)
222
38
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Water Recreation Project Objectives
• A 50% reduction in fecal coliform
• A 20% reduction in nutrients, particularly ammonia
• A 20% reduction in total organic carbons with a corresponding reduction in
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
Camping Project Objectives
• A 50% reduction in fecal coliforms
• A 20% reduction in nutrients
Slide Rock Parking Lot Objectives
• A 25% reduction of automobile-related pollutants that enter Oak Creek
None.
19
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
1994 to 1999
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 monsoon
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, the main source of
which 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
Road
Campground and Parking Lots
Business and Residential
Floodplain
Undeveloped
TOTAL
6
14
27
32
21
100
Source: The Oak Creek 319(h) Demonstration Project National Monitoring Program Work
Plan, 1994
Pollutant Sources
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.
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
20
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
to keep participants informed of current project activities and results, gain in-
sights into areas of concern, and learn about the BMPs that are being imple-
mented 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 staff are developing signs and a brochure aimed at
educating Slide Rock visitors.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Slide Rock and Grasshopper Point (Water Recreation Project)
The access to and ambience of restroom facilities located at the Slide Rock
swimming area are being enhanced. Park officials are attempting to reduce the
amount of trash disposal in unauthorized areas. Finally, social strategies have
been implemented 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 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.
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.
None.
The Oak Creek Task Force has implemented the following BMPs:
• Erecting nearly one mile of permanent barricades on State Highway 89A,
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
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 and measuring the effectiveness of BMPs.
21
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
Parameters
Measured
The water recreation project, which is an upstream/downstream monitoring
design (Figure 4), is designed to document the change in water quality as a result
of the application of BMPs. The swimming sites at Slide Rock State Park (treat-
ment site) and Grasshopper Point (the control site) are compared. Water quality
monitoring stations are located above and below each swimming area.
The camping area project also uses an upstream/downstream monitoring design.
Water quality monitoring stations have been installed above and below both the
camping area at Pine Flats (treatment site) and the site at Manzanita (control
site).
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
objective of this monitoring phase is to demonstrate the extent to which land
treatment has reduced nonpoint source pollution.
None.
Slide Rock and Grasshopper Point (Water Recreation Project)
and Pine Flats and Manzanita (Campgrounds Project)
Biological
Fecal coliform (FC)
Chemical and Others
Ammonia (NHs)
Nitrate (NOs)
Phosphate (PO43")
Covariates
Water temperature
Stream velocity and level
Number of users of the sites
Weekly precipitation
Alkalinity
Calcium (Ca)
Chloride (Cl)
Conductivity
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Magnesium (Mg)
pH
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Na)
Turbidity
22
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Slide Rock Parking Lot Project
Chemical and Other
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Ammonia (NHs)
Nitrate (NOs)
Phosphate (PO43~)
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
Lead (Pb)
Copper (Cu)
Zinc (Zn)
Sampling Scheme
Covariates
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 and
monthly from November through April. Samples are taken in the deepest part of
the stream at each sampling site.
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 and outflow points of the detention
basin. The samplers are triggered by rainfall events. A sample of the "first flush"
is deposited in the first bottle. Thereafter, a sample is 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 as follows.
23
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Monitoring Scheme for the Oak Creek Canyon Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Activity/ Primary
Design Sites* Parameters**
— \VaterRecreation
Upstream/
downstream
BMP
effectiveness
Slide Rock (T)
Grasshopper
Point (C)
Outiplng
Pine Flats (T)
Manzanita (C)
—
~~ Parking Runoff
Slide Rock
Parking Lot
—
FC
NH3
NO3
PO43'
BOD
TSS, BOD,
N03.NH3,
PO^.Cu.Pb,
andZn
Covariates***
Alkalinity
Ca
Cl
Conductivity
DO
Mg
PH
K
Rainfall
Na
Streamflow
Turbidity
Visitor count
Water temperature
pH
Rainfall amount
Rainfall duration
Runoff velocity
Frequency Time
9/15-5/15 monthly 10 am -5pm
5/15-9/15 weekly Saturdays
Minimum of 20 event Event driven;
driven samples with usually in the
priority to: afternoon or
1 . 7/4 to 9/1 5 early evening
2. 9/1 5 to 7/4
Duration
2 years pre-BMP
1 year BMP
3 years post-BMP
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 ofthe 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.
***AM covariato parameters will be sampled throughout the 6-7 years ofthe 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 ofthe project.
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.
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 at
all locations.
Project personnel have concluded that a significant amount (30.79%) ofthe
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
24
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
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. Efforts at 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 July 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 personnel are 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 Section 319 National Monitoring Program project
continue to explore two possible sources of fecal pollution occurring at down-
stream. 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.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The estimated budget for the Oak Creek Canyon Section 319 National Monitoring
Program project for the life of the project is:
Project Element
Proj Mgt
LT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Federal
70,000
30,200
424,800
525,000
Funding Source (S)
State Local
70,000
65,000
NA
135,000
70,000
35,500
608,140
713,640
Total
210,000
130,700
1,032,940
1,373,640
Source: Tom Harrison (Personal Communication), 1994
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
25
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
Modifications Since
Project Started
The Oak Creek Section 319 National Monitoring Program 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 run 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.
None.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
None.
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Daniel Salzler
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Nonpoint Source Unit
3033 N. Central, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85012-0600
(602) 207-4507; Fax: (602) 207-4467
Dr. Gordon Southam
Department of Biological Sciences
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5640
(520) 523-8034; Fax: (520) 523-7500
Internet: ggs@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu
Dr. Richard D. Foust
Department of Chemistry and Environmental Science
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5698
(520) 523-7077; Fax: (520) 523-2626
Internet: rdf@al.ucc.nau.edu
26
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Information and
Education
Dr. Gordon Southam
Department of Biological Sciences
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5640
(520) 523-8034; Fax: (520) 523-7500
Internet: ggs@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu
Dr. Paul Trotta
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ 86011-1560
(520) 523-4330; Fax: (520) 523-2300
Internet: pdt@pine.cse.nau.edu
27
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
28
-------
California
Morro Bay Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 5: Morro Bay (California) Watershed Project Location
29
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Managed Grazing Project
Camp:StQNRCS
Management Plan
Chorrb Flats
Floodplain/Sediment
Retention Project
N
Cattle Exclusion Projects
Martinez
Conservation
Easement
Legend
C = Chumash Station
W= Waiters Station
U = Chorro/Upstream station
D = Chorro/Downstream Station
BMP Plan Implementation
Figure 6: Paired Watersheds (Chorro Creek and Los Osos Creek) in Morro Bay (California)
30
-------
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 5). 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 main
objective of the Morro Bay Nonpoint Source Pollution and Treatment Measure
Evaluation Program, of which the Morro Bay Watershed Section 319 National
Monitoring Program project is a subset, 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.
The Morro Bay Watershed Section 319 National Monitoring Program project is a
paired watershed study on two subwatersheds of Chorro Creek (Chumash and
Walters Creeks). The purpose of the project is to evaluate the effectiveness of a
BMP system in improving water quality (Figure 6). BMP system effectiveness is
being evaluated for sites outside the paired watershed. These projects include a
managed grazing system, cattle exclusion projects, and a flood plain sediment
retention project. 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 319 project monitoring effort is focused on the Chorro Creek water-
shed. Chorro Creek and its tributaries originate along the southern flank of Cuesta
Pudge, at elevations of approximately 2,700 feet. Currently three stream gauges
are operational in the Chorro Creek watershed: one each on the San Luisito, San
Bernardo, and Chorro creeks. Annual discharge is highly variable, ranging from
approximately 2,000 to over 20,000 acre-feet, and averaging about 5,600 acre-feet.
Flow in tributaries 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).
31
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Morro Bay is one of the few relatively intact natural estuaries on the Pacific Coast
of North America. The beneficial uses of Morro Bay include recreation, industry,
navigation, marine life habitat, shellfish harvesting, commercial and sport 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 affected 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, and egg and larval
survival 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
of years.
Accelerated sedimentation has also resulted in significant economic losses to the
oyster industry in the Bay. Approximately 100 acres of oyster beds have been lost
due to excessive sedimentation. Additionally, fecal coliform bacteria carried by
streams to the Bay have had a negative impact on the shellfish industry, resulting
in periodic closures of the area to shellfish harvesting (NRCS, 1992). Due to
continually elevated levels of total and fecal coliform, the California Department
of Health Services is considering reclassifying the Bay from "conditional" to
"restricted." Reclassification to "restricted" would require changes in harvesting
practices, which would be cost prohibitive for existing operations. Elevated fecal
coliform counts have been detected in water quality samples taken from several
locations in the watershed and the Bay. Elevated fecal coliform detections, exceed-
ing 1,600 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 U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Hydrologic Unit Areas
(HUA) project study show that the rate of sedimentation 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 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 parameters 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.
32
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
Evaluate the effectiveness of improving water quality in one of the paired
subwatersheds (Chumash Creek) of a BMP system.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of several BMP systems in improving water or
habitat quality at selected Morro Bay watershed locations, including a
managed grazing project, cattle exclusion projects, and a flood plain sediment
retention project.
• Monitor overall water quality in the Morro Bay watershed to identify problem
areas for future work, detect improvements or changes, and contribute to the
water quality database for watershed locations.
• Develop a geographic 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 1.75 miles wide at its maximum width. The project area is 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
post-glacial rise in sea level of several hundred feet resulted in a submergence of
the confluence of Chorro and Los Osos creeks (Haltiner, 1988). A series of creeks
that originate in the steeper hillslopes to the east of the Bay drain westward into
Chorro and Los Osos creeks, 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 F in January to highs of 75 degrees F 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 make up another 19% of
the watershed area. Agricultural crops (truck, field, and grain crops), woodlands,
and urban areas encompass approximately equal amounts of the landscape in the
watershed.
33
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Land Use
Agricultural Crops
Woodland
Urban
Brushland
Rangeland
Total
Source: NRCS, 1989a
Acres
3,149
3,093
3,389
8,319
26,162
44,112
7
7
8
19
59
100
Pollutant Sources
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.
In August, 1994, the "Highway 41 Fire" burned a significant portion (7,524 acres)
of the upper Chorro Creek watershed and its tributaries. The paired watersheds,
Chorro, Churrash, and Walters, were not burned. Above average precipitation and
several periods of widespread flooding during the 1994-95 winter, following the
wildfires, resulted in significant erosion and sediment loading throughout the
watershed.
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Many formal and informal educational programs conveying information about the
319 National Monitoring Program project and the watershed are conducted each
year. Information and education programs include field tours, lectures, and
workshops about the water quality problems within the watershed (for landowners
and local agency personnel).
Public presentations about the Morro Bay 319 National Monitoring Program
project were made to groups such as Friends of the Estuary, as well as Cal Poly
State University (Cal Poly) and Cuesta Community College. Presentations on the
monitoring program were also 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 have been made at several Cooperative
Extension erosion control field tours and workshops, the Morro Bay Museum of
Natural History, a 4-H watershed education day, the California Biodiversity
Council, Morro Bay Task Force meeting, and Cal Poly Coastal Resources, Soil
Science, Limnology, and Marine Biology classes. Publicity generated includes
excellent articles in the local newspaper, a radio program, and a featured spot on
the local evening news.
34
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Paired Watershed
BMP Systems at Sites
within the Morro Bay
Watershed
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
In the paired watershed, a BMP system is being used to reduce 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, while Walters Creek
serves as the control. The implemented 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 increase from essentially zero to at least 50%
coverage. The project team has established a goal of a 50% reduction in sediment
following BMP implementation.
The NRCS has designed several BMP systems in the Morro Bay watershed. Three
of these systems are being evaluated for their effect on water and habitat quality:
• A flood plain 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 Maine ranch (managed grazing project)
The goals for these projects during the next 10 years are to achieve:
• A 33.8% decrease in sediment yield from the sediment retention project
• A 66% reduction in sediment yield from the cattle exclusion project
• 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 has expanded its focus to include monitoring
projects throughout the entire Morro Bay watershed. Implementation for land
improvements on the Chumash Creek watershed is underway. To date, implemen-
tation has included construction of riparian pastures, additional upland pastures,
watering troughs, and culvert improvements. Revegetation and stabilization of
portions of the corridor was completed in the fall of 1996.
Flood Plain Sediment Retention Project: The Chorro Flats project has obtained
funding ($960,000) for implementation of the Flood Plain Restoration Project. All
environmental documents and engineering designs have been completed.
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.
35
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
Parameters
Measured
Two watersheds have been selected for a paired watershed study. Chumash Creek
(400 acres) and Walters Creek (480 acres) both drain into Chorro Creek. The
watersheds of the two creeks have similar soils, vegetative cover, elevation, slope,
and land use activities. The property surrounding the 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-
cal/habitat monitoring. The calibration period (the period during which the two
watersheds are monitored to establish statistical relationships between them) has
been completed (1994-1995). After the calibration period was completed, a BMP
system offences, watering troughs, and other improvements was installed in one
of the watersheds (Chumash Creek). The other watershed, Walters Creek, serves
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 flood
plain 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 ihonitoring, 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 were collected. Addi-
tional water quality and flow data were obtained in the 1995-1996 rainy season.
This will be characterized as a "during BMP implementation" year.
Biological
Total and fecal coliform (FC)
Riparian vegetation
Upland rangeland vegetation
Benthic invertebrates
Chemical and Other
Suspended solids (SS) (total filterable solids)
Turbidity
Nitrate (NOs)
Phosphate (PO43~)
Conductivity
pH
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Temperature
36
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Sampling Scheme
Covariates
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 stations are analyzed for SS, turbidity,
NOa, PO43", total and fecal coliform, and other physical parameters.
The Dairy Creek cattle exclusion is being analyzed for SS, turbidity, nutrients,
total and fecal coliform, and other physical parameters.
Suspended sediment and turbidity are being monitored at the Chorro Flats sedi-
ment retention area.
In addition, year-round samples for pH, DO, turbidity, temperature, and total and
fecal coliform are conducted every two weeks at several additional sampling sites
throughout the Morro Bay Watershed.
In the paired watershed, SS 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 SS, turbidity, and conduc-
tivity. Streamflow and climatic data are also collected for hydrologic response of
watersheds
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
monitored two times each year to sample upland and riparian vegetation and
document changes during the life of the project.
Cross-sectioned stream channel profiles are conducted once each year to docu-
ment stream channel shape, substrate particle size, and streambank vegetation.
Rapid BioAssessment (RBA) is used as a tool to assess water and habitat quality
of sites throughout the Chorro and Los Osos Watersheds.
37
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Monitoring Scheme for the Morro Bay Watershed Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Design
Paired
Upstream/
downstream
Upstream/
downstream
Single
downstream
Sites or
Activities
Chumash
CreckTand
Walters Creek c
Chorro Flats
Sediment
Retention
Project
Dairy Creeks
Cattle Exclusion
Project
Maino Ranch
Managed
Grazing
Project
Primary
Parameters
Total &FC
Riparian vegetation
SS & bedload sediment
Turbidity
NO3
P043'
Conductivity
PH
DO
SS
Turbidity
Sediment deposition
SS
Turbidity
FC
NO3
PO43'
Physical parameters
SS
Turbidity
FC
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 arid 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.
RBA once per year.
Cross-sectional
profiles once per year
(cross-sections).
March & Sept.
aerial photography
in 1st, 5th, &
10th year.
RBA once per year.
Cross-sections.
March & Sept.
aerial photography
in 1st, 5th, &
10th year.
RBA once per year.
Cross-sections.
March & Sept.
aerial photography
in 1st, 5th, &
10th year.
'Vegetation transects
twice per year.
RBA once per year.
Cross-sections.
Duration
2 yrs pre-BMP
2 yrs BMP
6 yrs post-BMP
4 yrs pre-BMP
1 yrBMP
4 yrs post-BMP
lyr pre-BMP
1/2 yrBMP
7 yrs post-BMP
0- lyr pre-BMP
8 yrs post-BMP
""Treatment watershed
'•Control watershed
Modifications Since
Project Started
Modifications have been made to sediment analysis techniques since project
inception. During the first 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. Presently, analysis is for
total filterable solids. A relationship between conductivity and dissolved solids is
being developed to convert past years' 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 unchanged for nitrate, phosphate, conductivity, turbidity,
dissolved oxygen, and water temperature.
The upper Chorro Flats station was moved downstream below the influence of the
Chorro Flats Sediment Retention Project. Bedload sampling has been discontin-
ued because of sampling difficulties. The Chorro Flats water quality stations were
redesigned in October, 1995. The "top down" removable intake pipes facilitate
improved functionality and accessibility.
38
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
The winter of 1993-1994 was relatively dry, with only two runoff events. In
contrast, the 1994-1995 rainy season was characterized by above average precipi-
tation and periods of flooding. The 1995-1996 winter was more representative of
normal rainfall events and streamflow levels in the watershed. Sediment, turbid-
ity, and flow data from storm events are collected. Even interval grab sampling is
obtained, with sampling conducted once every two weeks. During the rainy season
(20 weeks beginning after the first runoff event), grab samples were collected once
per week. Although the study design requires even-interval sampling year round,
this is not feasible in several locations (including the paired watersheds) because
the flow becomes intermittent or ceases entirely during summer months. The
Coshocton sampler experienced continual inundation with sediment and was
removed in 1995.
Data Management
Data and BMP implementation information are handled by the project team. As
required by the USEPA Section 319 National Monitoring Program Guidance, data
are entered into STORET and reported using the Nonpoint Source Management
System Software (NPSMS). A geographic 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.
NPSMS Data
Summary
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
Data Analysis
Recent analysis has focused on the baseline data collection period. Linear regres-
sion of Chumash flow on Walters flow demonstrates a close, though not entirely
linear, relationship (R=0.73). Current work includes development of minimum
detectable change limits for baseline data and integration of even interval and
event-based data.
Data will be entered into STORET and NPSMS as soon as upgraded software
versions are available.
None.
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. GIS 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 data analysis indicates that Chumash
and Walters Creek are well paired and that sufficient baseline data have been
collected.
39
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The estimated budget for the Morro Bay Watershed Section 319 National Moni-
toring Program project for the period of FY96 is:
Project Element
Proj Mgt
I&E
*LT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Funding Source (S)
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
Modifications Since
Project Started
* 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
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 an overall
basin plan, and develop guidance packages for the various agencies charged with
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. The law estab-
lishes Morro Bay as the first "State Estuary," and mandates that a comprehensive
management plan be developed for the bay and its watershed by locally involved
agencies, organizations, and the general public.
On July 6, 1995, Morro Bay was accepted into the National Estuary Program
(NEP). This "National Estuary" designation provides 1.3 million from USEPA
dollars for planning over a three year period. Current efforts have been made by
the Morro Bay State Estuary Watershed Council to create the foundation for this
planning process. NEP issue groups have been meeting to discuss pollution
sources in the watershed and estuary and to explore management measures which
could be implemented. Action plans including strategies for reducing pollutants
such as sediment and bacteria are being developed by NEP staff through input
from the community and interested agencies.
40
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Modifications Since
Project Started
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. USDA 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 with 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 their financial resources, the
Section 319 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, is being modified in conjunction with plans to
reroute South Bay Boulevard over Chorro Creek. Construction began in May of
1996 and will be completed before the winter rains.
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 Section 319 National Monitoring Program project to develop a water-
shed GIS database. The Bay Foundation also recently purchased satellite photo-
graphs of the watershed, which will prove useful for the monitoring program
effort. The National Estuary Program, Friends of the Estuary, and the Bay Foun-
dation of Morro Bay are cooperating to develop a volunteer monitoring program
for the Bay itself. Ongoing volunteer efforts include water quality and habitat
monitoring.
41
-------
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 93401-5427
(805) 549-3336, 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@oboe.calpoly.edu
Gary Ketcham
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
(805) 756-2548
Scott Robbins
USDA-NRCS
545 Main Street, Suite Bl
Morro Bay, CA 93442
(805) 772-4391, Fax (805) 772-4398
Karen Worcester
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
81 Higuera St. Suite 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-0397
(805) 549-3336, 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@oboe.calpoly.edu
Katie Kropp
Morro Bay National Estuary Program
81 Higuera Street, Suite 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 549-3336, Fax (805) 543-0397
42
-------
Connecticut
Jordan Cove Urban Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 7: Jordan Cove Urban Watershed (Connecticut) Project Location
43
-------
i Jordan Cove Urban Watershed, Connecticut
D
Legend
Building Square
Open Space
Slopes >20%
Wetland Boundary
Monitoring Locations
*&m«w\zjK.~.
•z^'jm.'*^
URBAN WATERSHED PROJECT
JOHN ALEXOPOOLOS
ASSOC, PROF. Of LAND. ARCH.
U OF CT
AREA 8
10- 56 ACRES
17 UNITS
Figure 8: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Jordan Cove Urban Watershed (Connecticut) Watershed
44
-------
Jordan Cover Urban Watershed, Connecticut
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Jordan Cove watershed is located along the north or Connecticut side of the
Long Island Sound (Figure 7). Jordan Cove is a small estuary fed by Jordan
Brook; the estuary empties into Long Island Sound. Water quality sampling has
indicated that the Cove does not meet bacteriological standards for shellfish
growing and sediment sampling has revealed high concentrations (>20 ppm) of
arsenic. Also, short-term monitoring of bottom waters has documented depressed
levels of dissolved oxygen.
Land use in the 4,846-acre Jordan Brook watershed is mostly forests and wetlands
(74%) along with some urban (19%), and agricultural (7%) uses. The project is
located in a residential section of the watershed. The project plan is to develop a
10.6-acre area following traditional subdivision requirements and another 6.9-
acre area of housing using best management practices (BMPs). A third drainage
area consisting of 12 lots on 7 acre's, which was developed in 1988, will be used as
a control.
The project will incorporate the paired watershed monitoring design for the three
study areas. Monitoring will include precipitation, air temperature, and grab and
storm-event sampling for solids, nutrients, metals, fecal conform, and biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD). Additionally, monitoring of selected individual BMPs
will also be conducted.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
Water resources of concern are Jordan Brook, Jordan Cove estuary, and Long
Island Sound. The cove is a long and narrow estuary consisting of a 390-acre
inner cove and an 100-acre outer cove. Because the project will sample only
overland runoff, no water resource will be monitored.
The Jordan Cove estuary does not meet bacteriological standards for shellfish
growing. Sediment sampling has revealed high concentrations (>20 ppm) of
arsenic.
Semi-annual sampling at eight locations along Jordan Brook has documented
average concentrations of total phosphorus less than 0.03 mg/1 and nitrate less
than 1 mg/1. Water samples from inner Jordan Cove have had fecal coliform
counts with a geometric mean ranging from 26 to 154 cfu/lOOml.
Retain sediment on site during construction and reduce nitrogen, bacteria, and
phosphorus export by 65, 85, and 40 percent, respectively. Maintain post-develop-
ment runoff peak rate and volume and total suspended solids load to pre-develop-
ment levels.
1996 to 2006
February, 1996
45
-------
i Jordan Cove Urban Watershed, Connecticut
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorological Factors
Land Use
Pollutant Sources
The two developments designated as treatment watersheds combined cover about
17.5 acres and the residential control watershed is approximately 7 acres.
The average annual precipitation is 49.8 inches, including 35 inches of snowfall.
Soils on the study areas are mapped as Canton and Charlton, which are well-
drained soils (hydrologic soil group B). The surficial geology is glacial till and
stratified drift. Bedrock is composed of gneiss originating from Avelonia. Bedrock
is typically at a depth greater than 60 inches and the water table is located below
six feet.
Land use in the area to be developed using traditional requirements is currently
poultry farming; the area designated for development using BMPs is a closed-out
gravel pit. The control drainage area has 12 residential lots, ranging in size from
15,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet, which were developed in 1988.
Primary pollutant sources are expected to be construction and later urban runoff
from residences.
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Each household in the three study watersheds will be visited annually for the
purpose of obtaining survey information related to factors influencing nutrient and
bacteria losses. Interaction during these visits will help answer questions about
residents habits that affect nutrient and bacteria deposition and educate residents
about reducing nonpoint source pollution.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY
Description
The management practices will be applied to the BMP treatment drainage area
only and will vary with two time phases. The first phase will be during construc-
tion (18 months). During this phase, nonstructural practices such as phased
grading, immediate seeding of stockpiled topsoil, maintenance of a vegetated open
space perimeter, and immediate temporary seeding of proposed lawn areas and
structural practices, including sediment detention basins and sediment detention
swales, will be employed.
Post-construction practices will include street sweeping, implementation of
fertilizer and pesticide management plans, animal (pets) waste management, and
plant waste pick-up. Structural practices such as grass swales, detention basins,
roof runoff dry wells, gravel pack shoulders on access roads, and the minimization
of impervious surfaces will be used. The goal is to implement BMPs on 100% of
the lots in the BMP study area.
46
-------
Jordan Cover Urban Watershed, Connecticut
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Parameters
Measured
The study design is the paired watershed approach using two treatment and one
control watersheds. The calibration period will last for about one year during
which time current land use management will be continued. The treatment period
will include two phases: an 18-month construction phase and a long-term post
implementation monitoring phase.
Biological
Fecal coliform (FC)
Chemical and Other
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Total phosphorus (TP)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Ammonia (NHs)
Nitrate + nitrite (NOs + Mh)
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
Copper (Cu), lead (Pb), and zinc (Zn)
Sampling Scheme
Covariates
Runoff
Precipitation
Air temperature
Flow-weighted composite samples will be collected during storm-events and
analyzed for solids and nutrients. Bacteria and BOD analyses will be conducted
on grab samples collected manually when flow is occurring during a visit to the
site. Portions of storm samples will be saved and combined into a monthly com-
posite sample that will be analyzed for metals.
Monitoring Scheme for the Jordan Cove Urban Watershed 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Sites or
Design Activities
Primary
Parameters
Covariates
Frequency of
WQ Sampling
Frequency of
Habitat/Biological
Assessment
Duration
Paired BMP watershed TSS Rainfall
Traditional watershed TP Air temperature
Control watershed TKN Runoff
NHs
NO3+NO2
Storm-event
1 yr calibration
1.5 yr construction
7.5 yr post-BMP
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
NPSMS Data
Summary
Water quality and land treatment data will be entered into the NonPoint Source
Management System (NPSMS) software. Quarterly and annual reports will be
prepared and submitted according to Section 319 National Monitoring Program
procedures. Raw water quality data will be entered into STORET.
Unavailable.
47
-------
i Jordan Cove Urban Watershed, Connecticut
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The estimated budget for several elements of the Jordan Cove Urban Watershed
National Monitoring Program project for the life of the project is:
Project Element
Proj Mgt
I&E
LT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Federal
NA
NA
NA
535,400
535,400
Funding Source ($)
State Local
Sum
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15,000
NA
15,000
NA
NA
15,000
535,400
550,400
Source: Jack Clausen, Personal Communication (1996)
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
Unknown.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
None.
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Information and
Education
Bruce Morton
Aqua Solutions
60 Burnside Drive
East Hartford, CT 06108
(860) 289-7664; Fax: (860) 289-7664
Joe Neafsey
USDA-NRCS
16 Professional Park Road
Storrs, CT 06268-1299
(860) 487-4017; Fax: (860) 487-4017 '
Jack Clausen
Univ. of Connecticut
Dept. of Natural Resources
1376 Storrs Rd., U87, Room 228
Storrs, CT 06238
(860) 486-2840; Fax: (860) 486-5408
Internet: jclausen@canrl .cag.uconn.edu
Chester (Chet) Arnold
Univ. of Connecticut
Cooperative Extension Service
P.O. Box 70
Haddam, CT 06438
(860) 345-4511
48
-------
Idaho
Eastern Snake River Plain
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 9: Eastern Snake River Plain (Idaho) Demonstration Project Area Location
49
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
10
N
Nevada
Figure 10: Eastern Snake River Plain (Idaho) USDA Demonstration Project Area
50
-------
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 9). 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)
(Figure 10) is to reduce adverse agricultural impacts on ground water quality
through coordinated implementation of nutrient and irrigation water manage-
ment. As part of the 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 the 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) intensive land use overlying the system, and
3) 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 through October 1991,
195 samples taken from 54 area wells were analyzed for nitrate. Average nitrate
concentrations were around 6.5 milligrams per liter (mg/1), with a maximum of
28 mg/1. The federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for nitrate concentra-
tions of 10 mg/1 was exceeded in 16 % of the wells at least once during the sam-
pling period. Five percent of the wells yielded samples that continuously exceeded
the MCL during the sampling period.
51
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Ninety-eight samples collected from the same 54 wells were 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 well water currently meets MCL standards, pesticide
concentrations are still believed to be a future concern for the Eastern Snake River
Plain Aquifer.
The overall USDA 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 to:
• Evaluate the effects of irrigation water management on nitrate-nitrogen
leaching to the ground water. A paired-field study, referred to as "M" (Figure
10), 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" (Figure 10), will allow
a comparison of the amount of nitrogen leached to ground water as a result of
growing beans after alfalfa, a practice that generates nitrogen, and the
amount of nitrogen leached to ground water as a result of growing grain after
alfalfa, a practice that 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 already available.
October 1991 - October 1997
1992
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
The USDA Demonstration Project encompasses 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 (Fields "M" and "F," see Figure 10). The paired fields were 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 on "M" and furrow on "F"),
the "M" field has relatively lower spatial variability of existing water quality than
the "F' field. The "F" field also shows greater influences of water and nutrient
movement 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.
52
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Land Use
Pollutant Sources
Modifications Since
Project Started
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.
In the project area, over 99% of the land is irrigated. Of the irrigated cropland, at
least 85% 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 USDA 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 Section 319 National Monitoring Program project is included in the
Demonstration 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 this survey have been published.
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.
The USDA Demonstration Project staff continue to provide the I&E program 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.
Presentations have also been made to local and regional agricultural producers,
local irrigation districts and canal companies, industry representatives, and
industiy supply vendors.
53
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
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.
Information has been disseminated through local and regional television and radio
programs and newspaper articles. ,
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Description
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
The nonpoint source control strategy for the USDA Demonstration Project focuses
on nitrogen, pesticide, and irrigation water management practices that will reduce
the amount of nutrients and pesticides reaching surface water and leaching into
the ground water. The following BMP strategies are being implemented:
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 NPS 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 being used to establish existing ground water baseline
conditions under a "wheel line" sprinkler system. After baseline conditions have
been established, the application rate of irrigation water to the "BMP" side of the
paired field will be limited to approximately half that of the control side.
Baseline conditions under sprinkler-irrigated alfalfa production are being estab-
lished 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.
The design of the project has changed since its inception. Originally, the objective
of the "M" paired field was to determine the effect of irrigation water manage-
ment on nitrate-nitrogen leaching into the ground water. One side of the field was
to have a sprinkler irrigation system, while the other side was to have furrow
irrigation. However, cost share negotiations with the "M" field land owner for
project participation lead to implementation of the same irrigation water supply
system (sprinkler irrigation) in both the BMP test field and the control field.
Seventy-five farms currently have received direct technical and financial assis-
tance for BMP installation on their farm.
Both fields that 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
already available.
54
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
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. Also, project staff have encountered
difficulty interacting with producers during the growing season because of the
heavy daily schedule of producers.
Changes in the type of crops produced and the production methods employed
during baseline monitoring have been detrimental to the experimental design. The
original objective of the "F" paired field was to compare water quality conditions
under different cropping regimes (alfalfa vs. beans). However, scheduled crop
rotations have been changed to meet commodity market demands on the "F" field.
Due to the changes in experimental design, the duration of the monitoring project
has been extended in order to re-establish baseline water quality data.
Additionally, adequate monitoring has been difficult to achieve. Weather or
available labor or equipment may cause a producer to perform unscheduled field
activities during a scheduled ground water sampling event. Monitoring informa-
tion obtained on spatial soil variability has led to installation of additional infield
instrumentation. The number and arrangement of the field instrumentation has
complicated production field work as producers are forced to manipulate produc-
tion equipment around monitoring instrumentation.
The dynamics of ground water quality monitoring of land use changes have
presented significant challenges. As the monitoring project proceeds, new infor-
mation 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 demon-
strated 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 USD A Demonstration
Project incorporates two paired-field networks consisting of a total of 24 con-
structed wells. Of the 12 wells on each paired field, 8 wells are centrally located
"permanent" wells and 4 are peripheral "temporary" wells.
The scope of work has been increased significantly since the project started in
1992. The changes were required to facilitate evaluation of the effects of spatial
variability within the two paired fields. In addition to the original ground water
sample collection scheme for the 12 wells in each field, soil water and additional
ground water samples are being collected. Geostatistically-based soil water and
ground water sampling programs have been initiated. Soil water samples, taken
with suction lysimeters (soil water samplers), have been collected monthly during
the growing season at both the "F" and "M" paired fields. Permanent, pressure-
vacuum lysimeters (12 inch length) are installed to a depth of one meter below
land surface at the "F" field. A seasonal (removed and replaced each growing
season) sampling network that includes both vacuum lysimeters (24 inch length)
and pressure-vacuum lysimeters (12 inch length) is installed in the "M" field.
55
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
These lysimeters are installed at a depth of 0.5 meters below land surface. The soil
water sampling program provides important information for the interpretation of
spatial and temporal variability of the ground water samples collected from in-
field monitoring wells.
Twenty-three lysimeters were installed in the "F" field during June, 1994. Six
lysimeters were installed in the "M" field during July, 1994. The area! distribution
of lysimeters installed in 1994 was based on grain size analyses of soil samples
collected in the "F" and "M" fields.
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
Parameters
Measured
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 to the sampling plan were implemented for the 1995
growing season:
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
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen was detected in a few wells during the first three years of
the project but did not appear to correlate with the nitrate concentrations mea-
sured. Nitrate was chosen as the primary constituent of interest as the indicator
parameter for evaluation of BMP effectiveness.
Baseline data are still being collected.
Biological
None
Chemical and Other
Nitrate (NOs)
pH
Temperature
Conductivity
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and Ammonium (NH+4)
Organic scans for pesticide
Covariates
Precipitation
Crop
Soil texture
Nutrient content of the irrigation water
56
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Sampling Scheme
A number of covariate monitoring activities have been undertaken by some of the
other agencies participating in the project. In addition, vadose zone suction
lysimeters are being used to monitor NOs transport. Well monitoring consists of
monthly grab samples. Chemical and other parameters are analyzed monthly,
except for NH+4 and TKN, which are analyzed quarterly, and organics, which are
analyzed semi-annually.
Monitoring Scheme for the Eastern Snake River Plain Section 319 National Monitoring
Program Project
Design
Site
Paired field "M" field
Primary
Parameters
Covariates
Frequency of
WQ Sampling
Duration
NOs
PH
Temperature
Conductivity
DO
TDS
TKN
Pesticides
Precipitation
Crop
Soil texture
Nutrient content of
the irrigation water
Monthly for primary
pollutants except
Pesticides (sampled)
semiannually)
and Nitrogen
(quarterly)
4 yrs pre-BMP
lyrBMP
2 yrs post-BMP
Paired field "F" field
N03
pH
Temperature
Conductivity
DO
TDS
TKN
NH+4
Pesticides
Precipitation
Crop
Soil texture
Nutrient content of
the irrigation water
4 yrs pre-BMP
lyrBMP
2 yrs post-BMP
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
NPSMS Data
Summary
None.
The Idaho Division of Environmental Quality is entering raw water quality data
in the USEPA STORET system. Data is also entered into the USD A 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 the influence of land use
activities on ground water quality. 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, a
geostatistic investigation centers around designing an area! distribution of sam-
pling 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.
Not applicable.
57
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
None.
Baseline data are still being collected.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The estimated budget for the Eastern Snake River Plain Section 319 National
Monitoring Program project for the period of FY 92-95:
Project Element
Proj Mgt
I&E
LT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Funding Source ($)
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
Modifications Since
Project Started
Source: Osiensky and Long, 1992; John Cardwell (Personal Communication, 1995)
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 USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA). 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 Department of
Water Resources, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Idaho Department of
Agriculture, have taken on various project tasks.
The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and the Idaho Water Resource
Research Institute are responsible for the 319 National Monitoring Program
portion of the project.
An institutional advantage of this project i%that the NRCS and the CES are
located in the same office.
58
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Three local Soil and Water Conservation Districts, East Cassia, West Cassia, and
Minidoka, as well as the Minidoka and Cassia County FSA, county committees,
and the Cassia County Farm Bureau make up the USDA Demonstration Project
Steering 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
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 USDA 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 these data has
led to site-specific ground water investigations by the Idaho Division of Environ-
mental Quality and Idaho Department of Agriculture. The site-specific investiga-
tion demonstrated 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.
59
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Water Quality
Monitoring
Land Treatment
information and
Education
Jeff Bohr
USDANRCS
1369 East 16th St.
Burley, ID 83318
(208) 678-7946; Fax (208) 678-5750
Charlie Bidondo
319 Program Coordinator
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 Hilton
Boise, ID 83706
(208) 373-0274; Fax (208) 335-0576
Dean Yashon
319 Program Coordinator
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 Hilton
Boise, ID 83706
(208) 373-0319; Fax (208) 335-0576
Jim Osiensky
Boise State University
Dept. of Geosciences
Boise, ID 83725
(208) 385-1308; Fax (208) 385-4061
Internet: josiensk@trex.idbsu.edu
Jeff Bohr
USDANRCS
1369 East 16th St.
Boise, 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
Reed Findlay
University of Idaho
Cooperative Extension
1369 East 16th St.
Burley, ID 83318
(208) 678-7946; Fax (208) 678-5750
60
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Snake River Plain
Water Quality Demonstration Project
Forgeon Test Field: Burley Idaho
Lysimeter and Monitoring Well Location Map
FPNE
•
. 21V
FW4 7X
SX A*
I.8X
ex
FPW
FW1
* A3X
A A A
7G 5B
4D
FPNW
11X ..A.12X
FE4
FE3
J3M 12L
A A
FE2
FBI
FPS
T
(Instnment locations surveyed)
Monitoring Wells
cojnpJeted at a depth ojf 30 ft.
PE1, FE2, PE3, PE4,
FW1, FW2, PW3, PW4,
PPS, PPW, FPNE, FPHW
Lysimeters
installed at a deptn of 3 ft'
1A to 23W
IX to 13X
Field Map 1.
61
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Snake River Plain
Water Quality Demonstration Project
Honour Test Field: Hurley, Idaho
Lysimeter and Monitoring Well Location Map
MPWN
MPWS
2Z
MW4
MW3
MW2
MW1
IS
ME4
ME3
ME2
A ME,
MPEN
MPES
(Inslrument loco lions ore approximate]
• Monitoring Wells A Lysimeters
ocapleted at a depth of 10 ft. installed at a depth of l.S ft
MH1, KW2, KW3, KW4, 1Z to 25Z
ME1, MB2, ME3, MEt,
MEE3, MPEN, MPWS, MPWN
Field Map 2.
62
-------
Illinois
Lake Pittsfield
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 11: Lake Pittsfield (Illinois) Location
63
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
Lake Pittsfield
Figure 12: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Blue Creek Watershed and Lake Pittsfield (Illinois)
64
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Lake Pittsfield was constructed in 1961 to serve as both 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), and small livestock operations: 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 United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA), is being used to fund conservation tillage,
integrated crop management, livestock exclusion, filter strips, and wildlife habitat
management. An information and education program on the implementation of
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 Lake Pittsfield Section
319 National Monitoring Program project in order to evaluate the effectiveness of
the settling basins. Water quality monitoring consists of storm event tributary
sampling, lake water quality monitoring, and lake sedimentation rate monitoring.
Land-based data are being used by the ISWS to develop watershed maps of sedi-
ment sources and sediment yields using a geographic 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 11).
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 (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 northern portion of the lake.
65
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
Lake Pittsfield Sedimentation Studies.
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Modifications Since
Project Initiated
Project Time Frame
Year of
Survey
1961
1974
1979
1985
1992
Lake Age
(Years)
13.5
18.3
24.3
31.5
Lake
Volume
ac-ft MG
3563
3069
2865
2760
2679
1161
1000
933
899
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
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 taken. The 0.3 mg/1 standard for inorganic
nitrogen 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.
Initial water quality funding began in 1992 as a 319 Watershed Project. In 1994,
the project was approved for the Section 319 National Monitoring Program.
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 11). The terrain is rolling with many narrow forested
draws in the lower portion of the watershed. The topography of the upper portion
of the watershed 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,
contour plowing, and water control structures. Many terraces were constructed
66
-------
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
Reserroir/Farm Ponds
Roads/Construction
Park
TOTAL
48
21
20
2
4
2
3
100
Pollutant Sources
Modifications Since
Project Started
Source: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Springfield, IL.
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
Modifications Since
Project Started
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(h) funds have been used to build 29 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(h)funds.
Funds from the Water Quality Incentive Program were 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 manage-
ment, 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.
The contract for building sediment basins was extended to August 20, 1996, due to
design modification and the permit process for the large sediment basin.
67
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
A total of 29 sediment basins and the large riprap basin have been completed. It is
estimated that these basins are reducing sediment delivery by 25-40%. The large
sediment basin has also been completed. All WQIP projects have been imple-
mented.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
Parameters
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 12).
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 isibeing conducted. The results of this survey
allow shoreline to be evaluated for erosion.
None.
Biological
None
Chemical and Other
Lake
Orthophosphate (OP)
Total phosphorus (TP)
Dissolved phosphorus (DP)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Nitrate + nitrite (NOs + NC-2)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Volatile suspended solids (VSS)
pH
Total alkalinity
Phenolphthalein alkalinity
Specific conductivity
Water temperature
Air temperature
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Atrazine
Storm Sampling (Stream)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Single Station (Stream-Station C)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Covariates
Rainfall
68
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
Sampling Scheme
Storm sampling is being conducted at four stations located on Blue Creek (sta-
tions B, C, D, and H — see Figure 12). 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
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 ibads.
Three stations located on tributaries of either Blue Creek or Lake Pittsfield (sta-
tions E, F, and I - see Figure 12) 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 12).
Three lake sampling stations have been established in the most shallow portion of
the lake, the middle of the lake, and the deepest part of the lake. Water quality
grab samples are taken monthly from April through October.
In-situ observations are made for Secchi disk transparency and temperature and
dissolved oxygen profiles at 2-foot intervals in Lake Pittsfield.
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 Parameters Measured).
Rain gauges have been placed near sampling sites C, D, and H (see Figure 12).
Monitoring Scheme for the Lake Pittsfield Section 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
Parameters
TSS
TSS
Secchi disk transparency
DO
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
OP
TP
NH3+NHfrt
Ammonia nitrogen
TKN
NO3 + NO2
TSS
VSS
PH
Total alkalinity
Phenolphthalein alkalinity
Specific conductivity
Water temperature
Air temperature
DO
Atrazine
Lake depth
October
Prior to
dredging
Once
69
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
None.
The water quality monitoring data are entered into a database and then loaded into
the USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) water quality data base,
STORET. Data are also stored and analyzed with the USEPA NonPoint Source
Management System (NPSMS) software.
NPSMS Data
Summary
Monitoring Station Parameters Report
PERIOD: Spring Season, 1995
STATION TYPE: Upstream Station
CHEMICAL, PARAMETERS
Parameter Name
FLOW, STREAM, INSTANTANEOUS, CFS
INSTANTANEOUS YIELD
PRECIPITATION, TOTAL
SEDIMENT, PARTICLE SIZE FRACT.
< .0625 MM % dry wgt,
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
Farm Reporting
Type Units
S cfs
S Ibs/sec
S in/day
S mg/L
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
6.3 3.6 2.8
0.025 0.005 0.002
0.05 0.00 0.00
60 27 14
PRIMARY CODE: Station B
Farm Reporting QUARTILE VALUES
Type Units -75- -50- -25-
S
S
S
S
cfs
Ibs/sec
in/day
mg/L
8.9
.0.081
0.08
112
5.0
0.023
0.00
64
3.0
0.008
0.00
44
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Included NPS national monitoring [tpypvp; for spring season at monitoring sites
B and C, which includes 2 years of pre-BMP data, 1 year during BMP implemen-
tation, and 3 years of sampling after BMP implementation.
Data has been entered and analyzed.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The estimated budget for the Lake Pittsfield Section 319 National Monitoring
Program project for the period of FY 92-99 is:
Project Element
Proj Mgt
I&E
LT[319(h)]
WQ Monit
Cultural Practices (WQIP)
Dredge/Shoreline/
Aeration (314 Clean Lakes)
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
70
-------
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) from 1979 to 1994.
Section 314 funds have been used to install sediment-reducing shoreline BMPs
and one destratifier (aerator) in Lake Pittsfield to increase oxygen concentrations
throughout the lake, thereby increasing fish habitat The lake will be dredged in
late 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:
• USDAFSA
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
Scott Tomldns
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, DL 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
71
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
Water Quality
Monitoring
Information and
Education
Donald Roseboom
Illinois State Water Survey
Water Quality Management Office
P.O. Box 697
Peoria, DL 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
72
-------
Iowa
Sny Magill Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Project Area
Iowa
Figure 13: Sny Magill and Bloody Run (Iowa) Watershed Project Locations
73
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Bloody Run
Watershed
f V "N
' \ >
I Morara \ I
N. N l-
V. \
N» X \
BRSC
/ // BR2
'\
L
Morquelte \
I I
,\J
MCSlBOOT
Scale x. ]
/ *
g i /i
kilometers AC- _
0 1
mBes
Sny Magill
Watershed
Legend
• Weekly Monitoring Site
^ Monthly Monitoring Site
Pejennta) Stream
~~ "~ ~ ~ Intermittent Stream
,
•"~" — " Watershed Drained by
Gage Station
, — Watershed Drained by
'^^-^ X *•-— ^'' ^^ (I
**^ X 1 / 1 \ \
/ N N / / / \ \
/ ^ ^ ///-- l — —^ \
I r<**-±U*C\ ( If ( / \
x>— -' rv^rM4 \ /^ /
— ' S x-"Y1|LlW I.I
\ '" ^X -^V -- / --, /
. ' '^ SNWF jm OgJI,' /'•''' /
xX A-iVkSN2 / M /
) — x^^-iRx, / \ /
1 v 1/7 ^\\ !/ ,
• s ±-< J \ - ^=kNi i /
/ \ s / ,\ \ ' /
i>.«.ii> '• ^Ay
x ^^^* J V
^-_ ^ / v\
"-1 ; .^/ A
V / ,.' A / \
•N- /• I / \
\ ' \
N \ \
\ \
— — "^ Clauten ^
Sampling Locattons
Figure 14: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Sny Magill and Bloody Run (Iowa) Watersheds
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Sny Magill Watershed Section 319 National Monitoring Program project is an
interagency effort designed to monitor and assess improvements in water quality
(reductions in sedimentation) resulting from the implementation of two U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USD A) land treatment projects in the watershed: Sny
Magill Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA) and the North Cedar Creek Water Quality
Special Project. The project areas include Sny Magill Creek and North Cedar
Creek basins (henceforth referred to as the Sny Magill watershed) (Figure 14). Sny
Magill and North Cedar creeks are Class "B" cold water streams located in north-
eastern Iowa (Figure 13). 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 industrial 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 120
producers in the watershed, with farms averaging 275 acres in size.
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 implemented in the watershed support produc-
ers making voluntary changes in farm management practices that will result in
improved water quality. The State of Iowa, through the Iowa Department of Agri-
culture and Land Stewardship (IDALS) and the EDNR, have agreed to work
through the local Clayton County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) to
provide funds for the best management practice (BMP) implementation. Sediment
control measures, water and sediment control basins, animal waste management
systems, stream corridor management improvements, bank stabilization, and buffer
strip demonstrations around sinkholes are being implemented to reduce agricul-
tural 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 14). 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 param-
eters on a weekly to monthly basis. Annual habitat assessments are being con-
ducted along stretches of both stream corridors. Biomonitoring of
macroinvertebrates occurs on a bimonthly basis and an annual fisheries survey are
conducted.
75
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
Pre-Project
Water Quality
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.
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 designated by the state 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
semiaquatic life and secondary aquatic usage are only partially supported. The
report cites impairment of water quality primarily by nonpoint agricultural pollut-
ants, 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 creeks. In
order to mitigate animal waste and nutrient problems and improve bank stability
in critical areas, improved stream corridor management designed to repair ripar-
ian vegetation and keep cattle out of the stream is necessary.
Water quality evaluations conducted by the University Hygienic Laboratory (UHL)
in 1976 and 1978 during summer low-flow periods in Sny Magill and Bloody Run
creeks showed elevated water temperatures and fecal conform 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 conducted in 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, decreasing 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
76
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
low stream flows. The IDNR has identified these as the most important factors
contributing to the failure of brook trout to establish a viable population (Seigley
etal., 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 - Wilton, 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.
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 water quality and habitat monitoring data interactively with imple-
mentation programs to aid targeting of BMPs, and for public education to
expand awareness of the need for NFS pollution prevention by fanners; 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 watershed is characterized by narrow, gently sloping uplands that break into
steep slopes with abundant rock outcrops. Up to 550 feet of relief occurs across the
watershed. The landscape is mantled with approximately 10-20 feet of loess,
77
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Land Use
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
of ground water and also drinking water in the area. Some sinkholes and small
springs have developed in the Ordovician-age limestone and dolomite.
The creeks are marked by high proportions (70-80% or more of annual flow) of
ground water base flow, which provides the cold water characteristics of the
creeks. Hence, ground water quality is also important in the overall water resource
management considerations for area streams.
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 industrial 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 120 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 and fertilizer and chemical
use, and attendant increases in erosion, runoff, and nutrient concentrations. U.S.
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
Cover crop, pasture
Forest, forested pasture
Farmstead
Other
TOTALS
Source: Bettis et al., 1994
Snv Magill
Acres %
5,842 25.9
5,400 23.9
11,034 48.9
263 1.2
28 0.1
Bloody 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
Pollutant Sources
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
Federal funding from the Agricultural Conservation Program to encourage BMP
implementation was lost in 1993; however, applications 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
78
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Stewardship, Division of Soil Conservation, for Fiscal Years 1995-1997. An
application for funding was filed through the USEPA Section 319(h) Program for
animal manure structures, Integrated Crop Management (ICM), and streambank
stabilization practices. The USEPA Section 319(h) funding became available in
1995.
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
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 (ISUE)];
Woodland management programs (to enhance pollution-prevention efforts
on marginal cropland, steep slopes, riparian corridors, and buffer areas in
sinkhole basins);
• Expansion of 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, surveys of watershed project participants, and summaries of
the project available on the Internet (http://www.igsb.viowa.edu/htmls/inforsh/
sny.html)
Additional resources for technical assistance and educational programs are
provided in the area through the Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project, directed
by ISUE, and the Big Spring Basin Demonstration Project, directed by IDNR.
Sny Magill water quality data have been used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory to calibrate Object-
BAWSER, a temperature index snowmelt model that can be used to demonstrate
watershed hydrology. The model is applicable to watersheds with different levels
of development and can be used to show the effect of development on watershed
hydrology.
Through FY95, the following had 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 designed to be toured on a self-
guided basis.
A series of articles on wellhead protection was published in local newspa-
pers.
79
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
A baseline survey of farming practices for farm operators in the Sny Magill
Creek area was completed during the winter of 1992. In late summer, 1994,
a mid-project survey of Sny Magill participants was completed, as was a
baseline survey of Bloody Run watershed residents.
ICM plans were developed for 44% of cropland in the project area through
one-on-one meetings with farmers.
A soil bioengineering demonstration was conducted 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 with the effectiveness of traditional practices such as rip
rap. The initiative served as a training workshop for agency personnel.
Representatives from the NRCS Midwest Technical Center (Lincoln, NE)
and the NRCS state office (Des Moines) provided technical support. The
streambank stabilization activity received excellent media coverage. A video
featuring the streambank stabilization demonstration was produced and at
least four other projects in Iowa have adopted similar streambank stabiliza-
tion programs based on the demonstration.
Manure fertility demonstrations were conducted at seven new cooperators'
farms to encourage growers to take full nutrient credit for manure applied.
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 demonstra-
tion project and water quality monitoring project, to learn more about each
agency's involvement in the project, and to see what their neighbors are
doing to improve the water quality of Sny Magill Creek.
Private sector training was provided by ISUE coordinators to ag-business
firms and other individuals in order to transfer ICM services from Coopera-
tive Extension to the private sector. A major goal of the training 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 pro-
gram; previously there were none.
The media outreach program has included preparation of demonstration plot
brochures, press releases, booklets for the "self-guided" tours of the water-
shed, and articles for local newspapers. Water Watch, a bimonthly newsletter
published by Cooperative Extension, is disseminated to over 1,750 subscrib-
ers. 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 testing, 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.
An additional outreach program has been developed in the watershed. As the
result of soil bioengineering activities, the NRCS has produced two videos
that cover both ongoing and future streambank stabilization installations.
These videos have been used by various agencies and levels of government to
promote this technology.
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 agricultural chemicals and waste.
80
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
A manure management workshop was conducted to assist interested produc-
ers 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 for farmers to use to determine how well
manure nutrients are being credited and managed.
Tours of the Sny Magill watershed and presentations on the Sny Magill
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" (a 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 discussions about the design of the water quality monitoring
project and the land treatment projects.
NONPO1NT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Description
The Sny Magill HUA project contains 10,468 acres of Highly Erodible Land
(HEL); conservation plans have been developed for all of these acres. Of these
conservation plans, 7,303 acres, or 70%, are written to the Tolerable, or T, level.
Conseivation plans have been fully implemented on 4,174 acres, or 40% of the
HEL acres in the project area. There are 98 landowners in the Sny Magill HUA,
of which 81% have chosen to participate in the HUA project.
The Section 319 National Monitoring Program, 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 was a five-year project begun in
1991 and covering 19,560 acres (86%) of the Sny Magill watershed. There are
verbal assurances that the HUA will be extended through FY99. The remainder of
the watershed is included in the WQSP, which began in 1988 and was completed
in 1994. The purpose of these projects has been 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 credible
land has been defined and an attempt is being made to treat all farms, prioritizing
fields within each farm to be treated first. Structural practices, such as terracing
and a few animal waste systems, are being implemented, 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 WQSP has been completed. Practices implemented were primarily structural
(terraces). No ICM or other information and education programs were imple-
mented. 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%.
81
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
None.
Through FY95, the following NFS pollution controls were completed in North
Cedar Creek and Sny Magill Creek watersheds:
287,645 feet of terraces
• 90 grade stabilization structures
48 water and sediment control basins
2 agricultural waste structures
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 144,992 pounds of total
nitrogen, 70,076 pounds of total phosphorus, and in the amount of alachlor
and atrazine applied.
Water testing of 151 private wells
Crop consultant model of ICM. (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
resources to develop more cost-effective, aesthetically pleasing, lower mainte-
nance forms of streambank stabilization.
ISUE conducted a baseline survey of farming practices of 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-Geological Survey Bureau (GSB) has established a coordinated process
for tracking the implementation of land treatment measures with NRCS, Farm
Service Agency (FSA), and ISUE. 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. ISUE 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 facilitate the necessary
spatial comparisons 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 in installing BMPs. The HUA was able to operate
in FY94 on limited funding that remained from previous years. In FY95, alterna-
tive funding for land treatment was received from the Iowa Department of Agri-
culture and Land Stewardship - Division of Soil Conservation and the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources.
82
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
Parameters
Measured
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 land treatment 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 were to a minimum in the Bloody Run Creek water-
shed 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.
Biological
Fecal coliform (FC)
Habitat assessment
Fisheries survey
Benthic macroinvertebrates
Chemical and Other
Suspended solids (SS)
Nitrogen (N)-series (NOs+NO2-N, NEU-N, Organic-N)
Anions
Total phosphorus (TP)
Biological oxygen demand (BOD)
Immunoassay for triazine herbicides
Water temperature
Conductivity
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Turbidity
Sampling Scheme
Covariates
Stream discharge
Precipitation
Primary monitoring sites (SN1, BR1) (Figure 14) are established on both Sny
Magill and Bloody Run creeks. 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.
83
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Monthly measurements of stream discharge are made at seven supplemental sites
(NCC, SN2, SNT, SNWF, SN3, BRSC, and BR2) (Figure 14).
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 is conducted for fecal
coliform, partial N-series (NO3 + NO2-N, NH4-N), and anions.
Weekly sampling is conducted by the USGS (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 FC, partial N-
series, and anions.
Temperature, conductivity, DO, and turbidity are measured at all sites when
sampling occurs.
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 Section 319 National Monitoring
Program Project
Design
Paired
watershed
with
upstream/
downstream
stations (for
each creek)
Primary
Sites Parameters
Sny MagillT Habitat assessment
and Bloody Runc Fishery survey
Benthio macro-
invertebrates
SS
Nitrogen series
Anions
TP*
BOD*
Triazine herbicides*
Water temperature
Conductivity
DO
Turbidity
FC
Covariates
Stream discharge
(daily at sites
SN1&BR1;
monthly at
sites NCC, SN2,
SNT, SNWF,
SN3, BRSC,
BR2)
Stage
(continuous
atSNl.BRl)
Precipitation
Frequency of
Frequency of Habitat/Biological
WQ Sampling Assessment Duration
Weekly (for SNl,
BR1, SN3, SNWF,
NCC, BR2)
Monthly
(forSN2,SNT,
BRSC)
Habitat and
fisheries data
collected annually.
Macroinvertebrate
data collected
every two months.
lyrpre-BMP
6yrsBMP
2 yrs post-BMP
""^Treatment watershed
cControl watershed
* These parameters are only sampled at sites SNl and BR1
84
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
None.
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 four information "files": the Waterbody System
File, the NFS Management File, the Monitoring Plan File, and the Annual Report
File.
All water quality data are entered in STORET. Biological monitoring data are
entered into BIOS. All U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data are entered in
WATSTORE, the USGS national database.
Data transfer processes are already established between USGS, UHL, and IDNR-
GSB. Coordination is also established with NRCS and ISUE for reporting on
implementation progress.
Data Analysis
For annual reports, data are evaluated and summarized on a water-year basis;
monthly and seasonal summaries are presented, as well.
Statistical analysis and comparisons are 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 are 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.
Water Year 1994 represented the third year of water quality monitoring. Hydro-
logically, Water Year 1994 marked the return of more typical conditions after the
heavy rains of 1993. Precipitation during Water Year 1994 was 100% of normal.
Annual mean discharge was 23.4 cfs for Sny Magill Creek and 26.1 cfs for Bloody
Run Creek.
Total suspended sediment loads declined from 1993 levels; total suspended
sediment load was 4,775 tons at SN1 and 3,117 tons at BR1. Water Year 1994
marked the first time during the three-year monitoring period that the annual
sediment load was greater for SN1 than BR1. The annual suspended sediment
load per unit drainage area was also greater for SN1, nearly twice as great as BR1.
For the three-year monitoring period, average nitrate concentrations were the
highest for Water Year 1994, and average triazine herbicide concentrations
declined from 1993 levels.
The fish species sampled were similar to those sampled during previous years.
Each watershed was dominated by a single species. A 1994 survey of several trout
streams in northeast Iowa reported natural trout reproduction, including natural
85
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
brook trout reproduction in North Cedar Creek, a tributary to Sny Magill Creek
and site of one of the land treatment programs. The habitat assessment showed a
predictable response to the lower, more stable, flow rates of 1994.
Overall, the benthic macroinvertebrate communities being sampled have remained
relatively constant. The HilsenhofF Biotic Index (HBI) and percent dominant taxa
metrics showed consistent trends in Sny Magill but not in Bloody Run. A decline
in the overall annual HBI values in Sny Magill suggests some improvement in
water quality that may not be occurring in Bloody Run creek. It is too early to
conclude that this improvement is the result of land treatment activities in the Sny
Magill watershed.
NPSMS Data
Summary
Monitoring Station Parameters Report (FY94)
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)
Annual Reports Detail
Farm Reporting QUARTILE VALUES
Type Units -75- -50- -25-
S 275 85 10
S CFS 28 24 20
S 0.4 0.2 <0.1
S 0.2 0.1 <0.1
S 0.03 0 0
S 14 10 5
Farm Reporting QUARTILE VALUES
Type Units -75- -50- -25-
S 300 110 18
S CFS 18 15.5 13
S <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
S 0.2 0.2 <0.1
S 0.2 <0.1 <0.1
S 0.03 0 0
S 15 10 5
Year: 1994
Water Quality Parameter
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 PER DAY) CNTL S Y
TEMPERATURE, WATER (DEGREES CENTIGRADE) CNTL S N
FECAL COLIFORM, MEMBR FILTER, M-FC BROTH STD Y S N
FLOW, STREAM, MEAN DAILY, 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
State Farm Exp SEASON 1 SEASON2 SEASONS SEASON4
Type Type Var Units <-High Low->. <-HjghLow-> <-High Low-> <-High Low->
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
1
2 12
13
1
3
21
2
4
1 44
13
2
2
21
2
27
3
5
69
2
15
10
69
1
11
21 30
9
5
4 7
2 11
27 4
11
2 10
6
9
13
1
4
24
9
4
78
13
5
4
24
8
2 5
33 44 5
7
3
67
2
1
13
9
67
3
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
86
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
None.
The USEPA nonpoint source monitoring and reporting requirements for water-
shed implementation grants have been completed for the data from Water Years
1992,1993, and 1994. Technical reports on data from water years 1992 and 1993
(Seigley et al., 1994), and water year 1994 (Seigley et al., 1996) have been com-
pleted.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Estimated budget for the Sny Magill Watershed Section 319 National Monitoring
Program project for the period FY91-95:
Project Element
I&E
LT (cost share)
LT (technical assist.)
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Federal
250,000
374,000
500,000
*385,100
Funding Source (S)
State Local
125,000 NA
70,325 NA
NA NA
NA
1,509,100 195,325
NA
Sum
375,000
444,325
500,000
385,100
NA 1,704,425
Modifications Since
Project Started
* from Section 319 National Monitoring Program funds
Source: Lynette Seigley (personal communication, 1996)
Funding restrictions in the Sny Magill HUA for FY94 affected cost-share funding
to assist cooperating producers in installing BMPs. The HUA was able to operate
in FY94 on limited funding that remained from previous years. The project
applied for alternate funding to meet the unmet needs of producers to install
BMPs and funding was received from the Iowa Department of Agriculture and
Land Stewardship - Division of Soil Conservation and the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources.
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 Section 319 National Monitoring Pro-
gram project and their roles are listed below:
Clayton County USDA Farm Service Agency Committee
Iowa State University Extension
Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
87
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
University of Iowa Preventive Medicine
Natural Resources Conservation Service
University Hygienic Laboratory
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. National Park Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
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
Eric Palas (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
88
-------
Iowa
Walnut Creek
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Iowa
Project Area
O
Figure 15: Walnut Creek (Section 319) Project Location
89
-------
Walnut Creek, Iowa
Colfax
Squaw Greek
Basin
Legend
4i Gaging stations and surface water sampling points
X Surface water sampling points
© Wells
Rl BjOmonjtpring stations
Figure 16: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Walnut Creek (Iowa)
90
-------
Walnut Creek, Iowa
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Walnut Creek Watershed Restoration and Water Quality Monitoring Project
began in April, 1995, and is designed as a nonpoint source (NFS) monitoring
program in relation to the watershed habitat restoration and agricultural manage-
ment changes implemented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) at
Walnut Creek National Wildlife Refuge and Prairie Learning Center (WNT) in
central Iowa. The watershed is being restored from row crop to native prairie.
There are two components to the land use changes being implemented by USFWS:
ecosystem resources restoration to prairie/savanna and mandatory (contractual) use
of improved agricultural management practices on farmlands prior to conversion.
The majority of the Refuge area will be seeded to tall-grass prairie with savanna
components where applicable. In the riparian areas, 100 foot-wide vegetative filter
strips will be seeded along all of the streams in the Refuge that are not allowed to
revert to wetlands. Riparian and upland wetlands will also be restored or allowed
to revert to wetlands by the elimination of tile lines.
Cropland management within the WNT Refuge is also controlled by the USFWS
management team. Farming is done on a contractual, cash-rent basis, with various
management measures specified; some are flexible, some more prescriptive. The
measures include soil conservation practices; nutrient management through soil
testing, yield goals, and nutrient credit records; and integrated pest management.
Crop scouting for pest management is mandatory for all farms on Refuge lands, as
are no-till production methods. Insecticide use is highly restricted and herbicide
use is also controlled in order to minimize adverse impacts on non-target plants
and animals.
The project will use a paired watershed approach as well as an upstream/down-
stream assessment. The treatment watershed is Walnut Creek, the paired site is
Squaw Creek. Both watersheds are primarily agricultural dominated by row crop,
mainly corn and soybeans. Although no specific water quality objectives have been
set for this project, the intent of the USFWS is to restore the area to pre-settlement
conditions. In general, the decrease in active row crop agriculture should lead to
reductions in nutrients and pesticides in Walnut Creek.
Three gaging stations for flow and sediment have been established, two on Walnut
Creek and one on Squaw Creek. Both creeks will be monitored for biological and
chemical parameters. Both the main creek and tributaries are included in the
sampling scheme.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
Walnut Creek and Squaw Creek are warmwater streams located in central Iowa.
Walnut Creek and Squaw Creek are designated under the general use category. No
designated use classification has been assigned to Walnut Creek.
Walnut Creek drains into a segment of the Des Moines River that is classified as
Not Supporting its designated uses in the Iowa Department of Natural Resources'
(IDNR) water quality assessments; Squaw Creek and the Skunk River are classi-
fied as Partially Supporting. Assessments in this area cite agricultural NFS as the
principal concern.
91
-------
Walnut Creek, Iowa
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Walnut and Squaw creeks are affected by many agricultural NFS water pollutants,
including sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and animal waste. Water quality in these
streams is typical for many of Iowa's small warmwater streams: water quality
varies significantly with changes in discharge and runoff. Streambank erosion has
contributed to significant sedimentation in the creeks.
Three pre-project water quality studies were completed. Data were collected
during the pre-implementation period by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in
1991. The Tri-State Monitoring Project collected data in the Walnut Creek basin
from 1992 to 1994. Two sets of storm event samples were collected in 1995.
In 1991, nitrate-nitrogen concentrations ranged from 14 to 19 mg/1 with a mean
of 16. Atrazine concentrations were from 0.24 to 1.2 ug/1. The Tri-State data were
similar, with nitrogen from 5 to 44 mg/1, averaging 14.5 mg/1 and atrazine from
0.1 to 2.7 ug/1. The event sampling in 1994 had fewer samples, but nitrogen
ranged from 2.1 to 11.0 mg/1 (avg. 6.1) in Walnut Creek and from 0.1 to 20 (avg.
10.0) in the tributaries. Atrazine in the main stem of Walnut Creek ranged from
<0.1 to 0.3 ug/1 and was higher in the tributaries (up to 3.1 ug/1).
Primary biological productivity is low and the condition of the fish community is
poor.
Maintain or exceed water quality criteria for general use waters. The long-term
goal of the US Fish and Wildlife Service is to restore this area to pre-settlement
conditions.
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
April, 1995 to September, 1998
April, 1996
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorological Factors
Land Use
The project area, located in central Iowa (Figure 15), consists of a total of 24,570
acres. The Walnut Creek Basin is the treatment watershed (12,860 acres) and the
Squaw Creek Basin (11,710) is the control watershed (Figure 16). Both creeks
have been channelized in part. Both are characterized by silty bottoms and high,
often vertical, banks. Deposition of up to 4 feet of post-settlement alluvium is not
uncommon.
The total project area is located in the Southern Iowa Drift Plain, an area charac-
terized by steeply rolling hills and well-developed drainage. Dominant soils are
silty clay loams, silt loams, or clay loams formed in loess and till. Average annual
rainfall for the project area is approximately 32 inches.
1995 land use data:
Corn
Beans
Other harvested crops
Grass
Forest
Other
Walnut Creek Squaw Creek
37.3
28.4
4.3
21.1
2.4
6.5
42.3
32.0
11.3
7.4
2.3
4.7
92
-------
Walnut Creek, Iowa
Pollutant Sources
Sediment — streambank erosion, cropland erosion, gully erosion, animal grazing
Nutrients — crop fertilizers, manure
Pesticides — cropland
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
The WNT's educational commitment and resources will allow for educational and
demonstration activities far beyond the scope of those that could typically be
accomplished by 319 projects. Of particular note, the linkages between land use
changes and water quality improvements will be an integral part of these educa-
tional efforts. In addition, existing curriculum creates opportunities for interested
visitors to acquire, enter, and interpret hydrologic and water quality data from the
watershed. Both streamside and visitor center-based activities and educational
stations are planned. Information presentations could readily be tailored to school,
environmental, or agricultural interest groups. It is anticipated that visitors to the
WNT will number in the tens of thousands annually, offering a uniquely wide
exposure of residents to the land use changes and monitoring activities in the
watershed.
USFWS will utilize the WNT as a demonstration area for landscape restoration
projects. Information will be disseminated to visitors and invited groups, the
public (through published reports), and the news media. Of broader interest, the
project is also serving as a demonstration site for riparian restoration and small
wetland restoration. Having a linked water quality evaluation program makes
these demonstrations more effective for general use and translation to a broader
audience.
Several tours were provided in 1996 to teacher groups, natural history organiza-
tions, and surrounding landowners. The visitor center will open in the spring of
1997.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY
Description
The best management practices (BMPs) for row crop production include specific
erosion control measures along with nutrient and pesticide management. The
primary land treatment activity, however, is to remove 5,000 acres of cropland
from production by converting it to native tall grass prairie. Wetlands and riparian
zones will also be restored. Limited nutrient and pesticide management is ex-
pected for the remainder of the Walnut Creek watershed.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
A paired monitoring design will be used (Figure 16). For the paired watershed
design, the outlets of Walnut Creek (treatment) and Squaw Creek (control) water-
sheds will be monitored. Each watershed also has stations upstream and down-
stream in order to differentiate natural processes from land use changes. Water
quality will be compared before and after treatment to evaluate land treatment
effectiveness.
93
-------
Walnut Creek, Iowa
Parameters
Measured
Biological
Fecal coliform (FC)
Macroinvertebrates
Fisheries
Sampling Scheme
Chemical and Other
Alkalinity
Ammonia (NHs)
Bentazon
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
Bromide (Br)
Calcium (Ca)
Chloride (Cl)
Common herbicides
Dicamba
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Fluoride (Fl)
Magnesium (Mg)
Nitrate (NOs)
Orthophosphate (OP)
PH 3
Phosphate (PO4 ")
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Na)
Specific conductivity
Sulfate (SO/f)
Suspended solids (SS)
Turbidity
Covariates
Precipitation
Water Discharge
The outlets at Walnut and Squaw Creeks are gaged, as is an upstream station on
the main stem of Walnut Creek. At these three stations, water discharge and SS
will be monitored daily, and data compiled for storm event statistical evaluation.
Ten stations are monitoring biweekly to monthly in March through My and
September. Four stations are sampled once in August, October, December, and
February. Additional event sampling is done throughout the year.
94
-------
Walnut Creek, Iowa
Monitoring Scheme for the Walnut Creek Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Sites or
Design Activities
Paired Watershed
Upstream/ Tributary to
Downstream Des Moines River
Primary
Parameters
NOs
OP
Turbidity
SS
N03
OP
Turbidity
SS
Frequency of
Frequency of Habitat/Biological
Covariates WQ Sampling Assessment Duration
Precipitation Monthly Annual
Water
Discharge
Storm events
Precipitation Monthly Annual
Water
Discharge
Storm events
Unknown
Unknown
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
NPSMS Data
Summary
All United States Geological Survey (USGS) data will be reported in
WATSTORE, the USGS national database. The project will use ARCINFO for
land use changes. Statistical analyses on water quality data for trend detection will
be completed as deemed necessary. Water quality parameters and land use activi-
ties will be tracked using the NonPoint Source Management System (NPSMS)
software.
"Data management and reporting is-handled~by the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources Geological Survey Bureau (IDNR-GSB) and follows the Nonpoint
Source Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for Watershed Implementation
Grants. All water quality data are entered into STORET.
Unavailable.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The estimated budget for the Walnut Creek Section 319 National Monitoring
Program project for the life of the project is:
Project Element
Proj Mgt
I&E
LT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Funding Source (S)
Federal*
102,029
3,000
NA
330,300
435,329
USFWS
NA
NA
500,000
NA
500,000
State
113,196
1,000
NA
NA
114,196
Sum
215,225
4,000
500,000
330,300
1,049,525
*from Section 319 NMP funds
Source: Carol Thompson, 1996 (personal communication)
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
None.
95
-------
Walnut Creek, Iowa
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
Participating Agencies and Organizations:
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey — Water Resources Division
• University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory
• Farm Service Agency
Iowa Department of Natural Resources — Environmental Protection Division
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Carol A. Thompson
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Geological Survey Bureau
109 Trowbridge Hall
Iowa City, IA 52242
(319) 335-1581; Fax: (319) 335-2754
Internet: cthompson@gsbth-po.igsb.uiowa.edu
Richard Birger
Walnut Creek National Wildlife Refuge and Prairie Learning Center
P.O. Box 399
Prairie City, IA 50228
(515) 994-2415; Fax: (515) 994-2104
Carol A. Thompson
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Geological Survey Bureau
109 Trowbridge Hall
Iowa City, IA 52242
(319) 335-1581; Fax: (319) 335-2754
Internet: cthompson@gsbth-po.igsb.uiowa.edu
96
-------
Maryland
Warner Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Maryland
Figure 17: Warner Creek (Maryland) Watershed Project Location
97
-------
i Warner Creek Watershed, Maryland
Legend
N
t
Figure 18: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Warner Creek (Maryland) Watershed
98
-------
«Warner Creek Watershed, Maryland
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Warner Creek watershed is located in the Piedmont physiographic region of
northcentral Maryland (Figure 17). Land use in the 830-acre watershed is almost
exclusively agricultural, primarily 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. A
headwater subwatershed, in which the primary agricultural activity is dairy
farming (treatment), will be compared to another subwatershed, in which the
primary agricultural activity is beef production (control).
Proposed land treatment for the treatment watershed 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 18). Storm-event sampling by an automatic
sampler will occur at station 2 A. Water samples will be analyzed for sediment,
nitrogen, and phosphorus.
Warner Creek is a subtributary of the Monocacy River basin. Monitoring data will
be used to evaluate the suitability of a modified version of the CREAMS and/or
ANSWERS model for its use 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. Warner Creek drains into a tributary that drains into the Monocacy River
basin.
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
(mg/1)
3.3-6.7
Nitrite
(mg/1)
.01-.05
Ammonia
(mg/1)
0-23.0
TKN
(mg/1)
0-73.0
TKP Orthophosphorus
(mg/l) (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 scale;
99
-------
i Warner Creek Watershed, Maryland
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
collect water quality data for use in the validation of the basin-scale
hydrologic and water quality model; and
• apply the validated model to illustrate relationships between agricultural
BMPs and watershed water quality in support of the USD A Monocacy River
Demonstration Project.
May, 1993 - June, 1997
June, 1995
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
Land Use
Pollutant Sources
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 University of Maryland Cooperative Extension
Service (CES) agents, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and
Frederick Soil Conservation District offices in Frederick, Maryland, and project
specialists located in the Monocacy River Water Quality Demonstration offices,
several of whom have already established lines of communication between water-
shed 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.
100
-------
«Warner Creek Watershed, Maryland
Paired Watershed (IA and IB):
The implementation of BMPs in the treatment (IB) watershed is uncertain;
however, a concerted effort will be made to install an animal waste management
system and cropland conservation practices in this watershed.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Parameters
Measured
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 (NEfe)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Nitrate + nitrite (NOa+NOj)
Nitrite (NOa)
Orthophosphate (OP)
Total Kjeldahl phosphorus (TKP)
Sediment
Covariates
Rainfall
Discharge: instantaneous (1A, IB and 1C) continuous (2A)
Sampling Scheme Upstream/Downstream Study Area (1C and 2A) (Figure 18):
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 18):
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 Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Sites or
Design Activities
Paired
Upstream/ Warner
Downstream Creek
Primary
Parameters
NH3
TKN
NO3+NO2
NOa
OP
TKP
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
101
-------
i Warner Creek Watershed, Maryland
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
NPSMS Data
Summary
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.
Nof available.
Data currently available: Average annual concentrations (mg/L) and associated
standard deviations (mg/L) and coefficient of variations (%) for nitrogen and
phosphorus constituents measured from grab samples at different stations (1 A,
IB, 1C, and 2A) in the Warner watershed.
NOs-N
TKN
NH4-N
PO4-P
TKP
1A
4.07
1.23
30
0.81
2.26
278
0.04
0.10
259
0.04
0.12
353
0.09
1.00
1111
IB
3.22
1.54
48
11.70
15.9
136
5.75
6.10
106
0.96
1.06
111
2.46
0.82
35
1993
1C
3.58
1.31
37
6.57
9.11
139
3.33
3.89
117
0.55
0.60
109
1.39
0.99
71
2A
4.17
1.75
42
1.69
2.72
161
0.35
0.65
187
0.23
0.15
66
0.70
1.69
241
1A
3.24
0.90
28
1.90
6.94
366
0.05
0.11
204
0.10
0.40
404
0.10
0.27
260
1994
IB 1C
3.02 3.06
1.55 1.00
51 33
11.20 6.44
12.94 5.96
116 93
7.22 3.67
8.99 4.56
124 ..124.
1.60 0.89
2.06 1.32
129 149
2.40 1.61
2.88 2.11
120 130
2A
2.98
1.63
55
3.66
4.38
120
1.16
2.00
_T72
0.49
0.72
147
0.90
1.42
159
1995
1A
3.23
1.01
31
0.114
0.25
181
0.02
0.03
156
0.02
0.02
118
0.04
0.07
156
IB
3.97
2.02
0.51
7.77
5.70
73
5.42
5.75
106
1.70
2.01
119
1.96
2.62
134
1C
3.69
1.33
36
5.78
5.17
89
2.88
3.05
106
0.88
1.01
115
0.94
1.20
128
2A
3.76
1.58
42
1.72
2.11
123
0.83
1.37
166
0.43
0.48
111
8.45
0.60
134
n = 31
n = 31
n=13
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Project Element
Year 1 Year 2 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: FFY94 Work Plan (6/23/94).
102
-------
' Warner Creek Watershed, Maryland
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
Land Treatment
Adel Shirmohammadi
University of Maryland
Dept. of Biological Resources 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
University of Maryland
Dept. of Biological Resources Engineering
1423 ENAG/ANSC Building (#142)
College Park, MD 20742-5711
(301) 405-1190; Fax (301) 314-9023
Internet: vvm3@umail.umd.edu
Elyzabeth Bonar-Bouton
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Chesapeake and Coastal Watershed Service
Tawes State Office Building, E-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 974-2784; Fax (410) 974-2833
Adel Shirmohammadi
University of Maryland
Dept. of Biological Resources 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
University of Maryland
Dept. of Biological Resources Engineering
1423 ENAG/ANSC Building (#142)
College Park, MD 20742-5711
(301) 405-1190; Fax (301) 314-9023
Internet: wm3@umail.umd.edu
103
-------
i Warner Creek Watershed, Maryland
Water Quality
Monitoring
Adel Shirmoharnmadi
University of Maryland
Dept. of Biological Resources 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
University of Maryland
Dept. of Biological Resources Engineering
1423 ENAG/ANSC Building (#142)
College Park, MD 20742-5711
(301) 405-1190; Fax (301) 314-9023
Internet: wm3@umail.umd.edu
104
-------
Michigan
Sycamore Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 19: Sycamore Creek (Michigan) Project Location
105
-------
i Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
HoltRd.
Harper Rd,
HoweHRd.
Mason WWIP
CcHumbta Drain
City of Mason
Royner Creek
Scale
kilometers
Figure 20: Paired Water Quality Monitoring Stations for the Sycamore Creek (Michigan) Watershed
106
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Sycamore Creek is located in southcentral Michigan (Ingham County) (Figure
19). 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 20). 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. Implementation BMPs is funded as part of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 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 designated through 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, nutrients (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.
107
-------
i Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
Sediment and Phosphorus Content of Sycamore Creek Under Routine (dry)
and Storm (wet) Flow Conditions
DryP
mg/1
WetP
mg/1
Dry Sediment Wet Sediment
mg/1 mg/1
0.01-0.09 0.04-0.71
Source: NRCS/CES/FSA, 1990
4-28
6-348
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
(NFS) pollutants on surface and ground water of Sycamore Creek.
The goal of the project is to reduce sediment delivery into Sycamore Creek by
52%.
None.
Monitoring will be conducted for a minimum of six years, contingent upon federal
funding.
1993
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
Land Use
The project, located in southcentral Michigan, encompasses 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 in Ingham County. Eskers are the predominant
geologic feature near the stream. These grade into moraines that are approxi-
mately 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.
108
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
Pollutant Sources
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
Agricultural
Forest
Residential
Business/Industrial
Idle
Wetlands
Transportation
Open land
Gravel pits and wells
Water
Other
Total
Acres
35,453
8,017
9,336
2,562
6,381
2,324
1,349
826
806
359
325
67,738
f%)
52
12
14
4
10
3
2
1
1
0.5
0.5
100
Source: NRCS/CES/FSA, 1990
Streambanks, urban areas, agricultural fields
None.
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
• 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.
109
-------
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. Cropland BMPs 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 (ICDC) has received an implementation
grant under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act for the installation of streambank
stabilization in Willow Creek (Figure 20). Innovative and environmentally sensi-
tive techniques for streambank stabilization were selected to minimize the sedi-
ment load in Willow Creek. Measures were selected based on their effectiveness in
reducing ground water seepage and slope instability. The techniques chosen for
implementation on Willow Creek included brush mattresses, live fascines, fiber
rolls, biolunkers, riprap, underdrain, slope reduction, vegetative plantings, tree/
branch revetments, current deflectors, and rock cascades.
Priority areas for streambank stabilization were defined as those locations where
bank undercutting, coupled with bare channel banks and ground water seepage,
were visibly contributing to the sediment load. Priority areas were chosen by the
ICDC and consultants based on observations during several field visits.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
A paired watershed design is being used to document water quality changes in
Sycamore Creek. Two subwatersheds within the project, Willow Creek and
Marshall Drain, have been compared to a control subwatershed, Raines Drain,
that lies outside the boundaries of the project (Figure 20). BMPs were installed in
the Haines Drain prior to the commencement of water quality monitoring in 1990.
110
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
Modifications Since
Project Started
The Willow Creek and Marshall Drain subwatersheds were selected among all
subwatersheds in the Sycamore Creek watershed because they contained the
highest sediment loads and the largest percentage of erodible land within one-
quarter mile of a channel.
An additional station was added in 1995 at the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) gauging station at Holt Road. Sampling is conducted year round using a
flow stratified strategy. The monitoring data from this station will be used to
determine the annual load of pollutants near the mouth of the stream and to
compare these loads with various models for estimating pollutant loads in the
watershed. Automatic sampling equipment is used to collect samples and the
USGS flow data are used to determine loads. The parameters tested for are the
same as the other three stations.
Parameters
Measured
Biological
None
Sampling Scheme
Chemical and Other
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Turbidity
Total phosphorus (TP)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Nitrate + nitrite (NOs + NC-2)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Orthophosphate (OP)
Ammonia (Nffe)
Covariates
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 July). Samples are col-
lected every one to two hours during storms. 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 which is periodically updated by field staff of the Land and
Water Management Division of the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality.
One recording rain gauge is installed in each agricultural subwatershed (Figure
20).
Ill
-------
I Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
Monitoring Scheme for the Sycamore Creek Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Design
Three-way
paired
Sites*
Willow Creek1
Haines Drainc
Marshall Drain T
Primary
Parameters**
TSS
Turbidity
TP
TKN
NO3 + NO2
COD
OP
NH3
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
^Treatment watersheds
c Control watershed
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.
Summaries of quartile data from 1990 through 1993 are 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, for example, stable flow and
NOa+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
STATION NAME: Haines Drain (Control; 848 acres)
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
N03 + N02
COD
STATION NAME: Haines Drain (Control; 848 acres)
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
NO3 + NO2
COD
YEAR: 1990
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
YEAR: 1991
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
YEAR: 1992
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
N
85
84
84
84
84
N
44
43
45
45
15
N
31
31
31
31
31
QUARTILE VALUES
-75-
8
38
0.196
3.8
35.5
-50-
6
15
0.107
3.5
29
-25-
2
7
0.048
2.9
22
QUARTILE VALUES
-75-
8
147
0.64
36.
55
-50-
5
46
0.34
3.3
36
-25-
4
20
0.178
3
29
QUARTILE VALUES
-75-
14
270
0.8
4.2
59
-50-
6
95
0.47
3.4
37
-25-
0.9
24
0.126
2.9
20
112
-------
STATION NAME: Haines Drain (Control; 848 acres)
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
NO31-NO2
COD
STATION NAME: Marshall Drain (Target; 422 acres)
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
N03 + NO2
COD
STATION NAME: Marshall Drain (Target; 422 acres)
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
NO3 + NO2
COD
STATION NAME: Marshall Drain (Target; 422 acres)
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
NO3 + NO2
COD
STATION NAME: Marshall Drain (Target; 422 acres)
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
NO3 + NO2
COD
STATION NAME: Willow Creek (Target; 1087 acres)
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
NO3 + NO2
COD
STATION NAME: Willow Creek (Target; 1087 acres)
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
NO3 + NO2
COD
YEAR: 1993
Reporting
Units
eft
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
YEAR: 1990
Reporting
Units
els
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
YEAR: 1991
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
YEAR: 1992
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/l
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
YEAR: 1993
Reporting
Units
els
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
YEAR: 1990
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
YEAR: 1991
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
;amore i
N
67
66
67
66
66
N
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
;reeK watersnea, Micniga
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
8.3 2 1
91 45 15
0.48 0.24 0.105
7.4 2.9 1.82
45 31 23
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
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
113
-------
i Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
STATION NAME: Willow Creek (Target; 1087 acres) YEAR: 1992
Reporting
Parameter Name Units N
FLOW.CFS cfs 37
SUSPENDED SOLIDS mg/1 37
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS mg/1 37
NO3 + NO2 mg/1 37
COD mg/1 37
STATION NAME: Willow Creek (Target, 1087 acres) YEAR: 1993
Reporting
Parameter Name Units N
FLOW.CFS cfs 74
SUSPENDED SOLIDS mg/1 74
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS mg/1 73
NO3 + NO2 mg/1 72
COD mg/1 74
QUARTILE VALUES
-75-
6
150
0.26
3.5
82
-50-
4
70
0.135
1.94
45
-25-
3
28
0.052
1.75
27
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
7.36 4.98 4.14
130 80 40
0.21 0.128 0.069
2.5 2.2 1.9
76 49 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 Section 319 National
Monitoring Program project for the life of the project is:
Project Element
Project Mgt
I&E
LT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Federal
129,370
159,900
1,078,300
285,000
1,652,570
Funding Source: (S)
State Local
122,000
NA
NA
222,000
344,000
3,130
9,935
500,751
NA
513,816
Source: John Suppnick (Personal Communication), 1993
None.
Sum
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 National Monitoring Program project provide for the water
quality monitoring in the HUA project area. The county Farm Service Agency
Committee has agreed to use Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) funds for
land treatment (erosion control, water quality improvement, and agricultural
waste management).
None.
114
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
Agencies involved in this project are as follows:
• Farm Service Agency (FSA)
• Michigan State University Extension - Ingham County
• Ingham County Health Department (Environmental Division)
• Ingham Conservation District
• Landowners within the Sycamore Creek watershed
• Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
PROJECT CONTACTS
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Information and
Education
Bob Hicks (Land Treatment for the HUA Project)
USDA-NRCS
521 N. Okemos Rd.
P.O. Box 236
Mason, MI 48554
(517) 676-5543
Brian McMasters (Land Treatment for the HUA Project)
USDA-NRCS
521 N. Okemos Rd.
P.O. Box 236
Mason, MI 48554
(517) 676-5543
John Suppnick
MI Department of Environmental Quality
Surface Water Quality
P.O. Box 30273
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-4192; Fax (517) 373-9958
George Silba (I & E for the HUA Project)
Ingham County Extension Service
121 East Maple Street
P.O. Box 319
Mason, MI 48909
(517) 676-7301; Fax (517) 676-7230
115
-------
i Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
116
-------
Nebraska
Elm Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Nebraska
Project Area
•o
Figure 21: Elm Creek (Nebraska) Watershed Project Location
117
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
N
Legend
Monitoring Station
Streams
Watershed Boundaiy
Figure 22: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Elm Creek (Nebraska) Watershed
118
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Elm Creek is located in southcentral Nebraska, near the Kansas border (Figure
21). 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/rangelands
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 a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USD A) Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA)
project. Land use is being inventoried. Cropland and BMP implementation are
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 wate'r 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 pollution control measures for the protection and
enhancement of water quality in Elm Creek. Project goals are to:
119
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
Reduce maximum summer water temperature
Reduce in-stream sedimentation
Reduce peak flows
• Improve in-stream aquatic habitat
None.
Monitoring activities began in April, 1992, and were scheduled to end in 1996.
Funds have been secured to continue post-BMP implementation monitoring until
1999.
1992
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
Land Use
The project area, in southcentral Nebraska, consists of 35,800 acres of rolling
hills, gently sloping uplands, and moderately steep slopes.
The Elm Creek watershed, which receives 26.5 inches of rainfall per year, lies in
a sub-humid ecological region. Seventy-five percent of this rainfall occurs be-
tween 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
"A
42
7
44
2
5
100
Source: Elm Creek Project, 1992
Pollutant Sources
Modifications Since
Project Started
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.
120
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
Progress Toward The process of addressing nonpoint source issues in the Elm Creek watershed
Meeting Goals through information and education activities has been coordinated by the Univer-
sity of Nebraska Cooperative Extension as part of the USD A 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 has been completed and a
videotape on rotational grazing 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 eco-farming 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.
• Numerous news stories, articles, meeting announcements and updates have
been published in local newspapers.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Description
BMPs, both structural and non-structural, continue to be implemented throughout
the Elm Creek watershed. These BMPs have been divided into four BMP types.
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
121
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Toward
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 Section 319 National Moni-
toring Program. 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 National Monitoring Program 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 Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) to
run the AGNPS model. The goal was to then rerun the model with updated land
use and BMP implementation data. However, once the Section 319 and HUA
projects were initiated, staff quickly realized that annual tracking of land use
changes and BMP implementation on a 40-acre basis in such a large watershed
could not be accomplished with the resources available. The NRCS plans to rerun
AGNPS with the updated information once the projects have been completed.
Currently, 56 applications have been processed for USEPA Section 319 funds.
Since 1990, when the HUA project was initiated, 178 cooperators have requested
technical funds for BMP cost-share. From 1991 through 1995, the practices and
activities outlined in the following table have been implemented primarily for
erosion control in the Elm Creek watershed.
Significant strides have also been made in implementing NFS control measures
throughout the watershed (see following table).
122
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
Application of Practices/Activities for Erosion Control in the Elm Creek
Watershed (7-31-96).
NRCS PRACTICE/ACTIVITY
AND LD. #
Conservation Cropping Sequence (328)
Conservation Tillage (329)
Contour Farming (330)
Critical Area Planting (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 (516)
Proper Grazing Use (528)
Range Seeding (550)
Planned Grazing System (556)
Streambank Protection/Habitat Restoration
Terrace (600)
Tree Planting (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
5,550
3,795
2,661
40
3,389
163
4,236
17
45,028
31,777
5
5
8.3
2,262
212
313
105
2,732
4,345-
93
2,117
280
126,029
4
12
2,892
6
156
Source: Scott Montgomery (personal communication, 1996)
Although significant progress has been made, a few problems have also been
encountered with monitoring efforts. Preliminary evaluation of the project moni-
toring design (upstream-downstream and single downstream) and water quality
data suggests that the large size of the watershed above the upstream monitoring
station (approximately 31,142 acres) inhibits documentation of water quality
improvements due to land treatment implementation. More specifically, this
problem can be attributed to the variability associated with regional and watershed
conditions. The majority of non-structural BMPs recommended by the NRCS
implemented in the Elm Creek watershed are designed only to control runoff from
one-in-ten year storm events. When such 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 gener-
ally contribute to high flows, which degrade water and habitat quality, making it
difficult to detect improvements.
123
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Parameters
Measured
Upstream/downstream: The two sampling sites (sites 2 & 5) are located two miles
apart (Figure 22)
Single downstream, for trend detection (site 5) (Figure 22)
Biological
Qualitative and quantitative macroinvertebrate sampling
Fish collections
Creel survey
Modifications Since
Project Started
Sampling Scheme
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
Water temperature (June - September)
Covariates
Stream discharge (United States Geological Survey gauging station)
Artificial salmonid redds were initially used to monitor trout reproduction. How-
ever, the redds have been discontinued because initial monitoring results indicate
substrates are not suitable for .salmonid spawning.
(See Figure 22 for sampling site locations.)
Qualitative and quantitative macroinvertebrate sampling spring, summer, fall, and
winter (sites 2 and 5).
Fish collections spring and fall (sites 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).
Creel survey (passive).
DO (sites 2, 5): Weekly grab samples from April through September. Monthly
samples from October through March.
Substrate samples spring and fall at sites 2, 4, 5.
TSS (sites 2,5): Weekly grab samples from April through September and monthly
samples, October through March. Selected runoff samples 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 (sites 2, 5).
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.
124
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
Continuous recording thermograph (hourly water temperatures for at least 60% of
the period June through September and at least 80% of the period My through
August) (sites 2, 5).
Monitoring Scheme for the Elm Creek Section 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
2,5
Primary
Parameters Covariates
Macroinvertebrate Stream
survey discharge
Fish survey
Creel survey
Water temperature
Substrate samples
DO
TSS
Atrazine/alachlor
Stream moq>hological
characteristics
Water temperature
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 pre-BMP
SyrsBMP
3 yrs post-BMP
Modifications Since
Project Started
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.
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
Ambient water quality data are entered into USEPA STORET. Biological data are
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 are 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.
NPSMS Data
Summary
ANNUAL REPORT WQ PARAMETER FREQUENCIES
YEAR: 1994
STATION TYPE: Upstream Station
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Parameter Name
FLOW, STREAM, INSTANTANEOUS, CFS
OXYGEN, DISSOLVED (METER)
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -SO- -25-
13.3 12.0 10.7
8.7 7.75 6.9
Counts/Season:
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
9
6
4
3
8
10
6
0
125
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
SUSPENDED SOLIDS, TOTAL
51.0 16.5 2.0
TEMPERATURE, WATER (DEGREE CENTIGRADE) 15.7 14.3 11.5
BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS (Non-Chemical)
Parameter Name Fully
INDEX OF BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY 30
INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY INDEX 31
TROUT HABITAT QUALITY INDEX
STATION TYPE: Downstream Station
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Parameter Name
FLOW, STREAM, INSTANTANEOUS, CFS
OXYGEN, DISSOLVED (METER)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS, TOTAL
INDICES
Threatened Partially
22
1.7
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Scores/Values
1
15
8
0
2
2
3
4
1 2
29 -
18 30
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
13.3 12.0 10.7
9.9 8.85 8.5
65.3 20.75 6.0
Modifications Since
Project Started
3 4
29 -
- 32
4.1 -
Counts/Season:
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
1
9
6
4
3
8
8
6
2
1
14
5
1
8
6
4
2
4
0
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
5
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TEMPERATURE, WATER (DEGREE CENTIGRADE) 16.6 14.8 11.2
Lowest 6000
BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS (Non-Chemical)
INDICES
Parameter Name Fully Threatened Partially Scores/Values 1234
INDEX OF BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY 30 - 22 35-31 -
INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY INDEX 31 - 17 28 26 32 32
TROUT HABITAT QUALITY INDEX - - - - - 2.2 -
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 are currently being entered and stored in USEPA
STORET.
Biological data are currently being entered and stored in USEPA BIOS.
Quarterly and yearly interim reports have been developed as planned.
126
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Modifications Since
Project Started
The estimated budget for the Elm Creek Watershed Section 319 National Moni-
toring Program project for the life of the project is:
Project Element
Federal
Funding Source (S)
State Local
Sum
HUA/WQIP
Proj Mgt
I&E
Reports
LT
WQ Initiative
Program (WQIP)
WQ Monit
Post-Project Monit
TOTALS
0
0
0
260,000
30,000
0
0
290,000
319
11,200
0
6,300
115,000 .
0
100,000
30,000
262,500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,400
0
101,600
0
15,000
0
120,000
11,200
3,400
6,300
476,600
30,000
115,000
30,000
672,500
Source: Elm Creek Project, 1991
Time frame for funding sources:
Section 319(h) funds in the amount of $30,000 have been secured to continue
post-BMP implementation monitoring activities for an additional three years
(1999)
• 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
None.
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
The Elm Creek Watershed Section 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.
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
The HUA activities are jointly administered by the University of Nebraska Coop-
erative Extension and the USDA NRCS. Employees of these two agencies will
work with local landowners, Farm Service Agency (FSA) personnel, personnel of
the NDEQ, and personnel of the LRNRD. Section 319 National Monitoring
Program project activities are administered by the NDEQ.
127
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
Agencies or groups involved in the project are listed below.
• USDAFSA
Landowners
Lower Republican Natural Resources District:
Monitoring
Little Blue Natural Resources District
• Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
• USDANRCS
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
Nebraska Natural Resources Commission
U.S. Geological Survey
University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension
• U.S. 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
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; Fax (402) 746-2284
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
128
-------
North Carolina
Long Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
North Carolina
Project Area
Figure 23: Long Creek (North Carolina) Watershed Project Location
129
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
LEGEND
o Daily
ASampling Location
Strip Mine
Figure 24: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Long Creek (North Carolina) Watershed
130
-------
' 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 23). 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 annually to maintain adequate storage
volume, and quarterly prior to the project and land acquisition. 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 24), 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 24) 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.
131
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Water quality parameters change with time and location along Long Creek, but
generally are close to the following averages:
Fecal BOD TSS TKN NO3-N TP
Coliform (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
#/100ml
2100 2 14 0.35 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 %_
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
132
-------
' Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
Pollutant Sources
The monitored area contains the following dairy farms:
Dairy Name
Dairy 4
Dairy 3
Dairy 1
Cows (if)
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 the city of Gastonia for conver-
sion 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 developed for Gaston County includes activities in the Long
Creek watershed. Also, a Stream Watch group has been formed to 1) educate other
watershed residents and 2) conduct quality monitoring by volunteers. Project
overviews continue to be presented at state, local, and regional water-related
conferences.
The Gaston County 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 schools) 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 C):
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.
133
-------
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. Improved pasture manage-
ment, livestock exclusion from the unnamed tributary, and stream bank stabiliza-
tion between sites D and E have been 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.
Farm plans for more than 20 farms within the watershed have been developed.
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. These data were then used by the North Carolina Division of Soil
and Water Conservation (DSWC) to develop a Watershed Management Plan.
Along with developing the plan, DSWC staff used data from 1984 and 1994 to
estimate erosion and sediment delivery rates in the watershed. The comparison
indicated a 52% reduction 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 NFS control efforts. A watering
system was installed at a beef farm in order to exclude cows from the stream.
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. A watering system
has been installed in the pastures of the watershed. Fencing for cattle exclusion
between monitoring sites D and E was completed and the streamside buffers have
been planted in pine and hardwood trees. Grass has been planted on severely
eroding streambanks.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
The water quality monitoring effort incorporates the following four 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
• Urban stream storm and grab sampling done on a tributary to Long Creek
(Kaglor Branch)
134
-------
' Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
Modifications Since
Project Started
Parameters
Measured
Sampling Scheme
A watershed screening study for pathogens began in April, 1996. Samples from
three current sites, as well as additional sites, were collected and analyzed for E.
coli, clostridium perfringens, and coliphages.
Biological
Percent canopy and aufwuchs (organisms growing on aquatic plants)
Invertebrate taxa richness: ephemeroptera, plecoptera, trichoptera, coleoptera,
odonata, megaloptera, diptera, oligochaeta, Crustacea, mollusca, and other taxa
Bacteria: Fecal coliform (FC) and fecal streptococci (FS)
Chemical and Other
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Total solids (TS)
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) (1991-92)
PH
Conductivity
Nitrate + nitrite (NOs + NO2)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total phosphorus (TP)
Physical stream indicators: width, depth and bank erosion
Covariates
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 24):
Type: grab (site H)
Frequency and season: weekly from December through May and monthly for the
remainder of the year for TS, TSS, FC, FS, temperature, conductivity, DO, patho-
gens, pH, and turbidity
Upstream/downstream of Dairy 1 Tributary on Long Creek (Figure 24):
Type: grab (sites B and C)
Frequency and season: weekly from December through May and monthly for the
remainder of the-year for FC and FS, temperature, pH, conductivity, turbidity, DO,
TSS, TP, TKN, and 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 FC and FS, temperature, pH, conductiv-
ity, DO, TSS, TS, TKN, NO2+NOs, and TP; storm events for TSS, TS, TKN,
NO2+NO3, and TP
Paired Cropland Watersheds (Figure 24):
Type: storm event (sites F and G)
Frequency and season: stage-activated storm event for runoff, TS, TKN,
NO2+NO3, TP, and pathogens
135
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
Single Downstream Station at Watershed Outlet (Figure 24):
Type: grab (site I)
Frequency and season: weekly from December through May and monthly for the
rest of the year for temperature, pH, conductivity, turbidity, DO, TSS, TP, TS,
TKN, NOa+NOa, and FC and FS; annual biological for sensitive species
Monitoring Scheme for the Long Creek Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Design
Single
downstream
Upstream/
downstream
Upstream/
downstream
Paired
Single
downstream
Sites or
Activities
Water supply
watershed
Long Creek
Dairy 1
Farmstead
Paired
cropland
watersheds
Watershed
outlet
Primary
Parameters
TS
TSS
FC
FS
Pathogens
TP
NO3 + NO2
TKN
TSS
FC
FS
TP
NO3 + NO2
TS
TSS
FC
FS
Pathogens
TP
NO3 + NO2
TS
TKN
Pathogens
TP
N03 + NO2
TKN
TSS
FC
FS
Covariates
Discharge
(weekly)
Discharge
(weekly)
Discharge
(continuous)
Rainfall
Water table
Discharge
(continuous)
Rainfall
Water table
Discharge
(continuous)
Frequency of
WQ Sampling
Weekly
(Dec.-May)
Monthly
Weekly
(Dec. - May)
Monthly
(June-Nov.)
Weekly
and storm event
Storm event
Weekly
(Dec.-May)
Monthly
(June-Nov.)
Frequency of
Habitat/Biological
Assessment Duration
Annually 2 yrs pre-BMP
6 yrs BMP
Annually 2 yrs pre-BMP
(downstream) 4 yrs BMP
2 yrs post-BMP
2 yrs pre-BMP
2 yrs post-BMP
2 yrs pre-BMP
6 yrs post-BMP
Annually 2 yrs pre-BMP
6 yrs BMP
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
In May - June, 1994, four monitoring wells were installed at the paired water-
sheds to gain a better understanding of ground water movement. Approximately
16 wells above Site B are also being installed on a Biosolids Application site.
Also, storm-event sampling on a small stream draining an urban watershed has
been added. Assessment monitoring for the pathogens cryptosporidium and
giardia has been initiated at several locations in the watershed.
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, i
136
-------
i Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
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 Water Quality will also store the water
quality data in the USEPA STORET system. Data will be shared among all
participating agencies for use in their databases. 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
YEAR: 1995
Parameter Name
Fecal Coliform, Membr Filter, M-FC Broth, 44.5 C
Fecal Streptoccoci 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)
STATION TYPE: Downstream Station
Chemical Parameters
Parameter Name
Fecal Coliform, Membr Filter, M-FC Broth, 44.5 C
Fecal Streptoccoci 9230C
Nitrate + Nitrite (3 53.1 EPA, 1983)
Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, Total (MG/L as N)
Phosphorus, Total (MG/L as P)
Total Suspended Solids (2540C 17th SMEWWW)
STATION TYPE: Upstream Station
Chemical Parameters
Parameter Name
Fecal Coliform, Membr Filter, M-FC Broth, 44.5 C
Fecal Streptoccoci 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 (2540C 17th SMEWWW)
STATION TYPE: Downstream Station
Chemical Parameters
Parameter Name
Fecal Coliform, Membr Filter, M-FC Broth, 44.5 C
Fecal Streptoccoci 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
4.5 C
VW)
Farm
Type
S
U
u
S
S
u
PRIMARY CODE:
4.5 C
WW)
Parm
Type
S
U
u
S
S
u
PRIMARY CODE:
4.5 C
/W)
WW)
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- -so- -25-
3600 1700 810
3700 1400 270
.53 .49 .45
.3 .22 .15
.3 .18 .1
8 5.0 4.0
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
3400 1350 940
4150 1650 495
.56 .51 .46
.35 .22 1.7
.29 .2 .13
11 7 3
QUARTILE VALUES
.75- -so- -25-
81000 31000 7700
28000 10000 2600
.169 .04 .018
2.7 2.085 1.405
3.2 1.3 .615
.745 .45 .285
145 102 90
44.5 12.5 2
PRIMARY CODE: SiteE
.
14.5 C
VW)
Parm
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. -so- -25-
485000 60000 21000
215000 42500 8150
.171 .075 .042
3.275 1.925 1.28
12.00 2.80 1.65
2.865 .815 .59
309 139 114
71.5 13 3
137
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
NPSMS Data Summary (Continued)
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
QUAR
-75-
910
1300
75
8
-50- -25-
630 270
360 100
68 61
5 3
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
Funding Source (S)
Federal State Local Sum
Proj Mgt
I&E
LT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Source: Jennings et al., 1992
340,300
0
0
561,186
901,486
147,360
20,000
370,000
0
537,360
98,240 585,900
80,000 100,000
80,000 450,000
12,000 573,186
270,240 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 United States Department of Agriculture (USD A) -
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 regula-
tion will motivate dairy farmers to implement animal waste management and
erosion control BMPs.
138
-------
" Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
The North Carolina Water Supply Watershed Protection Act, as applied to this
class of watershed, requires that 1) agricultural activities within one-half mile of
and draining to a water intake maintain at least a 10-foot vegetated buffer or
equivalent control and 2) animal operations of more than 100 animal units 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
• USDA 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 Water Quality
• Farm Service Agency (FSA)
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
David Harding
DEHNR
Div. of Water Quality
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
(919) 733-5083; Fax (919) 715-5637
Internet: david@dem.ehnr.state.nc.us
Martha A. Burris
County Extension Director
P.O. Box 476
Dallas, NC 28034-0476
(704) 922-0303; Fax (704) 922-3416
Internet: mburris@gaston.ces.ncsu.edu
William A. Harman
Extension Associate
NCSU Water Quality Group
Campus Box 7637
Raleigh, NC 27695-7637
(919) 515-8245; Fax (919) 515-7448
Internet: will_harman@ncsu.edu
139
-------
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
Richard Farmer
Extension Associate
P.O. Box 476
Dallas, NC 28034-0476
(704) 922-0303; Fax (704) 922-3416
Internet: rfarmer@gaston.ces.ncsu.edu
Daniel E. Line
Extension Specialist
NCSU Water Quality Group
Campus Box 7637
Raleigh, NC 27695-7637
(919) 515-8243; Fax (919) 515-7448
Internet: dan_line@ncsu.edu
Sean Cronin
Extension Agent
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 476
Dallas, NC 28034-0476
(704) 922-0303; Fax (704) 922-3416
Internet: scronin@gaston.ces.ncsu.edu
140
-------
Oklahoma
Peacheater Creek
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 25: Peacheater Creek (Oklahoma) Project Location
141
-------
i Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
Tyner Creek
Legend
• Chemical Monitoring Site
^ Biological Monitoring Site
N
Peacheater Creek
Figure 26: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Peacheater Creek (Oklahoma) Watershed
142
-------
Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Peacheater Creek is located in eastern Oklahoma (Figure 25). 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 streambanlc 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 team has completed an extensive natural resource and stream corridor
inventory. Data from the inventory have been digitized and mapped in a geo-
graphic 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 im-
prove poultry and dairy waste utilization on cropland and pasrureland. A paired
watershed study (Figure 26) is planned using chemical parameters. 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; however, such
uses are impaired by nutrient enrichment and loss of in-stream habitat. The
Illinois River has been degraded by loss of water clarity and nuisance periphyton
growth. Lake Tenkiller has had phytoplankton blooms and the hypolimnion
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 5.66 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 maybe consid-
ered a minimum level for eutrophication. Storm sample TP concentrations are
elevated.
Both Peacheater and Tyner Creeks have poor in-stream habitat. Large chert gravel
bars cover extensive 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
143
-------
i Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
macroinvertebrates and fish. Peacheater Creek has extensive streambank erosion
due to forestry activities and cattle traffic. The streambank erosion is also believed
to be further accelerated by the destabilization of the stream channel by the
growing bed load.
Restore recreational and aquatic life beneficial uses in Peacheater Creek and
minimize eutrophication impacts on the Illinois River and Lake Tenkiller.
None.
1995 to 2000
Approved October, 1995
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorological Factors
Land Use
Pollutant Sources
Modifications Since
Project Started
The Peacheater Creek watershed area is 16,209 acres. The creek drains via the
Baron Fork River to the Illinois River, which then is impounded to form Tenkiller
Ferry Lake.
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 94
Forest land 36
Grassed 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 of
private residences. 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.
None.
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
144
-------
Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
feeding operations, which include egg laying poultry operations. Records must be
kept on waste cleanout operations and litter applications. Cooperative Extension
Service and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conser-
vation Service (NRCS) personnel 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 demonstra-
tions are being used to illustrate nutrient management principles on bermuda
grass and fescue.
Rainfall simulator studies and demonstrations have been held to show the effect of
cropland best management practices (BMPs) on water quality. The effects of
nutrient application rate and filter strips were 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.
A three-day summer youth camp was held during the summer of 1996 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 partici-
pants also tested the chemical quality of Peacheater Creek using portable water
quality kits.
NONPOINTSOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY
Description
Land treatment implemented through the project will be designed to 1) reduce
nutrient loading to the Illinois River system and Tenkiller Lake and 2) restore
streambanks with the objective of improving pool depth and reducing gravel
loading in the system. Implementation of land treatment is on hold until the
calibration phase has been completed.
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 under an earlier program. All implementation activities
are on hold until the calibration phase of the project is complete.
There are 59 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.
145
-------
i Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
Modifications Since
Project Started
There are approximately 1,200 beef cattle in the watershed. Recommended BMPs
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. Recommended BMPs include fencing, no land application of litter
in riparian areas, off-site watering systems, and vegetative establishment. The
stream will also be classified following Rosgen Methodology for streambank and
channel restoration.
The implementation program for Peacheater Creek watershed is deferred until the
calibration phase of the project is complete. A final implementation plan will be
drafted based upon water quality, biological and habitat assessment results, as well
as nutrient reductions for the Illinois River and Tenkilier Ferry Lake.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
Parameters
Measured
The water quality design for the Peacheater Creek 319 National Monitoring
Program project is a paired design. Peacheater Creek watershed treatment is
paired with Tyner Creek watershed (control) (Figure 26). Water quality monitor-
ing occurs at each watershed outlet. Habitat and biological monitoring occurs in
both streams at appropriate locations.
None.
Biological
Periphyton productivity
Fisheries survey
Macroinvertebrate survey
Intensive and extensive habitat assessment
Bank erosion and soil bank sampling
Chemical
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Specific conductivity
pH
Alkalinity
Turbidity
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Nitrate + nitrite nitrogen (NOs +
Total phosphorus (TP)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Sulfate (SO4~)
Chloride (Cl)
Hardness
Covariates
Stream discharge
Precipitation
146
-------
i Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
Sampling Scheme
Chemical parameters will be monitored weekly from My 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.
Monitoring Scheme for the Peacheater Creek Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Design
Sites or
Activities
Primary
Parameters
Covariates
Frequency of
WQ Sampling
Frequency of
Habitat/Biological
Assessment Duration
Faked
Tyner Creekc
Peacheater CreekT
Periphyton productivity
Fisheries survey
Macroinvertebrate survey
Habitat assessment
Bank erosion
Turbidity
DO
TKN
NO3 + NO2
TP
TSS
Stream discharge
Precipitation
Summer / winter
Yearly
Summer/winter
Alternate years
Alternate years
2 yrs. pre-BMP
1 yr. BMP
1 yr. post-BMP
Weekly (July-Jan.)
Monthly (Feb.-June)
Storm event
GControl watershed
TTreatment watershed
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
None.
Chemical parameters 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
parameters will be entered into the OCC Fox Pro Water Quality Data Base and the
collections at the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, and archived in the
BIOS data base.
NPSMS Data
Summary
The OCC will prepare data and summary statistics for entry into the USEPA
Nonpoint Management System Software (NPSMS).
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
None.
The sampling program was initiated in December, 1995. An extensive habitat
assessment, based on transects every 100 meters over the stream length, has been
completed for both streams. Permanent transects have been established. Intensive
habitat assessments, consisting of transects every 20 meters at biological sites,
147
-------
i Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
have been completed and replicated for quality assurance. A fishery survey of both
streams has been completed. Measurements of high flow events continue to be
conducted on both Peacheater Creek and Tyner Creeks in order to update the
discharge curve. A depth/discharge curve for programming the auto-sampler in
order to collect flow-weighted high flow water samples has been completed for
both Peacheater and Tyner Creeks, and the samplers are fully operational. The
winter sets of periphytometer samples have been collected and processed, and are
awaiting laboratory analysis.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Modifications Since
Project Started
The estimated budget for the Peacheater Creek National Monitoring Program
project for the life of the project is:
Project Element Funding Source ($)
Federal Si
WQ Monitoring
Flow Monitoring
Implementation
TOTALS
Source: Phillip Moershel (Personal Communication), 1996
None.
Federal
250,000
100,000
108,000
458,000
State
166,667
66,670
72,000
305,337
Local
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sum
416,667
166,670
180,000
763,337
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
This project compliments a larger program to improve the water quality of the
Illinois Paver and Lake Tenkiller. An effort to establish a Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) for the system has been initiated, which may build upon the results
in Peacheater Creek.
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
None.
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
John Hassell
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
1000 W. Wishire St. Suite 123
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73116-7026
(405) 858-2004; Fax (405) 858-2012
Internet: jhassell@occwq.state.ok.us
148
-------
1 Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Information and
Education
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: phmoershel@occwq.state.ok.us
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: srnolen@agen.okstate.edu
149
-------
i Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
150
-------
Oregon
Upper Grande Ronde Basin
Section 319 Project
(Pending Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project Approval)
Oregon
Figure 27: Upper Grande Ronde Basin (Oregon) Project Location
151
-------
Upper Grande Ronde Basin, Oregon
Legend of Monitoring Sites
2 - Meadow Creek - Starkey
3 - Dark Canyon Creek - Upper Reach
4 - McCoy Creek - Middle Reach
5 - Dark Canyon Creek - Lower Reach
6 - McCoy Creek - Lower Reach #1
7 - McCoy Creek - Lower Reach :#2
8 - Meadow Creek - Lower Reach
9 - Lookout Creek
10 - Limber Jim Creek - Upper Reach
11 - Limber Jim Creek - Lower Reach
N
Figure 28: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Upper Grande Ronde Basin (Oregon) Watershed
152
-------
Upper Grande Ronde Basin, Oregon
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Upper Grande Ronde Basin (695 square miles) is located in the Columbia
Intermontane Central Mountains of northeast Oregon (Figure 27). The Grande
Ronde River traverses primarily forest and grazing lands draining into the Snake
River, a major tributary of the Columbia River. The study area is included in the
ceded lands of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
(CTUIR), and is a culturally significant area.
The watershed has historically been important for anadromous fish production,
but from about 1970 to the present fish numbers have been declining. Land use
activities, such as grazing, timber harvest, road construction, and livestock pro-
duction, have been cited as contributing to fish and other aquatic species' habitat
degradation.
Water temperature and loss of physical habitat have been identified by the US
Forest Service (USFS) as the most important factors affecting spring Chinook
salmon and steelhead populations (Hafele, 1996). An important cause of increased
stream temperature is the loss of riparian vegetation. It has been estimated that
land use activities have reduced stream shading from a potential of 80% to a total
of 28% (Hafele, 1996). As a result of these and other water quality violations
(primarily pH), the Grande Ronde has been listed by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ) as water quality limited.
Since 1993, a water quality monitoring program has been conducted by ODEQ to
evaluate the basin's biological communities and the physical and chemical factors
that affect them. This monitoring effort is pending formalization as a US Environ-
mental Protection Agency (USEPA) Section 319 National Monitoring Program
project. The monitoring effort targets five subbasins within the Upper Grande
Ronde Basin. Water quality monitoring is based on a paired watershed design for
two highly impacted basins, while other basins represent a range of less impacted
control sites. Additionally, an upstream/downstream approach is used to evaluate
changing land use along individual streams. The major monitoring components
include habitat, macroinvertebrates, fish and water quality. A significant measure
of success will be a reduction in maximum summer temperatures, improved
habitat for aquatic life, and increased biotic index scores for fish and
macroinvertebrates.
The Upper Grande Ronde Basin 319 National Monitoring Program project (pend-
ing) has evolved from local, state, and tribal cooperation. In 1995, a watershed
assessment was completed by ODEQ under the Oregon Watershed Health Pro-
gram (Bach, 1995). ODEQ is currently carrying out a Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) study and developing waste load allocations for the basin. The USFS has
developed a restoration plan for anadromous fish in the Upper Grande Ronde
Basin and identified desired future conditions (Hafele, 1996). Stream habitat
restoration activities aimed at improving habitat conditions will be implemented
on McCoy Creek in cooperation with the landowner and CTUIR.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
The total drainage area of the Upper Grande Ronde Basin is approximately 695
square miles with a stream density of 1.44 (miles/square miles). Ten sites from
five subbasins located in the upper southwest portion of the watershed have been
selected for this monitoring project. They are as follows:
153
-------
Upper Grande Ronde Basin, Oregon
Water Uses and
Impairments
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Current Water
Quality Objectives
McCoy Creek
Dark Canyon Creek
Meadow Creek
Lookout Creek
Limber Jim Creek
55.3 sq. mi.
18.8 sq. mi.
56.2 sq. mi.
15 sq. mi.
18.8 sq. mi.
paired basin (3 sites)
paired basin
paired basin
single site
paired basin
The designated beneficial uses of concern in the basin include anadromous
.populations of spring/summer Chinook salmon, summer steelhead, and resident
populations of bull trout.
Important beneficial uses of the streams that drain the watershed include cold
water fish migration, spawning, and rearing; domestic and agricultural water
supply, primary and secondary contact recreation; and wildlife habitat.
Most water chemistry violations (mostly pH) in the Grande Ronde Basin have
been shown to occur in the main stem of the Grande Ronde. Water chemistry
results for 1993-95 indicate that no significant water chemistry problems were
observed for the ten study sites based on sixteen separate parameters.
Monitoring of habitat conditions indicates that Lookout Creek has the most stable
and highest quality habitat with Dark Canyon Creek the lowest. Habitat condi-
tions in McCoy Creek show impaired conditions at the two lower sites and moder-
ately impaired at the upper site. Lower McCoy Creek is characterized by
channelized banks, little riparian vegetation, and shallow pools and riffles, and is
the target of the stream restoration efforts. Habitat conditions are summarized in
Figure 28.
Water temperature has been identified as a significant factor affecting both water
quality and biological communities in the Grande Ronde. Temperature in the
basin has been characterized by placing continuous recording thermographs at the
top and bottom of each stream reach selected for bioassessment. For the Grande
Ronde Basin, the water temperature standard is based on the 7-day maximum
mean and should not exceed 17.8°C for cold water species when salmonids are
not spawning; water temperature should not exceed 12.8°C during salmonid
spawning and incubation. The 17.8°C temperature maximum applies to the study
sites during July, August and September. This maximum temperature was ex-
ceeded at all sites except Limber Jim Creek in 1993 and Upper Limber Jim and
Lookout Creeks in 1994. The sites on McCoy Creek, Dark Canyon Creek and
Meadow Creek generally exceeded the standard throughout the sampling period.
Project objectives include the following:
• To improve salmonid and aquatic macroinvertebrate communities in McCoy
Creek by restoring habitat quality and lowering stream temperatures.
• To quantitatively document a cause-and-effect relationship between improved
habitat, lower water temperatures and improved salmonid and
macroinvertebrate communities.
Differences in fish and macroinvertebrate communities and pre-project water
quality results suggest that the above objectives can be achieved. The results of
snorkel surveys for fish completed during the summers of 1994 and 1995 show
two interesting factors
Rainbow trout were present in all streams, including Meadow and McCoy
Creeks, where summer temperatures exceed 25°C, well above the acceptable
range for trout. Temperature measurements indicate a 5°C gradient was
present in pools as shallow as 18 inches. These areas of temperature refugia
154
-------
Upper Grande Ronde Basin, Oregon
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
may be critical for fish survival under the temperature conditions of streams
like Meadow and McCoy Creeks.
• Fish communities at Meadow and McCoy creeks were dominated by warm
water red-sided shiner and dace. These species were scarce or completely
absent at the other study sites, presumably because of cooler water
temperatures. It is expected that fish communities will shift from one
dominated by red-sided shiner and dace to one dominated by trout in the
McCoy reaches if water temperatures can be lowered by restoration work.
Macroinvertebrate results from 1993 show a similar pattern to the fish surveys
and temperature results. It is expected then that if temperatures in McCoy Creek
can be improved through habitat restoration, the macroinvertebrate and fish
communities will respond favorably and that these responses can be measured.
1993-2003 (if funding permits)
Pending.
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorological Factors
Land Use
Pollutant Sources
The Upper Grande Ronde Basin Monitoring Project consists often study sites in
five subbasins located within the Blue Mountain eco-region (Omernick, 1987).
The total area of the Upper Basin is approximately 695 square miles, with 1,000
miles of stream (Bach, 1995).
The study region is characterized by a semi-arid climate and rugged mountains in
the headwater areas. Temperature and precipitation vary with elevation, which
ranges from approximately 2,300 feet to 7,800 feet. The climate is characterized
by warm, dry summers and cold, moist winters. At elevations above 5,000 feet,
average annual precipitation is greater than 50 inches, and usually occurs as snow
(Bach, 1995).
Slopes vary throughout the basin, with relatively gentle slopes in the valley and
steeper slopes (as high as 90% in some areas) in the upper parts of the watershed
(Bach, 1995). The combination of slope, rainfall, and snowpack can lead to large
runoff events in the mid and upper elevations.
Approximately 60% of the land in the Grande Ronde Basin is devoted to forestry,
while approximately 36% is agricultural. Land use activities such as grazing,
timber harvesting, road construction, and livestock practices have been cited as
causes for beneficial use impairment. Land ownership in the Upper Basin is
approximately 53% private and 47% federal. The only two land use/cover types
present in the study subbasins are range and evergreen forest.
The major sources of nonpoint source temperature pollution are loss of riparian
habitat through historic grazing practices and channel modifications.
155
-------
Upper Grande Ronde Basin, Oregon
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
There has been little quantitative documentation of the effects of habitat restora-
tion on stream temperatures and aquatic communities. The Upper Grande Ronde
Basin Monitoring project will provide useful information on the effects of riparian
restoration on fish and macroinvertebrate habitat improvement for areas elsewhere
in the basin. This project will also enhance interagency coordination among other
agencies and watershed councils which have expressed interest in restoration
work. Interagency cooperation is reflected by the involvement in this project of
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODF&W), NRCS, local Soil and Water
Conservation Districts (SWCD), USFS, USEPA, and the CTUIR.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGIES
Description
The nonpoint source treatment to be implemented in the study area will consist of
stream channel and riparian restoration activities on the lower reach of McCoy
Creek. Lower McCoy Creek is characterized by channelized banks, little riparian
vegetation, and shallow pools and riffles. Streambank stabilization and riparian
revegetation represent the minimal amount of restoration activities to be imple-
mented. Increasing the width-to-depth ratio and restoring the wet meadow condi-
tions should increase riparian canopy and shading. More intensive restoration
activities may be used to restore the old channel network and allow the stream to
meander along its old bed. The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation will be coordinating the restoration work in cooperation with ODEQ
(ODEQ, 1995).
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Parameters
Measured
A paired watershed approach is being used for the McCoy Creek (treatment) /
Dark Canyon (control) subbasins to document change in stream temperatures and
aquatic communities as a result of best management practice (BMP) implementa-
tion. Dark Canyon is the control subbasin, while McCoy Creek is the treatment
basin. Upstream / downstream monitoring sites of these subbasins will be imple-
mented in both. Three additional subbasins will be used as background subbasins
representing a range of water quality and habitat conditions.
Biological
Habitat
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Chemical and Other
Continuous water temperature
Specific conductivity
Alkalinity
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
pH
Ammonia (NHs)
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Turbidity
156
-------
Upper Grande Ronde Basin, Oregon
Sampling Scheme
Covariates
Continuous air temperature
Discharge
Precipitation (from nearby climate station)
Shading and solar input
Time of travel
Slope or gradient
Width/depth measurements.
Water quality monitoring is conducted from early April through early October. Air
and water temperature is measured continuously at each site throughout the
monitoring season. Water quality, habitat, and macroinvertebrate surveys are
conducted three times and fish snorkel surveys are done once during each moni-
toring season. The methods used for identifying sites are based on a modified
HanMn and Reeves procedure (Hafele, 1996). The habitat and macroinvertebrate
assessment procedures follow Oregon's biomonitoring protocols.
Time of travel data, to be used in temperature modeling, have been collected
during the 1996 monitoring season and will be collected again after restoration
work is completed. Pool volumes and detailed temperature refugia measurements
are being collected during the 1996 monitoring season. Photo and video documen-
tation taken at all study sites during summer low flows will provide before and
after documentation of habitat conditions.
Monitoring Scheme for the Upper Grande Ronde Basin Section 319 National Monitoring Program
Project
Design
Paired
Upstream/
downstream
Sites or
Activities
McCoy Creek
Dark Canyon
Creek
Primary
Parameters
Habitat
Macroinvertebrate
Fish
Water temperature
Frequency of
Frequency of Habitat/Biological
Covariates WQ Sampling Assessment Duration
Air temperature
Discharge
Precipitation
3 times yearly 2 years pre-BMP
5 years BMP
5 years post-BMP
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
NPSMS Data
Summary
Water quality data are stored and maintained locally by ODEQ in spreadsheet
form and later will be transferred to USEPA's STORET and NonPoint Source
Management System (NPSMS) databases. Other reporting formats involve spread-
sheet tabulations and graphic presentation. Data will be shared among participat-
ing agencies. Data analysis will involve performing statistical tests for detecting
trends in water and habitat quality and aquatic communities.
Currently unavailable.
157
-------
Upper Grande Ronde Basin, Oregon
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The estimated budget for the Upper Grande Ronde National Monitoring Project
for the life of the project is based on 10 years of funding, with four years com-
pleted (1993-1996):
Project Element
Federal
Proj Mgt
I&E
LT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
230,000
NA
185,000
470,000
885,000
92,000
NA
NA
188,000
280,000
Funding Source (S)
State Local Tribal Total
NA NA 322,000
NA NA NA
NA 70,000 255,000
NA NA 658,000
NA 70,000 1,235,000
Source: Rick Hafele, personal communication (1996),
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
The Upper Grande Ronde Basin Monitoring Project is a major component of the
Grande Ronde Watershed Enhancement Project, a cooperative effort between
ODEQ, EPA, NRCS and Union County SWCD.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the Snake River spring/
summer Chinook salmon as an endangered species under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) in August 1994. The US Fish and Wildlife Service determined the Bull
trout to be warranted for ESA listing in February 1995. Bull trout are also on the
Oregon sensitive species list. Snake River summer steelhead are currently classi-
fied as a stock of concern by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, sensi-
tive by the USFS, and part of a region-wide review for potential listing under the
ESA (Bach 1995).
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
None.
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Rick Hafele
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Labs
Biomonitoring Section
1712 S.W. llth Avenue
Portland, OR 97201
(503) 229-5983; Fax: (503) 229-6924
Internet: rick.hafele@state.or.us
158
-------
Upper Grande Ronde Basin, Oregon
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Mike Purser, DNR Forest Hydrologist/Watershed Management Specialist
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 638
Pendleton, OR 97801
(503) 278-5206; Fax: (503) 276-0540
Rick Hafele
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Labs
Biomonitoring Section
1712 S.W. llth Avenue
Portland, OR 97201
(503) 229-5983; Fax: (503)229-6924
Internet: rick.hafele@state.or.us
159
-------
Upper Grande Ronde Basin, Oregon
160
-------
Pennsylvania
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Pennsylvania
Project Area
Figure 29: Pequea and Mill Creek (Pennsylvania) Watershed Project Location
161
-------
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania
\
N
t
Kllomefejs
0
.5
Miles
Water Quality Site and
Continuous Flow Gage Station
Water Quality Site and
Intermittent Flow Station
Precipitation Gage
Nest of 4 Wells
Streams
Watershed Boundary
Figure 30: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Pequea and Mill Creek (Pennsylvania) Watershed
162
-------
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 29). 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, except for cattle crossings,
which will also be used for drinking water access for the cattle. This will allow a
natural riparian buffer to become established, which will stabilize streambanks
and potentially filter pollutants from pasture runoff.
Water quality monitoring is based on a paired watershed design in which the
proposed NPS control is to implement livestock exclusion fencing on nearly 100
percent of the stream miles in the treatment subwatershed (Figure 30). 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 moni-
toring is planned to help document the effectiveness of fencing in the treatment
subwatershed.
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. Annual mean discharges for
the 1994 water year were 2.39 arid 4.06 cfs at the outlets of the treatment and
control subwatersheds, respectively.
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:
Treatment
Control
Fecal coliform
1,100-38,000
10,000
TP
(mg/0
.06-.25
.02-.04
OP
(mg/1)
.03-. 15
.01-.03
TKN NOa+NOi
(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 NPS 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.
163
-------
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
Pollutant Sources
Modifications Since
Project Started
Type
Agricultural
Urban
Commercial
Total
Control Watershed
Acres %
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, respectively. 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.
A new residential community is being developed in the treatment subwatershed.
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USD A) Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) has had an important role in the information and education
(I&E) programs in the Pequea and Mill Creek watershed. NRCS provides an
employee to gather nutrient management data in the watershed. The Lancaster
Conservation District and the Pennsylvania State University Cooperative Exten-
sion Service maintain active I&E programs in the area. Also, as part of the
USDA-funded Pequea-Mill Creeks Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA), the landowners
in the watersheds will be targeted for additional educational programs.
The Pennsylvania State University Cooperative Extension Service has produced
an educational video which includes information about the project and participat-
ing farmers.
164
-------
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 nearly 100 percent
of the pasture land adjacent to the stream draining the treatment subwatershed.
All of the farmers in this watershed have agreed to install fencing. A stabilizing
vegetative buffer is expected to develop naturally soon after the fencing is in-
stalled.
None.
The project is still in pre-BMP phase.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
Parameters
Measured
The water quality monitoring effort is based on a paired watershed experimental
design (Figure 30).
A new biological site, water quality site, and continuous monitoring station were
added. A continuous water quality probe was installed.
Biological
Habitat survey
Benthic invertebrate monitoring
Algal mass
Fecal streptococcus (FS) (only during base flow)
Chemical and Other
Suspended solids (SS)
Total and dissolved ammonia (NHs) plus organic nitrogen
Dissolved ammonia (NHs)
Dissolved nitrate + nitrite (NOs + NC-2)
Dissolved nitrite (NO2)
Total and dissolved phosphorus (TP and DP)
Dissolved orthophosphate (OP)
Sampling Scheme
Covariates
Continuous streamflow
Continuous precipitation
Ground water level
Continuous Streamflow Sites (4):
Type: grab and storm event composite
Frequency and season: grab every 10 days from April through November. Monthly
grab December through March. Fifteen to 20 composite storm flow samples per
year will also be collected.
165
-------
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania
Partial Streamflow Site f 1):
Type: grab
Frequency and season: every 10 days from April through November. Monthly grab
December through March.
Ground Water:
Type: grab
Frequency and season: monthly and analyzed for nitrate. On a quarterly basis,
analysis includes dissolved NO2, NOs + NO2, NHs, and phosphorus.
Habitat, benthic invertebrate, and algal mass surveys are conducted twice per year,
preferably during May and September, at the outlet of each subwatershed, at two
points upstream in the treatment subwatershed, and at one point upstream in the
control 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.
Continuous pH, DO, specific conductivity, and temperature are monitored at the
mouth of the treated subwatershed during the 10-day fixed sampling period.
Monitoring Scheme for the Pequea and Mill Creek Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Sites or
Design Activities
Paired Treatment
watershed watershed
Control
watershed
Primary
Parameters
Habitat survey
Benthic invertebrate survey
Algal mass
SS
Total organic nitrogen
NH3
NO3 + NO2
NO2
TP
DP
OP
FS
Frequency of
Frequency of Habitat/Biological
Covariates WQ Sampling Assessment Duration
Sampling
Discharge every 10 days
Precipitation (Apr.-Nov.)
Ground water Monthly sampling
level from Dec. to March
Storm event
samples (15-20)
Twice per 3 yrs pre-BMP
year (May & 5 yrs post-BMP
August)
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
A new biological site was added upstream in the control subwatershed. A continu-
ous water quality probe was installed at the mouth of the treated subwatershed. A
new continuous monitoring station and water quality site was added to the treat-
ment subwatershed to document effects of a new residential development upstream
of pasture land.
Data are stored and maintained locally by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and
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
m.
166
-------
NPSMS Data STATION TYPE: control station PRIMARY CODE: 01576521 YEAR: 1995
Summary CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Parameter Name
FECAL, STREP KF AGAR
FLOW, STREAM, INSTANTANEOUS, CFS
NITROGEN, AMMONIA+ORGANIC DISSOLVED
NITROGEN, KIEDAHL, 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
Farm
Type
S
S
S
S
S
S
u
S
u
S
S
S
S
S
Reporting
Units
COLS/1 OOML
CFS
MG/L AS N
MGL/N
MG/L AS N
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-
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, 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
Farm
Type
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
u
S
u
S
S
S
S
S
Reporting
Units
COLS/100ML
CFS
MG/L AS N
MG/L AS N
MG/L AS N
MG/L AS N
MG/L AS N
COWDAY/AC
MG/L
MI
MG/L ASP
MG/L ASP
MG/L AS P
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
167
-------
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania
NPSMS Data Summary (Continued)
STATION TYPE: Control Station
BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS (Non-Chemical)
PRIMARY CODE: 01576521
Parameter Name
EPT INDEX
EPT/CHIRONOMIDE ABUNDANCE
H1LSENHOFF BIOTIC INDEX (HBI)
PERCENT DOMINANT TAXA
SCRAPERS/FILTER COLLECTORS
SPECIES RICHNESS
Farm Reporting Expl.
-INDICES-
Max. Reason. Ref7
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 rNon-Chemican
Parameter Name
EPT INDEX
EPT/CHIRONOMIDE ABUNDANCE
H1LSENHOFF BIOTIC INDEX (HBI)
PERCENT DOMINANT TAXA
SCRAPERS/FILTER COLLECTORS
Parm
Type
U
U
U
u
u
Reporting
Units
SCORE
RATIO
SCORE
PERCENT
RATIO
CODE:
Expl.
Var.
N
N
N
N
N
01576529
INDICES
Fully
6
2.0
0.00-6.5
20
0.8
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 have been entered into WATSTORE and NPSMS soft-
ware.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Project Element 1993
Personnel $ 57,508
Equipment and Supplies 20,300
Contracted Services 16,200
USGS (lab and gauging) 25,100
USGS Overhead 115,192
Other 2,000
TOTAL* $236,300
Funding Required
1994
$ 91,970
5,600
14,200
38,800
139,834
2,000
292,404
*50% of total funds are USGS matching funds
Source: Pequea and Mill Creek Watersheds Project Proposal, 1993.
1995
$ 67,656
5,020
6,200
40,770
109,214
3,000
231,860
1996
$ 90,097
4,000
7,380
30,500
121,393
4,000
257,370
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
168
-------
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
Daniel Galeone
U.S. Geological Survey
840 Market Street
Lemoyne.PA 17043-1586
(717) 730-6952; Fax (717) 730-6997
Edward Koerkle
U.S. Geological Survey
840 Market Street
Lemoyne, PA 17043-1586
(717) 730-6956; Fax (717) 730-6997
169
-------
Pequeaand Mill Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania
170
-------
Vermont
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 31: Lake Champlain Basin (Vermont) Watersheds Project Location
171
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
3 (Control Watershed)
Wateished Bouidaiy
0
0
Scale
i
KHometers
1
I
2
2
1
Miles
Figure 32: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Lake Champlain Basin (Vermont) Watersheds
172
-------
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 31).
Agricultural activity, primarily dairy farming, is the major land use in this area of
Vermont.
The streams in these project 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 nonpoint source (NPS) pollution. The pollut-
ants responsible for the water quality impairment are nutrients, particularly
phosphorus, E. coli, fecal streptococcus, fecal coliform bacteria, and organic
matter. The source of most of the agricultural NPS pollution is the manure gener-
ated from area dairy farms, livestock activity within streams and riparian areas,
and crop production. The Missisquoi River has the second largest discharge of
water and contributes the greatest 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 program is based on a three-way paired design: one
control watershed and two treatment watersheds (treatment #1 and #2) (Figure
32). The watersheds are being monitored during a two-year calibration period
prior to BMP implementation. Implementation monitoring will occur for one year
and post-treatment monitoring will extend for three years.
Biological, chemical, and covariates will be monitored during all three monitoring
phases. Fish, macroinvertebrates, fecal streptococcus, fecal coliform, and E. coli
bacteria are the monitored biological parameters. The chemical parameters
monitored are total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total suspended solids,
dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and temperature. Two covariates, 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.
173
-------
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, where
streams often violate state water quality criteria (Clausen and Meals, 1989; Meals,
1990; Vermont RCWP Coordinating Committee, 1991) and contribute nutrient
concentrations and areal loads that generally exceed average values reported from
across the United States (Omernik, 1977) and in the Great Lakes Region
(PLUARG, 1978).
The receiving waters for these streams — the Missisquoi River and Lake
Champlain — have very high recreational use that is being impaired by agricul-
tural 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
(#/100 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.
174
-------
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
WS2
Land Use
Acres
Acres
WS3
Acres
Corn/hay
Pasture/
hay-pasture
Forest
Other
369
60
1135
141
22%
4%
67%
8%
860
426
2118
110
25%
12%
60%
3%
569
167
1408
213
24%
7%
60%
9%
Pollutant Sources
Modifications Since
Project Started
Source: 1993 CFSA aerial photography, unverified
Nonpoint sources of pollutants are 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.
175
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Two articles concerning the project have been published in the weekly county
newspaper. 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. A second such meeting was held in April, 1996.
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.
Information and education efforts during the two-year pretreatment calibration
phase 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 agricul-
tural 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 watershed,
work will focus on selective exclusion of livestock from the streams, improvement
or elimination of heavily used stream crossings, and revegetation of streambanks.
This treatment 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-year pretreatment monitoring period, 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 — is 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.
176
-------
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 interfered slightly 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 began 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 by the state Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion (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, such as 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 32).
The design calls for two years of pre-treatment calibration, one year of implemen-
tation, and three years of post-treatment monitoring.
None.
Parameters
Measured
Biological
E. coli bacteria
Fecal coliform (FC)
Fecal streptococcus (FS)
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
177
-------
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
Covariates
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 32). 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 Section 319 National Monitoring
Program Project
Design
Three-way
paired
watershed
Site or
Activities
Samsonville
BrookT
Godin Brook1"
Berry Brookc
Primary
Parameters
E. coli
FC
FS
Macroinvertebrates
Fish survey
TP
TKN
TSS
DO
Conductivity
Temperature
Frequency of
Covariates WQ Sampling
Precipitation \Veekly except
Discharge bacteria
(continuous) 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
cConlrol watershed
178
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
None.
NPSMS Data
Summary
Primary data management is done using 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 are 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/l.OOML
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
179
-------
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
-50-
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
Federal
106,100
273,400
379,500
Funding Source ($)
State University Sum
3,400
85,500
88,900
22,400
75,600
98,000
Source: Don Meals (Personal Communication), 1994
(Dollar figures are rounded.)
Project budget continues to be renewed yearly.
131,900
434,500
566,400
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
NPS control is associated with this program, including funding for pollution
control/prevention demonstration projects.
180
-------
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, Partners in Wildlife, in
the area. The University of Vermont 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
Internet: rickh@waterq.anr.state.vt.us
Don Meals
School of Natural Resources
University of Vermont
UVM-Aiken Center
Burlington, VT 05405
(802) 656-4057; Fax (802) 656-8683
Internet: dmeals@moose.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@moose.uvm.edu
181
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
182
-------
Washington
Totten and Eld Inlet
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 33: Totteri and Eld Inlet (Washington) Project Location
183
-------
• Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
LEGEND
Watershed Boundary
Sample Site Location
Scale
\
Figure 34: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Totten and Eld Inlet (Washington)
184
-------
i Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Totten and Eld Inlets are located in southern Puget Sound (Figure 33). 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 (NFS) 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
NFS pollution. The southern portion of Eld Inlet is currently classified as condi-
tional 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 ori-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 NPS 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 initiated to evaluate the effec-
tiveness 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 subbasins 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 is 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 parameters of
interest. Best management practices are also being tracked.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
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 subbasins have been selected for this monitoring project. They
are as follows:
185
-------
• Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
Water Uses and
Impairments
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Burns 82-acre single site
Kennedy 13,046-acre paired site
Pierre 65-acre single site
Schneider 4,588-acre paired site
McLane 7,425-acre single site
Perry 3,857-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 agricul-
tural 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
monitoring 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.
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
% samples
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:
Class A Standard:
Part 1—geometric mean value (GMV) shall not exceed 50 colonies/100ml.
Part 2—not more than 10% of the samples used for calculating the GMV
shall exceed 100 colonies/100ml.
Part 1—geometric mean value shall not exceed 100 colonies/100ml.
Part 2—not more than 10% of the samples used for calculating the GMV
shall exceed 200 colonies/100ml,
Current Water
Quality Objectives
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)
McLane Creek
• reduce median FC concentration by 44% (reduce to 22 cfu/100 ml)
186
-------
i Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
None.
1993 to 2002
1995
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
Land Use
The Totten and Eld Inlets Section 319 National Monitoring Program project area
consists of six subbasins 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
Forest
Residential
Agriculture
Public Use
Undeveloped
Other
Totten/Little 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%
Pollutant Sources
Modifications Since
Project Started
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 subbasins is considered to be animal-keeping practices.
None.
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.
187
-------
• Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
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
watersheds in Whatcom, Skagit, and Snohomish counties. Approximately 1300
residents 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.
. I
Educational and informational activities are continuing.
NONPOINTSOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY
Description
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
The NFS treatment in the project area is designed to minimize the impacts of NPS
pollution by repairing failing on-site wastewater treatment systems and imple-
menting 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 NPS control strategy involves survey-
ing 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.
Conservation 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. Specific BMPs most likely to be employed for NPS control in
project watersheds include pasture and grazing management, stream fencing,
stream buffer zones, rainwater and runoff management, livestock density reduc-
tion, and animal waste management. Monies from the Farm Service Agency, State
Revolving Fund, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other sources may be avail-
able for cost-share or low interest loan contracts.
Voluntary participation (due to education/outreach activities and local ordinances)
is anticipated to be the major mechanism for implementation of farm plans. Farm
owners whose operations have impacts on water quality and who do not comply
with local ordinances 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.
None.
Since 1993, 16 farm plans were developed and over 130 BMPs were installed in 5
of the 6 study basins. The most frequently used BMPs include fencing, livestock
exclusion, livestock troughs, pasture and hayland management, and waste utiliza-
tion. Other commonly employed practices are fish stream improvement, roof
188
-------
i Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
runoff management, pasture and hayland planting, deferred grazing, and
streambank protection. The number of individual practices installed per farm
ranged from 1 to 16. Thirty-four farms have farm plans, 20 have signed plans,
and 26 farms have implemented some BMPs. Within each basin, the average
number of BMPs per farm ranged from 6 to 11. Most farm planning and BMPs
will be completed in 1997 in the Totten basins, and continue into 1999 in the Eld
Basins.
Over 190 agricultural BMPs have been implemented on 26 sites in Schneider,
McLane, Perry, Burns, and Pierre basins since 1986. Most of the pollution con-
trols have been installed on noncommercial farms that keep livestock. About 70%
of the pollution controls were installed from 1993 to 1995.
TYPE AND NUMBER OF BMPS IMPLEMENTED IN STUDY BASINS.
BMP# BMP Description
Units Kennedy Schneider McLane Perry Burns Pierre Total
322 Channel Vegetation
352 Deferred Grazing
382 Fencing
393 Filter Strip
395 Fish Stream Improvement
412 Grassed Waterway
561 Heavy Use Area Protection
430 Irrigation Pipeline
575 Livestock Crossing
472 Livestock Exclusion
590 Nutrient Mgmt
510 Pasture & Hayland Mgmt
512 Pasture & Hayland Planting
516 Pipeline
556 Planned Grazing System
528 Prescribed Grazing
558 Roof Runoff Mgmt
570 Runoff Mgmt System
580 Streambank Protection
614 Trough
620 Underground Outlet
312 Waste Mgmt System
313 Waste Storage Structure
633 Waste Utilization
645 Wildlife Upland Habitat
644 Wildlife Wetland Habitat
654 Woodland Improved
666 Woodland Pruning
490 Woodland Site Preparation
Total BMPs Installed
Farms that Developed Farm Plans
Farms that Signed Farm Plans
Farms that Installed BMPs
Average Number of BMPs per Farm
acres
acres
feet
acres
feet
acres
acres
feet
each
acres
acres
acres
acres
feet
acres
acres
system
system
feet
each
feet
system
structure
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
Plans
ns
erFarm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1
0
7
4
3
0
0
0
2
4
2
2
2
0
2
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
43
0
2
14
8
7
2
2
1
1
5
1
8
1
1
1
1
0
0
3
7
1
3
0
6
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
2
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
3
1
3
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
2'
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
31
14
11
3
2
1
4
15
3
14
8
3
8
5
1
1
6
15
1
3
5
14
6
1
1
1
1
83
22
29
15 192
6
4
4
10.8
10
9
13
6.4
7
4
4
5.5
3
2
3
9.7
2
1
2
7.5
34
20
26
7.4
189
-------
iTotten and Eld Inlet, Washington
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design A paired watershed approach is being used for the Kennedy/Schneider subbasins
to document the change in water quality as a result of BMP implementation.
Kennedy is a background (control) subbasin, while Schneider is the treatment
basin (Figure 34). A single site approach will be used for Burns, Pierre, Perry and
McLane subbasins (Figure 34).
None.
Modifications Since
Project Started
Parameters
Measured
Chemical and Other
Biological
Fecal coliform (FC)
Covariates
Conductivity
Daily precipitation
Flow
Temperature
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Turbidity
Sampling Water quality monitoring is conducted from early November through mid-April.
Scheme Grab samples are collected on a weekly schedule (Tuesdays) for at least 20 con-
secutive weeks each year of the project. Up to six additional samples are 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.
Monitoring Scheme for the Totten and Eld Inlet Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Design
Single
downstream
Paired
watershed
Sites or Primary
Activities Parameters
Bums FC
Pierre
Perry
McLane
Kennedy/ FC
Schneider
Covariates
Conductivity
Daily precipitation
Flow
Temperature
TSS
Turbidity
Frequency of Primary
Parameter Sampling
Weekly
(Nov. to mid-April)
during storms
Duration
Schneider
Burns
Pierre:
1 yr. pre-BMP
3 yrs BMP
2 yrs post-BMP
Perry:
3 yrs pre-BMP
3 yrs BMP
lyr post-BMP
McLane:
1 yr pre-BMP
5 yrs BMP
1 yr post-BMP
190
-------
i Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
NPSMS Data
Summary
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
None.
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 the following:
• 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.
None.
The fecal coliform (FC) results are variable from year to year and no trends are
apparent in the study basins, except perhaps for Schneider Creek. Schneider
Creek's FC levels seem to be decreasing from high values between 220-280 cfu/
100 ml (upper 25th percentile) during the 1989-90 wet season to 25-160 cfu/100
ml in 1995. The increase of FC in the 1989-90 season maybe due to increases in
livestock at horse ranches in the basin. Since 1989, farm plans have been devel-
oped and BMPs implemented on these ranches, which are likely helping to lower
FC concentrations. FC levels in Kennedy Creek have remained low for the length
of the data record. The highest concentrations of FC have been found in Burns
and Pierre Creeks. FC levels in Perry Creek over the past 4 years appear to be
lower than previous years. However, analyses for determining trends in FC levels
will not be performed until after BMP installation is complete.
The results of linear regression analyses show that flow and Antecedent Precipita-
tion Index (API) correlate poorly with FC. API slope, TSS, and turbidity correlate
more strongly with FC but were generally inconsistent among the stations or
between years. Results suggest that the hydrologic characteristics in the study
basins will make poor covariates of FC data for use in trends analyses or pre-and
post-BMP comparisons. API slope, TSS, and turbidity will be more closely exam-
ined over the coming years for their possible use as covariates.
191
-------
• 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):
Modifications Since
Project Started
Project Element
Proj Mgt
I&E
LT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
None.
Funding Source (S)
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 NPS 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.
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
None.
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Dan Filip
Washington State Dept. of Ecology
Ecology Water Quality Program
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
(360) 407-6406; Fax: (360) 407-6426
Marilou Pivirotto/Jeannette Barreca
Ecology Southwest Region Office
PO Box 47775
Olympia, WA 98594-7775
(360) 407-6787; Fax: (360) 407-6305
192
-------
i Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Linda Hofstad/Jane Hedges
Thurston County Environmental Health Services
2000 Lakeridge Drive SW
Olympia, WA 98502-6045
(360) 754-4111; Fax: (360) 754-2954
Management Team
Thurston Conservation District
6128 Capitol Blvd.
Tumwater, WA 98501
(360) 754-3588; Fax: (360) 753-8085
Keith Seiders
Washington State Dept. of Ecology
Ecology Watershed Assessments Section
P.O. Box 47710
Olympia, WA 98504-7710
(360) 407-6689; Fax: (360) 407-6884
Internet: kese461@ecy.wa.gov
193
-------
• Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
194
-------
Wisconsin
Otter Creek
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 35: Otter Creek (Wisconsin) Project Location
195
-------
Otter Creek, Wisconsin
Scale
1
1
1
1
.5
1
Miles
0
1
0
1
1
1
Wtometeis
OC-1
i (Single Downstream
Station) i.e. outlet
Figure 36: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Otter Creek (Wisconsin)
196
-------
i Otter Creek, Wisconsin
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Otter Creek Section 319 National Monitoring Program project is in east
central Wisconsin (Figure 35), 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 conform 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. Fifteen percent of all water
dioxide concentration samples fall below the state standard of 5 mg/L. Otter
Creek delivers high concentrations of phosphorus and fecal coliform to the
Sheboygan River. These pollutants then travel to the near shore waters of Lake
Michigan, which serves as a water supply 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. Eight of the nine dairy operations in the project area were
classified as critical; two of the eight 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 ft/
mile (Figure 36). 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.
197
-------
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 as follows:
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
My, 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
watershed is the control watershed, with an area of 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
Best management practices are being installed on critical dairies. Livestock
exclusion practices are also being installed.
Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1993a
Pollutant Sources
Modifications Since
Project Started
There are eight 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.
198
-------
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.
• Watershed tours are held for landowners.
• Watershed newsletters are sent biannually to landowners.
• Annual watershed advisory committee meetings are held.
• Small group tours of BMP installation sites are given for landowners
considering installing BMPs.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Description
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Streambank erosion and cattle exclusion practices include shoreline and
streambank fencing and 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.
Eight critical barnyards have installed runoff controls.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Two monitoring studies are being conducted in the Otter Creek National Monitor-
ing Program project. They include a paired watershed study and an above and
below study (Figure 36).
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 (Figure 36) 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, the
outlet for the Meeme River watershed. 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. MR1 is being used as the control site for the paired watershed study.
199
-------
i Otter Creek, Wisconsin
Modifications Since
Project Started
Parameters
Measured
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 watershed being monitored at station MR1. Biological, bacte-
rial, and chemical parameters are being monitored; 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 covariates 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
Fecal coliform (FC)
Sampling Scheme
Chemical
Total phosphorus (TP)
Dissolved phosphorus (DP)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Ammonia (NHs)
Nitrogen series (N02-N and NOa-N)
Turbidity
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Covariates
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, andbiomass.
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 (HilsenhofT, 1987).
Habitat parameters 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).
200
-------
Otter Creek, Wisconsin
Grab and event-flow samples are being used for water chemistry monitoring.
Parameters sampled include TP, FC, DO, and TSS.
Monitoring Scheme for the Otter Creek Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Sites or
Design Activities
Paired Otter Creek7
watershed OC1
design Meeme Riverc
MR1
Primary Frequency of Primary
Parameters Covariates Parameter Sampling Duration
Biological
Fisheries index Precipitation
MacroinvertebratesH Discharge
Habitat
FC
Bacterial & Chemical
TP
DP
TKN
NH3
NOs
NO2
Turbidity
TSS
DO
Annually 1990-1999
Annually
Annually
30 samples per
monitoring season;
weekly April-Oct
Upstream/ Above Dairyc
downstream OC4
Below DairyT
OC2
Fisheries index
MacroinvertebratesF
Habitat
Same bacterial & chemical
parameters 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
MacroinvertebratesF
Habitat
Same bacterial & chemical
parameters as paired
watershed study
Precipitation
Discharge
Annually
Annually
30 samples per
monitoring season;
weekly April-Oct.
1990-1999
Treatment AreaT
Control Areac
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index level; kick samples11
Family level; kick samples'1
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
None.
All water chemistry data are being entered into the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) data management system, WATSTORE (the U.S.
Geological Survey national database), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Nonpoint Source Management System software (NPSMS), and STORET.
201
-------
i Otter Creek, Wisconsin
NPSMS Data
Summary
Monitoring Station Parameters Report (FY95)
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Parameter Name
FLOW, STREAM, INSTANTANEOUS, CFS
PRECIPITATION, TOTAL (INCHES PER DAY)
BOD, 5 DAY
FECAL COLIFORM, MF, M-FC, 0.7 UM
NITROGEN, AMMONIA, TOTAL (MG/L AS N)
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL (MG/L AS P)
FLOW, STREAM, INSTANTANEOUS, CFS
PRECIPITATION, TOTAL (INCHES PER DAY)
BOD,5DAY,20DEGC
FECAL COLIFORM, MF, M-FC, 0.7 UM
NITROGEN, AMMONIA, TOTAL (MG/L AS N)
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL (MG/L AS P)
PH, LAB, STANDARD UNITS
PH, LAB, STANDARD UNITS
FLOW, STREAM, INSTANTANEOUS, CFS
PRECIPITATION, TOTAL (INCHES PER DAY)
BOD,5DAY,20DEGC
FECAL COLIFORM, MF, M-FC, 0.7 UM
NITROGEN, AMMONIA, DISSOLVED (MG/L AS N)
PH, LAB, STANDARD UNITS
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL (MG/L AS P)
FLOW, STREAM, INSTANTANEOUS, CFS
PRECIPITATION, TOTAL (INCHES PER DAY)
BOD, 5 DAY
FECAL COLIFORM, MF, M-FC, 0.7 UM
NITROGEN, AMMONIA, DISSOLVED (MG/L AS N)
PH, LAB, STANDARD UNITS
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL (MG/L AS P)
FISH HABITAT CONDITION INDEX
INDEX OF BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
FISH HABITAT CONDITION INDEX
INDEX OF BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
SUSPENDED SEDIMENT TOTAL RESIDUE AT 105C
SUSPENDED SEDIMENT TOTAL RESIDUE AT 105C
SUSPENDED SEDIMENT TOTAL RESIDUE AT 105C
SUSPENDED SEDIMENT TOTAL RESIDUE AT 105C
FISH HABITAT CONDITION INDEX
INDEX OF BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
Parm Reporting QUARTILE VALUES
Type Units
S CFS
S
S MG/L
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
-75- -50- -25-
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
B
B
B
B
U
u
U
u
B
B
CFS
MG/L
CFS
MG/L
MG/LN
5.3 1.7
370 175
.056 .037
.21 .158
8.2
5000
.39
.53
8.3
8.2
4.0
1200
.147
.25
8.2
8.1
1.3
30
.02
.08
2.4
490
.073
.13
7.9
7.9
6.4 3.4 2.2
15000 2600 1000
.104 .059 .032
8.3 8.2 8.1
.286 .17 .07
CFS
MG/L
MG/LN
SCORE
SCORE
SCORE
SCORE
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
SCORE
SCORE
7.3
69000
.257
8.4
.89
80
70
70
70
9
172
324
112
80
80
3.3
14000
.11
8.2
.34
50
50
50
50
7
41
60
45
40
40
2.2
3300
.042
8.1
.11
40
40
40
40
5
12
16
20
25
25
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
None.
The water quality data are 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
202
-------
Otter Creek, Wisconsin
Modifications Since
Project Started
(Wisconsin DNR will spend approximately $60,000 in FY96-97 on monitoring and land
use quantification and pollutant loading-modeling.) Source: Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, 1993a (M. Miller, Personal Communication, 1994)
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 Department, and the U.S. Geological Survey.
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Roger Bannerman
Nonpoint Source Section
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
101 South Webster St., Box 7921
Madison. WI 53707
(608) 266-2621; Fax (608) 267-2800
Internet: banner@dnr.state.wi.us
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
203
-------
Otter Creek, Wisconsin
Information and
Education
AndyYenscha
University of Wisconsin - Extension
1304 S. 70th St., Suite 228
WestAllis,WI 53214
(414) 475-2877
204
-------
Appendices
205
-------
-------
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 nonpoint
source (NPS) 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 (BMPs) and NPS 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 sources causing impaired uses that 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.
207
-------
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.
• Parameters measured (parameter name; indication if the parameter is a
covariate; STORET, BIOSTORET, or 305(b) Waterbody System code;
reporting units).
• Quartile values for chemical/physical parameters. 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 parameters. Indices scores that correspond to full, threatened, and
partial use supports are required.
• Monitoring frequency. Chemical/physical monitoring, with associated
covariates, 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 covariates. The frequency count for each
quartile is reported for each monitoring station, season, and parameter.
• Annual biological/habitat and covariates. 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.
208
-------
Appendix II
Abbreviations
ACP Agricultural Conservation Program
ADSWQ Automatic Data System for Water Quality
Ag Silver
AGNPS Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Model
Al Aluminum
ANSWERS Area! Nonpoint Source Watershed
Environment Response Simulation
API Antecedent Precipitation Index
As Arsenic
ASCS Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service, USDA
B Boron
Ba •. Barium
Be Beryllium
BMPs Best Management Practices
BIBI Biological Index of Biotic Integrity
BIOS USEPA Natural Biological Data Management
System
BOD BiochemicalOxygenDemand
Ca Calcium
Cal Poly California Polytechnic State University
Cd Cadmium
CES Cooperative Extension Service, USDA
cfs Cubic Feet per Second
cfu Colony Forming Units
Cl Chloride
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
Cr Chromium
CREAMS Chemicals, Runoff, and Erosion from
Agricultural Management Systems Model
209
-------
i Appendix II: Abbreviations
CTUER. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation
Cu Copper
DEC Department of Environmental Conservation
DO Dissolved Oxygen
DP Dissolved Phosphorus
DNR Department of Natural Resources
DSWC Division of Soil and Water Conservation
DWQ Division of Water Quality
EPIC Erosion Productivity Index Calculator
FC Fecal Coliform
Fe Iron
FS Fecal Streptococcus
FSA Farm Service Agency (USDA)
GIS Geographic Information System
GMV Geometric Mean Value
GRASS Geographic Resources Analysis Support
System
HBI Hilsenhoff Biotic Index
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
DDNR-GSB Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Geological Survey Bureau
ISU-CES Iowa State University Cooperative Extension
Service
ISUE Iowa State University Extension
K Potassium
LRNRD Lower Republican Natural Resource District
LT Land Treatment
Ma Manganese
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
Mg Magnesium
Mg/1 Milligrams Per Liter
N Nitrogen
Na Sodium
NA Information Not Available
210
-------
Appendix II: Abbreviations
NCSU North Carolina State University
NDEQ Nebraska Department of Environmental
Quality
NHs Ammonia-Nitrogen
NH"^ Ammonium-Nitrogen
Ni Nickel
NMP National Monitoring Program
NO2 • Nitrite-Nitrogen
NO3 Nitrate-Nitrogen
NFS Nonpoint Source
NPSMS NonPoint Source Management System
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
(USDA)
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
OCC Oklahoma Conservation Commission
OP Orthophosphate
p Phosphorus
Pb Lead
Proj Mgt Project Management
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RCWP Rural Clean Water Program
Se Selenium
Section319 Section319 ofthe Water Quality Act of 1987
Si Silica
Sn Tin
SO4~ Sulfate
SPI Shellfish Protection Initiative
SS Suspended Solids
STORET USEPA STOrage and RETrieval Data Base for
Water Quality
TDP Total Dissolved Phosphorus
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TOC Total Organic Carbon
TP Total Phosphorus
TS Total Solids
TSS Total Suspended Solids
Ug/1 Micrograms Per Liter
211
-------
i Appendix II: Abbreviations
UHL University Hygienic Laboratory (Iowa)
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USEPA United States Environmental Protection
Agency
USGS United States Geologic Survey (U.S.
Department of the Interior)
VSS Volatile Suspended Solids
WATSTORE USGS Water Data Storage System
WCCF Webster County Conservation Foundation
WQ Water Quality
WQIP Water Quality Incentive Project
WQ Monit Water Quality Monitoring
WQSP Water Quality Special Project
Zn Zinc
212
-------
Appendix III
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.
Before-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.
213
-------
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.
Covariance — A measure of the relationship between two variables whose
values are observed at the same time.
Covariate — The parameter which is related to another parameter.
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.
214
-------
Appendix III: Glossary of Terms
Ecoregion — A physical region that is defined by its ecology, which includes
meteorological factors, elevation, plant and animal speciation, landscape posi-
tion, and soils.
EPIC (Erosion Productivity Index Calculator) — A mechanistic computer
model that calculates erosion from field-size watersheds.
Erosion — Wearing away of rock or soil by the gradual detachment of soil or
rock fragments by water, wind, ice, and other mechanical or chemical forces.
Eskers — Glacially deposited gravel and sand that form ridges 30 to 40 feet in
height.
Explanatory variables — Explanatory variables, such as climatic, 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 linking 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.
Interfluve — A flat area between streams.
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.
215
-------
Appendix III: Glossary of Terms
Moraine — Glacial till (materials deposited directly by ice) which is generally
irregularly deposited.
Nitrogen — An element occurring in manure and chemical fertilizer that is
essential to the growth and development of plants, but which, in excess, can
cause water to become polluted and threaten aquatic animals.
Nonpoint source (NFS) pollution — Pollution originating from diffuse areas
(land surface or atmosphere) having no well-defined source.
Nonpoint source pollution controls — General phrase used to refer to all
methods employed to control or reduce nonpoint source pollution.
NonPoint Source Management System (NPSMS) — A software system 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.
Parameter — A quantity or constant whose value varies with the circumstances
of its application.
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.
216
-------
Appendix III: Glossary of Terms
Sedimentation — Deposition of sediment.
Single-station design — A water quality monitoring design that utilizes one
station at a point downstream from the area of BMP implementation to monitor
changes in water quality.
Subbasins — One of several basins that form a watershed.
Substrate sampling — Sampling of streambeds to determine the percent of fine
particled material and the percent of gravel.
Subwatershed — A drainage area within the project watershed. It can be as
small as a single field or as large as almost the whole project area.
Tailwater 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.
Total Kjeldahlnitrogen (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.
Turbidity — A unit of measurement quantifying the degree to which light
traveling through a water column is scattered by the suspended organic (includ-
ing algae) and inorganic particles. The scattering of light increases with a
greater suspended load. Turbidity is commonly measured in Nephelometric
Turbidity Units (NTU), but may also be measured in Jackson Turbidity Units
(JTU).
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).
217
-------
Appendix III: Glossary of Terms
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.
218
-------
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.
ALABAMA LIGHTWOOD KNOT CREEK
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
1996. NonpointSource Water Quality Monitoring Projectfor LightwoodKnot Creek
Watershed in Southeast Alabama: A Report to the Alabama Department of Environ-
mental Management for the Period January 1, 1996 to March 31, 1996. Tuscaloosa,
Alabama.
Geological Survey of Alabama. 1995. Project Proposal for Watershed Monitoring
for Section 319 National Monitoring Program. Nonpoint Source Water Quality
Monitoring Project for Lightwood Knot Creek Watershed in Southeast Alabama.
Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 30 p.
ARIZONA OAK CREEK CANYON
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Spooner, J., D. Osmond. 1996. Memorandum to Gordon Southam.
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 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 oj'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.
219
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
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, andR. 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.
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
Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, NC.
Heppe, C. 1994. Approval letter for Project I, 7/12. Letter from Chris Heppe to Dan
Salzler.
Southam, G. 1996. The Oak Creek Canyon Section 319(h) National Monitoring
Project. Summary of Two-Year Baseline Monitoring. Submitted to the USEPA.
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 MO PRO BAY WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
State of California: Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Morro Bay briefing
materials.
1987. Wastewater Treatment Facilities: Final Environmental Impact Report. The
Morro Bay Group, County of San Luis Obispo, Government Center.
220
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
1989. Erosion and Sediment Study: Morro Bay Watershed, September. Soil Conser-
vation Service.
1989. Morro Bay Watershed Enhancement Plan, September. Soil Conservation
Service.
The Morro Bay Group. 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)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.
USEPA. 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.
1992. Morro Bay Watershed Program, Watershed Educational Program, December.
Fact Sheet No. 1.
Morrow Bay HUA. 1992. FY-92: Annual Progress Report, Morro Bay HUA. Soil
Conservation Service.
Morro Bay HUA. 1993. Workplanfor Non-Point Source Pollution and Treatment
Measure Evaluation for the Morro Bay Watershed, Revised 3/15. Workplan.
Morro Bay HUA. 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.
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1993. Nonpoint Source
Pollution and Treatment Measure Evaluation for the Morro Bay Watershed.
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 JovitaPajarillo.
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.
221
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
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.
Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. 1991. Idaho Snake
River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project Proposal, September.
Idaho Snake Paver Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. 1991. Idaho Snake
River Plain USDA Water Quality Demonstration Project, September. Pamphlet.
Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. 1991. FY1992 Plan
of Operations.
Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. April, 1991. Plan of
Work.
Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. October, 1991. FY
1991 Annual Report.
Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. 1992. 1992 Annual
Progress Report.
Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. 1992. FY 1993 Plan
of Operations.
Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. October, 1992. FY
1992 Annual Report.
Brooks, R. 1994. Water Line: Idaho Snake River Plain USDA Water Quality
Demonstration 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. 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 Qualify.
222
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
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.
ILLINOIS LAKE PITTSHELD
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.
Trutter, C., ed. 1993. Watershed Watch. 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.
Trutter, C., ed. 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.
223
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
Trutter, C., ed. Fall 1994. Watershed Watch. Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency Newsletter.
Trutter, C., ed. Spring 1995. Watershed Watch. Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency Newsletter.
Trutter, C., ed. Winter 1996. Watershed Watch. Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency Newsletter. Vol4., No. 1.
Trutter, C., ed. Spring/Summer 1996. Watershed Watch. Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency Newsletter. Vol 4., No. 2.
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, l(2):l-2.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Lake Pittsfield. Watershed Watch
Illinois State Water Survey. 1995. Effects of Land Management on Lake Pittsfield
Sedimentation and Water Quality. National Monitoring Strategy on Lake Pittsfield
3rd Annual Report, prepared for the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
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.
Roseboom, D.P., G. Eicken, andD. Osmond. 1995. Lake Pittsfield (Illinois) Section
3 19 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 Illinois. 1992. Environmental Protection Agency Intergovernmental Agree-
ment No. FWN-3019.
State of Illinois. 1993. Environmental Protection Agency Intergovernmental Agree-
ment 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 and Sny Magill Watershed, Clayton County.
University of Iowa, State Hygienic Laboratory. 1977. Summer Water Quality of the
Upper Mississippi River Tributaries. University of Iowa, State Hygienic Laboratory,
p 77-90.
224
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
University of Iowa, State Hygienic Laboratory. 1977. Summer Water Quality Survey
of the Bloody Run Creek and Sny Magill 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.
USEPA. 1991. Summary of EPA-Headquarters Review Comments, 5/29.
1991. Big Spring Basin Water-Quality Monitoring Program: Design andlmplemen-
tation, July.
Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Sny Magill Creek Cold Water Stream Water
Quality Improvement Agricultural Nonpoint Source Hydrologic Unit Area: Fiscal
Year 1991. Soil Conservation Service, Iowa State University Cooperative Extension
Service, Iowa Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, 15 p.
November, 1991. Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitoring Project Workplan. Iowa
Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau.
USEPA, 1992. Summary of EPA-Headquarters Review Comments, 5/29.
Wittman, C., ed. 1992. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, Sny Magill
Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No.
40.
Wittman, C., ed. 1992. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, Sny Magill
Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No.
41.
1992. Sny Magill CreekCold Water Stream Water Quality Improvement, 1992 HUA
AnnualReport.
1992. Sny Magill 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.
Wittman, C., ed. 1993. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, Sny Magill
Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No.
45.
Wittman, C., ed. 1993. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, Sny Magill
Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No.
46.
1993. Mailing List for Sny Magill, revised 10/18.
1993. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, Sny Magill Watershed, and
Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No. 47.
Soil Conservation Service. 1993. Sny Magill CreekCold 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.
225
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
Wittman, C., ed. 1994. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, SnyMagill
Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No.
49.
Wittman, C., ed. 1994. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, SnyMagill
Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No.
48.
Siegley, L.S. 1994. Memo to Sny Magill Monitoring Project Cooperators. Memo-
randum.
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.
Wittman, C., ed. 1994. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, SnyMagill
Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No.
50.
Wittman, C., ed. 1994. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, SnyMagill
Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No.
51.
Soil Conservation Service. 1994. SnyMagill Creek Cold Water Stream water quality
improvement (fiscal year 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.
NRCS. 1995. Sny Magill Creek Cold Water Stream -water quality improvement
(fiscal year 1995 hydrologic unit area annual report). Submitted by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Iowa State University Extension, and the Farm
Service Agency, 50 p.
Wittman, C., ed. 1995. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, SnyMagill
Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No.
59.
Wittman, C., ed. Wittman, C., ed. 1996. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring
Basin, Sny Magill Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas.
Newsletter, Issue No. 60.
Wittman, C., ed. 1996. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, SnyMagill
Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No.
61.
Wittman, C., ed. 1996. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, SnyMagill
Watershed, andNortheast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No.
62.
June 24, 1994. Status of Stream Habitat Assessment for the Sny Magill Creek
Monitoring Project.
July 27,1994. Sny Magill Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitoring Project Bibliogra-
phy.
Wittman, C., ed. October, 1994. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin,
SnyMagill Watershed, andNortheast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newslet-
ter, Issue No. 52.
226
-------
1 Appendix IV: Project Documents
Wittman, C., ed. December, 1994. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin,
SnyMagill Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newslet-
ter, Issue No. 53.
Wittman, C., ed. February, 1995. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin,
SnyMagill Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newslet-
ter, Issue No. 54.
September, 1995. SnyMagill Watershed Project-Clayton County, Iowa (pamphlet),
4 p.
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. Ill, 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.
Birmingham, M.W., M.D. Schueller, and J.O. Kennedy. 1995. Sny Magill Creek
Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitoring Project: 1994 Benthic Biomonitoring Re-
sults. University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory, Limnology Section, Report No. 96-1,
141 p.
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.
Iowa State University Extension. 1992. Sny Magill Watershed farm practices
survey. Iowa State University Cooperative Extension, August 1992, 2 p.
Iowa State University Extension. 1995a. Sny Magill Watershed farm practices
survey. Iowa State University Cooperative Extension, October 1995, 2 p.
Iowa State University Extension. 1995b. Bloody Run Watershed farm practices
survey. Iowa State University Cooperative Extension, October 1995, 2 p.
Kalkhoff, S. J. and D. A. Eash. 1994. Suspended sediment and stream discharge in
Bloody Run and Sny Magill watersheds: water year 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.
227
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
McKay, R. M. 1993. Selected Aspects of Lower Ordovician and Upper Cambrian
Geology in Allamakee 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 1991 annual report. Soil
Conservation Service, Elkader, IA, 6p.
Newbern, D. T. 1993. North Cedar Creek watershed 1992 annual report. Soil
Conservation Service, Elkader, IA, 3p.
Newbern, D. T. 1994. North Cedar Creek watershed 1993 annual report. Soil
Conservation Service, Elkader, IA, 2 p.
Rodecap, J. and K. Bentley. 1994. Northeast Iowa Water Quality Demonstrations: A
Guide to 1994 Project Sites. Pamphlet.
Rolling, N. and K. 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., M.W. Birmingham, and ID. Kennedy. 1994. Sny Magill Creek
nonpoint source pollution monitoring project: 1993 benthic biomonitoring results.
University Hygienic Laboratory, Limnology 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 I 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. 1996. Sny Magill Creek
Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitoring Project: 1995 Benthic Biomonitoring Re-
sults. University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory, Limnology Section, Report No. 96-2.
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.S. 1995. Monitoring Update on Sny Magill, Bloody Run Watersheds.
Water Watch, December 1995, p. 3-4.
228
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
Seigley, L.S. 1996. Water Sampling of private wells in SnyMagill watershed. Water
Watch, August 1996.
Seigley, L. S. and D. J. Quade. 1992. Northeast Iowa Well Inventory Completed.
Water Watch, December, 1992, p. 2-3.
Seigley, L. S. and G. R. Hallberg. 1994. Monitoring continues on Sny Magill and
Bloody Run Creeks. 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 and cold-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, 143 p.
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. Giglierano, D. I
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. Shy 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., 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.
Seigley, L. S., G. Wunder, S.A. Gritters, T.F. Wilton, IE. May, M.W. Birmingham,
M.D. Schueller, N. Rolling, and J. Tisl. 1996. Sny Magill Nonpoint Source Pollution
Monitoring Project, Clayton County, Iowa: Water Year 1994. Iowa Department of
Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, Technical Information Series 36, 85
P-
229
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
Siegley, L. 1996. Summary of August 29, 1996 annual SnyMagill meeting.
Wittman, C., ed. August 1996. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, Sny
Magill Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter,
Issue No. 63.
Wilton, T. F. 1994. 1991 habitat evaluation results - baseline information. 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. 91-110.
Wittman, C. 1995. Farm visits are part of Sny Magill project annual meeting. Water
Watch, August 1995, p. 1-2.
Wunder, G. and S. Gritters. 1995. SnyMagill Creek fishery assessment 1994. Iowa
Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Bureau, 5 p.
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.
IOWA WALNUT CREEK
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Thompson, C.A. J. O. Kennedy, and G.R. Hallberg. 1995. Walnut Creek Watershed
Restoration and Water Quality Monitoring Project Workplan Revision 1. Iowa
Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, 20pp.
Thompson, C.A. and R. Rowden. 1995. Walnut Creek Watershed Restoration and
Water Quality Monitoring Project. Annual Report. Iowa Department of Natural
Resources, Geological Survey Bureau. 28pp.
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.
230
-------
' Appendix IV: Project Documents
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 Monitoring Team, April.
1990. Water Quality Demonstration Project, Monocacy River Watershed.
1990. Piney and Alloway Creeks—Aquatic Resource Assessment and Monitoring
Plan, October.
State of Maryland. 1991. State of Maryland Grant Application for Section 319
Federal FY 91 Funding—Appendices to Work Plans, 5/31 (1989 National Water
Quality Special Project Request—Piney/Alloway Creek Project).
German Branch Water Quality Hydrologic Unit Area. 1991. German Branch Water
Quality Hydrologic Unit Area, Queen Anne's County, Maryland, FY 91 Plan of
Operations, 2/15.
Monocacy Watershed. 1991. RegionalMonitoringSet-Aside Grant Proposal, Monocacy
Watershed.
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).
Mononcacy Watershed. 1991. Mononcacy Watershed Demonstration Project En-
courages Adoption of Agricultural Management Practices. In: EPA News-Notes,
#16.
Thoma, R. 1991. Comments 8/29.
1992. Forestry Project Assists in Improving Water Quality in the Monocacy River
Watershed. In: EPA News-Notes, #18.
1993. QAPJP Supplemental: 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. Shir-
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.
231
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
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, andD.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 River 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.
Shirmohammadi, A. and W. L. Magette. 1992. Supplemental Information on
QAPJP for 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 Demonstra-
tion 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).
Shirmohammadi, A., K.S. Yoon, and W.L. Magette. 1996. Status of Section 319
National Monitoring Project: Water Quality in a Mixed Land Use Watershed-
Piedmont Region in Maryland. ASAE Presentation, Phoenix Civic Plaza, July 14-
18, 1996. ASAE Paper No. 96-2085.
Shirmohammadi, A., K.S. Yoon, and W.L. Magette. 1996. Water Quality in aMixed
Land Use Watershed-Piedmont Region. J. Environ. Sci. Health, A31(2), 429-450.
Thoma, R. 1991. Region III Section 319 National Monitoring Program Proposal
Recommendations, to Hank Zygmunt, 8/29.
232
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
MICHIGAN SYCAMORE CREEK WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 1996. Surface Water Quality
Division Staff Report.
1989. Biological Investigation of Sycamore Creek and Tributaries, May-August.
1990. A Biological Investigation of Sycamore Creek and Tributaries, Ingham
County, Michigan, May -August, 1989. Michigan Department of Natural Resourc-
es.
January, 1990. Sycamore Creek Watershed Water Quality Plan. Soil Conservation
Service, Michigan Cooperative Extension Service, Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service.
1992. Summary of EPA-Headquarters Review 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 1.
1993. EPA Approval, 2/11.
Spring 1994. A Local, State and Federal Cooperative Effort to Restore and Protect
the Saginaw Bay Watershed.
Allen., D. 1993. Michigan's Response to Steve Dressing's 9/8/92 Memo Regarding
the Sycamore Creek Monitoring Plan. Letter.
Dressing, S. A. 1992. Sycamore Creek, MI—Remaining Issues. Fax transmittal.
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.
F.T.C.H. 1996. Willow Creek Drain Final Report for 319 Implementation Project.
Ingham County Drain Commission.
233
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
Shaffer, M. I, 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 Inter agency 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"J. 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.
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).
234
-------
' Appendix IV: Project Documents
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, Nebraska.
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.
1994. Elm Creek Project, Annual Progress Report: FY 94. Elm Creek Project.
1995. Elm Creek Project, Annual Progress Report: FY95. Elm Creek Project.
Dressing, S. A. 1991. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program (Elm Creek, NE), 10/16.
Jensen, D. and C. 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., K. R. Bolen, and F. 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 of EPA-Headquarters Review Comments, 3/12.
Danielson, L. E., L. S. Smutko, and G. D. Jennings. 1991. An Assessment of Air,
Surface Water, and Groundwater Quality in Gaston Comity, 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.
235
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
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. Burris. 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. Long Creek Watershed Nonpoint Source Monitoring
Project. Poster presentation at the National Nonpoint Source Forum, Arlington, VA.
Jennings, G. D., W. A. Harman, M. A. Burns, and F. 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.
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, 44pp. 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.
236
-------
' Appendix IV: Project Documents
Smutko, L. S., L. E. Danielson, and W. A. Harman. 1992. Integration of a
Geographic Information System in Extension Public Policy Education: A North
Carolina Pilot Program. In: Computers in Agricultural Extension Programs, Pro-
ceedings of the Fourth International Conference. Florida Cooperative Extension
Service, University of Florida, Gainesville, 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, MD.
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.
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. FY1992 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. FY 1992 Section 319
Work Program for review.
237
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
1994. FY1992 Section 319 Work Program for the IllinoisRiver Watershed Monitor-
ing Program: Approved Workplan, Revised 6/8. Workplan and letters.
June 8, 1994. Illinois River Watershed Monitoring Program.
1995. Quality Assurance Project Plan, approved October 20,1995. Oklahoma State
University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.
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.
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 (IllinoisRiver), 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. IllinoisRiver Watershed Monitoring Program, work plan
to be reviewed.
Hassell, J. June 8, 1994. IllinoisRiver 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.
Moershel, P. and S. Coffey. 1996. Peacheater Creek (Oklahoma) Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project, NWQEP NOTES 78:1-3.
238
-------
' Appendix IV: Project Documents
OREGON UPPER GRANDE RONDE BASIN
SECTION 319 PROJECT (Pending Section 319 National
Monitoring Program Project Approval)
Bach, L.B. 1995 River Basin Assessment: Upper/Middle Grande Ronde River and
Catherine Creek. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and Oregon Water-
shed Health Program.
Hafele, R. 1996. National Monitoring Program Project Description and Prelimi-
nary Results for the Upper Grande Ronde River Nonpoint Source Study - Draft.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
Kimmerling, A.J. and P.L. Jackson. 1985. Atlas of the Pacific Northwest (7th
edition). Oregon State University Press.
ODEQ. 1995. Proposal: Restoration of Stream Habitat in Grande Ronde Model
Watershed, Maclntyre and McCoy Creeks, Union County, Oregon. Oregon Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality.
Omernick, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 77:188-125.
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 90-4231.
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.
Thoma, R. 1991. Comments 8/29.
Reichgott, T. 1992. Memo 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.
Beegle, D., L.E. Lanyon, and D.D. Lingenfelter. 1996. Nutrient Management
Legislation in Pennsylvania: A Summary. Perm State College of Agricultural
Sciences, Cooperative Extension, Agronomy Facts 40. 7 p.
Leitman, 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.
239
-------
i 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.
Martin, G.L. and L.E. Lanyon. 1995. Nutrient Management Planner Survey. Perm
State Cooperative Extension, Pequea-Mill Creek Project, Smoketown, PA. Pequea-
Mill Creek Information Series 25. 6 p.
VERMONT LAKE CHAM PLAIN WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Long-term Monitoring Projects, Memorandum from Bob Morehouse to Steve Dress-
ing.
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 NFS Monitor-
ing Project.
May, 1993. State of Vermont: Lake Champlain Agricultural Watersheds BMP
Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Project: Section 319 National Mon-
itoring 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.
Meals, D.W. and D.L. Osmond. 1995. Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds (Ver-
mont) Section319 National Monitoring Program Project. NWQEP NOTES 74:1-3.
240
-------
' Appendix IV: Project Documents
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.
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 NFS 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. Tbtten 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.
Seiders, K. andRJF. Cusimano. 1996. Totten and Eld Inlets Clean Water Projects:
Annual Report.
241
-------
i Appendix IV: Project Documents
WISCONSIN OTTER CREEK
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Stuntebeck, T.D. 1995. Evaluating Barnyard Best Management Practices in Wis-
consin using Upstream-Downstream Monitoring. USGS Fact Sheet FS-221-95.
Wierl, J. A. K.F. Rappold, F.U. Amerson. 1996. Summary of the Land-Use Inventory
for the Nonpoint-Source Evaluation Monitoring Watersheds in Wisconsin. USGS
Open-File Report 96-123.
A Nonpoint Source Control Plan for the Sheboygan River Watershed.
1993. Otter Creek Evaluation Monitoring Program (Revised).
Bannerman, R. 1993. Section 319 National Monitoring Proposal—Otter Creek
Evaluation Monitoring Project, 6/12 and Revised 6/15. Memorandum 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.
1994. Section 319 National Monitoring Program Proposal: Lincoln Creek Evalua-
tion Monitoring Project.
Finlayson, C., ed. Dec. 1994. Farmstead Pollution Prevention Update.
Finlayson, C., ed. Oct. 1995. Farm and Home Pollution Prevention Update.
Newsletter about Voluntary Assessments for Water Pollution Prevention. 6p.
Finlayson, C., ed. Dec. 1995. Farm and Home Pollution Prevention Update.
Newsletter about Voluntary Assessments for Water Pollution Prevention. 6p.
Finlayson, C., ed. March 1996. Farm and Home Pollution Prevention Update.
Newsletter about Voluntary Assessments for Water Pollution Prevention. 8p.
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. NWQEP NOTES 69:2-4, North Carolina State Univer-
sity Water Quality Group, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh,
NC.
Besadny, C. D. 1992. Grant Application for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program, 20 p., 9/29. Memorandum to Valdus Adamkus.
242
-------
«Appendix IV: Project Documents
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 and Joos Valley Creek), 2/12. Fax Transmittal from Steve
Dressing to Tom Davenport.
ffilsenhoff, 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.
Stuntebeck, T.D. 1995. Evaluating Barnyard Best Management Practices in Wis-
consin using Upstream-Downstream Monitoring. U.S. Department of the Interior,
U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet FS-221-95. 4p.
Wierl, J.A., K.F. Rappold, and F.U. Amerson. 1996. Summary of the Land-Use
Inventory for the Nonpoint-Source Evaluation Monitoring Watershed in Wisconsin.
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-123, in cooperation with the Wiscon-
sin Department of Natural Resources, 23 p.
243
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
244
-------
Appendix V
Matrix for Section 319
National Monitoring Program Projects
245
-------
PROJECT
Alabama:
Lightwood Knot Creek
Arizona:
Oak Creek Canyon
California:
Morro Bay Watershed
Connecticut:
Jordan Cove Urban
Watershed
Idaho:
Eastern Snake
River Plain
Illinois:
Lake Pittsfield
Iowa:
Sny Magill Watershed
Iowa:
Walnut Creek
Maryland:
Warner Creek
Watershed
Michigan:
Sycamore Creek
Watershed
BASIN
SIZE
74
sq. miles
9
sq. miles
76
sq. miles
less than
1 sq. mile
9,600
sq. miles
(aquifer)
11
sq. miles
36
sq. miles
45
sq. miles
1
sq. miles
106
sq. miles
DESIGNATED
BENEFICIAL USES
'Recreation
»Aquatic life support
'Recreation (primary contact)
'Aquatic life support
'Drinking water supply
'Endangered species habitat
'Shellfish harvesting
'Recreation
(primary and secondary contact)
'Esturine and fresh water habitat
'Shellfish harvesting
'Drinking water supply
(ground water)
'Drinking water supply
'Recreation
(primary and secondary contact)
'Aquatic life support ("put and
take" recreational trout fishing)
'Aquatic life support
'Aquatic life support
'Aquatic life support
'Recreation (primary contact)
WATER QUALITY
PROBLEM
'Sediment
'Nutrients
'Bacteria
'Bacteria
'Nutrients
'Sediment
'Nutrients
'Sediment
'Fecal coliform
'Nutrients
'Nitrates
'Low-level pesticide
concentrations
'Sediment
'Nutrients
'Sediment
'Nutrients
'Animal wastes
'Pesticides
'Sediment
'Nutrients
'Herbicides
'Sediment
'Nitrogen
'Phosphorus
'Sediment
'Dissolved Oxygen
246
-------
Appendix V: Matrix
SOURCE OF
POLLUTANT
WATER QUALITY
OBJECTIVES
WATER QUALITY
MONITORING DESIGN
»Agricultural fields
» Poultry operations
• Erosion control
•2 Paired sites —
2 control / 2 treatment
»Sediment
•Septic systems
•Reduce fecal coliform by 50%
*Reduce nutrient levels by 20%
•Reduce automobile-related pollutants by 25%
•Reduce BOD by 20%
'Upstream / downstream
•Cattle grazing
•Roads
•Streambank erosion and
mass wasting
•Reduce sediment by 20-30%
•1 Paired site
1 control / 1 treatment
•1 Single site
•2 Upstream/downstream
•Construction
•Urban runoff
•Retain sediment on site during construction
•Reduce nitrogen by 65%
•Reduce bacteria by 85%
•Reduce phosphorus by 40%
• 1 Paired site
1 control / 2 treatment
^Irrigated cropland
•Evaluate the effects of irrigation water
management on nitrate-N ground water leaching
•Evaluate the effects of crop rotation
on nitrate-N ground water leaching
•Decrease nitrate and pesticide concentrations
•2 Paired 5 acre plots
2 control / 2 treatment
•Cropland
•Small livestock operations
•Reduce sediment loads into lake
•Evaluate the effectiveness of
sediment retention basins
•7 Single stations
•3 Lake stations
•Cropland
•Livestook operations
•Streambank erosion
•Reduce sediment by 50%
•Reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and
pesticide by 25%
•Paired watershed
1 control /1 treatment
•Upstream/downstream
on subbasins
'Cropland
'Reduce sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus
•Paired watershed
1 control /1 treatment
'Dairy operations
•Develop and validate a hydrologic and water quality
model capable of predicting effects of BMP on WQ
•Collect WQ data for use in model validation
•Illustrate relationships between BMP and WQ
•Paired watershed
1 control /1 treatment
• Upstream/downstream
on Warner Creek
•Streambanks
•Urban areas
•Cropland
and cattle access
•Reduce impact of agricultural NPS pollutants on
surface and ground water on Sycamore Creek
•Reduce sediment in Sycamore Creek by 52%
•Reduce peak flows
•Improve instream aquatic habitat
•Paired watersheds
1 control / 2 treatment
247
-------
Appendix V: Matrix
PROJECT
SAMPLING SCHEME
Alabama: »Weekly April-August
Lightwood Knot Creek *DS, TSS, and explanatory variables
monitored remainder of year
PRIMARY WATER QUALITY
PARAMETERS
NH3, NO2, NO3 + NO2, OP, TP, Turbidity, TSS, FC,
FS, TKN
Arizona: •Weekly grab samples
Oak Creek Canyon from May 15 - Sept.15
FC, N03, OP, TN, TP, NH,, BOD
California:
Morro Bay Watershed
»Storm events (30 min. intervals)
•20 Weekly grab samples (start Nov.)
»Macroinvertebrate and habitat monitoring
SS, Turbidity, NO3, FC, Riparian Vegetation,
Upland Rangeland Vegetation,
Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Connecticut:
Jordan Cove
Urban Watershed
•Storm event (flow-weighted composite
samples)
•Grab samples (Bacteria & BOD)
•Monthly composite samples
TSS, TP, TKN, NH,, NO, + NO., FC
Idaho:
Eastern Snake
River Plain
•Monthly groundwater grab samples
•Growing season soil water samples
NO3, Organic Pesticides, DO, TKN
Illinois: •Storm events (automatic samplers)
Lake Pittsfield »Base flow sampled monthly
•Lake grab samples monthly from
April - October
OP, TP, NH3, TKN, N03 + NO,, TSS, VSS,
SS, DP
Iowa:
Sny Magill Watershed
•Continuous stage, daily discharge and
suspended sediment measurements
•Weekly grab samples
•Annual habitat assessment
•Annual fisheries survey
•Bi-monthly macroinvertebrates
FC, Habitat Assessment, Fisheries Survey,
Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Sediment, TP,
Nitrogen (N) Series, BOD, Herbicides
Iowa: •Water discharge and suspended sediment
Walnut Creek monitored daily at watershed outlets
•Six surface water stations monthly
(March, April, July, Sept.) and
twice per month (May, June)
Maryland: »Automated storm event - weekly from
Warner Creek Feb.-June; bi-weekly remainder of year
Watershed •Grab - weekly from Feb.-June; bi-weekly
remainder of year
NO3, OP, Turbidity, SS, Pesticides,
NH3, BOD, Macroinvertebrates, Fisheries
NH3, TKN, N03 + NO,, NO3, OP, TKP, Sediment
Michigan:
Sycamore Creek
Watershed
•Storm events (1-2 hr. intervals) using
automated samplers March - July
•20 Evenly spaced weekly grab samples
Turbidity, TSS, TP, TKN, NO3+ NO OP, NH,
248
-------
Appendix V: Matrix
BMP
MAJOR IMPLEMENTING INSTITUTIONS
PROJECT
TIME FRAME
•Runoff and sediment control structures
•Critical area planning
»Cover and green manure crops
»Pasture and hayland management
•Geological Survey of Alabama
•USDA NRCS
•USDA FSA
•Covington County Extension
Jan. 1996-
Dec. 1996
319 Project Approval
1996
* Enhance rest room facilities
* Install showers
•Enforce litter laws
» Upgrade septic systems
«AZ Department of Environmental Quality
» Northern Arizona University
1994-2001
319 Project Approval
1994
»Riparian cattle exclusion
» Riparian pasture development
* Rotational grazing of pasture
•Floodplain restoration
•California Polytechnic State University
«Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
•USDA NRCS
1993-2003
319 Project Approval
1993
•Phased grading
»Seeding
•Sediment detention basins and swales
•Roof runoff dry wells
•Gravel pack shoulders on access roads
•Post-construction practices
•Aqua Solutions
•USDA NRCS
•Univ. of Connecticut, Dept. of Natural Resources
•Connecticut Cooperative Extension Service
•Boise State University
1996-2006
319 Project Approval
1996
•Decrease water use
•Pesticide management strategies
•Fertilizer evaluations and recommendations
•Crop rotations
•Division of Environmental Quality
•U. of Idaho Cooperative Extension Service
•USDA NRCS
Oct. 1991 -
Oct. 1997
319 Project Approval
1992
•Sediment retention basins
•Conservation tillage
•Integrated crop management
•Livestock exclusion
•Filter strips
•Wildlife habitat management
•IL Environmental Protection Agency
•IL State Water Survey
•Pike Co. Soil and Water Conservation District
1994-1999
319 Project Approval
1994
•Structural erosion control practices
•Farmstead assessment
•Water and sediment control structures
•Animal waste management systems
•Education and assistance
•IA DNR-Geologic Survey Bureau
•IA State University Extension
•USDA NRCS
(319 Project is part of the Sny Magill Hydrologic
Unit Area Project and North Cedar Creek
Ag. Conservation. Program-WQ Special Project)
1991-unknown
(Approximately 10 yrs.
with funding)
319 Project Approval
1992
•Conversion of cropland to native tall
grass prairie
•Restore wetlands and riparian zones
*IA DNR-Geological Survey Bureau
Oct. 1994-
Sept. 1998
319 Project Approval
1996
•Conversion of cropland to pasture
•Installation of watering systems
•Fencing to exclude livestock from streams
•Manure slurry storage tanks
•MD Department of the Environment
•U. of Maryland Agricultural Engineering
May 1993-
June 1997
319 Project Approval
1995
•Diversions
•Cropland protective cover
•Reduced tillage
•No-till systems
•Water and sediment control structures
•Ingham Co Soil Conservation District
•Michigan Department of Natural Resources
•Michigan State University Extension —
Ingham County
•USDA NRCS
249
1993-1997
319 Project Approval
1993
-------
PROJECT
BASIN
SIZE
DESIGNATED
BENEFICIAL USES
Appendix V: Matrix
WATER QUALITY
PROBLEM
Nebraska: 56
Elm Creek Watershed sq. miles
* Recreation
«Aquatic life support
(coldwater trout habitat)
»Sediment
increased water temperatures
'High peak flows
North Carolina:
Long Creek
Watershed
44
sq. miles
'Drinking water supply
'Aquatic life support
'Sediment
'Bacteria
'Nutrients
Oklahoma:
Peacheater Creek
Oregon:
Upper Grande
Ronde Basin
Pennsylvania:
Pequea and Mill
Creek Watersheds
Vermont:
Lake Champlain Basin
Watersheds
25
sq. miles
695
sq. miles
3.2
sq. miles
12
sq. miles
total
'Recreation
'Aquatic life support
'Aquatic life support
'Coldwater fish
'Drinking water supply
'Recreation (primary and secondary)
•Wildlife habitat
•Aquatic life support
'Wildlife habitat
'Agriculture
'Aquatic life support
'Lake Champlain recreation
and aesthetics ( NPS pollutant
loading)
'Nutrient enrichment
'Loss of in-stream habitat
'Loss of water clarity
'Nuisance periphyton growth
'Water temperature
'Loss of physical habitat
'Loss of riparian vegetation
'Nutrients
'Bacteria
'Organic enrichment
'Nutrients (particularly
phosphorus)
'Bacteria
'Organic matter
Washington:
Totten and Eld Inlet
Clean Water Projects
Totten=69
sq. miles
Eld=36
sq. miles
'Shellfish harvesting
'Recreation (primary and secondary)
'Bacteria
'Wildlife habitat
Wisconsin:
Otter Creek
Otter Creek =
11 sq. miles
Meeme Creek =
16sq. miles
'Aquatic life support
'Recreation (secondary contact)
'Sediment
'Phosphorus
'Bacteria
250
-------
Appendix V: Matrix
SOURCE OF
POLLUTANT
WATER QUALITY
OBJECTIVES
WATER QUALITY
MONITORING DESIGN
» Cropland
'Rangeland
»Streambank erosion
»Irrigation return flows
implement appropriate and feasible NFS control
measures for protection and enhancement of WQ
'Reduce summer max. water temperature
'Reduce instream sedimentation
» Upstream/downstream
* Single downstream station
'Cropland
'Dairy operations
* Pastures
'Streambank erosion
» Urbanization
'Quantify the effects of NFS pollution 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%
'Paired watershed
1 control /1 treatment
'Single downstream station
» Upstream/downstream
» Poultry houses
» Dairies
» Septic systems
»Restore recreational and aquatic life beneficial uses
'Minimize eutrophication impacts
'Paired watershed
1 control /1 treatment
'Grazing practices
'Channel modifications
'Improve salmonid and aquatic macroinvertebrate
communities
'Quantitatively document a cause & effect relationship
between improved habitat, lower water temperatures, &
improved salmonid & macroinvertebrate communities
'Paired watershed
1 control /1 treatment
'Upstream/downstream
'3 Single stations
'Dairy operations
'Pastures
'Document the effectiveness of livestock exclusion
fencing at reducing NPS pollution in a stream
'Reduce annual total ammonia plus organic
nitrogen and total phosphorus loads by 40%
'Paired watershed
1 control /1 treatment
'Streambanks
'Dairy operations
'Livestock activity within
stream and riparian areas
'Cropland
'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
'Three-way paired
watershed design
1 control / 2 treatment
> Livestock operations
'Reduce median 1992-93 fecal coliform values on:
-Pierre Creek by 69%
-Burns Creek by 63%
-Schneider Creek by 50%
-McLane Creek by 44%
'Paired watershed
1 control /1 treatment
»4 Single stations
'Cropland
'Dairy operations
'Streambank erosion
'Increase numbers of intolerant fish species
'Improve recreational uses
'Reduce loading to the Sheboygan River
and Lake Michigan
'Restore riparian vegetation
'Paired watershed
1 control /1 treatment
'Above and below
'Single station
251
-------
Appendix V: Matrix
PROJECT
SAMPLING SCHEME
PRIMARY WATER QUALITY
PARAMETERS
Nebraska:
Elm Creek Watershed
»Weekly grab samples April - September
•Seasonal biological, habitat data
collection, and stream morphology
Qualitative and Quantitative Macroinvertebrate
Sampling, Fish Collections, Creel Survey
Substrate Samples, TSS, Morphology Characteristics,
Water Temperature
North Carolina:
Long Creek
Watershed
•Weekly grab Dec.- May and monthly
remainder of year
•Stage activated storm event and weekly
grab Dec. - May (year-round on trib.)
»AnnuaI biological survey
Percent Canopy and Aufwuchs, Invertebrate Taxa
Richness, FC, FS, TSS, TS, DO, NO3 + NO2, TKN,
TP, Temperature
Oklahoma:
Peacheater Creek
»Weekly July-Jan, and monthly Feb.-June
•During storm events
•Biological monitoring sampling
scheme varies with parameter
Periphyton Productivity, Fisheries Survey, Macro-
invertebrate Survey, Habitat Assessment, Bank
Erosion, Turbidity, DO, TKN, TP, NO3 + NO2, TSS
Oregon: 'Early April-early Oct.
Upper Grande Continuous water temperature
Ronde Basin *3 times during monitoring season for
habitat/biological/water chemistry
Habitat, Macroinvertebrate, Fish, Water Temperature,
pH
Pennsylvania:
Pequca and Mill
Creek Watersheds
•Grab samples every 10 days April - Nov.
•Storm event composite
•Monthly grab Dec. - March
•Macroinvertebrate and habitat May
and Sept.
SS, Total and Dissolved Ammonia plus Organic
Nitrogen, Dissolved NH3, Dissolved NO3 + NO2,
Dissolved NO3, Dissolved OP, Total and
Dissolved P
Vermont:
Lake Champlain
Watersheds
•Automated continuous sampling stations
•Weekly flow-proportional sampling
•Twice weekly grab sampling
•Macroinvertebrates once per year
FC, FS, E. Coli, Macroinvertebrates, Fish,
TKN, TSS, TP, DO
Washington:
Totten and Eld Inlet
Clean Water Projects
•20 Weekly grab samples (Nov. to mid-April) FC
•6 Storm events
Wisconsin: »Storm event
Otter Creek *Grab samples (various timing)
•Fisheries, macroinvertebrate and
habitat monitoring yearly or every other
year
Dissolved P, TKN, NH3, Nitrogen Series,
Turbidity, TSS, DO, FC, TP
252
-------
Appendix V: Matrix
BMP
MAJOR IMPLEMENTING INSTITUTIONS
PROJECT
TIME FRAME
Conventional BMP
•WQ and runoff control structures
•WQ land treatment
» Conventional WQ management practices
•NE Department of Environmental Quality
•USDA NRCS
»Webster County Extension
April 1992-1996
(2 additional years
contingent upon
funding)
319 Project Approval
1992
•Land use requirements upstream of intake
Comprehensive nutrient management
»Waste holding structures
»Pasture management and livestock exclusion
•Gaston Co. Cooperative Extension
•NC Cooperative Extension Service
•NC Division of Water Quality
•USDA NRCS
January 1993-
Sept. 2001
319 Project Approval
1992
»Buffer zones and fencing along streams
»Planned grazing systems
»Animal waste mgt. planning & structures
•Watering facilities
•Critical area vegetation
•Soil testing
•OK Conservation Commission
•Cherokee & Sequoyah Cty. Conservation Dist.
•USDA NRCS
•Adair County Extension Service
•Oklahoma State University
1995-2000
319 Project Approval
1995
•Streambank stabilization
•Riparian revegetation
•OR Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Pending
•USDA NRCS 319
•Local Soil & Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) Project
•Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Approval
Reservation (CTUIR)
•Streambank fencing on 100% of pasture
land adjacent to the stream draining the
treatment watershed
•PA Department of Environmental Protection-
Bureau of Land and Water Conservation
•USDA NRCS
•USGS
•PA State University Coop. Extension Service
•Lancaster Conservation District
October 1993 -
Sept 1998-2001
319 Project Approval
1993
•Livestock exclusion/stream bank protection
•Intensive grazing management
•Franklin County Conservation District
•U. of Vermont School of Natural Resources
•USDA NRCS
•VT Department of Environmental Conservation
Sept. 1993-
Sept. 1999
319 Project Approval
1993
•Repair failing on-site sewage systems
•Implement farm plans on priority farm sites
•WA Department of Ecology
•Thurston County Environmental Health Services
•Thurston Conservation District
•USDA NRCS
1993-2002
319 Project Approval
1995
•Shoreline and Streambank stabilization
•Barnyard runoff management and manure
storage facilities
•Grassed waterways
•Reduced tillage
•Nutrient and pesticide management
•Sheboygan Co. Land Conservation Committees
•U. of Wisconsin Extension
•USGS
•Wl Department of Natural Resources
Spring 1994-
Spring 2001
319 Project Approval
1993
253
-------
Appendix V: Matrix
254
------- |