Report prepared for
USEPA
by
NCSU Water Quality Group
Biological and Agricultural
Engineering Department
North Carolina Cooperative
Extension Service
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina
Section 319 National
Monitoring Program
An Overview
May 1997
*""l" ' ""'"'I"
;'
i^A^fp^iPfS^
-------
Section 319 National
Monitoring Program:
An Overview
May 1997
NCSU Water Quality Group
Biological and Agricultural
Engineering Department
North Carolina Cooperative
Extension Service
North Carolina State University
Campus Box 7637
Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7637
Phone: 919/515-3723
Fax: 919/515-7448
AUTHORS:
Dcanna L. Osmond
Daniel E. Line
Jean Spooner
EDITORS:
Jill H. Steffey
Dorothy Zimmerman
LAYOUT & DESIGN:
Janet M. Young
This publication should be cited as follows: Osmond,
0.U, D.E. Line, and J. Spooner. 1997. Section 319
National Monitoring Program: An Overview. NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Contents
Page
Section 319 National Monitoring Program:
An Overview 1
Nonpoint Source Water Pollution:
An Emerging Threat 1
The Watershed Approach to Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control 2
Section 319 National Monitoring Program:
Improving Our Understanding of Pollution Control 2
Section 319 National Monitoring Program:
Project Selection 3
Section 319 National Monitoring
Program: Projects 6
Alabama — Lightwood Knot Creek 6
Arizona—Oak Creek Canyon 6
California — MorroBay 7
Connecticut — Jordan Cove 8
Idaho—Eastern Snake River Plain 8
Illinois — Lake Pittsfield 9
Illinois — Waukegan River 10
Iowa — SnyMagill Creek 10
Iowa — Walnut Creek 11
Maryland—Warner Creek 11
Michigan — Sycamore Creek > 12
Nebraska — Elm Creek 12
North Carolina — Long Creek 13
Oklahoma — Peacheater Creek 14
Oregon — Upper Grande Ronde Basin 15
Pennsylvania — Pequea and Mill Creek 15
South Dakota — Bad River 16
Vermont — Lake Champlain Basin 16
Washington — Totten and Eld Inlets 17
Wisconsin — Otter Creek 17
Future Directions of the Section 319
National Monitoring Program 18
Glossary 19
Coven Water quality monitoring is essential in
determining the health of our Nation's water resources.
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 docu-
ment are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or positions of the North
Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, the USEPA, or other organizations named in this report,
nor does the mention'of trade names for products or software constitute their endorsement.
-------
lean water is one of our Nation's most vital
resources. Since 1972, the Clean Water Act has
successfully reduced many threats to our water
resources by identifying and controlling distinct, or "point,"
sources of pollution.
But what about pollutants from everyday activities such as
agriculture, residential development, and forestry? These pol-
lutants are much harder to control because they come from
not-so-easily identified, or "nonpoint," sources. According to
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
nonpoint sources include agricultural runoff, atmospheric
deposition, contaminated sediments, and certain land-use
activities that generate polluted runoff, such as logging, small
construction sites, and on-site sewage disposal.
Nonpoint sources are reported to cause the majority of water
pollution problems in the United States today. Nutrients,
sediment, metals, pesticides, salts, pathogens, and organic
matter are deposited into our rivers, lakes, and estuaries from
nonpoint sources. Most of these pollutants also reach ground
water. Without a clear understanding of how to control these
nonpoint pollution sources, communities will be unable to
change land-use practices and develop strategies to protect
their water resources.
Section 319 National Monitoring
Program: An Overview
Under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, the USEPA has
developed the Section 319 National Monitoring Program to
address nonpoint source pollution specifically. Its objectives
are twofold:
1) to scientifically evaluate the effectiveness of watershed
technologies designed to control nonpoint source pollu-
tion; and
2) to improve our understanding of nonpoint source
pollution.
To achieve these objectives, the Section 319 National Moni-
toring Program has selected watersheds across the country to
be monitored over a 6- to 10-year period to evaluate how im-
proved land management reduces water pollution. National
Monitoring Program projects will help communities and
citizens protect their local water resources by providing infor-
mation on the effectiveness of tools and techniques for solving
nonpoint source problems.
Stream degradation by lounging cows.
Nonpoint Source Water Pollution:
An Emerging Threat
As the Clean Water Act brings point source pollution from
municipalities and industries under control, the magnitude of
nonpoint source pollution throughout the United States has
become more apparent. Based on waters assessed by States in
1994, nonpoint sources are prominent among the Nation's five
leading water pollution sources. Table 1 lists the top five
sources by water resource type.
Table 1 . Five leading sources of water pollution in the
United States.
Rank Rivers
1 Agriculture
2 Municipal Point
Source
3 Hydrologic/Habitat
Modification
4 Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
5 Resource Extraction
Lakes
Agriculture
Municipal Point
Source
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Unspecified
Nonpoint Source
Hydrologic/Habitat
Modification
Estuaries
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Municipal Point
Source
Agriculture
Industrial Point
Source
Petroleum
Activities/
Construction
and Land
Disposal
Source: National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress. 1995.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), EPA 841 -R-95-005,
Washington, D.C.
-------
The Watershed Approach to
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Watersheds are areas of land that drain to a stream or other
water resource. Most nonpoint pollution control projects focus
their activities around watersheds because watersheds inte-
grate the effects that land use, climate, hydrology, drainage,
and vegetation have on water quality. Focusing pollution con-
trol project activities around a watershed allows individuals
living in that area to learn about the water resource they affect,
and how to participate in its protection.
Stripcropplng and contouring best management practices.
Monitoring the water resource(s) in a watershed is essential to
detect and document pollution. Monitoring is also necessary to
continually assess water quality and the health of the water
resource. The most reliable way to determine if changes in
land-based activities have affected water quality is to monitor
the land and the water resource before, during, and after a
change in land management or restoration occurs.
At the watershed scale, this relationship between changes in
land management and water quality can only be determined by
following a strict experimental plan, or monitoring protocol.
Although not affordable in all cases, detailed tracking of both
land management and water quality is essential to provide
information to decision makers about the effectiveness of non-
point source pollution control efforts.
Section 319 National Monitoring
Program: Improving Our
Understanding of Pollution Control
The Section 319 National Monitoring Program was
established in 1991 to intensively monitor water quality and
nonpoint source pollution controls in designated watershed
projects. The projects are supported by USEPA funds
authorized by Section 319 of the 1987 Amendments to the
Clean Water Act, where Section 319 is the nonpoint source
portion of this legislation. While the USEPA funding for these
National Monitoring Program projects is used primarily for
monitoring and evaluation, support from other funding sources
and programs is leveraged to provide the needed land treat-
ment. Coordination with other land management funding
sources and programs is expected within the watershed
project.
The monitoring program aims to scientifically evaluate the
effectiveness of control technologies and to improve our un-
derstanding of nonpoint source pollution in these selected
watersheds. To facilitate comparisons, each project follows a
nationally consistent set of guidelines, including the use of an
appropriate experimental design and water quality monitoring
requirements. The National Monitoring Program can then use
the information collected from the projects to develop a na-
tional monitoring database, and to provide information for
adjusting nonpoint source pollution controls to improve water
quality. The States and USEPA's Regions will use the findings
from the National Monitoring Program to develop and select
projects for future funding. Participating States will fine-tune
their own monitoring efforts and programs based upon the
results from this program.
While the National Monitoring Program may require a differ-
ent monitoring design than other water quality assessment
programs, the data collected are frequently complementary. In
addition, sampling and analysis requirements are similar to
those of other programs and agencies. For example, to assess
the diversity of aquatic life, projects use USEPA's Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols and follow quality assurance plans
approved by the USEPA for physical and chemical analyses of
water samples. The raw monitoring data are entered into the
national databases, BIOS and STORET, to supplement data
collected from other monitoring programs. To develop moni-
toring protocols for lakes, the National Monitoring Program
intends to build from those developed under the Clean Lakes
Program.
2 •
-------
Nine National Monitoring Program projects are closely
cooperating with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); USGS
gauging stations monitor discharge and, in some cases, sus-
pended sediment. At least two of these nine projects are
located within drainage areas being intensively monitored by
USGS as part of the National Water Quality Assessment
(NAWQA). Personnel from the USGS manage one of the
National Monitoring Program projects. This coordination
enhances the value of the water quality data and adds exper-
tise in analyzing water quality trends.
Several of the projects are closely linked to, and dependent
on, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) projects and
personnel. All projects rely, to some extent, on USDA per-
sonnel for technical assistance, implementation, and cost
share of nonpoint source controls; however, the four projects
that are coincident with USDA Hydrologic Unit Area and
Water Quality Demonstration projects are particularly depen-
dent on USDA personnel. Because the USDA projects are
primarily concerned with implementing best management
practices (BMPs), they make an excellent complement to the
National Monitoring Program projects when the timing and
placement of BMPs can be coordinated with water quality
monitoring.
Automatic water quality sampler.
Section 319 National Monitoring
Program: Project Selection
USEPA's regional offices nominate proje.cts for the National
Monitoring Program by forwarding State proposals to USEPA
headquarters for review and concurrence. Before October 1,
1995, USEPA set aside a small portion of Section 319 funds
for the National Monitoring Program. States have continued to
propose projects for inclusion in the program, which under-
scores the merits of this effort to document the effectiveness
of nonpoint source controls. USEPA works with project spon-
sors to develop approvable, 6- to 10-year projects. Proposed
projects are assessed based on many factors including:
• Identification of water quality threats or problems, along
with a listing of major pollutant(s)"causing the problems,
substantiated by previous water quality monitoring data;
• Nonpoint source control objectives, including the
probability of adequately treating pollutant sources with
the proposed best management practices;
• Watershed characterization, including project area size
and a summary of existing land uses;
• Delineation of "critical areas" for pollutant(s);
• Land treatment implementation plan (including planned
BMP location, amount of critical pollutant areas, and
timing of implementation);
• Institutional roles and responsibilities for agency
coordination;
• Land treatment and land-use monitoring design;
• Water quality monitoring design (including sampling
locations, sample frequency, pollutants monitored, other
variables monitored, such as stream flow and antecedent
precipitation); and
• Evaluation and reporting plan.
Critical areas are areas of nonpoint source pollution within a
watershed that are most likely to impair or threaten the desig-
nated beneficial use of the water. Designated beneficial uses
are the desirable uses that water quality should support, such
as drinking water supply, swimming, or fishing. Inherent in
this determination is the identification of pollutants and pollut-
ant transport. There is a higher probability of improving water
quality if critical areas are clearly defined, and a large percent
-------
(usually greater than 75 percent) of the critical area is treated
with nonpoint source controls or BMPs.
USEPA has reviewed proposals for approximately 60 projects
under the National Monitoring Program, approving 20 to date
(see Figure 1 on page 6). Nineteen of these involve monitoring
surface water, particularly streams; one is a pilot ground water
project.
The major pollutants of concern in the projects approved to
date are sediment, nutrients, and fecal coliform. The pollutants
are listed by project in Table 2.
Table 2. Primary and secondary pollutants.
Projects
Riparian Area
Nutrients Bacteria Sediment Organics Degradation
Alabama
Arizona
California
Connecticut
Idaho'
Illinois-LP
Illinois -WR
Iowa - SM
Iowa-WC
Maryland
Michigan
Nebraska
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
o
o
o
o
' Pilot ground water monitoring project
* Primary pollutant
o Secondary pollutant
LP — Lake Pittsfield
WR — Waukegan River
SM — Sny Magill
WC —Walnut Creek
Projects can employ one of three study designs: paired water-
shed, upstream/downstream, or single-downstream station
(Table 3). Overall, the 20 projects currently in the Section 319
National Monitoring Program are conducting 48 separate
monitoring efforts.
The paired watershed design involves monitoring the outflow
from two similar watersheds during a calibration period of two
to three years within which both are managed the same (ide-
ally). The calibration period is followed by a period when one
of the watersheds is treated with BMPs. The watersheds con-
tinue to be monitored for two to three years after treatment is
completed. The paired watershed design accounts for hydro-
logic variations so that the effect of the BMPs can be isolated.
In the upstream/downstream design, a monitoring station is
installed directly upstream and downstream of an area where
significant nonpoint source pollution controls will be imple-
mented. Water quality and land-management monitoring
should occur before, during, and after implementing controls.
The single-downstream station study design involves monitor-
ing downstream of the entire study area. The quality of the
water is compared between the initial project conditions and
the conditions at project's end. This design is not recom-
mended because of the difficulty in isolating the effects of
nonpoint pollution controls from other variables, such as rain-
fall.
In each of the designs, monitoring data are analyzed to
document that nonpoint pollution controls have significantly
reduced pollutant delivery to the sampling station. The water
quality monitoring designs of the current National Monitoring
Program projects are listed in Table 3.
Table 3. Water quality monitoring design of Section 319
National Monitoring Program projects.
Project
Paired
Watershed
Upstream/
Downstream
Single
Downstream
Alabama
Arizona
California
Connecticut
Idaho1
Illinois - LP
Illinois - WR
Iowa - SM
lowa-WC
Maryland
Michigan
Nebraska
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
1 Pilot ground water monitoring project
LP — Lake Pittsfield SM — Sny Magill
WR — Waukegan River WC — Walnut Creek
Monitoring requirements for National Monitoring Program
projects include pre-project sampling to establish baseline
water quality; land management tracking; and options to col-
lect at least 20 evenly spaced (in time) water chemistry
samples during a season, to sample the aquatic community at
least once per year, or to evaluate habitat conditions annually.
-------
The aquatic community includes habitat and aquatic organ-
isms (such as fish and insects) that indicate the health of water
resources. Two projects (Oregon and Illinois—Waukegan) are
only monitoring biological indicators such as fish and macro-
invertebrates (water insects). Monitoring results are reported
in a standard format using USEPA's NonPoint Source Man-
agement System (NPSMS) software to facilitate comparisons
between projects and the development of a national database.
Most projects are cooperative efforts between Federal, State,
and Local agencies, and often between two or more Federal
water quality programs (Table 4). Projects with a strong Local
interest and highly valued water resources tend to be selected
because participants in these projects often have greater incen-
tive to improve water quality.
Funding for the different components of the National Monitor-
ing Program comes from many cooperating Federal, State, and
local government agencies, as well as the private sector. Funds
provided to projects typically support both the basic monitor-
ing requirements for National Monitoring Program projects, as
well as monitoring activities that states include for their own
purposes. For example, storm-event monitoring is not re-
quired, yet fifteen of the projects include such monitoring,
which typically requires the purchase of automated sampling
equipment. For this reason, the funding levels significantly
exceed the true cost of required monitoring under the National
Monitoring Program. The average funding levels are also
skewed by the focus on the first few years of monitoring.
Diagram of paired watersheds in Pennsylvania.
Table 4. The types and number of different agencies involved in the Section 319 National Monitoring Program projects.
Government Agencies
State
Alabama
Arizona
California
Connecticut
Idaho1
Illinois - LP
Illinois - WR
Iowa - SM
Iowa - WC
Maryland
Michigan
Nebraska
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
Federal
2
5
2
2
6
2
7
5
1
2
4
4
2
1
3
2
3
1
3
State
2
10
2
1
5
4
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Regional Local Tribal
1
1 4
1
1
4
2
2
1
1
4
2 1
8
3
1
1
2
1 1
1 2
1
University
4
1
2
4
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
Industry Private
4 9
2
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
2
1 Pilot ground water monitoring project
LP — Lake Pittsfield
WR — Waukegan River
SM — Sny Magill
WC — Walnut Creek
-------
Figure 1. Locations of the 20 approved projects.
Section 319 National Monitoring
Program: Projects
ALABAMA — Lightwood Knot Creek
The W.F. Jackson Lake (southeastern Alabama) was built for
recreational uses. Excessive sedimentation of the lake, caused
by agricultural activities in the watershed, is impairing aquatic
life habitat, increasing bridge maintenance costs and flooding
potential, and reducing the lake's water holding capacity.
Checking (low Into bedtoad sediment pit sampler (Lightwood
Knot Creek, Alabama).
Approximately 50% of the watershed is forested and 25% of
the land is in pasture or hay; the remaining 25% is cropped.
During the Lightwood Knot Creek 319 National Monitoring
Program project, BMPs will be implemented on the cropland
to reduce erosion and on the poultry farms to reduce nutrient
and fecal coliform runoff. The water quality monitoring design
is a three-way pair, with two treatment watersheds and one
control watershed. BMPs will be implemented in the two
treatment watersheds. No BMPs will be installed on the con-
trol watershed until the end of the project.
Water quality monitoring consists of weekly grab sampling
from April through August for a number of different chemical
constituents, including nitrogen, phosphorus, fecal coliform,
and streptococcus. Total dissolved solids and total suspended
solids will be monitored monthly.
ARIZONA — Oak Creek Canyon
Oak Creek, located in Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona, experi-
ences an annual seasonal (summer) deterioration in water
quality from fecal pollution. The Oak Creek project has deter-
mined that these impacts to water quality occur only when a
reservoir of sediments containing fecal coliform becomes
established in the creek (Table 5) and when the sediment is
disturbed by recreational use of the waters, monsoon activity,
or both. The sources of fecal pollution include recreational use
-------
(more than a quarter of a million visitors swim in Oak Creek
each summer), septic systems, and wildlife.
Slide Rock Creek (Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona).
Table 5. Average fecal coliform counts in water and sedi-
ment at the downstream sample point at Slide Rock State
Park (Arizona Project).
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Fecal Coliforms/
100ml Water
0
1
0
10
78
138
1,820
1,810
109
16
4
1
Fecal Coliforms/
100ml
Suspended Sediment
0
5,700
6,080
0
4,826
70,879
1 ,052,626
1,014,333
37,555,556
44,286
37,037
14,286
The Oak Creek project is using an upstream/downstream wa-
ter quality monitoring design to compare the effectiveness of
BMPs at two recreational swimming areas, Slide Rock State
Park (treatment) and Grasshopper Point (control), and at two
campgrounds, Pine Flats campground (treatment) and Manza-
nita campground (control). Weekly grab samples are taken on
Saturday afternoons (peak tourist time) from May 15 through
September 15, and monthly samples are collected for the re-
mainder of the year. BMPs that have been implemented at
Slide Rock State Park and Pine Flats campground include
enhanced restroom facilities and an educational program to
promote visitor compliance with park and campground regula-
tions on facility use and waste disposal. Upgrading septic
systems and monitoring the proportion of human versus ani-
mal waste in Oak Creek water and sediment are also being
pursued.
Another component of the Oak Creek project monitors the
effect of storm water runoff from the parking lot at Slide Rock
State Park. This parking lot is filled to capacity throughout the
summer recreational season, since most users spend several
hours at a time at the park. The result is that several hundred
vehicles pass through the parking lot each day, depositing
organic (oil and grease) and inorganic (from automobile ex-
haust) material onto the parking lot. Automatic remote water
samplers were installed in the spring of 1997 to characterize
parking lot runoff by collecting samples during typical mon-
soon summer thunderstorms. BMPs for effective parking lot
management will be implemented over the next year to reduce
the impact of parking lot runoff on Oak Creek water quality.
CALIFORNIA — Morro Bay
Morro Bay, one of the
few intact natural estu-
aries on California's
Pacific coast, is being
harmed by sediment
and to a lesser extent
by bacteria, metals,
nutrients and habitat
loss. Brushland, range-
land, and streambank
erosion contribute the
largest portion of the
sediment that is depos-
ited in the Bay, and
recent wildfire and
floods have increased
the sedimentation.
The Morro Bay Water- Sampling vegetation on rangeland
shed Section 319 (Morr° Bay~ California).
National Monitoring
Program project is evaluating the effectiveness of different
sediment-reducing BMP systems. A paired watershed study on
tributaries of Chorro Creek (Chumash and Walters creeks) is
evaluating the effectiveness of a rangeland BMP system —
fencing the entire riparian corridor, creation of smaller pas-
tures, installation of accessible water in each pasture,
stabilization and revegetation of streambanks, and installation
of water bars and culverts on farm roads. Another important
-------
part of this study is an analysis of whether event and regular-
interval sampling are effective in detecting change. Three
additional water quality monitoring sites have been estab-
lished to evaluate the effectiveness of other BMP systems:
sediment retention, cattle exclusion, and managed grazing.
Water quality samples are also being taken throughout the
watershed to document the changes in overall water quality
during the life of the project.
Suburban land uses that contribute to nonpoint source
pollution (Jordan Cove, Connecticut).
CONNECTICUT —Jordan Cove
Jordan Cove, a small estuary fed by Jordan Brook, is part of
the Long Island Sound. Water quality sampling has indicated
that the cove does not meet bacteriological standards for safe
shellfish collection. The watershed that drains Jordan Cove
estuary is primarily forest and wetlands (74%) with increasing
urban land use (19%). As urbanization continues, concern has
increased about the impact of suburbanization on the estuary
during and after construction. The pollutant of concern during
construction is sediment, whereas the pollutants of concern
after construction are phosphorus and nitrogen. This 319
National Monitoring Program project will help characterize
polluted runoff from urbanized areas.
Runoff from three subdivisions is being monitored to assess
the effects of construction and urban development. The three
sites are: an established subdivision with 43 houses, a subdivi-
sion that is being built with generally accepted construction
practices, and a subdivision being built using BMPs. Non-
structural construction BMPs consist of phased grading,
immediate seeding of stockpiled topsoil, maintenance of veg-
etation around the construction area, and immediate temporary
seeding of proposed lawn areas. Structural practices include
sediment detention basins and swales. Post-construction,
non-structural BMPs will consist of street sweeping, imple-
mentation of fertilizer and pesticide management plans, pet
waste management, and yard waste pickups. Structural BMPs
will include grass swales, bioretention areas and a road of
permeable concrete pavers (concrete blocks with holes in
them), gravel pack shoulders on access roads, and the minimi-
zation of impervious surfaces.
Rainwater runoff from each subdivision is being collected and.
analyzed for sediment and nutrients. The paired watershed
approach will allow comparison of the quality of the storm-
water runoff from each of the three subdivisions.
IDAHO — Eastern Snake River Plain
The Idaho Eastern Snake River Plain is located in southcentral
Idaho in an area dominated by irrigated agricultural land. The
Eastern Snake River Plain aquifer system provides much of
the drinking water for approximately 40,000 people living
in the project area. The aquifer also serves as an important
source of water for irrigation.
Excessive irrigation, a common practice in the area, creates
the potential for nitrate and pesticide leaching into the aquifer
below. Ground water monitoring has shown that nitrate levels
in the shallow aquifer underlying the project area frequently
exceed the drinking water standard of 10 mg/1 (Table 6).
The Eastern Snake River
Plain project is the only [ £
Section 319 National r > :;'"
Monitoring Program
project to evaluate the
effects of agricultural
BMPs on ground water
quality- Two paired test
fields are being evaluated.
Twelve monitoring wells,
35 point ground water
samplers, and 35 soil wa-
ter samplers (lysimeters)
are installed in one paired
test field (Foregon); 12
monitoring wells and 25
soil water samplers are
installed in the second Lysimeter sampling for nitrate
paired test field (Moncur). (Eastern Snake River Plain,
Idaho).
8
-------
Table 6. Ground water nitrate concentrations for 1992-1996 in the Eastern Snake River Plain project area (Idaho).
Field Mean Maximum Range of the Mean Minimum Range of the
(each pair of Nitrate Cone. Maximum Nitrate Nitrate Cone. Minimum
fields contains (mg/l) Cone, (mg/l) (mg/l) Nitrate Cone.
1 2 sample wells) (mg/l)
Moncur (2 paired fields) 25.5 8-59
Forgeon (2 paired fields) . 69 34 - 1 30
3 02. - 9.8
2.7 8.6 - BDL2
2BDL = Below Detection Limit
Ground water quality is monitored monthly. The effects of
irrigation water application rates on ground water quality in
terms of nitrate, total dissolved solids, dissolved oxygen
concentrations, electrical-conductance, and pH are being
evaluated for one paired field (Moncur). The effects of crop
type on these same parameters are being evaluated for the
other paired field (Forgeon). Nitrate is the key ground water
indicator parameter for evaluation of BMP effectiveness for
both paired test fields.
ILLINOIS — Lake Pittsfield
Lake Pittsfield was constructed in 1961 to serve as a flood
control structure and as a public water supply for the city of
Pittsfield, a western Illinois community of approximately
4,000 people. The 7,000-acre watershed (Blue Creek Water-
shed) that drains into Lake Pittsfield is agricultural, consisting
primarily of corn and soybean cropland.
Sedimentation is the major water quality problem in Lake
Pittsfield. Sediment from farming operations, gullies, and
shoreline erosion has decreased the capacity of Lake Pitts-
field by 25 percent in the last 33 years.
Based on a thorough analysis of lake problems and pollution
control needs conducted under the Clean Lakes Program,
- project coordinators developed a strategy to reduce sediment
transport into Lake Pittsfield. The keystone of the land
management strategy is the construction of settling basins
throughout the watershed, including a large basin at the upper
end of Lake Pittsfield. USDA Water Quality Incentive Project
funds have provided for installation of additional sediment-
reducing practices such as conservation tillage, integrated crop
management, livestock exclusion, filter strips, and wildlife
habitat management. Land-based data and a geographical in-
formation system (GIS) are being used to develop watershed
maps of sediment sources and sediment yields.
The objective of the Lake Pittsfield Section 319 National
Monitoring Program project is to evaluate the effectiveness of
the settling basins in reducing sedimentation into the lake.
Water quality monitoring consists of tributary sampling after
rainstorms (to determine sediment loads); monthly water qual-
ity monitoring at three lake sites (to determine trends in water
quality); and lake sedimentation rate monitoring (to determine
changes in sediment deposition rates and patterns).
Sediment basin (Lake Pittsfield, Illinois).
-------
ILLINOIS—Waukegan River
IOWA — Sny Magill Creek
The Waukegan River 319 National Monitoring Program
project is an urban stream restoration project located in a
6,700-acrc watershed. High-volume runoff from impervious
surfaces is degrading urban streams and reducing habitat due
10 low oxygen levels, low pool levels, and limited cobble sub-
strate. The project, located in Waukegan, Illinois, uses
biotcchnical bank restoration (a combined vegetative and
structural approach) to stabilize streambanks and low stone
weirs to restore pool and riffle sequences. Several sites in
Powell Park and Washington Park have been restored using a
combination of lunkers (structures that stabilize banks and
provide fish habitat), a-jacks (structures that look like playing
jacks that stabilize streams), and riparian plants such as dog-
wood, arrowhead, and willow.
An upstream/downstream habitat monitoring design is being
used to document water quality changes in the Waukegan
River at the South Branch stations. With this design, urban
water quality will affect both the control and the rehabilitated
stations uniformly. Biological parameters, which include fish,
macroinvertebrate, and habitat samples, will be measured
three times per year from May through September. Flows are
monitored continuously.
Sny Magill Creek, located in northeastern Iowa, is one of
the more widely used streams for recreational trout fishing in
Iowa. Sny Magill Creek, a coldwater stream, drains a 22,780-
acre agricultural watershed consisting of land used for row
crops, pasture, forest and forested pasture, and cover crops.
There are approximately 98 dairy, beef, and swine producers
in the watershed, with farm sizes averaging 275 acres.
Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling (Sny Magill Creek, Iowa).
Urban streambank restoration (Waukegan River, Illinois).
Excess sediment deposition in the creek is harming the trout
fishery. Consequently, a long-term goal of the project is to
reduce sediment delivery to Sny Magill by one-half. To meet
this goal, sediment control measures are planned. Because
nitrogen, phosphorus, and pesticide levels are also concerns,
planned land management includes reducing nutrient and
pesticide use and implementing animal waste management
systems.
The adjacent 24,064-acre Bloody Run Creek watershed
serves as the paired comparison watershed for water quality
monitoring. Monitoring sites at the outlets of each watershed
are documenting discharge and suspended sediment.
Water quality is monitored through bi-monthly sampling of the
benthic organisms, an annual fisheries survey, and an annual
aquatic habitat assessment. Monitoring of the benthic organ-
isms suggests some improvement in the water quality of Sny
Magill Creek; similar improvements are not seen in the com-
parison watershed, Bloody Run Creek (Figure 2).
10
-------
1992 m 1993 • 1994 01995
Bloody Run (control) Sny Magill (study)
Figure 2. The EPT Index measures a specific group of
pollution-sensitive organisms. An increasing value suggests
improved water quality.
IOWA—Walnut Creek
The objective of the Walnut Creek project is to restore the
area to pre-settlement conditions. The Walnut Creek 319 Na-
tional Monitoring Program project uses a paired watershed
design with upstream/downstream stations on both the Walnut
Creek (treatment watershed) and Squaw Creek (the control
watershed). Walnut Creek, which drains into the Des Moines
River, does not support its designated uses and Squaw Creek
only partially supports its uses. Primary biological productiv-
ity is low, and the condition of the fish community is poor.
These streams are affected by agriculturally derived pollutants
(sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and animal wastes) as well as
sediment from streambank erosion.
Buffalo grazing on native prairie grasses (Walnut Creek, Iowa).
Corn and soybeans comprise.65.7% of the watershed
acreage of Walnut Creek and 74.3% of Squaw Creek. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency in charge of the
Walnut Creek National Wildlife Refuge and Prairie Learning
Center, has decided to change land uses within the refuge.
Approximately 5,000 acres of cropland will be removed from
production by converting it to native tall grass prairie. Ripar-
ian and wetland zones will also be restored. For the portion of
the watershed that remains in cropland agriculture, soil ero-
sion control measures and pesticide and nutrient management
BMPs will be implemented.
To document the changes in water quality, ten stations within
the project drainage area are monitored biweekly to monthly
in March through July. Four stations are monitored four times
per year. Storm data is collected at the two watershed outlets
and at the main stem of Walnut Creek, and habitat is assessed
yearly.
MARYLAND —Warner Creek
Warner Creek is a small stream in northcentral Maryland that
drains 830 acres. The creek is characteristic of many of the
small streams that drain agricultural areas in the Piedmont
area of Maryland. The major source of nonpoint source pollu-
tion in this stream is believed to be activities associated with
dairy production. The effects of beef and dairy production on
water quality will be
compared by using a
paired water quality
monitoring design.
Land use in the con-
trol watershed is
primarily pasture for
beef production,
whereas land use in
the treatment water-
shed is essentially
dairy farming. An
upstream/downstream
monitoring program
will be used to evalu-
ate the effectiveness
of fencing animals
from streams, water-
ing systems, and
animal waste manage- Wamgf Creek (Maryland).
ment systems.
11
-------
Water quality sampling is done weekly from February to June,
with bi-weekly sampling during the remainder of the year for
all monitoring stations. Storm-event sampling is conducted at
the upstream and downstream monitoring stations. Samples
are analyzed for nutrients and sediment to determine if
changes in land treatment practices are affecting water quality.
Monitoring results from the paired watershed indicate that
mismanaged dairy operations are a major contributor to the
water pollution in the watershed. Subsurface flow of water
causes nitrate-nitrogen to enter Warner Creek.
MICHIGAN — Sycamore Creek
Sycamore Creek is located in southcentral Michigan (Ingham
County). 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.
Soil sampling for nutrient management planning (Sycamore
Creek, Michigan).
The major pollutants of Sycamore Creek are sediment,
phosphorus, nitrogen, and agricultural pesticides. Sediment
deposition is adversely affecting fish andmacroinvertebrate
habitat, and the decay of organic soils is depleting oxygen in
the water column. Sycamore Creek has been selected for mon-
itoring not because of any unique characteristics, but because
it is representative of creeks throughout lower Michigan.
Streambank erosion control is being conducted under a
Section 319 grant to the County Drain Commissioner. Land
management consists primarily of sediment- and nutrient-
reducing BMPs on cropland, pastureland, and hayland. These
practices are funded as part of the USDA Sycamore Creek
Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA) project.
Water quality monitoring is being conducted in three sub-
watersheds: Haines Drain, Willow Creek, and Marshall Drain.
The Haines subwatershed, where BMPs have already been
installed, serves as the control and is outside the Sycamore
Creek watershed. Stormflow and baseflow water quality
samples from each watershed are taken from March through
July of each project year. Water is sampled for turbidity, total
suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand, nitrogen, and
phosphorus. A fourth station was added above the mouth of
the creek in 1995 and sampled for the same parameters.
NEBRASKA — Elm Creek
Elm Creek is a spring-fed stream that drains 35,800 acres of
rural land in southcentral Nebraska, near the Kansas border.
Wheat and sorghum, pasture, range, and irrigated corn cover
most of the land. High intensity, short duration thunderstorms
common to this region produce peak flows that degrade water
and habitat quality.
Trout productivity in Elm Creek is currently limited by inad-
equate in-stream habitat, elevated water temperatures, and
deposition of fine sediments onto the stream substrate, mostly
during runoff events. The project objectives are to reduce
in-stream summer maximum temperatures, reduce in-stream
sedimentation, reduce peak flows, and improve in-stream
aquatic habitat.
Modeling and field surveys were initially conducted to iden-
tify critical erosion areas in need of nonpoint source control
measures (BMPs). Conventional and non-conventional BMPs
have been implemented extensively throughout Elm Creek's
watershed since the project was initiated in 1992. In addition,
a portion of Elm Creek was the focus of a 1996 lunker demon-
stration to improve in-stream habitat while stabilizing eroding
streambanks. Implementation activities have been funded in
part under the Elm Creek Hydrologic Unit Area Project,
which is under the direction of the USDA, and by local cost-
share dollars in conjunction with Section 319 funds.
12
-------
Rural streambank restoration (Elm Creek, Nebraska).
Physical, chemical, biological, and land management mon-
itoring are conducted to determine if project water quality
objectives are achieved. Both an upstream/downstream design
as well as a single-downstream station study design are em-
ployed. Weekly monitoring of stream chemistry is conducted
from March through September because nonpoint source im-
pacts are greatest during this period. Biological and habitat
data are typically collected in both spring and fall. Monitoring
efforts will be continued for at least two years after BMP
implementation activities cease.
NORTH CAROLINA — Long Creek
The Long Creek Watershed, situated in the southwestern
Piedmont of North Carolina, is a 28,480-acre area of mixed
agricultural and urban land uses. Long Creek is the primary
water supply for Bessemer City, a small municipality with a
population of about 4,900 people.
Water quality problems include high sediment, bacteria, and
nutrient levels. The stream channel near the Bessemer City
water supply intake in the headwaters area has historically
required frequent dredging due to sediment accumulation.
Downstream of the intake, Long Creek is listed as support-
threatened by the North Carolina Nonpoint Source Manage-
ment Program. Aquatic habitat is degraded in this section due
to high levels of fecal coliform and excessive sediment and
nutrient loading from agricultural and urban nonpoint sources.
Land management upstream of the water supply intake is re-
ducing erosion from cropland and streambanks. Downstream
of the intake, land management activities include fencing to
exclude cows from streams, animal waste management, and
implementation of sediment and rainwater runoff controls.
Recently, a system of BMPs was installed at a dairy including:
1) livestock exclusion from perennial and ephemeral streams,
2) an alternative watering system, 3) streambank stabilization
and riparian buffer establishment, 4) a waste management
system, 5) heavy-use and feeding-area improvements, and 6)
improved stream crossings. Water quality improvements have
been monitored for nine months and are shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Water quality at selected sampling
stations through
Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
Station mg/l
Water Supply Intake
Watershed Outlet
Upstream at Farm — Pre-BMP1
Upstream at Farm — Post-BMP2
Downstream at Farm — Pre-BMP1
Downstream at Farm — Post-BMP2
NA
0.27
0.80
0.48
2.20
0.62
November 1 996
Total
Phosphorus
mg/l
NA
0.08
0.25
0.12
0.72
0.21
(North Carolina).
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
mpn/100ml
550
1,400
24,000
26,000
110,000
11,000
Suspended
Sediment
mg/l
4
7
4
2
11
2
1Pre-BMP period was from April 1 993 through January 1 996.
2Post-BMP period was from February 1 996 to November 1 996.
Note: All values are the median for the period of monitoring.
13
-------
Degradation before restoration (Long Creek,
North Carolina).
Riparian area after livestock exclusion (Long Creek,
North Carolina).
Water quality monitoring includes weekly grab sampling just
upstream of the water supply intake before and after imple-
menting erosion controls, water quality monitoring upstream
and downstream of a dairy feeding and holding area on a
tributary to Long Creek, and runoff sampling from two paired
drainage areas on a cropland field. Water samples are being
analyzed to provide the chemical, biological, and hydrologic
data needed to assess the effectiveness of the nonpoint source
controls.
OKLAHOMA — Peacheater Creek
The land use of the watershed that surrounds Peacheater
Creek, a stream located in eastern Oklahoma, is agricultural,
mainly pasture and forest. There are many livestock opera-
lions —51 poultry houses, 9 dairies, and 1,200 beef cattle —
in this watershed. The adjacent Tyner Creek Watershed is
similar in size to Peacheater Creek for land use and number of
livestock operations.
Fish and macroinvertebrate habitats are impaired by large
gravel bars generated by streambank erosion caused by cattle
traffic and past forestry activities. Elevated nitrogen and phos-
phorus levels, caused by animal waste runoff, contribute to the
growth of algae in the Illinois River and eutrophication in
LakeTenkiller, both downstream of Peacheater Creek.
The water quality monitoring design is a paired watershed
study. Nutrient management, animal waste management struc-
tures, mortality composters (dead chicken composters), and
riparian area stabilization are the primary BMPs that will be
implemented in the treatment watershed (Peacheater Creek).
The control watershed (Tyner Creek) will not be treated.
Water quality monitoring stations are located at the outlet of
each watershed, whereas habitat and biological monitoring are
conducted at several locations in each stream. Chemical moni-
toring is conducted weekly from February through June
(monthly during the rest of the year) and during storm events.
Macroinvertebrates and periphyton productivity are measured
twice per year. Fish and intensive habitat assessments are done
yearly. An extensive habitat assessment of the whole stream
length will be done on alternate years with an assessment of
streambank erosion.
Measuring a channel cross-section (Peacheater Creek,
Oklahoma).
14
-------
OREGON — Upper Grande Ronde Basin
The streams of the Grande Ronde basin have historically
provided a rich habitat for cold water fish, such as rainbow
trout, salmon, summer steelhead, and bull trout. However,
cold water fish production has been declining since 1970 as
land use changes have reduced riparian vegetation by 75% and
simplified in-stream habitat due to grazing practices and chan-
nel modifications. Stream temperatures have risen as riparian
vegetation that once shaded the streams has been lost. Higher
temperatures in the stream have resulted in reduced cold
water fish populations. The project area, located in northeast
Oregon, is within the Upper Grand Ronde Basin (695 square
miles).
The objective of this project is to document the effects of
habitat restoration on stream temperatures and aquatic com-
munities. A paired watershed design is being used. Sampling
for the Upper Grande Ronde Basin Section 319 National
Monitoring Program project is unique in that water quality
monitoring is focused primarily on biological indicators, such
as fish, macroinvertebrates, and habitat. Water quality, habitat,
and macroinvertebrate surveys are conducted three times per
year and fish snorkel surveys are carried out once per year.
The treatment stream, a segment of McCoy Creek, will be
treated by stabilizing and revegetating riparian areas, restoring
wet meadow conditions and restoring old channels that will
allow the stream to naturally meander. Water quality data for
the treatment area will be compared with data from the control
stream, Dark Creek. Three other streams are monitored to
provide background information.
Alternative pasture watering sites (Pequea and Mill Creek,
Pennsylvania).
PENNSYLVANIA — Pequea and Mill Creek
The Big Spring Run is a spring-fed stream located in the Mill
Creek Watershed of southcentral Pennsylvania. Its primary
uses are livestock watering, aquatic life support, and fish and
wildlife support. In addition, receiving streams drain to the
Chesapeake Bay, which has well-documented water quality
problems.
The main source of pollutants in the area is cows lounging in
the streams; therefore, the primary treatment is'to fence cows
out of streams. This allows grasses and shrubs to stabilize
streambanks and potentially filter pollutants from pasture run-
off.
The water quality monitoring effort employs a paired water-
shed study design which requires that the proposed nonpoint
source control, fencing to exclude livestock from 100 percent
of the stream miles, be implemented in an 896-acre watershed
and leaving the other (1,152-acre) watershed untreated. Grab
samples are collected every 10 days at the outlet of each
paired watershed and at three upstream sites in the treatment
basin from April through November. The monitoring plan also
includes sampling the streams during rainstorms, and monitor-
ing ground water.
Biological monitoring (Upper Grande Ronde Basin, Oregon).
15
-------
VERMONT — Lake Champlain Basin
" ' '":i' ''"'''"'•'"''illl B '
Incised stream through range/and (Bad River, South Dakota).
SOUTH DAKOTA — Bad River
The Bad River is located in westcentral South Dakota, where
it converges with the Missouri River near Ft. Pierre. The
section of the Missouri that the Bad River enters is located
approximately 10 miles downstream of the Oahe Reservoir.
The sediment load carried by the Bad River is filling in the
channel in the Missouri river and impairing power generation
at Oahe Dam. Also, the combination of ice jams and the
siltcd-in channel on the Missouri river cause localized flood-
ing in the city of Pierre during peak discharges in winter
months.
Land use in the watershed consists primarily of livestock
grazing with some dry-land wheat farming. Streambank ero-
sion and improper grazing practices are the main causes of
sedimentation in the watershed. To control erosion and reduce
sedimentation, rotational grazing, riparian plantings, alterna-
tive water and feeding areas, and possibly some structural
BMPs will be implemented in the treatment watersheds. The
two-paired watershed design used in the Bad River 319 Na-
tional Monitoring Program project includes four monitored
watersheds: one pair in the eastern part and one pair in the
western part of the Bad River Watershed.
Rangcland and riparian conditions will be monitored during
the project. Water quality monitoring will be storm-event
driven because the streams are ephemeral, flowing only during
snow melt and intense summer thunderstorms. Sediment, rain-
fall, and discharge will be monitored.
Lake Champlain fails to meet Vermont water quality
standards for phosphorus, largely due to excessive nonpoint
source loads. The Missisquoi River contributes the greatest
share of phosphorus to Lake Champlain, and is itself impacted
by phosphorus, bacteria, and organic matter from agricultural
sources, primarily animal wastes from dairies, cropland, and
livestock activity within streams and riparian areas.
The Lake Champlain Basin Watershed National Monitoring
Program project is designed to implement and evaluate the
effectiveness of livestock exclusion, riparian revegetation,
and grazing management in reducing the concentrations and
loads of nutrients, bacteria, and sediment from agricultural
sources. One control watershed (Berry Brook — WS3) and
two treatment watersheds will be monitored. Samsonville
Brook watershed (WS1) will be used to evaluate the water
quality benefits of intensive grazing management. Godin
Brook watershed (WS2) will be used to assess the benefits of
Streambank protection and revegetation, controlled livestock
access to streams, and improved livestock stream crossings.
Water quality data
from May 1994
through September
1996 are summa-
rized in Table 8.
Average bacteria
counts often exceed
Vermont water qual-
ity standards, and
maximum counts
have exceeded
200,000 in each of
the streams that are
part of this project.
Phosphorus and
nitrogen levels
indicate significant
nutrient enrichment.
Fish and macro-
invertebrate data
suggest moderate to
severe impacts due
to nutrients and
organic matter.
Gathering rainfall data (Lake
Champlain Basin, Vermont).
16
-------
Table 8. Mean values for seven measured variables in three
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds (Vermont).
Variable
Watersheds
WS1 WS2 WS3
(anti-log of log mean)
Total Phosphorus (mg/l)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/l)
Total Suspended Solids (mg/l)
E.Coli Bacteria (#/100 ml)
Fecal Coliform Bacteria (#/100 ml)
Fecal Strep Bacteria (#/100 ml)
0.108 0.107 0.980
0.97 0.90 0.78
31 18 16
136 627 595
132 695 613
447 486 442
Like many 319 National Monitoring Program projects, the
Totten and Eld Inlets project is using a paired watershed
approach to document changes in water quality as a result
of BMP implementation. The Kennedy watershed, which is
sparsely populated and has few livestock, serves as the
control watershed. Implementation of BMPs is occuring in the
Schneider watershed (treatment). A single-monitoring-site
approach is being used in four other watersheds (McLane,
Perry, Pierre, and Bums). Fecal coliform is monitored weekly
from early November through mid-April. Other variables such
as conductivity, total suspended solids, turbidity, precipitation,
and discharge are also being monitored.
Monitoring will continue for at least six years, including a
three-year calibration period before BMP implementation, one
year during land-management implementation, and at least
two years after BMP implementation. Streamflow is recorded
continuously at all sites, and weekly composite samples are
collected for analysis of nutrients and suspended solids.
Bacterial analyses are performed twice weekly, macroinverte-
brates are sampled annually at each site and at an additional
reference site, and fish are evaluated twice each year by
electroshocking. Land use, agricultural activity, and BMP
implementation are monitored primarily through farmer
records and interviews.
WASHINGTON —Totten and Eld Inlets
Totten and Eld Inlets, located in southern Puget Sound, con-
tain some of the most productive shellfish areas in the world.
The urban, suburban, and rural growth that has occurred
within the last decade threatens the exceptional water quality
of the inlets. To protect these natural resources, Local and
State governments have combined their efforts to reduce
nonpoint source pollution, particularly fecal coliform pollu-
tion, from failing septic systems and livestock-keeping
practices.
The major BMPs being used to address the sources of the
pollution problem are repairing failing septic systems and
implementing farm plans and practices on the many small
hobby farms. Best management practices recommended for
animal keepers include pasture and grazing management,
fencing, riparian area restoration, livestock density reduction,
rainwater and runoff management, and animal waste manage-
ment.
WARMING
Contaminated
in this area
are unsafe
for human consumption
Environmental Hsalft
Mason County
(206)427-9670
Sign indicating bacterial contamination of shellfish beds
(Totten and Eld Inlets, Washington).
WISCONSIN — Otter Creek
Biological monitoring within the Otter Creek watershed
has shown that the fish community lacks fishable numbers of
warmwater sport fish, largely due to inadequate fish habitat
and polluted water. Dissolved oxygen concentrations occa-
sionally drop below Wisconsin's State standard of 5.0 mg/l. In
addition, bacteria levels exceed Wisconsin's recreational stan-
dard of 400 fecal coliforms per 100 ml in many samples.
This largely agricultural, 7,040-acre watershed drains to
Lake Michigan via the Sheboygan River. Modeling and field
inventories have identified critical areas needing treatment to
achieve the National Monitoring Program project goals of
improving the fishery, restoring the endangered striped shiner
in Otter Creek, improving recreational uses by reducing bacte-
ria levels, reducing pollutant loadings to the Sheboygan River
and Lake Michigan, and restoring riparian vegetation.
17
-------
Improved management of barnyard runoff and manure,
nutrient management and reduced Ullage on cropland, and
shoreline and streambank stabilization are all being imple-
mented to control sources of phosphorus, sediment, bacteria,
and streambank erosion in the watershed. State cost-share
funds have been used to install these BMPs.
Paired watershed and upstream/downstream monitoring stud-
ies covering eight monitoring sites are employed to evaluate
the benefits of the BMPs. Meeme River serves as the control
watershed and Otter Creek is the treatment watershed in the
paired watershed study. Monitoring sites are located above
and below a dairy with barnyard and streambank stabilization
BMPs.
Habitat, fish, and macroinvertebrates are being sampled each
year during the summer. Water chemistry is tracked through
analysis of 30 weekly samples collected each year from April
to October at the paired watershed and upstream/downstream
sites. Runoff events are also sampled at the upstream/down-
stream sites and at the single-downstream station site at the
outlet of Otter Creek.
Fishing in Otter Creek (Wisconsin).
Future Directions of the Section 319
National Monitoring Program
Landowners, taxpayers, and program administrators need to
be confident that land-control practices installed to combat
nonpoint source pollution will protect or improve water qual-
ity. Through the Section 319 National Monitoring Program,
USEPA expects to gather data sufficient to demonstrate the
types and extent of water quality improvements that can result
from the installation of nonpoint source pollution control
practices. The USEPA intends to have 20 to 30 projects in-
cluded in the Section 319 National Monitoring Program that
should provide between 40 and 100 separate evaluations of
watershed-level and site-specific pollution-control efforts. The
current mix of projects is skewed to agricultural sources, but
USEPA continues to seek projects focused on other nonpoint
source categories such as forestry and urban runoff.
States should benefit from the Section 319 National
Monitoring Program, both because of the documentation of
findings in the project areas, and due to the opportunity to
transfer lessons learned into improved State monitoring efforts
and more successful projects in other watersheds. Nonpoint
source monitoring projects will be increasingly embodied
within the integrated State monitoring assessments which
USEPA and the States are working toward.
Local, State, and Federal governments, as well as private
organizations, are working to educate citizens about nonpoint
source pollution. Reducing it will require the concerted action
of farmers and ranchers, homeowners, urban managers, con-
struction and mining officials, and citizens — in other words,
all of us. Each of us will have to learn how what we do affects
water quality and how we can change our actions to protect
one of our Nation's most vital resources: water. The National
Monitoring Program is just one way in which these important
lessons can be learned, demonstrated, and documented.
For more detailed information on the Section 319 National Monitoring Program projects highlighted in this document,
please refer to: 1996 Summary Report: Section 319 National Monitoring Program Projects. 1996. Osmond, D.L.,
D.E. Line, S.W. Coffey, J.B. Mullens, J.A. Gale, J. Saligoe-Simmel, and J. Spooner, NCSU Water Quality Group, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. EPA-841-S-96-002.This report is also available on the World Wide Web at
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/Section319 or http://h2osparc.wq.ncsu.edu/96rept319/COVER-96.html.
18
-------
Glossary
Animal waste management system — A best management
practice designed to minimize pollution originating from
livestock and poultry operations by providing facilities for the
storage and handling of animal wastes.
Base/low water quality sample — Water quality sample
obtained during non-storm conditions.
Beneficial uses — Desirable uses of a water resource such as
recreation (fishing, boating, swimming) and water supply.
Best management practices (BMPs) — Practices or structures
designed to reduce the quantities of pollutants - such as
sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, and animal wastes - that enter
surface or ground waters.
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) — Quantitative measure of
the strength of contamination by organic and inorganic carbon
materials.
Conservation tillage — Any tillage and planting system that
maintains at least 30% of the soil surface covered by residue
after planting to reduce soil erosion by water.
Control watershed— The watershed in which land manage-
ment practices are not changed during the course of the paired
watershed study.
Cost share — The practice of allocating project or other funds
to pay a percentage of the cost of constructing or implement-
ing a BMP. The remainder of the costs are paid by the
producer.
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.
Culvert — Either a metal or concrete pipe or a constructed
box-type conduit through which water is carried under roads.
Designated uses — Uses specified in terms of water quality
standards for each water body or segment.
Detention basin — An area that accepts and retains storm-
water runoff in order to protect downstream water resources
from nonpoint source pollution.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) — The amount of oxygen available
for biochemical activity in a given amount (liter) of water.
Drainage area — An area of land that drains to one point.
Electroshocking — A technique in which electricity is applied
.to the water, which stuns the fish and allows them to be
collected, counted, and re-released.
Fecal coliform bacteria (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 with 48 hours at 35 degrees Celsius.
Fecal streptococci (FS) — Indicate the presence of fecal
contamination by warm-blooded animals. Although present in
feces, they are not known to multiply in the environment.
Filter strip — A strip of varying width, left in permanent
vegetation between waterways and land uses, to intercept and
filter pollutants before they enter a water resource.
Grab samples — A volume of water collected, by hand or
machine, during one short sampling period.
Geographic information systems (GIS) — Computer
programs linking features commonly seen on maps (such as
roads, town boundaries, water bodies) with related informa-
tion 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 observations can be spatially
referenced to each other.
Integrated crop management— A BMP system that
combines a wide array of crop production practices so that
agricultural nonpoint source pollution is minimized.
Land management—The management of land through the
use of BMPs in order to reduce nonpoint source runoff.
Land management monitoring — The recording or tracking
of land management activities.
Macroinvertebrate — Any non-vertebrate organism that is
large enough to been seen without the aid of a microscope and
lives in or on the bottom of a body of water.
National Water Quality Assessment— An ongoing U.S.
Geologic Survey project designed to assess historical, current,
and future water quality conditions in representative river
basins and aquifers nationwide. Consistent and comparable
water quality information is collected in 60 major river basins
that drain'50% of the U.S. landbase.
Nitrate — A reduced form of nitrogen that is mobile in soils
and can cause health problems for infants if the concentration
exceeds 10mg/l of nitrate-nitrogen.
19
-------
Nonpoint source (NFS) pollution—Pollution originating
from diffuse areas (land surface or atmosphere) having no
well-defined source.
Nonpoint source pollution controls — General phrase used to
refer to all methods employed to control or reduce nonpoint
source pollution.
NonPoint Source Management System (NPSMS) — A
software system designed to facilitate information tracking
and reporting for the USEPA 319 National Monitoring
Program projects.
Nutrient management—A BMP designed to minimize 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, or
timing.
Paired watershed design—In this design, two watersheds
with similar physical characteristics and, ideally, land use are
monitored for one to two years to establish pollutant-runoff
response relationships for each watershed. Following this
initial calibration period, one of the watersheds receives land
treatment while the other (control) watershed does not.
Monitoring of both watersheds continues for one to three
years.
Peak/low—The maximum flow or maximum rate at which
water runs off a site during a storm event.
Periphylon—Microscopic algae that attaches to submerged
aquatic vegetation.
Pesticide management—A BMP designed to minimize
contamination of soil, water, air, and nontarget organisms by
optimizing the amount, type, placement, method, and timing
of pesticide application for crop production.
Point source pollution—Water pollution that is generated
from an industrial process or a sewage treatment facility.
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol—A standard method
developed by USEPA to quickly assess aquatic health through
fish and macro-invertebrate diversity.
Riparian corridor—The area of land adjacent to the bank or
shoreline of a body of water.
Riparian vegetation — Vegetation that grows within the
riparian corridor.
Single-downstream station design — A water quality
monitoring design that uses one station at a point downstream
from an area of BMP implementation to monitor changes in
water quality.
Stormflow water quality samples — Samples of water
collected during runoff caused by storm events.
Total suspended solids (TSS) — All solids dissolved and
suspended.
Treatment watershed—The watershed that receives land
management under the paired watershed monitoring design.
Turbidity — The measurement of the degree to which light
travelling through a water column is scattered by the sus-
pended organic (including algae) and inorganic particles.
USD A Hydrologic Unit Area and Demo Projects — Water
quality projects, funded by the U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, that provide education and technical assistance to
producers and conduct research with the goal of avoiding
water quality degradation from agricultural practices.
Upstream/downstream design — A water quality monitoring
design that uses two water quality monitoring sites. One
station is placed directly upstream from the area where BMP
implementation will occur and the second is placed directly
downstream from that area.
Water quality variables — A water quality constituent (for
example, total phosphorus pollutant concentration) or other
measured factor (such as streamflow, rainfall).
Watershed — The area of land from which rainfall (and/or
snow melt) drains into a stream or other water body. Water-
sheds are also sometimes referred to as drainage basins or
drainage areas.
20
-------
The authors would like to acknowledge the help of project personnel in providing
information and pictures, editing, and in some cases writing material for this publication.
Thanks to Marlon Cook (Alabama), Gordon Southam (Arizona), Karen Worcester
(California), Jack Clausen (Connecticut), Jim Osiensky (Idaho), Don Roseboom (Illinois),
Lynette Seigley and Carol Thompson (Iowa), Adele Shirmohammadi (Maryland), John
Suppnick (Michigan), Greg Michl (Nebraska), Will Harman (North Carolina), John Hassell
(Oklahoma), Rick Hafele (Oregon), Dan Galeone (Pennsylvania), Bill Stewart (South
Dakota), Don Meals (Vermont), Keith Seiders (Washington), and Mike Miller (Wisconsin).
3,000 copies of this public document were printed at a cost of $7,900.00, or $2.63 per copy.
-------
North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE & LIFE SCIENCES
------- |