United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(4503F)
EPA841-S-97-004
September 1997
&EPA
Section 319
National Monitoring Program
Projects
1997 Summary Report
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
-------
1997 SUMMARY REPORT
SECTION 319
NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM
PROJECTS
National Nonpoint Source Watershed Project Studies
NCSU Water Quality Group
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7637
Deanna L. Osmond Steven W. Coffey Daniel E. Line Jean Spooner
Jean Spooner, Group Leader — Co-Principal Investigator
Frank J. Humenik, Program Director — Co-Principal Investigator
U.S. EPA — NCSU-CES Grant No. X825012
Steven A. Dressing
Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Washington, DC
September 1997
-------
Disclaimer
This publication was developed by the NCSU Water Quality Group, North Carolina State University, a part
of the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) Grant No. X825012. 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. Thanks to Melinda Pfeiffer, Cathy
Akroyd, Judith Gale, Janet Young, and Laura Lombardo, who edited this publication. Additional thanks to
Jo Beth Mullens and Jill Saligoe-Simmel, formerly of Oregon State University Water Resource Research
Institute, and Judith A. Gale, formerly of the NCSU Water Quality Group, for their contributions toward the
preparation of the project profiles.
Citation
This publication should be cited as follows: Osmond, D.L., S.W. Coffey, D.E. Line, and J. Spooner. 1997.
1997 Summary Report: Section 319 National Monitoring Program Projects, National Nonpoint Source
Watershed Project Studies, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Desktop Publishing and Design by:
Janet Young
-------
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 2: Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project Profiles 5
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 25
Connecticut — Jordan Cove Urban Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 41
Idaho — Eastern Snake River Plain
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 49
Illinois — Lake Pittsfield
Section 319'
National Monitoring Program Project 63
Illinois — Waukegan River
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 73
Iowa — Sny Magill Watershed ,
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 81
Iowa — Walnut Creek
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 97
Maryland — Warner Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 107
Michigan — Sycamore Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 115
Nebraska — Elm Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 127
North Carolina — Long Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 139
Oklahoma — Peacheater Creek
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 151
in
-------
Oregon — Upper Grande Ronde Basin
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 161
Pennsylvania— Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 171
South Dakota — Bad River
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 181
Vermont — Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 189
Washington — Totten and Eld Inlet
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 201
Wisconsin — Otter Creek
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 213
Appendices 223
I. Minimum Reporting Requirements for
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Projects 225
II. Abbreviations 227
III. Glossary of Terms 231
IV. Project Documents and Other Relevant Publications 237
V. Matrix for Section 319
National Monitoring Program Projects 265
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:
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 Cove 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)
Waukegan River (Illinois) Project Location
Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Waukegan River (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)
..8
15
16
25
26
,41
,42
.49
.50
.61
.62
.63
.64
.73
.74
•81
.82
.97
Warner Creek (Maryland) Watershed
Project Location
Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Warner Creek (Maryland) Watershed
..98
107
108
-------
List of Figures (Continued)
Figure 21:
Figure 22:
Figure 23:
Figure 24:
Figure 25:
Figure 26:
Figure 27:
Figure 28:
Figure 29:
Figure 30:
Figure 31:
Figure 32:
Figure 33:
Figure 34:
Figure 35:
Figure 36:
Figure 37:
Figure 38:
Figure 39:
Figure 40:
Sycamore Creek (Michigan) Project Location.
Paired Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
the Sycamore Creek (Michigan) Watershed...
Elm Creek (Nebraska) Watershed
Project Location
Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Elm Creek (Nebraska) Watershed
Long Creek (North Carolina) Watershed
Project Location
Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Long Creek (North Carolina) Watershed ,
Peacheater Creek (Oklahoma)
Project Location ,
Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Peacheater Creek (Oklahoma) Watershed
Upper Grande Ronde Basin (Oregon) Project Location.
Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Upper Grande Ronde Basin (Oregon)
Pequea and Mill Creek (Pennsylvania) Watershed
Project Location
Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Pequea and
Mill Creek (Pennsylvania) Watershed ,
Bad River (South Dakota) Project Location
Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Bad River (South Dakota) ,
Lake Champlain Basin (Vermont) Watersheds
Project Location
Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Lake Champlain Basin (Vermont) Watersheds
Totten and Eld Inlet (Washington)
Project Location
Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Totten and Eld Inlet (Washington)
Otter Creek (Wisconsin) Watershed
Project Location
Water Quality Monitoring Stations for
Otter Creek (Wisconsin)
.. 115
.. 116
.. 127
. 128
. 139
. 140
. 151
. 152
. 161
. 162
. 171
. 172
. 181
. 182
. 189
. 190
.201
.202
,213
214
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 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 feasibil-
ity of controlling nonpoint sources, and to improve the technical understanding of
nonpoint source pollution and the effectiveness of nonpoint source control technol-
ogy and approaches. These objectives are to be achieved through intensive monitor-
ing and evaluation of a subset of watershed projects funded under Section 319
(USEPA, 1991).
The Section 319 NMP projects comprise a small subset of nonpoint source pollu-
tion 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
negotiations 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, emphasis
is placed on projects that have a high probability of documenting water quality
improvements from nonpoint source 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 nonpoint source 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 nonpoint source 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 problems; 2) a Monitor-
ing Plan File for the monitoring designs, stations, and parameters; 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 20 Section 319 NMP projects approved as
of September 1, 1997. Project profiles (Chapter 2) were prepared by the North
Carolina State University (NCSU) Water Quality Group under the USEPA grant
entitled National Nonpoint Source Watershed Project Studies. Profiles have been
reviewed and edited by personnel associated with each project.
The 19 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),
Waukegan River (Illinois),,Sny Magill Watershed (Iowa), Walnut Creek (Iowa),
Warner,Creek Watershed (Maryland), Sycamore Creek Watershed (Michigan), Elm
Creek Watershed (Nebraska), Long Creek Watershed (North Carolina), Peacheater
Creek (Oklahoma), Upper Grande Ronde Basin (Oregon), Pequea and Mill Creek
Watershed (Pennsylvania), Bad River (South Dakota), Lake Champlain Basin
Watersheds (Vermont), Totten and Eld Inlet (Washington), and Otter Creek (Wis-
consin). The 20th project, Snake River Plain, Idaho, is a pilot ground water project.
Two of the projects focus on urban sources, while the others primarily address
agricultural sources. Nearly all of the projects address river or stream problems,
while several projects are intended to directly benefit a lake, estuary, or bay. One of
the projects js focused on ground water protection. 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.
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
REFERENCES
Dressing, S.A. and J. Hill. 1996. Nonpoint Source Management System Software:
A Tool for Tracking Water Quality and Land Treatment.'IN: Proceedings Water-
shed '96 Moving Ahead Together Technical Conference and Exposition. Water
Environment 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. 1995. Section 319 National Monitoring Program Projects. EPA-841-S-
96-001, 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.
USEPA. 1996c. Section 319 National Monitoring Program Projects. EPA-841-S-
96-002, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
-------
Chapter 2
Section 319
National Monitoring Program
Project Profiles
-------
Chapter 2: Project Profiles
This chapter contains a profile of each of the Section 319 National Monitoring
Program projects approved as of September 1, 1997, arranged in alphabetical order
by state.
Each profile begins with a brief project overview, followed by detailed information
about the project, including water resource description; project area characteristics;
information, education, and publicity; nonpoint source control strategy; water
quality monitoring program information; total project budget; impact of other
federal and state programs; other pertinent information; and project contacts.
Sources used in preparation of the profiles include project documents and review
comments made by project coordinators and staff.
Project budgets have been compiled from the best and most recent information
available.
Abbreviations used in the budget tables are as follows:
Proj Mgt Project Management
I&E... Information and Education
LT Land Treatment
WQ Monit Water Quality Monitoring
NA Information Not Available
A list of project documents and other relevant publications for each project may be
found in Appendix IV.
-------
Alabama
Lightwood Knot Creek
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Alabama
Project Area
o
Figure 1: Lightwood Knot Creek (Alabama) Project Location
-------
Lightwood Knot Creek, Alabama
EXPLANAT ION
SCALE
0
Lightwood Knot Creek-
ITIrNnV W. F. Jackson Lake
Watarshod
Specific project area
Control sampling site
and number
1 MltES
3
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 South-
eastern Alabama (Figure 1). Jackson Lake was constructed for recreational uses in
1987. The 47,300-acre watershed is approximately half forested and half in agricul-
ture. Pasture, hayland, cropland, and poultry production are the dominant agricul-
tural land uses.
Erosion in the Lightwood Knot Creek watershed and resulting sedimentation of
Jackson Lake and disposal of animal wastes are major water quality problems.
Numerous areas have been identified as sources of sediment. Types of erosion
occurring include sheet, rill, ephemeral, and erosion along unpaved roads. Nutrients
and bacteria from cattle and poultry operations are also 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 sets of watersheds has
a control and treatment watershed. These watersheds are small, ranging from 75 to
240 acres. Monitoring is conducted weekly for all parameters (see Water Quality
Monitoring section below) from April through August. Only inorganic and physical
parameters are monitored for the remainder of the year.
A geographic information system (GIS) is used to map soil, land use practices,
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 are being 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. Disposal of
animal wastes and sedimentation of tributaries and the lake are primary concerns.
Excessive sediment impairs aquatic life habitat, increases bridge maintenance costs,
increases flooding potential, and reduces the capacity of Jackson Lake. Elevated
levels of nitrogen and phosphorus and elevated fecal bacteria counts have been
found in Lightwood Knot tributaries.
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.
-------
Lightwood Knot Creek, Alabama
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Modifications Since
Project initiated
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
The main objective of the project is to achieve and document water quality im-
provements in the treatment subwatersheds through the implementation of BMPs.
None.
1996 to 2002
1996
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorological Factors
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. Coastal plain sediments of the tertiary aged lisbon and tallahatta formations
outcrop in the project subwatersheds. Average annual rainfall is 56 inches and
average annual runoff-is 23 inches.
Land Use
Land Use
Crop
Pasture/hay
Forest
Residential
Lake
Total
Percent
23
26
47
2
2
100
Pollutant Sources
Modifications Since
Project Started
Pollutant sources vary from agricultural fields and roads to confined animal opera-
tions. Numerous areas have been identified for erosion control BMPs. There are 15
poultry operations that are potential sources of nonpoint source pollution.
None.
INFORMA TION, EDUCA TION, AND PUBLICITY
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
A program of educational outreach and information distribution was initiated in
April, 1996.
A "water watch" citizens monitoring group is being established in the watershed.
Numerous presentations, field tours, and demonstrations have occurred since
initiation of the project.
10
-------
Lightwood Knot Creek, Alabama
NONPOINTSOURCE CONTROL STRA TEGY
Description
Modifications Since
Project Started
Selected BMPs will be used for erosion control in the watershed, depending upon
site conditions. Land treatment is scheduled to begin two years after the start of
baseline monitoring. Erosion control practices include runoff and sediment control
structures, critical area planting, cover and green manure crops, and pasture and
hayland management.
Animal waste management practices include poultry litter storage, mortality
composting, and water utilization.
None.
WA TER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
Parameters
Measured
Two paired watershed studies are being conducted on tributaries of Lightwood
Knot Creek (Figure 2). There are two control watersheds and two treatment water-
sheds. 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
monitoring study has been completed (approximately seven years).
None.
Biological
Aquatic habitat assessment and biotic indexing
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 (NOa)
Nitrate + nitrite (NOa +
Orthophosphate (OP)
11
-------
Lightwood Knot Creek, Alabama
PH
Selenium (Se)
Silica (Si)
Silver (Ag)
Sulfate (SO4")
Tin (Sn)
Total dissolved phosphorus (TDP)
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Turbidity
Zinc (Zn)
Covariates
Bedload sediment
Flow
Precipitation
Specific conductance
Monitoring Scheme for the Lightwood Knot Creek Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Sites or
Design Activities
Two paired Tributary
watersheds subwatershcds
Primary
Parameters
p
NH3
N02
N03 + N02
DO
TDS
Turbidity
TSS
FC
FS
pH
Conductivity
Frequency of
Covariates WQ Sampling
Variable
Discharge Weekly
Precipitation Daily
15-minute event
Frequency of
Habitat/Biological
Assessment Duration
2 times per year 7 years
Sampling Scheme
Modifications Since
Project Started
Samples are taken weekly for all parameters from April through August. Total
dissolved solids, total suspended solids, and covariates are monitored monthly
during the remainder of the year.
Surface water quality monitoring at four project sites was initiated on April 1,1996.
Stream discharge, water level, specific conductance, and temperature data are
recorded at 15-minute intervals. Water samples are collected every 36 hours from
April to September and every 18 hours from to six storm event samples per week.
Water samples are analyzed for more than 30 constituents including metals and
nutrients. Continuous bedload sediment volumes are monitored for all four streams
and continuous rainfall data are collected at two sites. Because of the required short
holding time for samples used for bacteria and biochemical oxygen demand analy-
ses, these samples are collected as weekly grab samples from April to September.
Best management practices will be implemented in the two treatment watersheds.
No additional BMPs will be installed in the control watersheds until the monitoring
study has been completed (approximately seven years).
12
-------
Lightwood Knot Creek, Alabama
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
NPSMS Data
Summary
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
All chemical monitoring results collected during the Lightwood Knot Creek 319
National Monitoring project are entered into the USEPA STORET database and the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management's database. Biological data
are 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).
None.
Average concentrations of nitrate from April, 1996 through June, 1997, were 0.28
mg/L at site 1-C, 0.29 mg/L at site 2-S, 2.29 mg/L at site 3-C, and 2.00 mg/L at site
4-S. Average concentrations of phosphorus for the same period were 0.03 mg/L at
site 1-C, 0.07 mg/L at site 2-S, 0.08 mg/L at site 3-C, and 0.07 mg/L at site 4-S.
Maximum fecal coliform counts during the same period varied from 2,200 colonies
per 100 milliliters (col./lOO ml) to 14,300 col./lOO ml. Maximum fecal streptococ-
cus counts varied from 12,500 col/100 ml to more than 200,000 col./lOO ml.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The estimated budget for the Lightwood Knot Creek Section 319 National Monitor-
ing Program project for the life of the project is:
Project Element
Federal
Funding Source ($)
State Local
Proj Mgt
I&E
LT
WQ Monk
TOTALS
Source: Geological Survey of Alabama, 1995
120,693
NA
100,000
544,307
775,000
59,305
NA
NA
715,695
775,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sum
179,998
NA
100,000
1,270,002
1,550,000
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STA TE PROGRAMS
Modifications Since
Project Started
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 manage-
ment practices.
None.
13
-------
Lightwood Knot Creek, Alabama
OTHER PERTINENTIN FORM A TION
None.
PROJECT CONTA CTS
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; Fax (205) 349-2861
Internet: mcook@ogb.gsa.tuscaloosa.al.us
James D. Moore
Geological Survey of Alabama
420 Hackberry Lane
BoxO
Tuscaloosa, AL 35486-9780
(205) 349-2852; Fax (205) 349-2861
Internet: dmoore@ogb.gsa.tuscaloosa.al.us
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; Fax (205) 349-2861
Internet: mcook@ogb.gsa.tuscaloosa.al.us
Chuck Simon
Covington County Extension Agent
Box 519
Andalusia, AL 36420
David Kapaska-Merkel
Geological Survey of Alabama
420 Hackberry Lane
BoxO
Tuscaloosa, AL 35486-9780
(205) 349-2852; Fax (205) 349-2861
Internet: davidkm @ogb.gsa.tuscaloosa.al.us
14
-------
Arizona
Oak Creek Canyon
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 3: Oak Creek Canyon (Arizona) Project Location
15
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
/•—
/
;
/
Coconlno County
Yovopal County
r
^ Slide Rock
^^ Manzanita
Sampling Site (Upstream)
Sampling Site (Downstream)
Stream
Watershed Boundary
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 seg-
ment of water located in the canyon portion of Oak Creek, a 13-mile steep-walled
area of the creek that extends from the Mogollon Rim to the city limits of Sedona,
thirteen miles southward. 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 two locations: Slide Rock State Park and Pine Flats Campground. The
eleven-acre Slide Rock State Park is used by more than 350,000 swimmers .and
sunbathers each season and Pine Flats Campground accommodates approximately
10,000 campers each season. Such heavy use at both locations causes excess fecal
coliform and nutrient levels in 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.
A modified nested 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
Grasshopper Point (control). A modified nested 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 four years.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
Oak Creek cuts deep into the southern rim of the Colorado Plateau. It drops ap-
proximately 2,700 feet from its source along the Mogollon Rim to its convergence
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).
17
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Current Water
Quality Objectives
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 re-
source; 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 pathogens and excess nutrients 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 the high usage of the camp-
grounds and day-use swimming areas by over 350,000 people from May through
September, residential septic systems, and natural and grazing animal populations.
Excessive nutrients, particularly phosphorus, which exceeds the 0.10 mg/I 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. These
sources of pollution threaten all designated uses.
Water Recreation and Camping Areas
Human pathogens (protozoa, bacteria, and viruses) contaminate the Canyon seg-
ment of Oak Creek. Most of the attention has focused upon Slide Rock State Park
and Grasshopper Point, the two managed "swimming holes" in the area. Fecal
coliform counts peak in the summer during the height of the tourist season.
Fecal Coliform Levels During the Tourist Season (1993)
Fecal Coliform Count
Date fcfu/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/I)
Date P f mg/1)
February, 1993 0.12
March, 1993 0.20
April, 1993 0.12
June, 1993 0.14
July, 1993 0.28
August, 1993 0.41
Water Recreation Project Objectives
• A 50% reduction in fecal coliform
• A 20% reduction in nutrients, particularly ammonia
Camping Project Objectives
• A 50% reduction in fecal coliforms
• A 20% reduction in nutrients
18
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
The Slide Rock State Park parking lot study has been discontinued.
1994 to 1998
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 water-
shed are confined or artesian. Within the Oak Creek watershed, ground water flow
is generally to the south, paralleling topography toward the low-lying valley floor.
Land Use Acres %.
Road 55 6
Campground and Parking Lots 123 14
Business and Residential 245 27
Floodplain 290 32
Undeveloped 194 21
TOTAL 907 100
Source: The Oak Creek 319(h) Demonstration Project National Monitoring Program Work
Plan, 1994
Pollutant Sources
Modifications Since
Project Started
Pollutants in Oak Creek addressed in this study originate mainly from swimmers
and campers. DNA analyses are being performed to verify sources of bacteria
contamination.
None.
INFORM A TION, EDUCA TION, 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. •
19
-------
' Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
The Oak Creek Advisory Committee, which was formed in 1992, involves federal,
state, and local government agencies and private organizations such as Keep
Sedona Beautiful and the Arizona River Coalition. The committee meets monthly
to keep participants informed of current project activities and results, gain insights
into areas of concern, and learn about the BMPs that are being implemented as part
of the 319 National Monitoring Program.
With respect to the proposed Public Education Campaign for the Oak Creek
Canyon Section 319 National Monitoring Program project, the following events
have transpired:
• The U.S. Forest Service prepared a Public Education Plan for Slide Rock State
Park and hired a public education specialist to continue and expand the public
education effort.
• The Arizona State Parks staff have developed 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 swim-
ming area are being enhanced. Park officials are attempting to reduce the amount
of trash disposal in unauthorized areas. Finally, social strategies have been imple-
mented to promote compliance with park regulations.
Pine Flats and Manzanita (Campgrounds Project)
The nonpoint source control strategy for the campground project targets the
upstream site of Pine Flats. Best management practices implemented at Pine Flats
are designed to reduce pollutants associated with human use of campground
facilities. The BMPs implemented include 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.
None.
The Oak Creek Task Force has implemented the following BMPs:
• Erecting nearly one mile of permanent barricades on State Highway 89 A,
reducing the number of visitors having access by approximately one-half
• Modernizing the single restroom located at the swimming area and
maintaining a bridge to the facility
WA TER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
The water recreation project, which is a modified nested 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 (treatment site) and Grasshopper Point (the control site) are compared. Water
quality monitoring stations are located above and below each swimming area.
20
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Modifications Since
Project Started
Parameters
Measured
Sampling Scheme
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).
The two-year 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 (Critical Parameters)
Fecal coliform (FC)
Chemical and Others (Critical Parameters)
Ammonia (NHs)
Nitrate (NOs)
Phosphate (PO43")
Covariates (Noncritical Parameters)
Water temperature
Stream velocity and level
Number of users of the sites
Weekly precipitation
Alkalinity
Calcium (Ca2+)
Chloride (CD
Conductivity
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Magnesium (Mg )
PH
Potassium (K+)
Sodium (Na+)
Turbidity
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.
21
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
The monitoring scheme for the projects is presented as follows.
Monitoring Scheme for the Oak Creek Canyon Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Activity/ Critical Monitoring Noncritical
Design Sites* Parameters Covariates Frequency
Time
Duration
— Water Recreation
Upstream/
downstream
Slide Rock (T)
Grasshopper
Point (C)
Camping
Pine Flats (T)
Manzanita (C)
L_
FC
NH3/NH4+
N03-
PO43'
BOD
Alkalinity 9/15-5/15 monthly 10 am -5pm
Ca2+ 5/15-9/15 weekly Saturdays
cr
Conductivity
DO
Mg2+
pH
K+
Rainfall
Streamflow
Turbidity
Visitor count
Water temperature
2 years pre-BMP
2 years BMP
* T = the treatment site; C = the control site
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
NPSMS Data
Summary
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
The Slide Rock Parking Lot study has been discontinued.
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 parameters
between treatment and control locations.
Project personnel have concluded that a significant amount (30.79%) of the ammo-
nia recorded at the Slide Rock downstream is added into the water column between
the upstream and downstream location. The ammonia source may result from
visitors urinating in the water or on the terrain nearby or may be released into the
water column from roiled sediments.
Approximately 98% of the time, fecal coliforms are added in significant amounts
(88.2%) into the water column between upstream and downstream sites at Slide
Rock.
22
-------
Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
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) histori-
cally and during this project are typically detected during the "monsoon season" —
roughly between July 15 and September 15 of each year. If visitors were the sole
source of elevated fecal pollution, 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; therefore, there must be one or more other sources of
fecal coliform. Northern Arizona University is currently using restriction fragment
length polymorphism to genotype Escherichia coli populations in Oak Creek to
differentiate between human and animal sources of pollution.
Personnel from the Oak Creek Task Force continue to explore two possible sources
of fecal pollution occurring at downstream Slide Rock: 1) visitors pollute the water
directly by depositing excrement into the water or on the land nearby (which is
washed into the water) and 2) visitors pollute the water indirectly by roiling fecal-
laden sediments washed downstream to the Slide Rock area.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The estimated budget for the Oak Creek Canyon Section 319 National Monitoring
Program project for the life of the project is:
Funding Source ($)
Federal State Local Total
330,000 87,000 288,000 705,000
Modifications Since
Project Started
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality has decided not to fund the Oak
Creek Canyon National Monitoring Program project after the funding from Region
IX of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is discontinued (spring, 1998).
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
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.
23
-------
1 Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona
Modifications Since
Project Started
• 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 PERTINENTINFORMA TION
None.
PROJECT CONTA CTS
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: Gordon.Southam@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: Richard.Foust@nau.edu
Statistical
Analysis
Dr. Gordon Southam
Department of Biological Sciences
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5640
(520) 523-8034; Fax: (520) 523-7500
Internet: Gordon.Southam@nau.edu
Dr. Brent Burch
Mathematics
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5717
(520) 523-6875; Fax: (520) 523-5847
Internet: Brent.Burch@nau.edu
24
-------
California
Morro Bay Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 5: Morro Bay (California) Watershed Project Location
25
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Managed Grazing Project
Paired Watersheds
Camp SLO NRCS
Management Plan
Cnorro Flats
Floodplain/Sediment
Retention Project
N
Cattle Exclusion Projects
Martinez
Conservation
Easement
Legend
C = Chumash Station
W= Walters 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)
26
-------
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 bound-
aries 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
estyary is considered to be one of the least altered estuaries on the California coast.
Heavy development activities, caused by an expanding population in San Luis
Obispo County, have placed increased pressures on water resources in the water-
shed.
Various nonpoint source pollutants, including sediment, bacteria, metals, nutrients,
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 Moni-
toring 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 watershed
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 watershed.
Chorro Creek and its tributaries originate along the southern flank of Cuesta Ridge,
at elevations of approximately 2,700 feet. Currently three stream gauges are present
in the Chorro Creek watershed: one each on the San Luisito, San Bernardo, and
Chorro creeks. The San Bernardo gauge became inoperable in 1996; a new gauge
has yet to be installed. Annual discharge is highly variable, ranging from approxi-
mately 2,000 to over 20,000 acre-feet, and averaging about 5,600 acre-feet. Flow 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).
27
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Morro Bay is one of the few relatively intact natural estuaries on the Pacific Coast
of North America. The beneficial uses of Morro Bay include recreation, industry,
navigation, marine life habitat, shellfish harvesting, commercial and sport fishing,
wildlife habitat, and rare and endangered species habitat.
A number offish species (including anadromous fish, which use the Bay during a
part of their life cycle) have been negatively 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. Trout are still
found in both streams, but ocean-run fish have been greatly reduced. However,
several reports of sitings have occurred in the past two years. The Tidewater Goby,
a federally endangered brackish-water fish, has been eliminated from the mouths of
both Chorro and Los Osos creeks, most likely as a result of sedimentation of pool
habitat in combination with excessive water diversion.
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Current Water
Quality Objectives
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 continu-
ally elevated levels of total and fecal coliform, the California Department of Health
Services has reclassified the Bay from "conditional" to "restricted." Reclassifica-
tion to "restricted" requires changes in harvesting practices, which have cost
prohibitive for existing operations and have resulted in closure of a significant
portion of the growing area. 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, exceeding 1,600 Most Probable Number/100
ml, have generally been found in streams in areas where cattle impact is heavy. The
most probable sources of year round coliform pollution to the Bay, however, are
failing septic systems and boater discharges.
The two creeks that flow into the estuary (Chorro Creek and Los Osos Creek) are
listed as impaired by sedimentation, metals, temperature, and agricultural nonpoint
source pollution by the State of California (Central Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Board, 1993). Nutrients are also a pollutant of concern in both drainages.
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 sedi-
mentation, 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.
28
-------
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 to June 30, 2003
1993
PROJECT ARE A 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 north-
east 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 westwardjnto Chorro
and Los Osos creeks, which drain into the Bay. The 400-acre salt marsh has devel-
oped 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 potential
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. Typical
rangeland operations consist of approximately 1,000 acres of highly productive
grasslands supporting cow-calf enterprises. Brushlands make up another 19% of the
watershed area. Agricultural crops (truck, field, and grain crops), woodlands, and
urban areas encompass approximately equal amounts of the landscape in the water-
shed.
29
-------
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
SL
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 sediment
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, 1989bJ. The greatest contribution of sediment to
the Bay originates from upland brushlands (37%) because of the land's steepness,
parent material, lack of undercover, and wildfire potential. 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 re-
sulted in accelerated erosion. Other watershed sources that contribute to sediment
transport into Morro Bay include abandoned mines, poorly maintained roads,
agricultural croplands, streambank erosion, 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, Chumash, 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.
INFORM A TION, EDUCA TION, 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 work-
shops 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 are regularly made to groups such as Friends of the Estuary, Cal Poly State
University (Cal Poly), Cuesta Community College, and the Morro Bay Task Force.
Presentations on the monitoring program were also made at a Regional Water
Quality Control Board public hearing and at the annual Soil and Water Conserva-
tion Society Conference (California Chapter). A paper will be given on the program
at the International Symposium on Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming in Xi'an,
China, in September of 1997.
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 Coun-
cil, and Cal Poly Coastal Resources, Soil Science, Limnology, and Marine Biology
classes. Publicity generated has included excellent articles in the local newspaper, a
radio program, and a featured spot on the local evening news.
30
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
NONPOINTSOURCECONTROL 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, 5) installing
water bars and culverts on farm roads where needed, and 6) removing and stabiliz-
ing a failed on-stream stock pond. During the project, riparian vegetation is ex-
pected 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 implementa-
tion.
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 has been developed 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 and watering systems have been installed to allow rotational grazing of
pastures on the 1,400-acre Maino ranch (managed grazing project)
The goals for these projects during the next 10 years are to achieve:
• A 33.8% decrease in 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 sediment
deposition area. '
Paired Watershed Study: Funding was acquired through CWA 319(h) for imple-
mentation of improvements on the paired watershed. A Technical Advisory Com-
mittee was formed and has expanded its focus to include monitoring projects
throughout the entire Morro Bay watershed. Implementation for land improve-
ments on the Chumash Creek watershed is nearly complete. Implementation has
included construction of riparian pastures, additional upland pastures, installation
of watering troughs, culvert improvements, and revegetation and stabilization of
portions of the corridor. Removal and stabilization of an on-stream stock pond will
be completed in 1997.
Flood Plain Sediment Retention Project: The Chorro Flats project obtained funding
($960,000) for implementation of the Flood Plain Restoration Project. All environ-
mental documents and engineering designs have been completed. Construction of
the project and revegetation will be completed in 1997.
Cattle Exclusion Project: Dairy Creek fencing for riparian exclusion was completed
in the summer of 1995.
31
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Managed Grazing Project: In 1994, the Maino Ranch completed installation of
watering devices and fencing, and the land is being managed as planned in a timed
grazing project.
WA TER 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 man-
agement practices.
The paired watershed monitoring plan entails three specific monitoring techniques:
stream flow/climatic monitoring, water quality monitoring, and biological/habitat
monitoring. The calibration period (the period during which the two watersheds are
monitored to establish statistical relationships between them) has been completed
(1994/95 and 1995/96). Beginning in 1995/96, 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 have been established at different locations in the Morro
Bay watershed. Water quality is 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. Changes in channel profile rangeland composition and benthic
invertebrate composition are also part of the monitoring design at these sites.
In addition to BMP effectiveness monitoring, ongoing water quality sampling is
taking place at selected sites throughout the Morro Bay watershed to document
long-term changes in overall water quality and to discern problem areas in need of
further restoration efforts.
Because of very limited runoff during the 1993-1994 sampling year, only one
sampling event occurred. However, because of extreme wetness during the 1994-
1995 rainy season, a number of sampling events were captured. Water quality and
flow data were obtained in the 1995-1996 rainy season after the implementation of
some BMPs. This year is characterized as a "during BMP implementation" year,
but may be combined with baseline data due to minimal changes in land condition
over this short time period.
Biological
Total and fecal coliform (FC)
Riparian vegetation
Upland rangeland vegetation
In-stream benthic invertebrates
32
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Sampling Scheme
Chemical and Other
Suspended solids (SS) (total filterable solids)
Turbidity
Nitrate (NOs)
Phosphate (PO43~)
Conductivity
PH
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Temperature
Physical
Cross-sectional stream profile
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, NO3,
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 sediment
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 auto-
mated sampling equipment set at even intervals (30-minute). The water collected
from each individual sample are analyzed for SS, turbidity, and conductivity.
Streamflow and climatic data are also collected for hydrologic response of water-
sheds. Flow is measured at 5-minute intervals during events.
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 moni-
tored 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 document
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. Samples are collected during
April and May at a number of sites, including several upstream-downstream pairs.
33
-------
Monitoring Scheme for
Design
Paired
Upstream/
downstream
Upstream/
downstream
Single
downstream
Sites or
Activities
Chumash
CreekTand
Walters Creek c
Chorro Flats
Sediment
Retention
Project
Dairy Creeks
Cattle Exclusion
Project
Maino Ranch
Managed
Grazing
Project
itershed, California
the Morro Bay Watershed Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Frequency
Primary
Parameters
Total & FC
Riparian vegetation
SS
Turbidity
NO3
PO43'
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 and weekly grab
samples thereafter
for 20 weeks.
Storm event based
monitoring
(every 30 minutes).
Storm event
monitoring
(hourly)
Weekly during
rainy season
starting around
Nov. 15.
Weekly during
the rainy season.
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 1 st, 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
1 yr pre-BMP
1/2 yr BMP
7 yrs post-BMP
0-1 yr pre-BMP
8 yrs post-BMP
TTreatmcnl 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 sedi-
ment 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 has been
developed to convert past years' data to filterable solids. Conductivity will no
longer be measured for each suspended sediment sample during event monitoring
as it has not proved to be of significant interest. 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 discontinued
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. A continuously recording turbidimeter will
be installed at Chorro Flats to provide additional data on storm events.
34
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
The winter of 1993-1994 was relatively dry, with only two runoff events. In con-
trast, the 1994-1995 rainy season was characterized by above average precipitation
and periods of flooding. The 1995-1996 winter was more representative of normal
rainfall events and streamflow levels in the watershed. Sediment, turbidity, 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. All
data are now archived in a single repository. To ensure that data are archived in a
consistent format and a chain of audit record on all data stream manipulations is
maintained, a Master's student in Computer Science is developing additional
programming aides for data management. A data management program has been
developed in Excel format, which allows easy statistical manipulation and display
of data files. A web site has been developed for the program, which includes copies
of all annual reports, statistical and data management .programs, raw data, and
graphics (still in development at www.paradiesproductions.com).
A Quality Assurance Project Plan, for project water quality sampling and analysis,
has been developed by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The plan is used to assure the reliability and accuracy of sampling, data recording,
and analytical measurements.
Data Analysis
A statistician has recently been added to the team; therefore, a more detailed
analysis of data is anticipated in the next year. The baseline sampling period has
been completed and the first year of post-BMP data have been collected. Initial
analysis of data has focused on determining minimum-detectable change and
comparing even interval data results to event data. Even-interval data are found to
best be utilized for examining pollutant parameters which are less directly tied to
storm events, such as dissolved oxygen and temperature. Event interval data are
most effective at examining sediment and turbidity relationships, as these param-
eters are most directly tied to storm events.
The data was examined in a variety of ways, including simple creek-to-creek
regressions, regressions of flow-weighted pollutant parameters, double mass curves,
regressions of flux- and time-weighted averages of event data, time-series plots, and
flow-averaging.
Basic regressions of flow-weighted event data resulted in the following relation-
ships:
Flow:
Turbidity:
Sediment:
y = 0.7177x + 0.060; r2 = 0.9265
y = 0.8332x + 0.6729; r2 = 0.7321
y = 0.7274x + 0.9682; r2 = 0.6333
Minimum Detectable Change (MDC) was calculated using the following formula,
where t is from a t-table, MSB is Mean Square Error, and n is sample size:
MDC = t2(n-l) sqrt(MSE95/n95 + MSE96/n96)
35
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
NPSMS Data
Summary
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
MDC was expressed as % decrease relative to initial concentration:
%Decrease = (l-10-MDC)* 100
When 1995 data were compared to 1996 data (log transformed), the following
results were obtained:
MDC (flow) = 10.5%
MDC (turb) = 24.2%
MDC (sed) = 27.2%
Our goal for sediment reduction estimated during project planning was 30%. Our
baseline data appears capable of detecting a change of this magnitude.
TOPMODEL is a physically-based hydrologic model which is being Used to model
periods of missing flow data, when equipment failures occurred. The model uses
rainfall, stream flow, temperature, and a variety of soil and soil hydraulic param-
eters. Model calibration is being undertaken in 1997.
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 submitted
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.
The program has made significant progress in data management and analysis. Data
handling has been greatly improved and streamlined, data storage has been pro-
vided for on a web site, and initial data analysis indicates that we should be able to
detect changes resulting from BMPs if sediment reduction goals are achieved.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The estimated budget for the Morro Bay Watershed Section 319 National Monitor-
ing Program project for the period of FY97 is:
Project Element
Proj Mgt
I&E
*LT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Funding Source ($)
Federal State Sum
20,000 N/A 20,000
25,000 N/A 25,000
130,000 1,593,500 1,723,500
55,000 20,000 75,000
230,000 1,613,500 1,843,500
* Land Treatment dollars are largely to be used for permanent structures. These funds will
be used for matching funds throughout the duration of the project, not just for the fiscal year.
The amounts shown will be utilized over the entire project period.
Source: Karen Worcester (Personal Communication), 1997
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
36
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STA TE PROGRAMS
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.
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 water-
shed. 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 upstream 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.
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 invasions
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.
37
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Modifications Since
Project Started
Twin Bridges, a major passage to Morro Bay which has undergone heavy sediment
deposition and flooding, was replaced in conjunction with plans to reroute South
Bay Boulevard over Ghorro Creek. Construction began in May of 1996 and was
completed in early winter. This bridge replacement will impact sediment deposition
processes at the lower end of Chorro Flats.
OTHER PERTINENTINFORMA TION
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 advo-
cacy group, is invaluable in its political support of Morro Bay. The Bay
Foundation, 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
watershed GIS database. The Bay Foundation also recently purchased satellite
photographs of the watershed, which will prove useful for the monitoring program
effort. The Bay Foundation co-wrote the nomination to the National Estuary
Program along with the Regional Board. The National Estuary Program, Friends of
the Estuary, and the Bay Foundation of Morro Bay are cooperating to develop a
volunteer monitoring program for the Bay itself. Ongoing volunteer efforts include
water quality and habitat monitoring.
PROJECT CONTA CTS
Administration
Land Treatment
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
38
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Water Quality
Monitoring
Karen Worcester
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
81 HigueraSt. Suite 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -0397
(805) 549-3333, Fax (805) 543-0397
Thomas J. Riee
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
39
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
40
-------
Connecticut
Jordan Cove Urban Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 7: Jordan Cove Urban Watershed (Connecticut) Project Location
41
-------
1 Jordan Cove Urban Watershed, Connecticut
Existing residential control watershed with contours (Waterford, CT)
STREET
TREES
Traditional subdivision watershed (Waterford, CT)
BMP subdivision watershed (Waterford, CT)
Figure 8: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Jordan Cove Urban Watershed (Connecticut) Watershed
42
-------
1 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 dis-
solved 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 43 lots on 13.9 acres, 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 coliform, 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
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
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 ar-
senic.
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.
None.
1996 to 2005
February, 1996
43
-------
Jordan Cove Urban Watershed, Connecticut
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorological Factors
Land Use
Pollutant Sources
Modifications Since
Project Started
The two developments designated as treatment watersheds combined cover about
17.5 acres and the residential control watershed is approximately 13.9 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 of 13.9 acres has 43 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.
None.
INFORM A TION, EDUCA TION, 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
Modifications Since
Project Started
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 construction (18
months). During this phase, nonstructural practices such as phased grading, imme-
diate seeding of stockpiled topsoil, maintenance of a vegetated open space perim-
eter, 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 fertil-
izer and pesticide management plans, animal (pets) waste management, and plant
waste pick-up. Structural practices such as grassed swales, detention basins, roof
runoff dry wells, pervious concrete 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.
None.
44
-------
^ Jordan Cover Urban Watershed, Connecticut
WA TER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
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 imple-
mentation monitoring phase.
None.
Biological
Fecal coliform (FC)
Chemical and Other
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Total phosphorus (TP)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Ammonia (NHs)
Nitrate + nitrite (NOs + NOa)
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 composite
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
Frequency of Habitat/Biological
WQ Sampling Assessment Duration
Paired BMP watershed TSS Rainfall
Traditional watershed TP Air temperature
Control watershed TKN Runoff
NH3
NO3+NO2
Storm-event
1 yr calibration
1.5 yr construction
7.5 yr post-BMP
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
45
-------
i Jordan Cove Urban Watershed, Connecticut
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
NPSMS Data
Summary
Modifications Since
Project Started
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.
None.
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
Funding Source ($)
State Local
Sum
NA
NA
NA
535,400
535,400
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15,000
NA
15,000
NA
NA
15,000
535,400
550,400
Modifications Since
Project Started
Source: Jack Clausen, Personal Communication (1996)
None.
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STA TE PROGRAMS
Unknown.
OTHER PERTINENTINFORMA TION
None.
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
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
46
-------
1 Jordan Cover Urban Watershed, Connecticut
Water Quality
Monitoring
Information and
Education
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
47
-------
' Jordan Cove Urban Watershed, Connecticut
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
N
Nevada
Figure 10: Eastern Snake River Plain (Idaho) USD A 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 approximately
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 irrigation
water. In 1990, this aquifer was designated by the U.S. Environmental 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 indicates the pres-
ence of elevated nitrate levels in the shallow aquifer underlying the project area.
The objective of a seven-year United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
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 management.
As part of the project, two paired-field monitoring networks (constructed to evalu-
ate best management practices (BMPs) for nutrient and irrigation water manage-
ment 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 irrigation
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 re-
charge 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 concentrations
of 10 mg/1 was exceeded in 16 % of the wells at least once during the sampling
period. Five percent of the wells yielded samples that 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 com-
pound. 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 to 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 a 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 dem-
onstration area have been formed as a result of wind and water deposition. Strati-
52
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Land Use
Pollutant Sources
Modifications Since
Project Started
fied loamy alluvial deposits and sandy wind deposits cover a permeable layer of
basalt. 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 remaining 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 prob-
lems in the shallow aquifer system. In addition, over 80 different agrochemicals
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.
INFORM A TION, EDUCA TION, 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 Demon-
stration Project I & E program.
Two Eastern Snake River Plain Demonstration Project brochures have been pub-
lished. 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.
The USDA Demonstration Project staff continue to provide the I&E program for
this project. University articles are produced on the demonstration project, and
project information is disseminated through university and producer conferences.
Presentations on the project are also made to the public through local and regional
outlets, such as the American Association of Retired Persons, Future Farmers of
America, local and regional agricultural producers, local irrigation districts and
canal companies, industry representatives, industry supply vendors, and primary
and secondary education institutions. In addition, a public information workshop is
held annually within the project area for project participants, cooperators, and
interested individuals.
Cooperating farm operations implementing improved management practices for
water quality are marked by project display boards to maximize exposure to the
local population. These operations are also visited during the numerous project
organized field trips.
Information has also been disseminated through local and regional television and
radio programs and newspaper articles.
53
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
NONPOINTSOURCE CONTROL STRA TEGYAND 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 nonpoint source control strategy for the 319 National Monitoring Program
project is to reduce applied water in the "F' field, and 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 management
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 partici-
pation lead to implementation of the same irrigation water supply system (sprinkler
irrigation) in both the BMP test field and the control field.
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.
Nonpoint source control strategy and design problems in the paired-field water
quality monitoring design are associated with coordination between project person-
nel and producers. Project staff have encountered difficulty interacting with produc-
ers during the growing season because of the heavy daily schedule of producers.
The type of crops produced and the production methods employed during baseline
monitoring have been changed during the experimental design. The original objec-
tive 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.
54
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Additionally, adequate monitoring has been difficult to achieve. Monitoring infor-
mation 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 pre-
sented significant challenges. As the monitoring project proceeds, new information
is obtained, analyzed, and applied. The original monitoring design was based on the
best available understanding of the local ground water system. Ground water
quality information gained during baseline monitoring demonstrated a high degree
of spatial variability in the paired fields. In order to address the spatial variability of
the system and document ground water quality changes resulting from land use, the
monitoring system has been expanded to provide a more intensive monitoring
system based on a geostatistical evaluation of data obtained. Sampling and mainte-
nance of this more intensive system has required more time and resources than
originally planned.
WA TER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
The 319 National Monitoring Program portion of the USDA Demonstration Project
incorporates two paired-field networks consisting of a total of 24 constructed 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. 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 moni-
toring 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 areal distribution
of lysimeters installed in 1994 was based on grain size analyses of soil samples
collected in the "F" and "M" fields.
s
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
55
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
Parameters
Measured
• 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 measured.
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
Sampling Scheme
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
A number of covariate monitoring activities have been undertaken by some of the
other agencies participating in the project. In addition, vadose zone suction lysim-
eters are being used to monitor NOa 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
semiannually.
56
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Monitoring Scheme for the Eastern Snake River Plain Section 319 National Monitoring
Program Project
Design Site
Paired field "M" field
Primary
Parameters
NOs
PH
Temperature
Conductivity
DO
TDS
TKN
NH+4
Pesticides
Covariates
Precipitation
Crop
Soil texture
Nutrient content of
the irrigation water
Frequency of
WQ Sampling
Monthly for primary
pollutants except
Pesticides (sampled)
semiannually)
and Nitrogen
(quarterly)
Duration
4 yrs pre-BMP
1 yr BMP
2 yrs post-BMP
Paired field "F" field
NO3
pH
Temperature
Conductivity
DO
TDS
TKN
NH+4
Pesticides
Precipitation
Crop
Soil texture
Nutrient content of
the irrigation water
4 yrs pre-BMP
1 yr BMP
2 yrs post-BMP
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
NPSMS Data
Summary
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
None.
The Idaho Division of Environmental Quality is entering raw water quality data in
the USEPA STORET system. Data are also entered into the USDA Water Quality
Project's Central Data Base, and the Idaho Environmental Data Management
System. Because this is a ground water project, the NonPoint Source Management
System (NPSMS) software has limited utility.
This project is using geostatistical analysis to evaluate 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 areal distribution of sampling
locations which ensures that spatial dependence of the parameter of interest can be
recognized if it exists. Geostatistical factors, which must be considered in the
design of a sampling plan, include the number of samples and the magnitude and
density of separation distances provided by a given configuration.
Not applicable.
None.
Baseline data are still being collected.
57
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Modifications Since
Project Started
Funds budgeted to the State for the Eastern Snake River Plain Section 319 National
Monitoring Program project for the period of FY92-98 is approximately $500,000.
This figure includes Section 319(h) funds utilized after the National Monitoring
Program project monies were suspended, as well as funds provided by the Idaho
Division of Environmental Quality and the Idaho Department of Agriculture for
additional water quality monitoring.
None.
IMP A CT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STA TE PROGRAMS
None.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMA TION
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 Re-
sources, 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 is that the NRCS and the CES are located
in the same office.
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.
58
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
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 domestic
wells. The herbicide Dacthal has been detected at low levels in samples collected
from one well during each sampling event. The same well yielded a single sample
with 2,4-D measured at 195 ppb. Other wells have yielded samples containing
nitrate-nitrogen as high as 30 mg/1. Concern generated by these data has led to site-
specific ground water investigations by the Idaho Division of Environmental
Quality and Idaho Department of Agriculture. The site-specific investigation
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 decreas-
ing 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 allowable
Safe Drinking Water MCL of 70 ppb.
PROJECT COttTA CTS
Administration
Jeff Bohr
USDA NRCS
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) 373-0576
Internet: cbidondo@deq.state.id.us
59
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Water Quality
Monitoring
Land Treatment
information and
Education
Mike Etcheverry
Water Quality Science Officer
Division of Environmental Quality
601 Pole Line Road, Suite 2
Twin Falls, ID 83301
(208) 736-2190; Fax (208) 736-2194
Internet: metcheve@deq.state.id.us
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
USDA NRCS
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
.23W
FPW
ISO
IX
,22V
FW4 7X
• A
16P
5X A*6X
FW3 4X
•
FW2
•
A11K
FW1
14N
1QJ
3X
8H
A *
7G 5E
FPNE
•
.21U
9X
. 10X
A3C
FPS
FPNW
20T . A 19S
A13X
17Q
18K
FE4
FE3
13M 121,
A A
FE1
2B
N
Monitoring Wells
completed at a depth of 10 ft.
KE1, FE2, FES, FE4,
FW1, FVC2, FW3, FW4,
FPS, FPW, FPNE, FPNW
Lysimeters
installed at a depth of 3 ft
IA to 23W
IX to 13X
(Instrument locations surveyed)
100
200ft
Field Map 1.
61
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
Snake River Plain
Water Quality Demonstration Project
Moncur Test Field: Burley, Idaho
Lysimeter and Monitoring Well Location Map
MPWN
•
MPWS
.32
.22
12
MW4
82
72
52
MW3
MW2
MW1
112
ME4
192
252
MPEN
242
ME3
132
. A
162 -44172
.142
202
232
122
212
152
ME1
^222
MPES
1 1
(Instrument locations are approximate)
Monitoring Wells
completed at a depth of 10 ft.
MW1, MW2, MW3. MW4,
MK1.ME2, ME3, ME4,
MPES, MPEN, MPWS, MPWN
H
200
400ft
Lysimeters
installed at a depth of 1.5 ft
12 to 252
Field Map 2.
62
-------
Illinois
Lake Pittsfield
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 11: Lake Pittsfield (Illinois) Location
63
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
L— Blue Creek
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 manage-
ment. An. information and education program on the implementation of best man-
agement 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, subwatersheds, 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 concen-
trations 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
Project Approval
Year of
Survey
1961
1974
1979
1985
1992
Lake Age
(Years)
13.5
18.3
24.3
31.5
Lake
Volume
ac-ft
3563
3069
2865
2760
2679
MG
1161
1000
933,
899
873
Sediment
Volume
ac-ft
494
697
803
884
MG
161
227
262
288
Original
Volume
Loss (%)
13.9
19.6
22.5
24.8
Source: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 1993
Long-term water quality monitoring data demonstrate that the lake has been, and
continues to be, hypereutrophic. In 1993, Lake Pittsfield's water quality was found
to exceed the Illinois Pollution Control Board's general use water quality standards
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 to September 30, 1995 (Watershed)
September 1, 1992 to 1994 (Monitoring Strategy)
Note: Money for monitoring is approved yearly. Contingent upon funding, monitor-
ing 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 prima-
rily 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 plow-
ing, and water control structures. Many terraces were constructed and most farmers
66
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
Pollutant Sources
Modifications Since
Project Started
adopted contour plowing. However, greater adoption of no-till and other soil
conserving BMPs is still needed.
Land Use Acres %_
Agricultural 3350.5 48
Forest/Shrub 1505.1 21
Pasture/Rangeland 1374.9 20
Residential 132.4 2
Reservoir/Farm Ponds 258.7 4
Roads/Construction 137.1 2
Park 197.5 3
TOTAL 6956.2 100
Source: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Springfield, IL.
Cropland, pasture, shoreline, and streambanks
None.
INFORMATION, EDUCA TION, 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.
NONPOINTSOURCE CONTROL STRA TEGY'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 management,
livestock exclusion, filter strips, and wildlife habitat management.
In order to reduce shoreline erosion, shoreline stabilization BMPs will be imple-
mented using Section 314 Clean Lakes Program funds. Old rip rap will be repaired,
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 Pitisfield, 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.
WA TER 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 is being 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 + NO2)
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 (stations
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 loads.
Three stations located on tributaries of either Blue Creek or Lake Pittsfield (stations
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
1 yr BMP
3 yrs post-BMP
2 yrs pre-BMP
1 yrBMP
3 yrs post-BMP
2 yrs pre-BMP
1 yrBMP
Lake
sedimentation
study
Shoreline erosion
severity survey
OP
TP
NH3 + NH+4
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
QUARTILEVALUES
-75- -50- -25-
cfs
Ibs/sec
in/day
mg/L
6.3
0.025
0.05
60
3.6
0.005
0.00
27
2.8
0.002
0.00
14
Farm Reporting
Type Units
PRIMARY CODE: Station B
Farm Reporting QUARTILEVALUES
Type Units -75- -50- -25-
S cfs 8.9 5.0 3.0
S Ibs/sec 0.081 0.023 0.008
S in/day 0.08 0.00 0.00
S mg/L 112 64 44
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Included nonpoint source national monitoring [tpypvp; for spring season at moni-
toring sites B and C, which includes 2 years of pre-BMP data, 1 year during BMP
implementation, and 3 years of sampling after BMP implementation.
Data have 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 ($)
Federal
NA
NA
689,000
455,000
32,000
132,110
State
NA
NA
459,333
NA
NA
NA
Local
NA
NA
NA
223,332
NA
132,110
Sum
NA
NA
1,148,333
678,332
32,000
264,220
1,308,110 459,333 355,442 2,122,885
Source: State of Illinois, 1993; State of Illinois, 1992; Gary Eicken (Personal
Communication), 1995
70
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
IMP A CT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STA TE PROGRAMS
In 1979, the Pike County SWCD began a Special Water Quality Project that en-
couraged 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.
In the fall of 1997, funding will be available from the Illinois EPA and the Illinois
Department of Agriculture for the construction of a series of low water crossing
(loose stone weirs) located on Blue Creek. This construction will help reduce the
increased amount of sedimentation monitored in the spring of 1996.
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
1998 or early 1989 to reclaim the original capacity of the lake. The delay in the
original proposal date is due to delays in the construction of the silt retention basin.
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
OTHER PERTINENTINFORMA TION
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 /
Water Quality
Monitoring /
Land Treatment
Scott Tomkins
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217) 782-3362; Fax (217) 785-1225
Internet: epal 170@epa.state,il.us
71
-------
Lake Pittsfield, Illinois
72
-------
Illinois
Waukegan River
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 13: Waukegan River (Illinois) Location
73
-------
Waukegan River, Illinois
iL-£ Project: Habitat Monitoring
jM: Section 3.0
iJIifv? Revision: Original
:| ;--:> Date: Nov. 2,1994
lfef Page: 3of5'
///'
' #7 ' / I
^ /' / I
Figure 14: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Waukegan River (Illinois)
74
-------
Waukegan River, Illinois
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The project locations for the Waukegan River Section 319 National Monitoring
Program project are located in Washington and Powell Parks in the City of
Waukegan, Illinois. The Waukegan River, located about 35 miles north of Chicago,
is 12.5 miles long. The watershed contains 7,640 acres, with major land uses
consisting of residential (50%), agricultural (13%), commercial (8%), and industrial
(3%). Washington Park represents the most urbanized reach of the river and is
located about 1/2 mile upstream from the river mouth on Lake Michigan. Powell
Park is located 1 mile from the riyer mouth and within a residential area. Most of
the watershed was urbanized prior to any requirements for stormwater detention.
Therefore, there is little control over stormwater quantity or quality, resulting in
flashy runoff rates and heavy stormwater pollutant loads. Water quality concerns
also include cross-connections between sanitary and storm sewers, potential sani-
tary sewer overflows during wet weather, severe streambank erosion, channel
downcutting, and artificial lining.
Erosion control along eroding stream channels has been repaired with vegetative
stabilization, structural stabilization, and habitat structures with vegetation. -
Lunkers, a-jacks, stone, dogwoods, willows, and grasses are being used to stabilize
severe bank erosion. A series of pool-and-riffle complexes were recreated by the
construction of low stone weirs from granite boulders in a channelized reach.
The Waukegan River Section 319 National Monitoring Program project is being
used to demonstrate the effectiveness of stream restoration techniques implemented
on the Waukegan River. The urban fisheries and stream habitat were surveyed
before implementation of the stream restoration techniques. Stream fisheries and in-
stream habitat are being surveyed to provide post-implementation data. The moni-
toring strategy includes macroinvertebrate sampling, physical habitat monitoring,
and fisheries monitoring during the spring, summer, and fall cycles of the project
period.
This project has demonstrated that biotechnical streambank stabilization techniques
are more cost-effective than traditional armoring approaches in reducing erosion
and also provide additional water quality and in-stream habitat benefits. It has been
shown that rock riffles and pools add to the in-stream physical diversity which in
turn leads to increased biodiversity. In addition to enhancing habitat, riffles and
pools are effective in reducing erosion of the streambed, improving stream stability
and increasing water aeration.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
The Waukegan River Section 319 National Monitoring Program project is located
in the northeastern corner of Illinois (Figure 13). The length of the Waukegan
River/Ravine main channel and tributaries, which drain predominantly urban areas
in Waukegan, IL, is approximately 12.5 miles. Discharge of the Waukegan River is
into Lake Michigan, just east of the downtown area and only 6,000 feet from the
City's fresh water intake.
As an urban stream, stormwater caused severe channel erosion. The primary
pollutant of concern is sediment. Severe bank erosion, due to unstable stream
channels and high velocity runoff, is increasing nonpoint source pollution loads into
Lake Michigan, breaking smaller sewer lines that were buried in the stream and
75
-------
Waukegan River, Illinois
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
endangering other sewer lines. In addition to the physical destruction, aquatic
habitat has been impaired due to lack of water depth in pools, limited cobble
substrates, and limited stream aeration.
Aquatic resources were limited by shallow pool depth and high summer water
temperatures. Fine silts filled both pools and runs to the extent that little rock
substrates were visible.
The purpose of the project is to restore the stream banks for the Waukegan River in
Washington Park and Powell Park, which have become a source of urban nonpoint
source pollution and a danger to the public. The detrimental effects of stormwater
runoff will be reduced or mitigated.
1994 to 1999
Note: Money for monitoring is approved yearly. Contingent upon funding, monitor-
ing is expected to be continued through 1999. This will allow for four years of post-
BMP implementation.
The project was initially funded in 1994 as a 319 Watershed Project. Monitoring
began in 1994 and was officially approved in 1996 as a Section 319 National
Monitoring Program project.
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
Land Use
Pollutant Sources
The project streams are located within two city parks (Powell and Washington) of
Waukegan, IL. The parks are located within an older, highly urbanized area of the
city.
The Waukegan River falls from 730 msl to 580 msl, with the steepest lands located
in Washington and Powell Parks.
The 7,640 acre watershed of the Waukegan River is largely urbanized, with over
80% of the City of Waukegan lying within the watershed boundaries. There are over
60,000 people living in Waukegan. Because this is an older town, there are very few
stormwater detention basins.
High volume of runoff from impervious surfaces is degrading the urban streams
within the Waukegan watershed. The steepest lands, and therefore the most eroded,
are located in Washington and Powell Parks along the Lake Michigan bluffs.
INFORM A TION, EDUCA TION, AND PUBLICITY
One of the sites on the South Branch of the Waukegan River in Washington Park
served as a training site for a streambank restoration class held during the Second
National Nonpoint Source Watershed Monitoring Workshop. Senior personnel from
the city's Public Works Department and the Waukegan District were taken through
the restoration and stabilization process before and during construction. These
individuals then helped with the next training during the Second Workshop.
76
-------
Waukegan River, Illinois
An urban stream restoration manual and video of the biotechnical streambank
restoration activities have been developed to highlight the biotechnical techniques
that were used in the restoration.
A videotape production and color brochure were developed which describe the
biotechnical stream stabilization techniques, the monitoring program, and the
physical and biological enhancements achieved.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGIES
Description
Biotechnical bank restoration (a combined vegetative and structural approach) was
selected to stabilize the streams. Erosion control along eroding stream channels will
be repaired using bioengineering techniques: vegetative stabilization, structural
stabilization, and habitat structures with vegetation.
Projects on the North Branch of the Waukegan River
Lunkers and a-jacks were installed in Powell Park. Lunkers with stone were in-
stalled in Washington Park. Willows, dogwood, grasses, and wetland plants were
planted in the lower, middle, and upper zones of the stream banks where lunkers
were installed. Two sampling stations, Nl and N2 (Figure 14), are utilized for
background data collection, but are not part of the Section 319 National Monitoring
Program project.
Projects on the South Branch of the Waukegan River
In 1994, lunkers, a-jacks, stone, dogwoods, willows, and grasses were used to
stabilize a severe bank erosion site on the South Branch of the Waukegan River.
Smaller bank erosion sites were stabilized with coir coconut fiber rolls, willows,
and grasses. Because the original bank stabilization efforts did not significantly
increase stream depth, in the winter of 1996, a series of six pool-and-riffle com-
plexes were recreated by the construction of low stone weirs from granite boulders
in this channelized reach.
WA TER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Parameters
Measured
An upstream/downstream habitat monitoring design is being used to document
water quality changes in the Waukegan River at the South Branch stations (SI & S2
— Figure 14). With this design, urban water quality will affect both the control (S2)
and the rehabilitated stations (SI) uniformly.
Biological parameters are measured during the spring, summer, and fall cycles of
the project period. Flow is measured continuously.
Biological
Fish samples
Macroinvertebrates
Habitat
Chemical and Other
None
77
-------
Waukegan River, Illinois
Sampling Scheme
Covariates
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Temperature
Flow
This is an upstream/downstream water quality monitoring design.
The biological sampling since 1994 indicates that the number offish species and
abundance in the South Branch has more than doubled with the construction of
lunkers and pool/riffle morphology. The Index of Biotic Integrity rose sharply from
degraded to moderately degraded.
Monitoring Scheme for the Waukegan River 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Design
Upstream/
Downstream
Sites or
Activities
South Branch
Stations SI &S2
Primary
Parameters
Fish samples
Macroinvertebrates
Habitat
Covariates
DO
Temperature
Flow
Frequency of
WQ Sampling
Seasonal, 3x's/year
Duration
1 yr pre-BMP
1 yr BMP
4 yr post-BMP
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
Water quality data are stored and maintained in the USEPA NonPoint Source
Management System (NPSMS) databases.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The estimated budget for the Waukegan River Section 319 National Monitoring
Program project for the life of the project is based on two years of funding, with
four years completed (1992-1996):
Project Element
Proj Mgt
I&E
BT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Federal
40,000
2,000
2,000
6,000
50,000
Funding Source ($)
State
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Local
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
sum
40,000
2,000
2,000
6,000
50,000
Source: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Personal Communication, 1997)
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STA TE PROGRAMS
This project was originally funded with Section 319 funds. Local contractors are
utilizing lunkers and a-jacks in constructing housing developments along stream
sites.
78
-------
OTHER PERTINENTINFORMA TION
Participating agencies and organizations:
• Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
• Illinois Department of Natural Resources
• Illinois State Water Survey
• Private Contractor
• University of Illinois at Champaign—Urbana
• Waukegan Park District
• Waukegan Public Works Department
PROJECT CONTACTS
Waukegan River, Illinois
Administration /
Water Quality
Monitoring /
River Restoration
Treatment
Scott Tomkins
Illinois EPA - Planning Section
Division of Water Pollution Control
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217)782-3362; Fax (217) 785-1225
Internet: epall70@epa.state.il.us
79
-------
Waukegan River, Illinois
80
-------
Iowa
Sny Magill Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Project Area
Iowa
Figure 15: Sny Magill and Bloody Run (Iowa) Watershed Project Locations
81
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Legend
• Weekly Monitoring Site
JL. Monthly Monitoring Site
"" ' Perennial Stream
. — Intermittent Stream
Watershed Drained by
Gage Station
Watershed Drained by
Sampling Locations
Figure 16: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Sny Magill and Bloody Run (Iowa) Watersheds
82
-------
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. De-
partment of Agriculture (USDA) land treatment projects in the watershed: Sny
Magill Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA) and the North Cedar Creek Water Quality
Special Project (WQSP). The project areas include Sny Magill Creek and North
Cedar Creek basins (henceforth referred to as the Sny Magill watershed) (Figure
16). Sny Magill and North Cedar creeks are Class "B" cold water streams located
in northeastern Iowa (Figure 15). North Cedar Creek is a tributary of Sny Magill
Creek. The creeks, managed for "put and take" trout fishing by the Iowa Depart-
ment 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 95
producers in the watershed, with farms averaging 250 acres in size.
Water quality problems result primarily from agricultural nonpoint source 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 IDNR, 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, and bank stabilization demonstrations
are being implemented to reduce agricultural nonpoint source pollution. A long-
term goal of a 50% reduction in sedimerit 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 16). 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 conducted
along stretches of both stream corridors. Biomonitoring of macroinvertebrates
occurs on a bimonthly basis, and an annual fisheries survey is conducted.
83
-------
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 semi-
aquatic life and secondary aquatic usage are only partially supported. The report
cites impairment of water quality primarily by nonpoint agricultural pollutants,
particularly sediment, animal wastes, nutrients, and pesticides. There are no signifi-
cant 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 identi-
fied 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 riparian
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 coliform levels (from animal
wastes) in Sny Magill Creek. Downstream declines in nutrients were related to algal
growth and in-stream consumption. An inventory of macroinvertebrate communi-
ties was conducted in several reaches of the streams (Seigley et al., 1992).
Assessments in North Cedar Creek during the 1980s by IDNR and the USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) located areas where sediment
covered 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
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 et
al., 1992).
84
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
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 implemen-
tation programs to aid targeting of BMPs, and for public education to expand
awareness of the need for nonpoint source pollution prevention by farmers;
and
• To provide Iowa and the USEPA with needed documentation for measures of
success of nonpoint source 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 addressed
by the land treatment implemented through the USDA projects.
None.
1991 to 2001 (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,
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.
85
-------
Sny MagNI Watershed, Iowa
Land Use
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 manage-
ment 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 95 producers in the watershed, with farm sizes averaging 250 acres.
*
Land use is variable on the alluvial plain of Sny Magill Creek, ranging from row
cropped areas, to pasture and forest, to areas with an improved riparian right-of-
way where the IDNR owns and manages the land in the immediate stream corridor.
The IDNR owns approximately 1,800 acres of stream corridor along approximately
eight miles of the length of Sny Magill and North Cedar creeks. Some of the land
within the corridor is used for pasture and cropping through management contracts
with the IDNR.
Row crop acreage planted to corn has increased substantially over the past 20 years.
Land use changes in the watershed have paralleled the changes elsewhere in
Clayton County, with increases in row crop acreage 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
Sny Magill
Acres %
5,842 25.9
5,400 23.9
11,034 48.9
263 1.2
28 0.1
Bloodv Run
Acres %.
9,344 38.6
6,909 28.5
7,171 29.6
415 1.7
376 1 .6
22,567
100 24,215
100
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 Stew-
ardship, 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 stabiliza-
tion practices. The USEPA Section 319(h) funding became available in 1995.
86
-------
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
The focus of information and education efforts in the watershed are
• Demonstration and education efforts in improved alfalfa hay management (to
reduce runoff potential on hayland and increase profitability and acreage of
hay production);
• Improved crop rotation management and manure management (to reduce
fertilizer and chemical use);
• Implementation of the Farmstead Assessment System [NRCS, Iowa State
University Extension (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 are available on the Internet (http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/htmls/inforsh/
sny.html).
Additional resources for technical assistance and educational programs are pro-
vided in the area through the Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project, directed by
ISUE, and the Big Spring Basin Demonstration Project, directed by IDNR.
• 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.
• Over the past few years, the land treatment projects in Sny Magill have
experienced changes in funding sources and the practices that can be cost
shared. An information packet was developed and distributed to landowners.
These packets included information on soil conservation practices, nutrient
and pest management programs, wellhead assessment surveys, post-CRP land
use options, available cost share programs, and a list of project personnel to
contact for additional information. Packets were hand-delivered and a free
water test was offered.
• 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 Extension Service, is disseminated to over 1,750 subscribers.
Article topics have included upcoming project activities, ongoing demonstra-
tions and other conclusions or trends that develop from these efforts, update
on water quality monitoring of Sny Magill Creek, field visits by local high
school classes, and post-CRP land use options.
• 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.
87
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Three new sites were added to the series of streambank stabilization installa-
tions along Sny Magill Creek, including a warm season grass demonstration
and a handicap-accessible streambank stabilization demonstration. Informa-
tion provided by the Sny Magill project, through the use of videos, work-
shops, and design reports, has been used to install soil bioengineering
practices in four different locations across Iowa.
The Nutrient and Pest Management Incentive Education Program has enrolled
eight cooperators with over 2,000 acres total. This program promotes nutrient
and pest management through participant education and implementation,
rather than relying on the private sector for crop management services.
NONPOINTSOURCECONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Description
Modifications Since
Project Started
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.
Conservation 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 HUA project
and the North Cedar Creek Agricultural Conservation Program - WQSP. The HUA
Project was a five-year project begun in 1991 and covering 19,560 acres (86%) of
the Sny Magill watershed. The HUA Project will continue through FY99, pending
annual reviews. Best management practice implementation will end July 1,1998,
but other project activities will continue 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 imple-
menting voluntary changes in farm management practices that will result in im-
proved water quality in Sny Magill Creek.
No special critical areas have been defined for the HUA Project. Highly erodible
land has been defined and an attempt is being made to treat all farms, prioritizing
fields within each farm to be treated first. Structural practices, such as terracing and
a few animal waste systems, are being implemented, as well as a variety of manage-
ment practices such as crop residue management and contour stripcropping. Exten-
sion 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%.
None.
88
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Through FY96, the following nonpoint source pollution controls have been com-
pleted in North Cedar Creek and Sny Magill Creek watersheds:
325,045 feet of terraces
• 92 grade stabilization structures
• 54 water and sediment control basins
• 2 agricultural waste structures
• The more effective use of nitrogen, phosphorus, and pesticides on 5,330 acres
in the Sny Magill watershed
Pour streambank stabilization demonstrations have been implemented using soil
bioengineering technology and warm season grass species.
The Nutrient and Pest Management Incentive Education Program has enrolled eight
cooperators with over 2,000 acres. This program, developed in the fall of 1994,
promotes nutrient and pest management through participant education and imple-
mentation, rather than relying on the private sector for crop management services.
Based on USLE estimates, sediment delivery has been reduced by 35%.
WA TER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
The Sny Magill watershed is amenable to documentation of water quality responses
to land treatment. The cold water stream has a high ground water baseflow which
provides year-round discharge, minimizing potential missing data problems. These
conditions also make possible analysis of both runoff and ground water contribu-
tions 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). Watershed
size, ground water hydrogeology, and surface hydrology are similar; both water-
sheds receive baseflow from the Ordovician Galena aquifer. The watersheds share
surface and ground water divides and their proximity to one another minimizes
rainfall variation. However, the large size of the two watersheds creates significant
challenges in conducting a true paired watershed study. Land treatment and land use
changes were to a minimum in the Bloody Run Creek watershed throughout the
project period and for the first two years of water quality monitoring in the Sny
Magill watershed.
Within the Sny Magill watershed, subbasins are compared using upstream/down-
stream stations.
None.
89
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Parameters
Measured
Sampling Scheme
Biological
Fecal coliform (FC)
Habitat assessment
Fisheries survey
Benthic macroinvertebrates
Chemical and Other
Suspended sediment (SS)
Nitrogen (N)-series (NO3+N02-N, NH4-N, Organic-N)
Anions
Total phosphorus (TP)
Biological oxygen demand (BOD)
Immunoassay for triazine herbicides
Water temperature
Conductivity
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Turbidity
Covariates
Stream discharge
Precipitation
Primary monitoring sites (SN1, BR1) (Figure 16) 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. Sus-
pended sediment samples are collected daily by local observers and weekly by
water quality monitoring personnel when a significant rainfall event occurs.
Monthly measurements of stream discharge are made at seven supplemental sites
(NCC, SN2, SNT, SNWF, SN3, BRSC, and BR2) (Figure 16).
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 (SN.1, BR1)
for fecal coliform bacteria, N-series (NOs +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 (NO.3 + NO2-N, NH4-N), and anions.
Weekly sampling is conducted by the U.S. National Park Service (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.
* 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.
90
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Temperature, conductivity, DO, and turbidity are measured at all sites when sam-
pling 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.
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 MagiIlT Habitat assessment
and Bloody Runc Fishery survey
Benthic 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
Weekly (for SNl,
BR1,SN3,SNWF,
NCC, BR2)
Monthly
(forSN2, SNT,
BRSC)
Habitat and
fisheries data
collected annually.
Macroinvertebrate
data collected
every two months.
Duration
1 yrpre-BMP
6 yrs BMP
2 yrs post-BMP
TTreatment watershed
cControl watershed
* These parameters are only sampled at sites SNl and BR1
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 Nonpoint Source 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.
91
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
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.
Water years 1995 and 1996 represent the fourth and fifth years of water quality
monitoring. At this time, results from the monitoring are mixed. Improvements in
benthic macroinvertebrates and pesticide detections have been measured, while
fish, habitat, and nitrate and sediment loads are unchanged.
To date, the frequency of pesticide detections in Sny Magill Creek has declined
from 60% to 33% while remaining relatively unchanged in Bloody Run Creek (90-
100%).
The benthic macroinvertebrate metrics that may indicate some discernible trends
are the EPT Index and the percent dominant taxa. Both suggest trends of improving
water quality in Sny Magill Creek. The Bloody Run sampling sites have shown
slight decreases in EPT Index values each year, suggesting steady to worsening
. water quality, while the Sny Magill Creek sites have shown consistent increases in
EPT values since 1992. The percent dominant taxon metric has declined for Sny
Magill Creek during the monitoring period; values for Bloody Run Creek have
fluctuated but shown no substantial improvements.
For both streams, the majority of a year's sediment load is delivered during two
periods: a spring snowmelt period and a summer storm period. Although BMPs
have effectively reduced the sediment delivered from the uplands to Sny Magill
Creek by an estimated 35%, these reductions have yet to be reflected in the sedi-
ment loads discharged by Sny Magill Creek. In spite of the close proximity of the
watersheds, some intense rainstorms have had a greater impact on Sny Magill Creek
than Bloody Run Creek. For Water Year 1995, a total of 4,775 tons of sediment was
discharged from Sny Magill Creek while 3,117 tons were discharged from Bloody
Run Creek. For Water Year 1996, 3,342 tons were discharged from Sny Magill
Creek and 662 tons from Bloody Run Creek. Data from 1996 illustrate the signifi-
cance of these rainstorms. In 1996, 14 days accounted for 90% of the year's total
sediment load for Sny Magill while 204 days accounted for 90% of Bloody Run's
annual total. Also, there is the concern over the large volume of historical sediment
in the drainage network. Though implementation of BMPs in the uplands has
reduced sediment delivery to Sny Magill Creek, the impact the large quantity of
sediment historically stored in the drainage network may have on the sediment
loads discharged from Sny Magill Creek is poorly understood.
Results from the habitat assessment suggest a strong relation between the drainage
area size and position of each monitoring site in the landscape to the habitat vari-
ables. Monitoring sites with similar drainage size showed greater habitat similarity
to each other than to other sites. The apparent interrelatedness of habitat, drainage
area size, and channel slope suggests that physiography and stream morphological
processes such as channel erosion and sediment deposition are important determi-
nants of monitoring site habitat character.
Results of the fish survey from all years show that the streams' forage fish popula-
tions are typical of Iowa cold water streams. With the exception of 1995 and 1996,
year-to-year fluctuations in fish populations appear to be a normal response to
variations in precipitation, runoff, water clarity, and water stage. Extremely low
92
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
numbers were reported for the Sny Magill sites during 1995 and 1996. Fish num-
bers from Bloody Run Creek for those two years were comparable to previous
years. The cause of the low numbers is not known. Other water-quality data showed
no negative response or decline during this period. Future surveys will indicate if
this trend continues.
NPSMS Data
Summary
Monitoring Station Parameters Report (WY95)
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)
Monitoring Station Parameters Report (WY96)
STATION TYPE: Control Station
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Parameter Name
FECAL COLIFORM, MEMBR FILTER, M-FC BROTH, 44.5 C
FLOW, STREAM, MEAN DAILY, CFS
NITROGEN, AMMONIA, TOTAL (MG/L AS N)
NITROGEN, ORGANIC, TOTAL (MG/L AS N)
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL (MG/L AS P)
PRECIPITATION, TOTAL (INCHES PER DAY)
TEMPERATURE, WATER (DEGREES CENTIGRADE)
STATION TYPE: Study Station
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Parameter Name
FECAL COLIFORM, MEMBR FILTER, M-FC BROTH, 44.5 C
FLOW, STREAM, MEAN DAILY, CFS
NITROGEN, AMMONIA, TOTAL (MG/L AS N)
NITROGEN, ORGANIC, TOTAL (MG/L AS N)
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL (MG/L AS P)
PRECIPITATION, TOTAL (INCHES PER DAY)
TEMPERATURE, WATER (DEGREES CENTIGRADE)
Farm Reporting QUARTILE VALUES
Type Units
S
S CFS
S
S
S
S
S
-75- -50- -25-
218 65 10
26 23 19
0.3
<0.1
0
15
0.2
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
None.
The USEPA nonpoint source monitoring and reporting requirements for watershed
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 -96:
Project Element
I&E
LT (cost share)
LT (technical assist.)
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Funding Source ($)
Federal
310,000
374,000
610,000
*504,738
1,798,738
State
155,000
186,000
NA
NA
341,000
Local
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sum
465,000
560,000
610,000
504,738
2,139,738
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. Fund-
ing for BMP implementation for 1995 and 1996 was provided by the Iowa Depart-
ment of Agriculture and Land Stewardship - Division of Soil Conservation and the
Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
IMP A CT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STA TE PROGRAMS
Modifications Since
Project Started
Please refer to the section entitled Nonpoint Source Control Strategy.
None.
OTHER PERTINENTINFORMA TION
Agencies participating in the Sny Magill Section 319 National Monitoring Program
project 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
94
-------
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
109TrowbridgeHall
Iowa City, IA 52242-1319
(319) 335-1575; Fax (319) 335-2754
Internet: lseigley@gsbth-po.igsb.uiowa.edu
JeffTisl (Land Treatment for the HUA Project)
USDA - NRCS
Elkader Field Office
117GunderRoadNE
P.O. Box 547
Elkader, IA 52043-0547
(319) 245-1048; Fax (319) 245-2634
Internet: jtisl@trxinc.com
Lynette Seigley
Geological Survey Bureau
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
109TrowbridgeHall
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
Internet: neiademo@netins.net
95
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
96
-------
Iowa
Walnut Creek
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Iowa
Project Area
O
Figure 17: Walnut Creek (Section 319) Project Location
97
-------
i Walnut Creek, Ipwa
Colfax
Squaw Creek
Basin
Legend
4 Gaging stations and surface water sampling points
X Surface water sampling points
© Wells
H Biomonitoring stations
Figure 18: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Walnut Creek (Iowa)
98
-------
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 monitoring program in
relation to the watershed habitat restoration and agricultural management 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 sam-
pling 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 classified
as Partially Supporting. Assessments in this area cite agricultural nonpoint source as
the principal concern.
99
-------
Walnut Creek, Iowa
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
Walnut and Squaw creeks are affected by many agricultural nonpoint source 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 condi-
tions.
None.
April, 1995 to September, 1998
April, 1996
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorological Factors
The project area, located in central Iowa (Figure 17), 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 18). 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 uncom-
mon.
The total project area is located in the Southern Iowa Drift Plain, an area character-
ized 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. Both creeks have been
extensively channelized and are incised into their valleys. Two to six feet of post-
settlement alluvium is present in both valleys. Stream gradients in the main stem
vary from 0.01 to 0.002. An analysis of sediment delivery and extensive character-
ization of beds and banks began in the summery of 1997. Discharge is similar in
both streams, although Walnut Creek experiences slightly lower flows. Both
streams display rapid responses to precipitation. Baseflow percentages for WY96
are Walnut Creek (upstream) — 41%, Walnut Creek (downstream) — 29%, and
Squaw Creek (downstream) — 37%.
100
-------
Walnut Creek, Iowa
An analysis of slopes within the basin showed that both watersheds are very similar:
Slope Class Walnut Creek (%) Squaw Creek (%)
A (0-2%)
B (2-5%)
C (5-9%)
D (9-14%)
E
19.9
26.2
24.4
24.5
5.0
19.7
26.7
25.0
22.2
6.5
Land Use
1996 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
Pollutant Sources
Modifications Since
Project Started
Sediment — streambank erosion, cropland erosion, gully erosion, animal grazing
Nutrients — crop fertilizers, manure
Pesticides — cropland
None.
INFORMA TION, EDUCA TION, AND PUBLICITY
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
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 demon-
strations 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 opened in the spring of 1997.
Tours have been done for a variety of different groups, including students from
grade school through college; scientists from several institutions, including Iowa
101
-------
i Walnut Creek'i Iowa
and several other states and counties; Iowa and U.S. legislators; and members of the
farming community and general public.
Formal oral and/or poster presentations have been given at several meetings around
the Midwest both to scientific groups and to the general public.
Information on the project is contained on the IDNR-GSB web page as well as a
web page maintained by the USFWS. Several contacts have been made via this
avenue.
The visitor center was opened in April 1997. From May 5 to July 10,1997, there
have been 12,100 visitors. Improvement in water quality is part of one of the
displays at the center.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY
Description
Modifications Since
Project Started
The best management practices (BMPs) for row crop production include specific
erosion control measures along with nutrient and pesticide'managernent. 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 expected for the
remainder of the Walnut Creek watershed.
None.
WA TER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
Parameters
Measured
A paired monitoring design will be used (Figure 18). 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.
None.
Biological
Fecal coliform (FC)
Macroinvertebrates
Fisheries
Chemical and Other
Alkalinity
Ammonia (NH3)
Bentazon
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
Bromide (Br)
Calcium (Ca)
Chloride (Cl)
102
-------
Walnut Creek, Iowa
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/Q
Suspended solids (SS)
Turbidity
Sampling Scheme
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 July and Sep-
tember. Four stations are sampled once in August, October, December, and Febru-
ary. Additional event sampling is done throughout the year.
Monitoring Scheme for the Walnut Creek Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Sites or
Design Activities
Frequency of
Primary Frequency of Habitat/Biological
Parameters Covariates WQ Sampling Assessment Duration
Paired
Watershed
N03
OP
Turbidity
SS
Precipitation
Water
Discharge
Monthly
Storm events
Annual
Unknown
Upstream/ Tributary to
Downstream Des Moines River
NOs
OP
Turbidity
SS
Precipitation
Water
Discharge
Monthly Annual
Storm events
Unknown
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
None.
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 activities 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
103
-------
1 Walnut Creek, Iowa
NPSMS Data
Summary
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Source Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for Watershed Implementation
Grants. All water quality data are entered into STORET.
Pesticides. There were detections of six difference compounds during 1995 and
1996 in Walnut and Squaw Creek surface waters. Atrazine was by far the most
frequently detected compound, as is true across Iowa, with frequency of detections
from 71% to 88% in the main stems. Atrazine concentrations were higher in 1996
than 1995 in both Squaw and Walnut creeks. Five pesticides were detected in rain
samples. Atrazine was the most frequently detected compound with concentrations
ranging from 0.11 to 0.36 Ug/1. No significant differences are seen between 1995
and 1996 data.
Nitrate. Nitrate concentrations were high, but typical for streams in Iowa. Ranges
and averages for the four main stem sampling sites were:
Site
Walnut (upstream)
Walnut (downstream)
Squaw (upstream)
Squaw (downstream)
Range NOs-N (mg/1)
4.1 -15.8
2.1 - 13.0
6.8 -15.5
3.9 -12.3
Avg. NOa-N (mg/1)
10.5
8.1
12.8
8.6
In addition, both creeks show downstream declines in nitrate concentrations. This
can be attributable to instream reductions caused by either denitrification or dilu-
tion from larger flow volumes. A comparison of data from the two years shows that
the slope has decreased, indicating perhaps a slight decline in nitrate in the Walnut
Creek basin; however, this is not statistically significant.
Not available.
None.
Walnut Creek is characterized by a macroinvertebrate community that was domi-
nated by relatively few taxa, with occasional new taxa appearing at low frequencies
and abundances. The macroinvertebrate trends that occurred in both Squaw and
Walnut Creek watersheds (based on 1995 and 1996 data) were similar and contin-
ued to respond in equivalent ways seasonally, approximating each other in commu-
nity structure and population. The HBI values continue to show good water quality,
but other metrics (percent dominant taxon, EPT index, and .total taxa) indicate
unbalanced communities. Additionally, from an ecoregion perspective, both creeks
rate in the lower quartile with respect to two metric indicators (EPT taxa, total
number of taxa) of macroinvertebrate community health.
The fish communities retained the same dominant species as 1995; however, the
less frequent species were variable. The 1996 field season, as in the previous
season, showed that aquatic macrophyte populations are not present at the
biomonitoring sites and, based on field observations, were not likely present
anywhere in the stream reaches located within the refuge.
104
-------
Walnut Creek, Iowa
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 ($)
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)
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STA TE PROGRAMS
None.
OTHER PERTINENTINFORMA TION
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
Carol A. Thompson
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Geological Survey Bureau
109TrowbridgeHall
Iowa City, IA 52242
(319) 335-1581; Fax: (319) 335-2754
Internet: cthompson@gsbth-po.igsb.uiowa.edu
105
-------
i Walnut Creek, Iowa
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
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
109TrowbridgeHall
Iowa City, IA 52242
(319) 335-1581; Fax: (319) 335-2754
Internet: cthompson @gsbth-po.igsb.uiowa.edu
106
-------
Maryland
Warner Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 19: Warner Creek (Maryland) Watershed Project Location
107
-------
Warner Creek Watershed,- Maryland
Legend
Monitoring Station
Stream
Watershed Boundary
Scale
0 0.5
I i
Kilometers
0 1000
Feet
N
t
Figure 20: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Warner Creek (Maryland) Watershed
108
-------
Warner Creek Watershed, Maryland
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Warner Creek watershed is located in the Piedmont physiographic region.of
northcentral Maryland (Figure 19). Land use in the 830-acre watershed is almost
exclusively agricultural, primarily beef and dairy production and associated activi-
ties.
Agricultural activities related to dairy production are believed to be the major
nonpoint source of pollutants to the small stream draining the watershed. A headwa-
ter subwatershed, in which the primary agricultural activity is dairy farming (treat-
ment), 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 crop-
land 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/downstream
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) on a bi-
weekly basis (Figure 20). Storm-event sampling by an automatic sampler will occur
at station 2A. Water samples will be analyzed for sediment, nitrogen, and phospho-
rus.
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 Nitrite
(mg/1) (mg/1)
3.3-6.7 .01-.05
Ammonia
(mg/1)
0-23.0
TKN
(mg/1)
0-73.0
TKP Orthophosphorus
(mg/1) (mg/1)
0-6.7 0-3.6
Source: Shirmohammadi and Magette, 1993
The objectives of the project are to
• develop and validate a hydrologic and water quality model capable of
predicting the effects of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) on
water quality, both at the field and basin scale;
109
-------
Warner Creek Watershed, Maryland
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
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 USDA Monocacy River •
Demonstration Project.
None.
May, 1993 to March, 2001
June, 1995
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
Land Use
Pollutant Sources
Modifications Since
Project Started
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.
None.
INFORM A TION, EDUCA TION, 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 USDA agencies. Education and
public awareness will be accomplished through the CES in the form of tours, press
releases, scientific articles, and oral presentations.
110
-------
Warner Creek Watershed, Maryland
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY AND DESIGN
Description
Modifications Since
Project Started
Upstream/Downstream Study Area (1C and 2A):
Best management practices planned for this area include construction of watering
systems for animals, fencing animals from streams, and the proper use of newly
constructed manure slurry storage tanks. Conversion of cropland to pasture is also
anticipated in this area.
Paired Watershed (1A and IB):
The implementation of BMPs in the treatment (IB) watershed has been uncertain;
however, due to a concerted effort, an animal waste storage system was installed in
1996. Cropland conservation practices and a reception pit are also planned and will
be installed when funding is approved.
None.
WA TER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
Parameters
Measured
Sampling Scheme
The water quality monitoring component incorporates the following two designs:
• Upstream/downstream on Warner Creek
• Paired watersheds in the uppermost areas of the watershed
None.
Chemical and Other
Ammonia (NHs)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Nitrate + nitrite (NO3+NO2)
Nitrite (NCte)
Orthophosphate (OP)
Total Kjeldahl phosphorus (TKP)
Sediment
Covariates
Rainfall
Discharge: instantaneous (1 A, IB and 1C) continuous (2A)
Upstream/Downstream Study Area (1C and 2A) (Figure 20):
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 (1993 through 1995) and biweekly since 1996.
Paired Watershed CIA and IB) (Figure 20):
Type: grab (1A and IB)
Frequency and season: weekly from February to June and biweekly for the remain-
der of the year
111
-------
Warner Creek Watershed, Maryland
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
NO2
OP
TKP
Sediment
Frequency of
Frequency of Habitat/Biological
Covariates WQ Sampling Assessment
Rainfall Weekly Feb. to
discharge June and bi-
weekly the
remainder of
the year (1 993- 1995)
biweekly since 1996
Duration
3 yrs. pre-BMP
1 yrs. BMP
1 yrs. post-BMP
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
NPSMS Data
Summary
None.
Monitoring data are stored and analyzed at the University of Maryland. In addition,
data will be reported using the Nonpoint Source Management System (NPSMS)
software.
Not 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
IB
3.02
1.55
51
11.20
12.94
116
7.22
8.99
124
1.60
2.06
129
2.40
2.88
120
1994
1C
3.06
1.00
33
6.44
5.96
93
3.67
4.56
124
0.89
1.32
149
1.61
2.11
130
2A
2.98
1.63
55
3.66
4.38
120
1.16
2.00
172
0.49
0.72
147
0.90
1.42
159
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
1995
1C 2A
3.69 3.76
1.33 1.58
36 42
5.78 1.72
5.17 2.11
89 123
2.88 0.83
3.05 1.37
106 166
0.88 0.43
1.01 0.48
115 111
0.94 8.45
1.20 0.60
128 134
= 31
n = 31
n=13
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
112
-------
Warner Creek Watershed, Maryland
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
Modifications Since
Project Started
Source: FFY94 Work Plan (6/23/94).
None.
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 PERTINENTINFORMA TION
None.
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
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
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
113
-------
Warner Creek Watershed, Maryland
Land Treatment
and
Water Quality
Monitoring
Adel Shirmohammadi
University of Maryland
Dept. of Biological Resources Engineering
1419 ENAG/ANSC Building (#142)
College Park, MD 2Q742-5711
(301)405-1185; Fax (301) 314-9023
Internet: as31 @umail.umd.edu
114
-------
Michigan
Sycamore Creek Watershed
Section 319
National lyiqnitpring Program Project
Figure 21: Sycamore Creek (Michigan) Project Location
115
-------
i Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
Willow Creek
Watetshed
Scale
0
kilometers
Figure 22: Paired Water Quality Monitoring Stations for the Sycamore Creek (Michigan) Watershed
116
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
PROJECT O VERVIEW
Sycamore Creek is located in southcentral Michigan (Ingham County) (Figure 21).
The creek has a drainage area of 67,740 acres, which includes the towns of Holt
and Mason, and part of the city of Lansing. The major commodities produced in
this primarily agricultural county are corn, wheat, soybeans, and some livestock.
Sycamore Creek is a tributary to the Red Cedar River, which flows into the Grand
River. The Grand River discharges into Lake Michigan.
The major pollutants of Sycamore Creek are sediment, phosphorus, nitrogen, and
agricultural pesticides. Sediment deposits are adversely affecting fish and
macroinvertebrate habitat and are depleting oxygen in the water column. Sycamore
Creek has been selected for monitoring, not because of any unique characteristics,
but rather because it is representative of creeks throughout lower Michigan.
Water quality monitoring occurs in three subwatersheds: Haines Drain, Willow
Creek, and Marshall Drain (Figure 22). 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
warmwater 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, evidence
of contamination by pesticides is currently lacking. Low levels of dissolved oxygen
in the creek are a result of excess plant growth and organic matter associated with
the sediment.
117
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Sediment and Phosphorus Content of Sycamore Creek Under Routine (dry)
and Storm (wet) Flow Conditions
DryP
mg/I
WetP
mg/1
Dry Sediment Wet Sediment
mg/I 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
pollutants on surface and ground water of Sycamore Creek.
The goal of the project is to reduce sediment delivery into Sycamore Creek by
52%.
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
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 (glacially
deposited gravel and sand that form ridges 30 to 40 feet in height). The Mason
Esker and associated loamy sand and sandy loam soil areas are the major ground
water recharge areas in Ingham County. Eskers are the predominant geologic
feature near the stream. These grade into moraines that are approximately one-half
to one mile in width. The moraines have sandy loam textures with slopes of 6 -18%.
The moraines grade into till plains. Interspersed within the area, in depressional
areas and drainageways, are organic soils.
Approximately 50% of the land in this primarily agricultural watershed is used for
crops, forage, and livestock.
Critical areas for targeting BMPs are agricultural fields (cropland, hayland, or
pasture) within one-half mile of a stream.
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.
118
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
Crop and residue cover are recorded on a I0-acre cell basis in each of the three
monitored subwatersheds.
Land Use Acres
Agricultural 35,453
Forest 8,017
Residential 9,336
Business/Industrial 2,562
Idle 6,381
Wetlands 2,324
Transportation 1,349
Open land 826
Gravel pits and wells 806
Water 359
Other 325
Total 67,738
Source: NRCS/CES/FSA, 1990
52
12
14
4
10
3
2
1
1
0.5
0.5
100
Pollutant Sources
Modifications Since
Project Started
Streambanks, urban areas, agricultural fields
None.
INFORMA TION, EDUCA TION, 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 activi-
ties 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 setups, workshops,
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 STRA TEGYAND 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.
119
-------
' .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 utiliza-
tion, 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, conserva-
tion tillage, pasture/hayland management, pasture/hayland planting, fencing, waste
utilization, filter strips, and critical area planting. The following practices are
eligible for ACP funding: -•.,. ;/ <'
• No till
• 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
• Critical area planting
• Pest management
• Nutrient 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 22). Innovative and environmentally sensitive
techniques for streambank stabilization were selected to minimize the sediment
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. The
streambank stabilization measures have been installed and are growing well.
120
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
WA TER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
Parameters
Measured
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, Haines Drain, that
lies outside the boundaries of the project (Figure 22). BMPs were installed in the
Haines Drain prior to the commencement of water quality monitoring in 1990.
The Willow Creek and Marshall Drain subwatersheds were selected among all
subwatersheds in the Sycamore Creek watershed because they contained the 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 com-
pare these loads with various models for estimating pollutant loads in the water-
shed. 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.
Biological
None
Sampling Scheme
Chemical and Other
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Turbidity
Total phosphorus (TP)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Nitrate + nitrite (NO3 + NQz)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Orthophosphate (OP)
Ammonia (NHs)
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 collected
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 discharge
121
-------
i Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
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 22).
Monitoring Scheme for the Sycamore Creek Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Primary Frequency of
Design Sites* Parameters** Covariates*** WQ Sampling Duration
Three-way
paired
Willow Creek1
Haines Drainc
Marshall Drain T
TSS
Turbidity
TP
TKN
NO3 + NO2
COD
OP
NH3
Rainfall flow
Erosion-intensity
index
Weekly for 20
samples starting
after snow melt
Storm sampling
(from after snow melt
until canopy closure)
6 yrs pre-BMP
1 yrBMP
1 yr 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 bas,e 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 flqw grab samples for 1990-1992, and weekly sampling in 1993. Differences
can be seen among the watersheds, for example, stable flow and NQ2+NQ3 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) YEAR: 1990
Reporting
Parameter Name Units N
FLOWCFS cfs 85
SUSPENDED SOLIDS mg/1 84
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS mg/1 84
NO3 + NO2 mg/I 84
COD mg/1 84
STATION NAME: Haines Drain (Control; 848 acres) YEAR: 1991
Reporting
Parameter Name Units N
FLOWCFS cfs 44
SUSPENDED SOLIDS mg/1 43
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS mg/1 45
NO3 + NO2 mg/1 45
COD mg/1 15
QUARTILE VALUES
r75-
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
122
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
STATION NAME: Raines Drain (Control; 848 acres) YEAR: 1992
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTALPHOSPHORUS
NO3-4-NO2
COD
STATION NAME: Haines Drain (Control; 848 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
TOTALPHOSPHORUS
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
TOTALPHOSPHORUS
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
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/1
mg/l
mg/l
mg/1
YEAR: 1993
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
YEAR: 1990
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
YEAR: 1991
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l,
YEAR: 1992
Reporting
Units .
cfs
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
YEAR: 1993
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
YEAR: 1990
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
N
31
31
31
31
31
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
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
14 6 0.9
270 95 24
0.8 0.47 0.126
4.2 3.4 2.9
59 37 20
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 3 1 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
123
-------
Sycamore. Creek Watershed, Michigan
STATION NAME: Willow Creek (Target; 1087 acres)
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTALPHOSPHORUS
NO3 + NO2
COD
STATION NAME: Willow Creek (Target; 1087 acres)
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTALPHOSPHORUS
NO3 + NO2
COD
STATION NAME: Willow Creek (Target, 1087 acres)
Parameter Name
FLOW.CFS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
NO3+NO2
COD
YEAR: 1991
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/I
QUARTILE VALUES
N
47
47
50
50
21
-75-
4
197
0.36
3
67
-50-
4
80
0.137
2.3
51
-25-
3
44
0,066
2.3
32
YEAR: 1992
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
QUARTILE VALUES
N
37
37
37
,37
37
-75-
6
150
0.26
3.5
82
-50-
4
70
0.135
. 1.94
45
-25-
3
28
0.052
1.75
27
YEAR: 1993
Reporting
Units
cfs
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
74
74
73
72
74
7.36 4.98
130 80
0.21 0.128
2.5 2.2
76 49
4.14
40
0.069
1.9
33
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
None.
Eight years of sampling have been completed in the paired watersheds. Three years
of sampling at the single downstream station will be complete in October 1997.
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: ($)
State Local
122,000
NA
NA
222,000
344,000
3,130
9,935
500,751
NA
513,816
Sum
254,500
169,835
1,579,051
507,000
2,510,386
Source: John Suppnick (Personal Communication), 1993
None.
124
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
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.
OTHER PERTINENTINFORMA TION
Agencies involved in this project are as follows:
• USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
• 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 CONTA CTS
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Information and
Education
Bob Hicks (Land Treatment for the HUA Project)
USDA-NRCS
521 N. Okemos Rd.
Mason, MI 48554
(517) 676-5543; Fax (517-676-7011
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
125
-------
i Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
126
-------
Nebraska
Elm Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Nebraska
Project Area
'O
Figure 23: Elm Creek (Nebraska) Watershed Project Location
127
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
N
Legend
Monitoring Station
Streams
Watershed Boundary
Figure 24: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Elm Creek (Nebraska) Watershed
128
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Elm Creek is located in southcentral Nebraska, near the Kansas border (Figure 23).
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, consist-
ing 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 (USDA) 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 water quality following storm events. The coldwater
habitat use assignment of Elm Creek appeared to be attainable if it was not impaired
by nonpoint source (NFS) pollution, particularly sedimentation and scouring of
vegetation during storm events.
The NFS management objective in the Elm Creek watershed is to implement
appropriate and feasible NFS pollution control measures for the protection and
enhancement of water quality in Elm Creek. Project goals are to:
129
-------
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 between
April and September. The average temperature is 52 degrees Fahrenheit with
averages of 25 degrees in January and 79 degrees in July. The soils are derived
from loess and the predominant soil types are highly erosive.
Wheat and sorghum are the primary dryland crops produced. Corn is the primary
irrigated crop. Range and pasture dominate the more steeply sloping lands.
Land Use
Agricultural
Dryland
Irrigated
Pasture/Range
Forest
Other
Total
Acres
14,630
2,680
16,170
650
1,670
35,800
42
7
44
2
5
100
Source: Elm Creek Project, 1992
Pollutant Sources
Modifications Since
Project Started
Streambank erosion, irrigation return flows, cattle access, cropland runoff
None.
INFORM A TION, EDUCA TION, 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, questionnaires,
fact sheets, demonstration sites, field days, and meetings.
130
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
The process of addressing nonpoint source issues in the Elm Creek watershed
through information and education activities has been coordinated by the University
of Nebraska Cooperative Extension as part of the USDA HUA effort. In addition to
those activities listed below, a newsletter promoting implementation of NFS pollu-
tion 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, ciiltivar 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 STRA TEGY 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
131
-------
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 Monitor-
ing 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 implemented will
depend on voluntary farmer participation.
Land use will be inventoried. Cropland and BMP implementation will be tracked
over the life of the project. Tracking will be based on the 40-acre grid system used
for AGNPS modeling.
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 NPS control measures
throughout the watershed (see following table).
132
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
Application of Practices/Activities for Erosion Control in the Elm Creek
Watershed (7-31-96).
NRCS PRACTICE/ACTIVITY
AND I.D. #
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 Hay land Management (510)
Pasture and Hayland Planting (512)
Pipeline (5 16)
Proper Grazing Use (528)
Range Seeding (550)
Planned Grazing System (556)
Streambank Protection/Habitat Restoration
Terrace (600)
Tree Planting (6 12)
Trough or Tank (6 14)
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 monitor-
ing 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 improve-
ments 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 (in-
cluding in-stream habitat) remains good. However, with such a large watershed area
above the perennial stream reach (which starts within a mile above the upstream
monitoring station), even slightly larger storm events generally contribute to high
flows, which degrade water and habitat quality, making it difficult to detect im-
provements.
133
-------
• Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
WA TER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Parameters
Measured
Modifications Since
Project Started
Sampling Scheme
Upstream/downstream: The two sampling sites (sites 2 & 5) are located two miles
apart (Figure 24)
Single downstream for trend detection (site 5) (Figure 24)
Biological
Qualitative and quantitative macroinvertebrate sampling
Fish collections
Creel survey
Chemical and Other
Water temperature
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Substrate samples (% Gravel, % Fines)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Atrazine/Alachlor
Stream morphological characteristics (width, depth, velocity) and habitat
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 24 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.
Stream morphological characteristics (width, depth, velocity) and habitat: spring/
summer (sites 2, 5).
Continuous recording thermograph (hourly water temperatures for at least 60% of
the period June through September and at least 80% of the period July through
August) (sites 2, 5).
134
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
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
Stream morphological
characteristics
Water temperature
Frequency of
Frequency of Habitat/Biological
WQ Sampling Assessment Duration
4 times/yr
spring & fall
passive
Spring & fall
Weekly (April-Sept.) &
monthly (Oct.-March)
Spring
Spring/summer
0 yrs pre-BMP
5 yrs BMP
3 yrs post-BMP
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
Plans to place a recording rain gauge in the Elm Creek watershed have been can-
celled because of the variability associated with its large size. For the same reason,
the volunteer network for recording rainfall amounts has also been discontinued.
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: 1995
STATION TYPE: Upstream Station
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Parameter Name
FLOW, STREAM, INSTANTANEOUS, CFS
OXYGEN, DISSOLVED (METER)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS, TOTAL
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -25-
13.3 12.0 10.7
8.7 7.75 6.9
51.0 16.5 2.0
TEMPERATURE, WATER (DEGREE CENTIGRADE) 15.7 14.3 11.5
Counts/Season:
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
1
6
1
1
7
6
10
8
1
3
2
20
0
4
6
9
6
2
5
0
0
1
5
1
0
0
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
5
3
0
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
0
135
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS (Non-Chemical)
INDICES
Parameter Name Fully Threatened Partially Scores/Values 1234
INDEX OFBIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY 30 - 22 29 -- 29 -
INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY INDEX 31 -- 17 18 30 32
TROUT HABITAT QUALITY INDEX - - -- - - 4.1 --
STATION TYPE: Downstream Station
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Parameter Name
FLOW, STREAM, INSTANTANEOUS, CFS
OXYGEN, DISSOLVED (METER)
SUSPENDED SOLIDS, TOTAL
TEMPERATURE, WATER (DEGREE CENTIGRADE)
BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS (Non-Chemical)
INDICES
Parameter Name Fully Threatened Partially Scores/Values 1234
INDEX OF BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY 30 - 22 35 -- 31 -
IN VERTEBRATE COMMUNITY INDEX 31 - 17 28 26 32 32
TROUT HABITAT QUALITY INDEX -- -- -- - - 2.2 -
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -SO- -25-
13.3 12.0 10.7
9.9 8.85 8.5
65.3 20.75 6.0
) 16.6 14.8 11.2
Counts/Season:
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
1
6
1
1
7
6
9
6
4
4
10
10
1
8
3
8
6
2
5
0
0
1
5
1
0
0
0
2
3
1
0
0
0
6
3
0
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
0
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Quartile data for all chemical and physicochemical parameters indicate water
quality conditions are relatively good. The values presented are accurate for water
quality under baseflow conditions, but not necessarily reflective of impacts caused
by runoff events. After heavy rainfall events, the stream is often subject td 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.
136
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Modifications Since
Project Started
The estimated budget for the Elm Creek Watershed Section 319 National Monitor-
ing Program project for the life of the project is:
Project Element
Funding Source ($)
Federal
State
Local
Proj Mgt
I&E
Reports
LT
WQ Initiative
Program (WQIP)
WQ Monit
Post-Project Monit
TOTALS
HUA/WQIP
0
0
0
260,000
30,000
Sum
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. AH
funds were allocated in 1992
None.
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
Modifications Since
Project Started
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.
None.
OTHER PERTINENTINFORMA TION
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 Pro-
gram project activities are administered by the NDEQ.
137
-------
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
• USDA NRCS
• 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 CONTA CTS
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
138
-------
North Carolina
Long Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
North Carolina
Project Area
Figure 25: Long Creek (North Carolina) Watershed Project Location
139
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
LEGEND
o Dairy
A Sampling Location
Strip Mine
Pfflirea' A A
Watersheds F G/ city
Figure 26: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Long Creek (North Carolina) Watershed
140
-------
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 25). 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 crop-
land 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 implementing
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 geographic
information system (GIS).
Water quality monitoring includes a single-station, before-and-after-land treatment
design near the Bessemer City water intake (Figure 26), 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 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 26) is listed as
support-threatened by the North Carolina Nonpoint Source Management Program.
Biological (macroinvertebrate) habitat is degraded in this section due to the pres-
ence of fecal coliform, excessive sediment, and nutrient loading from agricultural
and urban nonpoint sources.
141
-------
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
Coliform
#/100mI
2100
BOD
(mg/1)
2
TSS
(mg/1)
14
TKN
(mg/I)
0.35
NOa-N
(mg/I)
0.41
TP
(mg/I)
<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 pollution
controls on:
• Bacteria, sediment, and nutrient loadings to a stream from a working dairy
farm;
• Sediment and nutrient loss from a field with a long history of manure
application; and . . ,
• Sediment loads from the water supply watershed (goal is to reduce 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 frac-
tured 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
142
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
Pollutant Sources
The monitored area contains the following dairy farms:
Dairy Name
Dairy 4
Dairy 3
Dairy 1
Cows f#)
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.
INFORM A TION, EDUCA TION, AND PUBLICITY
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Modifications Since
Project Started
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 re-
sources 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.
The information and education effort was expanded to an urban watershed that is
drained by Kaglor Branch. Streambank stabilization practices and a stormwater
wetland were installed in an urban park near the outlet of the Kaglor watershed. A
boardwalk and educational displays are being planned to facilitate viewing of
various features of the watershed.
NONPOINTSOURCE CONTROL STRA TEGYAND DESIGN
Description
Water Supply Watershed (site H):
Bessemer City 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 require-
ments 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.
143
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
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.
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 stabilization
between sites D and E have been implemented. A fenceline feeding system that
channels runoff to a waste holding pond is also being planned.
Paired Cropland Watersheds (sites F and G):
The control strategy on the paired watersheds involves implementing improved
nutrient management on the treatment watershed while continuing current nutrient
management and cropping practices on the control watershed. The number and
types of 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 nonpoint
source pollution on these sites.
Water Supply Watershed (she. HI:
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.
A watering system and a stream crossing are installed at a beef farm and fencing is
being planned on a dairy farm to exclude cows from tributary streams.
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 hydrant with a
stationary gun for applying waste effluent on the pasture/hayland areas was in-
stalled 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.
144
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
WA TER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
Parameters
Measured
Sampling Scheme
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 sampling done on a tributary to Long Creek (Kaglor
Branch)
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
indicator organisms such as E. coli, clostridium perfringens, and coliphages and the
pathogens giardia and cryptosporidium.
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 (PC) 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 (NO3 H- 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 26):
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 26~):
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
145
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
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+NO3, and TP; storm events for TSS, TS, TKN,
NO2+NO3, and TP
Paired Cropland Watersheds (Figure 261:
Type: storm event (sites F and G)
Frequency and season: stage-activated storm event for runoff, TS, TKN,
NO2+NO3, TP, and pathogens
Single Downstream Station at Watershed Outlet (Figure 26):
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, NO2+NO3, 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 I
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
NO3+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
6yrsBMP
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
146
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
In May -June, 1994, four monitoring wells were installed at the paired watersheds
to gain a better understanding of ground water movement. Ten wells were installed
between Sites D and E in July, 1996, and have been sampled monthly for nutrients,
bacteria, and metals. Approximately 16 wells above Site B are also being installed
on a Biosolids Application site.
Also, storm-event sampling (Site J) 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 monitoring
includes collecting grab samples at 12 locations within the watershed and analyzing
the samples for indicator organisms as well as the pathogens themselves.
The water quality monitoring stations have been established and several years of
data have been collected. Also, climatic and flow measurements are being made at
several points in the watershed.
Data are stored locally at the county Extension Service office. The data are also
stored and analyzed at North Carolina State University using the U.S. Environmen-
tal 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 agen-
cies for use in their data bases. Data analysis will involve performing statistical
tests for detection of long term-trends in water quality.
NPSMS Data
Summary
STATION TYPE: Upstream Station
Chemical Parameters
PRIMARY CODE: Site B
YEAR: 1994
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 (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: 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)
44.5 C
WW)
Farm
Type
S
u
u
S
S
u
PRIMARY CODE:
44.5 C
'WW)
Farm
Type
S
U
u
S
S
u
PRIMARY CODE:
44.5 C
iVW)
rWW)
Farm
Type
S
U
S
u
S
S
u
u
Reporting
Units
CFU/100ML
CFU/100ML
MG/L
MG/L
SiteC
Reporting
Units
CFU/100ML
CFU/100ML
MG/L
MG/L
SiteD
Reporting
Units
CFU/100ML
CFU/100ML
CFS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
QUARTILE VALUES
-75-
3600
3700
.53
.3
.3
8
-50-
1700
1400
.49
.22
.18
5.0
-25-
810
270
.45
.15
.1
4.0
QUARTILE VALUES
-75-
3400
4150
.56
.35
.29
11
-50-
1350
1650
.51
.22
.2
7
-25-
940
495
.46
1.7
.13
3
QUARTILE VALUES
-75-
81000
28000
.169
2.7
3.2
.745
145
44.5
-50-
31000
10000
.04
2.085
1.3
.45
102
12.5
-25-
7700
2600
.018
1.405
.615
.285
90
2
147
-------
•• Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
NPSMS Data Summary (Continued)
STATION TYPE: Downstream Station
Chemical Parameters
PRIMARY CODE: Site E
Parameter Name
Fecal Coliforrn, 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
STATION TYPE: Upstream Station
Chemical Parameters
Parameter Name
Fecal Coliforrn, Membr Filter, M-FC Broth, 44.5 C
Fecal Streptoccoci 9230C
Total Solids (Residue) 2540B (17th SMEWWW)
Total Suspended Solids (2540C 17th SMEWWW)
STATION TYPE: Upstream Station
Chemical Parameters
Parameter Name
Fecal Coliforrn, Membr Filter, M-FC Broth, 44.5 C
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 Coliforrn, Membr Filter, M-FC Broth, 44.5 C
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 Coliforrn, Membr Filter, M-FC Broth, 44.5 C
Fecal Streptoccoci 9230C
Flow, Stream, Instantaneous, CFS
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)
Farm Reporting
Type Units
44.5 C S CFU/100ML
U CFU/100ML
S CFS
U MG/L
S
S
WW) U MG/L
U MG/L
PRIMARY CODE: SiteH
Farm Reporting
Type Units
44.5 C S CFU/100ML
U CFU/100ML
WW) U MG/L
WW) U MG/L
PRIMARY CODE: Site B
Farm Reporting
Type Units
44.5 C S CFU/100ML
S
S
WW) U MG/L
PRIMARY CODE: SiteC
Farm Reporting
Type Units
44.5 C S CFU/100ML
S
S
/WW) U MG/L
PRIMARY CODE: Site D
Farm Reporting
Type Units
44.5 C S CFU/100ML
U CFU/100ML
S CFS
S
S
WW) U MG/L
/WW) U MG/L
QUARTILE VALUES
-75- -50- -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 1 14
71.5 13 3
QUARTILE COUNTS
-75- -50- -25-
910 630 270
1300 360 100
75 68 61
853
YEAR: 1995
QUARTILE COUNTS
1234
9996
38 6 16
22 6 4 1
8 3 14 8
QUARTILE COUNTS
1234
7 5 13 8
3 6 16 8
24 5 3 1
4 15 6 8
QUARTILE COUNTS
1224
7 3 13 8
11 20 24 5
1 8 39 3
19 23 9 1
29 16 5 2
21 14 11 6
9 33 7 3
148
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
NPSMS Data Summary (Continued)
STATION TYPE: Downstream Station
Chemical Parameters
PRIMARY CODE: SiteE
Parameter Name
Fecal Coliform, Membr Filter, M-FC Broth, 44.5 C
Fecal Streptoccoci 9230C
Flow, Stream, Instantaneous (CFS)
Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, Total (MG/L as N)
Phosphorus, Total (MG/L as P)
Total Solids (Residue) 2540B (17th SMEWWW)
Total Suspended Solids
Farm
Type
S
U
S
S
S
U
U
Reporting
Units
CFU/100ML
CFU/IOOML
CFS
MG/L
MG/L
STATION TYPE: Upstream Station
Chemical Parameters
PRIMARY CODE: Site H
QUARTILE COUNTS
1224
19 10 8 15
II
0
31
29
25
13
17
10
6
8
12
21
17
32
14
13
10
12
Parameter Name
Fecal Coliform, Membr Filter, M-FC Broth, 44.5 C
Fecal Streptoccoci 9230C
Total Solids (Residue) 2540B (17th SMEWWW)
Total Suspended Solids (2540C 17th SMEWWW)
Farm
Type
. S
U
U
U
Reporting
Units
CFU/IOOML
CFU/IOOML
MG/L
MG/L
QUARTILE COUNTS
1
3
7
16
8
2
12
7
6
8
3
8
9
3
11
4
5
5
7
5
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The estimated budget for the Long Creek Watershed National Monitoring Program
project for the life of the project is:
Project Element
Federal
Proj Mgt
I&E
LT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Source: Jennings et al., 1992
Funding Source f$)
State Local
340,300
0
0
561,186
901,486
147,360
20,000
370,000
0
537,360
98,240
80,000
80,000
12,000
270,240
Sum
585,900
100,000
450,000
573,186
1,709,086
Modifications Since
Project Started
A 319(h) grant has been awarded to provide cost share for BMP implementation.
IMP A CT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STA TE PROGRAMS
State and probably federal United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) -
Agricultural Conservation Program cost share programs will be essential for the
implementation of BMPs. The provisions of the North Carolina Water Supply
Watershed Protection Act (see section below) and the threat of additional regulation
will motivate dairy farmers to implement animal waste management and erosion
control BMPs.
149
-------
Long Creek Watershed, North Carolina
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMA TION
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 Commission. Other
regulations in the Act apply to activities such as forestry, transportation, residential
development, and sludge application.
PROJECT CONTA CTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Information and
Education
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
Glenda M. Jones, Administrator
Gaston Soil & Water Conservation District
1303 Cherry ville Highway
Dallas, NC 28034
(704) 922-3956; Fax (704) 922-4181
Shawn Smith
District Conservationist
USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service
1303 Cherry ville Highway
Dallas, NC 28034
(704) 922-3956; Fax (704) 922-4181
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
Kimberley Lough
Extension Agent
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 476
Dallas, NC 28034-0476
(704) 922-0303; Fax (704) 922-3416
Internet: klough @ gaston .ces. ncsu.edu
150
-------
Oklahoma
Peacheater Creek
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 27: Peacheater Creek (Oklahoma) Project Location
151
-------
Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
Tyner Creek
Legend
• Chemical Monitoring Site
^ Biological Monitoring Site
N
Peacheater Creek
Figure 28: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Peacheater Creek (Oklahoma) Watershed
152
-------
Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Peacheater Creek is located in eastern Oklahoma (Figure 27). The watershed is
primarily pastureland and forestland with little cropland and rangeland. There are
51 poultry houses, 9 dairies, and 1200 beef cattle in the watershed. Large gravel
bars generated from streambank erosion impair fish and macroinvertebrate habitat
quality. Cattle traffic and forestry activities are known to be major contributors to
streambank erosion. Streambank erosion is being quantified to estimate loads of
gravel, sand, silt, clay, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus contributed to each
stream. This process is nearing completion as samples have been collected, erosion
rates have been calculated, and lab results are pending. Baseflow monitoring shows
intermittent nutrient levels contribute to creek eutrophication. Impacts downstream
of Peacheater Creek include streambank erosion, habitat degradation, and nuisance
periphyton growth in Baron Fork and the Illinois River and phytoplankton blooms
and summer hypolimnetic anoxia 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 geographic
information system. A distributed parameter watershed model has been used for
determining critical areas for treatment. Critical areas are pasturelands, riparian
areas, and dairies. Nutrient management planning is underway to improve poultry
and dairy waste utilization on cropland and pastureland. A paired watershed study
is ongoing using chemical variables. Sufficient data have been collected to develop
statistically significant relationships between the two watersheds using water quality
parameters. Thus, the project is nearing completion of the calibration phase and
initiation of the implementation or treatment phase. Biological and habitat monitor-
ing is ongoing 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 downstream
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 Baron Fork, a tributary of the Illinois River upstream of Lake
Tenkiller.
Peacheater Creek is used for recreation and aquatic life support. Such use of
Peacheater Creek is impaired by nutrient enrichment and loss of in-stream habitat.
The Illinois River has been degraded by stream bank erosion,, loss of habitat,
reduced water clarity, and nuisance periphyton growth. Lake Tenkiller experiences
phytoplankton blooms and summer hypolimnetic anoxia which threatens the fishery
and recreational resource.
Baseflow monitoring for both Peacheater Creek (treatment watershed) and Tyner
Creek (control watershed) for 1990-1992 indicated high dissolved oxygen levels
(generally well above 6 mg/1), suggesting little concern about oxygen demanding
pollutants. Turbidity was very low, with all samples collected less than 8 NTU.
Specific conductivities ranged from 120 to 183mS/cm. Nitrate-nitrogen concentra-
tions for Peacheater Creek ranged from 0.82 mg/1 to 3.4 mg/I. Nitrate-nitrogen
levels near 3 mg/1 may be considered elevated if significantly above background for
the area. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) levels ranged from the detection 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, TKN concentrations for Tyner Creek were lower than Peacheater Creek.
153
-------
Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
Three of the thirty baseflow samples showed total phosphorus (TP) levels above
0.05 mg/1, which may be considered a minimum level foreutrophication. Storm
sample TP concentrations are elevated. Storm sample TN concentrations are similar
to baseflow concentrations.
Both Peacheater and Tyner Creeks have poor in-stream habitat. Large chert gravel
bars cover expansive portions of the streambed in Peacheater Creek. These gravel
bars continue to grow and shift following major runoff events. The gravel covers
natural geologic and vegetative substrates reducing habitat quality for
macroinvertebrates and fish. Peacheater Creek has extensive streambank erosion
due to forestry activities and cattle traffic. The streambank erosion is 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
The Peacheater Creek watershed area is 16,209 acres. The creek is a tributary of
Baron Fork, a tributary of the Illinois River which is impounded to form Lake
Tenkiller.
Average baseflow for Upper Tyner and Peacheater Creeks is 2-13 cubic feet per
second. Rocks in the project area are chert rubble. Surface rocks are from the
Boone Formation, the Osage Series, and of the Mississippian Age. Geology in the
basin in karstic.
Project area soils are generally gravelly silt loams with high infiltration rates.
Typical slopes in the floodplains range from 2-5%. A large portion of the watershed
is steeply sloped land (15-40% slopes).
Land Use
Forest land
Grassed pastureland
Brushy pastureland
Cropland
Rangeland
TOTAL
36
14
40
3
7
100
Primary sources of pollution include poultry houses and dairies in the treatment and
control watersheds. Other sources of nutrients could include septic systems of
private residents. Peacheater Creek has 51 poultry houses, 9 dairies, and 176
private residences. Upper Tyner Creek has 65 poultry houses, 7 dairies, and 150
private residences. The gravel which degrades in-stream habitat is also a pollutant.
Its primary source is believed to be streambank erosion. Forestry activities on steep
slopes are an important secondary source of gravel.
154
-------
Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
INFORMA TION, EDUCA TION, AND PUBLICITY
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Several methods are being used to educate the general public and agricultural
community about pollution control and water quality management. A primary
concern in the watershed is animal waste and nutrient management. Producer
meetings are used to provide updates on regulations for concentrated animal
feeding operations, which include egg laying poultry operations and various types
of poultry for flesh production. Records on waste clean-out operations and litter
applications are recommended. Cooperative Extension Service and the US Depart-
ment of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service are working together
to promote the proper use of waste holding ponds for dairies in the watershed. Soil
nutrient sampling is provided free-of-charge to identify fields with excessive
phosphorus levels. Litter testing is also available for broiler and laying operations.
Litter application demonstrations are used to illustrate nutrient management prin-
ciples on bermuda grass and fescue.
Rainfall simulator studies and demonstrations have been held to show effects of
animal waste best management practices (BMPs) on water quality. The effect of
nutrient application rate and filter strips was demonstrated during a summer field
day. Future rainfall simulator study demonstrations are planned.
A three-day summer youth camp is planned annually to provide water quality
education. An inner tubing excursion was used to show the extent and effect of
stream bank erosion on stream habitat quality. Youth camp participants also tested
the chemical quality of Peacheater Creek using portable kits.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY
Description
Land treatment 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 calibra-
tion phase has been finalized.
The eight dairies in the Peacheater Creek watershed have a total of approximately
800 cows. Seven of the eight dairies have animal waste management plans. A total
of seven waste management systems, including waste storage strictures, are recom-
mended 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 has been finalized.
There are 59 poultry houses in the watershed with a total capacity of approximately
1,300,000 birds. Five broods a year are produced for a total annual population of
approximately 6.5 X 106 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 recommended 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 has been evaluated and will soon be reported. A
155
-------
Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
Modifications Since
Project Started
waste holding pond has been recommended but has not yet been constructed for the
sole layer operation. Short-term storage for litter is recommended when poultry
house cleaning occurs during wet weather or outside the crop growth season.
Approximately 1,200 beef cattle graze 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. Activities in riparian areas such
as forestry practices, cattle traffic, and cattle grazing have caused stream bank
erosion. Best management practices recommended include fencing, no land appli-
cation of litter in riparian areas, off-site watering systems, and vegetative establish-
ment.
The implementation program for Peacheater Creek watershed is deferred until the
calibration phase of the project is finalized. 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 Lake Tenkiller.
WA TER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
Parameters
Measured
The water quality design for the Peacheater Creek 319 National Monitoring Pro-
gram project is a paired design. Peacheater Creek watershed treatment is paired
with Tyner Creek watershed (control) (Figure 28). Water quality monitoring occurs
at each watershed outlet. Habitat and biological monitoring occurs in both streams
at appropriate locations.
None.
Biological
Periphy ton productivity
Fisheries survey
Macroinvertebrate survey
Intensive and extensive habitat assessment
Bank erosion and bank soil sampling
Chemical
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Specific conductance (SC)
PH
Alkalinity
Turbidity
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Nitrate + nitrite nitrogen (NO2 and N03)
Total phosphorus (TP) and ortho-phosphorus (oP)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Sulfate
Chloride
Hardness
156
-------
Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
Covariates
Stream discharge
Precipitation
Sampling Scheme Chemical variables are monitored monthly from July through January, weekly
during February through June, and during storm events for a duration of 20 weeks.
Storm event monitoring is stage-activated and samples are taken continuously over
the hydrograph. Concentration samples are flow-weighted composites.
Biological monitoring varies considerably with assemblage being sampled. Per-
iphyton productivity is measured in the summer and the winter. Macroinvertebrates
are monitored twice per year: once in the summer and once in the winter. Fish are
intensively monitored every other year. Pool dwelling fish are inventoried quarterly.
Intensive habitat was monitored intensively the first year. Future frequency will be
determined by variance of parameters. Extensive habitat will be monitored on
alternate years. Bank erosion and bank soil sampling are monitored on alternate
years.
Monitoring Scheme for the Peacheater Creek Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Sites or
Design Activities
Primary
Parameters
Covariates
Frequency of
WQ Sampling
Frequency of
Habitat/Biological
Assessment Duration
Paired
Tyner Creekc
Peacheater Creek7
Periphyton productivity
Fisheries survey
Macroinvertebrate survey
Stream habitat quality
Bank erosion
Turbidity
DO
TKN
NC-3 + NO2
TPandOP
TSS
Stream discharge
Precipitation
Summer / winter
Alternate years
Summer / winter
As needed
Alternate years
2 yrs. pre-BMP
1 yr. BMP
I yr. post-BMP
Monthly (July-Jan.)
Weekly (Feb.-June)
Storm event
cControl watershed
TTreatment watershed
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
NPSMS Data
Summary
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
Chemical parameters will be entered into the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) STORET system, the Oklahoma Conservation Commission
(OCC) Water Quality Data Base and OCC office library. Biological variables will
be entered into the OCC Water Quality Data Base, the collections stored at the
OCC, and archived in the BIOS data base.
The OCC will prepare data and summary statistics for entry into the USEPA
Nonpoint Management System Software (NPSMS).
None.
157
-------
Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
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 to monitor
channel morphology and streambank erosion. Intensive habitat assessments, con-
sisting of transects every 20 meters at biological sites, have been completed and
replicated for quality assurance. A fishery survey of both streams has been com-
pleted, involving one intensive survey and four catch and release surveys of large
pools requiring sampling by electroshocking. Measurements of high flow events
continue to be conducted on both Peacheater and Tyner Creeks in order to update
the discharge curve. A depth/discharge curve for programming the auto-sampler in
both Peacheater and Tyner Creeks has been completed and the samplers are fully
operational. The winter sets of periphytometer samples have been collected, pro-
cessed, and are awaiting data analysis. Water quality parameters were compared
between the treatment and control watersheds and calibration requirements were
met under variable flow regimes. A statistically significant relationship has been
defined between water quality analysis for Tyner and Peacheater Creeks. This
relationship is based on USEPA requirements for paired watershed studies and
signifies completion of the calibration phase of the project. The first set of bank
erosion samples has been collected. Bank loss has been calculated, samples sieved
for particle size analysis, and analyzed for nutrients. Results of nutrient analysis are
pending.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The estimated budget for the Peacheater Creek National Monitoring Program
project for the life of the project is:
Project Element FundingJSource ($)
WQ Monitoring
Flow Monitoring
Implementation
TOTALS
Source: Phillip Moershel (Personal Communication), 1996
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
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STA TE PROGRAMS
Modifications Since
Project Started
This project compliments a larger program to improve the water quality of the
Illinois River 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.
None.
OTHER PERTINENTINFORMA TION
None.
158
-------
• Peacheater Creek,'Oklahoma
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Information and
Education
John Hassell
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
413 N.W. 12th St. Suite 123
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73103-3706
(405) 979-2204; Fax (405) 979-2212
Internet: jhassell@occwq.state.ok.us
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
101 McGee Drive
Sallisaw, OK 74955-5258
(918) 775-3045
Phillip Moershel
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
413 N.W. 12th St. Suite 123
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73103-3706
(405) 979-2208; Fax (405) 979-2212
Internet: phmoershel @ occwq.state.ok.us
Dan Butler
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
413 N.W. 12th St. Suite 123
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73103-3706
(405) 979-2206; Fax (405) 979-2212
Internet: dbutler@occwq.state.ok.us
Brooks Tramell
Cherokee County Conservation District
1009 S. Muskogee Ave.
Tahlequah, OK 74464-4733
(918) 456-1919; Fax (918) 456-3147
Dean Jackson
Adair County Extension Service
Box 702
Stilwell, OK 74960
(918) 696-2253. Fax (918) 696-6718
159
-------
Peacheater Creek, Oklahoma
Mike Smolen
Oklahoma State University
218 Agricultural Hall
Box 702
Stillwater, OK 74078-0469
(405) 744-5653; Fax (405) 744-6059
Internet: smolen@agen.okstate.edu
160
-------
Oregon
Upper Grande Ronde Basin
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Project Area
Oregon
Figure 29: Upper Grande Ronde Basin (Oregon) Project Location
161
-------
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
Figure 30: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Upper Grande Ronde Basin (Oregon) Watershed
162
-------
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 29). 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 activi-
ties, such as grazing, timber harvest, road construction, and livestock production,
have been cited as contributing to fish and other aquatic species' habitat degrada-
tion.
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 (prima-
rily.pH), the Grande Ronde has been listed by the Oregon Department of Environ-
mental 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 project is part of the US Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) Section 319 National Monitoring Program. The monitoring effort
targets five subbasins within the Upper Grande Ronde Basin. Water quality moni-
toring 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 indi-
vidual 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 has
evolved from local, state; and tribal cooperation. In 1995, a watershed assessment
was completed by ODEQ under the Oregon Watershed Health Program (Bach,
19.95). 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:
163
-------
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 (2 sites)
paired basin (2 sites)
single site (1 site)
paired basin (2 sites)
The designated beneficial uses of concern in the basin include anadromous popula-
tions of spring/summer Chinook salmon, summer steelhead, and resident popula-
tions 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 conditions
in McCoy Creek show impaired conditions at the two lower sites and moderately
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 30.
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 incuba-
tion. The 17.8°C temperature maximum applies to the study sites during July,
August and September. This maximum temperature was exceeded 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 may be
164
-------
Upper Grande Ronde Basin, Oregon
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
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.
None. ' •
1993 to 2003 (if funding permits)
1997
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorological Factors
Land Use
Pollutant Sources
Modifications Since
Project Started
The Upper Grande Ronde Basin Monitoring Project consists of ten study sites in
five subbasins located within the Blue Mountain ecoregion (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, aver-
age 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.
None.
165
-------
Upper Grande Ronde Basin, Oregon
INFORMA TION, EDUCA TION, AND PUBLICITY
There has been little quantitative documentation of the effects of habitat restoration
on stream temperatures and aquatic communities. The Upper Grande Ronde Basin
Monitoring project will provide useful information on the effects of riparian resto-
ration on fish and macroinvertebrate habitat improvement for areas elsewhere in the
basin. This project will also enhance interagency coordination among other agen-
cies 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. Conser-
vation Districts (SWCD), USFS, USEPA, and the CTUIR.
NONPOINTSOURCE CONTROL STRA TEGIES
Description
Modifications Since
Project Started
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. Restoration will include diverting flow
back into remnants of the old stream channel to redevelop meanders, better pool
quality, and more habitat complexity. Further improvements, especially in stream
temperatures, will be attempted by increasing riparian vegetation and restoring wet
meadow conditions in the flood plain. The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Indian Reservation will be coordinating the restoration work in cooperation with
ODEQ (CTUIR, 1997).
None.
WA TER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
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) implementation. Dark
Canyon is the control subbasin, while McCoy Creek is the treatment basin. Up-
stream / downstream monitoring sites of these subbasins will be implemented in
both. Three additional subbasins will be used as background subbasins representing
a range of water quality and habitat conditions.
None.
Biological
Habitat
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Chemical and Other
Continuous water temperature
Specific conductivity
Alkalinity
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
166
-------
Upper Grande Ronde Basin, Oregon
PH
Ammonia (NH3)
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Turbidity
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 moni-
toring season. Water quality, habitat, and macroinvertebrate surveys are conducted
three times and fish snorkel surveys are done once during each monitoring season.
The methods used for identifying sites are based on a modified Hankin and Reeves
procedure (Hafele, 1996). The habitat and macroinvertebrate assessment proce-
dures 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 documentation taken
at all study sites during summer low flows will provide before and after documenta-
tion of habitat conditions.
Monitoring Scheme for the Upper Grande Ronde Basin Section 319 National Monitoring Program
Project .
Sampling Scheme
Sites or
Design Activities
Paired McCoy Creek
Upstream/ Dark Canyon
downstream Creek
Primary
Parameters
Habitat
Macroinvertebrate
Fish
Water temperature
Frequency of
Covariates WQ Sampling
Air temperature 3 times yearly
Discharge
Precipitation
Frequency of
Habitat/Biological
Assessment Duration
3 times yearly 2 years pre-BMP
5 years BMP
5 years post-BMP
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
NPSMS Data
Summary
None.
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 Manage-
ment System (NPSMS) databases. Other reporting formats involve spreadsheet
tabulations and graphic presentation. Data will be shared among participating
agencies. Data analysis will involve performing statistical tests for detecting trends
in water and habitat quality and aquatic communities.
Currently unavailable.
167
-------
Upper Grande Ronde Basin, Oregon
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
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 completed
(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 ($)
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
Modifications Since
Project Started
Source: Rick Hafele, personal communication (1996).
None.
IMP A CT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STA TE 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 classified
as a stock of concern by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, sensitive by
the USFS, and part of a region-wide review for potential listing under the ESA
(Bach 1995).
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
OTHER PERTINENTINFORMA TION
None.
168
-------
Upper Grande Ronde Basin, Oregon
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Rick Hafele
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Labs
Biomonitoring Section
1712 S.W.I 1th Avenue
Portland, OR 97201
(503) 229-5983; Fax: (503) 229-6924
Internet: hafele.rick@deq.state.or.us
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.I 1th Avenue
Portland, OR 97201
(503) 229-5983; Fax: (503)229-6924
Internet: hafele.rick@deq.state.or.us
Larry Whitney
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Biomonitoring Section
1712 S.W.I 1th Avenue
Portland, OR 97201
(503) 229-5983
Internet: whitney.larry<§>deq.state.or.us
169
-------
Upper Grande Ronde Basin, Oregon
170
-------
Pennsylvania
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Pennsylvania
Project Area
•o
Figure 31: Pequea and Mill Creek (Pennsylvania) Watershed Project Location
171
-------
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania
\
Legend
Scale
o .5
Kilometers
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
N
t
Figure 32: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Pequea and Mill Creek (Pennsylvania) Watershed
172
-------
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 31). 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. Stream uses such as recreation
and drinking water supply are impaired by elevated bacteria and nutrient concentra-
tions.
Uncontrolled access of about 200 dairy cows and heifers to each of the two water-
shed streams is considered to be a major source of pollutants. Pastures adjacent to
streams also are thought to contribute significant amounts of nonpoint source
pollutants. Therefore, proposed land treatment will focus on streambank fencing to
exclude livestock from streams, 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 pollut-
ants from pasture runoff. '
Water quality monitoring is based on a paired watershed design in which the
proposed nonpoint source control is to implement livestock exclusion fencing on
nearly 100 percent of the stream miles in the treatment subwatershed (Figure 32).
Grab samples are collected every 10 days at the outlet of each paired subwatershed
from April through November. Storm event, ground water, biological, and other
monitoring is planned to help document the effectiveness of fencing in the treatment
subwatershed.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Modifications Since
Project Initiated
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
1994-1996 water years were 2.06 and 3.52 cfs at the outlets of the treatment and
control subwatersheds, respectively.
The subwatershed streams have relatively high nutrient and fecal coliform concen-
trations that contribute to use impairments of receiving waters.
Onetime baseflow grab sampling at four and seven locations in the control and
treatment subwatershed are presented in tabular form:
Fecal coliform TP OP TKN
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mgfl)
Treatment
Control
1,100-38,000
10,000
.06-.25
.02-.04
.03-. 15
.01-.03
.3-1.6
.1-.3
(mg/1)
10-18
4-12
The overall objective is to document the effectiveness of livestock exclusion
fencing at reducing nonpoint source 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.
None.
173
-------
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
October, 1993 to September, 1998-2003
July, 1993
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Total area is 3.2 square miles (mi2); Control = 1.8 mi2; Treatment = 1.4 mi
•2
Relevant Hydrologic, The average annual precipitation is 43 inches. The watershed geology consists of
Geologic, and deep well-drained silt-loam soils underlain by carbonate rock. About five percent of
MeteoroIogJC Factors each subwatershed is underlain by noncarbonate rock.
Land Use
Pollutant Sources
Modifications Since
Project Started
Type
Agricultural
Urban
Commercial
Total
Control Watershed
Acres SB.
922 80
150 13
80 7
1152
100
Treatment Watershed
Acres %.
762 85
116 13
18 2 •'
896 100
Source: Pequea and Mill Creek Watersheds Project Proposal, 1 993.
The primary source of pollutants is believed to be pastured dairy cows and heifers
with uncontrolled access to stream and streambanks. About 200 animals are pas-
tured in the treatment and control watersheds. It is estimated that grazing animals
deposit an average of 40 pounds of nitrogen and 8 pounds of phosphorus annually
per animal.
Other (commercial and urban) sources of pollutants are considered insignificant.
A new residential community is being developed in the treatment subwatershed.
INFORM A TION, EDUCA TION, AND PUBLICITY
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 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 Extension 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 water-
sheds 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 participating
farmers.
174
-------
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 vegeta-
tive buffer is expected to develop naturally soon after the fencing is installed.
None.
Streambank fencing in pastured areas of the treatment basin will be completed by
the end of June, 1997.
WA TER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
Parameters
Measured
Sampling Scheme
The water quality monitoring effort is based on a paired watershed experimental
design (Figure 32).
A new biological site, water quality site, and continuous monitoring station were
added.
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 + NO2)
Dissolved nitrite (NO2)
Total and dissolved phosphorus (TP and DP)
Dissolved orthophosphate (OP)
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 are collected.
175
-------
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania
Partial Streamflow Site (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 two tributary sites and partial
Streamflow at one upstream site.
Continuous precipitation amount is recorded at one site.
Additionally, ground water level is continuously monitored in eight wells.
Monitoring Scheme for the Pequea and Mill Creek Section 319 National Monitoring Program
Project
Frequency of
Sites or Primary Frequency of Habitat/Biological
Design Activities Parameters Covariates WQ Sampling Assessment Duration
Paired Treatment
watershed watershed
Control
watershed
Habitat survey
Benthic invertebrate survey Discharge
Algal mass Precipitation
SS Ground water
Total organic nitrogen level
NHs
NO3+NO2
NO2
TP
DP
OP
FS
Sampling
every 10 days
(Apr.-Nov.)
Monthly sampling
from Dec. to March
Storm event
samples (15-20)
Twice per 3 yrs pre-BMP
year (May & 5 yrs post-BMP
September)
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
A new biological site was added upstream in the control subwatershed. A new
continuous monitoring station and water quality site was added to the treatment
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.
176
-------
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania
NPSMS Data
Summary
STATION TYPE: CONTROL STUDY TYPE: Paired
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
QUARTILE VALUES
Parameter Name -75- -50- -25-
TEMPERATURE, WATER (DEGREE CENTIGRADE) 15.9 15.2 12.5
PRECIPITATION, TOTAL (INCHES PER DAY) 0.64 .31 .11
YEAR: 1996
FLOW, STREAM, INSTANTANEOUS, CFS
TURBIDITY, HACK TURBIDIMETER
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
OXYGEN, DISSOLVED
PH (STANDARD UNITS)
NITROGEN, AMMONIA, DISSOLVED
NITROGEN, NITRITE, DISSOLVED
2.2 1.8 1.4
9 6.1 3.5
700 691682.5
10.8 '10.1 9.4
7.86 7.75 7.5
0.05 0.04 0.02
0.04 0.03 0.02
NITROGEN, AMMONIA+ORGANIC,DISSOLVED 0.30 <0.20<0.20
NITROGEN, KJELDAHL, TOTAL 0.40 0.30<0.20
NITROGEN, NITRITE+NITRATE, DISSOLVED 10 10 9.7
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL (MG/L) 0.08 0.04 0.03
PHOSPHORUS, DISSOLVED ORTHOPHOSPHATE 0.04 0.03 0.02
PHOSPHORUS, DISSOLVED
STREPTOCOCCI, FECAL, KF AGAR
SUSPENDED SEDIMENT
PASTURE STREAM MILES FENCED
0.03 0.03 0.02
5720 3580 2190
107 84 20
000
Counts/Season:
Highest .
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
5
20
10
6
21
15
15
35
18
4
1
0
6
3
5
9
5
5
5
8
7
4
8
4
3
.3
12
5
4
4
14
1
8
4
9
2
4
6
13
0
5
1
7
10
15
3
2
3
4
6
5
8
3
5 .
6
9
6
7
7
3
4
0
3- . !
1
2 •
0
8
11
0
0
0
0
177
-------
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania
NPSMS Data Summary (Continued)
STATION TYPE: STUDY
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
QUARTILE VALUES
Parameter Name -75- -SO- -25-
TEMPERATURE, WATER (DEGREE CENTIGRADE) 20.5 18.7 13
PRECIPITATION, TOTAL (INCHES PER DAY) 0.64 .31 .11
FLOW, STREAM, INSTANTANEOUS, CFS
TURBIDITY, HACH TURBIDIMETER
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
OXYGEN, DISSOLVED
PH (STANDARD UNITS)
NITROGEN, AMMONIA, DISSOLVED
NITROGEN, NITRITE, DISSOLVED
1.5 .9 .6
743
680 640 609
12.4 11.4 9.8
8 7.84 7.67
0.06 0035 0.03
0.07 0.06 0.05
NITROGEN, AMMONIA+ORGANIC, DISSOLVED 0.42 0.3 0.2
NITROGEN, KJELDAHL, TOTAL
0.7 0.55 0.38
NITROGEN, NITRITE+NITRATE, DISSOLVED 12.2 11 9.4
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL (MG/L)
0.1 0.06 0.04
PHOSPHORUS, DISSOLVED ORTHOPHOSPHATE 0.06 0.025 0.02
PHOSPHORUS, DISSOLVED
STREPTOCOCCI, FECAL, KF AGAR
SUSPENDED SEDIMENT
PASTURE STREAM MILES FENCED
0.05 0.025 0.02
98320 10880 1710
54 26 6
000
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Highest
High
Low
Lowest
Counts/Season:
0
4
12
7
21
15
15
35
18
5
0
0
8
5
5
5
3
10
5
5
3
4
4
12
0
3
4
16
7
9
1
6
11
3
3
6
4
7
8
4
3
1
7
12
3
12
4
4
3
i
3
16
3 '
4
6
10
3
4
7
9
0
1
6
1
2
4
13
2
0
0
0
0
178
-------
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania
NPSMS Data Summary (Continued)
DATATYPE: Bio/Habitat STUDY TYPE: Paired
STATION TYPE: CONTROL
BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS (Non-Chemical)
Parameter Name
HILSENHOFFBIOTIC INDEX
TAXA RICHNESS
EPTINDEX
PERCENT DOMINANT TAXA
SCRAPERS/FILTER COLLECT
Fully
0-6.5
20
6
20
STATION TYPE: STUDY
BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS (Non-Chemical)
Parameter Name
HILSENHOFFBIOTIC INDEX
TAXA RICHNESS
EPT INDEX
PERCENT DOMINANT TAX A
SCRAPERS/FILTER COLLECT
INDICES
Threatened
6.51-8.5
11
4
35
.4
Partially
8.51-10
10
1
50
.2
Fully
0-6.5
20
6
20
.8
INDICES
Threatened
6.51-8.5
11
4
35
.4
Partially
8.51-10
10
1
50
.2
Scores/Values
PASTURED
5.62
21
2
25.9
.081
Scores/Values
PASTURED
5.92
26
3
25.2
.072
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Toward
Meeting Goals
None.
1994 through 1996 water quality data have been entered into WATSTORE and into
NPSMS software.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Funding Required
Project Element
Personnel
Equipment and Supplies
Contracted Services
USGS (lab and gauging)
USGS Overhead
Other
TOTAL*
*50% of total funds are USGS matching funds
Source: Pequea and Mill Creek Watersheds Project Proposal, 1993.
1993
$ 57,508
20,300
16,200
25,100
115,192
2,000
$236,300
1994
$ 91,970
5,600
14,200
38,800
139,834
2,000
292,404
1995
$ 67,656
5,020
6,200
40,770
109,214
3,000
231,860
1996
$ 90;097
4,000
7,380
30,500
121,393
4,000
257,370
1997
$ 94,207
4,000
6,181
31,057
119,614
10,241
265,300
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
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.
179
-------
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania
OTHER PERTINENTINFORM A TION
None.
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Barbara Lathrop
Water Quality Biologist
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection
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
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
180
-------
South Dakota
Bad River
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
South Dakota
Figure 33: Bad River (South Dakota) Project Location
181
-------
Bad River, South Dakota
pint
Jackson Go,
Legend
Watershed Boundary
- - - County Boundary
• Cities and Towns
A Ash Creek Monitoring Site (Control)
B Powell Creek Monitoring Site (Treatment)
C Whitewater North Monitoring Site (Treatment)
D Whitewater South Monitoring Site (Control)
Figure 34: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Bad River (South Dakota)
182
-------
Bad River, South Dakota
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Bad River watershed, located in westcentral South Dakota (Figure 33), consists
entirely of rolling prairie rangeland. Livestock grazing and dryland wheat farming
are the main land uses of the watershed. The Bad River joins with the Missouri
River at its mouth, near Ft. Pierre, South Dakota. Soil erosion, primarily from poor
grazing management and poorly maintained riparian areas, is causing excessive
sedimentation to the main channel of the Missouri River. This has impaired recre-
ation due to loss of depth in the Missouri Channel. Loss of channel depth for the
Oahe Reservoir on the Missouri River, located 10 miles upstream from the mouth of
the Bad River, has impaired the hydropower generation of Oahe Dam during winter
months. This, in turn, causes flooding in the cities of Pierre and Ft. Pierre.
The Bad River Section 319 National Monitoring Program project, by using a two-
paired watershed design, will determine the effectiveness of best management
practices (BMPs). The rangeland, cropland and riparian areas in the treatment
watersheds (Powell Creek in the eastern part of the Bad River watershed and
Whitewater North Creek in the western part of the watershed) will be treated with
appropriate BMPs, such as fencing, rotational grazing, alternative feeding and
watering stations, and vegetation plantings. All land uses will be monitored regu- .
larly and the information will be tracked by the use of a Geographic Information
System (GIS) database.
Because the streams in this region are ephemeral, only storm-event samples will be
collected, along with spring snowmelt samples. On average, four storms per season
produce enough runoff for the streams to flow. Twenty-four hour integrated samples
will be collected, usually for two to three days per storm event. During the spring
snowmelt period, two 24-hour composite samples will be collected during the first
week of runoff, with one 24-hour composite sample collected per week until runoff
ceases. Samples are to be analyzed for total suspended sediment. Rainfall and
stream discharge are being measured as covariates.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
The Bad River watershed encompasses 3,209 square miles of western rangeland.
The small streams that feed the main channel are ephemeral as are the upper
reaches of the Bad River itself. The Bad River enters the Missouri in the town of Ft.
Pierre in Stanley County, South Dakota.
The official beneficial uses of the Bad River include the following:
• Warmwater marginal fish life propagation waters
• Limited contact recreation waters
• Wildlife propagation and stock watering waters
• Irrigation waters
The main impairment to the Bad River is excess sediment from eroded soils in
poorly managed rangeland and riparian areas. The load of sediment from the Bad
River creates a problem in the Missouri near the mouth of the Bad River. Loss of
channel capacity and water clarity impacts on sport fishing are problems on the
Missouri in the Pierre area due to the Bad River sediment.
183
-------
Bad River, South Dakota
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Current Water
Quality Objectives
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
There is no existing water quality data from the paired watersheds of the Bad River
National Monitoring Project.
The main objective of the project is to document water quality improvements in the
treatment subwatersheds through the implementation of BMPs.
1996-2006
1996
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
Land Use
Pollutant Sources
The drainage area of the Bad River is located in westcentral South Dakota (Figure
33) and covers 3,209 square miles of mostly rangeland. The rolling topography of
fine textured, deep, shale-derived soils allows for significant soil erosion when
rangeland and cropland is not properly managed. The project area supports an
abundance of wildlife including mule deer, pronghorn antelope, porcupines, bob-
cats, prairie grouse, and numerous other species.
This area of South Dakota receives, on average, 15-16 inches of rainfall per year.
Most of the precipitation is derived from thunderstorm events during the spring and
summer, although snowmelt produces significant runoff. On average there are four
storms in the year that produce enough rainfall that runoff occurs in the tributaries.
Runoff usually lasts for four to five days per storm event.
The land use in the watershed is primarily agricultural and consists of 75% range-
land and 25% dryland wheat farming. A large portion of the upper end of the Bad
River watershed is owned by the U.S. Forest Service. Rotational grazing practices
have been implemented on the federal rangeland and also on many private ranches.
Soil erosion, primarily from rangeland and riparian areas, is the primary source of
the stream sediment.
INFORM A TION, EDUCA TION AND PUBLICITY
Meetings are currently being held with the ranch communities to explain the
project. The Upper Bad River Task Force, a group comprised of ranchers and
agency personnel that are committed to improving water quality in the Bad River
watershed, is currently meeting to discuss nonpoint source pollution control strate-
gies. As the project progresses, it is anticipated that newspaper articles and radio
spots will be used to highlight project activities.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGIES
Description
A two-paired watershed design was implemented for this project, with one pair
located in the eastern part of the Bad River watershed (A and B — Figure 34), and
the other pair in the western part (C and D — Figure 34), at a higher elevation than
the east. The nonpoint source pollution control strategies vary for the different
subwatershed that are being treated.
184
-------
Bad River, South Dakota
Powell Creek, located in the eastern part of the watershed and comprised of 11,221
acres, will serye ad the lower treatment subwatershed, while Ash Creek, with 13,702
acres, will be the 16wer control. Best management practices expected for the Powell
Creek subwatershed include riparian management (cross-fencing, willow plantings,
and alternative feed and watering sites) and rangeland management (rotational
grazing).
In the western part of the watershed, Whitewater North Creek (6,780 acres) will
serve as the higher treatment subwatershed while Whitewater South Creek (6,605
acres) will be the higher control. The BMPs to be implemented at Whitewater North
Creek include riparian management,-small dam structures, and water spreaders.
Riparian habitat will be monitored during the project. Five riparian reaches will be
selected for each subwatershed. A stream channel cross section and stream classifi-
cation (Rosgen method) will be obtained for each reach and during the duration of
the project, cross sections will be completed annually. Photographs will be utilized
to show changes during the project and riparian information will be entered into the
GIS.
Rangeland will be monitored by measuring range condition and vegetative cover
during the project period. Range condition will be determined at the start of the
project, five years into the project and at the end of the project. Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) personnel will rate the range condition using the
NRCS South Dakota Technical Guide range site descriptions. The Robel Pole
method will be used to determine vegetative cover at permanent transects located
within each subwatershed (Ash Creek — 21 transects, Powell Creek — 13 transects,
Whitewater North — 10 transects, and Whitewater South — 9 transects). The Robel
Pole measurements will be taken 3 times per transect per year. This information will
be entered into the GIS.
WA TER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Parameters
Measured
The Bad River Section 319 National Monitoring Project uses a paired watershed
monitoring design, with two pairs as part of the protocol. Two subwatersheds have
been identified in the eastern part of the watershed (Ash and Powell Creeks) and
two in the western portion (Whitewater North and Whitewater South) (Figure 34).
Biological
N/A - '
Sampling Scheme
Chemical and Other
Total suspended sediment
Explanatory Variables
Stream discharge
Rainfall: amount, duration, intensity
Riparian condition
Because the streams in this area are ephemeral, monitoring is storm-event driven.
Storm event occurrence, rainfall amounts, and rainfall intensity are compared with
the hydrologic discharge and sediment loads. Complete hydrologic and sediment
loads will be calculated on each storm event. Storm samples will be flow integrated.
185
-------
Bad River, South Dakota
Twenty-four-hour composite samples are collected and analyzed for the duration of
flow of each storm event.
In the spring during snowmelt, two 24-hour composite samples are collected
during the first week of snowmelt with one sample collected per week thereafter
until runoff ceases
Monitoring Scheme for the Bad River Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Design
Sites or
Activities
Primary
Parameters
Covariates
Frequency of
WQ Sampling
Duration
Paired
Watershed
Whitewater North Creek1" TSS
Whitewater South Creekc
Powell Creek1"
Ash Creekc
Stream discharge
Rainfall
During spring
snowmelt
Storm event
? yr pre-BMP
? yr BMP
? yr post-BMP
TTh:atmcnt
cConirol
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
All data collected during the Bad River 319 National Monitoring program will be
entered into a relational database, Microsoft FoxPro. Files will be backed up daily
and the water quality data will also be stored in the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's STORET database. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
NonPoint Source Management System (NPSMS) software will be used to track and
report data to EPA.
A GIS map will be constructed for the Bad River watershed. The GIS will allow
cropland and rangeland BMP tracking throughout the life of the project. Other
information, such as rangeland and riparian conditions will be entered into the
system.
Statistical comparisons of sediment load to rainfall intensity will be determined by
regression analysis at all four sub watersheds. The effectiveness of implementing
watershed BMPs will be tested through regression and/or correlation analyses.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Project Element
LT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
154,428
148,978
303,406
Funding Source ($)
State Local
2,000
18,300
20,300
NA
NA
NA
Sum
156,428
167,278
323,706
Source: Bad River National Monitoring Project Workplan, 1996
186
-------
Bad River, South Dakota
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STA TE PROGRAMS
Currently Section 319 watershed funds are being used in the Bad River watershed
to implement BMPs. This watershed has been given priority status for funding
under the U.S. Department of Agriculture EQUIP (Environmental Quality, Incentive
Program). Matching funds are provided by the State of South Dakota and partici-
pating private ranchers.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMA TION
Project contributors are listed beloyv:
• Private Landowners
• Natural Resources Conservation Service
• South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources
• Upper Bad River Task Force
• Stanley County Conservation District
• East Pennington Coriservatio'n District
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Bill Stewart
South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Joe Foss Bldg.
523 E. Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-3181
(605)773-4254; Fax (605)773-4068
Internet: bills@denr.state.sd.us
David Konechne
Pierre Field Support Office
P.O. Box 1258
Pierre, SD 57501-1258
Wayne Vander Vorste
Pierre Field Support Office
P.O. Box 1258
Pierre, SD 57501-1258
Steven Quissell
Rapid City Field Support Office
Federal Building, Room 239
515 9th St.
Rapid City, SD 57701-2663
187
-------
r
Bad River, South Dakota
Water Quality
Monitoring
Bill Stewart
South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Joe Foss Bldg.
523 E. Capitol '
Pierre, SD 57501-3181
(605)773-4254; Fax (605)773-4068
Internet: bills ©denr.state.sd.us
188
-------
Vermont
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 35: Lake Champlain Basin (Vermont) Watersheds Project Location
189
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
Legend
^ Monitoring Station
Water
• Watershed Boundaiy
3 (Control Watershed)
Scale
9 ,'
Kilometers
9 ,'
_J
2
Miles
Figure 36: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Lake Champlain Basin (Vermont) Watersheds
190
-------
Lake Cnamplain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds Section 319 National Monitoring Program
project (also known as the Lake Champlain Agricultural Watersheds Best Manage-
ment 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 35). Agricul-
tural 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 pollution. The pollutants
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 nonpoint source pollution is the manure generated from
area dairy farms, livestock activity within streams and riparian areas, and crop
production. The Missisquoi River has the second largest discharge of water and
contributes the greatest nonpoint source load of phosphorus to Lake Champlain.
The Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds 319 National Monitoring Program project
is designed to evaluate a set of treatments to control the pollutants generated by
agricultural activities, focusing on grazing management. A system of best manage-
ment practices (BMPs) has been implemented to exclude livestock from selected
critical areas of streams and to protect stream crossings and streambanks. Individual
BMPs include fencing, minimization of livestock crossing areas in streams,
strengthening of necessary crossings, watering systems, and streambank stabiliza-
tion through bioengineering techniques.
The water quality monitoring program is based on a three-way paired design: one
control watershed and two treatment watersheds receiving similar BMP systems at
different intensities (Figure 36). The watersheds are being monitored during a three-
year calibration, period prior to BMP implementation. Implementation monitoring
will occur for one year and post-treatment monitoring will extend for at least two
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 moni-
tored are total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total suspended solids, dissolved
oxygen, conductivity, and temperature. Two covariates, precipitation and continu-
ous discharge, are also being monitored.
Nutrients and suspended sediment are monitored weekly in a flow-proportional
composite sample. Bacteria grab samples are collected twice weekly, with concur-
rent 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.
191
-------
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 gener-
ally 10-15 feet wide at the monitoring stations. Historical stream flow data do not
exist for these streams; discharge has ranged from 0.1-300 cubic feet per second
(cfs) since May, 1993.
Because of their size, the study streams themselves are subject to very limited use
for agricultural purposes (livestock watering) and recreation (swimming and
fishing). No historical data exist to document support or nonsupport of these or
other uses. Initial project data indicate that Vermont water quality (bacteriological)
criteria for body contact recreation are consistently violated in these streams.
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 agricultural
runoff (Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, 1994). The Missisquoi River is the
second largest tributary to Lake Champlain in terms of discharge (mean flow =1450
cfs) and contributes the highest annual nonpoint source phosphorus load to Lake
Champlain among the major tributary watersheds (75.1 mt/yr) (VT and NY Depart-
ments of Environmental Conservation, 1994). Lake Champlain currently fails to
meet state water quality standards for phosphorus, primarily due to excessive
nonpoint source loads (Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, 1994). About 66%
of the nonpoint source phosphorus load to Lake Champlain is attributed to agricul-
tural land (Budd and Meals, 1994).
No historical physical/chemical data exist for the study streams. Early pretreatment
monitoring data show the following ranges:
E. Coli
(#7100 ml)
4-200,000
TP (mg/1)
0.03-1.33
Fecal Coliform
(#7100 ml)
1-200,000
TKN (mg/1)
0.20-0.25
Fecal Strep.
9 - 200,000
TSS (mg/1)
2-250
(Note: these values represent the range observed in May, 1994 - June, 1996.)
The overall goal of the project is a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of
livestock/grazing management practices focused on the riparian zone 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.
192
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
Modifications Since
Project Initiation
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
Delay in implementation resulting in extension of pre-treatment monitoring and
reduction of planned post-treatment monitoring.
September 1993 to 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 transi-
tion between the lowlands of the Champlain Valley and the foothills of the Green
Mountains. Average annual precipitation is about 41 inches; average annual tem-
perature is about 42°F. Frost-free growing season averages 118 days.
Most of the watershed soils are till soils, loamy soils of widely variable drainage
characteristics. There are significant areas of somewhat poorly drained silt/clay
soils in the lower portions of the watersheds.
The three watersheds are generally similar in land use:
Land Use
Corn/hay
Pasture/
hay-pasture
Forest
Other
WS1
Acres %_
369
60
1135
141
22%
4%
67%
8%
WS2
Acres %
860
426
2118
110
25%
12%
60%
3%
WS3
Acres %.
569
167
1408
213
24%
7%
60%
9%
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.
INFORMA TION, EDUCA TION, AND PUBLICITY
Pre-project activity included letters to all watershed agricultural landowners fol-
lowed 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.
Two articles concerning the project have been published in the weekly county
newspaper. A semiannual project newsletter was initiated in the summer of 1995.
193
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
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 watershed
farmers discussed the project and heard a talk by a local farmer engaged in rota-
tional grazing. A second such meeting was held in April, 1996'.
A semi-annual project newsletter is distributed to watershed farmers and other
interested parties. In addition, a feature story on the project has been published in
the monthly magazine of a regional environmental advocacy group.
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 pretreatment calibration phase focus
on laying the groundwork for treatment by presenting demonstrations and informa-
tion concerning rotational grazing and livestock access control. Additional contact
with farmers will occur through routine collection of agricultural management data.
NONPOINTSOURCE CONTROL STRA TEGY AND DESIGN
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
The project is designed to test a suite of practices that treat and protect the stream
and riparian zone. In both treatment watersheds, work will focus on selective
exclusion of livestock from the streams, creation of a protected riparian zone,
improvement or elimination of heavily used livestock stream crossings, and reveg-
etation of degraded streambanks. The treatment requires fencing, watering systems,
reducing the number of livestock crossing areas, bridging or strengthening neces-
sary crossing areas, and streambank erosion control through willow planting and
other bioengineering techniques.
During the pretreatment monitoring period, treatment needs are being assessed,
specific plans and specifications are being developed, and agreements with land-
owners 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 annual interviews.
It is also anticipated that some work will be done as necessary on agricultural point
sources if and when such pollutant sources are identified.
Problems with funding and personnel shifts delayed the start of treatment imple-
mentation by approximately one year. In 1996, the project timetable was revised to
reflect a three-year calibration period (1994-1996), one year of implementation
(1997), and two years of post-treatment monitoring (1998-1999).
The nonpoint source control strategy and design have been changed due to changes
in agricultural operations in WS1. The original project design called for the imple-
mentation of intensive grazing management in WS1 as a means to minimize the
194
-------
•Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
time spent by livestock in or near the streamcourse without resorting to complete
exclusion. However, since the beginning of the project, one farmer in WS1 ceased
operations, one changed his management to complete confinement, and another was
determined to have no riparian pasture. Moreover, the owner of the large dairy
operation immediately above the monitoring station has implemented full rotational
grazing on his own. Thus, opportunities for implementing the planned treatment
were essentially eliminated. After additional field surveys and discussions with the
Project Advisory Committee, the Principal Investigator requested approval from
EPA Region I for a change.in treatment design. Approval was granted in June,
1997.
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Under the modified strategy, WS1 will receive the same set of treatments as WS2,
i.e. livestock exclusion, crossing protection, and streambank stabilization. Thus,
WS1 can now be viewed as a replicate of WS2 with respect to treatment. Because
of the lower intensity of grazing resulting from the changes in agriculture in the
watershed, the level of treatment will be lower in WS1 compared to WS2, offering
the opportunity to evaluate thresholds and degrees of water quality response to
varying levels of treatment.
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 andphysical monitor-
ing, and may have some lasting influence on biological communities in the moni-
tored streams.
Following a baseline inventory and new aerial videography in 1995, land use/
agricultural activity has been conducted through farmer recordkeeping, annual
interviews, and windshield surveys.
The process of identifying specific treatment needs and designs and negotiating
agreements with landowners began in the fall of 1995. However, project difficulties
and changes noted earlier delayed this process significantly. Under renewed initia-
tives, agreements were signed with eight watershed landowners in the spring of
1997 and implementation is underway. As of midsummer, 1997, installed practices
included more than 7,000 feet of riparian fence, elimination of three livestock
crossings, a culvert livestock crossing, three armored livestock crossings, and a
bridge. In addition, several thousand feet of streambank have been protected with
brushrolls and tree revetments and willow plants. Significant assistance has been
given by the Vermont Youth Conservation Corps, the Missisquoi River Basin
Association, and local volunteers.
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 accounting
for and documenting required match. This is a particular problem in the implemen-
tation 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 Conservation
(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 corresponding
195
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
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 in-
crease 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. The project was significantly under-funded in FY 1997, resulting in a
five-month suspension of project activities beyond continuation of basic water
quality monitoring. This problem has been corrected.
WA TER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Modifications Since
Project Started
Parameters
Measured
Sampling Scheme
The study is based on a paired-watershed design, with a control watershed and two
treatment watersheds (Figure 36). The design calls for three years of calibration
monitoring, one year of implementation monitoring, and two years of post-treat-
ment monitoring.
None.
Biological
E. coli bacteria
Fecal coliform (FC)
Fecal streptococcus (FS)
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
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 com-
, posite samples for sediment and nutrients. 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 monitoring systems operate
year-round.
The macroinvertebrate community at each site and a fourth "background reference"
site are sampled annually using a kick net/timed effort technique. Methods and
analysis follow USEPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Protocol III). Fish are
196
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
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 BrookT
Berry Brookc
Primary
Parameters
E. coli
FC
FS
Macroinveitebrates
Fish survey ,
TP
TKN
TSS
DO
Conductivity
Temperature
Frequency of
Covariates WQ Sampling
Precipitation Weekly 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
cControl watershed
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
While no changes to the monitoring program have occurred, changes in the TKN
analysis within the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation laboratory
have threatened the utility of that parameter in evaluating treatment response.
Continuation of the TKN analysis is currently under review.
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 statisti-
cal procedures in standard statistical software.
197
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
NPSMS Data
Summary
Monitoring Station Parameters Report
DATE: 08/04/95
PERIOD: 5/94-6/95
STATION TYPE: Treatment Watershed #1 (Samsonville 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
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
STATION TYPE: Control Watershed (Berry 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
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- -50- -25-
120
200
180
1040
3.7
13.0
0.58
1.24
0.160
0.8
59.6
95
120
82
300
2.3
11.8
0.29
1.00
0.076
9.1
26.8
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
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-
130
3850
2800
1900
9.2
12.6
0.75
1.06
0.179
17.4
31.0
-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
Project Started
None.
198
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Analysis of physical and chemical monitoring data collected through 1996 indicates
that conditions for acceptable calibration have been met. Significant regression
relationships exist between watershed pairs for all parameters of interest. For most
parameters, the calibration period has been adequate to detect changes following
treatment. Residual errors around the regressions are small enough to allow deter-
mination for changes of 23% or smaller in response to treatment. Calibration
regressions are acceptable for all combinations of treatment/control watersheds
examined. Therefore, while some problems remain to be worked out with respect to
TKN, data collected during the calibration phase appear to be adequate for the
project to proceed into the treatment period.
PROJECT BUDGET
Modifications Since
Project Started
The estimated budget for the Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds National Monitor-
ing Program project for years 1-4 is:
Project Element
LT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Federal
Funding Source ($)
State University Other
Total
121,093 3,388 ' 21,918
443,354 134,229 106,601
564,447 137,617 128,519
54,981 201,380
NA 684,184
54,981 885,564
Source: Don Meals (Personal Communication), 1997. Federal includes funds from
319 and 104b3; Other represents potential labor/materials from landowners/
volunteers. (Dollar figures are rounded.)
Project budget continues to be renewed yearly.
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STA TE PROGRAMS
Modifications Since
Project Started
The project area is within the area of the Lake Champlain Basin Program (a pro-
gram modeled after the Chesapeake Bay Program), directed toward the manage-
ment of Lake Champlain and its watershed. Considerable effort on agricultural
nonpoint source control is associated with this program, including funding for
pollution control/prevention demonstration projects.
Additionally, the state of Vermont's phosphorus management strategy calls for
targeted reductions of phosphorus loads from selected subbasins of Lake
Champlain.
Because this 319 National Monitoring Program project contributes to two ongoing
projects (the Lake Champlain Basin Program and the phosphorus reduction pro-
gram), it is anticipated that some support — technical assistance, funding, or other
— will be actively sought from these programs.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) is an active participant in the
project. Two watershed landowners have signed agreements with the USF&WS
Fanners for Wildlife riparian zone restoration program. NRCS has rendered valu-
able assistance in engineering design and streambank restoration. The onset of the
new USDA EQUIP program, however, severely curtailed the availability of staff
time to assist in the project. The Vermont Youth Conservation Corps Franklin
199
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds, Vermont
County crew donated three days of labor in streambank stabilization. The
Missisquoi River Basin Association, a citizens group, organized several days of
volunteer labor, and employees of Ben & Jerry's Homemade donated substantial
field work.
OTHER PERTINENTINFORMA TION
None.
PROJECT CONTA CTS
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@dec.anr.state.vt.us
Don Meals
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
Building 10 North 103 South Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05671
(802) 241-3679, (802) 862-6632; Fax (802) 241-3287
Internet: donm@dec.anr.state.vt.us or dmeals@wcvt.com
Don Meals
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
Building 10 North 103 South Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05671
(802) 241-3679, (802) 862-6632; Fax (802) 241-3287
Internet: donm@dec.anr.state.vt.us ordmeals@wcvt.com
200
-------
Washington
Totten and Eld Inlet
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 37: Totten and Eld Inlet (Washington) Project Location
201
-------
• Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
LEGEND
' Watershed Boundary
Sample Site Location
Scale
Figure 38: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Totten and Eld Inlet (Washington)
202
-------
i Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Totten and Eld Inlets are located in southern Puget Sound (Figure 37). These
adjacent inlets are 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, noncommer-
cial farms that keep various livestock. Upland and lowland areas are highly produc-
tive forest lands.
The most significant nonpoint source pollution problem in these inlets is bacterial
contamination of shellfish production. Totten Inlet is currently classified as an
approved shellfish harvest area but is considered threatened due to bacterial
nonpoint source pollution. The southern portion of Eld Inlet is currently classified
as conditional for shellfish harvest. This conditional classification means shellfish
may not be harvested for 3 days following rain events that are greater than 1.25
inches in 24 hours. The major sources of fecal coliform (FC) bacteria are failing
on-site wastewater treatment systems and livestock-keeping practices along stream
corridors and marine shorelines.
The Totten and Eld Inlet Clean Water Projects have evolved from the combined
efforts and resources of local and state government. Watershed action plans were
completed in 1989 for both Totten and Eld Inlet. While a significant level of public
involvement and planning has occurred, material resources for implementing on-
the-ground best management practices (BMPs) have been scarce. In 1993, revenue
from property assessments and grants provided funds for local government to
implement remedial actions in targeted areas within these watersheds. The goal of
the remedial efforts is to minimize the impacts of nonpoint source pollution by
implementing farm plans on priority farm sites and identifying and repairing failing
on-site wastewater treatment systems. These focused efforts are expected to last
into 1999.
In 1993, a water quality monitoring program was initiated to evaluate the effective-
ness of remedial land treatment practices on water quality. This monitoring effort
was formalized in 1995 into a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Section 319 National Monitoring Program project. The monitoring effort targets six
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 implemen-
tation 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 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:
203
-------
• 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 monitor-
ing seasons. The water quality standard for fecal coliform (FC) bacteria for these
streams requires that the geometric mean value not exceed 50 cfu/100 ml and that
not more than 10% of samples exceed 100 cfu/100 ml.
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 Part 2
meet standard? 2 of standard meet 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
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/lOOml.
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/lOOml.
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)
204
-------
' 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 Met 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
Sources of fecal coliform bacteria are failing on-site wastewater treatment 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 pollution in the monitoring
subbasins is considered to be animal-keeping practices. Livestock common to these
farms include horses, beef cattle, llamas, donkeys, goats, sheep, and chickens.
Animal types and numbers from inventories were converted to animal units (1 AU
= 1,000 Ibs animal weight) in order to estimate the wet season animal population
for each basin. These estimates are: Kennedy — 1.0 AU, Schneider — 93.0 AU,
Burns - 7.7 AU, Pierre - 5.0 AU, McLane - 142 AU, and Perry - 44.3 AU.
None.
205
-------
• Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
INFORM A TION, EDUCA TION, AND PUBLICITY
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
There are a variety of educational and informational activities within the project
counties (Thurston and Mason counties) that address land and water stewardship.
Local and state initiatives over the past six years have resulted in stewardship
activities that cover the spectrum of personal commitment activities, including
awareness, learning, experience, and personal action programs. Many educators
involved with these activities share ideas, resources, and programs through a
stewardship-focused Regional Education Team.
A Section 319 Clean Water Act grant funded a watershed resident survey in August,
1994. The survey explored public awareness and opinions regarding water quality
and environmental issues. The survey targeted the Totten and Eld Inlet watersheds
in southern Puget Sound, as well as northern Puget Sound 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.
Educational and informational activities are continuing.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY
Description
The nonpoint source treatment in the project area is designed to minimize the
impacts of nonpoint source pollution by repairing failing on-site wastewater treat-
ment systems and implementing farm plans on priority farm sites. Priority farm sites
are those farms that potentially threaten the quality of a receiving water due to a
variety of physical and managerial properties such as closeness to stream, numbers
of animals, and lack of pollution prevention practices. The nonpoint source control
strategy involves surveying all potential pollution sources in critical areas, estimat-
ing 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 nonpoint source control in
project watersheds include pasture and grazing management, stream fencing, stream
buffer zones, rainwater and runoff management, livestock density reduction, and
animal waste management. Monies from the Farm Service Agency, State P^evolving
Fund, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other sources may be available 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
206
-------
' Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
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.
Changes in Thurston County's Sanitary Code 1996 disallowed the use of adminis-
trative search warrants for the inspection of on-site wastewater systems. This
followed a Washington State Supreme Court ruling that administrative search
warrants could not be used for such inspection programs. Consequently, voluntary
participation in the 1996-97 survey in Schneider basin was low, with only 36% of
homeowners allowing their on-site wastewater systems to be inspected (Hofstad et
al:, 1996). Voluntary participation in the farm plan development has also been less
than expected. Ten of 22 priority farms in the Schneider, Burns, and Pierre basins
developed farm plans. Five of these farm plans resulted from some level of pres-
sure by the local health department.it is uncertain if farm planning for the re-
maining 12 priority farms in Schneider basin will occur. Farm planning and
implementation in McLane and Perry basins is scheduled to continue into 1999.
Three on-site wastewater treatment systems were inspected in Burns and Pierre
basins in 1994. In Schneider basin, 12 of a targeted 33 On-site Sewage Systems
(OSSS) were surveyed in 1997; 21 of the 33 homeowners chose not to participate
in the survey. No on-site wastewater treatment system surveys were scheduled for
the McLane or Perry basins during this project. About 120 OSSS in the Summit
Lake drainage area, in the Kennedy basin, were also inspected and remedial actions
are underway. However, it is unlikely that remedial actions will affect bacteria
levels at the Kennedy Creek monitoring site, because in-lake bacterial levels have
historically been at or below detection limits.
About 180 of 234 planned agricultural BMPs were implemented on 30 sites in
Schneider, McLane, Perry, Burns, and Pierre basins since 1986. These pollution
controls were installed on noncommercial farms that keep various types of live-
stock. About 61% of these controls were installed from 1993 and 1997, while about
39% were installed from 1986 to 1992. Most farm planning and BMP installation
activities in the Totten basins will end in 1997, while Eld basin activities will
continue into 1998.
Within each basin, the average number of BMPs planned per farm ranged from
7.8 to 10.5 while the average number of BMPs implemented per farm ranged from
5.0 to 8.7. The number of individual practices installed per farm ranged from 1 to
14. The most frequently applied BMPs include fencing, prescribed grazing, filter
strips, livestock exclusion, nutrient management, and watering troughs. Other
commonly employed practices include roof runoff management and fish stream
improvement.
Over half of farm operators signed their farm plans symbolizing some level of
commitment to implementing the farm plan. For all basins, 53% of farms imple-
mented all of their planned BMPs, while 30% of farms had implementation rates
of less than 60%. For the remaining farms, the completeness of farm plan imple-
mentation was better than 70%. The completeness or rate of implementation of a
farm plan is defined as the percentage of planned BMPs actually implemented.
For Burns and Pierre basins, all priority farms entered the farm planning process.
In Schneider basin, 24% of the priority farms entered the farm planning process.
Several prioritizations were done in the McLane and Perry basins, and 33% to
52% of priority farms entered the farm planning process depending on which
prioritization scheme is considered.
207
-------
•Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
TYPE AND NUMBER OF BMPS IMPLEMENTED IN STUDY BASINS
BMP# BMP Description
322
342
352
382
393
395
654
490
666
412
561
430
575
472
590
510
512
516
556
528
530
558
570
575
580
612
660
614
620
312
313
633
645
644
Channel Vegetation
Critical Area Planting
Deferred Grazing
Fencing
Filter Strip
Fish Stream Improvement
Forest Harvest Trails
Forest Site Preparation
Forest Stand Improvement
Grassed Waterway
Heavy Use Area Protection
Irrigation Pipeline
Livestock Crossing
Livestock Exclusion
Nutrient Mgmt
Pasture & Hayland Mgmt
Pasture & Hayland Planting
Pipeline
Planned Grazing System
Prescribed Grazing
Proper Woodland Grazing
Roof Runoff Mgmt
Runoff Mgmt System
Stock Trails and Walkways
Streambank Protection
Tree/Shrub Establishment
Tree/Shrub Pruning
Trough
Underground Outlet
Waste Mgmt System
Waste Storage Structure
Waste Utilization
Wildlife Upland Habitat
Wildlife Wetland Habitat
Total BMPs installed
Units Kennedy Schneider McLane Perry
acres
acres
acres
feet
acres
feet
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
feet
each
acres
acres
acres
acres
feet
acres
acres
acres
system
system
feet
feet
acres
acres
each
feet
system
structure
acres
acres
acres
Percent of planned BMPs installed
Total number of farms with farm plans
Percent of priority farms with
Percent of animal units under
farm plans
farm plan
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
0
0
—
0
-
—
0
1
0
6
4
4
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
4
2
2
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
3
2
0
39
87%
• 5
24%
27%
1
0
2
12
9
5
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
8
2
7
0
1
1
3
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
8
0
0
3
4
3
1
80
77%
18
52%
71%
0
0
0
6
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
52%
4
43%
83%
Burns
0
0
3
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
'3
0
2
1
1
3
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
26
100%
3
100%
100%
Pierre
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
13
76%
2
100%
100%
Total
1
1
6
28
18
10
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
17
8
9
5
3
2
10
0
10
0
1
3
1
1
15
0
0
6
7
7
1
180
—
30
_
-
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 38). A single site approach will be used for Burns, Pierre, Perry and
McLane subbasins (Figure 38).
208
-------
1 Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
Modifications Since
Project Started,
Parameters
Measured
Sampling
Scheme
None.
Chemical and Other
Biological
Fecal coliform (FC)
Covariates
Conductivity
Daily precipitation
Flow
Temperature
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Turbidity
Water quality monitoring is conducted from early November through mid-April.
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 Frequency of Primary
Activities Parameters Covariates Parameter Sampling Duration
Burns FC
Pierre
Perry
McLane
Kennedy/ FC
Schneider
Conductivity
Daily precipitation
Flow
Temperature
TSS
Turbidity
Weekly ' Schneider
(Nov. to mid-April) , Bums
during storms ' Pierre:
1 yr. pre-BMP
3yrsBMP
2 yrs post-BMP
Perry:
3 yrs pre-BMP
3 yrs BMP
1 yr post-BMP
McLane:
1 yr pre-BMP
5 yrs BMP
1 yr post-BMP
209
-------
• 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
Rain event sampling beyond the regularly scheduled weekly sampling has been
discontinued. Changes have occurred in the definition of pre- and post-BMP
sampling periods for each basin as real versus projected BMP implementation data
becomes available.
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 PC concentrations over time (single site approach);
change in linear relationship of FC concentrations between paired basins
(paired watershed approach); comparison of frequencies of water quality
standards violations between years; and comparison of the 95% Confidence
Interval about the median of pre- and post-BMP data sets. This approach may
use historical data from 1986-1993 (n=4 per season); these data were
collected by the Thurston County Environmental Health Division.
• 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.
Pre- and post-BMP periods were defined by examining available farm and BMP
implementation data (see the following table). Pre- and post-BMP periods for
McLane and Perry basins will be defined when BMP implementation concludes in
1999. For the paired-watershed analysis, Kennedy data were paired according to
pre- and post-BMP period data for Schneider. Two approaches were used to
evaluate water quality: comparison of pre- and post-BMP median FC concentra-
tions using notched boxplots, and comparison of pre- and post-BMP paired-basin
FC relationships using linear regression. These analyses suggest that FC concen-
trations decreased 31% in Schneider Creek, did not change in Burns Creek, and
increased 600% in Pierre Creek.
Pre- and Post-BMP Periods in Study Basins
Basin Pre-BMP period Post-BMP period
Kennedy
Schneider
Burns
Pierre
none
1988-1993, 5 seasons
1989-1993, 4 seasons
1986-1989, 3 seasons
none
1995-1997, 2 seasons
1995-1997, 2 seasons
1993-1997, 4 seasons
210
-------
i Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
The next table summaries the results of the pre- and post-BMP comparison of the
median FC concentration. Notched boxplots suggest that pre- and post-BMP
median FC concentrations did not change in Schneider or Burns and increased in
Pierre.
For the paired-watershed analysis with Kennedy and Schneider, pre- and post-' •
BMP period regression outputs were examined after Zar (1984) and EPA (1993).
The slopes of these regressions were not different while the y-intercepts were
different (P<0.001). The difference in intercepts, rather than slopes, indicates a
parallel shift in the regression equation. This shift in the regression represents a
31% decrease from the pre-BMP period (mean log FC=1.43) to the post-BMP
period (mean log FC=0.99).
Median FC Concentrations from Pre- and Post-BMP Periods
Pre-BMP median
Basin FC and (n)
Kennedy
Schneider
Burns
Pierre
5(39)
25 (39)
84 (35)
25(11)
Post-BMP median
FC and (n)
5 (45)
12 (45)
56 (45)
150 (89)
Significant
difference
no
no*
no
yes
*see discussion of paired-watershed results above where a difference in the mean
log FC concentration was detected.
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.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Modifications Since
Project Started
The estimated budget for the Totten and Eld Inlet National Monitoring Program
project for the period of FY 1993 - 1999 (six years):
Project Element
Proj Mgt
I&E
LT
WQ Monit
TOTALS
None.
Funding Source ($)
Federal State Local Total
NA NA NA' NA
NA NA NA NA
NA 300,000 100,000 400,000
250,000 50,000 NA 300,000
250,000 350,000 100,000 700,000
211
-------
«Totten and Eld Inlet, Washington
IMP ACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STA TE 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 nonpoint source control efforts in specific areas.
In addition, $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 PERTINENTINFORMA TION
None.
PROJECT CONTA CTS
Administration
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
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
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
212
-------
Wisconsin
Otter Creek
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Figure 39: Otter Creek (Wisconsin) Project Location
213
-------
1 Otter Creek, Wisconsin
Scale
OC-1
i (Single Downstream
Station) i.e. outlet
Figure 40: Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Otter Creek (Wisconsin)
214
-------
Otter Creek, Wisconsin
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Otter Creek Section 319 National Monitoring Program project is in east central
Wisconsin (Figure 39), with a project area of 11 square miles. Otter Creek drains
into the Sheboygan River, which then drains into Lake Michigan. Land use mainly
consists of dairies and croplands.
Otter Creek has a warmwater forage fishery. The fish community is degraded by
lack of cover, disturbed streambanks, and siltation. Fecal coliform levels fre-
quently exceed the state standard of 400 counts per 100 ml, and dissolved oxygen
often drops below 2 mg/1 during runoff events. Fifteen percent of all water
oxygen 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 40). 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.
215
-------
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
July, 1993
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorological Factors
The Otter Creek watershed area is about 11 square miles. The Meeme River
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.
216
-------
1 Otter Creek, Wisconsin
INFORMA TION, EDUCA TION, AND PUBLICITY
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 hejd.
• Small group tours of BMP installation sites are given for landowners
considering installing BMPs.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRA TEGYAND DESIGN
Description
Modifications Since
Project Started
Progress Towards
Meeting Goals
Streambank erosion andscattle 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.
The Sheboygan County Land Conservation Department has obtained funds
through a private organization, "Pheasants Forever," to plant and, maintain
vegetative buffers on 18 acres of riparian land for 10 years.
Eight thousand, one hundred feet of streambank fencing has been installed, as
well as a significant change in cropping practices to reduce upland soil erosion.
WA TER 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 40).
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 40) 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.
217
-------
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.
The above and below watershed study of a single dairy that implemented barnyard
runoff control structures has been completed. Data on the pollutant loads from the
barnyard prior to BMPs are reported in USGS Fact Sheet FS-221-95. Findings on
this before and after - above and below study will be presented at the 1997 Na-
tional 319 Conference. Study findings will be reported in a USGS Fact Sheet
scheduled to be completed in the fall of 1997.
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 NOs-N)
Turbidity
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
pH
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, and biomass.
Fisheries data are summarized and interpreted based on the Index of Biotic
Integrity (Lyons, 1992). Macroinvertebrate monitoring criteria includes
macroinvertebrate species or genera and numbers. Macroinvertebrate data are
218
-------
1 Otter Creek, Wisconsin
summarized and interpreted using the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (Hilsenhoff, 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).
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
Design
Sites or
Activities
Primary
Parameters
Frequency of Primary
Covariates Parameter Sampling
Duration
Paired Otter CreekT
watershed OC1
design Meeme Riverc
MR1
Biological
fisheries index
MacroinvertebratesH
Habitat
FC
Bacterial & Chemical
TP
DP
TKN
NH3
NOs
NO2
Turbidity
TSS
DO
Precipitation
Discharge
Annually
Annually
Annually
30 samples per
monitoring season;
weekly April-Oct.
1990-1999
Upstream/
downstream
Single
downstream
Above Dairyc
OC4
Below Dairy7
OC2
Otter Creek
OC1
Fisheries index
MacroinvertebratesF
Habitat
Same bacterial & chemical
parameters as paired
watershed study
Fisheries index
MacroinvertebratesF
Habitat
Same bacterial & chemical
parameters as paired
watershed study
Precipitation
Discharge
Precipitation
Discharge
Annually
Annually
Annually
30 samples per
monitoring season;
weekly April-Oct.
Annually
Annually
30 samples per
monitoring season;
weekly April-Oct.
1990-1999
1990-1999
Treatment AreaT
Control Areac
HilsenhoffBiotic Index level; kick samples"
Family level; kick samples'1
Modifications Since
Project Started
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
The before and after — above and below component of the project has been com-
pleted.
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.
219
-------
NPSMS Data Monitoring Station Parameters Report (FY95)
Summary
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, 5 DAY, 20 DEC C
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, 5 DAY, 20 DEC C
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 OFBIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
FISH HABITAT CONDITION INDEX
INDEX OFBIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
SUSPENDED SEDIMENT TOTAL RESIDUE AT 105C
SUSPENDED SEDIMENT TOTAL RESIDUE AT 105C
SUSPENDED SEDIMENT TOTAL RESIDUE AT I05C
SUSPENDED SEDIMENT TOTAL RESIDUE AT I05C
FISH HABITAT CONDITION INDEX
INDEX OF BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
Farm
Type
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
B
B
B
B
u
u
u
u
B
B
Reporting
Units
CFS
MG/L
CFS
MG/L
CFS
MG/L
MG/LN
CFS
MG/L
MG/LN
SCORE
SCORE
SCORE
SCORE
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
SCORE
SCORE
QUARTILE VALUES
-75-
5.3
370
.056
.21
8.2
5000
.39
.53
8.3
8.2
6.4
15000
.104
8.3
.286
7.3
69000
.257
8.4
.89
80
70
70
70
9
172
324
112
80
80
-SO-
1.7
175
.037
.158
4.0
1200
.147
.25
8.2
8.1
3.4
2600
.059
8.2
.17
3.3
14000
.11
8.2
.34
50
50
50
50
7
41
60
45
40
40
-25-
1.3
30
.02
.08
2.4
490
.073
.13
7.9
7.9
2:2
1000
.032
8.1
.07
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.
220
-------
Otter Creek, Wisconsin
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The total estimated cost of needed land treatment practices is $221,000. Funds
through the state of Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Program will be used to fund
cost-share practices. The estimated budget for the Otter Creek National Monitor-
ing Program project for the period FY94-FY95 (2 years) is:
Project Element
Proj Mgt
LT
I&E
WQ Monit
TOTALS
Funding Sourcef$)
Federal
NA
NA
NA
120,000
120,000
State
30,000
221,000
2,000
NA
253,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total
30,000
221,000
2,000
120,000
373,000
(Wisconsin DNR will spend approximately $60,000 on monitoring in 1997.) Source:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1993a (M. Miller, Personal Communication,
1994)
Modifications Since
Project Started
None.
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STA TE 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 INFORMA TION
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
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
221
-------
1 Otter Creek, Wisconsin
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Information and
Education
Michael Miller
Surface Water Standards and Monitoring Section
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
101 South Webster St., Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 267-2753; Fax (608) 267-2800
Patrick Miles
County Conservationist
Sheboygan County Land Conservation Dept.
650 Forest Ave.
Sheboygan Falls, WI 53805
(414) 459-4360; Fax (414) 459-2942
Dave Graczyk
USGS Water Resources Division
6417 Normandy Lane
Madison, WI 53719
(608) 276-3833; Fax (608) 276-3817
Andy Yenscha
University of Wisconsin - Extension
1304 S. 70th St., Suite 228
WestAllis, WI 53214
(414) 475-2877
222
-------
Appendices
223
-------
-------
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 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 Nonpoint Source 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.
225
-------
•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, of 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.
226
-------
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 : Areal 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 Biochemical Oxygen Demand
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
227
-------
1 Appendix II: Abbreviations
CTUIR 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
DS WC 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
DBI Index of Biotic Integrity
ICM Integrated Crop Management
IDNR Iowa Department of Natural Resources
IDNR-GSB ; Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Geological Survey Bureau
ISU-CES Iowa State University Cooperative Extension
Service
ISUE Iowa State University Extension
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
228
-------
Appendix II: Abbreviations
NCSU North Carolina State University
NDEQ Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
NEP National Estuary Program
NHs Ammonia-Nitrogen
NH+4 Ammonium-Nitrogen
Ni Nickel
NMP National Monitoring Program
NO2 Nitrite-Nitrogen
NOs 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
OSSS On-site Sewage System
P Phosphorus
Pb Lead
Proj Mgt Project Management
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RCWP Rural Clean Water Program
Se Selenium
Section 319 Section 319 of the 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
229
-------
1 Appendix II: Abbreviations
Ug/1 Micrograms Per Liter
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
230
-------
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.
231
-------
Appendix III: Gloss&ry 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"
functions to reduce the same pollutant.
that
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.
232
-------
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 cotiform (FC) — Colon bacteria that are released in fecal material.
Specifically, this group comprises all of the aerobic and facultative anaerobic,
gram-negative, nqnsppre-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.
233
-------
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.
234
-------
Appendix 111: 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 Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)—An oxidative procedure that converts organic
nitrogen forms to ammonia by digestion with an acid, catalyst, and heat.
Total Kjeldahl phosphorus (TKP) — An oxidative procedure that converts
organic phosphorus forms to phosphate by digestion with an acid, catalyst, and
heat.
Tracking—Documenting/recording the location and timing of BMP implemen-
tation.
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).
235
-------
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.
236
-------
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 NA TIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
1996. Nonpoint Source Water Quality Monitoring Project for Lightwood Knot 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.
Cook, M., S. Coffey, and J. Young. 1997. Lightwood Knot Creek (Alabama) Section
319 National Monitoring Program Project. NWQEP NOTES 85:1-3, North Carolina
State University Water Quality Group, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Ser-
vice, Raleigh, NC.
Geological Survey of Alabama. 1995. Project Proposal for Watershed Monitoring for
Section 319 National Monitoring Program. Nonpoint Source Water Quality Monitor-
ing Project for Lightwood Knot Creek Watershed in Southeast Alabama. Tuscaloosa,
Alabama. 30 p.
ARIZONA OAK CREEK CANYON
SECTION 319 NA TIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
1994. Oak Creek National Monitoring Project Workplan (Revised), June. Work-
plan.
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. April, 1991. Oak Creek Watershed,
NPS 319 Project, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Nonpoint Source
Program.
Dressing, S.A. 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program, 11/16.
Dressing, S.A. 1994. Approval of Oak Creek, AZ as a National Monitoring Project,
7/7. Memorandum from Steve Dressing to Jovita Pajarillo.
237
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Dressing, S.A. 1994. Approval of Project II of Oak Creek, AZas National Monitoring
Project, 7/18. Memorandum from Steve Dressing to Jovita Pajarillo.
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. Oak Creek: Comments on the Slide Rock Parking Lot, 7/12.
Memorandum from Steve Dressing to Chris Heppe.
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., E. Liu, and R. Frederick. 1994. Review of Proposal for Section 319
National Monitoring Program.
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. Fecal Coliforms: Slide Rock and Grasshopper Point—1977 to
1980, 10/12. Memorandum from Tom Harrison to 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. 1994. Oak Creek, AZ National Monitoring Project Assurances, 7/5.
Memorandum from Tom Harrison to Chris Heppe.
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. 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., 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 ofTwo-Year Baseline Monitoring. Submitted to the USEPA.
Spooner, J. and D. Osmond. 1996. Memorandum to Gordon Southam.
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.
238
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
CALIFORNIA MORRO BA Y WA TERSHED
SECTION 319 NA TIONAL 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.
1989. Erosion and Sediment Study: Morro Bay Watershed, September. Soil Conser-
vation Service.
1989. Morro Bay Watershed Enhancement Plan, September. Soil Conservation Ser-
vice.
1991. Proposed Monitoring Program, 7/1.
1991. Workplanfor Water Quality Management Planning Program [Section 205(j)]
on Non-Point Source Evaluation and Treatment Effectiveness for Land Treatment
Measures for the Morro Bay Watershed, Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation
District, 6/4. Workplan.
1992. Morro Bay Watershed Program, Watershed Educational Program, December.
Fact Sheet No. 1.
1992. Nonpoint Source Pollution Evaluation and Treatment Measures for the Morro
Bay Watershed, 2/18.
1993. Approach for San Luis Obispo Creek, 8/21.
1993. Report on Morro Bay Project in California, 2/3, by Oregon.
1994. Report on Visit to the California 319 Monitoring Site at Morro Bay, 3/14.
1995. Nomination of Morro Bay to the National Estuary Program. The Bay Founda-
tion of Morro Bay and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1993. Nonpoint Source
Pollution and Treatment Measure Evaluation for the Morro Bay Watershed.
Dressing, S.A. 1992. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program (Morro Bay, CA), 9/11. Fax Transmittal to Jovita Pajarillo.
Haltiner, J. 1988. Sedimentation Processes in Morro Bay, Prepared by Philip
Williams and Associates for the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District
with funding by the California Coastal Conservancy.
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.
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.
239
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
USEPA. 1991. California's High on CoastalNonpoint 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. 1993. Annual Report on the Morro Bay
National Monitoring Program.
Worcester, K. T.J. Rice, and J.B. Mullens. 1994. Annual Report on the Morro Bay
National Monitoring Program.
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 Univer-
sity Water Quality Group, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh,
NC.
Worcester, K. T.J. Rice, and J.B. Mullens. 1995. Annual Report on the Morro Bay
National Monitoring Program.
Worcester, K. T.J. Rice, and J.B. Mullens. 1996. Annual Report on the Morro Bay
National Monitoring Program.
CONNECT/CUT JORDAN CO VE URBAN WA TERSHED
SECTION 319 NA TIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Clausen, J. 1997. Jordan Cove (Connecticut) Urban Watershed Section 319 National
Monitoring Program Project. NWQEP NOTES 82:1-3, North Carolina State Universi-
ty Water Quality Group, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, NC.
IDAHO EASTERN SNAKE RIVER PLAIN
SECTION 319 NA TIONAL 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.
Brooks, R.H. 1993. Water Line: Idaho Snake River Plain USDA Water Quality
Demonstration Project Newsletter. Vol. 2 No. 4.
Brooks, R.H. 1994. Water Line: Idaho Snake River Plain USDA Water Quality
Demonstration Project Newsletter. Water Line, Vol. 3 No. 2.
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.
240
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Camp, S.D. and R.L. Mahler. 1991. Idaho Snake River Plain: USDA Water Quality
Demonstration Project. WQ-3 Brochure.
Cardwell, J. 1992. Idaho Snake River'Plain USDA Water Quality Demonstration
Project Water Quality Monitoring Program DRAFT. Idaho Department of Environ-
mental Quality.
Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. October, 1991. FY
1991 Annual Report.
Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. 1991. FY 1992 Plan of
Operations.
Idaho Snake River 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. April, 1991. Plan of
Work.
Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. 1991. Idaho Snake
River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project Proposal, September.
Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. 1992. 7992 Annual
Progress Report.
Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. October, 1992. FY
1992 Annual Report. ,
Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. 1992. FY 1993 Plan
of Operations.
Mullens, J.B. 1993. Snake River Plain, Idaho, Section 319 National Monitoring
Program Project. NWQEP NOTES 61:5-6, North Carolina State University Water
Quality Group, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, NC.
Osiensky, J.L. 1992. Ground Water Monitoring Plan: Snake River Plain Water
Quality Demonstration Projects. University of Idaho and 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.
Osiensky, J.L. 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.
241
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
ILLINOIS LAKE PITTSFIELD
SECTION 319 NA TIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
1992. Articles in the Pike Press Regarding Atrazine in the Water Supply.
1992. FY-92 319(h) Workplan: Illinois River Watershed Monitoring Program. Work-
plan.
1992. Lake Pittsfleld Resource Plan (Draft).
1992. Monitoring Lake Pittsfleld to Determine the Effectiveness of Erosion and
Sediment Control Measures Adjacent to the Lake Shore.
1992. National Monitoring Contract.
1992. Quality Assurance Program Plan for the Lake Pittsfleld Watershed Monitor-
ing Project, FY-1992.
1992. Revisions to Pittsfleld Monitoring Project. Letter to EPA.
1993. Effects of Land Management on Lake Pittsfleld Sedimentation and Water
Quality: Annual Report, September.
1993. Lake Pittsfleld: Watershed Monitoring Project. Illinois State Water Survey,
Peoria, Illinois.
1993. Lake Pittsfleld 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 Pittsfleld, Pike County.
1993. Section 319 Implementation Contract.
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 Pittsfleld Project Draws Inter-
national Attention. Watershed Watch, l(2):l-2.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Lake Pittsfleld. Watershed Watch
Illinois State Water Survey. 1995. Effects of Land Management on Lake Pittsfleld
Sedimentation and Water Quality. National Monitoring Strategy on Lake Pittsfleld
3rd Annual Report, prepared for the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
Osmond, D.L. 1994. Lake Pittsfleld Meeting Notes, 7/6. Attendance Notes.
Roseboom, D.P., G. Eicken, and D. Osmond. 1995. Lake Pittsfleld (Illinois) Section
319 National Monitoring Program Project. NWQEP NOTES 70:4-6, North Carolina
State University Water Quality Group, North Carolina Cooperative Extension
Service, Raleigh, NC.
Roseboom, D.P., R.K. Raman, and R. Sinclair. Sept. 30, 1994. Effects of Land
Management on Lake Pittsfleld Sedimentation and Water Quality.
242
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
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.
Trutter, C., ed. 1993. Lake Pittsfield. In Watershed Watch, Vol. 1, No. 1.
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. Vol 4., No. 1.
Trutter, C., ed. Spring/Summer 1996. Watershed Watch. Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency Newsletter. Vol 4., No. 2.
ILLINOIS WAUKEGAN RIVER
SECTION 319 NA TIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Illinois EPA. 1997. Urban Stream Restoration: A Proven Success. Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Springfield, EL.
Illinois State Water Survey. 1997. The Waukegan River National Monitoring Pro-
gram. Video. Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, IL.
Illinois State Water Survey. 1997. Waukegan River National Monitoring Program —
Contract Report. Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, IL, prepared for IL EPA.
Illinois State Water Survey. 1994. National Monitoring for Instream Habitat and
Urban Fisheries in the Waukegan River: Quality Assurance Project Plan. Illinois
State Water Survey, Champaign, IL.
Roseboom, D.P.; T. Hill, J. Beardsley, J. Rodsater, and L. Duong. 1995. Waukegan
River National Monitoring Strategy. Illinois State Water Survey, ChampaignvDL.
IOWA SNYMAGILL WA TERSHED
SECTION 319 NA TIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Animal Waste Nutrient Inventories and Crop Fertilizer Needs for the Northeast
Iowa Demonstration Project and Sny Magill Watershed, Clayton County.
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.
243
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
1991. Big Spring Basin Water-Quality Monitoring Program: Design and Implemen-
tation, July.
1991. Proposal, 3/91 and 11/27.
November, 1991. Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitoring Project Workplan. Iowa
Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau.
1992. Sny Magill Creek Cold Water Stream Water Quality Improvement, 1992 HUA
Annual Report.
1992. Sny Magill Creek Cold Water Stream Water Quality Improvement Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Hydrologic Unit Area: Fiscal Year 1992. Soil Conservation Ser-
vice, Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa Agricultural Stabi-
lization and Conservation Service; 35 p.
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.
1994. Sny Magill Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitoring Project: Clayton County,
Iowa 1992 Annual Report for Water Year 1992, June. Report.
1994. Summary of Sny Magill Annual Meeting Held June 24. Contains updated
project bibliography.
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.
September, 1995. Sny Magill Watershed Project - Clayton County, Iowa (pamphlet),
4 p.
Bettis, E.A. HI. 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. HI, 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 Resources, Geolog-
ical 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 Blomonitoring Re-
sults. University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory, Limnology Section, Report No. 96-1,
141 p.
244
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Hallberg, G.R., L.S. Seigley, R.D. Libra, ZJ. 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.), SnyMagill watershed monitoring project: baseline data. Iowa
Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, Technical Information
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. \995a.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, SJ. 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.R and G.R. Hallberg. 1991. Big Spring Basin Water Quality Monitoring
Program: Design and Implementation. Open File Report 91-1, Iowa Department of
Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, July, 1991, 19 p.
McKay, R.M. 1993. Selected Aspects of Lower Ordovician and Upper Cambrian
Geology in Allamakee and Northern Clayton Counties, 4/25.
Meinders, K. 1997. On Solid Ground. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Iowa
ConservationistM.ay/June,p.24-27.
Newbern, D.T. 1991. North Cedar Creek watershed 1990 annual report. Soil Conser-
vation Service, Elkader, IA, 3p.
Newbern, D.T. 1992. North Cedar Creek watershed 1991 annual report. Soil Conser-
vation 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.
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.
NRCS. 1996. Sny Magill Creek Cold Water Stream Water Quality Improvements
(Fiscal Year 1996 Hydrologic Unit Area Annual Report). Submitted by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Iowa State University Extension, and the Farm
Services Agency. 62p.
Palas, E.A. and J.A. Tisl. 1997. The Need for Innovative Best Management Practice
(BMPs) in the Sny Magill Watershed. Presented at the National Watershed Water
Quality Project Symposium in Washington, DC, September 22-26, 1997.
245
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
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, and K. 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 J.O. Kennedy. 1993. Sny Magill Creek
Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitoring Project: 1992 Benthic Biomonitoring Results.
University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory, Limnology Section, Report No. 93-2.
Schueller, M.D., M.W. Birmingham, and J.O. 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.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.
Schueller, M.D., M.C. Hausler, and J.O. Kennedy. 1992. Sny Magill Creek Nonpoint
Source Pollution Monitoring Project: 1991 Benthic Biomonitoring Pilot Study Re-
sults. University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory, Limnology Section, Report No. 92-5,
78 p.
Schueller, M.D., M.C. Hausler, and J.O. Kennedy. 1994. 7997 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.
Siegley, L.S. 1994. Memo to Sny Magill Monitoring Project Cooperators. Memoran-
dum.
Seigley, L.S. 1994. Sny Magill Nonpoint Source Monitoring Project 1992 Annual
Report and Disk, 6/14. Report and diskette.
Seigley, L.S. 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.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. 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.
Seigley, L.S. 1996. Water Sampling of private wells in Sny Magill watershed. Water
Watch, August 1996.
Seigley, L.S., M.W. Birmingham, M.D. Schueller, J.E. May, G. Wunder, and T.F.
Wilton. 1997. Monitoring the Effects of Nonpoint Source Pollution Controls on the
Sny Magill Creek, Clayton County, Iowa. Presented at the National Water Quality
Project Symposium in Washington, DC, September 22-26, 1997.
246
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
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 watershed
monitoring project: baseline data. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Geologi-
cal Survey Bureau, Technical Information Series 32, p. 63-72.
Seigley, L.S., G.R. Hallberg, and J. Gale. 1993. Sny Magill Watershed (Iowa) Section
319 National Monitoring Program Project. NWQEP NOTES 58:5-7, North Carolina
State University Water Quality Group, Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, NC.
Seigley, L.S., G.R. Hallberg, R.D. Rowden, R.D. Libra, J.D. Giglierano, DJ. 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, LA, p. 85-88.
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. and DJ. Quade. 1992. Northeast Iowa Well Inventory Completed.
Water Watch, December, 1992, p. 2-3.
Seigley, L.S. and M.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., 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. and JJ. 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., T.F. Wilton, G. Wunder, J.E. May, M.D. Schueller, M.W. Birming-
ham, J.A. Tisl, and E.A. Palas. 1997. Monitoring the Effects of Nonpoint Source
Pollution Controls on Sny Magill Creek, Clayton County, Iowa. In: 31st Annual
North-Central Section of the Geological Society of America, 1997 Abstracts with
Programs V. 29, no. 4, p. 71.
Seigley, L.S., G. Wunder, S.A. Gritters, T.F. Wilton, J.E. 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-
247
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Soil Conservation Service. \991.SnyMagill 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.
Soil Conservation Service. 1993. Sny Magill Creek Cold Water Stream water quality
improvement (fiscal year 1993 hydrologic unit area annual report). Submitted by
the Soil Conservation, Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service, and the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, 53 p.
Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Sny Magill 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.
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.
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.
USEPA. 1991. Summary of EPA-Headquarters Review Comments, 5/29.
USEPA. 1992. Summary of EPA-Headquarters Review Comments, 5/29.
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., 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.
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.
Wittman, C., ed. 1994. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, Sny Magill
Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No.
48.
Wittman, C., ed. 1994. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, Sny Magill
Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No.
49.
Wittman, C., ed. 1994. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, Sny Magill
Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No.
50.
248
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Wittman, C., ed. 1994. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, Sny Magill
Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No.
51.
Wittman, C., ed. October, 1994. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin,
Sny Magill Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newslet-
ter, Issue No. 52.
Wittman, C., ed. December, 1994. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin,
Sny Magill Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter,
Issue No. 53.
Wittman, C., ed. February, 1995. Water Watch: A newsletterfor-Big Spring Basin, Sny
Magill Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter,
Issue No. 54.
Wittman, C., ed. 1995. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, Sny Magill
Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No.
59.
Wittman, C. 1995. Farm visits are part of Sny Magill project annual meeting. Water
Watch, August 1995, p. 1-2.
Wittman, C., ed. 1996. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, Sny Magill
Watershed, andNortheast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No.
60.
Wittman, C., ed. 1996. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, Sny Magill
Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No.
61.
Wittman, C., ed. 1996. Water Watch: A newsletter for Big Spring Basin, Sny Magill
Watershed, and Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project areas. Newsletter, Issue No.
62.
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.
Wunder, G. and S. Gritters. 1995. Sny Magill Creek fishery assessment 1994. Iowa
Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Bureau, 5 p.
Wunder, G. and J. Jansen, 1997. Sny Magill Fishery Assessment for 1995 and 1996.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Bureau, 9p.
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 Information
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.
249
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
IOWA WALNUT CREEK
SECTION 319 NA TIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Thompson, C.A. 1997. Walnut Creek (Iowa) Section 319 National Monitoring
Program Project. NWQEP NOTES 81:1-3, North Carolina State University Water
Quality Group, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, NC.
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 WA TERSHED
SECTION 319 NA TIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
3.2 Living Resources Targeted Watersheds Project, pp. 44-48.
Cooperators Communications and Audience Involvement Plans.
Living Resources Targeted Watershed Project.
Section II, Cooperators Communications and Audience Involvement Plans.
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. Piney and Alloway Creeks—Aquatic Resource Assessment and Monitoring
Plan, October.
1990. Water Quality Demonstration Project, Monocacy River Watershed.
1991. Restoration Plan for Sawmill Creek Watershed (draft).
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, 8/8.
Dressing, S.A. 1991. Summary of EPA-Headquarters Review Comments, 8/13.
Dressing, S.A. 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program.
Final Work Plan, Bird River Watershed Water Quality Management Plan. Work-
plan.
250
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
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. Monocacy Watershed Demonstration Project Encour-
ages Adoption of Agricultural Management Practices. In: EPA News-Notes, #16.
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.
Monocacy Watershed. 1991. Regional Monitoring Set-Aside Grant Proposal, Monocacy
Watershed.
Shirmohammadi, A. 1994. Project Information, 6/29. Memorandum from A. Shirmo-
hammadi to D. Osmond.
Shirmohammadi, A. and W.L. Magette. 1993. Background Data and Revision to the
Monitoring Design for the Project Titled "Modeling the Hydrologic and Water
Quality Response of Mixed Land Use Basin."
Shirmohammadi, A. and W.L. Magette. 1993. Modeling the Hydrologic and Water
Quality Response of the Mixed Land Use Basin: Background Data and Revision to
the Monitoring Design.
Shirmohammadi, A. and W.L. Magette. 1994. FY 1991 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. 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. Monocacy Watershed Demonstration
Work Plan: Revised Workplan Information of the Project Titled "Modeling the
Hydrologic and Water Quality Response of the Mixed Land Use Basin."
Shirmohammadi, A. and W.L. Magette. 1993. 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. 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. 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., W.L. Magette, and D.E. Line. 1994. Warner Creek Watershed
(Maryland) Section 319 Project. NWQEP NOTES 68:1-3. North Carolina State
University Water Quality Group, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service,
Raleigh, NC.
251
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Shirmohammadi, A. W.L. Magette, R.A. Weismiller, J. McCoy, and R. Jarnes. 1994.
Monocacy River Watershed Initiative: Monitoring and Modeling Water Quality
Response of the Mixed Land Use Basin, 6/23. Proposal.
Shirmohammadi, A., W.L, Magette, and K.S. Yoon. 1996. Modeling and Monitor-
ing the Hydrologic and Water Quality Response of the Mixed Land Use Basin.
FY1995 Annual Report, 12/5, Report.
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 a Mixed
Land Use Watershed-Piedmont Region. /. Environ. Sci. Health, A31(2), 429-450.
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/Allovcay Creek Project).
Thoma, R. 1991. Comments 8/29.
Thoma, R. 1991. Region HI Section 319 National Monitoring Program Proposal
Recommendations, to Hank Zygmunt, 8/29.
MICHIGAN SYCAMORE CREEK WA TERSHED
SECTION 319 NA TIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
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. 7992 Section 319 Set-Aside.
1992. Annual Progress Report: Sycamore Creek Water Quality Program: Fiscal Year
1992. Sycamore Creek Water Quality Program.
1992. Correspondence, 3/23.
1992. Memo Response to Steve Dressing, 12/8. Memorandum.
1992. Remaining Issues, 12/8.
1992. Revisions for Sycamore Creek, MI.
1992. Summary of EPA-Headquarters Review Comments, 6/5.
1992. Sycamore Creek Watershed Monitoring Program: FY-92.
1992. Revisions for the Sycamore Creek Watershed National Monitoring Project.
252
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
1992. The Sycamore Creek Water Quality Program: A Model for the State TMDL
Case Study, Sycamore Creek, EPA841-F-92-012.
1992. TMDL Case Study: Sycamore Creek, EPA 841-F-92-012, number 7.
1993. EPA Approval, 2/11.
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 Monitoring
Project. Memorandum.
F.T.C.H. 1996. Willow Creek Drain Final Report for 319 Implementation Project.
Ingham County Drain Commission.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 1996. Surface Water Quality
Division Staff Report.
Shaffer, M.J., M.K. Brodahl, and B.K. Wylie. 1993. Integration and Use of the
Nitrate Leaching and Economic Analysis Package (NLEAP) in the GIS Environ-
ment. In: Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Workshop on Hydrologic Model-
ing for the 90's, USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 93-4018.
Suppnick, J.D. 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.
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. 1993. Sycamore Creek 319 Monitoring Grant Annual Report.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division.
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.
Velleux, M.L., J.E. Rathbun, R.G. Kreis Jr, J.L. Martin, M.J. Mac, and M.L. Tuch-
man. 1993. Investigation of Contaminant Transport from the Saginaw Confined
Disposal Facility. From "J. Great Lakes Res." 19(1): 158-174.
253
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
NEBRASKA ELM CREEK WA TERSHED
SECTION 319 NA TIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Investigations of the Water Quality and Water Quality Related Beneficial Uses of
Elm Creek, NE. Elm Creek Project.
Proposal.
April, 1988. Surface Water Quality Monitoring Strategy. Surface Water Section,
Water Quality Division, Nebraska Department of Environmental Control, Lincoln,
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.
1991. Proposal, October. Elm Creek Project.
1991. Summary of EPA-Headquarters Review Comments, 5/29.
September, 199la. Title 117 - Nebraska Surface Water Quality Standards. Nebraska
Department of Environmental Control, Lincoln,
199Ib. Nebraska Stream Inventory. Surface Water Quality Division, Nebraska
Department of Environmental Control, Lincoln, Nebraska (Draft).
1992. Elm Creek Project, Annual Progress Report: FY 92. Elm Creek Project.
1992. Elm Creek Watershed Section 319 Nonpoint Source Project: Monitoring
Project Plan. Nebraska Department of Environmental Control, Lincoln, 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: FY93. Elm Creek Project.
1994. Elm Creek HUA Field Tour Informational Packet and Handouts. Elm Creek
Project.
1994. Elm Creek Project: Project Extension Request, 2/23. 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.
254
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Jensen, D., G. Michl, and D.L. Osmond. 1993. Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska,
Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project. NWQEP NOTES 60:4-6, North
Carolina State University Water Quality Group, North Carolina 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, Agricul-
tural Non-Point Source Pollution Model: A Watershed Analysis Tool. U.S. Depart-
ment of Agricultural, Conservation Research Report 35, 80 p.
NORTH CAROLINA LONG CREEK WA TERSHED
SECTION 319 NA TIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Danielson, L.E., L.S. Smutko, and G.D. Jennings. 1991. An Assessment of Air,
Surface Water, and Groundwater Quality in Gaston County, North Carolina. In:
Proceedings of the National Conference on Integrated Water Information Manage-
ment. USEPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC. p. 101-107.
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., W.A. Harman, M.A. Burris, 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.
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. Long, Creek Watershed Nonpoint Source Monitoring Project.
Poster presentation at the National Nonpoint Source Forum, Arlington, VA.
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.
Levi, M.D. Adams, V.P. Aneja, L. Danielson, H. Devine, TJ. 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 University,
Raleigh, NC. 174 p.
255
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Levi, M.G. Jennings, D.E. Line, S.W. Coffey, L.S. Smutko, L. Danielson, S.S. Qian,
H.A. Devine, T.J. Hoban, V.P. Aneja. 1992. Natural Resource Quality in Gaston
County — Phase 2: Implementation of Natural Resource Education and Policy
Development Programs — Final Report. North Carolina Cooperative Extension
Service, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 181 p.
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. 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.
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.
Qian, S.S. 1992. Appendix 5-Confirmation of SWRRBWQ for Long Creek Water-
shed, 44 pp. In: Natural Resource Quality in Gaston County. Phase 2: Implementa-
tion of Natural Resource Education and Policy Development Programs-Final
Report. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State Uni-
versity, Raleigh, NC. 112 pp.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, W. Cooler, 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.
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.
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.
OKLAHOMA PEACHEA TER CREEK
SECTION 319 NA TIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
1992. Second Workplan dated July 1992: FY-1992 Section 319 Work Program.
Workplan.
1993. FY1992 Section 319 Work Program for the Illinois River Watershed Monitor-
ing Program: Final Workplan, 5/11. Workplan and letters.
1993. FY 1992 Section 319 Work Program, Illinois River Watershed Monitoring
Program: Monitoring of 319 Project Watersheds and Matched Pairs.
256
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
1993. Illinois River Watershed Monitoring Program. From Nonpoint 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.
March 5, 1993. Illinois River Watershed Monitoring Program. FY 1992 Section 319
Work Program for review.
1994. FY 1992 Section 319 Work Program for the Illinois River Watershed Monitor-
ing Program: Approved Workplan, Revised 6/8. Workplan and letters. •
June 8, 1994. Illinois River Watershed Monitoring Program.
1995. Quality Assurance Project Plan, approved October 20, 1995. Oklahoma State
University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.
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, 4/13.
Dressing, S.A. 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program, 7/20.
Dressing, S.A. 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program: Headquarters Review of May 1993 Workplan.
Dressing, S.A. 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program (Illinois River), 1/25. Fax Transmittal to Wes McQuiddy.
Dressing, S.A. 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program: Illinois River Watershed, OK.
Dressing, S.A. April 13, 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National
Monitoring Program.
Dressing, S.A. July 20, 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitor-
ing Program.
Dressing, S.A. 1994. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program, 7/13.
Dressing, S.A. July 13,1994. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitor-
ing Program, review of proposal.
Hassell, J. May 11,1993. Illinois River Watershed Moni to ring Program, work plan to
be reviewed.
Hassell, J. June 8, 1994. Illinois River Watershed Monitoring Program, review.
Knudson, M. O. 1993. Region VI Approval Letter of May 1993 Workplan. Letter.
McQuiddy, W. 1992. FY-1992 Section 319 Work Program: FY-92 319(h) Work-
plan—Pollution Control Coordinating Board, Oklahoma Department of Pollution
Control, July. Fax Transmittal to Steve Dressing, 11/25/92.
257
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Moershel, P. and S. Coffey. 1996. Peacheater Creek (Oklahoma) Section 319 Nation-
al Monitoring Program Project, NWQEP NOTES 78:1-3.
OREGON UPPER GRANDE RONDE BASIN
SECTION 319 NA TIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
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 Preliminary
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.
ODEQ. 1997. Upper Grande Ronde Basin (Oregon) Section 319 National Monitoring
Program Project. NWQEP NOTES 83:1-3, North Carolina State University Water
Quality Group, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, NC.
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 NA TIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Evaluation of Agricultural Best Management Practices in the Conestoga River
Headwaters, PA. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report
90-4131.
1991. Summary of EPA-Headquarters Review Comments, 8/14.
1991. Work Plan for Characterizing Baseline Water Quality, and Evaluating the
Cause/Effect Relations of the Implementation of Agricultural Management Practices
on Surface- and Ground-Water Quality in the Mill Creek, May. Workplan.
1992. Detailed Workplan, 6/2. Workplan.
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.
1993. Project Application, 7/14.
Beegle, D., L.E. Lanyon, and D.D. Lingenfelter. 1996. Nutrient Management
Legislation in Pennsylvania: A Summary. Penn State College of Agricultural
Sciences, Cooperative Extension, Agronomy Facts 40. 7 p.
258
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Galeone, D.G. and Koerkle, E.H. 1996. Study Design and Preliminary Data Analysis
for a Streambank Fencing Project in the Mill Creek Basin, Pennsylvania. U.S.
Geological Survey Fact Sheet 193-96. 4p.
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.
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. Penn
State Cooperative Extension, Pequea-Mill Creek Project, Smoketown, PA. Pequea-
Mill Creek Information Series 25. 6 p.
Reichgott, T. 1992. Memo to S. Dressing, 6/11. Memorandum.
Thoma, R. 1991. Comments 8/29.
SOUTH DAKOTA BAD RIVER WA TERSHED
SECTION 319 NA TIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 1996. Bad River
National Monitoring Project Workplan.
Stewart, B. and D. Osmond. 1997. Bad River (South Dakota) Section 319 National
Monitoring Program Project. NWQEP NOTES 84:1-3, North Carolina State Universi-
ty Water Quality Group, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, NC.
VERMONT LAKE CHAMPLAIN WA TERSHED
SECTION 319 NA TIONAL 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 Cen-
ter, 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. Clean Water Act Section 319 Nonpoint Source Project Summary: Lake Cham-
plain Agricultural Watersheds BMP Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring
Project (Draft).
1993. EPA-HQ Informational Needs for Lake Champlain Section 319 NFS Monitor-
ing Project.
1993. EPA Review of the Lake Champlain Project, 5/26.
259
-------
• -Appendix IV: Project Documents
May, 1993. State of Vermont: Lake Champlain Agricultural Watersheds BMP Imple-
mentation and Effectiveness Monitoring Project: Section 319 National Monitoring
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. and D.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) Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project. NWQEP NOTES 74:1-3.
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 Refer-
ence Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities, Windsor, Ontario,
Canada. . , , ,
WASHINGTON TOTTEN AND ELD INLET
SECTION 319 NA TIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
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.
EPA. 1992. Watershed Monitoring and Reporting for the Section 319 National
Monitoring Program Projects. EPA Office of Water, August 1991, Washington, DC.
EPA. 1993. Paired Watershed Study Design. EPA# 841-F-93-009. EPA Office of
Water, Washington, DC.
EPA. 1997. Techniques for Tracking and Evaluating the Implementation of Nonpoint
Source Control Measures: Agriculture. Final Review Draft, EPA Office of Water,
January 1997, Washington, DC.
Hofstad., L. 1993. Watershed Implementation: Eld, Henderson, and Totten/Little
Skookum, 1992-1993. Thurston County Environmental Health Division, Olympia,
WA.
260
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Hofstad, L., D. Tipton, and S. Berg. 1996. Shellfish Protection Initiative — Eld
Watershed: 1993-1996. Thurston County Environmental Health Division, Olympia,
WA.
Mead, M. and J. Konovsky. 1997. Personal communication, June 1997. Thurston
Conservation District, Olympia, WA.
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 R.F. Cusimano. 1996. Totten and Eld Inlets Clean Wafer Projects:
Annual Report.
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.
Starry, A. 1990. Totten/Little Skookum Inlets and Watershed: 1987-1989 Water
Quality and Remedial Action Report. Thurston County Environmental Health
Division, Olympia, WA.
Thoemke, T. 1997. Personal communication, April 1997. Thurston County Envi-
ronmental Health Division, Olympia, WA.
Zar, J.H. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis, 2nd Edition. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood
Cliffe,NJ.
WISCONSIN OTTER CREEK
SECTION 319 NA TIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
A Nonpoint Source Control Plan for the Sheboygan River Watershed.
1993. Fields & Streams. April, Newsletter.
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.
1993. Otter Creek Evaluation Monitoring Project. Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Bureau of Water Resources Management, Nonpoint Sources and Land
Management Section, Madison, 27 p.
1993. Otter Creek Evaluation Monitoring Program (Revised).
1994. Section 319 National Monitoring Program Proposal: Lincoln Creek Evalua-
tion Monitoring Project.
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.
261
-------
• 'Appendix IV: Project Documents
Bannerman, R. 1993. Section 319 National Monitoring Proposal—Otter Creek
Evaluation Monitoring Project, 6/12 and Revised 6/15. Memorandum to Steve
Dressing.
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.
Dressing, S.A. 1992. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program.
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.
Dressing, S.A. 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program (Revised).
Dressing, S.A. 1993. Review of Proposal for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program (Bower Creek), 2/12. Fax Transmittal by Steve Dressing to Tom Davenport.
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.
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.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1982. Using a Biotic Index to Evaluate Water Quality in Streams.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Technical Bulletin No. 132, Madison,
WI. 22p.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1987. An improved Biotic Index of organic stream pollution. The
Great Lakes Entomologist, p. 31-39.
Lyons, J. 1992. Using the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) to Measure the Environmen-
tal Quality of Warmwater Streams in U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
North Central Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report NC-149. 51 p.
Nevers, L. March 1995. Farm and Home Pollution and Prevention Update.
Simonson, T.D., J. Lyons, and P.O. 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.
262
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Stuntebeck, T.D. 1995. Evaluating Barnyard Best Management Practices in Wiscon-
sin 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 Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, 23 p.
263
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
264
-------
Appendix V
Matrix for Section 319
National Monitoring Program Projects
265
-------
Appendix V: Matrix
PROJECT
BASIN
DESIGNATED
BENEFICIAL USES
WATER QUALITY
PROBLEM
Alabama: 74
Lightwood Knot Creek sq. miles
• Recreation
•Aquatic life support
•Sediment
•Nutrients
•Bacteria
Arizona: 9
Oak Creek Canyon sq. miles
•Recreation (primary contact)
•Aquatic life support
•Drinking water supply
»Bacteria
'Nutrients
California: 76
Morro Bay Watershed sq. miles
•Endangered species habitat
•Shellfish harvesting
•Recreation
(primary and secondary contact)
•Esturine and fresh water habitat
•Sediment
•Nutrients
Connecticut:
Jordan Cove Urban
Watershed
Idaho:
Eastern Snake
River Plain
Illinois:
Lake Pittsfield
Illinois:
Waukegan River
Iowa:
Sny Magill Watershed
Iowa:
Walnut Creek
Maryland:
Warner Creek
Watershed
Michigan:
Sycamore Creek
Watershed
less than
1 sq. mile
9.600
sq. miles
(aquifer)
11
sq. miles
12
sq. miles
36
sq. miles
45
sq. miles
1
sq. miles
106
sq. miles
•Shellfish harvesting
•Drinking water supply
(ground water)
•Drinking water supply
•Recreation
(primary and secondary contact)
•Aquatic life support
•Aquatic life support ("put and
take" recreational trout fishing)
•Aquatic life support
•Aquatic life support
•Aquatic life support
•Recreation (primary contact)
•Sediment
•Fecal coliform
•Nutrients
•Nitrates
•Low-level pesticide
concentrations
•Sediment
•Nutrients
•Sediment
•Loss of physical habitat
•Sediment
•Nutrients
•Animal wastes
•Pesticides
•Sediment
•Nutrients
•Herbicides
•Sediment
•Nitrogen
•Phosphorus
•Sediment
•Dissolved Oxygen
266
-------
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 coliforrn 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
•Streambank erosion
•Restore streambanks
•Reduce or mitigate stormwater runoff
'Upstream / downstream
•Cropland
•Livestock operations
•Streambank erosibn
•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
267
-------
Appendix V: Matrix
PROJECT
SAMPLING SCHEME
PRIMARY WATER QUALITY
PARAMETERS
Alabama: »Weekly April-August
LIghtwood Knot Creek •DS, TSS, and explanatory variables
monitored remainder of year
NH3, N02> N03 + NO,, OP, TP, Turbidity, TSS, FC,
FS, TKN
Arizona:
Oak Creek Canyon
•Weekly grab samples
from May 15 - Sept. 15
FC, NO3, OP, TN, TP, NH3, 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., NO3 + NO,, FC
Idaho:
Eastern Snake
River Plain
•Monthly groundwater grab samples
•Growing season soil water samples
NO, 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
Illinois:
Waukegan River
•Seasonal biological parameters
•Continuous flow
Fish Samples, Macroinveterbrates, Habitat,
DO, Temperature, Flow
Iowa:
Sny Magill Watershed
•Continuous stage, daily discharge and
suspended sediment measurements
•Weekly grab samples
•Annual habitat assessment
•Annual fisheries survey
•Bi-monthly macro-invertebrates
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)
NO3, OP, Turbidity, SS, Pesticides,
NH3, BOD, Macroinvertebrates, Fisheries
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
NH,, TKN, NO, + NO,, NO,, 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, NH3
268
-------
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, Deptl 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
«Runoff and sediment control structures
»IL Environmental Protection Agency
»IL State Water Survey
»IL Department of Conservation
1994-1999
319 Project Approval
1996
«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
»!A 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
1993-1997
319 Project Approval
1993
269
-------
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
South Dakota:
Bad River
Vermont:
Lake Champlain Basin
Watersheds
Washington:
Totten and Eld Inlet
Clean Water Projects
Wisconsin:
Otter Creek
25
sq. miles
695
sq. miles
3.2
sq. miles
5
sq. miles
12
sq. miles
total
Totten=69
sq. miles
Eld=36
sq. miles
Otter Creek =
1 1 sq. miles
Meeme Creek =
16sq. miles
•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
•Recreation
•Irrigation
•Aquatic life support
•Lake Champlain recreation
and aesthetics ( NFS pollutant
loading)
•Shellfish harvesting
•Recreation (primary and secondary)
•Wildlife habitat
•Aquatic life support
•Recreation (secondary contact)
•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
•Sediment
•Loss of channel capacity
•Loss of water clarity
•Nutrients (particularly
phosphorus)
•Bacteria
•Organic matter
•Bacteria
•Sediment
•Phosphorus
•Bacteria
270
-------
Appendix V: Matrix
SOUBOE 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 saimonid and aquatic macroinvertebrate
communities
'Quantitatively document a cause & effect relationship
between improved habitat, lower water temperatures, &
improved saimonid & 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
'Cropland
'Rangeland
'Grazing practices
'Document water quality improvements through
riparian and rangeland management
'Two-paired watershed
2 control / 2 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
271
-------
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.)
»Annual biological survey
Percent Canopy and Aufwuchs, Invertebrate Taxa
Richness, FC, FS, TSS, TS, DO, NO3 + NO2, TKN,
TP, Temperature
Oklahoma:
Peacheater Creek
»WeekIy 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:
Pequea 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
South Dakota: 'During storm events
Bad River »24-hour composite samples twice
during first week of spring snowmelt
and once per week until runoff ceases
TSS, Stream Discharge, Rainfall, Riparian
Condition
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
272
-------
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
•Cross-fencing
•Riparian vegetation
•Alternative feeding and watering sites
•SD Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
•USDA NRCS
•Upper Bad River Task Force
•East Pennington Conservation District
1996-2006
319 Project Approval
1996
•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
273
-------
Appendix V: Matrix
274
------- |