OCLC10454139
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION
OF AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT
SOURCE WATER QUALITY
PROJECTS
Prepared by EPA Interagency Taskforce
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Implementation Branch
Water Planning Division
Washington, D. C.
-------
EPA's Agricultural NPS Program
A targeted nonpoint source (NPS) pollution control program is required if
Congressionally mandated water quality goals are to be met. Since agricul-
tural activities have been identified as major contributors to nonpoint source
pollution, EPA has given a high priority to the development and implementation
of agricultural nonpoint source control programs.
Agricultural nonpoint source pollutants problems are widespread. (Many States
have identified their agricultural NPS related water quality problems and
developed implementation programs through the Water Quality Management
planning process). Reasonable solutions to many of the agricultural problems
are known and many of the institutional mechanisms are in place. However,
there is general agreement that while implementation programs move ahead,
there is the need to develop a more comprehensive evaluation of the impact
of agricultural nonpoint source pollutants on water quality; the degree of
control required to meet water quality goals; and, the effectiveness of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) in reducing pollutant loadings and meeting water
quality goals. Since Federal and State water quality management resources
are limited, it is not feasible for each State to address every agricultural
nonpoint source water quality problem. Our strategy is to focus resources
on solving the most significant problems in those areas where water quality
has or will be most adversely affected. Information and data from these
projects will be widely disseminated to other States with similar problems.
To assist in the design and implementation of needed monitoring and evaluation
programs, EPA has supported development of these guidelines.
Carl Myers, Chief
Implementation Branch
Water Planning Division
U.S.E.P.A.
-------
GUIDELINES
FOR
EVALUATION OF AGRICULTURAL
NONPOINT SOURCE WATER QUALITY PROJECTS
This guideline manual was developed under EPA leadership
by the following interagency taskforce:
Walt Rittall
Co-Chairman
EPA
Washington, D.C.
Lynn R. Shuyler
Co-Chairman
EPA
Ada, OK
John Burt
USDA, SCS
Ft. Worth, TX
Lee Christensen
USDA, ESS
Athens, GA
Ben Dysart
Clemson University
Clemson, SC
Jack Gakstatter
EPA
Corvallis, OR
Mel Gray
State of Kansas
Topeka, KS
Vincent Grimes
USDA, ASCS
Washington, D.C.
Jerry Homer
USDA, ESS
Davis, CA
Frank Humenik
N. C. State University
Raleigh, NC
Howard Johnson
Iowa State University
Ames, IA
R. Douglas Kreis
EPA
Ada, OK
James Law
EPA
Ada, OK
Raymond Loehr
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY
Richard Magleby
USDA, ESS
Washington, D.C.
James Meek
EPA
Washington, D.C.
Ron Menzel
USDA, SEA-AR
Durant, OK
Lee Mulkey
EPA
Athens, GA
Mike Prewitt
U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Services
Ft. Collins, CO
Jackie Robbins
Louisiana Tech
Ruston, LA
Gaylord Skogerboe
Colorado State Univ.
Ft. Collins, CO
Gene Veirs
EPA
Seattle, WA
-------
Printing of this document was done under the project:
RURAL NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL
WATER QUALITY EVALUATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
USDA Cooperative Agreement - 12-05-300-472
EPA Interagency Agreement - AD-12-F-0-037-0
This project is a joint EPA/USDA venture to provide
technical assistance for conducting agricultural non-
point source control programs and to provide informa-
tion on the water quality and socio-economic changes
resulting from these programs.
PROJECT PERSONNEL
Clarence Wilson USDA-SCS Participant
Lee Christensen USDA-ESS Participant
DeAnne D. Johnson Project Assistant
Charles K. Allred EPA Intern
Jonathan M. Kreglow Extension Specialist
Steven A. Dressing Extension Specialist
Richard P. Maas Extension Specialist
Fred A. Koehler Principal Investigator
Frank J. Humenik Project Director
Biological & Agricultural Engineering Department
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina 27650
EPA PROJECT OFFICER
Lynn R. Shuyler
Implementation Branch
Water Planning Division
Washington, D.C.
-------
OVERVIEW
The purpose of this document is to provide basic guidelines for
measuring water quality changes and for estimating socioeconomic impacts
resulting from nonpoint source (NPS) control programs. The evaluation
procedures recommended are considered minimum techniques for detecting
water quality changes in streams and lakes with documented impaired uses
and for projecting socioeconomic changes due to these programs. These
minimum techniques set the base for a nationally uniform evaluation
procedure and data base which may be built upon to meet specific project
or area requirements. This guidance document outlines the philosophy and
basis for the evaluation of many NPS control program components, such as
initial project development and evaluation (RCWP proposals or special
water quality projects), project operation, and final evaluations, but
does not explore the issue of Quality Assurance/Quality Control for these
evaluation programs. It is suggested that the local EPA Regional office
be contacted to provide the current recommendations for Quality Assurance/
Quality Control for evaluation programs.
The recommended evaluation techniques are listed as Level I and Level
II analyses. Level I techniques represent the minimum analysis for the
evaluation of program effectiveness. Level II techniques represent a
slightly more detailed, multiparameter analysis, which are to be used when
more sensitive and complete evaluations are needed to detect changes. This
document does not address the more intensive analyses that would be required
to develop statistically defensible cause and effect relationships for
individual best management practices (BMP's) or a system of BMP's. Additional
evaluation techniques as required by specific project conditions should be
added to these minimums to satisfy project needs and to meet project goals.
This guidance document was developed by a multi-disciplinary committee
of federal, state, and university personnel who have provided balanced, com-
prehensive and practical recommendations for evaluating water quality changes
resulting from NPS control programs. Thus, in a similar manner, it is intended
that a multidisciplinary team approach be utilized for each project from
initiation through final analyses in order to insure the most optimal cost-
effective evaluation of NPS control programs.
-------
CONTENTS
Overview iii
Figures vii
Tables viii
1. Introduction 1
2. Evaluation Procedures for Nonpoint Source Control Measures .... 4
Water Quality Impact 4
Drinking Water 5
Fisheries and Wildlife 5
Recreation 5
Agriculture and Industry 5
Other Technical Considerations 5
3. Evaluation and Sampling Needs 7
Background Information 7
Evaluation Plan 9
Sampling Needs 9
Example - Lake System 9
4. Streams 11
Evaluation Alternatives 11
Specific Guidance Recommendations 13
Historical Information 13
Physical Description 13
Flow and Channel Configuration 14
Sediment Related Aspects 14
Identification of Impacted Beneficial Uses 15
Fish and Wildlife 15
Drinking Water 16
Contact Recreation and Aesthetics 17
Agriculture and Industry 17
5. Lakes 19
Specific Guidance Recommendations 19
Historical Information 19
Physical Description 19
Identification of Impacted Beneficial Uses 20
Fish and Wildlife 20
Drinking Water 21
Recreation (Contact and Noncontact) 21
Agriculture and Industry 21
v
-------
6. Ground Water 23
7. Socioeconomic Evaluation 25
Introduction 25
Development of Data for Program Evaluation 25
Data for Level I - Minimal Evaluation 26
Background Data on the Area's Agriculture 26
Baseline Data on Participating Farms 27
Changes In Farm Operations 28
Yield Effects of Practice Adoption 28
Changes in Pollutant Delivery 29
Non-Farm Costs of Project 29
Project Participation and Coverage 30
Evaluation Procedures 30
Production Changes 30
Farm Income Effects 31
Project Participation and Coverage 31
Total Project Costs 31
Costs Versus Effectiveness 32
Level II Comprehensive Evaluation 32
More Detail on Farm Impacts 33
Community and Off-Site Impacts 33
Cost Effectiveness and Benefit/Cost Analysis 33
Analytical Procedures and Data Needs 34
Concluding Notes 34
References 35
-------
FIGURES
1. Sampling Options for Projects that are Underway or Completed . . .12
2. Sampling Options for Projects that have no NPS Activities
Started 12
-------
TABLES
Streams
1. Fish and Wildlife (Level I) 36
2. Fish and Wildlife (Level II) 37
3. Drinking Water (Level I) 39
4. Drinking Water (Level II) 40
5. Recreation (Level I) 41
6. Recreation (Level II) 42
7. Agriculture and Industry (Level I) 43
8. Agriculture and Industry (Level II) 44
Lakes
9. Fish and Wildlife (Level I) 45
10. Fish and Wildlife (Level II) 48
11. Drinking Water (Level I) 52
12. Drinking Water (Level II) 53
13. Recreation (Water Contact) (Level I) 55
14. Recreation(Water Contact) (Level II) 57
15. Agriculture (Irrigation and Stock Water) and Industry
(Level I) 58
16. Agriculture (Irrigation and Stock Water) and Industry
(Level II) 59
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
In 1972 the Congress of the United States, through passage of PL 92-500,
established, as a national goal, the restoration of the lakes, rivers, and
streams of the nation to fishable and swiramable conditions. The U. S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) was charged with the accomplishment of this
responsibility, where practicable and attainable, by 1983. The initial ef-
fort by EPA focused on point source discharges, and control was obtained
through a regulatory approach requiring "best practicable treatment." This
approach resulted in significant improvement in water quality in many parts
of the country. Throughout most of the country, however, point source dis-
charges neither constitute the major nor the sole cause of water quality
degradation. Control of other pollution sources will be necessary to satisfy
congressionally mandated national goals.
These "other pollutant sources" are defined as nonpoint sources (NFS)
and include precipitation driven runoff from land based activities such as
agriculture, silviculture, mining, highway and other construction, urban
development, and other practices such as irrigation and street washing.
NFS pollution was specifically addressed in PL 92-500. Section 208
called for the development of area-wide planning agencies which would be
charged with the responsibility of identifying nonpoint pollutional sources
and developing cost effective implementation programs for their control.
Other sections established other programs for NFS control such as the Section
314 Clean Lakes Program, which provides for assistance to states for the
restoration of the water quality in degraded streams and lakes.
The 208 state and area wide waste management plans that have been
developed include a variety of methodologies to identify NFS water quality
problems. Problem identification has been difficult and suboptimal due to
the lack of documented cause-and-effeet relationships between NFS pollution
sources and receiving environments. Many situations require the use of
surrogate measures to identify areas with potential water quality problems.
For this reason, federally supported implementation efforts have, by neces-
sity, been based on combinations of assumed source relationships, impacted
uses, and loading rates. Realistic and cost-effective programs must be
predicated on an evaluation of the effectiveness of present and future ap-
proaches to insure that critical sources are being addressed, that the
quality of a water resource is being improved, and that benefits derived
from that improvement are commensurate with required expenditures of private
and public funds.
-------
The initial emphasis of the evaluation effort will be directed toward
the evaluation of ongoing NPS control programs; however, the primary benefit
may be the application of the results of present programs to the selection
of NPS control measures for future programs. Application of these concepts
will provide a sound decision base on which to make proper problem and source
identifications and recommended management practice(s) oriented toward
specific water quality impacts or use impairments. These concepts will im-
prove both the best management practices (BMP) and project selection
processes and will permit prediction of expected benefits with acceptable
levels of confidence before public and private funds are expended.
Evaluation of NPS control projects is an integral part of the implemen-
tation phase of NPS control programs. These evaluations will provide
guidance inputs to many administrative functions., such as: 1) investment of
funds, 2) justification for the allocation of these funds, 3) verification
of overall program effectiveness, 4) evaluation of regional effectiveness of
practices or systems of BMPs, and 5) informing local landowners and/or
operators as to the effectiveness of their efforts to improve water quality.
Additionally, these evaluations will serve to 1) provide a commonality of
information from area to area or region to region, 2) identify water quality
problems in a study area, 3) determine instream effectiveness of practices
and control programs, 4) identify parameters which reflect the impact of NPS
pollutants on the water resource, 5) refine the implementation effort,
6) identify the need for more detailed scientific investigations to deter-
mine cause and effect relationships, 7) identify potential downstream water
quality impacts, and 8) provide data to develop models designed to extrapol-
ate results to other areas.
In evaluating the effectiveness of NPS control programs in improving
water quality, the intended use becomes the first concern. The use goals
for the receiving body will determine which pollutants must be addressed
and the degree of control required to restore or maintain the use under
consideration.
The development of an evaluation plan embodies certain assumptions. It
must be assumed that a specific water quality problem and responsible sources
have been properly identified and that the NPS control plan specifies the
appropriate management practices (structural/nonstructural) to be implemented
to correct the water quality problem. The project evaluation procedure is
then designed to determine the validity of the assumptions and, where needed,
to identify corrective measures.
Because of the present level of uncertainity that exists relative to the
true relationships between NPS pollutants and precluded or impaired water
uses, a detailed evaluation should be considered. This should include an
analysis of projected uses based on existing historical information, such as,
land use data, past technical studies, and observed changes within and beyond
the project area and would end with a site-specific technical prediction of
potential changes in water quality resulting from the implementation of
selected practices or systems of practices.
-------
NFS water quality impacts associated with various water use categories
may require long evaluation periods. It is anticipated, that for these types
of impacts (i.e., eutrophication, biological degradation, etc.), the incre-
mental changes in the overall water quality may not be measurable within a
project period (3-5 years) because of the high degree of inherent variability
within the system and the long response time of natural ecosystems to such
subtle changes. Nevertheless, evaluations should include some short-term
indicators of water quality changes so that some level of net effectiveness
can be estimated at the end of the project period. The evaluation also
should be of sufficient duration to identify the long-term impacts that
result from implementation.
-------
SECTION 2
EVALUATION PROCEDURES FOR NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES
A systematic approach to the development of a strategy for the evalua-
tion of the water quality impact resulting from the installation of NFS
control measures is outlined in this document. This approach identifies the
basic information and data that should be gathered at any location for the
evaluation of the effectiveness of any BMP or system of BMPs. Included are
methodologies which can be used to develop procedures for cost-effectiveness,
a minimum list of evaluation parameters, and practical sampling schedules and
analytical procedures.
This NFS control evaluation strategy is intended to be used: a) to
evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs, b) as a decision making tool
to modify program efforts, and c) as guidance for consideration of new
implementation programs. The overall focus is on the impairment of principal
beneficial uses of water by NFS pollutants. Measurement of short-term source
reduction as well as provisions for the measurement of the long-term changes
in the impacted use should be included in projects where identified water
quality problems have longer expected response times than the normal time for
the evaluation program. These evaluations must also include the impact of
recommended management practices on both the surface and ground water re-
source, to be sure that one water quality problem has not been substituted
for another.
WATER QUALITY IMPACT
Specific beneficial water uses which are considered in this evaluation
are drinking water, fisheries and wildlife, recreation (contact and noncon-
tact), and agriculture and industry. Pollutants originating from nonpoint
sources can impair these uses in many ways.
Drinking water
Excessive NFS pollutants may increase the cost of treating surface
water for potable or industrial use. High concentrations of nitrates can
cause an existing water supply to be abandoned or require extensive treat-
ment. Toxic chemicals, bacteria, and viruses in water supplies may require
increased levels of treatment resulting in higher costs. High concentration
of suspended solids can increase the amount of sedimentation which, in turn,
reduces the effective storage capacity of lakes and water supply reservoirs.
-------
Increased nutrients can create a suitable habitat for aquatic plants which
can lead to taste and odor problems.
Fisheries and wildlife
Toxic chemicals and low oxygen levels can result in changes in aquatic
community structures and fish kills. Eutrophication can result in changes
in the floral community which, in turn, influence the fish and invertebrate
community structures. Flow variation, removal of riparian vegetation, and
channelization can change the physical habitat of fish and invertebrates
while sediment deposition can cover aquatic food supplies and breeding sites.
Recreation
Increased nutrients stimulate aquatic plant growth which can make water
bodies less desirable for swimming, boating, hunting, and fishing. Bacterial
concentrations often exceed recommended levels, thereby limiting water contact
sports and aquatic uses. Dissolved, suspended, and settleable materials can
create unaesthetic conditions of water color and clarity and can result in
decreased productivity through limitation of the euphotic zone in lakes.
Agriculture and Industry
Salinity can result in decreased crop yield and changes in soil struc-
ture. High nutrient concentration can result in excessive aquatic plant
growth in supply and receiving reservoirs and distribution canals. Clogging
of irrigation pumps and reduction of distribution canal capacity results from
such excessive plant growth. Excessive sediment can cause operational
problems for some irrigation systems. Elevated bacterial concentrations and
toxic contamination may be detrimental for livestock watering and may con-
strain application to crops which are consumed raw or are sensitive to the
specific toxins. Industrial water quality concerns are usually met by
selective pretreatment and plant location and, therefore, have not been
included in the document.
OTHER TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Control measures designed to address NFS problems have not, for the
most part, been evaluated in terms of receiving water quality or overall
economic benefits. Historically, work in the agricultural area has been
primarily restricted to the on-site costs and benefits to the owner/operator
who actually installs the practice and to characterization of water quality
at the edge of the field or practice.
When water is treated as an area resource, the perspective is expanded
beyond in-stream impacts and requires consideration of past and future uses,
the value of the water resource, and its potential suitability to users far
removed from the pollutant source. On this scale, it may be possible to
quantify the benefits in terms of specific pollutant reduction as opposed to
general water quality improvement and to obtain measures of success in terms
-------
of the secondary benefits which accrue from the NPS programs. For example,
secondary benefits could include factors such as the reduced use of pesti-
cides or toxic materials and the resultant changes in water quality within
a stream or lake system that would then allow a water use that previously
had been deemed inappropriate because of excessive pesticides or toxics.
Many of the data needed for this type of evaluation exist and/or are avail-
able through interpretation of existing data.
Evaluation of NPS control systems and practices should include a number
of other considerations. These include changes in crop yield and use of land
and recreational sites, as well as institutional, managerial, and economic
aspects. Although these considerations may not be easily evaluated in a
quantitative manner, sufficient information should be acquired to provide at
least qualitative insights into the impact of implementation of NPS control
measures on these important non-water quality implications.
Criteria for evaluating impact on the identified beneficial water uses
are presented in subsequent sections of this document. Receiving waters have
been hydrologically divided into ground water, stream, and lake systems.
Minimum evaluation parameters are identified which directly assess the
attributes of the hydrologic systems that have been impacted by NPS pollution
and, where appropriate, more detailed evaluation strategies are also dis-
cussed.
-------
SECTION 3
EVALUATION AND SAMPLING NEEDS
The largest contribution of NFS drainage to surface water originates
from land used for agricultural practices. These include such uses as forest
production, rangelands and pastures, and irrigated and non-irrigated crop
production. All of these NPSs can, when managed improperly, result in pol-
lutant contamination of ground water, streams, and lakes. Agricultural NFS
pollutants are transported to receiving waters by uncontrolled rainfall and
snowmelt drainage with variable frequency and volume. Irrigated crop produc-
tion is an exception. Pollutants are transported to surface and ground water
supplies in volumetrically and frequency controlled applications of water to
irrigated croplands. In addition, irrigation activities represent not only
a discharge source but also a beneficial use of potentially contaminated
water.
There are four categories of waters which should be considered: sub-
surface and surface drainage, ground water, streams, and lakes. Subsurface
and surface drainage are classified as sources while ground water, streams,
and lakes are classified as receiving waters. The overall responses of each
of these major classifications of receiving water to introductions of pollu-
tants are so differing that they must be evaluated individually. Therefore,
streams, lakes, and ground water will be discussed individually in Sections
4, 5, and 6, respectively.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
An understanding of the total ecological realm of an area and the NFS
management or control systems used within an area are essential to the esta-
blishment of an NFS control evaluation methodology. Basic background
information is required regardless of the level of detail selected for the
evaluation criteria. These can be selected from the following list, as ap-
propriate for water quality problems being addressed:
HISTORICAL
1) land use patterns
2) types of crops
3) types and numbers of animals produced and waste management techniques
4) number and distribution of people
5) general socio-economic conditions
6) introduced chemicals
-------
HISTORICAL - cont.
7) background, surface and ground water data (impacted/
nonimpacted areas)
8) fertilization rates
9) pesticide use
10) existing structural controls
WATERSHED SYSTEMS
1) geographic location
2) area
3) slope
4) general soil characteristics
5) hydrologic balance
6) climatic condition
7) distribution of forest, pasture, agriculture, suburban,
and urban land
STREAM SYSTEMS
1) gradient
2) flow
3) sediment loads
4) stream cross sections
5) point source input locations and type
6) substrate degradation and aggregation
7) water quality constituents for specific project evaluation
LAKE SYSTEMS
1) area
2) volume
3) depth - cross-sectional
4) inflow - average annual, maximum, and minimum
5) outflow - average annual, maximum, and minimum
6) stratification dynamics
7) point source input locations and type
8) sedimentation rate
9) topography of basin
10) hydraulic retention time
11) water quality constituents for specific project evaluation
IRRIGATED SYSTEMS
1) flow
2) salinity
3) frequency of application
4) source of water
5) sediment production
6) water quality constituents for specific project evaluation
GROUND WATER SYSTEMS
1) depth to water
2) saturated thickness
3) water quality constituents for specific project evaluation
-------
GROUND WATER SYSTEMS - cont.
4) hydraulic conductivity
5) geology of aquifer
EVALUATION PLAN
An evaluation plan should be developed specifically to detect, under a
predetermined set of limitations, a change in the identified impacted water
use caused by installation of BMPs. Based on the available background and
historical information, the plan should be sensitive to the potential for
both positive and negative changes as well as time-related responses.
Qualitative evaluations may be used, where appropriate, consistent with the
guidance provided in Sections 4, 5, and 6.
SAMPLING NEEDS
In general, sampling should be held to that required to make a defini-
tive evaluation. Certain parameters, such as bacteria and nitrate need only
be evaluated on the event of a known or expected violation of standards.
Consideration must be given to existing data, data being collected for
other purposes, data collected outside the project area, and other pertinent
sources of data. When appropriate, alternative sampling approaches should
be considered and the logic for the sampling program should indicate need
and adequacy of collected data.
Tables are provided for Streams (Section 4) and Lakes (Section 5)
centering on the four major water use categories: fish and wildlife, recre-
ation, drinking water supply, and agriculture and industry. The potential
water quality impact, the substances or characteristics which may cause
water use impairments, the basic parameters which are required to assess
the degrees of impairment and guidelines on sampling locations, frequency,
and methodology are listed in the tables. The tables presented in each
section are divided into two levels, Level I and Level II. Level I repre-
sents the minimum analysis to evaluate program effectiveness with Level II
representing a more detailed multiparameter water quality analysis that can
be used to increase the sensitivity of the evaluation program. A third
level, not covered, could be devised to define the development of specific
cause and effect relationships for single or multiple BMP applications.
EXAMPLE - LAKE SYSTEM
A public lake has very high turbidity caused by suspended solids from
land runoff. The runoff enters the lake by way of a single tributary. The
major impaired use is recreation (swimming, boating, and water skiing).
It is estimated that poor agricultural practices are the source of the
problem and a program is implemented to control sediment delivery to the
lake.
-------
Table 13 (Level I - Recreation) suggests that the minimum evaluation
for assessing a turbidity problem includes in-lake measurement of suspended
solids (fixed and volatile), turbidity (secchi depth), and chlorophyll a.
over time. Chlorophyll a_ is included to account for a situation where an
inorganic turbidity problem might be replaced by an organic turbidity pro-
blem (the solution of one problem causes another with the same water use
impairment). Table 13 provides guidance for the location of sampling sites.
The actual locations, however, will be a site specific judgement responsibil-
ity of the project personnel. Table 13 also suggests that sampling
frequencies should be at least weekly for secchi depth throughout the recre-
ation season and biweekly for chlorophyll ji and suspended solids. The
methods of laboratory analysis are those specified in Standard Methods for
the Examination of Water and Waste Water* or other approved manuals.
The above represents the recommended minimum evaluation program. The
parameters recommended in Level II (Table 14) should be used if additional
data are required. Continuing with the same example, a stream monitoring
station is added to Level I evaluations to estimate the annual load of sus-
pended solids and nutrients transported to the lake by the incoming stream.
The determination of the combined effectiveness of implemented BMPs to
reduce total suspended solids transported to the lake can then be determined
over any given period of time. This Level II stream inflow data can be used
to identify changes in lakes that may occur as a result of BMP implementa-
tion. These changes may not be readily detectable in lakes due to inherently
long response times.
*Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water. 14th ed.,
American Public Health Association, 1975.
10
-------
SECTION 4
STREAMS
Streams represent systems of aquatic environments that receive pollu-
tants primarily from subsurface and surface runoff and from point source
discharges. Streams are highly variable systems that undergo major changes
seasonally and with major precipitation events. For'this reason, significant
variations in timing, location, and concentrations of pollutants must be
known before pollutional effects on water quality can be properly evaluated.
NFS pollution is primarily storm event related; therefore, sampling emphasis
should be directed to the characterization of runoff conditions. Base flow
monitoring should be limited to those cases where a need for the information
has been demonstrated.
EVALUATION ALTERNATIVES
A number of alternative evaluation procedures exist for streams. These
are dependent on the physical configuration of the watershed and the detail
required of the control effort being evaluated. Selection of sampling al-
ternatives is influenced by: 1) amount of time available before BMPs are
initiated, 2) probability of measuring water quality changes resulting from
the installation of BMPs, 3) size of area to be evaluated, and 4) existence
of suitable historical data within or near the project site. Sampling al-
ternatives can vary according to location and time. Location alternatives
include 1) collections at single stations and 2) collections upstream and
downstream from a BMP. Time dimension alternatives include measurements
prior to and after project initiation including those outside project bound-
aries that may be useful and measurements after project initiation only.
Within each of the above time dimension options, one can obtain multiple
or single measurements at specified sampling stations. Combinations of the
above alternatives are presented in Figures 1 and 2. Possible sampling op-
tions for evaluation of projects for which implementation of BMPs is underway
or completed are schematically presented in Figure 1. In this case, the
evaluation must come from data taken after treatment and if possible from
suitable historical data collected within or near the project site. The
single station option reflects either a resource-limited constraint or per-
haps applies to a parameter for which only a very long-term change is
anticipated. In general, as one proceeds from left to right in Figure 1 and
as multiple sampling is conducted, the information content increases along
with the evaluation costs. When "before" options are limited to utilization
of historical data, the evaluator is faced with an inherently more difficult
11
-------
Single Trend
Station
Multiple
Samples Over
Time
Existing or On-going
Projects
Upstream and Downstream
Stations
Figure 1. Sampling options for projects that are underway or completed.
New Project Areas
Single Trend
Station
Stations
located at
the start of
project- No
historical data
Multiple
Samples
Per time
Period
Upstream and Downstream
Stations
Stations
located at
the start of
the proj ect
With historical
data
Stations
in operation
before and after
proj ect
Single
Sample
Per time
Period
Figure 2. Sampling options for projects that have no NPS activities started.
12
-------
task in evaluating project benefits. The same logic for projects not yet
underway is provided in Figure 2.
Once a decision is made relative to the status of BMP implementation,
several factors are considered in selection of alternative sampling schemes.
For example, if a relatively large area is involved in which practices are
varied in purpose and geographically dispersed, the single station option may
be the most acceptable evaluation. This example should be carefully analyzed
before the evaluation plan is accepted, because the aggregate effect of the
uncontrolled areas may be large enough to mask the change brought about by
the dispensed BMPs, thereby negating the entire evaluation study. On the
other hand, if dominant practice areas or source problem areas are, or can
be isolated, then a practice specific study may be warranted. The upstream
and downstream alternative may be effective for situations where areas within
a subunit of a defined watershed are isolated for study.
SPECIFIC GUIDANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Historical Information
NPS water quality related problems in streams are generally cyclic in
nature as a result of seasonal changes in land use activities within
watersheds, stream flow variation, or vegetative and climatic patterns.
Continuous and slug discharges of pollutants through point sources can con-
found the nature of NPS pollutant effects by overwhelming the stream system.
Assessment of point source pollution discharges should include identification
of discharge points as well as the historical nature and instream effects of
such discharges. This assessment should include the following:
1. timing and duration of problem periods;
2. suspected sources of such problems;
3. problems which occur as a result of pollutant loads retained in
quiescent water during periods of stream stagnation;
4. land use activities within the watershed which have a potential to
contribute pollutants to the stream; and
5. Excessive stress through some use activity or disaster.
Physical Description
The physical attributes of a stream include flow, material transport
dynamics, and structure and composition of the stream channel and stream
banks. Physical biological habitat description should include consideration
of 1) instream and riparian vegetation, 2) benthic habitat, and substrate
composition and distribution, and 3) managed streamside buffer zones.
13
-------
Flow and Channel Configuration
In general, with respect to NFS pollutant problems, base flow evalua-
tion efforts should be held to a minimum, with the allocation of resources
favoring storm condition sampling. Both primary and secondary flow stations
should be established in the study area. Primary stations are those at
which a higher level of detailed information will be obtained throughout the
evaluation. Secondary stations are those used to broaden the spatial base
of the evaluation. At secondary stations, a lesser level of detail and fewer
parameters need be monitored.
Stream sections established for detailed study of channel degradation,
change in cross section, type and density of instream and riparian vegeta-
tion, burrowing aquatic mammal activity, and other factors should be
monitored and surveyed in detail preferably quarterly or at least annually.
Annual reconnaissance-level assessments of changes in channel and bank
conditions throughout the streams within the study area will assist in iden-
tifying contributions of NFS pollutants due to channel erosion and bank
failure.
Stage discharge rating curves plotted for all primary stations can be
used to identify changes in the watershed hydrographs throughout the course
of the evaluation. One or more United States Geological Survey (USGS)
gaging stations (or their equivalent) should be established, if not already
available, in the evaluation area. If this is not feasible, then discharge
and channel cross section information under storm flow conditions can be
obtained using regular stream gaging techniques. Discharge measurements
detailed enough to establish the shape of the complete hydrograph obtained
for either a minimum of one storm event per quarter, or at a maximum fre-
quency of one event per month can be used to determine seasonal changes as
well as longer-term changes.
Sediment Related Aspects—
In general, the sediment evaluation effort under base flow conditions
should be minimized, in favor of more intensive aquisition of sediment in-
formation during storm flow conditions. Suspended sediment samples should
be obtained with standard depth-integrating sampling equipment at all pri-
mary and secondary stations at least quarterly, but no more frequently than
monthly. Automated samplers properly correlated with depth-integrated
samples can also be used. This effort may be terminated if indicated by
analyses of the initial year's data. If toxics or other materials which
may be transported with suspended sediments are of concern, sampling should
not be discontinued.
The frequency of bed load transport measurements at primary stations
should be adequate to define the ratio of bed load transport to total sedi-
ment transport under base flow conditions. Both suspended and bed load
samples should be collected throughout each monitored storm hydrograph at
primary stations. The frequency of sampling will vary depending upon the
timing of the storm hydrograph, but should be sufficient to identify changes
in the respective sediment transport rates over the duration of the hydro-
14
-------
graph. Suspended sediment and bed load measurements which are adequate to
establish sediment transport throughout the hydrograph should be conducted
at the secondary stations for all monitored storm events. This information
should be collected at least quarterly.
Identification of Impacted Beneficial Uses
The beneficial uses of the water in downstream areas as well as the
evaluation area must be identified. Effects on downstream beneficial uses
can be approximated by determining the pollutional characteristics of the
water at the lowermost evaluation point. Beneficial water uses have been
defined, herein as: fish and wildlife, drinking water, recreation, and
agriculture and industry.
Assuming that a project plan has identified impaired water uses and the
associated cause(s) and the appropriate BMPs have been selected, the evalua-
tion plan can then be developed by setting out the parameters and procedures
which will best measure the anticipated changes in water quality, as a result
of implementation. Evaluation parameters will vary between water uses due to
broad variations in the effects of impacts on various water uses. Tables 1
through 8 describe the requirements for a minimum recommended (Level 1) eval-
uation and for a more detailed analysis (Level 2).
Fish and Wildlife—
Biological impacts in streams are primarily defined in relation to fish
and benthic invertebrate community structures and numerical populations.
Detailed engineering cross-section and channel profile surveys of the stream
will be required when a fishery is impaired by sediment. Impairment of a
fishery by excessive nutrient loadings may require the addition of biological
evaluations of macrophyte communities.
Minimum biologic parameters should be those which best associate the
NFS control measures with a biological response. For example, the majority
of NFS pollutants are sediment and nutrients for which standardized biotic
community structures, for most cases, cannot be established. Therefore, the
use of biotic community structure to evaluate NFS controls should be based
upon changes resulting from the implementation of specific controls. In-
creased sediment loads resulting in deposition and channel change may
severely alter the distribution and species composition of fishes and food
chain invertebrates belonging to the biotic community.
Community attributes of both fish and invertebrates should include the
number of species present either within a fixed reach or at a sampling
station and an estimate of the numbers of individuals within each species.
Fish species identification should be in accordance with recognized keys.
Invertebrates need not be identified to species when the generic description
is adequate for determination of structural changes within the community.
The minimum level of taxonomic identification will be controlled by the
degree of community response to the implemented BMPs.
15
-------
Collections of both fish and invertebrates should be conducted at all
primary habitat and physical measurement sites. Several collection techni-
ques should be utilized to approximate true community composition.
Fish sampling schedules should be at the discretion of a biologist, with
at least two collections per year. The exact scheduling of these and any
desirable additional samples should be determined by local or regional infor-
mation applicable to migration, spawning, rearing, and immature life stages.
Sample collections should not be subject to anomalous temporary influences.
Invertebrates should be collected by standard quantitative techniques on
no less than a quarterly basis. The sampling schedule and timing should be
determined by local or regional knowledge of intermediate metemorphic stages,
pupation, and emergence. Collections should be made at the same sites as the
fish and physical measurements.
Physical conditions which may be responsible for differences in inver-
tebrate community structure, functional feeding groups, and/or trophic levels
and fish species diversity should be recorded at the time of sample collec-
tion. These conditions include turbidity, temperature, pH, DO, velocity,
depth, macrophyte distribution, and substrate composition.
The interpretation of both fish and invertebrate data will involve con-
siderable knowledge of the preferences or tolerances of certain target groups
for the environmental parameters which are expected to change. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service has compiled depth, velocity, and substrate preference
data for approximately 50 fish and 20 invertebrate species. General prefer-
ences of each of these groups are currently stored in accessable regional
computer centers. Temperature, DO, and cover preferences are also available
for most salmonid fish species.
Fish and invertebrates should be analyzed for toxic substances where
such agents are of concern. For this purpose, selected larval, juvenile, and
adult fishes from each routine collection should be frozen immediately after
capture. Special collections are warranted when storm events occurring near
known sources of toxic substance could contribute to fish kills.
Drinking Water—
Water quality impacts on streams used as drinking water supplies include
water quantity reductions, increases in solids creating increased costs for
solids removal, and violations of drinking water standards. Evaluation para-
meters for standards violation depend on the specific agent which exceeds the
required standard. Sampling frequency and method are site and agent spe-
cific. Recommended sampling and analytical techniques for these agents may,
be found in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Waters—.
The sampling locations for drinking water parameter evaluation will include
one station at the water intake (normally sampled daily by the facility).
USGS or equivalent gaging stations located near the water intake will
provide continuous flow monitoring capabilities. Changes in water quantity
due to BMP implementation can readily be determined from collected data.
16
-------
Drinking water treatment costs could provide a good measure of water quality
changes resulting from BMP implementation.
A more detailed analysis of drinking water supplies could include a
measurement of excessive growths of algae and unaesthetic finished drinking
water. Parameters to evaluate these impacts are nutrients such as nitrogen
and phosphorous to determine potential for algal "blooms" and taste, odor,
and true and apparant color as a determination of aesthetic quality. Samples
should be collected at the intake on a daily-time integrated frequency.
After a trend is established, samples should be collected throughout the year
with major emphasis on warmer months when impacts are likely to be more in-
tense.
Contact Recreation and Aesthetics—
Impacts upon contact recreation and aesthetics are generally grouped
into the following three catagories; unaesthetic swimming, fishing, or visual
condition; violations of microbial health standards; and concentration of
toxic substances which could pose a threat to the health and well-being of
humans and other biotic forms. The evaluation of a toxic substance requires a
special effort to isolate and monitor the specific component only when a
problem or potential problem situation arises.
Violations of health standards can usually be detected by analyzing
samples collected in the vicinity of recreation activities for fecal coli-
forms. The aesthetic aspects of recreation activities is more complex. A
minimum effort requires measurement of turbidity in the major use areas
throughout the recreation season. Excessive plant growth and algal blooms
can create interference with fishing, boating, and swimming and can result
in unpleasant musty odors in the water and fish. These conditions are usu-
ally stimulated by excessive nutrients. Correction of inorganic turbidity
problems can also result in excessive plant and algal growths. Turbid waters
are, by definition, light limited. After light is permitted into the water
by reducing turbidity, latent unused nutrients are utilized by plants and
algae.
The best method to monitor the aesthetic acceptance of plant and algal
growth condition is to observe changes in recreation activities and measuring
the changes in plant community structures and density which cause these
recreation shifts.
Agriculture and Industry—
The primary agricultural water uses are irrigation water supply and
stock watering. Water desirable for use in irrigation systems should contain
minimal concentrations of total dissolved solids and toxic metals such as
boron. These waters should also be free of pesticides which will damage or
retard irrigated crop growth. Specific conductance is the simplest measure
of total dissolved solids. Toxic metals and pesticides should be measured
only when they are suspected of being in the water source or as specific
problems arise.
Water quality requirements vary greatly among different industries and
sometimes even within the same industry. For example, sulphates, suspended
17
-------
solids, and carbonates encrust on water cooled heat exchangers; suspended
solids cause foaming; total suspended solids are responsible for color and
taste problems in the food processing industry; inorganic carbon is a source
of process interference in the brewing and carbonated beverage industry, etc.
Treatment processes are available for most of these pollutants; therefore,
the problem evaluation must include balancing the economics of treatment
against source control.
18
-------
SECTION 5
LAKES
Lakes represent aquatic environments which may receive pollutant loads
from airborne sources, surface and subsurface flows, and tributary streams
as well as direct discharges from point sources. Internal cycling of nutri-
ents and other chemicals within lakes tend to integrate loads and minimize
rapid responses which could otherwise result from load reduction. The
residence time for a specific pollutant and the time required for volume
replacement both have a significant influence upon water quality responses
in lakes. Mass and water balances can be used to determine pollutant reduc-
tions and transformations within lakes and establish appropriate sampling
schedules and frequency.
SPECIFIC GUIDANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Historical Information
The history of the development of water quality problems in a watershed
may suggest a hypothetical cause and effect relationship between a lake and
the NFS pollutant load originating within the watershed. Evaluation of such
relationships should include the use of available historical data that re-
lates to the problem and a detailed physical description of the lake and
watershed. Establishment of a viable BMP effectiveness evaluation plan
requires the identification of impacted beneficial uses and an assessment of
the probable causes of these impacts. The anticipated changes from insti-
tuting BMPs on the watershed should be projected, including the approximated
magnitude of changes and the time required for changes to occur. This would
indicate the water quality response of the lake and suggest a sampling fre-
quency for measurement of the response.
Physical Description
A minimum physical description of a lake is required for projecting the
rate and magnitude of change. Consistent with Section 3, the following fac-
tors are important. The watershed and lake area, the lake volume and depth,
and the inflow and outflow, on a quantitative and qualitative basis, are
necessary for determining hydraulic retention time, pollutant residence time,
and overall hydrologic and pollutant inventories. Inflow data should include
tributary inputs as well as direct inputs from point sources, precipitation
and surface and subsurface inflows. This information provides the opportun-
ity to make preliminary estimates of point and nonpoint source contributions,
anticipated water quality responses and the type of sampling program most
19
-------
appropriate to detect system changes. In cases where the response time is
long or the expected changes may be hard to detect, it would be appropriate
to focus sampling on tributary stream and source reduction as opposed to
only lake measurement.
A description of physical habitat conditions such as lake profile,
littoral and riparian vegetation, and stratification dynamics are important
for lakes where nutrient enrichment is being evaluated.
Identification of Impacted Beneficial Uses
The major beneficial uses for lakes are fish and wildlife, drinking
water, contact recreation, and agriculture and industry. A nonpoint source
control program must be based on an identified and documented impairment to
a beneficial use. In cases where this information is not available, it will
be necessary to assess the problem as specifically as possible. In each
specific evaluation situation, the involved water quality parameters should
be identified for each impacted use. The evaluation plan should include a
section on data analysis, including the proposed uses of all data and an
indication of how these analyses will lead to the desired level of evalua-
tion. Tables 9 through 16 identify the parameters which should be evaluated.
Fish and Wildlife-
Water quality impacts on fish and aquatic wildlife are generally due to
direct changes within an environment which exceed specific tolerance limits
for affected species. This generally results in a change in the community
structure from one group of species to another group which is adapted to the
new condition. An exception is where a substance may be introduced into the
system in such an amount that given species are eliminated at least temporar-
ily from the system. Other than the direct kill effects of toxics, impacts
can be caused by changes in temperature, settleable and suspended solids,
water level, and in the direct and indirect balance of nutrients, salts, and
biodegradeable organics. Direct and indirect evaluation parameters include:
1. creel censusing and fish community assessments, which are designed
to determine the direct impact of pollutants and the effective
degree of improvement resulting from the BMP;
2. dissolved oxygen and temperature profiles, in all lakes and
extent of available habitat for fish and wildlife in stratified
lakes;
3. chlorophyll a_, to provide a reasonably simple measure of the basic
productivity of the lake;
4. secchi depth and total, fixed, and volatile residues as measures
of settleable and suspended materials which can influence light
penetration and associated primary productivity, and interupt fish
and invertebrate reproductive success;
20
-------
5. nutrient balances, as an indication of the available nitrogen,
phosphorous, and micronutrients which establish the level of
productivity within the lake; and
6. a measurement of specific toxic substances, only when a potential
problem may arise or when levels of specific agents are found in
water, fish tissue, or have caused a fish kill in the lake.
Other wildlife which may be affected by NFS drainage to lakes include
amphibians, furbearers, and waterfowl. Of these, the waterfowl are the most
critically affected. Nesting ducks and other marsh nesting birds are sensi-
tive to water level fluctuation during their nesting periods. Nests are
constructed above the water at predetermined levels to control incubation
temperatures and humidity. Fluctuation of as little as two or three inches
may interfere with egg viability in some species. Therefore, changing dis-
charges from or into an area used for nesting or altering the runoff dynamics
in a watershed draining to such an area could eliminate the nesting suita-
bility of the area for many species. Toxic substances may affect all wetland
species and should be measured as specific agents when a problem occurs or
when chemicals used on a watershed are suspected of causing a problem.
Drinking Water—
Water treatment can readily remove the majority of NPS pollutants
affecting lake drinking water supplies such as suspended solids, bacterial
contamination, and taste and odors resulting from eutrophic conditions. A
major consideration for the control of these pollutants is a balance between
the economics of treatment versus source control.
Suspended solids, fecal coliform, salinity, chlorides, and true color
are parameters which may create problems limiting the use of lake waters for
domestic water supply. Evaluation techniques for these pollutants are
identified in Tables 11 and 12. Toxic substances should be measured when
specific or potential problems arise within the system.
Recreation (Contact and Noncontact)—
Unaesthetic muddy water or excessive algal and plant growths are the
major concern of people who use lakes for recreation purposes. Lakes which
have both clear and clean appearing water usually receive the heaviest swim-
ming, boating, and fishing pressure. The chemical and physical parameters
identifed in Tables 13 and 14 will provide the necessary information needed
to evaluate the water quality changes in recreation areas. Additionally,
general observations of changes in recreation use patterns will indicate
perceived changes in water quality which are related to recreation use
desirability. Health conditions in a lake are less observable than the
aesthetic conditions and therefore, bacterial parameters should be measured
as required by state laws.
Agriculture and Industry—
The primary agricultural water uses are irrigation water supply and
stock watering. Water desirable for use in irrigation systems should contain
minimal concentrations of salinity and toxic metals such as boron. These
waters should also be free of pesticides which will damage or retard
21
-------
irrigated crop growth. Specific conductance is the simplest measure of
salinity. Toxic metals and pesticides should be measured only when they are
suspected of being in the water source or as specific problems arise.
Water quality requirements vary greatly among different industries and
sometimes even within the same industry. For example, sulphates, suspended
solids, and carbonates encrust on water cooled heat exchangers; suspended
solids cause foaming; total suspended solids are responsible for color and
taste problems in the food processing industry; inorganic carbon is a source
of process interference in the brewing and carbonated beverage industry, etc.
Treatment processes are available for most of these pollutants; therefore,
the problem evaluation must include balancing the economics of treatment
against source control.
22
-------
SECTION 6
GROUND WATER
The impacts of BMP implementation on ground water quality are for the
most part unknown. However, any changes that take place on the surface of
the land could be expected to cause some change in the quantity and quality
of water moving downward through the soil into the ground water system. For
example, a change to a more conservative fertilizer program for crop produc-
tion could reduce the amount of nitrogen moving downward to the ground water.
If the land surface and the management practices are changed to reduce soil
erosion, the possibility for increased infiltration of precipitation and
collected runoff is improved. This BMP to control sediment has then in-
creased the potential for water moving through the soil to the ground water
system and could have either a positive or negative impact on the system.
Some of these changes might be measured at the surface, such as a
change in the yield of surface water from a project area, however, other
changes such as the nutrient and salinity content of the water moving below
the root zone can only be measured below the root zone. Changes in ground
water quality and quantity as a result of surface activities usually do not
appear for a very long period of time. When problems are observed in a
ground water source, the cause may have become an accepted practice during
the time required by the slow movement of water in the subsurface environ-
ment. Therefore, it becomes very important to evaluate the possible causes
of ground water pollution as NFS projects are being installed.
The project plan for areas underlain by ground water aquifers should
detail the location of all wells drilled into the aquifer in question. Some
of these wells could possibly be used as sampling wells for changes in the
depth to the water table and for quality samples. The need for additional
observation wells will be determined by the location and availability of
existing wells as well as by available geologic data for the area. The data
needed to detect a change in the ground water should be limited to the
absolute minimum. Therefore, it is important to utilize all existing wells
and sources of information, such as data from existing municipal or indus-
trial wells before considering additional measurement.
There are three basic measurements that can be taken with very little
cost and will be useful to evaluate possible changes in ground water systems.
First, and one that can be obtained from stream data, would be the change in
water yield from the project areas as BMPs are installed. Second, would be
the use of the neutron probe to measure the change in the soil moisture
flux below the root zone at the site of BMPs. The third measurement would
be to sample the soil water below the root zone for nitrogen and salinity
23
-------
using shallow wells of multiple depths. These three measurements along with
existing well information should indicate if further, more intensive studies
are required.
24
-------
SECTION 7
SOCIOECONOMIC EVALUATION
INTRODUCTION
A complete evaluation of a water quality project not only involves
documenting tangible water quality improvements as discussed in previous
sections, but it also requires determining the impacts of the project
on participating farmers, the community, and users of the water. What
kinds of economic, social or other costs and benefits are associated
with the application of BMPs? These corollary questions need to be
considered in conjunction with an evaluation of water quality changes.
It is not sufficient to indicate a project's water quality impact, policy
decisionmakers are also asking:
1. Does the program affect farm incomes and supplies of
food and fiber? If so how much?
2. Does the program reduce pollution and improve water
quality in the most cost effective manner possible?
3. How do the benefits from water quality improvement
compare with those of other uses of public funds?
These questions are socioeconomic in nature, since they deal with
economic and social costs and benefits. Answers to these questions are
critical in determining program funding levels, what changes to make
in program measures and policies, and how to allocate program funds to
achieve the. greatest economic and environmental benefits.
Development of Data for Program Evaluation
Program evaluation requires development of socioeconomic data at
25
-------
the project level in conjunction with water quality data. This section
concentrates on the data needs for a minimal level of socioeconomic
evaluation. Also briefly discussed is a more comprehensive evaluation
effort, which is desirable when time and money permit.
DATA FOR LEVEL I - MINIMAL EVALUATION
Minimal evaluation concentrates on answering parts of questions 1
and 2 above. More specifically, emphasis is on evaluating:
1. The effects of the project on land use and production
of crops and livestock.
2. The project's effects on the farm income of participants.
3. Effectiveness of the project in obtaining participation
of farmers and bringing critical pollution sources and
areas under treatment.
4. Total costs of the project versus its effectiveness in
reducing pollutants and improving water quality.
The data needs and sources for each of these areas of emphasis
are discussed and listed below. These are illustrative of current
thinking. However, since evaluation of water quality projects is a
relatively new activity, experience and methods development could alter
data requirements.
Background Data on the Area's Agriculture
A crucial issue for those doing the evaluation is to estimate the
changes due to the program as apart from changes which would have occurred
without the program. Background information on existing characteristics
and trends in agriculture, as listed below, for the general project
area aids in making these estimates. The evaluation group will usually
compile this information utilizing census records, Crop Reporting
26
-------
Service data, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS)
records, and observations and judgements of Soil Conservation (SCS) and
Extension field staff.
Data Items
Sources/Procedures
1-8. Crop reporting service
County extension Servic
ASCS records
SCS
County census data
University data
1. Land use patterns in the area
2. Types of farms in the area
3. Types of crops and yields
4. Types and number of livestock
5. Waste management practices
6. Fertilizer use
7. Pesticide use
8. Existing conservation/
structures and practices
Baseline Data on Participating Farms
Frequently the evaluation group can save time and effort by grouping
farms or areas into similar problem situations, and then selecting or
establishing typical farms for analysis. Baseline data on each partici-
pating farm provide the basis for such grouping. Also they provide the
initial conditions against which changes due to practice adoption can be
determined. SCS and Extension field staff can readily and efficiently
gather baseline data from the participants and by observation, during
development of the farm plan. Some baseline data could also be obtained
from the farmer at the time he applys for participation.
Data Items
1. Type of farm
2. Livestock types and numbers
3. Acres in various land uses
4. Acres in various crops
5. Average yields of crops
6. Acres in various rotations
7. Existing conservation/tillage
practices
8. Fertilizer use
9. Pesticide use
10. Tractors/tillage equipment
11. Waste management system
Sources/Procedures
1-11. Obtain from participant
when he requests parti-
cipation or during
development of farm plan.
27
-------
Changes In Farm Operations
Changes in the farm operations of participating farmers which affect
costs and/or production need to monitored or estimated and compiled so
that the effects on farm income and project area production can be deter-
mined. These changes include not only the new practices specified in
the farm plans, but also other changes which are likely to result from
implementation of the plan (i.e., which would not have occurred without
it). Examples of the latter would be changes in pesticide and fertilizer
use which occur in conjunction with reduced tillage practices.
Data Items Sources/Procedures
1. Changes in land use 1-5. Farm plan specified
2. Changes in cropping patterns changes, estimates
3. Changes in acres of various by SCS and ES field
crops staff developed in
4. Changes in livestock types conjunction with
and numbers farmer.
5. Changes in input use:
- Fertilizer
Pesticides
- Machinery/equipment
Labor/management
- Capital
- Irrigation
Yield Effects of Practice Adoption
Implementation of pollution abatement practices can affect yields
of various crops. Special attention should be given to distinquishing
yield changes that are directly or indirectly related to pollution abate-
ment practices, from yield changes that are caused by weather or changes
in pesticide or fertilizer use or other management practices. Sources
of information on yield changes due to the practices are the farmers
themselves (reported changes in yields can be compared with county aver-
ages), results of research by universities, and judgements of technical
experts.
28
-------
Changes in Pollutant Delivery
The farm plans are developed and implemented to reduce key pollutants.
The expected magnitude of these reductions should be estimated for each
farm so as to provide an indication of the effectiveness of the farm
plan. This can be done by using available monitoring data, using simple
calculation formulas (such as USLE and Runoff Curve Numbers), or by
having field staff make direct judgements based on field situations.
Data Items Sources/Procedures
1. Change in gross erosion. 1. SCS estimate using USLE.
2. Change in sediment delivery. 2. Monitoring data or apply
delivery ratio to gross
erosion.
3. Changes in other pollutants. 3. Monitoring data or apply
buffer curves or other
calculations.
4. Changes in pesticide and 4. Farm plans, SCS estimates,
fertilizer use.
5. Changes in animal waste. 5. Farm plans, SCS estimates.
Non-Farm Costs of Project
Non-farm costs as well as farm costs must be monitored and summarized.
In determining these costs, it is important to include only those which are
in addition to the costs which would exist without the project.
Data Item Source/Procedure
1. Project administration costs. 1. ASCS estimates.
2. Information and education 2. Agencies involved.
costs.
3. Technical assistance costs: 3. SCS and Extension
- total for project - Records
- average cost of different - Estimates
practices
4. Cost shares paid from public 4. ASCS records.
funds:
- total for project
- cost share rate for different
practices
29
-------
Project Participation and Coverage
Some areas and farms in a project area are greater contributors
than others to nonpoint pollution problems. Generally these critical
areas and farms are given first priority in project implementation.
Data need to be accumulated on farms participating, practices implemented,
and acreage served or treated by the practices so that double counting is
avoided and summarized data present a true picture of the project's achieve-
ment in bringing these critical areas and farms into the program.
Data Items Source/Procedures
1. Farmers participating 1. ASCS records
2. Practices implemented: 2. Farm plan, ASCS records
- Type, number, acres
treated/served
3. Critical area coverage 3. Farm plan, ASCS records
4. Factors affecting 4. Requires information from
participation and participants and non-
adoption, participants. May be
only considered as part
of comprehensive project
evaluation or overall
program evaluation.
EVALUATION PROCEDURES
With the above data, and available measures of pollution abatement and
water quality improvement, economists can procede with the socioeconomic
evaluation. A few notes follow on general procedures applicable to minimal
evaluation.
Production Changes
Production changes in a given area due to program participation
are the sum of the differences between estimated production of various
crops and livestock with the program's practices in place, and the
estimated production without the practices. Crop production in each
instance represents crop acres times yields.
30
-------
Farm Income Effects
Farm income effects are estimated by attaching dollar values to the
changes in farm production and farm practices which occur because of the
program. These estimates can range from very rough to highly refined,
depending upon the data available and the procedures used. A rough
estimate can be made by considering only the changes in practices and crop
acres specified in the farm plans, and the participants' share of practice
installation costs. A preferable procedure, which the collection of the
data described above would permit, involves evaluating other changes which
occur on treated areas as a result of the new practices. These other
changes include changes in yields, pesticide and fertilizer use, and the
amount of labor and machinery. An even more complete procedure, which
would require still more data, involves also evaluating the side effects
of the program on production costs and returns on other parts of the farm.
Project Participation and Coverage
For evaluation purposes, data on numbers of farms participating in the
project need to be converted to relative terms by dividing by the total
number of eligible farms in the project area. To the extent eligible
farms can be classified into priority groups according to their contribution
to water pollution, the relative participation achieved among each group
should be calculated.
A similar procedure should be followed to determine the relative
coverage of critical areas (acres treated in each priority group divided
by the total acres needing treatment).
Total Project Costs
Total project costs are the sum of total net farm income effects
and total non-farm costs. If net farm income effects are negative,
they increase project costs. If positive, they reduce project costs.
31
-------
Costs Versus Effectiveness
Costs of the project would be compared with available measures of
effectivenss. The latter measures include: (1) changes in the various
water quality parameters attributed to the program, (2) changes in
edge-of-field delivery of sediment and other pollutants, and (3) relative
participation of farmers in and coverage of critical pollutant source
areas. Changes in water quality parameters in streams, lakes and
reservoirs would come from the water-quality monitoring efforts described
in previous sections. Changes in edge-of-field delivery of sediment and
other pollutants would have to come from estimates made by technical
assistance field staff. These estimates if summed up for all treated
areas, would serve as a measure of effectivenss as well as be useful in
evaluating water quality improvement resulting from program efforts, as
opposed to other factors.
LEVEL II COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION
In contrast to minimal evaluation, a more comprehensive effort includes:
(1) more detailed analysis of farm impacts of the project, (2) estimation
of community and off-site impacts, and (3) analyses of cost effectiveness and
and benefits versus costs of the project's measures and of other alternatives,
The greater amount of information provided by comprehensive evaluation
helps policy analysts and program managers answer such questions as:
(1) what are the benefits of water quality improvement practices and do
the benefits offset the costs; (2) what differences exist in performance
among projects, and why do some get more results than others; and
(3) would changes in program measures and practices result in more water
quality and socioeconomic benefits for the same costs, or lower costs of
achieving the same benefits?
32
-------
More Detail on Farm Impacts
Whereas Level I Evaluation concentrates on land use and production
changes, and impacts on costs and returns on treated areas, a more
comprehensive evaluation might also consider impacts on net total farm
incomes and returns to land, land productivity, and property values.
Community and Off-site Impacts
A more comprehensive evaluation could look at the following impacts
of the project (including those resulting from changes in water quality):
- Community economic impacts of project expenditures and changes
caused by the project in sales and purchases of farm products
and inputs, and in net farm incomes.
- Changes in maintenance costs of power plants.
- Changes in costs of water treatment.
- Economic value of reduced siltation of reservoirs and streams.
- Changes in recreation opportunities and their value.
- Changes in aesthetics of the water body and its value.
- Changes in potential health hazards and their value.
- Changes in wildlife habitat and its value.
- Changes in property values along stream or around water body.
Cost Effectiveness and Benefit/Cost Analysis
A more comprehensive evaluation could estimate and compare the cost
effectiveness of practices and program measures actually implemented with
that of other alternatives, such as alternative practices, cost share rates,
and critical area specification. Similarly, economic costs and benefits
both on and off-site could be estimated and added up for the project as
implemented and for alternative changes in project practices and measures.
33
-------
Analytical Procedures and Data Needs
Comprehensive evaluation involves the integration of a large amount
of physical and economic data, and is greatly facilitated by use of
computerized models that track both physical and economic impacts.
Analytical tools used include budget generators, linear programming
models, and simulation models.
Estimation of the benefits of water quality improvement can be
complex and difficult, particularly with regard to changes in recreation
opportunities, wildlife habitat, aesthetics, and property values.
Analytical procedures often used here include travel cost, willingness
to pay, and property value models.
Data requirements for comprehensive evaluation will vary according
to the diversity of farm situations, and number of impacted water uses
which change, and the number of alternative program measures that are
feasible. Such data requirements should be identified in a detailed plan
of work for comprehensive evaluation, and are not presented here.
CONCLUDING NOTES
A minimal level of socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation is
essential in all water quality projects to help document achievements and
impacts. Comprehensive evaluation of selected projects provides additional
information for use in decisionmaking on policy and program directions
and fund allocations. Whatever the level of evaluation, plans for
socioeconomcic and physical or water quality monitoring and evaluation
need to be jointly developed by economists and physical scientists.
34
-------
REFERENCES
1. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Waters.
14th ed., American Public Health Association, 1975.
2. Techniques of Water Resource Investigations. 1974. U.S.D.I.,
Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
3. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Handbook For
Analytical Qua!ity Control ^n_ Water And Wastewater Laboratories,
EPA-600/4-79-019, March 1979.
4. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Methods For^ Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA-600/4-79-020, March 1979.
5. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Microbiological
Methods For Monitoring The Environment. EPA-600/8-78-017,
DecemberHT978:
35
-------
TABLE 1. FISH AND WILDLIFE STREAMS
Water Quality
Problem
Level I - Minimum Analysis to Evaluate Program Effectiveness
Parameter to Evaluate Where to Sample
Frequency of Sampling
Method*
GO
CD
Lack of native
fish species or
decrease in popu-
lation of desir-
able fish species.
Eutrophic condi-
tion
Catastrophic fish
kills or toxic
substances in fish
tissue or water
1. Fish population at-
tributes and diver-
sity
a. Creel census
b. Community struc-
ture
c. Population dy-
namics
Chlorophyll a
Specific macrophyte
Specific toxic agents
Fisherman access
points
1. Homogeneous
reaches of
stream
2. Upstream and
downstream from
reaches of high
loadings
3. Biologically
critical reaches
(spawning sites,
passage, impedi-
ments, etc.)
Biologically criti-
cal reaches
Site specific for
location and situ-
ation.
During use periods
One or two times
annually to evalu-
ate reproductive
success at discre-
tion of biologist
including considera-
tion of periods of
known fish migration.
During peak growth
periods
As required by situ-
ation
Standard proce-
dures used by
state fisheries
staff
Standard fish
survey and col-
lection techni-
ques. Several in
combination may
be required to
access total com-
munity.
Standard methods
Standard methods
*See list of references for documented procedures and associated information on proceeding page.
-------
TABLE 2. FISH AND WILDLIFE STREAMS
Water Quality
Problem
Level II - Detailed Multiparameter Water Quality Analysis
Parameter to Evaluate Where to Sample
Frequency of Sampling
Method
Lack of native
fish species or
decrease in pop-
ulation of de-
sirable fish
species.
1. Fish population at-
tributes and diver-
sity
a. Community struc-
ture (species
present)
b. Population dyna-
mics (numbers
within each)
c. Total fish bio-
mass (pounds/unit
of area)
d. Early life stage
mortality
e. Food chain rela-
tionships
2. Invertebrates
community attributes
a. Community struc-
ture
b. Population dyna-
mics
c. Biomass esti-
mates
d. Food chain de-
velopment
1.
2.
3.
Homogeneous
reaches of
stream
Below suspected
high loadings
Biologically
critical reaches
(spawning sites,
passage impedi-
ments, etc.)
Homogeneous
reaches of
stream
Below suspected
high loadings
Biologically
critical reaches
(spawning sites,
passage impedi-
ments, etc.)
One to two times an-
nually to evaluate
reproduction success
at the discretion of
the project biolo-
gist. Error due to
periods of known
fish movement should
be avoided.
Standard fish
community evalu-
ation and collec-
tion methods sin-
gularly or in
combination as
required to pro-
vide adequate
assessment of
community attri-
butes.
Four times annually Standard methods
at selected season to
reduce errors due to
emergence or pupation
of important inverte-
brate genera. Food
chain/water quality
indicative species.
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Water Quality
Problem
Level II - Detailed Multiparameter Water Quality Analysis
Parameter to Evaluate Where to Sample
Frequency of Sampling
Method
CO
CO
Eutrophic condi-
tion
Catastrophic fish
kills or toxic
substances in
fish tissue or
water
Physical habitat 1.
measurement to
include depth, velo-
city, substrate com- 2.
position, instream
cover, and channel 3.
configuration (with
survey precision)
Homogeneous
reaches of
stream
Below suspected
high loadings
Biologically cri-
tical reaches
(spawning sites,
passage impedi-
ments, etc.)
Annually following
peak growth of
macrophytes.
Nutrients
a. Nitrogen series
Ortho and total
phosphate
b. Temperature
c. pH
d. Conductivity
e. Diurnal dissolved
oxygen
f. Turbidity
Specific toxic
agents
-Toxic substances
relationships with
the biota.
Source and
reaches
critical
During measurable
runoff periods, base-
line flow periods and
at times when problem
conditions persist.
Source and critical
reaches
Standard methods/
EPA
As required to de- Standard methods
termine relationships
between source, water
load, and biotic ef-
fects.
-------
TABLE 3. DRINKING WATER STREAMS
Water Quality
Problem
Standards viola-
tion
Turbidity
Water quantity
Excessive algal
growth
Unaesthetic
water quality
Toxic substances
Level I - Minimum
Analysis to Evaluate Program Effectiveness
Parameter to Evaluate Where to Sample
Specific agent
Turbidity
Flow
Chlorophyll a
Palatability
Specific agent
Water treatment
plant intake
Water treatment
plant intake
Near plant
Water treatment
plant intake
Treated water
Water treatment
plant intake
Frequency of Sampling
Site specific
Daily
Continuous
During peak growth
periods
As required
Daily
Method
Standard methods
Standard methods/
EPA
USGS or equiva-
lent
Standard methods
Public reaction
Standard methods
-------
TABLE 4. DRINKING WATER STREAMS
o
Water Quality
Problem
Standards viola-
tion
Turbidity
Water quantity
Excessive algal.
growth
Unaesthetic
water quality
Toxic substances
Level II - Detailed
Multiparameter Water
Parameter to Evaluate Where to Sample
Specific agent
Turbidity or total
solids
Flow
Chlorophyll a
Nitrogen series
Ortho and total
phosphate
Taste
Odor
Color
-true
-apparent
Specific agent
Water treatment
plant intake
Water treatment
plant intake
Near plant
Water treatment
plant intake
Water treatment
plant intake
Water treatment
plant intake
Quality Analysis
Frequency of Sampling
Site specific
Daily and more fre-
quently during high
runoff conditions
Continuous
Daily/ time inte-
grated samples until
trend established,
then less frequent
intervals
Throughout year with
emphasis on warmer
water, problem
periods
Daily and more fre-
quently during high
runoff conditions
Method
Standard methods
Standard methods/
EPA
USGS or equiva-
lent
Standard methods/
EPA
Taste and odor
panels standard
methods
Standard methods
-------
TABLE 5. RECREATION STREAMS
Water Quality
Problem
Level I - Minimum Analysis to Evaluate Program Effectiveness
Parameter to Evaluate Where to Sample
Frequency of Sampling
Method
A. Aesthetics
1. Turbidity
B. Violation of
health stan-
dards
C. Toxic sub-
stances in
water
Turbidity
Fecal coliform
Specific agent
Major use areas
Major use areas
Periodic throughout Standard methods/
use period EPA
Site specific for
location and situ-
ation
Follow state re-
quirements for bac-
teriological sampling
in recreation areas
During recreational
use periods as re-
quired
Standard methods
Standard methods
-------
TABLE 6. RECREATION STREAMS
Water Quality
Problem
Level II - Detailed Multiparameter Water Quality Analysis
Parameter to Evaluate Where to Sample
Frequency of Sampling
Method
no
A. Aesthetics
1. Turbidity
2. Excessive
macro-
phytes
3. Excessive
algal
growth
B. Violation of'
health stan-
dards
C. Toxic sub-
stances in
water
Chlorophyll a_ Major use areas
Suspended solids (fixed
and volatile)
Turbidity
Macrophyte growth
Nitrogen series
Ortho and total
phosphate
Fecal coliform
Specific agent
Use area affected
Near source
Near source
Use areas
Site specific for
location and situ-
ation
Periodic throughout
use period
Standard methods/
EPA
During peak of plant Field reconnais-
growing season sance and quadrat
quantification
Recreation season
during high flow
periods
Recreation season
during high flow
periods
Follow state re-
quirements for bac-
teriological sampling
in recreation waters
During recreational
use periods as re-
quired
Standard methods/
EPA
Standard methods/
EPA
Standard methods
Standard methods
-------
TABLE 7. AGRICULTURE AND INDUSTRY STREAMS
Water Quality
Problem
Level I - Minimum Analysis to Evaluate Program Effectiveness
Parameter to Evaluate Where to Sample Frequency of Sampling
Method
A. Agriculture
Water quantity
Salinity
to
Toxic sub-
stances
Water borne
pathogens
Excessive
macrophyte
Excessive
sediment
B. Industrial
uses
Flow
Electrical conduc-
tivity (EC)
Inflow/return flow Daily
USGS or equiva-
lent
Inflow/return flow Daily per irrigation Standard methods/
or storm events EPA
Total dissolved solids Inflow/return flow Daily per irrigation Standard methods/
(TDS) or storm events EPA
Specific agent
Use points
Livestock pathogens Use points
Macrophyte growth Use area
As required
As required
During use/problem
period
Suspended solids
Inflow/return flow Use period
Industry specific re- Intake
quirements for flow
and quality
As required
Standard methods
Standard methods
Reconnaissance
and quadrat
quantification
Standard methods/
EPA
Standard methods
-------
TABLE 8. AGRICULTURE AND INDUSTRY STREAMS
Water Quality
Problem
Level II - Detailed Multiparameter Quality Analysis
Parameter to Evaluate Where to Sample Frequency of Sampling
Method
A. Agriculture
Water quantity
Salinity
Toxic sub-
stances
Water borne
pathogens
Excessive
macrophyte
Excessive
sediment
B. Industrial
uses
Flow
Electrical conduc-
tivity (EC)
Inflow/return flow Daily
USGS or equiva-
lent
Inflow/return flow Daily per irrigation Standard methods/
or storm events EPA
Total dissolved solids Inflow/return flow Daily per irrigation Standard methods/
(TDS) or storm events EPA
Specific agent
Use points
Livestock pathogens Use points
Macrophyte growth Use area
As required
As required
During use/problem
period
Suspended solids
Inflow/return flow Use period
Industry specific re- Intake
quirements for flow
and quality
As required
Standard methods
Standard methods
Reconnaissance
and quadrat
quantification
Standard methods/
EPA
Standard methods
-------
TABLE 9. FISH AND WILDLIFE LAKES
Water Quality
Problem
Level I - Minimum Analysis to Evaluate Program Effectiveness
Parameter to Evaluate Where to Sample Frequency of Sampling
Method
1. Lack of bal-
anced desir-
able fish pop.
If the problem is
due to:
a. Nutrient
enrich-
ment or
biodegra-
dable or-
ganic s, add
the fol-
lowing
analyses
Creel census
Fisherman access
points
Dissolved oxygen
and temperature
profiles
Chlorophyll £i
Representative lo-
cations throughout
water body; at
least 1 site at
deepest point, but
at sufficient dis-
tance from lake
outlet.
Representative lo-
cations throughout
water body; at
least 1 site at
deepest point, but
at sufficient dis-
tance from lake
outlet. Depth inte-
grated sample in
photic zone, i.e.
twice secchi depth.
During heavy use pe-
riods
Standard proce-
dures used by
state fisheries
staff.
Biweekly beginning DO probes and
with spring strati- thermistors
fication and ending
at fall mixing in
stratified system.
During growing season
in unstratified
systems.
Biweekly beginning Standard methods
with spring stratifi-
cation and ending at
fall mixing in strati-
fied system. During
growing season in un-
stratified systems.
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 9 (Continued)
Water Quality
Problem
Level I - Minimum Analysis to Evaluate Program Effectiveness
Parameter to Evaluate Where to Sample
Frequency of Sampling
Method
Secchi depth
Representative lo-
cations throughout
water body; at
least 1 site at
deepest point, but
at sufficient dis-
tance from lake
outlet.
Biweekly beginning Standard methods
with spring stratifi-
cation and ending at
fall mixing in strati-
fied system. During
growing season in un-
stratified systems.
b. If suspen-
ded solids,
add the
following
analysis to
those listed
above
Suspended solids
(total, fixed, and
volatile)
Representative lo-
cations throughout
water body; at
least 1 site at
deepest point, but
at sufficient dis-
tance from lake stratified systems.
outlet. Depth inte-
grated sample in
photic zone, i.e.
twice secchi depth.
Biweekly beginning Standard methods
with spring stratifi-
cation and ending at
fall mixing in strati-
fied system. During
growing season in un-
Water level
fluctuation,
measure only
the level
change and
creel cen-
sus
Water level fluctu-
ation
Fixed location
Daily
Observation
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 9 (Continued)
Water Quality
Problem
Level I - Minimum Analysis to Evaluate Program Effectiveness
Parameter to Evaluate Where to Sample
Frequency of Sampling
Method
d. Toxic sub-
stances con-
duct the
following
analyses:
I. Acute/
chronic
impact
fish
II. High
level in
edible
fish
flesh
2. Abnormal
waterfowl
nesting suc-
cess
If due to:
a. Water
level
fluctua-
tion add
b. Toxic sub-
stances
Creel census and
specific agent
Level of toxic mate-
rial in edible fish
tissue
Nesting survey
Site and problem
specific
Site and problem
specific
Standard methods
Concentrate on
edible species but
may desire analysis
of organisms in
lower trophic levels.
Waterfowl nesting
areas
As required to iden- Standard methods
tify contamination
levels
After all nesting
and hatch for all
species-is complete.
Water level fluc-
tuation
Percent hatch
Fixed location
Daily during nesting
season
Standard proce-
dures used by
state fish and
game departments
Staff gage
Nesting area
Post nesting season Nest surveys
-------
TABLE 10. FISH AND WILDLIFE LAKES
Water Quality
Problem
Level II - Detailed Multiparameter Water Quality Analysis
Parameter to Evaluate Where to Sample
Frequency of Sampling
Method
1. Lack of bal-
anced desir-
able fish pop.
CO
If the problem
is due to:
a. Nutrient
enrichment
or biode-
gradable
organics,
add the
following
analyses
Creel census
Fish community attri-
butes
a. No. species
b. Total numbers per
species
c. Length; weight
of individuals
d. Standing crop
e. Diversity
Dissolved oxygen
and temperature pro-
files
Chlorophyll
Fisherman access
points
Discretion of fish-
eries biologist
Representative lo-
cations throughout
water body; at
least 1 site at
deepest point, but
at sufficient dis-
tance from lake
outlet.
Representative lo-
cations throughout
water body; at
least 1 site at
deepest point, but
During heavy use pe-
riods
Generally annual
basis after spaw-
ning period and lar-
val development.
Discretion of bio-
logist
Standard proce-
dures used by
state fisheries
staff
Standard proce-
dures used by
state fisheries
staff
Biweekly beginning DO probes and
with spring strati- thermistors
fication and ending
at fall mixing in
stratified. During
growing season in
unstratified systems.
Biweekly beginning Standard methods
with spring stratifi-
cation and ending at
fall mixing in strati-
fied system. During
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 10 (Continued)
Water Quality
Problem
Level II - Detailed Multiparameter Water Quality Analysis
Parameter to Evaluate Where to Sample Frequency of Sampling
Method
Secchi depth
b.
Suspended
solids, add
the follow-
ing analy-
sis to
those lis-
ted above
Nitrogen series
Ortho and total phos-
phate
Suspended solids
(total, fixed, and
volatile)
at sufficient dis-
tance from lake
outlet.
Representatives lo-
cations throughout
water body; at
least 1 site at
deepest point, but
at sufficient dis-
tance from lake
outlet. Depth inte-
grated sample in
photic zone, i.e.
twice secchi depth.
Representative lo-
cation in lake.
Representative lo-
cations throughout
water body; at
least 1 site at
deepest point, but
at sufficient dis-
tance from lake
growing season in un-
stratified systems.
Biweekly beginning Standard methods
with spring stratifi-
cation and ending at
fall mixing in strati-
fied system. During
growing season in un-
stratified systems.
As required to de-
velop mass loading
or nutrient balance.
Standard methods/
EPA
Biweekly beginning Standard methods/
with spring stratifi- EPA
cation and ending at
fall mixing in strati-
fied system. During
growing season in un-
stratified systems.
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 10 (Continued)
Water Quality
Problems
Level II - Detailed Multiparameter Water Quality Analysis
Parameter to Evaluate Where to Sample
Frequency of Sampling
Method
en
o
c. Water level
fluctuation,
measure only
the level
change and
creel cen-
sus.
Water level fluctua-
tion
d.
Toxic sub-
stances con-
duct the
following
analyses:
I. Acute/
chronic
impact
fish
II.
High
level in
edible
Analyze for specific
toxic agents in fish
(blood and critical
organs) and in other
food chain organisms.
Analyze for specific
toxic agents in fish
(blood and critical
organs) and in other
outlet. Depth inte-
grated sample in
photic zone, i.e.,
twice secchi depth.
Tributary system
inventory.
Fixed location
Daily
Observation
Site and problem
specific
Site and problem
specific
Site and problem
specific
Site and problem
specific
Site and problem
specific
Site and problem
specific
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 10 (Continued)
Water Quality
Problem
Level II - Detailed Multiparameter Water Quality Analysis
Parameter to Evaluate Where to Sample
Frequency of Sampling
Method
fish
flesh
2. Abnormal
waterfowl
nesting
success
If due to:
a. Water
level fluc-
tuations
add.
b. Toxic sub-
stances
food chain organisms.
Nesting survey
Water level fluctu
ation
Duckling count to
evaluate nesting
success.
Percent of hatch
Egg shell strength
Site and problem
specific
Fixed location
never exceeded by
low water level.
Nesting areas
Nesting areas
Nesting areas
Site and problem
specific
Daily through
nesting season
Post nesting season
After hatching of
all species in com-
plete.
After hatching of
all species is com-
plete.
Standard proce-
dures used by
state fish and
game departments.
Staff gage.
Observation plus
live trapping and
banding.
Nest Surveys.
Nest Surveys.
-------
TABLE 11. DRINKING WATER LAKES
Water Quality
Problem
Salinity
Loss of storage
volume (sedi-
mentation)
Turbidity
Toxic substances
Eutrophication
Aesthetics
Level I - Minimum Analysis to Evaluate Program Effectiveness
Parameter to Evaluate
Specific conductance
Sedimentation rate
Turbidity
Specific agent
Chlorophyll a
Secchi
Palatability
Where to Sample
Water treatment
plant intake
Deposition area
Water treatment
plant intake
Water treatment
plant intake
Water treatment
plant intake
Near intake and
central location in
main body of lake
Treated water
Frequency of Sampling
Weekly
3 year interval
Daily
Site specific
According to WTP
operator sampling
schedule or at least
biweekly.
Weekly
As required
Method
Standard methods/
EPA
SCS procedures
Standard methods/
EPA
Standard methods
Standard methods
Standard methods
Public reaction
-------
TABLE 12. DRINKING WATER LAKES
Water Quality
Problem
Level II - Detailed Multiparameter Water Quality Analysis
Parameter to Evaluate Where to Sample
Frequency of Sampling
Method
U>
Salinity
Loss of storage
volume (sedimen-
tation)
Turbidity
Toxic substances
Specific conductance
The problem ion
Sedimentation rate
Turbidity and total
solids (fixed and
volatile)
Specific agent
Lake inflow, out-
flow, and water
treatment plant
intake
Water treatment
plant intake
Deposition area
Water treatment
plant intake
Water treatment
plant intake -
and tributary in-
flow points
Daily
Monthly or as indi-
cated by abnormal
flows
3 year interval
Daily
Daily but more fre-
quently during high
flow condition for
tributary stations
Standard methods/
EPA
Standard methods/
EPA
SCS procedures
Standard methods/
EPA
Standard methods
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 12 (Continued)
Water Quality
Problem
Level II - Detailed Multiparameter Water Quality Analysis
Parameter to Evaluate Where to Sample
Frequency of Sampling
Method
Eutrophication
01
-P.
Aesthetics
Chlorophyll a_
Nitrogen series
Total and ortho
phosphate
DO and temperature
profiles
Secchi disc
Taste
Odor
Color
-True
-Apparent
Near intake and
central location
in main body of
lake. If the in-
take response time
is long and the
measurement sensi-
tivity is low, a
mass input of
phosphorus and nitro-
gen should be added.
Weekly and daily
during peak growth
periods
Standard methods/
EPA
Treatment plant
intake
Throughout year with
emphasis on warm
water problem peri-
ods
Taste and odor
panels
Standard methods
-------
TABLE 13. RECREATION (WATER CONTACT) LAKES
Water Quality
Problem
Level I - Minimum Analysis to Evaluate Program Effectiveness
Parameter to Evaluate Where to Sample
Frequency of Sampling
Method
A. Aesthetic
1. Turbidity
Chlorophyll a.
Secchi disc
Suspended solids
(fixed and volatile)
en
en
2. Excess mac-
rophytes
Macrophyte growth
Site Location
a. Major use area
b. Near tributary
inflow
c. Main body of
lake
Depth of Sample
a. Just below sur-
face
b. If facilities
permit, get
depth integrated
sample of the
photic zone (2
times Secchi
depth)
The entire lake by
taking aerial
photos
Secchi disc-weekly
during recreation
season
Chlorophyll a. and sus-
pended solids biweekly
during recreation sea-
son
Monthly sampling during
remainder of the year
unless ice cover is
present.
Standard methods/
EPA
Once/year in late
summer or early
fall
Aerial photo-
graphy
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 13 (Continued)
Water Quality
Problem
B. Health stan-
dard violation
C. Toxic sub-
stances
Level I - Minimum
Analysis to Evaluate Program Effectiveness
Parameter to Evaluate Where to Sample
Fecal coliform
Specific agent
Use areas
Site specific
Frequency of Sampling
Follow state re-
quirements for bac-
teriological sampling
in recreation waters
During recreation
use season
Method
Standard methods
Standard methods
err
cr>
-------
TABLE 14. RECREATION (WATER CONTACT) LAKES
Water Quality
Problem
Level II - Detailed Multiparameter Water Quality Analysis
Parameter to Evaluate Where to Sample
Frequency of Sampling
Method
A.
Aesthetic
1. Turbidity
2. Excess mac-
rophytes
B. Health stan-
dard viola-
tion
C. Toxic sub-
stances
Total Loads
Total and ortho
phosphate
Nitrogen series
Stream flow in and out
Chlorophyll ji
Secchi disc
Suspended solids
(fixed and volatile)
Macrophyte growth
species identifica-
tion
Fecal coliform
Specific agent
Significant inflow
and outflow (in-
flows which re-
ceived watershed
treatment)
Entire lake
Source oriented
Site specific
Sample enough base
flow and through
storm hydrographs to
adequately calculate
mass balances.
Standard methods/
EPA
During peak growth
periods
Storm events. Fre-
quency variable with
source
During recreation
use season
Aerial photo-
graphy-quadrat
and reconnais-
sance quantifica-
tion
Standard methods
Standard methods
-------
TABLE 15. AGRICULTURE (IRRIGATION AND STOCK WATER) AND INDUSTRY LAKES
Water Quality
Problem
Level I - Minimum Analysis to Evaluate Program Effectiveness
Parameter to Evaluate Where to Sample
Frequency of Sampling
Method
en
CO
Salinity
Toxic sub-
stances
Water borne path-
ogens
Excessive mac-
rophyte
Electrical conduc-
tivity (EC)*
Specific agent
Fecal coliform
Macrophyte growth
species identification
Outlet from lake to
irrigation canals
Site specific rela-
tive to the toxic
compound and route
to impoundment.
Use areas
Daily
As require'd
Standard methods/
EPA
Standard methods
Entire lake
Follow state re-
quirements for bac-
teriological sampling
in recreation waters
During peak growth
periods
Standard methods
Aerial photo-
graphy-quadrat
and reconnais-
sance and quan-
tification
*If consistent relationship exists between EC and TDS, either measurement may be used.
-------
TABLE 16. AGRICULTURE (IRRIGATION AND STOCK WATER) AND INDUSTRY LAKES
Water Quality
Problem
Level II - Detailed Multiparameter Water Quality Analysis
Parameter to Evaluate Where to Sample
Frequency of Sampling
Method
Salinity
Toxic sub-
stances
Water borne path-
ogens
Excessive mac-
rophyte
Electrical conduc
tivity (EC)*
Specific agent
Fecal coliform
Macrophyte growth
species identification
Outlet from lake to
irrigation canals
Site specific rela-
tive to the toxic
compound and route
to impoundment.
Use areas
Daily
As required
Standard methods/
EPA
Standard methods
Entire lake
Follow state re-
quirements for bac-
teriological sampling
in recreation waters
During peak growth
periods
Standard methods
Aerial photo-
graphy-quadrat
and reconnais-
sance and quan
tification
*If consistent relationship exists between EC and TDS, either measurement'may be used.
------- |