841R93005
EVALUATION
of the
EXPERIMENTAL
RURAL CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
National Water Quality Evaluation Project
NCSU Water Quality Group
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department * viRONrVIEw> A,
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service PROTECTION!
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7637 AGENCY
•ALIAS,
Deanna L. Osmond J ||
Judith A. Gale Daniel E. Line
Steven W. Coffey Jean Spooner Jon A. Arnold
Thomas J. Hoban* Ronald C. Wimbertey*
Jean Spooner, Group Leader- Co-Principal Investigator
Frank J. Humenik, Program Director - Co-Principal Investigator
* Department of Sociology and Anthropology, North Carolina State University
U.S.EPA—USDA Interagency
Agreement: RW-12932650
EPA Project Officer
Steven A. Dressing
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Washington, DC
USDA—NCSU Cooperative
Agreement: 88-EXCA-3-0853
USDA Project Officer
Francis Thicke
Extension Service
Agricultural Programs
Washington, DC
May 1993
-------
Disclaimer
This publication was developed by the National Water Quality Evaluation Project (NWQEP), a special project of
the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, sponsored by the Extension Service and the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USD A) and by the U.S.
EnvironmentalProtection Agency (U SEP A) under InteragencyAgreementRW12932650 through the Cooperative
Agreement 88-EXCA-3-0853 between the Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State University and
the Extension Service, USD A. The contents and views expressed in this document are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect the policies or positions of the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, the USD A,
the USEPA, or other organizations named in this report, nor does the mention of trade names for products or
software constitute their endorsement.
Acknowledgments
This evaluation report represents the work of many people. It is based primarily on on-site evaluations of the Rural
Clean Water Program projects, a telephone survey of farm operators in the project areas, a mail survey of project
personnel, and project reports. The methodology for on-site evaluation was developed by Steven W. Coffey and
Michael D. Smolen. The farm operator survey was designed by Thomas J. Hoban and Ronald C. Wimberley. The
mail survey of project personnel was developed by Steven W. Coffey and Thomas J. Hoban.
On-site evaluations were conducted by the following staff of theNCSU Water Quality Group: Steven W. Coffey,
Jon A. Arnold, Judith A. Gale, Jean Spooner, Daniel E. Line, and Greg Jennings. The following staff of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service (SCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture -Extension Service
(ES), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) staff assisted in conducting the on-site project
evaluations: Dan Smith (SCS), Francis Thicke(ES), Bud Stoltzenburg (Nebraska ES), Gerald Montgomery (SCS),
Jim Wright (SCS), Mike Kuck (SCS), Paul Robillard ( ES), Steve Dressing (USEPA), Fred Suffian (SCS), Pat
Bowen (SCS), Roger Link (SCS), Jeff Mahood (SCS), Harvey Mack (SCS), Todd Nielson (SCS), George Cottier
(SCS), and Rich Torpin (SCS).
The authors would like to thank the staff and participants of all the RC WP projects, who implemented the projects
and provided invaluable information about the projects. We are also grateful to the agency staff listed above who
assisted with the on-site evaluations and to the many project and agency personnel who reviewed drafts of parts
or all of this document. We also thank Bill McGougan for assistance with the Utah RCWP project profile.
Special thanks are due to Melinda Pfeiffer for editorial assistance.
This publication should be cited as follows: Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J. Spooner, J.A.
Arnold, T.J. Hoban, and R.C. Wimberley. 1993. Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Prognm.
National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, EPA-841-R-93-005.
-------
Evaluation Report Authors:
The evaluation report was prepared as a team effort, with each author contributing to every section.
Lead authors for specific sections were:
Chapter 1: Introduction Gale
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.1 Keys to a Successful Nonpoint Source Program
2.1.1 Definition of Program Objectives and Goals Coffey
2.1.2 National Program Organization, Administration, Management Arnold
2.1.3 Program Funding Gale
2.1.4 Project Selection Criteria Osmond, Spooner, and Coffey
2.1.5 Water Quality and Land Treatment Monitoring & Evaluation Coffey, Osmond, and Spooner
2.1.6 Program Evaluation Gale
2.2 Keys to a Successful Nonpoint Source Project
2.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals Coffey and Osmond
2.2.2 Project Planning, Administration, and Management Arnold
2.2.3 Information and Education Osmond and Coffey
2.2.4 Producer Participation Line
2.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation and Tracking Line
2.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting Coffey and Spooner
2.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality Changes Spooner and Line
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
3.1 Introduction Osmond
3.2 Farm Operator Survey Hoban, Wimberley, and Gale
3.3 Project Personnel Survey Osmond
3.4 Summary of Lessons Learned Osmond and Gale
Chapter 4: Rural Clean Water Program Profiles
Alabama Osmond
Delaware Gale
Florida (Taylor Creek Nubbin Slough) Spooner
Florida (Lower Kissimmee River) Spooner
Idaho Spooner
Illinois Coffey
Iowa Gale
Kansas Coffey
Louisiana Line
Maryland Gale
Massachusetts Gale
Michigan Arnold
Minnesota Osmond
Nebraska Spooner
Oregon Osmond
Pennsylvania Arnold
South Dakota Arnold
Tennessee/Kentucky Osmond
Utah Arnold
Vermont Line
Virginia Osmond
Wisconsin Coffey
The report was edited by Gale and Line.
-------
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This publication presents the results of a
comprehensive evaluation of the ten-year
experimental Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP). The evaluation was conducted by the
National Water Quality Evaluation Project
(NWQEP) at North Carolina State University in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), and the 21 RCWP
projects.
The Rural Clean Water
Program
The Rural Clean Water Program, a
federally-sponsored nonpoint source (NPS)
pollution control program, was initiated in 1980
as an experimental effort to address agricultural
NPS pollution problems in watersheds across the
country. The objectives of the RCWP were to:
1) achieve improved water quality in the approved
project area in the most cost-effective manner
possible in keeping with the provision of adequate
supplies of food, fiber, and a quality
environment; 2) assist agricultural landowners
and operators to reduce agricultural NPS water
pollutants and to improve water quality in rural
areas to meet water quality standards or water
quality goals; and 3) develop and test programs,
policies, and procedures for the control of
agricultural NPS pollution.
The RCWP was administered by the
USDA-Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service in consultation with
USEPA. The Soil Conservation Service,
Extension Service, Economic Research Service,
Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Geological
Survey, Forest Service, and many other state and
local agencies also participated in the RCWP.
Programmatic and project-level decisions were
made by national, state, and local RCWP inter-
agency coordinating committees.
With a total appropriation of $64 million, the
RCWP funded 21 experimental watershed
projects across the country. The projects
represented a wide range of pollution problems
and impaired water uses. They were located in
Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois,
Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Tennessee/Kentucky, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
and Wisconsin.
Each project involved the implementation of
best management practices (BMPs) to reduce
NPS pollution and water quality monitoring to
evaluate the effects of the land treatment. Land
treatment in each project was targeted to critical
areas or sources of nonpoint source pollutants
identified as having significant impacts on the
impaired water resource. These areas were
referred to as critical areas. Landowner
participation was voluntary, with cost sharing and
technical assistance offered as incentives for
implementing BMPs. Landowners receiving
cost-share assistance were contracted to
implement BMPs, with the length of the contract
depending on the practice being implemented.
While water quality monitoring was
performed in all 21 projects, five projects (Idaho,
Illinois, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and
Vermont) were selected to receive additional
federal funding for more extensive monitoring
and evaluation. These projects are referred to as
the Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation
(CM&E) projects.
Significance and
Contributions of the
RCWP
The Rural Clean Water Program is one of the
few national NPS control programs that has
combined land treatment and water quality
monitoring in a continuous feedback loop to
document NPS control effectiveness. Water
quality monitoring results have also been used to
adjust and refine land treatment practices
designed to control agricultural NPS pollution.
-------
Executive Summary
The experience gained through the RCWP
provides valuable information for personnel
involved in current and future NFS control
programs and projects. Many of the RCWP
projects have made significant contributions to
the body of knowledge regarding nonpoint source
pollution, NFS control technology, BMP
effectiveness, and the effectiveness of voluntary
cost-share programs aimed at assisting producers
in reducing agricultural NPS pollution.
The producers and project personnel who
participated in the 21 RCWP projects benefited
not only their communities, but also those who
are and will be engaged in subsequent NPS
control programs. The RCWP projects resulted
in the development of closer and more effective
cooperation and communication among federal,
state, and local agencies involved in NPS
pollution control. The program achieved
extensive adoption of BMPs in critical areas (and
often beyond project boundaries) and provided
valuable insight into the effectiveness of these
practices in improving water quality. Possibly the
most important contribution made by the RCWP
is the advancement of our understanding of how
to plan, implement, manage, and monitor
voluntary agricultural NPS pollution control
efforts.
The following are examples of contributions
and accomplishments of the RCWP projects:
• Delaware: Water quality monitoring in
the Appoquinimink River project docu-
mented a 60% decrease in phosphorus and
a 90% decrease in sediment reaching an
impaired water body as the result of im-
plementation of conservation tillage and
animal waste management BMPs. Im-
proved fertilizer management cut the pre-
project phosphorus application rate in
half.
• Iowa: The Prairie Rose Lake project dem-
onstrated that a very high rate of imple-
mentation is possible in a voluntary NPS
control project. Ninety-two percent of the
producers in the project area participated
in the project, which was aimed at reduc-
ing sediment yield from excessively erod-
ing cropland around a recreational lake.
Fertilizer management and Integrated
Pest Management were implemented on
60% of the critical acreage.
Maryland: The Double Pipe Creek pro-
ject team took advantage of the experi-
mental nature of the RCWP to learn more
about the best designs for animal waste
storage systems. RCWP funds were used
to hire a nutrient management specialist
to assist farmers in using manure as a
source of nutrients. This approach was so
successful that the position was continued
after the RCWP.
Florida: Fencing, water management,
and animal waste management systems in
the Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough RCWP
project have reduced phosphorus concen-
trations in water entering Lake
Okeechobee by more than 50%.
Oregon: Innovative animal waste man-
agement systems installed on dairies in the
Tillamook Bay project reduced bacterial
contamination of oyster beds in the bay,
resulting in the re-opening of shellfish
beds to harvesting.
Idaho: Water management and sediment
control BMPs reduced sediment and
phosphorus concentrations in return flows
from irrigated land in the Rock Creek
project. Improvements in the ability of the
stream to support designated uses were
documented through monitoring of in-
stream habitats, benthic macroinverte-
brates, and fish populations. Techniques
to evaluate trout spawning habitat were
developed by RCWP project personnel.
South Dakota: The Oakwood Lakes -
Poinsett CM&E project made significant
contributions to the science of NPS con-
trol through three major water quality
studies: 1) monitoring to determine inputs
to ground water from fields; 2) evaluation
of nutrient inputs to the lakes from surface
and ground water; and 3) evaluation of
the transient movement of agricultural
chemicals in the vadose zone. Innovative
techniques to monitor in the vadose zone
and in the lakes were developed.
Nebraska: Farmers participating in the
Long Pine Creek RCWP project ad-
dressed cropland erosion by implement-
ing irrigation water management BMPs
and reduced streambank erosion by in-
stalling cedar revetments. This combina-
tion of BMPs significantly reduced the
sediment load to a trout stream. Biological
and fish habitat monitoring in streams
demonstrated improvements in the quality
of recreational fishing in the creek.
VI
-------
Executive Summary
• Utah: Animal waste management sys-
tems decreased phosphorus concentra-
tions in Snake Creek, thereby reducing
the impact of agricultural activity on Deer
Creek Reservoir, an important water sup-
ply for Salt Lake City.
• Alabama: All of the Lake Tholocco pro-
ject critical area was treated with BMPs
to reduce sediment and fecal coliform
bacteria levels in runoff from surrounding
cropland. Reductions in fecal coliform
levels made possible the re-opening of the
lake to fishing, boating, water skiing, and
other recreational uses.
• Vermont: The St. Albans Bay project
successfully employed a paired watershed
study to document the pollutant export
reduction associated with changing from
the practice of spreading manure on fro-
zen ground to the manure management
BMP in association with waste storage
structures. Significant reductions in indi-
cator bacteria levels were documented in
tributaries. Violations of water quality
standards at the public swimming beach
declined.
• Pennsylvania: The Conestoga Headwa-
ters project and Pennsylvania State Uni-
versity developed a "quick" nitrogen test
and deep-soil nutrient analysis technique.
The quick test provided rapid feedback on
soil nitrogen content and the amount of
additional fertilizer needed to achieve op-
timum plant growth. The deep-soil analy-
sis indicated the depth to which soil nitro-
gen and phosphorus were infiltrating,
providing a tool for more effective long-
term planning and management based on
the nutrient reserve in the soil.
In some RCWP projects, it was not possible
to document water quality benefits because: 1)
impacts of changes in agricultural activities were
masked by non-agricultural pollutant sources, 2)
the water quality problem was not correctly
defined, 3) the extent (area) and strength of land
treatment was inadequate, 4) monitoring designs
were not adequate to document water quality
improvements, 4) an insufficient period of time
had elapsed since initiation of land treatment to
allow measurement of water quality changes, or
5) export from pollutants accumulated in lake
sediments resulted in an inability to document
improved water quality despite documented
reductions
watershed.
in pollutant loading from a
However, each project did make progress
toward achieving water quality or program
objectives, including: 1) development of
cooperative relationships among federal, state,
and local agencies necessary to implement an
effective nonpoint source control program; 2)
achievement of significant adoption of
cost-shared BMPs to improve water quality under
an assistance program; and 3) public perception
of water quality improvement associated with the
implementation of land treatment.
Selected Highlights:
Lessons Learned from
the RCWP
Findings
• The most effective information and edu-
cation approach to gaining producer par-
ticipation is one-to-one contact between
project personnel and farmers.
• The cost of water quality monitoring is
relatively low compared to the benefits of
such monitoring to the advancement of the
science of NFS pollution control.
• A minimum of two years of water quality
monitoring is required before land treat-
ment is initiated in order to identify criti-
cal pollutant sources and establish base-
line water quality conditions.
• The availability and attractive level of
cost-share assistance is the most impor-
tant factor in obtaining producer partici-
pation in voluntary NPS control pro-
grams.
• Farmer involvement in project planning
and problem identification often results in
greater participation in voluntary NPS
pollution control projects.
vn
-------
Executive Summary
Findings (continued)
• Awareness of the impacts of agriculture
on water quality does not necessarily
translate into ownership of water quality
problems by farm operators.
• The fertilizer and pesticide management
and conservation tillage BMPs are the
most cost-effective practices in terms of
requiring the least cost share for the great-
est potential water quality benefit.
• Detection of water quality trends is most
effective when samples are collected at a
consistent frequency and analyzed for a
small number of relevant variables.
• Careful planning, including selection of
appropriate indicator variables and data
management systems, is required to link
water quality changes to land treatment.
• A consistent improving trend in water
quality after the implementation of BMPs
provides evidence needed to attribute
water quality improvements to land treat-
ment. Similarly, documented post-BMP
implementation water quality improve-
ments in multiple watersheds provides
strong evidence that water quality im-
provements resulted from land treatment.
• A planned program that offers strong
guidance yet encourages innovation can
motivate the staff of the individual pro-
jects and direct them toward achievement
of successful projects.
Recommendations
• A national-level inter-agency coordinat-
ing committee should be assigned to carry
out the main objectives of future NPS
pollution control programs. The commit-
tee should oversee all program-level func-
tions, such as formulation of regulations;
selection of projects; review of monitor-
ing plans; and establishment of minimum
reporting requirements, standards of per-
formance, and time frames.
• Federal funds for experimental NPS pol-
lution control programs and projects
should be committed up-front and for the
entire project period.
• First priority should be given to projects
with a high probability for reversing a
water use impairment or containing
highly valued resources threatened by
NPS pollution. This requires clearly
documented use impairment or threat;
clearly defined, measurable water quality
objectives; local support; and adequate
technical assistance and information and
education.
• The water quality problem must be well
defined and documented. A water quality
problem statement that includes the pol-
lutant constituents and the impact on des-
ignated uses should be written.
• Sufficient and dedicated funding for pro-
ject activities should be made available.
These activities may include information
and education, technical assistance, ad-
ministration, cost share, water quality and
land treatment monitoring and evaluation,
and economic evaluation, depending on
the objectives of the project.
• Monitoring is the primary and most de-
fensible means for evaluating the effec-
tiveness of an experimental NPS pollution
control program. Sufficient financial and
technical resources must be available to
support adequate water quality monitor-
ing and evaluation when the purpose of
the project is to document the effect of
land treatment on water quality. Funding
must include financial support for suffi-
cient pre- and post-BMP implementation
water quality monitoring.
• Selection of projects as experimental pro-
jects in federally-funded nonpoint source
programs should be contingent upon dem-
onstration that matching funds will be
available to cover a portion of the project
costs.
• Matching federal funds for pre-project
planning and assessment should be made
available to strong potential projects.
• Project goals must be realistic, specific,
and measurable. Monitoring programs
should be designed to determine progress
toward established goals.
• The critical area must be well defined and
must encompass the major pollutant
sources. Land treatment must be targeted
to critical areas where BMPs will have the
greatest effect on the primary pollutants
of concern and water quality.
vm
-------
Executive Summary
Recommendations (continued)
• Projects should be flexible in modifying
land treatment plans based on water qual-
ity monitoring results.
• Projects should form a core staff of per-
sonnel on detail from participating agen-
cies.
• Projects should designate or hire a project
manager.
• Voluntary agricultural NPS pollution pro-
grams should place more emphasis on
targeting farm operators least likely to
participate in such programs. For exam-
ple, farmers operating smaller and/or less
profitable farms and part-time farmers
should receive special attention in terms
of recruitment when their farms are lo-
cated in an area identified as critical to
water quality.
• Educational programs should be initiated
to encourage farm operators to accept
responsibility for the effect of their farm-
ing operations on water quality.
• Emphasis should be placed on educating
farmers about implementation of less fa-
miliar BMPs, such as animal waste man-
agement systems and pesticide and fertil-
izer management.
• Emphasis should be placed on the man-
agement and maintenance components of
BMPs, especially structural BMPs.
• The flexibility to try innovations or modi-
fications to make BMPs more adaptable
to specific situations, while maintaining
effectiveness, should be incorporated into
NPS programs.
• Projects must be flexible in modifying
land treatment implementation plans
based on water quality monitoring results.
Modifications may include types of BMPs
cost shared, location of the critical area,
level of cost share, and information and
education strategies.
• Watershed-scale NPS pollution control
projects designed to document water qual-
ity changes due to BMP implementation
should be funded only when there exists
a firm long-term commitment to water
quality monitoring and evaluation.
Significant land use activities should be
accounted for in the monitoring program.
A good experimental design for water
quality and land treatment monitoring is
essential to clearly document a relation-
ship between land treatment and water
quality changes. The paired watershed
approach should be encouraged.
IX
-------
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
1.1 The Rural Clean Water Prog ram 1
1.2 Contributions and Successes of the Rural Clean Water Program 2
1.3 The Evaluation Process 4
1.4 Purpose and Contents of this Report 5
Chapter 2: Program Analysis 7
2.1 Keys to a Successful Nonpoint Source Program 8
2.1.1 Definition of Program Objectives and Goals 8
2.1.2 National Program Organization, Administration, and Management 8
2.1.3 Program Funding 11
2.1.4 Project Selection Criteria 14
2.1.5 Water Quality and Land Treatment Monitoring and Evaluation 17
2.1.6 Program Evaluation 18
2.2 Keys to a Successful Nonpoint Source Control Project 20
2.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals 20
2.2.2 Project Planning, Administration, and Management 22
2.2.3 Information and Education 25
2.2.4 Producer Participation 29
2.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation and Tracking 33
2.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting 38
2.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality Changes 47
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program:
Survey Results 53
3.1 Introduction 53
3.2 Farm Operator Survey 53
3.2.1 Rationale and Objectives 53
3.2.2 Background Research 54
3.2.3 Farm Operator Survey Research Techniques 57
3.2.4 Farm Operator Survey Results 57
3.3 Project Personnel Survey 74
3.3.1 Rationale and Objectives 74
3.3.2 Project Personnel Survey Research Techniques 74
3.3.3 Project Personnel Survey Results 75
3.4 Summary of Lessons Learned 85
3.4.1 Awareness of Agricultural NPS Pollution and Problem Ownership 85
3.4.2 Participation in Voluntary NPS Pollution Control Programs 86
3.4.3 BMP Adoption 86
XI
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program (continued)
3.4 Summary of Lessons Learned (continued)
3.4.4 Information and Education 87
3.4.5 Water Quality Monitoring 88
3.4.6 Technical Assistance 88
3.4.7 Project Organization 88
3.4.8 Workshops for Project Participants 89
Chapter 4: Rural Clean Water Program Project Profiles 91
Alabama - LaKe Tholocco (RCW? 1) 92
Delaware-Appoquinimink River (RCW3 2) 106
Florida - Taylor Creek Nubbin Slough (RCWP 14) 120
Florida - Lower Kissimmee River (RCW? 14A) 140
Idaho - Rock Creek (RCWP 3) 156
Illinois - Highland Silver Lake (RCW? 4) 182
Iowa - Prairie Rose Lake (RCW3 5) 198
Kansas - Upper Wakarusa (RCWP 6) 214
Louisiana - Bayou Bonne Idee (RCW? 7) 228
Maryland - Double Pipe Creek (RCW? 8) 240
Massachsuetts - Westport River (RCW? 15) 258
Michigan - Saline Valley (RCWP 9) 272
Minnesota - Can/in Brook (RCW? 16) 286
Nebraska - Long Pine Creek (RCW3 17) 308
Oregon - Tillamook Bay (RCWP 18) 330
Pennsylvania - Conestoga Headwaters (RCW3 19) 348
South Dakota - Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett (RCW3 20) 368
Tennessee/Kentucky - Reelfoot Lake (RCW3 10) 390
Utah - Snake Creek (RCW3 11) 406
Vermont - St. Albans Bay (RCW? 12) 418
Virginia - Nansemond - Chuckatuck (RCWP 21) 432
Wsconsin - Lower Manitowoc River (RCWP 13) 446
Appendices 463
I. RCWP Best Management Practices 465
II. Abbreviations 469
III. Glossary of Terms 471
IV. Project Documents and Other Relevant Publications 475
V. Farm Operator Survey Design 511
VI. Farm Operator Questionnaire 515
VII. Project Personnel Questionnaire and Data Summary 529
VIII. Methodology for On-Site Evaluation 553
XII
-------
List of Figures
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1: Locations of RCW3 projects 6
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1: Framework for evaluating participation in the Rural Clean Water
Program and adoption of Best Management Practices 54
Figure 3.2: Farmers' sources of water quality information 60
Figure 3.3: Farmers' perceptions of major causes of water pollution 61
Figure 3.4: Farmers' reasons for participating in the Rural Clean Water
Program 62
Figure 3.5: Farmers' reasons for not participating in the Rural Clean Water
Program 64
Figure 3.6: Farmers' perceptions of effects of the RCV\P 64
Figure 3.7: Adoption of Best Management Practices by farmers 70
Figure 3.8: Influences on farmers' adoption of Best Management Practices 70
Figure 3.9: Level of effort of project manager 75
Figure 3.10: Effectiveness of project elements in achieving project goals 78
Figure 3.11: Effects of the Rural Clean Water Program 79
Figure 3.12: Effectiveness of RC\NP information and education programs 80
Figure 3.13: Effectiveness of RCW3 information and education by pollution
type 81
Figure 3.14: Information and education program importance to the adoption
and maintenance of implemented BMPs 81
Figure 3.15: Influences on BMP adoption by farm operators 83
Figure 3.16: Maintenance of critical area in BMPs 83
Figure 3.17: Farm operator and project staff attitudes about agriculture and the
environment 84
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1: Lake Tholocco (Alabama) RC\NP project map AL-1 92
Figure 4.2: Appoquinimink River (Delaware) RCW3 project map DE-1 106
Figure 4.3: Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough (Florida) RCWP project map FL-1.... 120
Figure 4.4: Lower Kissimmee River (Florida) RCWP project map FL-2 140
Figure 4.5: Rock Creek (Idaho) RCV\P project map ID-1 156
Figure 4.6: Highland Silver Lake (Illinois) RCWP project map IL-1 182
Figure 4.7: Prairie Rose Lake (Iowa) RCW3 project map IA-1 198
Figure 4.8: Upper Wakarusa (Kansas) RCW3 project map KS-1 214
Figure 4.9: Bayou Bonne Idee (Louisiana) RCW3 project map LA-1 228
Figure 4.10: Double Pipe Creek (Maryland) RC\NP project map MD-1 240
Figure 4.11: Westport River (Massachusetts) RCM\P project map MA-1 258
Figure 4.12: Saline Valley (Michigan) RCW5 project map MM 272
Figure 4.13: Garvin Brook (Minnesota) RCWP project map MN-1 286
Figure 4.14: Long Pine Creek (Nebraska) RCW? project map NE-1 308
Figure 4.15: Tillamook Bay (Oregon) RCW3 project map OR-1 330
XIII
-------
List of Figures (continued)
Chapter 4 (continued)
Figure 4.16: Conestoga Headwaters (Pennsylvania) RCWP project map PA-1.. 348
Figure 4.17: Conestoga Headwaters (Pennsylvania) RCV\P project map PA-2.. 366
Figure 4.18: Conestoga Headwaters (Pennsylvania) RCWP project map PA-3.. 367
Figure 4.19: Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett (S. Dakota) RCWP project map SD-1... 368
Figure 4.20: Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett (S. Dakota) RCWP project map SD-2... 387
Figure 4.21: Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett (S. Dakota) RCWP project map SD-3... 388
Figure 4.22: Reelfoot Lake (Tennessee/Kentucky) RCWP project map TM/K-1 .. 390
Figure 4.23: Snake Creek (Utah) RCWP project map UT-1 406
Figure 4.24: St. Albans Bay (Vermont) RCWP project map VT-1 418
Figure 4.25: Nansemond - Chuckatuck (Virginia) RCWP project map VA-1 432
Figure 4.26: Lower Manitowoc River (Wisconsin) RCWP project map WI-1 446
XIV
-------
List of Tables
Chapter 3
Table 3.1: Characteristics of farm operators interviewed 58
Table 3.2: Farm structural characteristics for farm operators interviewed 59
Table 3.3: Differences between farm operators who did and did not
participate in the RCV\P in terms of farmer characteristics 65
Table 3.4: Differences between farm operators who did and did not
participate in the RCv\P in terms of farm structural characteristics.... 66
Table 3.5: Differences between farm operators who did and did not
participate in the RCV\P in terms of water quality awareness 68
Table 3.6: Differences between farm operators who did and did not
participate in the RC\AP in terms of extent of use of different
sources of information 68
Table 3.7: Differences between farm operators who did and did not
participate in the RCV\P in terms of perceived effects of the RCV\P... 71
Table 3.8: Differences between farm operators who did and did not
participate in the RCWP in terms of adoption of BMPs 71
Table 3.9: Differences between farm operators who did and did not
participate in the RCV\P in terms of adoption of BMPs to control
animal waste 73
Table 3.10: Relationships between independent variables and farm operators'
reported use of BMPs to control animal waste 73
Table 3.11: Differences between farm operators who did and did not
participate in the RCV\P in terms of adoption of BMPs to control
animal sediment 76
Table 3.12: Relationships between independent variables and farm operators'
reported use of BMPs to control sediment 76
Appendix V
Table V.1: Summary of RCV\P participants and non-participants in terms of
population, target sample, and final sample 514
XV
-------
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
This publication presents the results of a
comprehensive evaluation of the ten-year
experimental Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP). The evaluation was conducted by the
National Water Quality Evaluation Project
(NWQEP) at North Carolina State University
(NCSU) in cooperation with the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA), the United
States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), and the 21 RCWP projects.
1.1 The Rural Clean
Water Program
The Rural Clean Water Program is a
federally-sponsored nonpoint source (NPS)
pollution control program begun in 1980 as an
experimental effort to address agricultural NPS
pollution problems in watersheds across the
country. The enabling legislation was the
Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 96-108).
The objectives of the RCWP (45 Federal
Register 14006, March 4, 1980) were to:
• Achieve improved water quality in the
approved project area in the most cost-ef-
fective manner possible in keeping with
the provision of adequate supplies of
food, fiber, and a quality environment.
• Assist agricultural land owners and opera-
tors to reduce agricultural NPS water
pollutants and to improve water quality in
rural areas to meet water quality standards
or water quality goals.
• Develop and test programs, policies, and
procedures for the control of agricultural
NPS pollution.
RCWP was administered by the USDA -
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service (ASCS), in cooperation with USEPA and
the following USDA agencies: Soil Conservation
Service (SCS), Extension Service (ES),
Economic Research Service (ERS), Forest
Service (FS), and Agricultural Research Service
(ARS). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
universities, and many state and local agencies
also participated.
A National Coordinating Committee (NCC)
was established to provide oversight and guidance
to the RCWP. The NCC was chaired by ASCS;
members included USEPA, SCS, ES, ERS, FS
and the USDA-Council on Environmental
Quality. Programmatic and project-level
decisions were made by the NCC and state and
local inter-agency coordinating committees.
Each agency's responsibilities within the
framework of the RCWP were specified in the
Federal Register (45 Federal Register 14006,
March 4, 1980). The roles of the agencies having
primary responsibility for administering and
implementing the RCWP (ASCS, USEPA, SCS,
and ES) are summarized in the following
paragraphs.
ASCS was responsible for: 1) chairing the
NCC, state coordinating committees (SCCs), and
local coordinating committees (LCCs); 2)
administering the RCWP; 3) recommending
projects for selection as RCWP projects; 4)
entering into agreements with other agencies as
needed for support to be provided in an approved
project; 5) providing administrative support in all
RCWP projects (such as accepting applications,
preparing and approving contracts, issuing
cost-share payments, providing compliance
oversight, maintaining records); 6) working with
landowners and operators to encourage
participation; 7) developing cost-share rates for
best management practices (BMPs); 8)
coordinating the RCWP and other related
programs; and 9) allocating project funds.
USEPA's role included: 1) participating in
the NCC, SCCs, and LCCs; 2) participating in
project selection; 3) assisting in critical area
identification; 4) participating in approval of
BMPs to be cost shared; 5) assisting in program
evaluation; and 6) assisting in development and
evaluation of monitoring for Comprehensive
Monitoring and Evaluation projects (RCWP
projects that received additional funds for water
quality and land treatment monitoring and
evaluation).
SCS was responsible for: 1) participating in
the NCC, SCCs, and LCCs; 2) coordinating
technical assistance and recommending the
appropriate agency to provide technical
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
assistance in each project; 3) providing technical
assistance for appropriate BMPs; 4) assisting the
LCCs in developing criteria for determining
priorities for assistance among individual
applicants for RCWP cost-share funds; and 5)
providing technical assistance in developing and
certifying the technical adequacy of participants'
water quality plans.
The role of ES was to: 1) participate in the
NCC, SCCs, and LCCs; 2) develop, implement,
and coordinate informational and educational
(I&E) programs for agricultural nonpoint source
pollution control; 3) encourage state and county
Extension Services to develop and carry out
comprehensive I&E programs; and 4) provide
technical assistance for appropriate BMPs,
including, but not limited to pest management,
conservation tillage, and crop nutrient
management, as appropriate.
With a total appropriation of $64 million, the
RCWP funded 21 watershed projects across the
country. These projects represented a wide range
of pollution problems and impaired water uses.
The RCWP projects were selected from state lists
of priority watersheds developed during the
Section 208 planning process under the 1972
Clean Water Act. Projects were located in
Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois,
Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Tennessee/Kentucky, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
and Wisconsin.
While water quality monitoring was
performed in all 21 projects, five of the RCWP
projects (Idaho, Illinois, Pennsylvania, South
Dakota, and Vermont) were selected to receive
additional funding for comprehensive monitoring
and evaluation. These projects are referred to as
the Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation
(CM&E) projects.
Each RCWP project involved both land
treatment and water quality monitoring.
Landowner participation was voluntary, with cost
sharing and technical assistance offered as
incentives for implementing best management
practices. Landowners were contracted to
implement BMPs, with the length of the contract
depending on the practice being implemented —
typically a minimum of three years and a
maximum of ten years. Most RCWP project
contracts began in 1980-81 and ended in 1986.
Although the Rural Clean Water Program
terminated in 1992, a few individual projects have
been extended until 1995.
1.2 Contributions and
Successes of the
Rural Clean Water
Program
The Rural Clean Water Program is one of the
few national NFS pollution control programs that
has combined land treatment and water quality
monitoring in a continuous feedback loop to
document the effectiveness of NFS pollution
controls. Water quality monitoring results have
also been used to adjust and refine land treatment
practices designed to control agricultural NPS
pollution.
The experience gained through the 21 RCWP
projects provides valuable information for
personnel involved in current and future NPS
control programs and projects. The RCWP
projects have made significant contributions to
the body of knowledge about NPS pollution, NPS
pollution control technology, BMP effectiveness,
and the effectiveness of voluntary cost-share
programs aimed at assisting producers in
reducing agricultural NPS pollution. Some of
these accomplishments are listed below:
• Delaware: Water quality monitoring in
the Appoquinimink River project docu-
mented a 60% decrease in phosphorus
and a 90% decrease in sediment reaching
an impaired water body as the result of
implementation of conservation tillage
and animal waste management BMPs.
Improved fertilizer management cut the
pre-project phosphorus application rate in
half.
• Utah: Animal waste management sys-
tems decreased phosphorus concentra-
tions in Snake Creek and, as a result,
reduced the impact of agricultural activity
on Deer Creek Reservoir, an important
water supply for Salt Lake City, Utah.
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
Florida: Fencing, water management,
and animal waste management systems in
the Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough project
have reduced phosphorus concentrations
in water entering Lake Okeechobee by
more than 50%, exceeding project goals.
Oregon: Innovative animal waste man-
agement systems installed on dairies in the
Tillamook Bay project reduced bacterial
contamination of oyster beds in the bay,
resulting in the re-opening of shellfish
beds to commercial and recreational har-
vesting.
Iowa: The Prairie Rose Lake project dem-
onstrated that a very high rate of imple-
mentation is possible in a voluntary NFS
control project. Thirty-four producers
(92%) in the project area participated in
the project, which was designed to reduc-
ing sediment yield from excessively erod-
ing cropland surrounding a recreational
lake. Fertilizer management and Inte-
grated Pest Management were imple-
mented on 27 farms (60% of the critical
acreage).
Idaho: Water management and sediment
control BMPs reduced sediment and
phosphorus concentrations in return flows
from irrigated land in the Rock Creek
CM&E project. Improvements in the abil-
ity of the stream to support designated
uses were documented through monitor-
ing of in-stream habitats, benthic
macroinvertebrates, and fish populations.
Techniques to evaluate trout spawning
habitat by directly measuring substrate
oxygen were developed by project per-
sonnel.
Maryland: The Double Pipe Creek pro-
ject team took advantage of the experi-
mental nature of the RCWP to learn more
about the best designs for animal waste
storage systems. RCWP funds were used
to hire a nutrient management specialist
to assist farmers in using manure as fer-
tilizer. This approach was so successful
that the position was continued after the
RCWP.
• Pennsylvania: The Conestoga Headwa-
ters CM&E project staff helped Pennsyl-
vania State University develop a "quick"
nitrogen test and deep-soil nutrient analy-
sis technique. The quick test provided
rapid feedback on the nitrogen content of
soil and the amount of additional fertilizer
needed to achieve optimum plant growth.
The deep-soil analysis indicated the depth
to which soil nitrogen and phosphorus
were infiltrating, providing a tool for
more effective long-term planning and
management based on the nutrient reserve
in the soil.
• South Dakota: The Oakwood Lakes -
Poinsett CM&E project made significant
contributions to the science of NPS con-
trol through three major water quality
studies: 1) monitoring to determine inputs
to ground water from fields; 2) evaluation
of nutrient inputs to the lakes from surface
and ground water; and 3) evaluation of
the transient movement of agricultural
chemicals in the vadose zone. Innovative
techniques to monitor in the vadose zone
and in the lakes were developed as part of
these intensive studies.
• Vermont: The St. Albans Bay CM&E
project successfully employed a paired
watershed study to document the pollutant
export reduction associated with changing
from the common practice of spreading
manure on frozen ground to the manure
management BMP in association with
waste storage structures. Significant re-
ductions in indicator bacteria levels were
documented in tributaries. Violations of
water quality standards at the public
swimming beach decreased.
• Alabama: One hundred percent of the
critical area treatment goals of the Lake
Tholocco project was achieved with
BMPs designed to reduce sediment and
fecal coliform bacteria delivery in runoff
from surrounding cropland. The resulting
reductions in fecal coliform levels made
possible the re-opening of the lake to
fishing, boating, water skiing, and other
recreational uses.
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
• Nebraska: Farmers participating in the
Long Pine Creek project addressed crop-
land erosion by implementing irrigation
water management BMPs and reduced
streambank erosion by installing cedar
revetments. This combination of BMPs
significantly reduced the sediment load to
a trout stream. Biological and fish habitat
monitoring in streams demonstrated im-
provements in the quality of recreational
fishing in the creek. The project's strong
information and education program re-
sulted in reduced fertilizer and pesticide
use.
In some RCWP projects, it was not possible
to document water quality benefits because: 1)
impacts of changes in agricultural activities were
masked by non-agricultural pollutant sources, 2)
the water quality problem was not correctly
defined, 3) the extent (area) of land treatment was
inadequate, 4) monitoring designs were not
adequate to assess water quality trends, 4) an
insufficient period of time had elapsed since
initiation of land treatment to allow measurement
of water quality changes, or 5) internal
(accumulated) sources of pollutants in a lake
resulted in an inability to document improved
water quality despite documented reductions in
pollutant loading from a watershed.
However, each project did make progress
toward achieving water quality or program
objectives in different ways, including:
• Development of more cooperative rela-
tionships among federal, state, and local
agencies necessary to achieve an effective
nonpoint source control program;
• Achievement of significant adoption of
cost-shared BMPs to improve water qual-
ity under an assistance program; or
• Public perception of water quality im-
provement associated with the implemen-
tation of land treatment.
1.3 The Evaluation
Process
Throughout the decade of RCWP
implementation, NWQEP served as a technical
support team for the projects and the NCC,
performing technical evaluations of projects,
analyzing NFS pollution abatement progress, and
providing technical assistance on monitoring and
data analysis systems. NWQEP performed a
comprehensive evaluation of the ten-year RCWP
in cooperation with USD A, USEPA, and the 21
projects. The comprehensive evaluation, results
of which are reported in this publication, was
based on findings from mid- and post-project
on-site evaluations of the 21 RCWP projects as
well as information drawn from a mail survey of
project personnel (Coffey and Hoban, 1992), a
telephone survey of farm operators in the project
areas (conducted by Hoban and Wimberley of
NCSU), project reports, and technical assistance
provided by NWQEP to the projects between
1980 and 1992.
A major component of the comprehensive
evaluation was information gathered during
on-site evaluations conducted by NWQEP during
1991 and 1992. Each project was visited and key
project personnel at the federal, state, and local
levels were interviewed by evaluation teams
composed of NWQEP staff and personnel from
SCS, ES, and USEPA.
The objectives of the on-site evaluations
(Coffey and Smolen, 1990) (see Appendix VIII)
were to:
Assess cooperation among project team
members, committees, and agencies;
Evaluate agreement between the docu-
mented water quality problem and the
choice of solutions;
Assess achievements of the project and
individuals in relation to RCWP objec-
tives;
Evaluate project impacts and progress
toward improving water quality; and
Compile lessons learned in each project.
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.4 Purpose and
Contents of this
Report
Learning from past experiences and building
on successes is vital to the development of
effective and efficient NFS control programs.
The experience gained through the RCWP and its
21 projects provides valuable information for
personnel involved in current and future
nonpoint source control programs and projects.
Toward this goal of sharing this valuable
information, the present document provides a
summary of lessons learned from the RCWP.
Chapter 2 summarizes the lessons learned
about the design, organization, funding,
management, implementation, monitoring, and
evaluation of agricultural nonpoint source
pollution control projects. Specific project
examples are given to illustrate the lessons.
Chapter 3 presents an analysis of responses
to a project personnel survey and results of a
telephone survey of farm operators in the project
areas.
Individual project profiles for each RCWP
project are presented in Chapter 4. Each profile
includes a project synopsis; project findings,
successes, and recommendations; and a
description of important aspects of the project
(such as water resource type, information and
education activities, land treatment implemented,
and water quality monitoring program design and
results).
The appendices include brief descriptions of
the BMPs used in the RCWP (Appendix I), a list
of abbreviations (Appendix II), and a glossary of
terms used in the text (Appendix III). A complete
list of general RCWP publications and lists of
project documents and other relevant
publications, organized by project, may be found
in Appendix IV. Appendix V contains a detailed
discussion of sample design and implementation
for the farm operator survey. Finally, copies of
the farm operator survey questionnaire, the
project personnel questionnaire (and a data
summary), and the methodology for on-site
project evaluation are given in Appendices VI,
VII, and VIII, respectively.
References
Coffey, S.W. and T.J. Hoban. 1992. Rural Clean Water
Program Methodology for Evaluation: Short Answer
Questionnaire. North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
NC.
Coffey, S.W. and M.D. Smolen. 1990. Results of the
Experimental Rural Clean Water Program: Methodology
for Evaluation. National Water Quality Evaluation Pro-
ject, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Federal Register. 1980. 1980 Rural Clean Water Program.
45 Federal Register 14006, March 4, 1980.
-------
Figure 1.1: Locations of RCWP projects.
-------
Chapter 2
PROGRAM
ANALYSIS
The following summary of findings and
recommendations from the Rural Clean Water
Program (RCWP) was developed from
information gained from 10 years of technical
assistance to the 21 projects. Primary information
sources were on-site evaluations of each of the
RCWP projects. A questionnaire developed by
Coffey and Smolen (1990) (see Appendix VIII)
was used as a guide for conducting over 200
post-project interviews with project staff and
producers during 1990 and 1991. Additional
sources of information included a telephone
survey of farm operators (see Chapter 3), a
written survey of project staff (see Chapter 3),
and project reports. The results of analysis of this
information have been condensed into a series of
lessons learned applicable to other nonpoint
source (NFS) pollution control efforts. Where
applicable, specific examples from RCWP
projects are included to illustrate the lessons.
The lessons included in this chapter do not
comprise an exhaustive list of all the knowledge
gained from the RCWP, but are rather a
compilation of recommendations organized
around relatively broad themes. (Details on
findings and recommendations for each project
are given in Chapter 4.) The lessons included here
are meant to provide guidance for
decision-makers at the national, state, and project
levels in developing, implementing, and
evaluating NPS pollution control programs and
projects.
This chapter focuses primarily on lessons
relating to experimental NPS pollution control
projects. Experimental refers to projects designed
to scientifically evaluate the effectiveness of land
treatment strategies (NPS control best
management practices (BMPs) and BMP
systems) in bringing about water quality
improvements. Such projects will, of necessity,
involve targeted land treatment and water quality
monitoring and evaluation programs sufficient to
provide meaningful feedback on the relationship
between BMP implementation and water quality
changes.
All NPS pollution control projects will not
require the high level of land treatment and water
quality monitoring discussed in this analysis.
However, many of the concepts and lessons
should also be kept in mind when planning and
implementing NPS projects intended to achieve
objectives other than documentation of water
quality - land treatment linkage. Such projects
would include, for example, educational projects
designed to demonstrate specific BMPs and BMP
systems. For this and other types of projects,
intensive monitoring would probably not be
essential.
The program analysis is divided into two
sections focusing on program- or national-level
topics (section 2.1) and project- or local-level
topics (section 2.2). The program-level analysis
includes lessons relating to definition of program
objectives; national program organization,
administration, and management; program
funding; project selection criteria; water quality
monitoring and evaluation; and program
evaluation. Although not always specifically
stated, many of these topics contain assessments
of the rules and regulations (45 Federal Register
14006, March 4, 1980) which established the
foundation for successful implementation of the
RCWP.
The project-level analysis includes
evaluations and recommendations concerning
definition of project objectives and goals; project
planning, administration, and management;
information and education; producer
participation; land treatment implementation and
tracking; water quality monitoring, evaluation,
and reporting; and linkage of land treatment and
water quality changes.
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.1 Keys to a Successful
Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control
Program
2.1.1 Definition of Program
Objectives
Definition of program objectives is one of the
most important tasks in water resource
management programs. Although the terms
objective and goal are often used
interchangeably, in this report, an objective refers
to a focus and overall framework or purpose,
while a goal is a more narrowly-focused
measurable or quantitative milestone used to
assess progress toward attainment of an objective.
Lesson: Carefully defined objectives
should relate to the designated or expected
use of the water resource. The entire set of
objectives should be comprehensive such
that no important issue related to manage-
ment of the water resource is missing.
Objectives should be clearly defined and
attainable within a realistic time frame. To
minimize overlap, each objective should
focus on a single issue, so that evaluating
progress toward one objective will not be
contingent upon progress toward another.
Example: The objectives of the RCWP (45 Fed-
eral Register 14006, March 4, 1980) were to:
a) Achieve improved water quality in approved
project areas in the most cost-effective man-
ner possible in keeping with the provision of
adequate food, fiber, and a quality environ-
ment;
b) Assist agricultural landowners and operators
to reduce agricultural NFS water pollutants
and to improve water quality in rural areas
to meet water quality standards or goals; and
c) Develop and test programs, policies, and
procedures for controlling agricultural NFS
pollution.
Overall the RCWP objectives were comprehen-
sive. However, a) and b) overlapped in that both
focused on improving water quality.
Lesson: The objectives of future water-
shed-scale agricultural NFS pollution con-
trol programs should be to:
a) Achieve improved water quality in
approved project areas to restore
or protect the designated use of
surface or ground water resources;
b) Reduce agricultural NFS pollutants
and habitat impairment in approved
project areas by creating incentives
for better management;
c) Minimize economic and social costs
of implementing NFS controls; and
d) Develop, implement, and evaluate
policies and technologies to control
agricultural NFS pollution.
The revised objectives are comprehensive
such that no major concepts are missing.
Objective a) is broadly stated. Objec-
tives b) - d) support objective a) by
focusing on the major issues of pollution
reduction, minimizing costs, and pro-
gram development.
2.1.2 National Program
Organization,
Administration, and
Management
National level organization, administration,
and management affect all activities involved in
a NFS pollution control program and are vital to
the success of the program. The way the projects
are to be carried out, the type of management
practices to be used, and the overall tone and
enthusiasm for the program are set at the national
level. A planned program that offers strong
guidance yet encourages innovation and unique
solutions can motivate the staff of the individual
projects and direct them toward achievement of
successful projects.
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.1.2 National Program
Organization,
Administration, and
Management (continued)
• Lesson: A well-defined structure with
clearly stated roles for participating agen-
cies is an essential component of a success-
ful NFS pollution control program.
Example: The programmatic structure of the
RCWP was sound, the National Coordinating
Committee (NCC) functioned well, and the pro-
gram demonstrated that the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and the U. S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (USEPA) can work well
together. At the national level, the RCWP was
administered by the USDA - Agricultural Stabi-
lization and Conservation Service (ASCS) in
consultation with USEPA. Other USDA agen-
cies, including the Soil Conservation Service
(SCS), the Extension Service (ES), the Agricul-
tural Research Service (ARS), the Economic
Research Service (ERS), contributed in numer-
ous ways. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
universities, and many state and local agencies
also participated in the RCWP. Programmatic
and project-level decisions were made by the
national, state, and local RCWP inter-agency
coordinating committees (the National, State,
and Local Coordinating Committees).
Lesson: NFS control programs should in-
volve all federal agencies concerned with
NFS pollution control. Participating agen-
cies should include USEPA, USDA, USGS,
NOAA, and other interested agencies. Key
agencies within USDA whose participation
is important include ASCS, SCS, ES, ARS,
FS, ERS, and FmHA.
Example: In the RCWP, ASCS provided lead-
ership in program administration; SCS in tech-
nical assistance for land treatment; USEPA in
water quality monitoring; and ES in information
and education. In addition, ARS and USGS
provided technical assistance at the project level
for evaluating the effectiveness of best manage-
ment practices (BMPs), water quality sampling,
and data management.
Example: The structure of the RCWP at the
national level has demonstrated that the involve-
ment of multiple federal agencies strengthens a
NFS control program. The various agencies can
and must collaborate to produce effective and
efficient NFS control programs.
Lesson: A national-level inter-agency coor-
dinating committee, chaired by a lead
agency, should be assigned to carry out the
main objectives of future NFS pollution
control programs. The committee should
oversee all program-level functions, in-
cluding formulation of program regula-
tions; establishment of maximum
cost-share levels; selection of projects; re-
view of land treatment and water quality
monitoring and analysis plans; and estab-
lishment of minimum reporting require-
ments, standards of performance, and
time frames. The committee should have
the authority to place a project on provi-
sional status, revise a project, or terminate
a project if it does not meet minimum
performance standards.
Example: RCWP was administered by the
USDA - Agricultural Stabilization and Conser-
vation Service (ASCS), in cooperation with
USEPA and the following USDA agencies: Soil
Conservation Service (SCS), Extension Service
(ES), Economic Research Service (ERS), Forest
Service (FS), Agricultural Research Service
(ARS), and Farmers Home Administration
(FmHA). The U.S.Geological Survey (USGS),
universities, and many state and local agencies
also participated.
Example: A National Coordinating Committee
(NCC) was established to provide oversight and
guidance to the RCWP. The NCC was chaired
by ASCS. NCC members included the USDA-
Office of Environmental Quality, USEPA, SCS,
ES, ERS, FmHA, and FS. Programmatic and
project-level decisions were made by the NCC
and state and local inter-agency coordinating
committees.
Example: The ASCS was well suited to chair
the National Coordinating Committee and man-
age a program with monetary incentives; ASCS
provided capable leadership in administering the
RCWP.
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.1.2 National Program
Organization,
Administration, and
Management (continued)
• Lesson: Roles and responsibilities of par-
ticipating agencies should be clearly de-
fined, and should include inter-agency
cooperation and communication as pri-
mary responsibilities of each agency.
Guidelines should be established to ensure
manageable agency workloads.
Example: Clearly defined agency roles (45 Fed-
eral Register 14006) at the program and project
levels contributed to a high degree of inter-
agency cooperation in the RCWP.
Example: The requirements of the 1985 Food
Security Act (Farm Bill) utilized much of the
limited resources of USDA-ASCS and USDA-
SCS, making it difficult for some projects to
maintain sufficient attention to the RCWP.
Lesson: The national coordinating commit-
tee should establish a realistic time frame
and sequence for project activities that
ensures a proper sequence for pre-project
problem assessment, planning, and moni-
toring; implementation; and post-project
monitoring and evaluation.
Example: Because of its relatively long duration,
the RCWP is one of few NPS programs that
allowed for adequate pre- and post-BMP imple-
mentation monitoring of land treatment, land
use, and water quality to assess, on a watershed
scale, water quality changes resulting from NPS
controls. Projects that achieved proper sequenc-
ing of activities and adequate critical area land
treatment had the highest probability of docu-
menting water quality improvements (Idaho,
Oregon, Utah, Florida, Vermont).
Example: Initially, the Illinois project lacked
specific data to characterize water quality im-
pairments and identify pollutant sources. Later,
suspended sediment originating from natric soils
was identified as the primary pollutant, the land
treatment focus was narrowed to natric soils, and
critical area was redefined.
Example: In 1983, the Kansas project was ter-
minated, primarily due to a national-level inter-
agency team determination that the water quality
problem was not adequately documented.
Lesson: The national coordinating commit-
tee should provide technical assistance to
projects throughout the program. This can
be achieved by establishing a technical
support group to assist project personnel
in assessing water quality problems, devel-
oping realistic objectives, delineating criti-
cal areas, and developing effective water
quality and land treatment monitoring and
evaluation programs. The technical sup-
port group should also assist the national-
level coordinating committee by
recommending projects for inclusion in the
program, project reporting requirements
and formats, and an appropriate plan for
program and project evaluation.
Example: The National Water Quality Evalu-
ation Project (NWQEP) at North Carolina State
University (NCSU) provided technical assis-
tance to each RCWP project and performed
on-site project evaluations. NWQEP staff as-
sisted in the final RCWP evaluation by articu-
lating lessons learned, identifying water quality
improvements, and making recommendations
for future programs.
Example: The NCC, with assistance from
NWQEP and project representatives, held nine
annual RCWP workshops from 1982 to 1991.
Workshop topics included project start-up, pro-
gress assessment, data management, mid-pro-
gram evaluation, technology transfer, ten-year
reporting, and program evaluation. Repre-
sentatives from ASCS, SCS, ES, the state water
quality agency, and USGS were encouraged to
attend and the NCC provided travel funding to
assist many project participants. (See Appendix
VII, Question 33 for the number of people
attending). A survey of project personnel (see
Chapter 3) indicated that 76% of the participants
believed that the workshops helped projects
meet their objectives. Comments indicated that
projects would have benefited from more work-
shops held earlier.
Example: Thirty-three percent of the personnel
survey respondents identified insufficient tech-
nical assistance as an impediment to the attain-
ment of RCWP project goals. Specific areas
identified as lacking sufficient technical assis-
tance were I&E, structural and management
BMPs, development of farm plans, and land
treatment and water quality monitoring design.
10
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.1.2 National Program
Organization,
Administration, and
Management (continued)
• Lesson: A member of the technical support
group should be designated by the na-
tional-level coordinating committee to act
as a support person to one or more pro-
jects. The role of the support person should
include evaluating project requests for as-
sistance, providing additional information
to the national-level coordinating commit-
tee, and offering technical assistance to
designated projects.
Lesson: Criteria for project selection
should be established and publicized well
in advance of the application period. This
will improve project applications and help
the national coordinating committee to se-
lect and fund only those projects with the
highest potential for water quality restora-
tion, improvement, or protection.
Lesson: NFS programs should require a
minimum of two years of water quality
monitoring before land treatment is initi-
ated in order to ensure identification of
critical pollutant sources, establishment of
baseline water quality conditions, and
planning of an appropriate land treatment
strategy to control critical pollutant
sources.
2.1.3 Program Funding
Funding mechanisms, logistics, and
allocations can have a profound impact on the
effectiveness of NFS pollution control programs
and projects. The RCWP experience offers a
number of lessons that can assist policy makers
and program managers in effectively using
limited resources to increase the probability of
meeting water quality objectives and to advance
technology development and transfer.
Lesson: Federal funds for NFS control
programs and projects should be commit-
ted up-front and for the entire project
period.
Example: RCWP funding was made available at
the initiation of each project, facilitating long-
term planning and budgeting. In contrast, budg-
ets for the current USDA Demonstration and
Hydrologic Unit Area projects must be approved
each year. The associated annual delays and
uncertainties adversely affect long-range plan-
ning and commitments by the agencies involved.
Funding uncertainties have delayed implemen-
tation of information and education activities in
some current NFS projects.
Example: The majority of project personnel and
RCWP participants surveyed were satisfied with
the financial assistance that farm operators re-
ceived through the RCWP.
Lesson: Selection of projects to participate
in federally-funded nonpoint source pro-
grams should be contingent upon the avail-
ability of matching funds from local, state,
or other federal sources to cover a portion
of the project costs. Such cost sharing
between the federal and local or state levels
can serve to stretch increasingly limited
resources and help insure that there is a
strong commitment to projects at the local
and state level. However, it should be noted
that a high matching requirement may be
an obstacle to some projects. Flexibility
will be needed in determining a feasible
level for local and state matching funds.
Example: The RCWP was designed to include a
substantial level of matching state and local
funding to supplement federal funds supporting
the program. This sharing of project costs
helped insure that sufficient local and state sup-
port for some projects existed. However, in
many cases matching funds, particularly for
water quality monitoring, could not be obtained.
This resulted in many RCWP projects being
unable to establish viable water quality and land
treatment monitoring programs and unable to
document a link between BMP implementation
and water quality changes.
11
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.1.3 Program Funding
(continued)
• Lesson: Matching federal funds for pre-
project planning and assessment should be
made available to strong potential NFS
projects. Such funds should be used for
documentation of the water quality prob-
lem; identification and quantification of
major pollutants and their sources; refine-
ment of project objectives and goals; iden-
tification, quantification, and targeting of
critical areas; identification of the most
cost-effective BMPs; estimation of the cost
of achieving project water quality objec-
tives; assessment of socio-economic bene-
fits of attaining water quality objectives;
and data collection. Results of pre-project
activities should be factored into final pro-
ject selection decisions.
Example: In the Westport River RCWP project
(Massachusetts), the community was not in-
volved in the definition of project objectives.
The relative contributions of agriculture and
residential development to the NFS problem
were not well documented. As a result, consen-
sus about both the need for the project and the
source of the problem was lacking among the
general community, the dairy fanning commun-
ity, and local agencies involved in the project.
The result was lack of local support for the
project and poor producer participation. Pre-
project planning and assessment funds would
have assisted the project team in documenting
the source of the water quality problem and
involving the farm community and general pub-
lic in discussions of the problem, its causes, and
possible approaches to it. These activities would
have provided critical information to both the
Local and State Coordinating Committees and
the members of theNCC about appropriate land
treatment strategies and even the advisability of
selecting the Massachusetts project for RCWP
funding.
Example: The Reelfoot Lake RCWP project in
Tennessee and Kentucky also could have bene-
fited from pre-project support for water quality
problem documentation. During the project pe-
riod, a number of studies were conducted in an
attempt to understand the lake as a system and
the impacts of pollutants on it. If the information
from these studies had been available before the
project was initiated, it is possible that the water
quality problem would have been addressed by
different, more effective BMPs and that the
critical area would have been defined more
accurately and effectively.
Example: Critical area definition was difficult in
the Illinois project because the water quality
problem was incorrectly identified at the start of
the project. Originally, the project developed
implementation goals to reduce lake sedimenta-
tion and turbidity by targeting for treatment all
critical area cropland with high runoff and ero-
sion rates. Monitoring studies conducted during
the project period indicated that suspended sedi-
ments originated from natric soils on slopes of
less than 2%. If the project team had had this
information at the beginning of the project, the
critical area would have been more narrowly
defined based on treatment of natric soils. Pre-
project funding for problem definition and as-
sessment would have assisted this project in
more accurately defining the critical area from
the beginning of the project. It is possible that
as a result of such pre-project problem identifi-
cation and assessment, this project would not
have been selected due to a low probability of
decreasing turbidity in Highland Silver Lake.
Example: Although no matching federal funding
was available for pre- project planning and
assessment prior to project selection under the
RCWP, a few project teams (Idaho, Florida,
Iowa, Oregon, Utah, Vermont) successfully de-
veloped well-defined water quality problem in-
formation, excellent pre-project work plans, and
land treatment implementation programs clearly
focused on the water quality problem. This early
work significantly strengthened the projects and
enabled the project teams to conduct projects
that contributed to the science of NFS pollution
control.
12
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.1.3 Program Funding
(continued)
• Lesson: Sufficient and dedicated funding
for each project activity should be made
available, including: information and edu-
cation, assessment and targeting, technical
assistance, administration, cost share,
water quality monitoring and evaluation,
land treatment tracking and evaluation,
and economic assessment.
Example: Federal funds were available to all
RCWP projects for technical assistance, cost
share, and I&E activities. Comprehensive
Monitoring and Evaluation (CM&E) projects
received extra water quality monitoring funds.
Example: In several projects (Massachusetts,
Wisconsin), lack of sufficient funds specifically
earmarked for I&E resulted in delays or gaps in
activities essential for informing and involving
the farm community in the project.
Example: The Michigan LCC attempted to ob-
tain local funding for water quality monitoring,
with limited success. If the Great Lakes Envi-
ronmental Research Laboratory had not volun-
teered such services, there would have been no
water quality monitoring program.
Example: Several general RCWP projects were
able to obtain local and state resources to de-
velop strong water quality monitoring programs
which contributed to successful evaluation of
BMP effectiveness (Florida, Oregon, Utah).
Lesson: Financial and technical support is
needed for effective systems (including
geographic information systems (GIS)) for
tracking BMP implementation on a field-
by-field basis and documenting changes in
factors such as land use, animal numbers,
and cropping patterns to evaluate effects
of land treatment on water quality.
Example: Projects with financial resources and
expertise to implement effective land treatment
tracking systems were better able to link BMP
implementation with water quality changes than
other projects. For example, the combination of
a SCS computerized data base documenting land
treatment and GIS maps in the Vermont project
proved invaluable for linking BMP implementa-
tion to water quality changes. The Idaho project
compiled similar data bases and used a GIS to
evaluate water quality changes.
Lesson: Monitoring is the primary and
most defensible means for evaluating ex-
perimental NFS pollution control program
effectiveness. Sufficient resources must be
available to enable all projects to meet
minimum land treatment and water qual-
ity monitoring requirements. Federal
and/or state funding is needed to encour-
age consistent, continuous monitoring.
Adequate and stable staffing for project
monitoring and evaluation is critical.
Example: The five CM&E projects (Idaho, Illi-
nois, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont)
received funding specifically for water quality
monitoring and evaluation. In general, these
projects were more successful than other RCWP
projects in collecting water quality data, docu-
menting water quality trends, and linking water
quality changes to land treatment Many of the
non-CM&E projects (Iowa, Maryland, Dela-
ware, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska) would
have benefited from additional funds to support
monitoring activities.
Example: Several CM&E projects made signifi-
cant contributions to nonpoint source pollution
control. The Vermont project successfully em-
ployed a paired watershed study to document
pollutant export reduction associated with
changing from the common practice of winter
spreading of manure to the animal waste man-
agement BMP. The South Dakota project con-
ducted three major studies: ground water
monitoring of field sites to determine inputs to
ground water from fields, evaluation of nutrient
inputs to lakes from surface and ground water,
and evaluation of transient movement of agri-
cultural chemicals in the vadose zone. Innova-
tive techniques for vadose zone and lake
monitoring were developed. The Idaho project
developed techniques to directly measure trout
spawning habitat by using simulated trout redds
to measure substrate dissolved oxygen. Since the
technique is applied where fish eggs and fry live,
it gives a more accurate measure of fish habitat
than would the same variables in the water
column.
Example: Although all projects were required to
assure a minimum level of water quality moni-
toring, non-CM&E projects generally were less
successful in carrying out effective monitoring
programs. Non-CM&E projects that established
meaningful monitoring programs usually re-
ceived significant support from state water qual-
ity agencies or other federal agencies
(Minnesota, Florida, Oregon, and Utah).
13
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.1.3 Program Funding
(continued)
Lesson: Funding for water quality moni-
toring and evaluation in projects whose
purpose is to document land treatment -
water quality linkage must include finan-
cial support for sufficient pre- and post-
BMP implementation water quality
monitoring to facilitate collection of base-
line water quality data (if such data do not
already exist) and to measure the long-
term impacts of land treatment on water
quality.
Example: The Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough
RCWP project in Florida had access to several
years of excellent pre-project and pre-BMP
monitoring data collected by the ARS and the
South Florida Water Management District. Cou-
pled with several years of post-BMP monitor-
ing, these pre-project data made it possible for
the project team to document the water quality
improvements achieved through the RCWP.
Example: The Utah project clearly demonstrated
fecal coliform and nutrient reductions from ani-
mal waste management by comparing pre- and
post-BMP monitoring data. The Nebraska pro-
ject has a pre-BMP water quality data base of
biological, chemical, and physical variables that
will be useful for comparison to their post-BMP
monitoring data. The Idaho, Oregon, and Ver-
mont projects also effectively used pre- and
post-BMP implementation monitoring to docu-
ment water quality improvement.
Example: In the Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and
Louisiana projects, there was a significant lack
of involvement of the state water quality agency
in the water quality monitoring program . Fed-
eral funds for monitoring might have encour-
aged the active participation of these agencies.
Example: An initial baseline data set for water
quality was established in the Virginia project
due to previous state-sponsored monitoring of
project area water supply reservoirs and shell-
fish beds. This pre-project monitoring was fol-
lowed by monthly sampling to detect water
quality trends included as part of the RCWP
project. However, lack of funds caused the
cancellation of the proposed final monitoring
effort. In addition, there was a critical lack of
direct monitoring of land treatment to determine
the effects of BMPs on water quality. Additional
RCWP funds made available specifically for
water quality monitoring could have strength-
ened this project's efforts to document water
quality changes attributable to land treatment.
2.1.4 Project Selection Criteria
Selection of projects that have a high
probability of documenting both water quality
changes and a correlation between land treatment
and water quality improvement is crucial for
experimental NFS pollution control programs.
Selecting projects based on the criteria outlined
below is the first step in a successful NFS control
program.
Lesson: Projects where there is a high
probability for reversing a water use im-
pairment, or that contain highly valued
water resources threatened by NFS pollu-
tion, should be given highest priority in the
selection process. Projects addressing
water resources with high public value,
many users, high visibility, clearly docu-
mented impairment of beneficial use, ade-
quate staff and expertise for technical
assistance, and I&E support generally
have the highest probability of producing
economic and social benefits.
Example: Many RCWP projects had well-docu-
mented water quality problems. The Florida,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Vermont
RCWP projects addressed high fecal coliform
and nutrient levels. In Idaho, Iowa, and Ne-
braska, sediment was identified as the primary
pollutant.
Example: Lake Okeechobee in Florida is a high
priority water resource threatened by phospho-
rus NPS pollution. The lake serves as a primary
water source for five cities and as a secondary
water resource for southern Miami. It also sup-
ports recreational and commercial fishing and
provides habitat for large migratory fowl. Pro-
tecting this resource from further impairment
will be much more cost-effective than trying to
restore it once it is further impaired.
Example: The Prairie Rose Lake Project in Iowa
and St. Albans Bay project in Vermont revolved
around local recreational resources highly val-
ued by producers fanning the surrounding land.
The result was high motivation to participate.
Example: Tillamook Bay in Oregon supports a
commercially important shellfish industry.
There was a high probability of reducing fecal
coliform numbers in the bay with sufficient land
treatment. The RCWP project, aimed at reduc-
ing fecal coliform entering the Bay from dairies,
received a high level of local support.
14
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.1.4 Project Selection Criteria
(continued)
• Lesson: Clearly defined and realistic water
quality objectives and goals improve a pro-
ject's probability of success. Objectives
and goals for water quality and land treat-
ment should be directly related to the water
quality impairment or conditions threaten-
ing designated uses.
Example: The Florida, Idaho, Oregon and Utah
projects had well defined objectives and quanti-
tative water quality goals that were obtainable
given their planned land treatment goals.
Example: Iowa project land treatment goals were
control of soil erosion on at least 80% of the
cropland in the project area and 83% of the
critical area. These goals were realistic given the
small size of the watershed, the relatively small
number of producers, the highly-visible water
quality problem, and strong community support.
Example: Initially, the Nebraska project lacked
clearly defined water quality and land treatment
goals. However, during the project, quantitative
water quality and land treatment goals were
developed; these contributed to a high level of
landowner participation in the critical area.
Lesson: A critical area should be delineated
to identify and encompass the major pol-
lutant sources that have a direct impact on
the impaired water resource. Planned
BMP implementation should be targeted to
the critical area and primary pollutants.
Example: The Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Iowa,
Utah, and Vermont projects had well-defined
critical areas, facilitating targeting of specific
BMPs to effectively reduce pollutant delivery.
Example: The Vermont critical area was defined
as farmsteads contributing excessive manure and
fecal coliform to waterways. Critical area farm
numbers remained essentially the same through-
out the project. By targeting appropriate farms
and applying the right BMPs, fecal coliform
levels were significantly reduced.
Example: Although the number of fanners tar-
geted for participation in the Alabama project
was reduced, the critical area acres remained the
same throughout the project. All of the critical
acres were treated and the project reduced fecal
coliform levels to the point where water contact
sports could be resumed in the lake.
Lesson: Inter-agency cooperation and in-
stitutional coordination are important in
successful project initiation and implemen-
tation. Only projects that have demon-
strated strong inter- agency and
institutional relationships and commit-
ment to the project should be selected.
Example: Inter-agency cooperation in the Ten-
nessee/Kentucky project encompassed agencies
from two states and three counties. The coop-
eration and coordination among these groups
was outstanding and could be used as a model
for other projects.
Example: The Oregon project was able to ac-
commodate, utilize, and organize many different
types of agencies: federal, state, local, private,
and commercial. Project success was heavily
dependent on the cooperation and coordination
of all of these groups. Inter-agency cooperation
and coordination was also exemplary in the
Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Iowa,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah,
and Vermont projects.
Example: The Virginia project had excellent
cooperation and coordination during the imple-
mentation phase of the project which was con-
cluded in 1985. After implementation, meetings
between the groups ceased. As a consequence,
the land treatment and water quality groups were
unaware of the results of each group's efforts.
Example: There was a significant lack of con-
sensus among the local agencies involved in the
Massachusetts RCWP project about the impor-
tance of the project, the major source of the
coliform problem, and the value of the BMPs
being recommended to producers. The result-
ing lack of inter-agency cooperation and coor-
dination resulted in mixed messages sent to
project area dairy farmers by the different agen-
cies and, consequently, poor producer participa-
tion.
15
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.1.4 Project Selection Criteria
(continued)
Lesson: Nonpoint source pollution pro-
grams restricted to addressing agricultural
sources should avoid watersheds that con-
tain significant point sources because pol-
lutant loadings from point sources often
mask water quality changes associated
with NFS controls. Other approaches,
such as total watershed management,
which include both point and nonpoint
sources of pollution can be effective if
adequate resources are available.
Example: In Michigan, a sewage treatment
plant, which had a dominant effect on nutrients
in the water, masked the effects of the nonpoint
source controls. In the Vermont project, the
upgrading of a wastewater treatment plant im-
proved 1he water quality, thereby rendering
analysis of water quality trends associated with
the NPS land treatment program more difficult.
Example: Although producer participation was
high in the Virginia project, project personnel
were unable to distinguish between lowered
trends in phosphorus content caused by project
activities from a continuing down trend due to
the cessation of point source pollution in the late
1960's.
Example: In the Massachusetts project area,
extremely large dairy herds located on very
small acreages adjacent to an estuary containing
a commercially important shellfish resource as
well as heavy residential development both fac-
tored into the serious water quality problem in
the Westport River estuary. Lack of clear data
documenting the relative contributions of these
sources on the pollution of the shellfish beds
contributed to the perception by dairy farmers
that they were being unfairly singled out as the
source of the problem. For this and other
reasons, participation in the project was poor.
Example: Point source feedlots and a sewage
treatment plant in the Nebraska project area
contributed to high bacteria and nutrient load-
ings. These point sources could not be treated
under the RCWP, making changes in water
quality due to RCWP nutrient management
BMPs difficult to detect.
Example: The Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Pennsylva-
nia, and Utah RCWP areas were ideal for docu-
menting water quality improvements resulting
from NPS controls because the major pollution
sources in the watersheds were agricultural.
Lesson: Small watersheds (critical area of
roughly 30,000 acres or less) are easier to
treat and monitor and should, therefore,
be given special consideration in the selec-
tion process. However, size should not be
the only criterion for selection.
Example: Most of the projects considered suc-
cessful in reducing NPS pollution contained
fewer than 30,000 critical area acres (Alabama,
Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Utah, Vermont,
and Oregon). Small critical areas contributed to
a high rate of producer participation and ability
to achieve land treatment and water quality
goals. However, the two projects with the larg-
est critical areas, Florida and Idaho, were also
able to significantly reduce NPS pollution.
Example: An equal number of projects with
critical areas of less and more than 30,000 acres
were unable to verify a NPS pollution reduction.
Lesson: Projects with high potential for
documenting significant pollution reduc-
tion as a result of BMP implementation
should be selected for experimental NPS
programs. The pollutant transport system
should be characterized such that appro-
priate water quality and land treatment
goals can be formulated and effective
monitoring strategies developed. Useful
tools include water quality models and
water and nutrient budgets for predicting
likely water quality improvements.
Example: Use of the AGNPS model caused a
redefinition of the Minnesota project critical
area, allowing targeting of essential areas.
Example: A very small watershed containing
only seven dairies and one horse farm, with
concerned owners, resulted in high potential for
Utah project water quality improvements.
Example: The Taylor Creek (Florida) project
modeled nutrient budgets to predict reductions
in annual phosphorus loads from the basin using
a hypothetical maximum BMP scenario.
Example: Although potential was high for
achieving a significant phosphorus reduction in
St. Albans Bay, existing high levels of phospho-
rus prevented attainment of a significant de-
crease in inner bay waters during the Vermont
project period.
16
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.1.4 Project Selection Criteria
(continued)
• Lesson: There should be a potential for
high level of landowner participation in the
critical area and landowners should be
willing to implement the most effective
BMPs and adopt alternative agricultural
systems that are integrally tied to water
quality improvements and project goals.
Example: In the Lower Kissimmee River project
(Florida), the BMP emphasis and farm opera-
tions were modified to enhance recycling of all
nutrients produced on the dairy farms. Addi-
tional structural and management BMPs neces-
sary to meet phosphorus reduction goals were
incorporated into land treatment plans when this
basin was added to the Florida project in 1988.
Example: The Idaho project had a high level of
landowner participation throughout the project
period. The emphasis was changed from sedi-
ment trapping at the edge of the field to more
cost-effective management practices (such as
conservation tillage) during the second half of
the project.
Example: Excellent I&E programs were instru-
mental in ensuring a high level of landowner
participation in the Alabama, Delaware, Flor-
ida, Idaho, Iowa, Maryland, Nebraska, Oregon,
Utah, and Vermont projects.
Lesson: Experimental projects should de-
velop water quality and land treatment
monitoring plans that can adequately
document changes in land treatment, land
use, and water quality.
Example: The Florida, Idaho, Oregon, Pennsyl-
vania, Utah, and Vermont projects had good
monitoring designs for documenting changes in
water quality in subwatershedsand entire project
areas. These projects monitored 1) throughout
the project time frame with consistent sampling
and 2) before and after BMP implementation at
multiple sites. They were able to isolate the
effects of BMPs by monitoring explanatory
variables, including season, stream discharge,
precipitation, and land use changes.
Example: Although successful in most other
project aspects, the Delaware, Iowa, Maryland,
and South Dakota projects lacked pre-project
water quality monitoring data, which impeded
their ability to make quantitative statements re-
garding water quality improvements.
2.1.5 Water Quality and Land
Treatment Monitoring
and Evaluation
Water quality monitoring is essential for
determining project results and evaluating the
effectiveness of land treatment. The RCWP
projects required water quality monitoring and
provided valuable documentation of water quality
improvements due to land treatment. However,
some RCWP projects lacked the water quality
data necessary to determine the effectiveness of
BMPs in reducing NPS pollution to meet water
quality goals or water quality standards.
Because financial assistance is required to
encourage consistent and continuous water
quality and land treatment monitoring throughout
the project period, funding for water quality
monitoring should be authorized as part of NPS
pollution control programs. Effective land
treatment and water quality monitoring for NPS
control projects, and clear, well-documented
reporting of the results of such monitoring are
required to:
a) Document progress toward water
quality goals;
b) Determine needs for further or
different treatment;
c) Maintain the interest of project
participants and staff;
d) Develop and transfer technology;
e) Reduce the number of inconclusive
studies conducted;
f) Sustain Congressional support;
g) Assure credibility; and
h) Address increasing information needs.
17
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.1.5 Water Quality and Land
Treatment Monitoring
and Evaluation
(continued)
• Lesson: Land treatment, land use, and
water quality monitoring guidance for ex-
perimental NFS programs should be estab-
lished by USEPA in consultation with other
federal, state, and local agencies. Mini-
mum monitoring standards should be es-
tablished to facilitate technically valid
evaluations of projects. The overall pur-
pose of such monitoring is to collect water
quality and land treatment data simultane-
ously to determine if water quality changes
can be documented and associated with
changes in land treatment.
Example: Only a few projects (Idaho, Florida,
Vermont, Utah, Oregon) had water quality
monitoring designs adequate to determine the
impact of BMPs on water quality. Minnesota
and South Dakota used vadose zone monitoring
to show a relationship between field practices
and water quality, but were unable to demon-
strate an overall change in water quality. Like-
wise, the Pennsylvania project did some good
small-scale sampling, but was unable to show
overall changes in water quality. The majority
of the projects could have benefited from guid-
ance in water quality monitoring design.
Lesson: Experimental projects designed to
establish water quality - land treatment
relationships require sufficient funding for
consistent, minimum monitoring and
evaluation throughout the project period.
Example: The Vermont, South Dakota, Idaho
and Pennsylvania (selected to receive CM&E
funds) and the Florida, Oregon, and Utah pro-
jects were successful in securing funds for pro-
ject water quality monitoring and evaluation
during and at the end of the project period.
Although resource intensive, these evaluations
and analyses contributed new insights into the
relationship between water quality and land
treatment.
Example: Many projects (Virginia, Tennes-
see/Kentucky, Alabama, Louisiana, Massachu-
setts, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin) were
unable to secure consistent funding for monitor-
ing and, as a consequence, had difficulty docu-
menting water quality changes.
Lesson: The cost of water quality monitor-
ing is relatively low compared to the bene-
fits of monitoring to the advancement of
effective NFS pollution control.
Example: The cost of monitoring for the RCWP
was approximately 16% of total program costs;
the technology development and technology
transfer benefits of monitoring in the RCWP
have been substantial. Likewise, the 5 - 10% of
the Clean Lakes Program budget spent on moni-
toring has contributed significantly to more ef-
fective treatment of lake problems. On the other
hand, lack of effective monitoring programs has
limited the value of the Model Implementation
Program, some RCWP projects, and, based on
current indications, USDA Hydrologic Unit
Area, Demonstration, and Management Sys-
tems Evaluation Areas water quality projects.
Example: Water quality monitoring provided
good feedback on the extent of impacts that
RCWP land treatment efforts had on water
quality in the Florida (Taylor Creek - Nubbin
Slough), Idaho, Vermont, South Dakota, Penn-
sylvania, Utah, Oregon, and Nebraska projects.
The cost of water quality monitoring ranged
from 2 to 51% in these projects, with an average
of 31%. The relative cost was highest for the
Vermont, South Dakota, and Pennsylvania
CM&E projects (approximately 50% of their
total budgets). The Idaho CM&E project spent
26% of its funds on water quality monitoring
and evaluation. In addition to trend monitoring,
monitoring performed by these eight projects
involved extensive experimental research ad-
dressing monitoring techniques and land use
effects on biota and habitat, surface water chem-
istry, ground water, and vadose zone.
2.1.6 Program Evaluation
Program and project evaluation are key
components of any effective NFS pollution
control program. Evaluation results can be used
during the project to call attention to the need for
adjustments that will result in a more successful
project. Overall program evaluation is essential
if federal and state program managers and
decision makers are to incorporate lessons
learned from NFS projects into future programs.
Feedback in the form of program evaluation and
technology transfer is also crucial for legislators
and others involved in funding decisions so that
limited resources are used as effectively as
possible to address NFS pollution problems.
18
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.1.6 Program Evaluation
(continued)
• Lesson: A thorough program evaluation
by a technical support group with NFS
expertise should be planned, funded, and
scheduled at the beginning of the program.
The evaluation should include periodic on-
site evaluations of all projects with clear
provisions for feedback to each project
team. This feedback would ideally be used
by the project team to make mid-course
refinements in project direction, emphasis,
monitoring, and implementation. Such an
evaluation can also provide important in-
formation for policy makers and the public
about the successes of individual projects
and the program as a whole. This informa-
tion is essential to ensure that lessons
learned from experimental programs are
shared with others working in the nonpoint
source pollution control field, the public,
and federal and state government officials
responsible for making decisions about
water quality management policy and
funding.
Example: Technical assistance to and occasional
on-site evaluations of RCWP projects were pro-
vided through the ten-year RCWP period by the
National Water Quality Evaluation Project.
Technical assistance emphasized providing
feedback to project teams and facilitating shar-
ing of lessons learned by projects with all RCWP
project personnel, the NCC, professionals and
producers involved in other NPS pollution con-
trol efforts, federal and state program managers,
and legislators. Workshops were held through-
out the ten-year period in an attempt to bring
together project staff from the 21 RCWP pro-
jects for information sharing. A bi-monthly
newsletter, NWQEP NOTES, has been publish-
ed by NWQEP since 1983. The newsletter has
provided a vehicle for the exchange of informa-
tion about the RCWP and other nonpoint source
pollution control programs and efforts. Several
reports on the RCWP have also been published,
presenting general and specific information
about the RCWP as well as detailed descriptions
of each RCWP project (Smolen et al., 1989;
Spooner et al., 1991). This evaluation report is
an example of program evaluations that have
been performed by the NWQEP, with an em-
phasis on disseminating lessons learned to cur-
rent and future NPS control program managers
and personnel.
Lesson: Annual and end-of-project re-
porting by each project should be re-
quired. Reporting requirements and the
format for required data should be clearly
specified at the beginning of the program.
Example: Each RCWP project was required to
submit an annual report documenting the water
quality problem and progress toward achieving
the project's information and education, land
treatment, and water quality goals. Some guid-
ance was provided to the project teams relating
to the required narrative sections. Standard
RCWP forms were also required for document-
ing annual land treatment progress. However,
these standardized data were not adequate by
themselves to enable projects to link land treat-
ment and water quality improvements (for fur-
ther discussion of this issue, please refer to
sections 3.2.5, 3.2.6, and 3.2.7).
Example: Some projects lacked a clear under-
standing of the land treatment and land use data
required so that a seasonal or annual summary
could be prepared and that eventual linkage with
the water quality data would be possible. The
common problem encountered was the lack of
documentation of acres affected by both land
treatment implementation and land use changes
on a drainage subwatershed basis for BMPs for
a given year. The definition of acres affected
(served), delineation of drainage basins, effect
of overlapping BMPs serving the same acres,
and dates of implementation and effectiveness
needed to be more clearly defined for each
project.
Example: End-of-project reporting was per-
formed by each project submitting a ten-year
report that summarized project objectives and
goals, land treatment, information and educa-
tion, water quality monitoring, and other aspects
of the RCWP projects. These reports were valu-
able in providing summary documentation of
each project, summarizing project results, and
contributing significantly to effective and com-
prehensive program evaluation.
Example: A number of projects noted in their
ten-year and other reports that while appropriate
reporting is necessary to provide feedback to
project staff, funding agencies, and the public
and to motivate agency staff to meet project
goals, paper work requirements need to be
streamlined. Reporting requirements and for-
mats for the entire project period should be
clearly outlined at the beginning of the program.
19
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2 Keys To A
Successful
Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control
Project
2.2.1 Definition of Project
Objectives and Goals
Properly defined objectives and goals (see
also section 2.1.2 or glossary) are essential
because they provide the criteria upon which the
project will be evaluated.
Objectives define the overall direction or
purpose of the project. They should be narrow
enough so that the project is well-focused on
achieving water quality changes or meeting water
quality standards. An objective should contain a
measurable end point.
Goals provide milestones to be met during the
course of a project. Goals must be quantitative
and should provide a means of measuring
progress toward achieving an objective.
Project objectives and goals should be
critically reviewed to ensure consistency with
overall program objectives and goals. In order to
establish reasonable water quality objectives and
goals, it is necessary to have an accurate
assessment of the water quality problem(s) as well
as land resources. Other information that should
be considered when setting water quality
objectives and goals include appropriate
boundaries for the critical area and the lag time
between BMP installation and detectable results.
Lesson: The establishment of objectives
and goals should result from a process that
includes participation of both project agen-
cies and representatives from the commu-
nity. Guidance in this process should be
provided by the national technical support
group.
Example: Coordinated goal setting among fann-
ers, oyster fishermen, and cooperating agencies
was critical in the high rate of fanner participa-
tion in the Oregon RCWP project.
Example: Inter-agency cooperation was instru-
mental in establishing attainable goals in the
Idaho project.
Example: The lack of community involvement
in the selection and planning of the Massachu-
setts RCWP project resulted in poor producer
participation and lack of consensus about the
source of the water quality problem.
Lesson: Specific objectives and goals
should be set at the beginning of a project.
Example: Initially, in the Nebraska project,
some personnel wanted to build large water
retention structures, while others wanted to em-
phasize on- site erosion control BMPs. The latter
was more in line with the objectives of the
RCWP and was established as the primary pro-
ject objective in the mid-1980s.
Lesson: Land treatment objectives and
goals need to be directly linked to water
quality goals.
Example: For most projects, water quality and
land treatment objectives and goals were not
directly linked and therefore were not monitored
such that the effects of BMPs on water quality
could be established. However, a few exceptions
existed. In Vermont, a paired watershed study
documented that winter manure spreading re-
sulted in significantly higher concentrations of
phosphorus and nitrogen in field runoff than
BMP manure management. In Minnesota, re-
sults from a vadose zone monitoring study dem-
onstrated the effects of different cropping
practices on soil nitrogen levels.
20
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.1 Definition of Project
Objectives and Goals
(continued)
Lesson; Project objectives and goals should
reflect the desired outcome.
Example: Water quality objectives should reflect
the designated use of the water resource. In
Idaho, one of the objectives of the RCWP project
was to improve the trout fishing in Rock Creek.
Thus, the goals for nutrient and sediment reduc-
tion had to be set at a level that would restore
the creek to a habitable trout stream.
Example: Because RCWP projects did not re-
ceive good early guidance on establishing objec-
tives, objectives were often combined with goals
or overall objectives were set but clear quanti-
tative, measurable goals were not established.
Lesson: Project goals need to be realistic,
specific, and measurable. Project moni-
toring programs should be designed to
evaluate progress toward the goal(s).
Example: Each project had a land treatment goal
of treating 75% of the critical area. This policy
contributed to the success of many projects.
Example: The Utah project set a goal of reducing
phosphorus input to a downstream lake by 1000
kg/yr, a realistic, attainable, and measurable
goal.
Example: In Oregon, the fecal coliform reduc-
tion goal was 70%, an unrealistic goal for the
level of BMP implementation originally
planned. As a consequence, the target level of
participating dairy farms was increased by over
30% to better meet the water quality goal.
Example: The Florida, Idaho, and Iowa projects
had quantitative water quality goals that were
realistic given their planned level of land treat-
ment. The Florida project (Taylor Creek - Nub-
bin Slough) set and achieved a goal of a 50%
reduction in phosphorus concentrations in water
flowing into Lake Okeechobee as measured at
the watershed outlet. Idaho and Iowa set and met
quantitative goals for sediment reduction.
Example: Original land treatment goals in Lou-
isiana of treating 124,840 acres (75% of the
critical area) were unrealistic due to inadequate
resources; a significant downsizing of the pro-
ject and critical areas resulted.
Lesson: Models can be used in setting
quantifiable project goals and in targeting
land treatment if the models have been
calibrated and validated.
Example: Few pollutant runoff and water quality
models were available for use in 1980 when the
RCWP projects started. As the models became
available, they were used. For example, in
Minnesota, AGNPS was used to redefine critical
area. The increased availability and accuracy of
models now makes them a more valuable tool in
quantifying water quality goals.
Example: A modification of the Vollenweider
Model was used in the Florida project to estimate
that a 40% reduction in phosphorus loadings to
Lake Okeechobee from the entire lake basin
would be needed to protect the lake's long-term
water quality. From a management perspective,
phosphorus loadings for the Taylor Creek -
Nubbin Slough basin would need to be reduced
by 75 to 95% to achieve this objective. Based
on this watershed loading reduction goal, the
project refined their land treatment objectives
and goals by estimating the amount and location
of land treatment that would be required to
achieve this level of phosphorus reduction.
Lesson: Goals can be modified during the
project as more information or improved
technology becomes available.
Example: In Idaho, land treatment goals were
modified in the mid-1980s to encourage the use
of conservation tillage to prevent soil erosion.
Example: Due to ground water information and
AGNPS modeling, the critical area was rede-
fined in the Minnesota project to include ground
water sources and to reduce the si/e of the
surface water critical area. As a result, the goals
and objectives for water quality and water qual-
ity monitoring had to be modified to include
objectives and goals for ground water.
Example: In South Dakota, the goals were modi-
fied after results from intense monitoring indi-
cated that animal operations were an important
pollutant source.
Example: The Pennsylvania project staff rede-
fined project goals to reflect results on subwater-
shed and field levels after they realized that the
large number of farms in the project area (ap-
proximately 1,250) and low producer participa-
tion would make it impossible to detect water
quality improvements at the regional level.
21
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.2 Project Planning,
Administration, and
Management
Planning, administration, and management
are important elements of a NFS pollution control
project. It is important that project staff perform
their responsibilities within a supportive and open
structure that encourages their work and allows
room for creative solutions. Inter-agency
cooperation at the national, state, and local levels
was key to the success of the RCWP.
The RCWP experience has shown that
strong, enthusiastic state and local committees
played important roles in the more successful
projects. The participation of the farming
community and general public in the Local
Coordinating Committee was critical. Although
direction, goals, and management were handled
at the local level, a number of projects, especially
the more successful ones, had active support
from the State Coordinating Committee.
Central to any voluntary nonpoint source
control programs are incentives for participation.
The primary incentive for a producer to
participate in the RCWP was that the program
offers to pay for a portion of the cost to install or
implement the BMPs. In general, the RCWP
allowed up to 75% cost share for approved BMPs
and a maximum total payment of $50,000 to each
participant. Local funds were available in some
projects to increase cost-share levels.
2.2.2.1 State Coordinating Committee
• Lesson: A State Coordinating Committee
(SCC) should be established in each state
in which a project is to be implemented.
The SCC should be comprised of repre-
sentatives of those federal, state, and mu-
nicipal agencies involved in carrying out
the project.
Example: In RCWP projects, the SCC was
usually comprised of representatives from
ASCS, SCS, ES, and the agency responsible for
water quality monitoring.
Lesson: Successful projects must have
strong support at the state level to provide
a link to the national level and to exercise
the authority to carry out the project. An
active, interested, and responsive SCC can
prove invaluable to the local project.
Example'. In the Pennsylvania project, the SCC
solved many local problems, obtained funding,
and supported innovations designed to enhance
the success of the project.
Example: The SCC in the Double Pipe Creek
RCWP project (Maryland) successfully advo-
cated for supplemental RCWP funds to support
a nutrient management specialist. This approach
to providing technical assistance was so success-
ful that the state Department of Agriculture
continued the position when the RCWP funds
ran out.
Example: The Oregon SCC worked closely with
the LCC to assess the animal waste management
systems needed to reduce fecal coliform (bacte-
rial) pollution. The SCC requested that the
NCC approve additional cost-share funding for
waste management BMPs and the request was
approved. The SCC provided essential admin-
istrative and technical support.
Lesson: It is imperative that the SCC
foster open communication and willing co-
operation among the agencies involved to
support the local staff responsible for car-
rying out the program. The state level
agencies must take the lead in cooperation
to maintain enthusiasm and initiative at the
local level.
Example: The Pennsylvania SCC helped solve
many local problems and supported innovations
to enhance the success of the project. Excellent
leadership from ASCS and strong inter-agency
cooperation were provided in this project.
Lesson: SCCs should meet regularly (sev-
eral times per year) throughout the life of
the project to ensure proper support.
Example: In all RCWP projects, the SCC met
annually to review and approve annual reports
prepared by the LCC and approve proposed
changes in the plan of work prior to forwarding
a copy to the NCC. Annual meetings may have
been adequate, but active SCCs met more fre-
quently and upon the request of the LCC.
22
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.2 Project Planning,
Administration, and
Management (continued)
2.2.2.2 Local Coordinating Committee
• Lesson: A Local Coordinating Committee
(LCC) should be established to assure co-
ordination at the project level. The LCC
should serve to assure adequate public
involvement, to enlist the assistance of
needed agencies, to oversee informational
and educational activities, to determine
priorities for water quality plans, and to
develop plans for technical tasks and pro-
ject reporting. Plans for technical tasks
include critical area selection, targeting
BMPs for specific pollutant sources, and
linking land treatment and water quality
data and analysis. The LCC should seek
guidance and receive support in accom-
plishing these tasks through national level
workshops and assistance from participat-
ing agencies. The LCC should consist of
producers, agency personnel, and commu-
nity leaders.
Example: The RCWP required that the LCC be
chaired by the County ASC Committee chair-
person and that the LCC should assist the County
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
(ASC) Committee in establishing the amount of
cost-share funding and in approving BMPs for
use in the project area. This scheme worked
very well for the RCWP.
Example: The local coordinating committees in
Florida, Vermont, Idaho, South Dakota, Penn-
sylvania, Oregon, Delaware, Utah, Maryland,
and Iowa were strong sources of support and
contributed greatly to the success of their pro-
jects.
Example: RCWP funding for national workshop
participation by LCC members was extremely
limited. This reality made it difficult for LCC
members, especially those involved in land
treatment, to attend national workshops.
Lesson: Local leadership for direction and
oversight of the administrative and man-
agement tasks should be provided by the
Local Coordinating Committee.
Example: The LCC was the key element in
several projects, taking advantage of the leader-
ship of community members and economic and
social ties. In Iowa and Maryland, community
leaders active on the LCC contributed greatly to
good project participation and BMP acceptance.
Example: In Oregon, the LCC capitalized on a
common commodity market and social ties of
producers. Here, all local producers sold milk
to a cooperative whose directors were active
members and supporters of the RCWP project.
The cooperative had the ability to discount milk
prices paid to producers who did not correct
pollution problems. Peer pressure was also ef-
fective in encouraging participation.
Lesson: The Local Coordinating Commit-
tee should establish close ties with the
County Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation (ASC) Committee. The
County ASC Committee is composed of
members elected by the farming commu-
nity, provides local leadership, and can
lend support and credibility to a NFS con-
trol project.
Example: The County ASC Committee was es-
pecially active in the Maryland project and the
LCC, one factor in enabling the Double Pipe
Creek project to achieve BMP implementation
in 87% of the project critical area.
2.2.2.3 Cost Share Administration
• Lesson: Primary administration of cost-
share activities at the state and local levels
should be a responsibility of ASCS. Pro-
ducers already deal with this agency for
other cost sharing programs and this
agency is the best suited to administrative
efforts and distributing government funds.
Example: ASCS has a long history of managing
federal price support and commodity programs.
Their handling of the RCWP cost-share funding
and administration of producer contracts was
done in an excellent manner.
23
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.2 Project Planning,
Administration, and
Management (continued)
• Lesson: To ease the burden placed on pro-
ducers of dealing with multiple agencies,
projects should incorporate a single appli-
cation form and inter-agency computer
linkages. All information from the appli-
cation form would be entered into a com-
puterized system linked to all involved
agencies, giving each agency rapid and
convenient access to essential information.
2.2.2.4 Project Manager
• Lesson: Projects should designate or hire a
project manager with a background in
water resources and project management
to coordinate the team effort. The level of
effort required should be determined by
local needs. Duties should include coordi-
nating all project activities, tracking and
reviewing progress, ensuring that efforts
are directed toward project goals, and co-
ordinating project report preparation.
Example: Designation of a project manager con-
tributed to greater participation and better coor-
dination in several projects.
Example: The South Dakota project used both a
part-time coordinator, who coordinated activi-
ties between the RCWP and CM&E teams, and
a full-time technical planner, who conducted
individual visits with farmers.
Example: A hah0- time manager was hired in
Minnesota. A respected area farmer, the man-
ager encouraged farmers to participate through
one-to-one visits, well testing, and newsletters.
Example: The Vermont project personnel func-
tioned effectively as a team without a formally-
designated project manager. Close geographic
proximity of all participating local and state level
organizations, as well as agreement of all par-
ticipants on project objectives and goals, facili-
tated this teamwork.
Example: Responding to survey, 42% and 27%
of RCWP staff stated that a half- or full-time,
project coordinator, respectively, should have
been hired to assist their project.
2.2.2.5 Project Advisory Committees
• Lesson: Project advisory committees
(PACs), specialized subcommittees for all
project functional areas, such as I&E, land
treatment, water quality monitoring and
evaluation, water quality modeling and
other technical areas, should be estab-
lished. Decision making is often improved
by the delegation of specific aspects of the
project to smaller, more focused groups.
Advisory committees can be formed, dis-
banded, or regrouped as needed. PACs
handling related tasks (such as water qual-
ity monitoring and land treatment) should
meet regularly to ensure coordination of
efforts.
Example: In Vermont, a subcommittee of the
LCC and the SCC composed of land treatment
and water quality monitoring teams met quar-
terly throughout the project. The quarterly
meetings kept the two teams in touch so that the
two efforts could be coordinated. Vermont's
strong water quality monitoring program re-
sulted mainly because the PAC was active.
Example: A technical advisory committee in the
Idaho project, composed of representatives from
SCS, ASCS, and the State Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality, provided valuable guidance
for local coordination, innovative activities,
water quality monitoring, and analysis of re-
sults.
Example: A key to the success of the Florida
project was the implementation of an adminis-
trative subcommittee made up of members from
the ASCS, SCS, ES, and the South Florida
Water Management District. The subcommit-
tee met regularly to coordinate project activities
and each member participated in all phases and
activities of the project.
Example: The majority of RCWP project staff
(over 75%) responding to the project personnel
questionnaire believed that the four standing
subcommittees (administration, I&E, land treat-
ment, water quality monitoring) were necessary.
Seven additional temporary advisory subcom-
mittees were identified by staff: technical, report
writing, cost sharing, point sources, water qual-
ity modeling, inter-agency, and fanner advisory
subcommittees.
24
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.2 Project Planning,
Administration, and
Management (continued)
2.2.2.6 Project Technical Support
• Lesson: Future projects should form a core
staff of personnel who are on detail to the
project from participating agencies. As-
signing personnel to the project for a speci-
fied time period of two to three years
during BMP implementation helps assure
that they give the project proper attention,
are accountable for progress, and feel a
sense of ownership in the project. Partici-
pating agencies must ensure that adequate
staff time is allocated for each aspect of the
project, including follow-up and report
preparation, both key components of effec-
tive technology transfer.
Example: In the Florida, Idaho, Nebraska, Ore-
gon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Vermont
projects, one or more full-time water quality
monitoring specialists were assigned to the pro-
jects throughout its duration. These projects
benefited greatly from these personnel dedicated
to the monitoring and evaluation of their water
resources. Agencies from which these special-
ists were detailed included universities, state
agencies, USGS, and the South Florida Water
Management District.
Example: A county extension agent was instru-
mental in encouraging producer participation in
the Alabama RCWP where over 100% of the
targeted critical area was treated with BMPs.
Example: USDA-ARS and the University of
Idaho provided valuable research and recom-
mendations regarding development and evalu-
ation of conventional and new BMPs,
particularly conservation tillage and no-tillage to
the Idaho project.
Example: A nutrient management specialist po-
sition (funded through the RCWP in the Mary-
land project) was so effective that the state
Department of Agriculture has provided funds
to continue the position.
Example: Although not on detail, a temporary
half-time administrator was hired by the local
ASCS office to handle ASCS duties in the Penn-
sylvania project. This arrangement provided
continuity for producers and relieved permanent
employees of added duties.
2.2.3 Information and Education
Information and education activities were
essential to encourage participation in the RCWP.
I&E was also an important component in
convincing producers to implement
management-intensive BMPs (such as fertilizer
and pesticide management). Finally, I&E served
to inform the public about project activities. The
focus of I&E efforts often changed over time from
initially developing general awareness of the
water quality problem and public support, to
informing producers about NPS controls (BMPs)
and why they should implement them, to assisting
farmers in the management and maintenance of
the implemented BMPs.
Lesson: The most effective I&E approach
to gaining producer participation is one-to-
one contact between project personnel and
farmers.
Example: In Alabama, where 100% of the tar-
geted critical area was treated with BMPs, the
local extension agent's personal visits to many
fanners were instrumental in gaining high pro-
ducer participation.
Example: Producers in the Louisiana and Ver-
mont projects stated that on-farm visits by pro-
ject personnel to answer specific questions and
concerns helped convince them to participate in
the project.
Example: The South Dakota and Iowa project
teams reported that one-to-one contacts with
producers and follow-up visits were important
in gaining producer participation.
Example: Project personnel in Pennsylvania
transported individual farmers to participating
farms so that the farmer could see implemented
BMPs and discuss their effectiveness with the
owner.
25
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.3 Information and Education
(continued)
• Lesson: Effective I&E efforts increase pro-
ducer participation.
Example: All RCWP projects had I&E activi-
ties. Generally I&E was the responsibility of
the ES; however, when ES was unable to take
the lead role, SCS often assumed I&E responsi-
bilities. Project personnel responding to a ques-
tionnaire administered by NWQEP ranked I&E
efforts somewhat to very effective in achieving
project goals 90% of the time. Most farmers
(96%) agreed that NFS water pollution could be
controlled by educating farmers about water
quality problems and the on-farm solutions to
these problems. However, only 66% of project
personnel believed that education alone would
lead to the necessary on-farm solutions.
Example: A wide variety of I&E activities were
conducted to promote projects such as Double
Pipe Creek in Maryland, St. Albans Bay in
Vermont, Rock Creek in Idaho, Long Pine
Creek in Nebraska, Tillamook Bay in Oregon,
and Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough in Florida.
The result was that the objectives and activities
of the project were effectively communicated,
thereby contributing to relatively high producer
participation.
Lesson: Although one-to-one contact ap-
pears to be a necessary condition for pro-
ject success, it is not sufficient if producers
do not support the objectives and goals of
the project.
Example: In the Tennessee/Kentucky project,
although each fanner received at least one, and
often three, visits from project personnel, pro-
ducer participation was only fair (less than 60%
of the critical acreage was contracted), primarily
because farmers were not convinced that they
were the major cause of the water quality prob-
lem.
Lesson: Because of their importance as a
means of encouraging producers to partici-
pate, I&E efforts should start in advance
of land treatment implementation and
should convey to farmers the importance
of obtaining baseline water quality data
prior to implementing BMPs.
Example: In Virginia, advance I&E was so
effective that more than 50 producers were
waiting to sign-up at the start of the project
Consequently, BMP implementation was com-
pleted early in the project.
Example: Iowa project personnel began inform-
ing the farming community about the project
even before funding was received. Public meet-
ings were held to discuss the RCWP before the
project application was submitted. This ad-
vanced I&E effort significantly enhanced pro-
ducer participation.
Example: Preliminary community meetings (and
general community concerns) led all operators
in the small Utah watershed to agree to partici-
pate even before the project was funded.
Example: The Massachusetts project would have
benefited from advanced information and edu-
cation programming to resolve conflicting views
on the source of the water quality problem and
the utility of the RCWP project approach.
Example: Producer involvement in the selection
and planning of the Appoquinimink River pro-
ject in Delaware contributed to the strong pro-
ducer interest and participation in project.
Lesson: Awareness about water quality
issues and the impacts of agriculture on
water quality does not necessarily translate
into ownership of water quality problems
on the part of farm operators. Effective
educational programs must be initiated to
encourage farm operators to accept re-
sponsibility for the effects of their farming
operations on water quality.
Example: Results of the farm operator survey
indicated a fairly high general awareness about
water quality issues among RCWP project area
producers. However, when farmers were asked
specifically if there was a water quality problem
in their area, 33% stated they did not believe
agriculture was a major problem in their area
and even fewer believed that their own farm
contributed to NPS pollution.
26
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.3 Information and Education
(continued)
• Lesson: In many projects, it is essential
that I&E efforts be conducted by trusted
local community members.
Example: A respected area farmer hired as the
Minnesota project coordinator enhanced pro-
ducer participation through one-to-one contacts
that reassured skeptical area farmers,
Example: In Pennsylvania, ES hired local nutri-
ent management specialists to perform soil tests
on farmers' fields and recommend fertilizer
application rates. Their community membership
gave these specialists credibility with fanners.
Example: The existing strong positive working
relationships and good credibility of ASCS,
SCS, and ES in the Maryland, Delaware, and
Iowa projects contributed to high producer par-
ticipation rates.
Example: After an initial period in which few
farmers signed contracts, the Wisconsin project
hired a retired SCS district conservationist who,
by using primarily one-to-one contact, was able
to significantly increase producer participation.
Lesson: Management-intensive best man-
agement practices (such as fertilizer and
pesticide management) or structural BMPs
that involve storage, management, and dis-
posal of manure require more intensive
and continuous I&E efforts than do prac-
tices constructed and maintained annually.
Example: Oregon project I&E personnel contin-
ued to advise farmers on nutrient management
techniques several years after introducing them.
Example: Alabama farmers who installed pit
lagoons had to be taught how to clean lagoons
and time manure applications to minimize pol-
lution and maximize crop nutrient supplies.
Example: I&E was identified by project person-
nel more important for the adoption and main-
tenance of management-intensive BMPs than for
structural-type BMPs.
Example: In Pennsylvania, structural BMPs
were not readily accepted by farmers; therefore,
project activities were redirected toward the
more acceptable fertilizer management BMP
and two ES agents were hired to help farmers
continue proper nutrient management.
Lesson: Many RCWP projects that had
effective I&E programs were led by Exten-
sion Service personnel. However, the
agency providing leadership for I&E ac-
tivities is not as important as are a well-de-
fined work plan, good inter-agency
cooperation and communication, technical
capability, and stable funding.
Example: In some projects, such as Alabama,
I&E was accomplished primarily by one agency.
In other projects (Tennessee/Kentucky), I&E
responsibilities were shared among several
agencies. In still other projects (Oregon), the
responsibility for I&E shifted from one agency
to another as conditions changed Yet, all three
of these projects had a workable I&E program.
Example: In the Florida RCWP project, close
cooperation among the four local agencies
(ASCS, SCS, ES, and South Florida Water
Management District) was essential to ensuring
the success of the I&E program.
Lesson: I&E efforts were most successful
in reaching those farm operators who were
most likely to cooperate and easiest to
influence.
Example: In general, farm operators who par-
ticipated in RCWP projects reported higher eco-
nomic indicators (farm income, property and
equipment values) than non-participants. RCWP
project participants also were more likely to
work their farms full-time, receiving most of
their income from farming, than non-partici-
pants.
Lesson: ASCS, SCS, and ES personnel are
all important sources of water quality in-
formation received by farmers.
Example: When water quality information
sources utilized by participants and non-partici-
pants were analyzed, particular sources were
used much more often by project participants
than by non-participants. The greatest discrep-
ancy between those who chose to participate and
those who did not was utilization of information
supplied by SCS. ASCS and ES were also used
more frequently by RCWP participants than
non-participants as sources of water quality in-
formation
27
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.3 Information and Education
(continued)
• Lesson: The I&E effort is not as effective
when agencies stop communicating on I&E
efforts, conflicting I&E messages are sent
from the agencies to the farmer, or funding
for I&E activities is insufficient.
Example: During the time that funding was
withdrawn from the local ES in Oregon, I&E
efforts were switched to the ES at Oregon State
University. This diluted I&E activities by the
ES during this period. Fortunately, other
groups involved in the I&E effort (such as the
SCS and the Tillamook County Creamery Asso-
ciation) were able to continue project I&E ac-
tivities until funding was restored.
Example: In Louisiana, agencies generally pro-
moted only the type of BMPs for which they had
implementation responsibility (management or
structural). The ES, which ordinarily would
have been responsible for promoting manage-
ment BMPs such as pesticide management, did
not play a role in the project Because SCS had
a larger field staff and was primarily responsible
for structural BMPs, the I&E effort favored
structural over management-intensive BMPs.
Example: Although the Idaho project had a
strong I&E effort led by SCS, many I&E com-
ponents could have been strengthened if a more
significant role for the ES had been incorporated
into the project work plan. The initial BMP
emphasis was toward structural BMPs, the pri-
mary expertise of SCS personnel. However, the
major strengths of ES personnel were in the
areas of irrigation water use and fertilizer and
pesticide management; these components should
have received more attention.
Example: Local Coordinating Committee mem-
bers stopped meeting in Virginia after land
treatment was completed (about mid-project).
As a consequence, I&E efforts were signifi-
cantly reduced and information about the project
was no longer disseminated.
Example: In Massachusetts, the ES and SCS
gave conflicting information to area producers
about the source of the water quality problem
and the value of the BMPs being used to address
animal waste runoff. As a consequence, pro-
ducer participation was extremely low.
Lesson: Non-governmental organizations
can carry out useful components of an I&E
program.
Example: The local creamery cooperative in
Oregon provided information about the RCWP
project through its newsletter and through the
personal contacts between its field repre-
sentative and area dairy producers.
Example: An agrichemical dealer in Alabama
conducted pesticide calibration training for area
farmers, supporting implementation of the pes-
ticide management BMP.
Example: Farm cooperatives in the Wisconsin
and Illinois project areas began to promote soil
testing in support of the RCWP projects. These
tests were provided free of charge. The soil
tests, along with information about the nutrient
value of manure, helped producers decrease
mineral fertilizer use as they began applying
manure as a fertilizer rather than just disposing
of it as a waste product.
Example: In Nebraska, an Integrated Pest Man-
agement (IPM) association was formed by fann-
ers to provide weekly pest scouting for all
members. The association published a newslet-
ter through the ES and broadcast a radio pro-
gram on insect activity. These efforts supported
the pesticide management component of the
project's I&E program.
Lesson: Specific services provided through
I&E programs can encourage producer
participation and enhance technology
transfer.
Example: The I&E program included soil testing
in Pennsylvania and Vermont, well water testing
in Minnesota, and pest scouting in Nebraska and
South Dakota. In addition, the Delaware and
Minnesota projects loaned minimum tillage
equipment to producers so that they could try
the equipment before purchasing it
Example: A particularly creative program was
established by the ES in the Pennsylvania RCWP
project. The ES office created an animal waste
trading exchange to enable fanners who wanted
animal manure to locate farmers who had excess
manure.
28
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.3 Information and Education
(continued)
• Lesson: Research plots and field demon-
strations in the project area are important
sources of information.
Example: Plot studies in Minnesota project con-
vinced producers to participate and gave them
confidence in the fertilizer management BMP.
Example: Field days, demonstration sites, and
farm tours effectively promoted land treatment
and presented Florida project accomplishments.
Example: Field demonstrations communicated
the effectiveness of BMPs, such as fertilizer,
pesticide, liming, and water management, to
producers in the Nebraska project. A 50-acre
demonstration farm run by the Nebraska CES
displays, tests, and demonstrates BMPs. Fertil-
izer management, implemented on the demon-
stration farm, was widely adopted as producers
realized they could save money by reducing
application rates without sacrificing yields.
Example: On-farm demonstrations of pesticide
and nutrient management BMPs convinced
many Louisiana producers to implement them.
Example: Initial animal waste storage structures
provided demonstrations of the animal waste
management BMP in the Vermont, Oregon, and
Florida projects. This "show and tell" approach
was useful in gaining producer participation.
Lesson: I&E programs should use all in-
formation delivery methods to promote a
project, even those that may not be the
most effective methods (letters, newslet-
ters, radio spots, videos) but which serve
as ongoing reminders of project activities.
Example: The Idaho, Nebraska, and Vermont
projects produced videos documenting project
activities and progress.
Example: Project personnel indicated that al-
though newsletters and other media were not as
effective as one-to-one contacts in obtaining
producer participation, these media were impor-
tant for disseminating informationaboutRCWP.
Example: Farm operators reported that their
primary sources of water quality information
were farm magazines, SCS, ASCS, ES, and
newspapers, in that order.
2.2.4 Producer Participation
Obtaining a high level of producer
participation is a major factor in voluntary NFS
control projects because pollutant sources are
distributed over relatively large areas; therefore,
many farms in the critical area must be treated
with BMPs to significantly reduce overall
pollutant loadings to water resources.
2.2.4.1 Incentives to Participation
• Lesson: The availability and attractive
level of cost-share assistance is the most
important factor in obtaining producer
participation in voluntary NFS control
programs.
Example: Idaho, Louisiana, South Dakota,
Maryland, and Nebraska project personnel re-
ported that the availability and attractive level of
cost-share assistance was the most important
incentive for producer participation.
Example: Project personnel suggested that the
three most important factors involved in a
farmer's decision to implement a new BMP to
help protect water quality were cost, effects on
profits, and ease of use of the practice.
Example: In the Alabama project, fanner par-
ticipation was initially close to zero because the
cost-share rate was only 60% of the total cost of
BMP implementation and average farmer net
income was very low. When the rate was in-
creased to 75%, overall participation increased
significantly. Participation was also enhanced by
the availability of technical assistance.
Example: The Tennessee/Kentucky project had
difficulty convincing absentee landlords and
area farmers to seed cropland to pasture because
they would experience a loss of income. When
the project started paying 100% of the cost for
seeding alfalfa, and an additional one-time
$70/acre payment for converting cropland to
pasture for 10 years, participation increased.
Example: In the Massachusetts project, incen-
tives for farmers to participate in the project did
not outweigh other factors tending to motivate
them not to participate, such as extremely high
construction costs (which diminished the value
of the $50,000 payments available to farmers)
and high land prices (which discouraged farmers
from making long-term financial investments in
their dairy operations).
29
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.4 Producer Participation
(continued)
• Lesson: The availability of cost-share assis-
tance for BMPs that are perceived to in-
crease land productivity or decrease
farmer inputs can be an added incentive
for producers to participate in a project
that requires them to implement other
BMPs that they perceive as less desirable.
Example: The Louisiana and Idaho projects
found that the availability of cost-share funds for
practices such as irrigation and drainage im-
provements was a very important incentive for
producer participation.
Example: In the Vermont project, the benefits
of reducing daily equipment wear and labor
needs associated with the animal waste manage-
ment system BMP were important incentives in
gaining project participation, but they were not
strong enough incentives to induce implementa-
tion of the BMP without cost share.
Example: The Minnesota project reported that
the savings from lower fertilizer application
rates associated with the fertilizer management
BMP, in addition to cost-share assistance, was
an important incentive for producer participa-
tion.
Example: Project personnel identified the avail-
ability and attractive rate of cost-share funds as
the primary incentive for farmer participation in
the RCWP. Farm operators identified this
source of assistance as second to their concern
for water quality as a reason for their decision
to participate in the program.
Lesson: Awareness of and concern about
the ways in which their agricultural prac-
tices affect water quality motivates some
farm operators to participate in voluntary
NFS pollution control programs.
Example: A survey of farmers disclosed that
their primary reason for participating in the
RCWP was concern about water quality. Avail-
ability of cost-share funds to assist them in
implementing BMPs was listed by farmers as
their second most important reason for partici-
pating in RCWP projects.
Lesson: Availability of technical assistance
perceived as valuable can motivate farmers
to participate in a NFS project.
Example: Free technical assistance, along with
additional cost share from state funds, increased
producer participation in the Florida project.
Example: In the Pennsylvania project, the excel-
lent technical assistance and educational efforts
convinced some producers to implement BMPs
without the incentive of cost-share assistance.
Lesson: Environmental regulation or the
threat of regulation can provide incentives
for participation.
Example: In Florida, state law required animal
operations to maintain a farm nutrient mass
balance, thereby compelling producers to imple-
ment BMPs. Regulation played a major role in
defining land treatment and water quality goals.
BMPs implemented through the RCWP project
are directed toward recycling nutrients produced
on farms to comply with the state's 1987 Dairy
Rule, which requires dairies to collect and dis-
pose of runoff from milking bams and high
animal intensity areas through spray irrigation.
Example: The Virginia and Oregon projects
reported that perceived threat of state regulation
was instrumental in obtaining participation.
Lesson: Pre-project publicity, peer pres-
sure, public relations, and organizational
incentives increase participation.
Example: In Maryland, Soil Conservation Dis-
trict Board of Supervisors leadership was impor-
tant to producer participation. One Board
member was the first dairy farmer to sign a
contract and implement a BMP.
Example: In the Oregon project, the support of
the local creamery was instrumental in obtaining
a high (96% of critical area farms) producer
participation rate. The creamery had the ability
to discount milk prices paid to producers who
did not correct pollution problems.
Example: Pre-project community meetings and
intense peer pressure contributed to 100% par-
ticipation of Utah project critical area producers.
30
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.4 Producer Participation
(continued)
• Lesson: Participation often increases when
producers recognize and understand the
water quality problem, the value of the
impaired water resource, and the source(s)
of the pollutants.
Example: In the Iowa project, sedimentation
problems and the presence of cornstalks in a
highly valued recreational lake surrounded by
project farmland helped clarify the water quality
problem and source of pollutants. The high
visibility of the water quality problem helped
fanners realize that they could significantly im-
prove the lake's water quality by participating
in the project.
Example: After a major revision in emphasis
from surface to ground water, producer partici-
pation in the Minnesota project increased be-
cause fanners understood the value of the
targeted water resource (ground water) and the
primary source of pollution (pesticides and ni-
trates).
Example: In the Nebraska project, lack of a
sense of ownership in the off-site water quality
problem hindered farmer participation.
Example: In the Tennessee/Kentucky project,
producers did not think they were the main cause
of the water quality problem, so they were less
willing to participate.
Example: In the Massachusetts project, where
both intensive dairy farming on small acreages
and booming residential development adjacent
to an estuary were occurring, the primary source
of pollutants was not clearly documented. As a
result, dairy farmers felt unfairly singled out as
the source of the problem. This contributed to
low participation in the project.
Example: In the Oregon and Vermont projects,
a long-standing commitment to keep the local
community and its natural resources clean was
a strong impetus for participation.
Example: The belief that water pollution was not
a problem was the major reason for not partici-
pating in RCWP projects cited by farm operators
interviewed. Conversely, twice as many RCWP
participants as non-participants stated that they
believed water quality was a problem.
Lesson: Producers' willingness to change
practices to improve the water quality of
the local environment is an important fac-
tor in determining the level of effort or
incentive required to convince them to par-
ticipate.
Example: Pennsylvania project personnel re-
ported that concern for the quality of the area's
streams brought many producers to participate
in the project even without the added incentive
of cost-share assistance.
Example: Delaware and Maryland project per-
sonnel reported that the willingness of producers
to change their farming practices to improve
water quality was an important factor contribut-
ing to the project's high level of producer par-
ticipation.
Example: In the Minnesota project, farmers'
desire to implement the fertilizer management
BMP to improve and protect area ground water
(the source of their drinking water) was an
important factor in gaining their participation.
Lesson: On-farm demonstrations of BMPs
can increase participation by allowing pro-
ducers to evaluate how well the BMP
works and how it affects farm productiv-
ity.
Example: In the Maryland project, the on-farm
demonstrations of BMPs by a few farmers
helped other producers to understand the prac-
tices and the benefits associated with them,
thereby increasing producer participation.
Example: Louisiana project personnel reported
that cost sharing small-scale demonstrations of
the pesticide management BMP on a local farm
was an effective method of convincing many
producers to implement the BMP and thus, to
participate in the project.
Example: Demonstration plots of conservation
tillage proved to be effective means of gaining
participation in the South Dakota and Idaho
projects.
Example: Results from the farm operator survey
indicated that almost twice as many RCWP
participants as non-participants gained water
quality information from tours and demonstra-
tions.
31
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.4 Producer Participation
(continued)
• Lesson: Producer involvement from the
beginning of the project helps foster a
feeling of ownership which often increases
participation.
Example: Iowa and Delaware project personnel
reported that both pre-project meetings to dis-
cuss the water quality problem and producer
involvement in planning helped develop strong
support for and participation in the project by
area farmers.
Lesson: State or local, in addition to fed-
eral, cost-share assistance can help in-
crease participation.
Example: In Florida, the availability of state
cost-share assistance that supplemented RCWP
cost-share funds was important to producer par-
ticipation because the cost-share portion of the
total cost of the recommended BMPs often ex-
ceeded the $50,000 limit.
Example: In the Tennessee/Kentucky project,
the additional 25% cost share to plant alfalfa
fields as well as the one-time 70-dollar payment
per acre for conversion of cropland to permanent
pasture was needed to convince many producers
to participate.
Lesson: The successful implementation of
BMPs on participating farms can serve to
influence other producers to implement
BMPs even without cost share.
Example: The Louisiana and Pennsylvania pro-
jects reported that area producers who did not
receive RCWP cost-share assistance began im-
plementing BMPs, especially fertilizer and pes-
ticide management BMPs, after seeing them in
use on participating farms.
Example: The example set by farmers in the
Appoquinimink River RCWP project area of
New Castle County, Delaware has convinced
most farmers in other parts of the county to
voluntarily adopt no-till as their primary tillage
practice.
2.2.4.2 Barriers to Participation
• Lesson: Poor economic status of producers
and the high cost of recommended BMPs
(primarily animal waste structures) can
decrease participation in voluntary NPS
control programs. Consequently, where
appropriate, the lowest cost BMPs should
be recommended.
Example: In a survey of project personnel from
all projects, economic considerations was cited
as by far the most important reason farmers
decided against participation while dislike for
any government program and not wanting to be
told how to farm were selected as the second and
third most important reasons why fanners de-
cided not to participate.
Example: In the Michigan project, the high cost
of the animal waste management system BMP
deterred many producers from participating.
Example: In the Louisiana, Wisconsin, South
Dakota, and Minnesota projects, the strapped
economic condition of producers and the poor
farm economy, in general, prevented some pro-
ducers from participating.
Example: Results from the telephone survey of
farm operators conducted by Hoban and Wim-
berley (see Chapter 3) indicate that the lower the
economic indicator, the less likely the fanner
was to participate in the RCWP. Fanners who
indicated the following economic condition(s)
on their farms were less likely to participate in
the RCWP: 1) owned less than 199 acres, 2)
worked off their farm more than 200 days, 3)
had no rental land, 4) received less than 25% of
their income from their farm, 5) had gross farm
sales of less than $39,999, 6) owned less than
$40,000 worth of farm equipment, and 7) owned
less than $99,999 in farm land and buildings.
Farmers who chose to participate in RCWP
projects generally owned more land, worked on
the farm full-time, derived most of their income
from their farm, and had a higher level of
investment in their farm and their equipment.
32
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.4 Producer Participation
(continued)
• Lesson: Dislike of government programs,
as well as not wanting to be told how to
farm, sometimes deters farmers from par-
ticipating in projects.
Example: The conservative nature and general
unwillingness of Pennsylvania project area
fanners to participate in federal programs de-
creased cost-share program participation. How-
ever, many fanners participated informally by
implementing BMPs without cost share.
Example: Tennessee/Kentucky project person-
nel reported that dislike of federal programs and
not wanting to be told how to farm were primary
factors in the relatively low participation rate.
Example: The third major reason stated by farm
operators who chose not to participate in the
RCWP was dislike of government programs.
Lesson: Inconvenience involved in filling
out forms and following complicated pro-
cedures can deter project participation.
Example: Several Vermont producers indicated
that filling out separate forms for ASCS and SCS
was redundant and time-consuming and that
streamlining this process might increase partici-
pation.
2.2.5 Land Treatment
Implementation and
Tracking
Land treatment, through implementation of
BMPs to reduce NFS pollution and improve water
quality, was the basis for the RCWP. Land
treatment tracking (recording where, when, and
how fully BMPs were implemented and
maintained) was necessary to assess treatment
strength in time and space. In addition, land use
tracking or monitoring (such as, recording the
mass, location, and timing of manure
applications) was needed in order to correlate
water quality changes to land treatment.
2.2.5.1 Land Treatment
Implementation
• Lesson: Land treatment should be targeted
to critical areas contributing the greatest
pollutant load to the receiving water re-
source. This approach is more effective
than implementing BMPs in a widespread,
random manner. Targeting land treatment
begins with assessing BMP effectiveness
and emphasizing implementation of BMPs
that effectively address the primary pollut-
ants.
Example: In Vermont, Oregon, Florida, Wis-
consin, and Maryland, pollutant movement to
receiving waters was reduced by targeting ma-
nure storage facilities to critical areas. Storage
of dairy manure reduced pollutant movement
during wet weather. Timing of manure spread-
ing was scheduled to maximize its use as a
fertilizer to meet crop needs.
Example: The fertilizer management BMP was
emphasized in Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ver-
mont critical areas to address problems caused
by excessive application of fertilizer, rather than
lack of storage facilities.
Example: The Utah project demonstrated that
animal waste management BMPs are effective
at reducing instream bacteria and phosphorus in
watersheds containing many animal operations.
Example: The effectiveness in reducing pollut-
ant movement of practices such as mini-basins,
sediment basins, and vegetative filter strips was
evaluated in Idaho, helping project personnel
select BMPs that would be the most effective for
critical area land treatment.
Example: Nutrient management BMPs in the
Pennsylvania project reduced both ground and
surface water nitrogen pollution through reduc-
tions of 49% and 42% in excess nitrogen and
phosphorus applications, respectively.
Example: A linear program model was devel-
oped for economic analysis of Idaho project
BMPs; irrigation water management and conser-
vation tillage were judged most cost-effective.
Example: In South Dakota, AGNPS was used to
estimate annual sediment and nutrient losses and
predict BMP effects on excess nutrient loading
to surface water.
33
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.5 Land Treatment
Implementation and
Tracking (continued)
• Lesson: Land treatment implemented to
achieve water quality goals must be tar-
geted to critical pollutant source areas
where BMPs will have the greatest water
quality effect. Pre-implementation water
quality monitoring and modeling can be
used to identify or refine these critical
areas. If the objective is to detect a water
quality trend, BMP implementation must
be delayed until adequate baseline water
quality data are available.
Example: Surface and ground water monitoring
in the Nebraska project were used to document
major pollutant sources in order to prioritize
portions of the watershed's critical area.
Example: Pollutants from manure application
were the main problem in Vermont; therefore,
the critical area was based on amount and man-
agement of manure and distance from streams.
Example: Suspended sediment from natric soils
was the major source of impairment in the
Illinois project. AGNPS modeling results and
monitoring data were used to redefine the critical
area. The AGNPS model was also used by the
Minnesota project to identify and target critical
nutrient and sediment source areas.
Example: Depth to ground water and sediment
delivery to lakes were used to prioritize subareas
within the South Dakota project critical area.
Example: The Oregon project used a rating
system based on pollution potential to prioritize
applications from producers in the critical area.
Example: In the Florida project, pre-project
monitoring and modeling (CREAMS) was key
to identifying critical phosphorus sources.
Example: The BASIN model was used in Florida
to estimate the long-term average annual re-
sponse to a hypothetical "maximum" BMP sce-
nario. The model predicted annual phosphorus
load reductions of about 50%.
Example: In Alabama, the CREAMS model was
used to estimate edge-of-field sediment losses
for predicting sediment delivery reductions;
however, the model did not account for a com-
pacted soil layer 6-10 inches below the soil
surface, which project personnel felt would
cause significantly higher runoff values.
Lesson: Within critical areas, significant
pollutant sources (such as animal opera-
tions, fields) should be prioritized for BMP
implementation based on the expected im-
pact of the source on the impaired water
resource(s). This process can maximize
water quality benefits of BMPs and expe-
dite achievement of pollutant reduction
goals.
Example: Vermont SCS personnel used com-
puter models to estimate that, by treating sources
of phosphorus in order of their predicted con-
tribution to watershed streams, the same level of
load reduction could have been achieved five
years sooner and, by treating 16 fewer farms.
Lesson: Fertilizer (nutrient) and pesticide
management and conservation tillage
BMPs are the most cost-effective in terms
of requiring the least cost share for the
greatest potential water quality benefit.
Example: Management type BMPs, such as
dairy wastewater utilization, nutrient manage-
ment, and feedlot runoff control, had the greatest
water quality impact in the Florida project.
Example: Iowa farmers who implemented nutri-
ent management BMPs decreased their average
phosphorus application rates between 1982 and
1984 from 44 to 20 and from 55 to 6 pounds per
acre for corn and soybeans, respectively.
Example: In Minnesota, demonstrations of the
effectiveness of nutrient management and the
nutrient value of manure were instrumental in
convincing both the LCC and fanners that the
nutrient management BMP would reduce NFS
pollution and was economically attractive.
Example: Fertilizer use by Nebraska producers
was greatly reduced by the adoption of nutrient
management, thereby addressing ground and
surface water pollution simultaneously.
Example: In the Pennsylvania project, conserva-
tion tillage, fertilizer management, and contour
stripcropping were the lowest cost and probably
most effective BMPs for reducing agricultural
NPS pollution. A 55-acre field study docu-
mented 8 - 32% decreases in shallow ground
water nitrate concentrations after implementa-
tion of fertilizer (manure) management.
Example: After 1985, the emphasis in the Idaho
project was shifted to conservation tillage, re-
sulting in effective erosion control on crop fields
and associated long-term sediment reduction.
34
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.5 Land Treatment
Implementation and
Tracking (continued)
• Lesson: Greater emphasis should be placed
on the management and maintenance com-
ponents of BMPs, especially if the BMP is
basically structural.
Example: Vermont project personnel reported
that water quality does not significantly improve
after the construction of a waste storage struc-
ture, if manure application rates on individual
fields continue to exceed crop needs or signifi-
cant manure application occurs during winter
months.
Example: The Idaho project team reported that
significant reductions in sediment loads due to
sediment retention devices will be lost if the
devices are not properly maintained.
Example: In the Alabama project, the extra
effort expended to train and follow-up on pro-
ducers implementing lagoons was critical in
getting producers to pump their lagoons regu-
larly and utilize the waste properly, thereby
increasing the long- term effectiveness of the
lagoon systems.
Example: Florida project personnel found that
explicit guidance for animal waste management
practices needed to be written into contracts to
ensure the practices were operated and main-
tained according to specifications.
Example: The Michigan project team reported
that the absence of an established method for
ensuring producer adherence to manure spread-
ing plans or other BMPs decreased the effective-
ness of some of the implemented BMPs.
Lesson: The flexibility to try BMP innova-
tions or modifications to make them more
adaptable to specific situations, while
maintaining or improving their effective-
ness, is important to the success of some
projects.
Example: The Wisconsin project team devel-
oped an effective method for settling animal
waste solids. Drilled holes in a filter wall at the
downslope end of improved barnyards allowed
liquid waste to flow through into a grass filter
strip, while solids were trapped behind the wall.
Example: The Delaware project used rock pads
during construction of waterways to reduce
gully movement up the waterway.
Example: The Florida project found that provid-
ing shade and watering facilities along with
fencing to keep animals out of waterways was
effective in reducing the phosphorus loadings
from the project area.
Example: The Maryland project team reported
that the flexibility to try innovative designs and
modify unworkable designs of waste storage
facilities helped SCS and ES personnel learn
which designs were most effective for local
conditions.
Example: In Oregon where rainfall rates are very
high, animal waste system BMPs were designed
to keep rain and ground water out of the manure
both in temporary and longer-term storage. Be-
cause of high water tables, lagoons were imprac-
tical. Therefore, wet manure storage designs
included circular tanks that would not sink or
overturn. Dry storage areas were typically
roofed pads connected to the milkhouse to facili-
tate manure scraping and storage while prevent-
ing rain water from mixing with the manure. The
waste management system for each dairy was
based on operator convenience and capability
for reducing pollutant transport.
35
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.5 Land Treatment
Implementation and
Tracking (continued)
• Lesson: Regular visits to farmers by mem-
bers of participating local agencies help
avoid misunderstandings concerning pro-
ducer responsibilities, provide an opportu-
nity to discuss problems with BMPs, and
encourage continued BMP maintenance.
Example: The Vermont project team reported
mat regular contact between producers and pro-
ject personnel helped avoid misunderstandings
and contract disputes such that no contract vio-
lations were experienced during the project.
Example: Constant contact between project per-
sonnel and producers helped insure that farmers
in the Alabama project maintained their lagoons.
Lesson: Systems of two or more BMPs are
often required to effectively control non-
point source pollution from critical areas.
Example: The animal waste management system
BMP was combined with the fertilizer manage-
ment BMP on farms in Vermont to optimize use
of nutrients from dairy manure by plants and
minimize the possibility of stream pollution
Example: A system of both structural and man-
agement BMPs to reduce phosphorus movement
to receiving waters was used in Florida. BMPs
were designed to exclude cows from streams,
reduce barnyard and milking parlor waste, re-
duce fertilizer applications, and improve overall
animal waste management.
Example: The Nebraska project addressed crop-
land erosion by implementing irrigation water
management BMPs and streambank erosion by
installing cedar revetments. This combination
of BMPs significantly reduced the sediment load
of Long Pine Creek.
Example: In Idaho, excessive streambank ero-
sion masked some significant reductions in sedi-
ment loading resulting from BMPs implemented
to reduce erosion associated with irrigation re-
turn flow. Treating both major sources of sedi-
ment was needed to abate the sediment problem.
Example: The Illinois project reduced erosion
and sediment transport with a system including
sediment basins and conservation tillage on
cropland.
Lesson: Cost sharing of BMPs that are
attractive to producers can be used as an
incentive to induce farmers to implement
other BMPs that they consider less desir-
able. Conversely, BMPs that are totally
unacceptable to area producers and not
essential to controlling major sources of
pollution should be avoided.
Example: Louisiana and Idaho project personnel
reported that cost sharing practices that are
perceived as having labor-saving or productivity
benefits, such as irrigation improvements, can
help induce producers to implement BMPs with
primarily off-site water quality benefits such as
filter strips and grassed waterways.
Example: In Minnesota, several of the selected
BMPs were either unacceptable (stream protec-
tion system) and discontinued or too expensive
(animal waste system) and modified. Due to the
high cost of large animal waste systems which
hold all barnyard runoff, BMP emphasis was
shifted to systems that utilized grass filter strips
and sediment basins.
.and
2.2.5.2 Land Treatment and
Use Tracking
Lesson: Intensive land treatment and land
use tracking is required to link land treat-
ment to water quality.
Example: The Vermont project determined that
detailed land use data such as timing, application
rate, and area of manure spreading was required
in addition to where and when BMPs were
implemented to track land treatment and land
use.
Lesson: A computerized data base, such as
a geographic information system (GIS),
facilitates BMP implementation tracking,
data presentation and accessibility, and
aggregation of land treatment and land use
data.
Example'. The Vermont project found that a
combination of a computerized database and GIS
maps were invaluable for tracking BMP imple-
mentation.
36
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.5 Land Treatment
Implementation and
Tracking (continued)
• Lesson: Frequent staff turnover hinders
land treatment tracking and, to some ex-
tent, BMP implementation.
Example: The Louisiana project found that fre-
quent (about 1 per year) turnover of the soil
scientist hired to assist the project hindered land
treatment tracking because the new hire required
time to become familiar with the area and the
project.
Example: The Minnesota project found that fre-
quent SCS staff changes made the implementa-
tion of structural BMPs more difficult and
time-consuming because producers would have
to spend time familiarizing the new SCS staff
member with their farm plans.
Lesson: Tracking the land use activities of
non-cooperators within the critical area
can provide valuable data to explain water
quality trends.
Example: The Vermont project found that track-
ing some of the activities of non-cooperators in
the project critical area helped explain variabil-
ity in the water quality monitoring data.
Lesson: Use of aerial photographs can as-
sist the tracking of land use and BMP
implementation.
Example: Project personnel from the Vermont
project stated that aerial photography might be
an effective and efficient method of tracking the
implementation of some types of BMPs and
monitoring various land uses.
2.2.5.3 Extent of Land Treatment
Required to Effect
Significant Water Quality
Change
• Lesson: A high level of critical area BMP
implementation is needed to improve
water quality.
Example: Significant water quality improvement
in streams and ditches of the Utah project wa-
tershed was due to the participation of all dairy
fanners and thus, treatment of the major sources
of phosphorus and bacteria
Example: In the Louisiana and Minnesota pro-
jects, where less than half of the critical areas
were treated with BMPs, no significant change
in the water quality of surface waters was docu-
mented.
Lesson: To achieve substantial reductions
in nutrient loading from animal waste op-
erations, a high percentage of manure
must be treated. Where nutrients or bac-
teria from animal waste cause the impair-
ment, the goal for BMP implementation
should be to treat 100% or nearly all of the
critical area manure.
Example: Treatment of 50% of the critical area
in the Michigan project did not result in an
improvement in project area nutrient concentra-
tions. Project personnel attribute the lack of
water quality improvement to a low level of
BMP implementation and a low level of land
treatment tracking.
Example: In the Wisconsin project, which
treated 39% of the critical area dairies, no
improvement in stream macroinvertebrate popu-
lations could be documented.
Example: The Utah project reduced total phos-
phorus concentrations in runoff by 75% and total
nitrogen concentrations by 40 - 90% by treating
100% of the critical area dairies.
Example: The Florida (Taylor Creek - Nubbin
Slough) project reduced phosphorus concentra-
tions by 45% since 1980, by having nearly 100%
participation of critical area farmers.
37
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring,
Evaluation, and Reporting
Water quality monitoring, evaluation, and
reporting are needed to refine and transfer NFS
pollution control technology to future efforts.
Monitoring documents water quality changes due
to land treatment practices, whereas evaluation
and reporting conveys the results. The following
lessons provide an overview of the essential
elements of a successful monitoring program.
2.2.6.1 Administration
• Lesson: NFS control projects whose prim-
ary objective is to document water quality
changes resulting from BMP implementa-
tion should be funded only when there
exists a firm long-term (six to 15 years)
commitment to water quality monitoring
and evaluation from a responsible agency.
Effective and responsible administration is
essential to maintain and support such
long-term activities.
Example: The commitments to water quality
monitoring from the South Florida Water Man-
agement District in Florida; Division of Envi-
ronmental Quality in Idaho; Department of
Environmental Quality in Oregon; USGS in
Pennsylvania; Utah Mountain Land Association
of Government in Utah; the University of Ver-
mont in Vermont; Department of Environmental
Control in Nebraska; the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency in Minnesota; and the Depart-
ment of Environment and Natural Resources in
South Dakota contributed greatly to the success
in water quality monitoring in these projects.
Example: The Louisiana RCWP project was
unable to determine if the implemented BMPs
improved the water quality of the bayou because
of the seeming lack of funding commitment from
the water quality monitoring agency.
Example: Water quality monitoring funding for
the Virginia project ceased at the end of the
10-year project period. As a consequence,
scheduled post-project water quality monitoring
was canceled due to lack of funds and the
effectiveness of the BMPs will remain unana-
lyzed.
Lesson: The agency responsible for water
quality monitoring should be involved in
selection of the project and the preparation
of the proposal in order to ensure the
on-going commitment of the agency to the
project.
Example: The Oregon Department of Environ-
mental Quality was instrumental in project plan-
ning for the Oregon RCWP project. They
provided a high level of commitment, including
water quality monitoring and data analysis.
Example: The USGS in Pennsylvania, using
money from a USEPA grant, was involved
initially in project planning and continued to be
the lead water quality agency for the duration of
the project.
Lesson: For water quality projects, moni-
toring activities should be coordinated with
water resource management activities.
Management activities such as biological
controls, dredging, or lake drawdown can
significantly alter lake chemistry and hy-
drology, making the detection of trends
due to BMPs difficult or impossible to
detect.
Example: In Virginia, ground water high in
phosphorus was pumped into project area reser-
voirs when the reservoirs were low, thus con-
founding detection of phosphorus trends.
Example: In the Iowa RCWP proj ect, lake draw-
down and rotenone treatment of carp impeded
the detection of lake water quality trends, further
complicating the linkage of water quality to land
treatment.
Example: Stocking of trout during the project
period in the Minnesota project confounded the
detection of trends in monitored fisheries vari-
ables that may have been attributable to RCWP.
38
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring,
Evaluation, and Reporting
(continued)
2.2.6.2 Water Quality Problem
Definition and Problem
Assessment
• Lesson: Carefully defining the water qual-
ity problem is one of the most important
steps for NFS pollution control and water
quality monitoring. An effective approach
is to implement a problem identification
and assessment monitoring program last-
ing six to 18 months. Problem identifica-
tion monitoring uses a site-specific plan to
identify pollution sources and impacts dur-
ing both base flow and storm conditions;
monitoring may be most effective during
the seasons of greatest pollutant loading
(spring runoff, snow melt) and during the
season when impairments are noted (grow-
ing season algal blooms). Clearly identify-
ing the specific pollutant and assessing the
problem assists land treatment staff in
identifying critical areas and targeting
BMPs.
Example: The Florida, Idaho, Nebraska, Ore-
gon, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Vermont projects
had ample visual and analytical evidence of
receiving water problems.
Example: In Iowa, heavy sediment and a blanket
of com stalks covering a recreational lake sur-
rounded by farmland helped make the problem
and its source especially clear.
Example: In Massachusetts, where both inten-
sive dairy farming on small acreages and boom-
ing residential development were taking place
adjacent to an estuary containing important
shellfish resources, the source of the problem
needed to be more clearly documented to gen-
erate community support for project activities.
Example: South Dakota's project required sev-
eral intensive monitoring programs to gain a
thorough understanding of the water quality
problem and its causes in complex interactions
between the surface and ground water sources
feeding the target lakes.
Example: In Idaho, streambed quality was re-
duced by siltation caused by high suspended
sediment concentrations, which then contributed
to loss of trout reproductive capability. At the
onset of the project, agricultural sources were
identified as the primary cause of reduced
streambed quality. Further analysis showed
streambank erosion was also a major contributor
of sediment load. Influx of sediment from
streambank erosion made documentation of the
effectiveness of cropland BMPs difficult. Based
on project estimates, sediment contributions
from two major sources, streambank erosion
and irrigation return flow, were similar in mag-
nitude when the project began. In contrast, from
1987 to 1990, monitoring indicated that stream-
bank erosion contributed 2 - 5 times the amount
of sediment added from cropland in the subbas-
ins during the irrigation season. The problem of
streambank erosion will continue to mask in-
stream benefits from the land treatment.
Example: In the Illinois RCWP project, turbid-
ity, siltation, and nutrients were thought to
threaten Silver Lake, the water supply for the
city of Highland. Sediment survey results
showed that sedimentation rates were low which
meant there was little threat of rapid loss of lake
storage capacity. An analysis of lake turbidity
indicated that algal production was limited more
by light than by nutrients. It was found that
turbidity, which increased the cost of water
treatment, was due mostly to suspended soil
particles. Monitoring demonstrated that loading
of fine particle natric soils and their resuspension
from lake sediments was the primary factor
causing lake turbidity. In order to target pollut-
ant sources, the project placed special emphasis
on keeping cropland natric soils in place or
reducing their delivery into the lake.
Example: To accurately interpret ground water
monitoring results, a thorough understanding of
project area geology was essential for the Min-
nesota RCWP project Project personnel found
that performing a geologic investigation was
critical even though it was time-consuming,
expensive, and occurred after the start of the
project The critical area and BMP emphasis
were changed to address the identified ground
water problem. Monitoring plans were en-
hanced to consider ground water and pesticides.
Example: The Florida project benefited greatly
from several years of water quality assessment
monitoring performed in the late 1970's by ARS
and the South Florida Water Management Dis-
trict. These data helped document the water
quality problem and sources.
39
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring,
Evaluation, and Reporting
(continued)
• Lesson: Source of bacteria causing con-
tamination in shellfish or recreational wa-
ters are generally not difficult to locate.
Die-off for bacteria is relatively rapid and
sources can generally be located by moni-
toring below suspected animal waste
sources.
Example: The Utah and the Oregon projects
monitored above and below dairies to determine
the magnitude of the bacterial contamination.
Example: Subwatersheds with dairy operations
in the Vermont project were monitored to deter-
mine the relative magnitude of bacterial pollut-
ant sources. Bacteria counts decreased
significantly after dairy sources were treated.
Example: The Alabama project, with few ani-
mal operations, documented dramatic decreases
in fecal coliform levels in the lake as operators
closed or improved animal waste management.
Lesson: Nutrient sources of pollution can
be the most widespread and difficult to
identify and quantify. Sources include
commercial fertilizer, animal waste, soil
reserves, and atmospheric deposition.
Streambeds, lake sediments, and ground
water can also release stored nutrients.
Example: In Vermont, significant phosphorus
(P) loading to St. Albans Bay was believed to
originate from bay sediment, an adjoining wet-
land, and agricultural runoff. Area soils also
contributed to the total watershed P load. A
budget of all major sources was needed to deter-
mine potential for reducing lake or bay P levels.
Example: Sources of high nitrate levels in do-
mestic wells in Minnesota included animal op-
erations and cropland. The topography is karst
limestone with extensive sinkhole formations.
Sinkholes were thought to be a primary convey-
ance to ground water until lysimeter studies
showed rapid leaching of nitrate from fertilized
cropland. Further study indicated that cropland
should be targeted for treatment.
Example: Monitoring in South Dakota showed
that animal operations contributed significantly
to nutrients in surface water and fertilizers ap-
plied to cropland affected ground water.
Lesson: Sources of sediment are often more
widespread and difficult to isolate than
bacteria sources. Sediment can originate
from cropland, ditches, gullies, roads, for-
ests, and streambanks and can re-enter the
water column via scouring in streams and
recirculation in lakes. Sediment surveys
and budgets are needed to identify sources,
determine delivery, and quantify relative
contributions of each source.
Example: A survey of sediment sources and
monitoring of streambanks in the Vermont pro-
ject indicated that one subwatershed contributed
the most sediment to the St. Albans Bay and
sediment delivery was not as much of a problem
as previously thought
Example: The Tennessee/Kentucky project had
high erosion rates in areas with steeply sloping
cropland and targeted these areas for critical area
treatment Huge gullies were also identified as
significant, but sediment delivery from these
sources was not estimated. Overall, the effec-
tiveness of the critical area designation is ques-
tionable since the relative magnitude of gully and
cropland sediment sources is not known.
The Illinois project found that both the water-
shed and lake sediments were sources of the
turbidity problem in Highland Silver Lake.
Streambank erosion was a significant source of
sediment in the Idaho and Nebraska projects.
Identification and treatment of streambank ero-
sion in the Nebraska project was key to docu-
menting and treating the problem. The Idaho
project would have benefited from increased
emphasis on streambank erosion control.
2.2.6.3 Monitoring Objectives
• Lesson: Objectives should be clear and
should provide a general guide for the
experimental design of the water quality
and land treatment monitoring program.
The primary objectives of NFS watershed
projects should be evaluation of use sup-
port status, trend detection, or impact as-
sessment.
40
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring,
Evaluation, and Reporting
(continued)
Lesson: Monitoring objectives for trend
detection or impact assessment should
identify the water quality variable and the
reason the variable is expected to change
with time.
Example: The water quality monitoring objec-
tive in Florida precisely stated the water quality
variable (total phosphorus) being monitored and
the changes that should occur in that variable
(50% reduction in phosphorus concentration at
the project outlet). That variable was to evaluate
the effectiveness of agricultural BMPs for reduc-
ing phosphorus loads to Lake Okeechobee, as
measured by changes in water quality concen-
trations and loads in the tributaries and basin
outlet.
Example: The Idaho RCWP project had realis-
tic, quantitative goals for reducing sediment.
However, water quality goals also should have
been developed to achieve the designated uses
established by the state for Rock Creek. The
lack of goals directly related to use-support
hindered the initial establishment of a water
quality monitoring design that could directly
document progress towards use-support goals.
However, the project did establish an extensive
biological and habitat monitoring program that
documented changes in beneficial use support in
Rock Creek.
Lesson: Trend detection and impact assess-
ment may be the most important objectives
for long-term watershed projects. Other
objectives, such as storm event sampling
for load calculations or hydrograph-pollut-
ant relationships, may be useful; however,
these objectives are auxiliary and should
be addressed in addition to, not instead of,
the predetermined and scheduled sampling
for the primary objective(s).
Example: In the Tennessee/Kentucky project,
the majority of the water quality objectives
addressed water quality problems and the
sources of the pollutants, not water quality trend
detection. As a consequence, the water quality
information which was gathered, although use-
ful for identifying pollutants' sources, was un-
able to demonstrate changes in water quality.
2.2.6.4 Water Quality Monitoring Plan
• Lesson: Projects should invest in the plan-
ning and design of the water quality moni-
toring program. The monitoring plan
should be developed based on the monitor-
ing objectives. The monitoring plan should
include the monitoring design, agency
roles, laboratory procedures, quality as-
surance and quality control, data storage,
reporting requirements, personnel
needed, and costs.
Example: The Vermont project is a model of
how a project can plan and implement a moni-
toring program. The project implemented
short-term, intensive monitoring on a field-scale
to document the effectiveness of a specific BMP,
while at the same time monitoring for a longer
term on a watershed and subwatershed scale to
evaluate the effectiveness of a combination of
many different BMPs.
2.2.6.5 Water Quality Monitoring
Designs
• Lesson: The most (statistically) effective
protocol for detecting long-term trends in-
cludes collection of samples on a regularly
spaced predetermined time schedule.
Example: The Idaho RCWP project used regu-
larly-timed sample collection (at 14-day inter-
vals) to document a decrease in suspended
sediment concentrations.
Example: The Utah, Vermont, and Florida pro-
jects used regularly-timed sampling to document
water quality improvements.
Example: After changing their water quality
design from trend determination to storm sam-
pling, the Oregon RCWP project personnel
found that trends were difficult to quantify from
storm samples of fecal coliform data. Samples
for trend detection should have been collected
on a regular, predetermined schedule.
41
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring,
Evaluation, and Reporting
(continued)
• Lesson: Trend detection is more effective
if monitoring focuses on collecting samples
at a relatively high frequency and analyz-
ing them for a small number of relevant
variables. Use of the entire list of variables
employed to measure general conditions in
ambient monitoring programs should be
avoided. Variables measured should re-
spond directly to the implementation of
BMPs and should reflect the water quality
problem.
Example: Vermont project personnel indicated
that they could have saved money, effort, and
data storage and management by reducing the
number of variables analyzed for at some sam-
pling stations.
Lesson: The monitoring design should in-
clude sampling an experimental control.
Controls may be either a site above an
installed BMP or a paired watershed in
which BMPs have not been implemented.
Example: The Utah project used an up-
stream/downstream comparison before, during,
and after BMP implementation to show reduc-
tions in phosphorus concentration below a dairy
that installed a waste management system.
Example: The Idaho RCWP project effectively
utilized the upstream/downstream strategy with
monitoring before, during, and after BMP im-
plementation over a ten-year period to document
the effectiveness of sediment reduction BMPs.
Example: Upstream/downstream monitoring
stations were located in the tributaries and on
Long Pine Creek (Nebraska project) to docu-
ment water quality improvements from irriga-
tion water management and streambank
stabilization.
Lesson: The most effective experimental
design for documenting BMP impacts on
water quality is the paired watershed de-
sign, in which two watersheds with similar
physical characteristics and, ideally, land
use, are monitored for one to two years to
establish pollutant- runoff response rela-
tionships. Following this initial calibration
period, one watershed receives treatment
and monitoring continues in both water-
sheds for one to two years. This experimen-
tal design accounts for many factors that
may affect response to treatment; as a
result, the treatment effect can be more
effectively isolated.
Example: The Vermont project, which used a
paired watershed experimental design, demon-
strated the effectiveness of reducing nitrogen
and phosphorus concentrations in field runoff by
properly tuning manure application.
Lesson: Trend monitoring stations estab-
lished to collect baseline data for a before-
after monitoring approach must remain
fixed and must be downstream from sites
planned for installation of BMPs. Each
station must remain fixed during and after
implementation to assure a valid compari-
son with the pre-implementation baseline
data. Baseline data should be collected for
a period of time sufficient to characterize
pre-BMP implementation conditions.
Example: The Virginia RCWP project had ac-
cess to baseline water quality data that had been
collected three years prior to implementation.
This allowed for a thorough characterization of
the water quality problem and targeting of ap-
propriate BMPs.
Example: The Florida, Oregon, Idaho, Ne-
braska, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Utah
RCWP projects had adequate pre-BMP monitor-
ing with fixed stations below sites planned for
installation of BMP monitoring, which was es-
sential for documenting water quality conditions
before BMP implementation.
42
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring,
Evaluation, and Reporting
(continued)
Lesson: Post-BMP implementation water
quality data must be collected for at least
two to three years in order to assess the
effectiveness of BMPs.
Example: Post-BMP multiple-year monitoring,
along with adequate pre-BMP monitoring, was
effective in demonstrating water quality changes
that could be associated with land treatment in
the Idaho, Florida, Oregon, Vermont, and Utah
RC WP projects. It is also expected to be a useful
technique in the Nebraska RCWP, which is now
conducting its post-BMP water quality monitor-
ing.
Example: As a consequence of reduced funding,
the planned post-project evaluation of the moni-
toring data in the Virginia project was canceled
and the effectiveness of BMPs will not be docu-
mented.
Lesson: Long-term monitoring (six to 10
years) with grab samples taken every two
weeks is sufficient to document water qual-
ity trends in a stream that exhibits at least
a 40% change in pollutant concentrations.
Example: The Idaho, Florida, and Utah projects
documented greater than 40% change in their
pollutant concentrations using grab samples
taken two times per month.
Lesson: Laboratory and field quality as-
surance and quality control (QA/QC) pro-
grams that include data evaluation and
verification for precision and accuracy are
essential elements of a successful water
quality monitoring program.
Example: The Alabama and Oregon RCWP
projects found that QA/QC for fecal coliform
analysis was especially important because of
rapid die-off and the high natural variability of
the data.
Example: The Idaho and Florida projects imple-
mented extensive QA/QC procedures for their
chemical and biological data field and lab col-
lection and analysis techniques.
Lesson: Use of constructed wells for moni-
toring ground water is preferable. If ex-
isting wells must be used, and are found to
be contaminated, the possibility that the
contamination results from poor construc-
tion or leaking rather than as a result of
general aquifer conditions must be consid-
ered.
Example: In the Minnesota RCWP project,
vadose zone monitoring was used to document
that the high level of pesticide contamination in
wells was due primarily to point sources of
pesticides (commercial pesticide application
services).
Example: Sampling of irrigation and domestic
wells in the Nebraska RCWP project resulted in
inconclusive results, partially because of local
contamination and lack of information about
well construction.
Example: The South Dakota RCWP project util-
ized wells constructed for the RCWP. Although
expensive, the project had an effective water
quality monitoring program in which the results
were directly related to the RCWP.
2.2.6.6 Spatial and Temporal
Considerations for Monitoring
• Lesson: Monitoring is needed at the field,
farm, or subwatershed level to assess the
effects of BMP systems. Short-term inten-
sive monitoring studies of individual BMPs
should be included to help understand
physical processes and to provide a basis
for assessing the longer-term, overall effec-
tiveness of the project.
Example: The Minnesota RCWP project used
vadose zone sampling to determine that splitting
the application of nitrogen did little to reduce
soil nitrate levels.
Example: South Dakota used a master field site
(research) and several farmers' field sites to
determine the effectiveness of BMPs.
Example: The Vermont project used monitoring
at the subwatershed level to document that in-
creasing the percentage of animals under BMP
waste management decreased fecal coliform lev-
els in the monitored streams.
43
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring,
Evaluation, and Reporting
(continued)
Lesson: Reference stations characterizing
attainable conditions are needed in order
to evaluate the health of aquatic biota and
habitat potential.
Example: The Idaho RCWP established refer-
ence sites in the headwaters of the watershed in
order to quantify attainable conditions for trout
habitat in the project area.
Lesson: The start-up date of monitoring
should coincide -with the beginning of an
easily identified annual period to avoid
partial and, therefore, nearly useless col-
lection of part of a year of data. However,
establishing sampling procedures,
QA/QC, and data management systems is
encouraged prior to the formal data collec-
tion period.
Example: The Vermont RCWP project team
found that some of their data were unusable
because of a partial year of monitoring data that
did not coincide with other data.
Lesson: Grab sampling conducted at
seven- or 14-day intervals over a six- to
10-year time period can be used on a wa-
tershed scale to document water quality
changes and provide valuable feedback.
Example: The Utah, Florida, and Idaho projects
were able to document water quality improve-
ments using weekly or bi-weekly grab sampling
in their water quality monitoring efforts.
Example: Grab sampling was an integral part of
the monitoring program in the Vermont project
Sampling bi-weekly sampling was conducted
during the summer months; sample collection
frequency decreased to monthly for the winter
months.
2.2.6.7 Variables
• Lesson: Significant land use activities
should be identified and accounted for in
the monitoring program, particularly
when such activities are located immedi-
ately upstream of a monitoring station.
Example: In Alabama, sudden increases in fecal
coliform levels were not understood until project
personnel located a beaver dam upstream of the
monitoring station.
Exawip/e.'Inldaho, non-cropland activities in the
project area also affected pollutant loading to the
impaired water resources. Activities included:
expanded fish hatchery production, illegal
gravel mining, chaining the irrigation canal sys-
tems to remove unwanted vegetation, forest
fires, and the construction and operation of a
new hydroelectric generating plant.
Lesson: Direct measures that evaluate how
well a water resource supports various uses
(water supply, fish spawning, and habitat)
should be used whenever possible.
Example: In Minnesota, water chemistry and
spring adult trout and fall fingerlings were sam-
pled each year at two non-stocked brook loca-
tions. Results from the fish sampling
demonstrated more improvement in water qual-
ity in the fish populations than the water chem-
istry.
Example: The Idaho and Nebraska projects util-
ized biological and habitat monitoring program
designs that facilitated documentation of use
impairments and water quality improvements.
Biological and habitat monitoring included sur-
veys of fish and macroinvertebrates, habitat
assessment, and embryo survival for trout
spawning.
44
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring,
Evaluation, and Reporting
(continued)
• Lesson: Explanatory variables (discharge,
seasons, upstream pollutant concentra-
tions, precipitation) should be monitored
to ensure accurate interpretation of moni-
toring results. Adjustment for hydrologic
and meteorologic variables is important
when quantifying impacts of land treat-
ment or land use on regional water quality.
This procedure renders water quality val-
ues that are closer to those that would have
been measured had there been no change
in climatic variables overtime. In addition,
hydrologic and meteorologic explanatory
variables can be used to account for water
quality variability.
Example: Adjustments for precipitation in water
quality trend analysis were made by the Florida,
Idaho, and Pennsylvania projects.
Example: Stream discharge measurements were
taken concurrently with water quality sampling
and accounted for in the data analysis in the
Florida, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Utah, and Vermont projects.
Example: In Oregon, fecal coliform reduction
initially seemed to be 70%, and staff believed
their water quality goal had been reached. How-
ever, saline concentrations strongly affect fecal
coliform. After adjustment of data for salinity
levels through covariate analysis, fecal coliform
levels had only decreased by 40% and personnel
realized more dairies needed BMPs.
Example: Idaho, Florida, and Utah effectively
utilized upstream pollutant concentrations to ad-
just concentrations downstream of land treat-
ment to account for incoming concentrations.
Lesson: When sediment is a major pollut-
ant, at least some bedload sampling should
be performed during high runoff periods
to avoid seriously underestimating overall
sediment loading.
Example: Idaho RCWP project personnel be-
lieved that significant sediment movement oc-
curs in the bedload and that they may have
underestimated sediment loading by only meas-
uring suspended sediment in the water column.
Lesson: Changes in land use, difficulties in
tracking BMP implementation, and many
other factors may hinder documentation of
the impact of BMP implementation on
water quality within a particular project
or watershed area.
Example: The Michigan project has been unable
to document any real BMP effects due to con-
founding factors such as low level of BMP
implementation, difficulty in assessing the ef-
fects of the sub- basin areas that do not have
BMPs, large variations in sources and transport
of sediment and nutrients over time, and accu-
racy of estimates of BMP implementation area.
Example: In the Virginia project, beneficial ef-
fects of BMP implementation may not be imme-
diately apparent because the project began after
major point sources and some nonpoint sources
were removed. An improving trend was already
in effect in the estuaries. Manipulation of the
water supply lakes for water withdrawal and
storage of pumped ground water may have
confounded results.
Example: Draining of Prairie Rose Lake (Iowa
project) and direct manipulation of the fish popu-
lation may have obscured some water quality
results. Water clarity was highest in 1982-83,
following draining of the lake and restocking of
fish in the fall of 1981 in an attempt to improve
the fishery. Since then water clarity has dete-
riorated to pre-RCWP levels. Reduction in sedi-
ment delivery due to adoption of conservation
practices may have improved water clarity, but
algal density has increased, apparently because
of greater light penetration. Monitoring data are
highly variable. Factors such as desorption of
nutrients from bottom sediment and ground
water or runoff contributions of soluble nutrients
were not addressed. After correcting for both
precipitation and chlorophyll a there is no sig-
nificant trend over time.
Example: There is strong evidence that two dairy
closures in the Otter Creek sub-watershed (in
September 1980 and 1986) in the Florida (Tay-
lor Creek - Nubbin Slough) project resulted in
a decrease in total phosphorus concentrations in
Otter Creek and at the main discharge to Lake
Okeechobee from the project area (Station S-
191). These dairy shutdowns resulted in a
masking effect for evaluating impacts of BMPs
implemented along this tributary.
Example: Upon completion of CM&E activities,
the Illinois RCWP project recommended no
additional field site monitoring because of the
large amount of data needed to explain variabil-
ity attributable to variables other than differ-
ences in BMP implementation.
45
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring,
Evaluation, and Reporting
(continued)
2.2.6.8 Data Management and
Analysis
• Lesson: Data management is crucial to the
success of a monitoring program. Comput-
erized storage is essential. All data should
be stored in a central project file and
reviewed frequently for efficient integra-
tion and subsequent evaluation of hydro-
logic, water quality, and land management
variables.
Example: Much of the RCWP project data was
stored in STORET, a data storage and retrieval
system used by USEPA.
Example: Oregon RCWP personnel, after evalu-
ating their data mid-project, re-analyzed their
data using covariate analysis. The new results
gave them a much better understanding of the
effectiveness of BMPs. Subsequently, there
was an increase in the number of farms targeted
for BMP implementation.
Example: The Vermont RCWP project reported
that quarterly analysis and review of the water
quality data helped continually refine both the
sampling program and the data storage systems.
Lesson: Methods of data analysis should be
determined early in the project planning
process to ensure that data sufficient for
the anticipated analysis are collected.
Data management, quality assurance, and
analysis techniques should be clearly de-
fined prior to monitoring.
Example: In Alabama, many water quality indi-
cators were measured. Some of these indicators
were dropped (pesticide and nutrient monitoring
except for nitrate) and others were sampled
erratically. By the end of the project, only two
variables (nitrate and fecal coliform) were used
in the final data analysis.
2.2.6.9 Feedback
• Lesson: Monitoring information has been
very effective in educating the public on
water quality and beneficial use support.
Example: The Utah, Florida, Oregon, Idaho,
and Vermont projects had strong water quality
monitoring programs emphasizing pre- and
post-BMP monitoring and above- and below-site
sampling. Combined with large land treatment
efforts, these monitoring programs resulted in
documentation of water quality improvements.
Example: In the Utah project, animal waste
management systems reduced phosphorus con-
centrations by 75% and nitrogen and fecal coli-
form by 40 to 90%. These BMPs reduced the
impact of agricultural activity on Deer Creek,
an important water supply for Salt Lake City,
Utah. The project served as a model project to
protect valued natural resources and stimulated
creation of projects in adjacent watersheds.
Example: Water quality monitoring documented
that animal waste management systems installed
on Oregon dairies reduced bacterial contamina-
tion of oyster beds by about 40 to 50%. Sites in
Tillamook Bay restricted to sheUfishing based
on Food and Drug Administration classification
decreased from 12 in 1979-80 to one in 1985-86.
Example: Vermont project personnel used water
quality monitoring to demonstrate that increas-
ing the percent of animals under BMP waste
management decreased fecal coliform levels in
the monitored streams.
Example: Biological and habitat monitoring was
utilized in Idaho and Nebraska to directly moni-
tor fish habitat in streams. This information was
shared with the public in relation to the RCWP
projects' impacts on the quality of recreational
fishing in the project area water resources.
Example: Monitoring information was used suc-
cessfully in Oregon, Alabama, Minnesota, Ver-
mont, Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska to inform local
producers and citizens of the impact the RCWP
project was having on their environment.
Lesson: Water quality monitoring can pro-
vide feedback in defining critical areas
needing priority treatment.
Example: Water quality monitoring was utilized
in the Utah, Nebraska, and Florida projects to
identify critical areas needing high levels of
attention for land treatment, water quality moni-
toring, and evaluation of water quality changes.
46
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.7 Linkage of Land
Treatment and Water
Quality Changes
Documentation of water quality
improvements from NFS pollution controls is
necessary to provide feedback to project
coordinators and maintain political and economic
support for NFS control programs. An important
purpose of any experimental NFS control
program is to correlate (link) water quality
changes and BMP implementation, thereby
demonstrating that NFS control efforts can
improve water quality and are worthy of federal,
state, and local funding and support.
Lesson: Careful planning, including selec-
tion of appropriate indicator variables
and data management systems, is required
to link water quality changes to land treat-
ment.
Example: The Vermont project found that care-
ful planning up front to establish what land
treatment and land use information was to be
collected, how it was to be collected, the format
of the data collection, and the time frame of data
collection was critical in determining the ulti-
mate usefulness of the data. The project moni-
tored many land treatment and water quality
variables, but found the clearest linkage, on a
watershed scale, between increasing numbers of
animals under BMP manure management and
decreasing bacteria levels in streams.
Example: The Idaho and Nebraska projects took
the initiative to revise their land treatment and
land use data bases near the end of the projects
in order to more effectively link their land
treatment and water quality data bases. These
projects found that this after-the-fact data base
creation required a lot of effort and that some
useful information had been lost.
Lesson: A good experimental design for
water quality and land treatment monitor-
ing is essential to document a relationship
between land treatment and water quality
changes. The paired watershed approach
should be encouraged. This design involves
monitoring in two or more similar sub-
watersheds before and after BMPs are
implemented in one of the subwatersheds.
Example: The Vermont project found that the
paired watershed design was the most effective
design for documenting a linkage between land
treatment and water quality changes on small
watersheds or fields over a relatively short time
period (three to five years).
Example: The Utah project showed marked
water quality changes in a very well-controlled,
small watershed.
Example: Projects such as the Idaho, Florida,
and Utah projects that monitored upstream and
downstream from BMP implementation before,
during, and after BMP implementation on a
subwatershed scale found that this design was
effective in documenting water quality improve-
ments associated with the RC WP land treatment.
Example: The multiple watershed approach,
where BMPs were installed in multiple water-
sheds simultaneously with water quality moni-
toring before and after implementation, was
used successfully in the Idaho and Florida
RCWP projects. Detection of predicted water
quality trends and patterns over multiple water
quality monitoring stations and drainage areas
improves the documentation that the changes in
water quality were attributed to the BMPs.
The Minnesota and South Dakota projects used
vadose monitoring to establish the relationship
between ground water contamination and agri-
cultural practices, BMPs, and ecological niches.
47
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.7 Linkage of Land
Treatment and Water
Quality Changes
(continued)
Lesson: Because water quality changes
often occur gradually, particularly in large
watersheds with lakes, five to 10 years or
longer are required to confirm real, con-
sistent changes that can be linked to land
treatment. Short-term monitoring is sel-
dom effective because climatic and hydro-
logic variability can mask water quality
changes. However, for small watersheds
affected by only a few relatively large pol-
lutant sources, the required monitoring
period may be shorter.
Example: The Utah project results indicate sig-
nificant water quality response in drainage
ditches and Snake Creek to the implementation
of animal waste management systems over a
relatively short (five-year) data collection pe-
riod. These results may be attributed to the
small size of the watershed (700 acres) and the
relatively small number of pollutant sources that
were identified and treated.
Example: The Oregon, Florida, Idaho, Ver-
mont, and Utah projects have shown that a
pre-BMP water quality data base of at least two
to three years duration and several post-imple-
mentation years of monitoring data is needed to
document the water quality effects of BMPs.
Example: The Vermont project found that using
a paired watershed design on a small subwater-
shed can reduce the time required to obtain a
significant linkage between BMP implementa-
tion and water quality changes.
Example: A lag time in response in water quality
at the subwatershed and watershed outlets to
BMP implementation was demonstrated in the
Vermont and Florida projects, emphasizing the
need for multiple years of post- BMP implemen-
tation monitoring.
Lesson: Intensive land treatment and land
use tracking is often required to link water
quality improvements to land treatment.
Analysis of the large volume of data col-
lected from this effort usually requires
powerful data base management tools.
Example: The Vermont project utilized check-
book-style farmer logs of animal waste handling
activities (for example, recording timing, mass,
area, and location of manure application) along
with farm surveys conducted by project person-
nel to obtain detailed land treatment and land use
information. These data were entered into a GIS
which was used by the project team to manage,
analyze, and present the extensive land treat-
ment and land use data. This extensive monitor-
ing of BMP implementation and agricultural
activities allowed the project to establish a link
between cows under the manure management
BMP and bacteria levels in streams.
Example: The Idaho project collected land treat-
ment and land use data for each farm field and
year. This data was entered into a data base and
utilized in GIS applications during the post-pro-
ject analysis.
Example: The Utah project obtained 100% par-
ticipation from dairy farmers in the area and
visited them to ensure that they were properly
managing animal waste properly. This intensive
follow-up ensured that the water quality changes
were due to improved waste management.
Lesson: Water quality monitoring prior to
BMP implementation is required to estab-
lish baseline data for statistical compari-
sons with post-BMP water quality data
(before/after design).
Example: Water quality monitoring pre- and
post- BMP implementation was the basic design
utilized by most of the RCWP projects. The
pre-BMP water quality monitoring in the Idaho,
Florida, Oregon, Utah, and Vermont allowed
these projects to make valid comparisons be-
tween the pre- and post- water quality condi-
tions.
Example: The Maryland, Delaware, Iowa, and
South Dakota projects lacked sufficient baseline
water quality data to allow the projects to quan-
tify changes due to BMPs on a watershed scale.
48
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.7 Linkage of Land
Treatment and Water
Quality Changes
(continued)
• Lesson: The ability to match water quality
and land treatment data spatially increases
the likelihood of attributing water quality
changes to BMP implementation. Land
treatment and land use changes should be
recorded on a hydrologic (drainage) basis
such that the land area being monitored
corresponds to the drainage area served by
the water quality monitoring station. If
land treatment data are collected in more
detail (for example, at the farm field level),
the land treatment data base may need to
be aggregated prior to being paired to the
water quality data.
Example: Monitoring of land treatment and land
use on a subwatershed scale was performed in
Idaho, Vermont, Utah, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Dakota, Florida, and Nebraska such that
the land treatment data could be matched with
the water quality monitoring data from the same
subwatersheds.
Example: The Wisconsin project found that site
selection for its chemical monitoring station was
inappropriate because the station was influenced
by pollution sources outside the project area.
Example: The Michigan, Vermont, Idaho, Utah,
Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Florida projects
found that monitoring subwatersheds within the
overall project area is a more effective strategy
than monitoring only at the watershed outlet.
Water quality changes are more likely to be
observed at the subwatershed level closer to land
treatment areas where the confounding effects
of external factors, other pollution sources, and
scattered BMP implementation are minimized.
Lesson: The logistics of pairing water qual-
ity, land treatment, and land use data on
a temporal basis need to be addressed prior
to data analysis. Water quality samples
are collected hourly, daily, weekly, bi-
weekly, or monthly; in contrast, most land
treatment data are collected only season-
ally or annually. Some land treatment
data must be collected more frequently if
the effect on water quality is more short-
term (for example, the effects of manure
and fertilizer management practices).
Example: The Vermont RCWP found that
knowing the timing of manure spreading was
useful in matching the land treatment data with
the water quality data to obtain meaningful
interpretations.
Example: The Vermont RCWP project showed
that aggregation of the water quality data to the
same temporal scales as the land treatment data
(monthly, seasonally) was a useful analysis tech-
nique, particularly for exploratory data analy-
ses. Other projects, including Vermont, Idaho,
and Florida, paired the land treatment and water
quality data bases by repeating the seasonal or
annual land treatment values for each water
quality grab sample in that season or year.
Lesson: Reporting of land use variables
and BMP implementation in units that
reflect treatment strength (acres served,
tons of manure, animal units) and that can
be paired with water quality data is essen-
tial. Land use and land treatment data
must often be summed over a relatively
large area to match the area influencing
the water quality data.
Example: The Nebraska, Idaho, Florida, and
Pennsylvania projects used variables such as:
1) acres treated by each BMP with consideration
for overlapping BMPs, 2) acres treated by BMP
systems to minimize double-counting of land
on which multiple BMPs were implemented,
3) tons of manure spread, 4) miles of fencing,
5) acres served by fencing, and 6) pounds of
fertilizer applied.
49
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.7 Linkage of Land
Treatment and Water
Quality Changes
(continued)
• Lesson: The linkage of land treatment to
water quality can be made at the farm
field, subwatershed, watershed, or project
level. In general, however, the larger the
drainage area, the harder it is to establish
the linkage.
Example: The Vermont, Idaho, Utah, Florida,
and Pennsylvania projects linked their land treat-
ment and land use data and water quality data
bases at the subwatershed level. This approach
was successful at meeting their goal of demon-
strating water quality changes on a subwatershed
level.
Example: Projects that linked their land
treatment and water quality data bases at
the project level met with mixed results.
The Oregon, Idaho, and Florida projects
were able to demonstrate changes at the
project level. Due to substantial land treat-
ment in the watershed, bacteria decreases
were demonstrated in Tillamook Bay, Ore-
gon, phosphorus concentrations signifi-
cantly decreased at the Taylor Creek -
Nubbin Slough watershed outlet in the
Florida projects, and total sediment de-
creased in Rock Creek, Idaho. However,
it was not possible for the Iowa and Ver-
mont RCWP projects to document a signifi-
cant change in water quality at their
impaired water resources, despite a high
level of land treatment.
Example: The Vermont, Pennsylvania, South
Dakota, Idaho, and Minnesota projects had site-
specific experiments to demonstrate BMP effec-
tiveness at the farm field and BMP level.
Lesson: Tracking of operation and mainte-
nance aspects of BMPs is needed to help
determine the magnitude of water quality
changes associated with BMPs.
Example: The Vermont and Wisconsin projects
found that installing animal waste storage struc-
tures does not improve water quality if the
manure application rates exceed crop nutrient
needs.
Example: The Florida project reported that land
use changes not associated with project BMPs
such as changes in animal numbers or land use
due to other programs can also have a large
water quality impact and need to be accounted
for so that correct interpretations can be made
regarding the impact of the BMPs.
Example: The Idaho and Vermont projects
found that non-participants and noncompliance
can mask effects of land treatment on water
quality.
Lesson: Pollutants monitored at the water
quality monitoring station must corre-
spond to pollutants being treated by the
implemented BMPs.
Example: The Idaho project monitored sediment
because they implemented BMPs to control ero-
sion and sediment loading of Rock Creek.
Example: The Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, and
Vermont projects monitored bacteria and nutri-
ents because they implemented many waste
management system BMPs. The Florida project
monitored phosphorus because this was the pri-
mary pollutant of concern from animal waste.
50
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
2.2.7 Linkage of Land
Treatment and Water
Quality Changes
(continued)
• Lesson: All sources of significant variabil-
ity in the land treatment and water quality
data should be accounted for. Generally,
the greater the ability to account for vari-
ability in water quality, land treatment,
and land use data, the stronger the possible
correlation between water quality changes
and land treatment. Monitoring explana-
tory variables, such as stream discharge,
precipitation, ground water table depth,
and impervious land surface area, is often
important in accounting for variability.
Example: The Vermont project team reported
that detailed records of when and where BMPs
were implemented, timing and location of agri-
cultural activities, location and extent of pollu-
tion sources not being controlled by RCWP
BMPs, and significant weather changes were all
required to link water quality changes to land
treatment.
Example: Changes in dairy cow numbers and
water table depth were the most important ex-
planatory variables in the Florida RCWP pro-
ject. Water table depth provided an indication of
seasonably and precipitation. Also, water qual-
ity monitoring confirmed that total phosphorus
concentrations in the tributaries increased as the
water table rose to within two feet of the surface.
Incorporation of these variables into the analyses
allowed for greater evidence that the BMPs
implemented through the RCWP project signifi-
cantly decreased phosphorus loadings.
Example: In the Alabama project, a sudden rise
in fecal coliforrn levels could not be accounted
for until a beaver dam was discovered upstream
of the monitoring station.
Lesson: A consistent improving trend in
water quality after the implementation of
BMPs provides evidence needed to attrib-
ute water quality improvements to land
treatment. Similarly, documented post-
BMP implementation water quality im-
provements in multiple watersheds
provides strong evidence that water quality
improvements resulted from land treat-
ment.
Example: The fact that total phosphorus concen-
trations continue to decrease at the Florida (Tay-
lor Creek - Nubbin Slough) project outlet as the
length of time after BMP-implementation in-
creases supports the argument that BMPs were
effective in reducing total phosphorus concen-
trations.
Example: Subwatersheds in the Taylor Creek -
Nubbin Slough project with a large amount of
BMP implementation have shown significant
decreases in total phosphorus concentrations. In
contrast, subwatersheds with little BMP imple-
mentation or increased cattle densities have ex-
hibited increases in total phosphorus
concentrations. These observations support the
conclusion that the BMPs have decreased total
phosphorus concentrations.
Example: Monitoring results indicate that the
BMPs implemented under the RCWP decreased
the delivery of sediment and phosphorus to the
agricultural drains and improved water quality
in Rock Creek (Idaho RCWP project). This
conclusion was drawn from the association that
eight of 10 subbasins have documented reduced
loadings over the same time period in which
BMP implementation occurred.
51
-------
Chapter 2: Program Analysis
References
Coffey, S.W. and M.D. Smolen. 1990. Results of the
Experimental Rural Clean Water Program: Methodology
for On-Site Evaluation, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC.
Federal Register. 1980. 1980 Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP). (45 Federal Register 14006), March 4, 1980.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, S. Spooner, A. Lanier,
S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik. 1989.
NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of Water,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington DC. EPA
506/9-89/002. 167 p.
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L.
Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991.
NWQEP Annual Report: Water Quality Monitoring Re-
port for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Projects - Methods and Findings from the Rural Clean
Water Program. National Water Quality Evaluation Pro-
ject, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC.
52
-------
Chapter 3
PERSPECTIVES
ON THE RURAL CLEAN
WATER PROGRAM:
SURVEY RESULTS
3.1 Introduction
Farm operator participation was an essential
component of the Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP) projects. Closely linked to participation
were information and education (I&E) efforts that
sought to inform farmers about the project,
encourage potential participants to enroll in the
project, and then provide technical assistance on
best management practice (BMP) implementation
and maintenance.
In order to gain as clear an understanding as
possible about the motivations and perceptions of
both participants and non-participants toward the
RCWP, water quality, and nonpoint source
(NFS) pollution, a telephone survey of farm
operators within the 21 RCWP project areas was
conducted in early 1992. Results of the survey
are reported in section 3.2.
Perceptions of local, state, and federal
agency personnel who served as staff for the
RCWP projects were assessed through a mail
survey (Coffey and Hoban, 1992). Responses to
the project personnel survey provided additional
information on farm operators' motivations for
participating in the RCWP projects, adoption and
maintenance of BMPs by farmers receiving
RCWP cost-share funds, project management
and coordination, project effectiveness, I&E, and
RCWP workshops. Results from the personnel
survey are presented in section 3.3.
In combination, the results from the farm
operator and personnel surveys provide a
valuable profile of RCWP participants and the
perceived effectiveness of the different projects.
This information will be useful to those
responsible for designing future NFS pollution
projects. Farm operators who are least likely to
participate in voluntary nonpoint source (NFS)
pollution control programs can be specifically
targeted for I&E activities designed to encourage
them to evaluate their own role in contributing to
NFS pollution and to participate in programs
designed to reduce agricultural NFS pollution.
The information gathered through the farm
operator and personnel surveys also provides
valuable information for NFS managers involved
in designing and implementing future agricultural
NFS pollution control programs.
3.2 Farm Operator
Survey
3.2.1 Rationale and Objectives
The RCWP was designed to provide financial
and technical assistance to farm operators who
voluntarily installed BMPs to control water
pollution in 21 watershed projects across the
United States and to increase public awareness of
the impact of agricultural practices on water
quality. Because participation in the RCWP was
voluntary, adoption of BMPs designed to
improve water quality depended on changes in
farm operators' skills, knowledge, attitudes, and
behavior. An evaluation of the RCWP, therefore,
needed to include analysis of farm operators'
knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. For this
reason, factors influencing farmer participation
in the RCWP were assessed.
The objectives of the farm operator survey
were to:
• Analyze factors that influenced participa-
tion in the RCWP and adoption of recom-
mended BMPs, including both positive
incentives and barriers. Factors exam-
ined included: farm operator charac-
teristics (age and education); farm struc-
ture characteristics (farm size and type);
attitudes about water quality problems;
and use of information (see Figure 3.1).
• Analyze attitudes about the benefits and
costs of participation in the RCWP, in-
cluding assessment of farm operators'
perceptions of BMPs.
53
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
Determine farmers' perceptions of the
effectiveness of technical and financial
assistance programs, as well as education
and information efforts, associated with
the RCWP.
3.2.2 Background Research
Water quality improvements from NFS
pollution control depend on changes in farm
operators' attitudes and behavior. Development,
implementation, and evaluation of any NFS
control program should, therefore, include
analysis of factors that influence farm operators'
knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. A
framework (or model) for analyzing farmer
adoption of BMPs and participation in the RCWP
was developed and tested (Figure 3.1). The model
incorporates a number of characteristics that
could influence RCWP participation and BMP
adoption, including farm operator characteristics,
farm structure characteristics, and farm
operators' awareness of and attitudes about water
quality, BMPs, and the RCWP. The relationships
between these characteristics and farm operators'
participation and adoption are analyzed later in
this chapter (section 3.2.4).
For the past 50 years, social scientists have
studied the process by which farm operators and
others accept and use new practices (Rogers,
1983). During the past 15 years, research has
focused primarily on farmers' adoption of soil
conservation practices (Buttel et al., 1990). A
small, but significant, subset of this work has
specifically considered farm operators' use of
BMPs for controlling NFS pollution. Research
has shown that decisions about using BMPs
represent an ongoing process for most farm
operators. The farm operator survey was used to
evaluate the role of the RCWP in promoting farm
operator adoption of BMPs.
Many factors can influence farm operators'
willingness and ability to use BMPs or participate
in government programs such as the RCWP.
These include characteristics of the individual and
farm operation, as well as institutional support
mechanisms and public policies. However,
relatively little work has systematically examined
the influence of such support mechanisms and
policies on use of BMPs. This brief review
focuses mainly on farm operator adoption of
BMPs rather than on participation in government
programs.
FARM OPERATOR
Age
Education
Gender
Experience
On-farm Residence
Off -farm Work
FARM STRUCTURE
Size
Percent Rental
Legal Organization
Main Commodity
Farm Sales
Assets
Labor Characteristics
AWARENESS
Pollution Problems
Interest in BMPs
Information Use
RCWP
ATTITUDES
NPS Pollution
BMP Characteristics
Public Policies
RCWP
RCWP
PARTICIPATION
BMP
ADOPTION
Figure 3.1: Framework for evaluating participation in the Rural Clean Water
Program and adoption of best management practices.
54
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
3.2.2.1 Farm Operator Characteristics
Farm operators' personal characteristics can
influence decisions to use BMPs. It has been
consistently shown that educational level is
positively related to BMP adoption (Carlson and
Dillman, 1986; Buttel etal., 1990). Most studies
have found that farm operators who practice
conservation tend to have more formal education
than farm operators who do not use conservation
measures (Carlson and Dillman, 1986; Swanson
et al., 1986). This probably reflects farm
operators' management ability to handle the
additional complexity associated with
conservation practices (Nowak, 1984). Bultena
and Hoiberg (1986) found that farm operators
using U. S. Department of Agriculture (USD A)
sources of assistance were better educated than
those not using such assistance.
Age has an unclear influence on conservation
decisions. Carlson and Dillman (1986) found
that no-till users tended to be somewhat younger
than average. Swanson et al. (1986)
hypothesized that younger farm operators, with
greater exposure to information sources, were
more likely to adopt conservation practices.
They found, however, that age proved relatively
unimportant as a predictive variable. Bultena and
Hoiberg (1986) found that those farm operators
using USDA sources tended to be younger than
those who had never used USDA sources of
assistance.
Innovation is another personal characteristic
that has been found to be positively related to an
individual's receptivity to change (Korsching and
Nowak, 1983; Rogers, 1983). More innovative
farm operators are more likely to practice
conservation.
Availability and use of information and
assistance can be an important determinant of
farm operators' willingness and ability to adopt
new practices (Bultena and Hoiberg, 1986;
Rogers, 1983). Mass media sources are
important for building awareness of an
innovation. Farm operators tend to rely on farm
organizations and their peers to evaluate an
innovation and decide whether to adopt it.
Contact with the USDA - Extension Service (ES),
USDA - Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and
other agencies can be particularly influential.
Organizational contact also indicates integration
into institutional assistance and communication
networks.
Information about new public policies and
programs is especially important because of the
uncertainty and complexity often associated with
changes required by new programs (Bultena and
Hoiberg, 1986; Hoban and Cook, 1988). Nowak
(1984) argues that farm operators need education
to recognize erosion problems and learn how
available BMPs can be used to reduce the severity
of erosion problems. Napier etal. (1986) found
that farm operators who used more numerous
institutional sources of information, on a more
frequent basis, tended to be more concerned
about environmental issues in their decision
making.
3.2.2.2 Farm Structure
Characteristics
Research has clearly shown that farm
structure characteristics have a very important
influence on farm operators' adoption of
conservation practices (Buttel and Swanson,
1986; Korsching and Nowak, 1983).
Larger-scale farm operators have been found to
be more willing and able to adopt new practices.
Farm size tends to be directly related to greater
availability of resources, greater flexibility in
decision making, higher status in the local
community, and better ability to deal with risk.
Smaller-scale, limited-resource farm
operators have been shown to be less willing and
able to practice conservation. Heffernan and
Green (1986) found that larger farms had lower
soil loss than smaller farms, primarily because
the land had lower erosion potential. Farm
characteristics may also influence farm operators'
use of sources of conservation information.
Those with the largest operations are most likely
to use public agencies for farm information
(Bultena and Hoiberg, 1986).
Economic conditions have an important
influence on farm operators' willingness and
ability to adopt conservation practices (Buttel and
Swanson, 1986). Farm income is an indicator of
the scale of the farm operation. Farm income and
sales are positively related to conservation
because they are an indication of ability to pay
for BMP investments. Money available for
55
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
investment is probably even more important than
gross farm income. Many farm operators have
incurred high debt levels during the past decade.
At the same time, the value of their farm assets
has been reduced. Farm operators with higher
debt-to-asset ratios may, therefore, be less willing
and able to invest in conservation practices.
Off-farm employment is becoming
increasingly important for many smaller-scale
farm operators. Past research has not specifically
examined the influence of off-farm employment
on the adoption of conservation. Farm operators
who work off-farm may have a different
orientation toward farming and conservation.
They may be more integrated into non-farm
communication networks and, as a result, may
make less use of farm-related information
sources.
Another common hypothesis is that rented
land usually receives less conservation attention
than owned land. Results, however, are not
conclusive. Ervin (1986) argues that it is unclear
whether rented land receives less, more, or the
same amount of erosion control than
owner-operated land. Carlson and Dillman
(1986) found that farm operators who used no-till
tended to farm more rented land. Using actual
field measurements, Korsching and Nowak
(1983) found that the more rental land in a farm
operator's operation, the more erosive were the
tillage practices and crop rotation. Rental
arrangements can limit conservation use if neither
tenants nor farm operators take responsibility for
conservation investments (Dillman and Carlson,
1982; Ervin, 1986).
Type of farm enterprise can also influence
farm operators' willingness and ability to adopt
BMPs (Heffernan and Green, 1986; Korsching
and Nowak, 1983). Certain types of crop and
livestock enterprises are more or less compatible
with different types of BMPs. Public policies are
also interrelated with the influence of farm type
on use of BMPs. For example, farm operators
who raise certain crops (such as corn) have the
most to lose if they are not in compliance with the
1985 and 1990 farm bill provisions (such as
swampbuster or conservation compliance) (Food
Security Act of 1985 and Food, Agriculture,
Conservation and Trade Act of 1990). Those
farm operators who mainly raise livestock or
non-program crops (for example, soybeans,
fruits, or vegetables) have less to lose if they are
not in compliance with conservation measures
required by the acts.
Government policies and programs have been
shown to have an important influence on farm
operators' adoption of BMPs (Batie, 1983; Buttel
andSwanson, 1986). Awareness and perceptions
of government policies and programs directly
affect farm operators' willingness to participate
in the programs, as well as their BMP adoption
(Korsching et al. 1985; Napier, 1987).
Korsching and Nowak (1983) examined farm
operators' attitudes toward four conservation
policies: economic incentives, economic
penalties, legal regulations, and educational
programs. They found the most positive attitudes
toward economic incentives and educational
programs.
Several implications can be drawn about the
research to date on farm operator use of BMPs.
Buttel et al. (1990) paint a fairly consistent picture
of the types of farm operators who are most likely
to adopt soil conservation practices. These are
"large-scale, well-educated, non-risk-averse
farm operators who have access to public
cost-sharing and conservation information
programs." However, it is unclear whether
decisions about the use of BMPs to control NPS
pollution are the same as decisions about soil
conservation. Farm operators may hold quite
different attitudes about the use of soil
conservation practices to maintain farm
productivity and provide other on-site benefits
compared to the adoption of BMPs to provide
off-site water quality benefits. Buttel et al.
(1990) argue that "to the degree that soil erosion
is primarily a problem because of off-site costs,
farm operators cannot be expected to conserve
because the long-term benefits of conservation
are small." Certain types of positive (cost
sharing, education) and negative (regulations)
incentives are generally recognized as necessary
to promote farm operators' use of BMPs that are
mainly in the public interest.
56
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
3.2.3 Farm Operator Survey
Research Techniques
The farm operator survey was designed and
conducted by Drs. Thomas J. Hoban and Ronald
C. Wimberley, faculty of the Department of
Sociology and Anthropology at North Carolina
State University (NCSU). An inter-agency
advisory committee composed of agency
officials, project personnel, social scientists, and
others was assembled to provide advice on most
phases of this project, including sampling design,
survey content, and analytical strategy.
The survey instrument was developed based
on comments from the advisory committee, a
review of previous research, and insights gained
from the interviews with project personnel
conducted during the on-site evaluations of all
RCWP projects (see Chapter 1, section 1.3). All
attempts were made to keep the survey instrument
as succinct as possible. A copy of the
questionnaire is included in Appendix VI.
A detailed discussion of sample design and
implementation may be found in Appendix V.
Data were collected through a standardized
telephone survey. Telephone interviews were
selected for data collection because they provide
the most effective and efficient means to
systematically collect comparable information
from a large sample, especially when the
populations are widely dispersed geographically.
Data were collected by the Applied Research
Group at NCSU.
Completion of at least 1,000 telephone
interviews with a representative sample from the
RCWP project areas was planned. Only farmer
operators in project critical areas, and therefore
eligible to participate in the RCWP, were
interviewed. The sample was selected so that
approximately equal numbers of RCWP
participants and non-participants were
surveyed. Interviews (averaging 20 minutes
each) were conducted during November and
December of 1991. The overall response rate for
the survey was almost 85%. This involves the
proportion of respondents contacted who actually
completed the survey. In general, the response
rate was higher for farm operators who had
participated in the RCWP than for those who were
eligible but did not participate.
3.2.4 Farm Operator Survey
Results
In this section, the farm operators are
described in terms of their demographic and farm
structure characteristics. Next, the univariate
descriptive statistics for most of the major
questions included on the survey are presented.
RCWP participation is also analyzed in terms of
the significant differences between participants
and non-participants. Finally, factors that
influenced adoption of different BMPs are
assessed. Data were processed using SPSS
computer software.
3.2.4.1 Farm Operator and
Structure Characteristics
Farm operator and farm structure
characteristics for all respondents to the telephone
survey are presented in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. In
some cases (age and total farm acreage)
information was collected as quantitative data,
but has been recoded into several categories to
simplify presentation and later analysis. For some
variables, the means and ranges are also
presented in the text.
Individual farm operator characteristics are
shown in Table 3.1. Most of the respondents
were male. Formal education varied considerably
from a minimum of third grade to a maximum of
a PhD degree (mean: 13.3 years). Fewer than one
in five had less than high school education, while
slightly more than one in five reported having a
college degree or higher.
Considerable variation was also found in
terms of age and experience. The respondents'
ages ranged from 16 to 87, with a mean of 50.3
years. About one quarter were under 40. Almost
half were between 40 and 59. Farming experience
ranged between less than one year and 66 years
(mean: 25 years). Almost half the respondents
had between 16 and 35 years of farming
experience.
Most respondents appeared to have a fairly
close connection to agriculture. The majority
reported that they lived on the farm they operated.
Almost two-thirds said they did not work off the
farm at all. Under one-quarter said they worked
off the farm nearly full time (200 days or more a
57
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
Table 3.1: Characteristics of farm operators interviewed.
GENDER
Female
Male
7%
93%
EDUCATION
11 Years or Less 17%
High School Graduate 45%
Some College 18%
College Graduate 21%
AGE
Under 40
40 to 59
60 or Older
YEARS FARMED
15 or Less
16 to 35
36 or More
24%
47%
28%
29%
48%
24%
ON FARM RESIDENCE
No 12%
Yes 88%
OFF-FARM WORK
None 58%
Up to 200 Days 17%
200 Days or More 25%
PERCENT INCOME FROM FARMING
25 or Less 31%
26 to 75 21%
76 to 99 15%
All 33%
year). Over one-third said that all their household
net income came from farming, whereas just over
a quarter received 25% or less of their net farm
income from farming. The mean net household
income from farming for all respondents was
64.7%.
Farm structure characteristics for all the farm
operators interviewed are presented in Table 3.2.
For some of these characteristics, means and
ranges are also presented.
Considerable variation in farm size was
evident. About one-fifth of all respondents had
under 100 acres, while 16% had 1,000 acres or
more. The remainder were relatively evenly
divided among the other four categories. Total
farm acreage ranged from three acres to 70,000
acres, with a mean size of 694.4 acres. The
amount of rental land in their operations varied
between none for 43% of the respondents to all
rental land for 11%.
In terms of legal organization, most were
either individual or family operations. The rest
were either partnerships or incorporated.
Considerable variation was evident in terms
of gross farm sales; almost as many respondents
reported gross farm sales under $40,000 as
reported sales over $100,000.
The type of commodities produced by
farmers interviewed in the survey are also
presented in Table 3.2. About one-third of all
respondents reported that none of the gross farm
sales came from livestock, poultry, or animal
products. Almost one-quarter said that all their
sales came from such products. The mean
percent was 47.0 percent. Respondents were also
asked to specify which product or commodity
produced the most gross sales or income on their
farms.
To determine real property values,
respondents were asked to estimate the total
market value of all their land and buildings,
including rented or leased land. Less than
one-quarter reported property assets below
$100,000. About one-third said their property
was worth $500,000 or more. Respondents were
also asked to estimate the total market value of
58
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
Table 3.2: Farm structure characteristics for farm operators interviewed.
TOTAL FARM ACREAGE
Under 1 00
100 to 199
200 to 299
300 to 399
500 to 999
1000 or More
PERCENT RENTAL LAND
None
1 to 25
26 to 50
51 to 99
All
LEGAL ORGANIZATION
Family/Individual
Partnership
Incorporated
GROSS FARM SALES
Under $10,000
$10, 000 -$39, 999
$40, 000 -$99, 999
$100, 000 -$499, 999
$500,000 or More
MOST IMPORTANT COMMODITY
21%
19%
14%
17%
15%
14%
44%
10%
17%
18%
11%
86%
10%
4%
20%
23%
19%
33%
6%
Dairy
Beef Cattle
Hogs
Other Animal
Corn
Soybeans
Peanuts
Cotton
Other Crop
FARM PROPERTY VALUE
Under $40,000
$40,000 -$99, 999
$100,000 -$499,999
$500,000 or More
FARM EQUIPMENT VALUE
Under $40,000
$40, 000 -$99, 999
$100,000 -$499,999
$500,000 or More
USE OF LABOR ON FARM
Custom Work
Hired Labor
Contract Labor
24%
14%
5%
2%
17%
13%
6%
4%
13%
8%
14%
48%
30%
31%
31%
33%
5%
47%
39%
15%
PERCENT SALES FROM LIVESTOCK
None
1 -25
26-75
76 to 99
All
34%
12%
17%
15%
21%
all the machinery, equipment, and implements
kept and used on their farm. In this case, over
one-quarter reported that these assets were less
than $40,000. Only six percent had equipment
assets of $500,000 or more.
A final set of farm structure characteristics
involves the use of labor on the farm. About
one-half reported using custom work, machine
hire, or rental equipment on their farms.
Forty-two percent reported the use of hired labor
and just under one-fifth reported that they used
contract labor on their farms.
3.2.4.2 Awareness and Attitudes
Water Quality Awareness and
Information. Awareness of water quality
problems are likely be related to farm operators'
adoption of BMPs and participation in the
RCWP. In general, farm operators expressed
quite a bit of awareness. When asked how much
they had heard or read about how agriculture.
might affect water quality, half (50%)-renQrted
a lot. Another third (32%) had heard some.
Another 15% had only heard a little, while only
two percent claimed to have heard nothing.
Interest in learning more about water quality
was relatively low, compared to awareness.
When asked how much more information they
needed about what they could do on their own
farm to help protect water quality, onlyj.0%_of
t^fom_ojiej^rj^aidj^iej_waPted a lot more
information. Iust._oyer a third (36%l_said-th€y
needed sorngjrnorgjnformatipn. Almost a third
(28%) wanted a little information while
59
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
Farm Magazines
USDA - SCS
USDA - ASCS
Extension Service
Newspapers
Other Farmers
Television
Meetings/Workshops
Farm Businesses
Farm Organizations
Radio
Tours/Demonstrations
2.10
1.94
11.76
1.74
1.62
1.28
1.21
1.13
1.06
0.98
0.82
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Average (Mean) Score
Information Received: 0 = None <--> 3 = A lot
Figure 3.2: Farmers' sources of water quality information.
one-fourth (25%) said they did not need any more
information about protecting water quality. This
apparently low level of interest may be due, in
part, to the relatively high level of awareness.
Respondents were also asked about their use
of various information sources. Results for the 12
different information sources are shown in Figure
3.2. The most frequently used source of
information was farm magazines. Government
agricultural and conservation agencies were the
next most important sources, with the Soil
Conservation Service being somewhat more
widely used. Newspapers were the fifth most
commonly used source.
There was a substantial drop in frequency of
use for the remaining seven information sources
(other farm operators, television, meetings or
workshops, pesticide or fertilizer dealers and
other farm organizations, radio, and tours and
demonstrations).
Attitudes about Water Quality Problems.
Attitudes about the causes and severity of water
quality problems should relate to adoption of
BMPs and participation in the RCWP. Onjy_12%
of the farmers interviewed said water pollution
was a serious problem in their area. The
remainder were almost evenly divided between
those who felt pollution was somewhat of a
problem (42%) and those who felt it was not a
problem (46%). Problem perception was even
lower when respondents were asked if water
pollution was a serious problem on their own
farm. Only one percent said pollution was a
serious problem. Over three-quarters (81%)
claimed there was no problem with water
pollution on their farms, despite the fact that these
farms had been targeted for land treatment
because project personnel believed they were
contributing to a water quality problem.
Concerns for specific impacts of water
pollution appear moderately high. Approximately
32% were very concerned about pollution of their
own drinking water, 33% were somewhat
concerned, and 35% were not concerned. On
another matter, two-thirds of all respondents
either strongly agreed (11%) or agreed (56%) that
agricultural water pollution is a serious threat to
fish and wildlife.
The survey also determined if respondents
felt that agriculture represented a serious cause
60
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
Cropland/Farm Chemical
Industrial Discharge
Livestock Waste
Municipal Discharge
Urban Develop/Runoff
Home Septic Tanks
Litter or Garbage
C
59
16
15
12
9
6
6
' l i I i II
i i i i ii
) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Percent Mentioning Cause
Figure 3.3: Farmers' perceptions of major causes of water pollution.
of water pollution. Near the start of the
interview, respondents were asked what they
thought were the major causes of water pollution
in their area (respondents could give more than
one answer to the question). Results are shown
in Figure 3.3.
The most frequently mentioned cause of
water pollution (over a third of respondents) was
"runoff from cropland." Almost _a cmarter
specifically jngntigned pesticides., including
herbjcides.-jox insecticides. One in five (20%)
mentioned fertilizers or specific nutrients (such
as nitrogen). To account for respondents who
reported two or more of these responses, these
three categories were combined into one indicator
of pollution from crop agriculture. Over half
(59%) saw cropland as a major cause of pollution.
Far fewer respondents (15%) recognized
livestock or animal waste as a cause of pollution.
Combining crop and livestock NFS pollution, just
two-thirds of all respondents believed agriculture
to be a major cause of water pollution.
Respondents reported a variety of other
non-agricultural causes of water pollution in their
areas (Figure 3.3). Over a quarter said that point
sources were the major causes of pollution. In
this case, 16% said industrial waste or factory
discharge were the major sources, while another
12% cited municipal sewage treatment. Other
sources of pollution mentioned included urban
development or runoff, household septic systems,
and litter or garbage.
Several other questions directly address
respondents' attitudes about the potential
contribution of agriculture to water pollution
problems. Over half of all respondents either
strongly agreed (9%) or agreed (48%) that the
farming practices they were currently using had
no significant effect on water quality in their area.
In fact, over three-quarters strongly agreed (14%)
or agreed (63%) that agriculture is being unfairly
blamed as a cause of water quality problems.
Attitudes about Public Policies and
Programs. The RCWP represented an
experiment in the extent to which agricultural
NFS pollution could be adequately controlled by
reliance on the voluntary cooperation of farm
operators. Tjiejcey assurnption ^>f the RCWP
approach was that targeted high levels of
education, financial assistance,,and,technical
assistance wouTd~~be adequate to .promote
extensive adoption of BMPs designed to improve
water quality. Some of the^qiiestiorisjn thTsurvey
have_ direct ieJevance to the issue of voluntary
versus mandatory control of agricultural NFS
pollution. Many questions also have direct
relevance to the effectiveness of the I&E
61
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
programs implemented in the RCWP projects and
socioeconomic factors affecting BMP adoption.
Most farm operators appeared to support the
voluntary approach taken by the RCWP. Almost
all respondents either strongly agreed (12%) or
agreed (84%) that water pollution can best be
controlled through educational programs that
encourage farm operators to use BMPs. As
further evidence of support for the voluntary
approach, over two-thirds either strongly agreed
(9%) or agreed (60%) that the government should
help pay more for water pollution control on
farms.
On the other hand, there seemed to be a
recognition by many farm operators that the
voluntary approach may not always work. Most
seem resigned to the inevitability of government
regulations. Almost all either strongly agreed
(15%) or agreed (74%) that if farm operators
don't do more to protect water quality on their
own, the government will force them to through
regulation. In fact, most also either strongly
agreed (9%) or agreed (76%) that farm operators
do nol have the right to farm in ways that damage
water quality. Almost as many either strongly
agreed (6%) or agreed (72%) that land should be
farmed in ways that protect water quality even if
this means lower profits.
3.2.4.3 Participation in the RCWP
The major objective of the farm operator
survey was to determine what factors influenced
farmers' decisions to participate or not participate
in the RCWP. Farm operators interviewed
included both participants and non-participants
from each RCWP project. The sampling design
was based on the written designation of eligibility
and participation provided by the local USDA -
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service (ASCS) offices. Participation was also
verified by asking the farm operators if they had
participated in an RCWP project. Results,
however, showed discrepancies of over 10%
between the official designation and farmers'
reports. Several attempts were made to clear up
this uncertainty (see Appendix V).
Reasons for Participation. Depending on
whether or not respondents said they had
participated in the RCWP, they were asked a
different series of questions. Responses of farm
operators who said they had participated in the
Concern for Pollution
Available Cost Sharing
Conservation Ethic
Increased Farm Product
Govern Encouragement
Concern for Regulation
; 60
38
18
12
12
11
-F
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent Mentioning Reason
Only Includes self-Identified RCWP participants.
70
Figure 3.4: Farmers' reasons for participating in the Rural Clean Water Program.
62
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
RCWP regarding their reasons for choosing to
participate are shown in Figure 3.4.
Three out of five mentioned something
related to concern for water pollution or its
effects. Just over one-third said that the
availability of cost sharing funds was an
important reason. Almost one in five said they
felt it was "the right thing to do" or in some other
way expressed a conservation ethic. Three other
reasons were given by a sizable number of
respondents: increased farm productivity,
assistance or encouragement from government
agencies, and concern over future pollution
regulations.
Participants were also asked to rate their
satisfaction with the RCWP. Overall,
satisfaction was very high. Almost all
respondents were^either very satisfied (51%) or
satisfied (42%) withVthe technical assistance and
information they received from the RCWP.
Satisfaction with the financial assistance was just
as high with most being either very satisfied
(46%) or satisfied (47%).
Another indication of program effectiveness
can be evaluated by determining the impact of the
RCWP on adoption of BMPs. Respondents were
evenly divided when asked if they would have
been very likely (14%), likely (35%), unlikely
(34%), or very unlikely (17%) to have used all
of the BMPs they were currently using if the
RCWP had not been available.
Figure 3.5 shows the reasons given by the
self-identified non-participants for their decisions
not to participate in the RCWP (some gave more
than one answer) .
Almost one-quarter of the non-participants
said they did not participate because they did not
believe water pollution was a problem, either on
their own farm or in general. The next major
reason for non-participation (16%) involved
some form of resistance to change. This included
the idea that a farmers' present system works well
or that changing practices is too much trouble.
Over 10% said they simply did not like
government programs, including the red tape or
complicated procedures. Almost as many (8%)
said they had never heard of the RCWP at the
time it was available. In addition, seven percent
said they were never asked to participate.
Another nine percent claimed they had tried to
sign up but were ineligible. Only six percent said
anything about economic factors, including the
belief that the cost-share rates were too low.
Respondents who had not participated in the
RCWP were asked about contacts by government
agencies asking them to participate. Almost
two-thirds (58%) of the non-participants claimed
that no government agencies had ever contacted
them about participating in the RCWP, despite
the fact that the local ASCS had designated them
as eligible for participation. On a more positive
note, almost two-thirds said they would be either
very likely (14%) or likely (48%) to participate
if a new program (like the RCWP) were available
today.
Impacts of the RCWP. Figure 3.6 reports
the results of how participants and
non-participants (excluding those who claimed
they had never heard of the RCWP) assessed the
overall impacts of the RCWP. Most respondents
(90%) felt that the RCWP had a positive effect
on farm operators' knowledge about water
quality. Most (84%) also felt the RCWP had a
generally positive effect on surface water quality
in their area.
Around two-thirds felt the RCWP had a
positive effect on operating costs for farm
operators who participated in the RCWP, as well
as on farm income for farm operators who
participated (Figure 3.6). Less than 10% of the
respondents felt that the RCWP had negative
effects on these economic conditions. Just over
half (56%) believed that the RCWP had a positive
effect on drinking water quality in the area.
Many (42%) felt the RCWP had no effect on
drinking-water quality. This may be explained
by the fact that very few RCWP projects
specifically targeted drinking water problems.
Earlier in the interview all respondents had
been asked if water quality in their area was
better, about the same as, or worse than it was
ten years ago. Respondents' assessments of water
quality trends were divided, with about one-third
(34%) believing that water quality had gotten
better and almost half (49%) feeling that it had
remained about the same. About one-fifth (17%)
felt water pollution was now worse.
Statistical Analysis of RCWP
Participation. A key goal of the survey was to
determine whether farm operators who
participated in the RCWP differed significantly
from those who were eligible, but did not
63
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
No Pollution Problem
Resistant to Change
Dislike Government
No Funds or Ineligible
Didn't Hear of RCWP
Not Invited to Sign-up
Economic Factors
; 23
16
13
| 9
8
7
6
0 5 10 15 20 25
Percent Mentioning Reason
Only includes self-indentified RCWP nonparticipants.
30
Figure 3.5: Farmers' reasons for not participating in the Rural Clean Water Program.
Farmers' WQ Knowledge
Surface Water Quality
Farm Operating Costs
Farmers' Incomes
Drinking Water Quality
I Positive HNo Effect M Negative
20 40 60 80 100
Percent Response
Figure 3.6: Farmers' perceptions of effects of the Rural Clean Water Program.
64
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
participate. Analysis in this section therefore
focuses on the differences between participants
and non-participants in terms of selected
variables: farm operator characteristics (Table
3.3), farm structure characteristics (Table 3.4),
water quality awareness (Table 3.5), and use of
information (Table 3.6). The significant
differences are discussed.
The results relating to the possible influence
of farm operator characteristics are shown in
Table 3.3. No significant difference between
participants and non-participants in their level of
formal education was found. No significant
differences were found in terms of age or years
farmed. Individual characteristics seem to have
had little influence on participation.
Some differences were evident in
respondents' overall orientation toward
agriculture. Participants were more likely to
report no off farm employment (64%) than were
non-participants (54%). Participants also derived
a significantly larger amount of their net family
income from farming compared to
non-participants. Over 40% of participants
received all their income from farming compared
to just over a quarter of the non-participants.
Table 3.3: Differences between farm operators who did and did not participate in the Rural Clean Water
Program in terms of farm operator characteristics.
PERCENT
RESPONDENTS
Non- Participant Chi-Square
FORMAL EDUCATION
Under High School
High School Graduate
Some College
College Grad or More
AGE
39 or Younger
40 through 59
60 or Older
YEARS FARM ED
1 5 or Less
16 through 35
36 or More
ON FARM RESIDENCE
No
Yes
OFF FARM EMPLOYMENT
None
Up to 200 Days
200 Days or More
INCOME FROM FARMING
25 Percent or Less
26 to 75 Percent
76 to 99 Percent
100 Percent
* = significant at p <_.OS
Participant
19
45
17
19
25
45
30
30
46
24
13
87
54
17
28
36
21
14
28
* * = significant at p
(Significance)
14
45
19
22 5.88
23
51
26 5.04
27
50
23 1.47
10
90 1.65
64
16
21 10.70**
22
21
16
41 28.96***
<_.01 *** = significant at p <_.001
65
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
Table 3.4: Differences between farm operators who did and did not participate in the Rural
Clean Water Program in terms of farm structure characteristics.
PERCENT RESPONSE
Non- Participant Chi-Square
TOTAL ACREAGE
Under 1 00
100 to 199
200 to 299
300 to 499
500 to 999
1000 or more
PERCENT RENTAL LAND
None
1 to 25 Percent
26 to 50 Percent
51 to 99 Percent
100 Percent
LEGAL ORGANIZATION
Family or Individual
Partnership
Incorporated
GROSS FARM SALES
Under $10,000
$10,000 to $39, 999
$40,000 to $99,999
$100, 000 to $499, 999
$500,000 or More
FARM PROPERTY VALUE
Under $40,000
$40,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $499, 999
$500, 000 or More
FARM EQUIPMENT VALUE
Under $40,000
$40,000 to $99,000
$100,000 to $499,999
$500,000 or More
PERCENT LIVESTOCK SALES
None
1 to 25 Percent
25 to 75 Percent
76 to 99 Percent
100 Percent
HIRED LABOR ON FARM
No
Yes
CONTRACT LABOR ON FARM
No
Yes
CUSTOM WORK ON FARM
No
Yes
* = significant at p £..05
Participant
27
21
14
15
13
11
46
10
14
16
13
86
11
3
26
26
17
26
4
9
17
48
26
38
30
26
6
37
14
15
15
19
67
33
88
12
57
43
** = significant
(Significance)
14
16
15
19
18
19 45.08'**
41
10
20
20
8 19.59**
85
8
6 4.60
10
19
22
42
8 69.54***
5
12
48
35 17.74***
20
32
43
6 48.15***
31
10
20
15
24 13.85***
53
47 23.48***
80
20 14.84***
48
52 8.10**
at p <_.01 * * * = significant at p <_.001
66
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
Differences between participants and
non-participants were particularly evident in
terms of farm structure characteristics (Table
3.4). Participants had significantly larger
operations than did non-participants. While
one-quarter of all non-participants had less than
100 acres in their total operation, only 14% of the
participants were in this small farm-size category.
On the other hand, over a third of the participants
had farms at least 500 acres in size, compared to
just under one-fourth of the non-participants.
Non-participants were more likely to either
have no rental land or all rental land than were
participants. Participants were more likely to
have a mixture of rental and owned land. No
significant differences were found in terms of
legal organization.
Differences in economic conditions of
participants versus non-RCWP participants
appeared to be very significant, with participants
being generally better off financially than
non-participants. Almost half of all
non-participants, but only about one-fourth of
participants, reported less than $40,000 in gross
farm sales. Over half the participants had
$100,000 or more in gross sales, com pared to just
over a third of the non-participants.
Further indicating that participants were
relatively more prosperous than non-participants,
assets reported by participants were of
significantly higher value for both farm
equipment and property. The differences are most
striking for equipment assets, where about half
the participants reported equipment valued at
$100,000 or more compared to under a third of
the non-participants.
The type of farm operations also appears
different for the two groups. Farm operators who
participated in the RCWP were more likely to
report a greater percentage of their gross sales
from livestock or other animal products.
However, this difference may be the result of
more intense targeting of critical area farmers
with livestock than of cropland farmers for
RCWP project participation.
Project participants also tended to have more
help with their farm operations as evidenced by
their significantly greater use of hired labor,
contract labor, and custom work.
Comparisons between participants and
non-participants in terms of their water quality
awareness are shown in Table 3.5. Almost three
out of five participants had heard or read a lot
about NPS pollution, compared to under half of
the non-participants. No significant differences
were'found between the groups in terms of their
reported need for more information. Participants
were much more likely to believe that water
pollution was a problem. About two-thirds of all
participants said pollution was a problem in their
own area, but under half of the non-participants
saw area water pollution as a problem. The trend
is similar, but less dramatic in the case of
pollution problems on their own farms.
Participants were more likely to have
received significantly more water quality
information from the various sources of
information listed in Table 3.6 than were
non-participants. The differences were most
noticeable for amount of information received
from the government agencies or special events
(meetings or tours). Participants also reported
more information from the various private sector
groups (such as other farmers or farm
organizations), as well as from farm magazines.
However, there was generally less difference
between participants and non-participants in
terms of the amount of information received from
the general mass media (newspapers, television,
and radio).
Finally, RCWP participants and
non-participants differed in terms of their overall
evaluation of the impacts of the RCWP (Table
3.7). In most respects, participants had a much
more favorable impression of the effects of the
program than did non-participants. Over
three-quarters of the participants said that the
RCWP had a positive effect on farm operating
costs, compared to 59% of the non-participants.
Perceived impacts on farm income showed
similar patterns. Participants were also much
more likely to see the impacts of the RCWP as
positive on farm operators' knowledge of water
quality, as well as on surface water quality. No
differences were found in terms of respondents'
evaluation of the impacts of the RCWP on
drinking water quality. Almost half the
participants felt that water quality in their area
had gotten better during the previous ten years,
compared to just one-quarter of the
non-participants.
67
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
Table 3.5: Differences between farm operators who did and did not participate in the Rural Clean
Water Program in terms of water quality awareness.
POLLUTION AWARENESS
None
A Little
Some
A Lot
Non-
Participant
3
17
34
46
PERCENT RESPONDENTS
Participant
INFORMATION NEEDED
None 27
A Little 26
Some 35
A Lot 11
AREA WATER POLLUTION
No Problem 53
Problem 47
1
12
31
56
22
31
38
10
35
65
Chi-Square
(Significance!
13.71**
6.14
34.96***
FARM WATER POLLUTION
No Problem
Problem
* « significant at p <_.05
84 77
16 23
* * * significant at p <_.01
8.18**
• significant at p <_.001
Table 3.6: Differences between farm operators who did and did not participate in the Rural Clean Water
Program in terms of extent of use of different sources of information .
Non-
Participant
MEAN SCORE
Participant
T-Value
(Significance)
MEDIA
Farm Magazines
Newspapers
Television
Radio
AGENCIES
SCS
ASCS
Extension
1.99
1.56
1.14
0.95
1.74
1.57
1.61
2.25
1.70
1.31
1.01
2.24
1.97
1.96
4.77**'
2.24*
2.69*
0.95
8.16**'
6.40**'
5.64**
EVENTS
Meetings
Tours
1.01
0.66
1.43
1.04
6.50**'
6.24*"
GROUPS
Other Farmers 1.17
Chemical Dealers 1.04
Farm Organizations 0.94
1.44
1.27
1.24
4.58**'
3.63**'
4.67*"
0 = None
significant at p <_.05
1 = Little 2 = Some
* = significant at p <_.01
3 = A Lot
significant at p <_.001
68
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
3.2.4.4 Overall Adoption of BM Ps
The farm operator survey was also designed
to determine whether or not farm operators
believed that they had adopted recommended
BMPs to control NFS pollution from their own
farms. Respondents were asked if they were
using any farming practices available to help farm
operators protect water quality (BMPs). They
were then asked specifically about the 17 BMPs
being promoted overall as part of the RCWP
(Figure 3.7). In this section, results for all
respondents and all BMPs are presented. In the
following section (3.2.4.5), two subsets of
projects addressing BMP adoption for animal
waste management and sediment reduction are
analyzed.
The survey results must be interpreted with
the following facts in mind: 1) not all BMPs were
applicable or approved in all RCWP projects
(each project Local Coordinating Committee
established a list of applicable BMPs to be cost
shared through their RCWP project) and 2) it was
not possible to evaluate in a telephone interview
whether or not BMPs were implemented in an
approved, technically-sound manner.
Nine of the BMPs in question were relatively
more popular with all the farm operators
interviewed. These BMPs tended to be more
management-intensive than structural. About
three-quarters of all respondents reported using
soil testing, conservation tillage, pesticide
management, and grassed waterways. Almost as
many were using other management practices:
cover crops, hayland or pasture management,
permanent vegetative cover, grasses or legumes
in rotation, and nutrient management.
The extent to which the RCWP ultimately led
to changes in farm operator behavior (as indicated
by increased adoption of BMPs) was evaluated
by comparing RCWP participants with
non-participants in terms of their reported use of
each of BMPs approved for use in the RCWP
projects (Table 3.8).
Participants were significantly more likely to
be using almost all the BMPs than were
non-participants. For 11 BMPs, the differences
were significant. These comparisons indicate the
relative effectiveness of the RCWP in promoting
the adoption of some BMPs, which should lead
to improved water quality.
Influences on BMP Adoption. The features
of a BMP that were important in a farm
operator's decision about whether or not to use it
were determined by asking respondents how
important each of a list of factors would be in
decisions about whether to use a new BMP to help
protect water quality (Figure 3.8). It is probably
most meaningful to consider the percentage of
respondents who said a particular factor was
"very important" since relatively few said the
factors were unimportant
About two-thirds of all respondents said the
cost of the practice would be very important.
Almost as many believed the potential of the
practice to improve water quality would be very
important. Over half said that the effects of the
practice on profits would be very important.
Exactly half of all respondents felt that the ease
of using a practice, as well as the labor or time
required, would be very important. Just under
half said availability of government cost sharing
would be very important. About the same
number would find the experience of other farm
operators to be very important. Two factors
appear to be less unimportant for the farm
operators in this sample. Less than a third felt
information from government agencies and
information from farm businesses would be very
important.
Several additional questions addressed
farmers' attitudes about BMPs. Most
respondents either strongly agreed (11%) or
agreed (74%) about the need for less expensive
farming practices that will help protect water
quality. Over half either strongly agreed (5%) or
agreed (55%) that farm practices that protect
water quality usually require more labor.
Economic and labor constraints may thus be
important factors that limit the adoption of BMPs.
3.2.4.5 Analysis of Selected BM Ps in
Specific Types of Projects
Results presented in the previous section
included both RCWP participants and
non-participants from all 21 RCWP projects.
However, all BMPs were not applicable,
promoted, or cost shared in every RCWP project.
The nature of the water quality problems
determined the types of BMPs that each project
promoted. Therefore, in order to account for such
69
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
Soil Testing
Pesticide Management
Conservation Tillage
Grass Waterways
Hayland/Pasture Mgmt
Cover Crops
Permanent Veg Cover
Grass/Legume Rotation
Nutrient Management
Diversions
Animal Waste Mgmt
Stream Protection
Filter/Buffer Strips
Sediment Traps
Contour Strip-Crops
Terraces
80
J74
]74
73
J70
69
.."•*:= 64
47
38
29
1 30
24
20 40 60
Percent Using BMP
80
100
Figure 3.7: Adoption of best management practices by farmers (all respondents).
Cost of Practice
Water Quality Improve
Effects on Profits
Ease of Use
Labor/Time Required
Govern Cost Sharing
Others' Experience
Inform from Govern
Inform from Businesses
20 40 60
Percent Response
80
100
QVery Important M Somewhat UNot Important
Figure 3.8: Influences on farmers' adoption of best management practices.
70
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
Table 3.7: Differences between farm operators who did and did not participate in the Rural
Clean Water Program in terms of perceived effects of the RCWP.
PERCENT RESPONDENTS
Non-
Participant
FARM OPERATING COSTS
Negative Effect
No Effect
Positive Effect
FARM INCOME
Negative Effect
No Bfect
Positive Bfect
WATER QUALITY KNOWLEDGE
Negative Effect
No Effect
Positive Bfect
SURFACE WATER QUALITY
Negative Bfect
No Bfect
Positive Bfect
DRINKING WATER QUALITY
Negative Bfect
No Bfect
Positive Bfect
WATER QUALITY TREND
Worse/Same
Better
" = significant at p <_.05 * • =
8
33
59
11
32
57
4
10
86
4
20
76
3
43
55
76
24
significant
Participant Chi-Square
(Significance)
6
16
78 37.71***
7
24
69 14.36***
1
5
94 13.43"
1
6
93 50.12***
2
41
57 0.96
52
48 70.86***
at p <_.01 * * * = significant at p <_.001
Table 3.8: Differences between farm operators who did and did not participate in the Rural
Clean Water Program in terms of adoption of best management practices (all respondents).
Non-
PERCENT RESPONDENTS
Participant
Participant
Sediment Traps
Filter/Buffer Strips
Stream Protection/Fencing
Permanent Vegetative Cover
Animal Waste Management
Soil Testing
Pesticide Management
Conservation Tillage
Strip Cropping
Diversions
Grass Waterways
Grass/Legume Rotation
Nutrient Management
Terraces
Cover Crops
Hayland/Pasture Management
* = significant at p <_ .05 * * =
22
33
39
62
39
77
70
70
33
44
70
61
56
26
68
68
significant
39
44
50
72
49
85
79
79
25
52
77
67
62
22
72
72
at p <_ .01 * * * =
Chi-Square
(Significance)
35.24***
12.80***
12.36***
11.62***
10.80***
10.68***
9.80**
9.68**
9.17**
7.40**
6.65**
3.43
3.41
1.76
1.65
1.47
significant at p <_ .001
71
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
differences, this section includes two more
focused types of analysis that consider the
adoption of only specific BMPs in two different
types of RCWP projects. The results are
presented first for the adoption of BMPs aimed
at controlling pollution from livestock waste and
then for BMPs to control pollution from
sediment.
Adoption of Livestock Waste Control
BMPs. The first type of analysis focuses on six
BMPs aimed at controlling pollution from animal
waste (Table 3.9). These BMPs were promoted
in 13 of the 21 RCWP projects: (Alabama,
Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin). This
analysis includes the responses from 719 farm
operators.
The RCWP efforts seemed to have influenced
the use of three of these BMPs. Two-thirds of
the RCWP participants in these 13 projects
reported that they had animal waste management
systems on their farms, compared to less than half
of the non-participants. Almost 60% of the
participants had adopted stream protection or
fencing compared to just 40% of the
non-participants. Participants were also more
likely to be using filter or buffer strips.
Three other practices showed no significant
differences in adoption between participants and
non-participants: nutrient management, soil
testing, and hayland or pasture management.
This indicates that RCWP projects addressing
animal waste problems were more successful at
promoting the adoption of structural BMPs than
management-type practices.
Table 3.10 shows the relationships between
adoption of each of the six BMPs to control
livestock waste and a number of independent
variables (farm operator characteristics, farm
structure characteristics, and awareness of water
pollution problems). This analysis was done on
a bivariate basis using zero-order correlation.
Only two of the farm operator characteristics
show a relatively consistent relationship with
adoption of the livestock waste control BMP. In
the case of four of the BMPs, farm operators who
used the BMPs tended to be significantly younger
than those who did not. There also is a tendency
for these farmers to derive a significantly greater
amount of their household income from farming.
Farm structure variables appear to have more
consistent and powerful relationships with
adoption of the BMPs to control livestock waste.
The most significant farm structure variables
involve the economic strength of the farm
operation. For all six BMPs, those who had
adopted them reported higher gross farm sales.
In all but one case, adopters reported higher
values for farm property and farm equipment. In
the case of four of these BMPs, farm operators
who had adopted them tended to have larger
farms. Labor characteristics appear important in
the use of four of the BMPs as indicated by the
significant relationships noted with use of custom
work and use of hired labor.
Awareness of and information about nonpoint
source pollution also appears to have an important
influence on adoption of livestock waste control
BMPs. For all six BMPs, those who adopted the
practices had heard or read significantly more
about nonpoint source pollution. They also had
received much more information from the various
sources of information. In this case respondents'
scores on all 12 sources of information shown in
Figure 3.2 were added to give a composite index
of information use. There is a tendency for those
who use the various BMPs to consider water
pollution to be a more serious problem in their
areas and on their own farms than for those who
had not adopted the BMPs.
Adoption of Sediment Control BMPs.
The second type of analysis focuses on 12 BMPs
aimed at controlling pollution from sediment
(Table 3.11). These were promoted in 12 of the
21 RCWP projects (Alabama, Delaware, Iowa,
Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota,
Nebraska, South Dakota, Tennessee/Kentucky,
and Virginia). This analysis includes the
responses from 668 farm operators.
The RCWP efforts seem to have influenced
the use of six of these BMPs, but had relatively
little effect on the use of six others. In fact,
although the six relationships are statistically
significant, the relationship between RCWP
participation and adoption is rather weak for all
but one of the BMPs. Only in the case of
sediment traps do these results indicate a
reasonably strong influence of the RCWP on
adoption of BMPs to control sediment. Almost
half of the participants reported the use of
sediment traps compared to only a quarter of the
non-participants. The RCWP also seems to have
72
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
Table 3. 9: Differences between farm operators who did and did not participate in the RCWP
in terms of adoption of BMPs to control animal waste (includes respondents from 13
projects (Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin).
PERCENT RESPONDENTS
Animal Waste Management (AW)
Stream Protection/Fencing (SP)
Filter/Buffer Strips (FS)
Nutrient Management (NM)
Soil Testing (ST)
Hay land/Pasture Management (HM)
* = significant at p_<_.05 ** = significant
Non-
Participant
45
40
32
58
77
70
at p<_.01
Participant
66
59
45
66
83
75
*** = significant at p
Chi-Square
(Significance)
27.50***
24.76***
11.88***
3.72
3.42
2.05
<_.001
Table 3. 10: Relationships between independent variables and farm operators' reported use of BMPs to
control animal waste (only includes respondents from 13 projects (see Table 3.9 for list of
projects and BMP abbreviations)).
Education
Age
Years Farmed
On-farm Residence
Off-farm Work
% Income from Farm
Total Farm Acreage
Percent Rental Land
Gross Farm Sales
Percent Sales from Livestock
Farm Property Values
Farm Equipment Values
Use of Custom Work
Use of Hired Labor
Use of Contract Labor
Awareness of Pollution
Area Pollution Problem
Farm Pollution Problem
Use of Information
* significant at p <_.05
AW
-.04
-.16*** -
-.04
.15***
-.23*** -
.32***
.12***
-.03
.42***
.45***
.32***
.33***
.12**
.22***
.12**
.14***
.09*
.05
.28***
** significant
NM
.06
.13***
.03
.02
.04
.15***
.18***
.08*
.24***
.07
.17***
.24***
11**
.10**
01
29***
06
11**
25***
at p <_.01
ST
.02
-.12**
.00
.04
-.04
.16***
.22***
.07
.27***
.03
.24***
.29***
.13***
.08*
.01
.17***
.04
.09*
.21***
*
HM
.05
-.05
-.02
.05
.01
.08*
.04
-.01
.07*
.16***
.10**
.16***
.02
.05
.08
.15***
-.02
.00
.12***
** significant
FS
.09*
-.10*
-.02
-.07
-.05
.08*
.18*
.07*
.16*
-.02
.14*
.16*
.13*
.09*
.04
.20*
.16*
.05
.22*
SP
.09*
* -.07
-.06
.02
-.02
.07
** .04
-.07
** .11**
.11**
** .07
** .12**
** .01
.04
.06
* * <4 7* * *
** .J4***
-.05
** .23***
at p <_.001
73
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
had a positive, but relatively weak, influence on
adoption of: conservation tillage, diversions,
grass or legume rotations, and filter/buffer strips.
However, participation in the RCWP was
negatively related to adoption of strip cropping.
Only 29% of the participants reported use of strip
cropping compared to 38% of the
non-participants.
As in the case of adoption of livestock waste
control BMPs, some additional analysis also
indicates differences between farm operators who
adopted the various BMPs and those who did not
along several important dimensions. Table 3.12
shows the relationships between adoption of each
of the 12 sediment control BMPs the various
independent variables (farm operator
characteristics, farm structure characteristics,
and awareness of water pollution problems). The
analysis was again done on a bivariate basis using
zero-order correlations. Results are quite
similar, but generally not as consistent or
significant as the results for adoption of BMPs to
control livestock waste.
In the case of farm operator characteristics,
those who use the sediment control BMPs did tend
to be younger and they also generally received a
greater percent of the net income from farming.
Again, farm structure variables appear to be
relatively important. Those who used the
sediment control BMPs tended to have larger
farm operations than their counterparts. They
also were better off financially (as indicated by
their higher gross farm sales, as well as higher
values for farm property and equipment). They
also tended to report more of their gross farm
sales from livestock. The results also show that
greater awareness of nonpoint source pollution
and the use of more information sources were
relatively significant and consistent predictors of
adoption of these sediment control BMPs.
3.3 Project Personnel
Survey
3.3.1 Rationale and Objectives
A mail survey of project personnel (Coffey
and Hoban, 1992) was designed as a supplement
to the in-person interviews. The in-person
interviews with project staff were conducted at
all RCWP project sites during 1991-92 by
inter-agency evaluation teams led by National
Water Quality Evaluation Project (NWQEP) staff
(see Chapter 1, section 1.3). Objectives of the
mail survey were to gather supplemental
information on project coordination and
committees, project effectiveness, information
and education, farm operator participation, and
RCWP workshops.
3.3.2 Project Personnel Survey
Research Techniques
The confidential questionnaire (Coffey and
Hoban, 1992) was mailed to personnel from all
21 RCWP projects, including: employees of
ASCS, SCS, ES, state and federal agencies
responsible for water quality monitoring, and Soil
and Water Conservation Districts.
The questionnaire contained 35 questions,
most which could be answered by checking a
multiple choice item or writing a short response.
Of the 292 questionnaires sent to project staff in
early 1992, 62% were returned. The number of
questionnaires returned from an individual
project ranged from four to eighteen.
Responses were entered into a data base and
tabulated using SAS. The questions and
responses (given as percentages) to the project
personnel questionnaire are presented in
Appendix VII. Relevant question numbers are
noted in the text. Several of the questions in the
questionnaire were identical to questions asked of
farm operators during the telephone survey of
RCWP participants and non-participants (section
3.2). These identical questions are noted and
compared below.
74
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
3.3.3 Project Personnel Survey
Results
3.3.3.1 Project Coordination and
Management
Just over half (52%) of the project personnel
responded that their RCWP project had an overall
local project manager (Question 1). Within a
project, there were differences of opinion as to
whether the project had a local manager. For
eleven of the projects, respondents within a
project were split, with approximately 50% of the
personnel believing the project had a local
manager and approximately 50% stating that the
project did not have a local manager. The
difference within projects may be due to how the
respondents were defining the term project
manager. In some projects, an individual was
hired specifically to be the project manager. In
other projects, the ASCS County Executive
Director or another individual may have been
considered by project personnel to have been the
project manager, although that person was not
formally designated as such.
Coordinating project activities was the reason
selected most frequently to have a project
manager, followed by improved project
efficiency (Question 3). The least mentioned
reason to have a project manager was to provide
a primary contact or spokesperson for project
activities. •
In projects that had a project manager, 96%
of the project personnel responded that the
manager had been very effective to somewhat
effective (Question 6).
The amount of time actually expended by
project managers ranged between full-time to less
than one-quarter-time (Figure 3.9). Almost 50%
of the respondents stated that their project
manager worked full-time to half-time in his or
her capacity as project manager.
Of the individuals who said that their project
did not have a manager, 64% believed a manager
would have been helpful (Question 2). In 13
projects, there was general consensus among
participants about the usefulness of a project
Full-Time 3/4 Time 1/2 Time 1/4 Time Less than 1/4 Time
Time Committment
| Expected Time Needed • Actual Time Expended
Figure 3.9: Level of effort of project manager (project personnel responses).
75
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
Table 3.11 Differences between farm operators who did and did not participate in the RCWP in
terms of adoption of BMPs to control sediment (includes respondents from 12 projects
(Alabama, Delaware, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska,
South Dakota, Tennessee/Kentucky, and Virginia).
PERCENT
RESPONDENTS
Non- Participant
Sediment Traps (SE)
Conservation Tillage (CT)
Diversions (DV)
Grass/Legume Rotation (GR)
Strip Cropping (SC)
Rlter/Buffer Strips (FS)
Permanent Vegetative Cover (VC)
Terraces (TR)
Grass Waterways (GW)
Cover Crops (CC)
Hayland/Pasture Management (HM)
Stream Protection/Fencing (SP)
* = significant at p <_.05
Participant
25
78
49
58
38
38
67
36
76
71
72
43
**= significant at p <_.01 **
47
88
61
67
29
47
74
29
81
76
74
45
* = significant at
Chi-Square
(Significance)
33.73"
10.63**
8.66**
6.56**
5.95*
5.22*
3.43
2.79
2.54
1.76
0.49
0.27
p <_.001
Table 3. 12: Relationships between independent variables and farm operators' reported use of BMPs
control sediment (only includes respondents from 12 projects (see Table 3. 11 for list of
projects and BMP abbreviations)).
CT
Education .03
Age -.11*
Years Farmed .00
On-farm Residence .02
Off-farm Work -.07
% Income from Farm .15*
Total Farm Acreage .29*
Percent Rental Land .15*
Gross Farm Sales .26*
% Sales from .02
Livestock
Farm Property Value .23*
Farm Equip Value .24*
Use of Custom Work .13*
Use of Hired Labor .05
Use of Contract Labor. 02
Pollution Awareness .21*
Area Pollution Prob .06
Farm Pollution Prob .02
Use of Information .33*
* significant at
SC
-.05
* -.05
-.11"
.11**
-.07
" .03
** -.04
** .04
** .07
.15"*
" .09*
** .14***
** .03
-.06
-.09
** .12"
.01
.02
** .15"*
p <_.05
TR
.02
.01
.07
-.02
.09*
-.08*
.11**
-.04
.01
.01
.08*
.01
-.09*
-.12**
-.06
-.03
.00
-.07
.10*
DV
.12**
-.04
.01
-.03
.01
.02
.14***
.06
.13***
.00
.16*"
.14***
.07
.02
-.02
.13***
.06
.00
.25***
GW
.00
-.06
.04
.06
-.02
.10**
.16***
.06
.18***
.12"
.11**
.16***
.05
.03
-.03
.14***
.05
.02
.20*"
GR
.03
-.10**
.00
.04
-.10*
.13"*
.11"
.08*
.18***
.19*"
.16"*
.15*"
.11"
.07
.08*
.14***
.08*
.03
.20* * *
VC
.02
.08
.10*
.00
.06
-.07
.01
-.12*
-.01
.09*
.01
.05
-.01
.00
.04
.05
.01
-.02
.14*
* * significant at p <_.01
CC
-.06
-.05
* .05
.00
-.07
.09*
.08*
* .11**
.12**
.03
.13***
.09*
.04
.06
.05
.07
.00
.00
* • 04 * * *
HM
.00
-.07
.04
.15"
.00
.01
-.02
-.03
-.02
.30**
-.02
.08
.06
-.08
.05
.08*
.03
.03
.13**
* * * significant at
FS
.12***
-.08*
.03
* .02
-.07
.15***
.18"*
.14***
.20*"
* -.05
.13***
.19"*
.10**
.10**
.04
.17*"
.14***
.04
* .26***
p^.001
SP
.06
-.02
-.04
.05
.11*
-.10*
-.02
-.11*
-.08*
.09*
-.04
-.01
.04
.03
-.03
.09*
-.01
-.07
.09*
to
SE
.06
-.11**
-.01
.03
* .00
.03
.14***
* .11**
.16*"
-.05
.09*
.15***
.10"
.17***
.15*"
.08*
.04
.07
.16*"
76
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
manager. In eight projects, however, project
personnel were divided in their opinion as to
whether a project manager would have been
useful.
When personnel whose RCWP project did
not have a project manager but who believed that
one would have been useful were asked to
estimate the expected time commitment for the
position, over 80% indicated that a half- to
full-time commitment would be necessary
(Figure 3.9).
Responses to Questions 1 through 5 indicate
that for many, but not all, projects, a project
manager is necessary. The primary
responsibility of this individual should be to
coordinate project activities. The position should
be a half- to full-time position, depending on the
requirements of the specific project.
3.3.3.2 Project Advisory Committees
Sixty-six percent of the respondents
acknowledged that their project's Local
Coordinating Committee (LCC) had one or more
subcommittees (Question 8). Four standing
subcommittees most commonly referred to were
administrative, information and education, land
treatment, and water quality monitoring. In ten
RCWP projects, personnel were equally divided
as to whether or not subcommittees existed,
indicating confusion within these projects about
project organization at the local level.
The majority of the participants believed that
it was important to have separate subcommittees
(Question 9). The technical committee was the
most frequently mentioned as an additional
subcommittee established within the project.
Seven additional subcommittees were listed:
project advisory committee (PAC), farmer
advisory, report writing, cost sharing, point
source, modeling, and inter-agency.
Based on the questionnaire, as well as the
on-site interviews, the four standing
subcommittees mentioned above were very
important structurally as a means of assigning
project responsibilities.
3.3.3.3 Project Effectiveness
Project personnel were asked to evaluate the
effectiveness of project elements, including
critical area definition, BMP implementation,
land treatment monitoring, and the linkage
between water quality and land treatment. Ninety
percent of the project personnel rated many of the
project elements as being very effective or
somewhat effective in achieving project goals
(Figure 3.10; Question 10). There were three
exceptions: land treatment monitoring, water
quality monitoring, and linkage of land treatment
data and water quality data. Linkage of land
treatment data and water quality data was
considered the least effective project element.
This result was expected, since few projects had
adequate land treatment or water quality
monitoring which could be used to document
water quality improvement resulting from BMP
implementation (see Chapter 2, section 2.2.7) and
RCWP project staff received little training or
guidance in these areas.
Respondents' ratings of the effectiveness of
project elements varied between 65% very
effective (for the development of farm plans) to
15% very effective (for water quality and land
treatment linkage). The two project elements
rated highest in terms of effectiveness
(development of farm plans and development of
cost-share rates) are standard components of
several other USD A farm programs. Several of
the project elements receiving lower effectiveness
ratings are not standard USDA program
procedures, including extensive I&E focused on
management-intensive BMPs and animal waste
management systems, administration of NPS
pollution projects, water quality monitoring,
project reports, land treatment monitoring and
linkage of water quality with land treatment.
Project personnel (93%) believed that the
majority of farm operators were either very
satisfied or satisfied with the technical assistance
and information they received through the RCWP
(Question 11). Responses by participants in the
21 RCWP projects to the same question were
identical (93% were satisfied or very satisfied
with the program) (section 3.2.4.3).
Twenty-eight percent of the personnel
responding believed that their project suffered
from insufficient technical support (Question 12),
identifying I&E, land treatment, or water quality
77
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
monitoring as the elements most lacking support
(Question 13).
Insufficient financial resources hindered the
project according to 26% of the project personnel
(Question 14). The two principal project
elements reported to be limited by financial
resources were land treatment monitoring and
water quality monitoring (Question 17). Many
general RCWP projects (projects that did not
receive additional federal funds for water quality
monitoring) had difficulty securing funds for
water quality monitoring.
Only 7% of the project respondents believed
that their project suffered because money arrived
too late (Question 16). Thus, while the
mechanism for transferring money from the
federal government to the projects worked well,
there just wasn't enough money for water quality
monitoring, according to project staff.
According to project personnel, 94% of the
farmers were very satisfied or satisfied with the
financial assistance (cost share) they received
through the RCWP (Question 15). Results from
the farm operator survey (section 3.2.4.3),
showed that 94% of the RCWP participants
interviewed were satisfied or very satisfied with
the financial assistance they received.
Project staff were asked to evaluate the effect
of the RCWP on water quality, farm economics,
and water quality knowledge among farmers
(Figure 3.11; Question 18). Surface water
quality was perceived as being more positively
affected by RCWP activities than ground water.
Farm operators and project personnel appeared
to perceive the effectiveness of the RCWP in
alleviating surface water pollution in a similar
manner; however, farmers had a slightly more
positive view of the reduction in ground water
pollution due to the RCWP than did project
personnel. Both farmers and project personnel
believed that the RCWP had increased farm
operators' knowledge about water quality (Figure
3.11).
Overall operating costs and farm incomes of
RCWP participants were positively affected by
RCWP cost-share provisions, according to both
farm operators and project personnel (Figure
3.11; see also section 3.2.4.3) . The fanners
were more positive about the economic benefits
derived from participating in RCWP than were
the project personnel.
UJ
Develop Farm Plans
Dev Cost Share Rates
Sign-up Goals
BMP Implementation
Critical Area Det
I&E
Administration
WQ Monitoring
Project Reports
LT Monitoring
Unkage:WQ with LT
20
40 60
% Effectiveness
100
Very Effective | Somewhat Effective H Not Effective
Figure 3.10: Effectiveness of project elements in achieving project goals (project personnel responses).
78
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
Surface Water Quality
Farmers' WQ Knowledge
Farm Operating Costs
Farmers' Income
Drinking Water Quality
80
40 60
Percent Response
Top Bar: ^ Positive - Personnel & No Effect-Personnel [*!J Negative - Personnel
Bottom Bar: y Positive - Producer L. No Effect-Producer • Negative - Producer
100
Figure 3.11: Effects of the Rural Clean Water Program. Top bar for each effect reflects project
personnel responses. Bottom bar reflects farm operator responses.
In general, for all the categories sampled,
farm operators' attitudes towards the RCWP
were more positive than were the attitudes of
project personnel.
3.3.3.4 Information and Education
The information and education (I&E)
program was judged by project personnel to be
somewhat to very effective in affecting farm
operators' attitudes in all but three areas: interest
in tracking project success, development of
leaders within the farm community, and
education of youth on water quality issues (Figure
3.12; Question 19). This outcome is to be
expected, since few projects directed I&E
resources toward these three areas.
I&E was judged by project staff to be most
effective in alerting farmers to the existence of
water quality problems caused by agricultural
activities (Figure 3.12), Personnel said that I&E
programs were less effective in 1) educating
fanners about their individual contribution to the
water quality problem, 2) changing attitudes
about implementing structural or management
BMPs, 3) educating farmers about structural or
management BMPs, and 4) motivating them to
maintain BMPs for the long term (Figure 3.12).
In order to further analyze I&E effectiveness,
the 21 RCWP projects were placed in two general
groups (with some overlap): 1) projects
addressing animal waste as a pollutant source and
2) those addressing sediment as a source of
pollution. Thirteen RCWP projects addressed
animal waste problems (Alabama, Delaware,
Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin). Twelve
projects addressed sediment (Alabama,
Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas,
Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota,
Tennessee/Kentucky and Virginia). One project
(Louisiana) was excluded from the analysis
because it did not fit into either of the groups.
The effectiveness of I&E in affecting the
knowledge, attitudes, and behavior of farmers
participating in the two types of projects (animal
waste management and sediment control), as
evaluated by project staff, is presented in Figure
3.13. For all of the attitudes and behaviors listed
(except one), I &E was always more effective for
79
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
the sediment control projects than for animal
waste projects. This rinding is not surprising,
since I&E outreach to control sediment has been
carried out by USDA and others for many years.
Project staff considered I&E efforts more
important for the adoption and maintenance of
animal waste management systems, conservation
tillage, fertilizer management, and pesticide
management than other BMPs (Figure 3.14;
Question 20). They judged I&E less important for
the adoption and maintenance of such
conventional BMPs as terracing, stripcropping,
grazing land protection, and tree planting. The
importance of I&E for the remaining BMPs
(cropland and stream protection, waterway
systems, sediment retention, and permanent
vegetative cover on critical areas) was judged
only somewhat important by project personnel.
As discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.2.3), the
RCWP experience indicates that I&E is
particularly important for BMPs having a
significant management component. This finding
is confirmed by the responses to the project
personnel questionnaire, since the four BMPs
rated most affected by I&E activities were those
requiring significant and ongoing management on
the part of farm operators.
3.3.3.5 Farm Operator Participation
RCWP project personnel believed that BMPs
were, for the most part, established on the farms
having the greatest impact on water quality
(Question 21). Opinion was split when personnel
were asked if the owners of these farms
implemented BMPs using cost-share programs
other than RCWP. Forty-five percent stated that
they thought these farmers had implemented
BMPs with assistance from non-RCWP
programs, whereas 55% believed that these
farmers had not implemented BMPs with
assistance from non-RCWP programs.
Based on results from the project personnel
questionnaire, the RCWP attracted innovative
farmers (Question 23) and leaders within the local
farm communities (Question 24).
Overwhelmingly, project staff believed that
availability of RCWP cost-share funds was the
Awareness of WQ Prob
Ag Activities on WQ
Knowledge Struct BMP
Knowledge Mgmt BMP
Farms Part of WQPrb
Implement Mgmt BMP
Implement Struct BMP
Skills for Mgmt BMP
Maintenance of BMP
Develop Farm Leaders
Educate Youth on WQ
Track Proj Success
40 60
Percent Effectiveness
Very Effective H Somewhat Effective ftl Not Effective
80
100
Figure 3.12: Effectiveness of RCWP information and education programs (project personnel responses).
80
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
Awareness of WQ Prob
Ag Activities on WQ
Knowledge Struct BMP
Knowledge Mgmt BMP
Farms Part of WQ Prb
Implement Mgmt BMP
Implement Struct BMP
Skills for Mgmt BMP
Maintenance of BMP
Top Bar:
Bottom Bar:
Very Eff. - Animal
very Eff-Sediment
40 60 80
Percent Effectiveness
Somewhat Eft-Animal -3 Not Eff. - Animal
Somewhat Eff-Sedi. • Not Eff-Sediment
100
Figure 3.13: Effectiveness of RCWP information and education by project type (project personnel
responses). Top bar for each question reflects responses from projects that emphasized
animal waste management. Bottom bar reflects responses from projects emphasizing
sediment control.
CO
Animal Waste Mgt Sys
Fertilizer Mgt
Conservation Tillage
Pesticide Mgt
Sediment Retention
Per Veg Cover on CA
Waterway Systems
Stream Protection
Cropland Prot Sys
Irr/Water Mgt Sys
Terrace Sys
Diversion Sys
Perm Veg Cover
Stripcropping
Grazing Land Prot
Tree Planting
20 40 60
% Importance
80
100
Very Important fi Somewhat Important f7^ Not Important
Figure 3.14: Information and education program importance to the adoption and maintenance
of implemented BMPs (project personnel responses).
81
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
major incentive for farmer participation
(Question 25). Of less importance for
participation in RCWP, according to personnel,
was assistance and encouragement from the
government and concern about the effects of
water pollution. If the assessment of project staff
is correct, without government funds and
assistance, farmers are much less likely to
implement NFS pollution control BMPs.
These results are in contrast to what the
farmers reported, in response to an open-ended
question, as their major reasons for participating
in RCWP (section 3.2.4.3). They listed concern
for pollution as the major reason they participated
in RCWP, followed by the availability of
cost-share funds. Government encouragement,
concern about future regulation, and increased
farm production were mentioned less often by
farm operators as reasons for participating.
Project personnel believed that the major
limitation to RCWP participation was poor
economic conditions (Question 26). Other
primary factors cited were that farmers did not
want to be told how to farm, that they did not
know about the RCWP, and that they were not
asked to participate.
The farmers, however, reported that their
primary reason for not participating in RCWP
was that they did not believe that water pollution
was a problem, either generally or on their farm
(section 3.2.4.3). The other major reason given
for non-participation was that they did not want
to change practices, either because it was too
much trouble or because they felt their own
systems worked well enough.
Economic factors were cited least often by
project personnel as reasons for
non-participation. Farm operators who did not
participate also rarely gave economic factors as
a reason for not participating.
These results, however are at odds with the
economic data collected in the farm operators'
survey. Farm operators with more positive
economic indicators (farm and machinery value,
gross farm income, and larger farm size were, in
fact, more likely to participate in the RCWP
(section 3.2.4.3)).
3.3.3.6 BM P Implementation
When questioned about the criteria farmers
used in deciding whether to install a BMP
designed to improve water quality, project
personnel stated that the cost factors (cost of the
practice, availability of cost share, and effect on
profits) and the difficulty of the practice (labor or
time required and ease of use) were more
important than the farmers indicated (Figure
3.15; Figure 3.8; Question 27). Conversely,
farmers believed that the potential to improve
water quality and information from government
agencies played a more significant role in their
decision about whether to install a BMP than did
cost or difficulty of implementation (Figure 3.8).
Project personnel considered the
discontinuation of BMPs after RCWP contract
expiration to be primarily a reflection of the farm
economy (Question 28). The next three major
reasons cited for discontinuation of BMPs were
1) reduced contact by technical agencies, 2) the
BMP was too expensive or costly, and 3) a change
in crops that eliminated the need for the BMP.
About three-quarters of the project staff
estimated that 75% or more of the BMPs
implemented in RCWP project critical areas were
being maintained (Figure 3.16; Question 29). The
remaining one-quarter of the respondents
believed fewer than 71% of the BMPs were being
maintained. However, almost none of the farm
operators interviewed indicated that they had
stopped using any of the BMPs.
Project personnel indicated that many BMPs
were being discontinued or not maintained after
RCWP contracts expire. Management-type
BMPs, such as conservation tillage and fertilizer
and pesticide management, appear to be more at
risk for discontinuation than structural-type
BMPs. The BMPs that are being discontinued
(Question 30) or have not been maintained
(Question 31) are listed in Appendix VII by BMP,
state, and number of respondents per state.
3.3.3.8 Awareness and Attitudes
Project personnel (project personnel survey)
and farmers (farm operator survey) were asked
to agree or disagree with seven statements
82
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
Cost of Practice
Effects on Profit
Ease of Use
Govt Cost Share
Labor/Time Required
Others' Experience
Inform from Business
Inform from Govt
WQ Improvement
0 20 40 60 80
% Response
Very Important B Somewhat Important @ Not Important
100
Figure 3.15: Influences on BMP adoption by farm operators (project personnel responses).
30
25
0)
"O 20
a
15
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
% Critical Area Maintained in BMPs
Figure 3.16: Maintenance of critical area in BMPs (project personnel responses).
83
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
pertaining to attitudes about agriculture and the
environment. More project personnel than
farmers agreed that agricultural water pollution
is a serious threat to fish and wildlife (Figure
3.17; Question 32; section 3.2.4.2). Many more
farmers than project personnel agreed that
agriculture is being unfairly blamed as a cause of
water quality problems (Figure 3.17; section
3.2.4.2).
Farmers believed much more strongly than
did project personnel that farm practices that
protect water quality usually require more labor
(Figure 3.17).
For the remaining statements, farmers and
project staff had similar views about eventual
government regulation of farms to control NFS
pollution, government payments for BMP
installation, the need for less expensive BMPs,
and farmers not having the right to damage water
quality (Figure 3.17).
3.3.3.9 RCWP Workshops
Nine workshops were conducted (1982-91)
for RCWP project personnel. Workshops
emphasized the following topics: RCWP start-up,
project progress, Comprehensive Monitoring and
Evaluation (CM&E) data management, CM&E
working session, mid-program progress,
technical transfer of NFS pollution control
technology, data analysis, and ten-year report
preparation. A final National RCWP Symposium
was held in September of 1992 to facilitate
evaluation of and sharing of lessons learned from
the RCWP.
The number of agency personnel who
attended each workshops is listed in Appendix VII
(Question 33) for seven of the nine workshops.
A total of approximately 31 administrative
personnel (ASCS), 98 land treatment personnel
(SCS), 19 extension personnel (ES), and 127
water quality personnel (state water quality and
U.S. Geological Survey) attended the RCWP
workshops. The last three workshops (NFS
pollution control, data analysis, and the ten-year
report) drew the largest number of participants.
The workshop addressing linking land treatment
and water quality data (data analysis workshop)
was cited most frequently as the most helpful of
the workshops (Question 34). Over 75% of the
respondents believed that the workshops were
useful in helping projects meet the objectives of
the RCWP. The majority of the comments about
the workshops were positive (Question 35; see
Appendix VII).
AgM a ThrMi to Wildlife
Chaaper BMP»
BMPs Raqulra Mora Labor
Ag Unfairly Blamed for Pollution
Govt will Raflulai*
Qovt ihould pay for BMP«
Farmers shouldn't Polluta
0 20 40 60 80
% in Agreement
Project Paraonnal'i Opionion* | Fam Operator** Opioniona
100
Figure 3.17: Farm operator and project staff attitudes about agriculture and the environment.
84
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
3.4 Summary of
Lessons Learned
Results of the questionnaire administered to
RCWP project personnel, in combination with
results from telephone interviews with farm
operators in the project areas who did and did not
participate in the RCWP projects, provide
additional information for evaluating the
effectiveness of the RCWP. Key results and their
applicability to future NPS pollution control
efforts (lessons learned) are summarized below.
3.4.1 Awareness of Agricultural
NPS Pollution and
Problem Ownership
• Lesson: The results of the farm operator
survey illustrate that high awareness about
water quality issues and the impacts of
agriculture on water quality do not neces-
sarily translate into ownership of water
quality problems by farm operators. Edu-
cational programs must be initiated to en-
courage farm operators to deepen their
understanding of NPS pollution causes and
water quality impacts. Some operators
may not have had a documented problem
on their farms. However, where problems
are identified, farm operators must be
motivated to accept responsibility for the
effect of their operations on water quality.
Example: Farm operators in the 21 RCWP pro-
ject areas (participants and non-participants) re-
ported fairly high general awareness of water
quality. The major sources of information ap-
pear to be print media, especially farm maga-
zines, and government agencies. In spite of this
high water quality awareness, one-third of all
fanners did not see agriculture as a major cause
of water pollution in their area. Many farm
operators did not believe that their farms were
part of the water quality problem. However,
when asked to list the major NPS pollution
problems, 75% of the listed problems were
agriculture-related. Farm operators understood
chemical and sediment contamination better than
they understood animal waste-related pollution.
They were even less likely to perceive impacts
of agriculture on drinking water quality. (How-
ever, not all RCWP projects specifically ad-
dressed drinking water contamination as a water
quality problem.)
Example: Other factors affecting farm opera-
tors' sense of ownership of the water quality
problems addressed by the RCWP projects in-
clude 1) the fact that some farmers may have
already implemented measures to reduce NPS
pollution from their farms prior to initiation of
the RCWP and 2) in some projects, the water
quality problem was inadequately documented
by the participating agencies.
85
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
3.4.2 Participation in Voluntary
NFS Pollution Control
Programs
• Lesson: Farmers must be informed about
water quality and aware that their own
farms contribute to water quality degrada-
tion. Ownership of water quality problems
by farmers is essential to successful NFS
control programs.
Example: RCWP participation appears to have
resulted, at least in part, from farm operators'
concerns about water quality. Fanners did not
consider economic factors to be an important
barrier to participation in the RCWP based on
their reasons for participating or not participat-
ing. Many fanners who did not participate did
not believe that water pollution was a problem
or did not want the trouble associated with
changing practices. Furthermore, almost one-
third of the non-participants said that they had
never heard of the RCWP, were never asked to
participate, or disliked government programs.
Lesson: Because farm operators who par-
ticipate in NFS control programs are likely
to be operators of larger and more profit-
able farms, future voluntary agricultural
NFS pollution programs should place more
emphasis on targeting farm operators in
critical areas based on their social and
economic characteristics. For example,
farmers operating smaller and/or less
profitable farms and part-time farmers
should receive special attention via I&E
programs.
Example: The results of the farm operator sur-
vey indicate a strong association between the
economic vitality of a farm and a farm operator's
willingness or ability to implement conservation
measures. The economic indicators assessed in-
dicate that certain groups of fanners are more
likely to be reached by and motivated to partici-
pate in programs such as the RCWP. In fact, the
RCWP appears to have been most successful in
reaching those farm operators who were most
likely to cooperate and easiest to influence:
operators of larger-scale, more profitable farms
who have a stronger commitment to and invest-
ment in farming (see also section 3.2.2).
3.4.3 BMP Adoption
• Lesson: Well-targeted effective educa-
tional efforts can alter farmer behavior.
Education and availability of cost-share
assistance are key components of voluntary
projects.
Example: Results of the farmer survey indicate
that the RCWP was successful in promoting
awareness of and concern about water pollution
associated with agriculture. Survey results sug-
gest that the RCWP led to increased adoption of
some BMPs. Many participants said they would
have been unlikely to adopt as many BMPs if
financial assistance had not been available.
Example: Some BMPs appear to have reached a
fairly high level of acceptance by farm opera-
tors. More revealing than actual rates of BMP
adoption is the difference in adoption rates be-
tween participants and non-participants. About
two-thirds of the BMPs recommended through
the RCWP were used more frequently by RCWP
participants than by non-participants. Farm op-
erators interviewed (both participants and non-
participants) indicated that the costs and labor
associated with certain BMPs would be an im-
portant factor in their decision about whether or
not to adopt a particular practice. Yet several
BMPs that had much higher adoption rates
among participants than non-participants were
expensive and labor intensive (for example,
animal waste management systems and sediment
traps). Cost sharing and technical assistance
were likely important incentives in these cases.
Lesson: Convincing farm operators to
change farming practices to reduce water
pollution will not occur solely through in-
formation exchange. Future agricultural
NFS control programs must concentrate
on either well-targeted voluntary efforts
with effective I&E and attractive cost-
share or regulation. A combined approach
may be needed to achieve full cooperation.
Example: Survey results indicate that most farm-
ers, who overwhelmingly prefer voluntary com-
pliance to remediate NFS pollution, recognize
that a solely voluntary approach will not be
viable much longer. They acknowledge that
society has a right to demand higher levels of
pollution control from the agricultural sector,
but generally believe that it is other farmers who
have the problem and need to be more tightly
regulated.
86
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
3.4.4 Information and Education
Lesson: In future agricultural NPS pollu-
tion control projects, greater emphasis
should be placed on educating farmers
about the less familiar BMPs that have not
been part of USDA's traditional soil con-
servation program, such as animal waste
management systems and pesticide and
fertilizer management, when those BMPs
are appropriate to address the water qual-
ity problem.
Example: Information and education was judged
by RCWP project personnel to be somewhat to
very important in encouraging the adoption and
maintenance of BMPs, especially for manage-
ment-type BMPs (such as fertilizer manage-
ment) or BMPs with a significant management
component (such as animal waste management
systems). Although overall I&E effectiveness
was rated as somewhat or very effective for
many aspects of the RCWP projects, I&E pro-
grams in projects that dealt primarily with sedi-
ment control were more effective than I&E
programs in animal waste reduction projects.
This finding is not surprising, given the long
history of sediment (erosion) control as the focus
of USDA programs. In cases in which BMPs
such as animal waste management systems and
fertilizer and pesticide management will address
the problem pollutant, more active I&E efforts
to educate farmers about these newer BMPs will
be required. In addition, agency personnel may
need specialized training or greater access to
technical assistance for these practices.
Lesson: Both farmers' awareness of how
their practices affect water quality and the
availability of cost-share funds and cost-ef-
fective BMPs are critical components in
addressing agricultural NPS pollution.
Example: According to project personnel, the
75% cost-share rate allowed for implementing
BMPs strongly influenced farmer participation
in RCWP projects. The farmers interviewed,
however, reported that concerns about water
quality were more important than cost-share
availability in motivating them to participate in
a NPS pollution control project
Lesson: Since many farmers believe that
agriculture is being unfairly blamed as a
cause of water quality problems, a new
approach to water quality education will
be necessary if new structural and manage-
ment BMPs are to be installed and existing
BMPs are to be continued and maintained
in areas critical to maintenance or restora-
tion of water quality.
Example: According to project personnel, cer-
tain BMPs are being discontinued or are not
being maintained after RCWP contracts expire
and management-type BMPs are being discon-
tinued more frequently than structural BMPs.
(Farm operators interviewed, however, stated
that they planned to continue using BMPs im-
plemented to protect water quality.) RCWP pro-
ject personnel believed that discontinuation or
lack of maintenance of BMPs is due primarily
to economic considerations. However, discon-
tinuation of low-cost BMPs may also be due to
lack of knowledge, skills, or support from tech-
nical agencies, especially since concerns about
water quality were cited by farm operators as an
important factor in their decisions about RCWP
participation.
Lesson: Improved information and educa-
tion about animal waste management prac-
tices is needed. Since current methods for
developing skills and modifying behavior
of participating farmers have been largely
ineffective, USDA agencies should work
together to develop a new approach to
educating livestock producers about soil
testing and nutrient management. While
I&E should be the responsibility of the
local project coordinating committee, both
SCS and ES should be active in planning
and supporting the I&E effort regardless
of the agency or individual responsible for
I&E implementation.
Example: Participants in RCWP projects with
pollution problems caused by animal waste did
not use soil testing, nutrient management, or
hay land or pasture management more often than
non-participants. These management practices
are a necessary component of a system of BMPs
for reducing animal waste pollution.
87
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
3.4.4 Information and Education
(continued)
• Lesson: USD A should develop a coopera-
tive method for comprehensive farm plan-
ning and promote appropriate practices to
ensure that the most cost-effective and
efficient water quality BMPs are installed.
3.4.5 Water Quality Monitoring
• Lesson: Since water quality monitoring is
the primary and most defensible mecha-
nism to determine changes in water qual-
ity, monitoring must be adequately funded
for the life of the project. Similarly, land
treatment monitoring must be comprehen-
sive in order to facilitate documentation of
the linkage between land treatment and
water quality changes, if such documenta-
tion is a project objective.
Example'. Project staff believed that their pro-
jects received adequate and timely funding ex-
cept for water quality monitoring. In many
projects, because of limited funding, water qual-
ity monitoring was insufficient to document
water quality changes. Land treatment monitor-
ing was ineffective because routine procedures
used by SCS to gather information on land
treatment implemented were not designed to
provide the frequency or quality of data required
to link water quality and land treatment data (see
section 2.2.5.2). As a consequence of inade-
quate monitoring, many RCWP projects were
unable to document a link between land treat-
ment and water quality changes.
3.4.6 Technical Assistance
• Lesson: The coordinating body for national
NFS pollution control programs should
provide assistance to projects through the
services of a national technical support
group. This group should assist project
personnel in developing effective water
quality and land treatment monitoring and
evaluation strategies and designs; identify-
ing and documenting water quality prob-
lems; establishing effective project
objectives and goals; and other technical
tasks.
Example: Almost one-third of all project person-
nel believed that their project did not meet its
goals because of insufficient technical support in
areas such as land treatment, I&E, and water
quality monitoring.
3.4.7 Project Organization
• Lesson: A project manager is necessary for
most, but not all, NFS pollution control
projects. This should be a half- to full-time
position, depending on the complexity and
demands of the project. The primary
function of the manager should be to coor-
dinate and provide oversight for project
activities.
Example: MostRCWP project staff believed that
a project manager was useful or would have been
useful to overall project coordination.
88
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
3.4.7 Project Organization
(continued)
• Lesson: For future NFS pollution control
projects, the local inter-agency committee
coordinating project activities should es-
tablish four permanent subcommittees
(administrative, information and educa-
tion, land treatment, and water quality
monitoring). Additional subcommittees
should be added or current committees
disbanded to address specific short-term
project needs (for example, a report writ-
ing subcommittee). In order to ensure
good coordination and communication be-
tween subcommittees, particularly those
addressing land treatment and water qual-
ity, ongoing interaction such as periodic
joint meetings should be formally estab-
lished for the duration of the project.
Example: The local project coordinating com-
mittees (LCCs) provided an effective mecha-
nism for multi-agency interaction and
coordination at the local level in most of the
RCWP projects.
3.4.8 Workshops for Project
Participants
• Lesson: Project workshops should be ade-
quately funded (including travel for local
and state project personnel) and should be
held early in the life of the project in order
to maximize their usefulness.
Example: The RCWP workshops, attended by
federal and state government officials involved
in RCWP projects, were useful to the majority
of project personnel who attended them. These
sessions helped the project teams meet their
water quality goals.
References
Batie, S.S. 1983. Soil Erosion: Crisis in America's Crop-
lands? The Conservation Foundation, Washington, B.C.
Bultena, G.L. and E.G. Hoiberg. 1986. Sources of infor-
mation and technical assistance for farmers in controlling
soil erosion, 71-82 in Stephen B. Lovejoy and Ted L.
Napier (eds.), Conserving Soil: Insights from Socioeco-
nomic Research. Soil Conservation Society of America,
Ankeny, 1A.
Buttel, F.H., O.F. Larson, andG.W. Gillespie. 1990. The
Sociology of Agriculture. Greenwood Press, New York,
NY..
Buttel, F.H. and I.E. Swanson. 1986. Soil and Water
Conservation: A Farm Structural and Public Policy Per-
spective, in Stephen B. Lovejoy and Ted L. Napier (eds.),
Conserving Soil: Insights From Socioeconomic Re-
search, p. 26-39. Soil Conservation Society of America,
Ankeny, IA.
Carlson, I.E. and D. A. Dillman. 1986. Early adopters and
nonusers of no-till in the Pacific Northwest: a compari-
son, in Stephen B. Lovejoy and Ted L. Napier (eds.),
Conserving Soil: Insights from Socioeconomic Re-
search, p. 83-92. Soil Conservation Society of America,
Ankeny, IA.
Coffey.S.W. and T.J. Hoban. 1992. Rural Clean Water
Program Methodology for Evaluation: Short Answer
Questionnaire. North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
NC.
Dillman, D.A. andJ.E. Carlson. 1982. Influences of absen-
tee landlords on soil conservation practices, Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation 37(1): 37-41.
Ervin, D.E. 1986. Constraints to practicing soil conserva-
tion: land tenure relationships, in Stephen B. Lovejoy
and TedL. Napier (eds.), Conserving Soil: Insights from
Socioeconomic Research, p. 95-107. Soil Conservation
Society of America, Ankeny, LA.
Heffernan, W.D. and G.P. Green. 1986. Farm size and soil
loss: prospects for a sustainable agriculture, Rural So-
ciology 51:31-42.
Hoban, T.J. andM.G. Cook. 1988. Challenge of Conser-
vation, Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy
(Summer): 100-102.
Korsching, P.F. andP.J. Nowak. 1983. Social and institu-
tional factors affecting the adoption and maintenance of
agricultural BMPs. Pp. 349-373 in F. Schaller and G.
Bailey (eds.), Agricultural Management and Water
Quality, p. 349-373. Iowa State University Press, Ames,
IA.
Korsching, P.F., T.J., Hoban and J. Maestro-Scherer.
1985. The Selling of Soil Conservation: A Test of the
Voluntary Approach (Volume 1: Farmer Survey), So-
ciology Report 157, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Napier, T.L., S.M. Camboni and C.S. Thraen. 1986.
"Environmental concern and the adoption of farm tech-
nologies." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 41:
109-113.
Napier, T.L. 1987. Farmers and Soil Erosion: A Question
of Motivation, Forum for Applied Research and Public
Policy (Summer): 85-94.
89
-------
Chapter 3: Perspectives on the Rural Clean Water Program
Nowak, P. J. 1984. Adoption and diffusion of soil and water
conservation practices. 214-237 in Burton C. English,
James A. Maetzold, Brian R. Holding, and Earl O Heady
(eds.), Future Agricultural Technology and Resource
Conservation, p.214-237. The Iowa State University
Press, Ames, IA.
Rogers, E.M. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations (Third edi-
tion). The Free Press, NY.
Swanson, L.E., S.M. Camboni, and T.L. Napier. 1986.
Barriers to the adoption of soil conservation practices on
farms. 108-120 in StephenB. Lovejoy and TedL. Napier
(eds.), Conserving Soil: Insights from Socioeconomic
Research, p. 108-120. Soil Conservation Society of
America, Ankeny, IA.
90
-------
Chapter 4
RURAL CLEAN WATER
PROGRAM PROJECTS
This chapter contains a profile of each of the
Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) projects,
arranged in alphabetical order by state. Each
profile begins with a brief project synopsis
(section 4.1), followed by a section outlining
findings (section 4.2), recommendations, and
successes of the project. Finally, section 4.3 in
each profile contains detailed information about
the project, including project type (general
RCWP or Comprehensive Monitoring and
Evaluation RCWP), time frame, water resource
description, watershed characteristics, project
budget, information and education program,
producer participation, land treatment, water
quality monitoring and evaluation, linkage of
water quality and land treatment, the impact of
other federal and state programs on the RCWP
project, references, and project contacts.
Project budgets have been compiled from the
best and most recent information available and
have been reviewed by project staff. Where gaps
in information existed, the term NA (information
not available) has been inserted into the budgets.
For an explanation of how animal units were
calculated (section 4.3.2.2.5 in each profile),
please refer to the glossary (Appendix III).
In addition to providing detailed descriptions
of the individual RCWP projects, the profiles
contained in this chapter were used to compile the
RCWP program analysis (Chapter 2). Key
findings and recommendations from each project
were evaluated and, where consistent lessons
emerged from several projects, were generalized
into the lessons learned (illustrated by specific
project examples) given in Chapter 2.
Sources used in compilation of the profiles
included in-person interviews conducted during
the on-site visits, responses to the project
personnel survey, project 10-year reports, and
other project documents.
91
-------
N
LEGEND
• monitoring site
A rainfall gauge
(•• } Military Reservation
3 miles
SCALE
Figure 4.1: Lake Tholocco (Alabama) RCWP project map AL-1.
92
-------
Alabama
Lake Tholocco
(RCWP 1)
Dale & Coffee Counties
MLRA:P-133A
HUC: 031402-01
4.1 Project Synopsis
Lake Tholocco, a 600-acre recreational lake located on Fort Rucker Army Base, had been closed to contact water
sports due to high coliform levels prior to project initiation. Additionally, 200 acres of the lake had been lost to
recreational uses due to sediment deposition. The sediment and fecal coliform were primarily from agricultural
sources. The primary purpose of the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) project was to increase the suitability of
Lake Tholocco for contact water sports.
The watershed that feeds Lake Tholocco is situated in southeastern Alabama. Agricultural production consists of
row crops, particularly corn and peanuts, and some animal production. Due to the rolling topography and sandy
soils, erosion rates are high.
Of this 51,400-acre watershed, all 7,527 acres of cropland were designated as critical. During the project period,
over 100% of designated cropland and most of the hog producing farms were treated with one or more best
management practices (BMPs). Terraces and other soil conservation systems were the major BMPs installed.
Baseline water quality monitoring was never conducted. Water quality monitoring during the project was originally
the responsibility of personnel at Fort Rucker. However, due to problems with quality control and funding, some
of the responsibility for monitoring was shifted to other agencies. Although the water quality monitoring program
suffered from inadequate resources and personnel, the project was able to show significant decreases in fecal coliform
levels, which made resumption of contact body sports inLake Tholocco possible. Although never measured, sediment
loads appeared to be decreasing and fish populations appeared to be increasing.
The choice of this watershed for a demonstration project was ideal. It was small and contained a limited number of
animal operators. A very successful information and education (I&E) program and a sufficiently high cost share
ratio assured full participation. This was a well-organized project. However, there were never any actual
measurements of the effect of land treatment on water quality. Thus even though water quality improved, it is not
certain that the improvement was due to a decline in the number of beef and hogs or implementation of BMPs. It
will be hard to monitor this project further as a storm in 1990 caused a breach in the dam and the subsequent draining
of the lake.
4.2 Project Findings, Recommendations, and Successes
4.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals
4.2.1.1 Rndings and Successes
The original project goal of reducing fecal coliform and sediment delivery to the lake appropri-
ately targeted the two main pollutants.
93
-------
Lake Tholocco RCWP, Alabama
4.2.1.1 Rndings and Successes (continued)
The water quality objectives were appropriate because, in reality, they were water quality moni-
toring objectives. The water quality goals of reducing or eliminating the discharge of live-
stock wastes into the streams and reducing sedimentation would have been good objectives
but they were not specific enough as goals.
Water quality monitoring objectives of collecting adequate samples in the streams and the lake to
establish trends and locating sources of non-point source pollution through stream monitoring
were appropriately selected. However, the water quality monitoring goals associated with
these objectives did not include sampling for sedimentation changes in the lake. Although re-
ducing sedimentation of the lake was one of the major project objectives, the attainment of
this objective could not be documented because sedimentation was not measured.
The land treatment goal of 296 signed contracts was unreasonable since the critical area needing
treatment was exceeded with fewer than 100 contracts.
4.2.1.2 Recommendations
Water quality objectives should delineate the general problem that is to be solved. Water quality
goals should specify desired numeric reductions in the pollutant source.
Water quality monitoring has to be designed and executed properly if project goals and objec-
tives are to be evaluated and achievement of those objectives and goals is to be documented.
Adequate funding should be provided for technical support so that achievement of goals and objec-
tives can be properly evaluated.
4.2.2 Project Management and Administration
4.2.2.1 Rndings and Successes
The State Coordinating Committee (SCC) served as an information facilitator and an oversight
group while allowing the local personnel to identify needs and find ways to solve them.
The Local Coordinating Committee(LCC) devised the strategy for I&E activities and coordinated
project activities. The LCC met frequently, thereby decreasing any duplication of effort by
multiple agencies. In addition, there was considerable informal communication between the
different groups participating in the project, which enhanced the project's success.
4.2.2.2 Recommendations
Oversight is needed for water quality monitoring activities. Most LCCs do not have the person-
nel capable of this oversight. Therefore, the SCC needs to ensure that the water quality
monitoring design is satisfactory and that water quality monitoring data and analyses meet
quality assurance and control standards.
4.2.3 Information and Education
4.2.3.1 Rndings and Successes
Information and education were critical to the success of this project. There was extensive one-to-
one contact by the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) to convince the farmers of their
need for nonpoint source (NFS) pollution controls. Through personal contacts, the CES did
an excellent job of persuading farmers to participate in the program, as evidenced by the
meeting or exceeding of all critical area treatment goals.
Personal contacts were found to be the most effective I&E tool, while newsletters and newspaper
articles were found to be the least effective.
All the agencies involved used every opportunity possible for I&E endeavors. Agrichemical com-
panies provided some I&E support, resulting in farmers learning proper calibration and appli-
cation techniques for certain pesticides.
94
-------
Lake Tholocco RCWP, Alabama
4.2.3.2 Recommendations
There is no substitute for competent local staff who can communicate the goals and objectives of
the project directly to the farmer.
Farmers should be educated about the different BMP systems throughout the project However,
information about particular components of BMPs should be timed to correspond with upcom-
ing seasonal agricultural practices.
Agrichemical companies can be a useful component in I&E functions by providing information on
chemicals used in conservation tillage practices and by teaching equipment calibration tech-
niques and safe chemical use.
If the local staff is not familiar with water quality goals as related to land treatment, early train-
ing, by experienced staff from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the state
environmental agency, is essential.
Different I&E strategies should be evaluated to determine which strategies are most effective for
a particular farming populatioa
Follow-up education is essential to insure proper maintenance of BMPs.
4.2.4 Producer Participation
4.2.4.1 Findings and Successes
The project was conducted in an extremely economically depressed farming area with an average
net farm income of only $6,400 in 1974. However, as this project demonstrated, voluntary
farmer participation is possible even in an economically depressed area if practices are accept-
able, there is enthusiastic one-to-one contact by local agricultural agency representatives,
and, most importantly, cost share rates are sufficiently high.
Initially, farmer participation was nonexistent because the cost share ratio was only 60%. Once
the rate was increased, participation was greater than expected. Eighty-nine contracts were
awarded, representing 30% of the farmers in the project area.
Farmers participated for public relations reasons. In this case, the fanners wanted to improve the
water quality of Lake Tholocco to keep the military happy in order to retain the military base
in this part of Alabama.
4.2.4.2 Recommendations
Before project commencement, establish a reasonable cost share rate for the local conditions.
Insure that the most effective BMPs have been selected for the project area before initiating the
project.
4.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes
Eighty percent of the critical area (7,430 acres) and eight out of the eleven critical hog farms
were treated. BMPs appropriate to the project goals were selected. Thirteen different BMPs
were selected to either decrease erosion or store animal waste.
Follow-up was critical to the maintenance of several BMPs, especially the lagoons where proper
cleaning and disposal of lagoon waste had to be taught to the farmers.
95
-------
Lake Tholocco RCWP, Alabama
4.2.5.2 Recommendations
Computers should be available as tools to aid in tracking land treatment activities.
To make tillage operations easier, an entire field should be treated with the appropriate BMP,
even if part of the field drains elsewhere. However, only the critical area portion of the field
should be documented; otherwise correlating land treatment and water quality changes will
be difficult.
Highly credible, critical area fields that significantly contribute to the water quality problem
should be taken out of production and planted in grass or trees using incentives similar to the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
Farmers need flexibility in changing from one BMP to another BMP in order to accommodate to
changes in farm economics and weather conditions.
Livestock numbers and types should be tracked in order to separate the effects of changing animal
numbers and types from the effects of BMPs implemented.
If decreasing sedimentation is a goal of the project, erosion and sedimentation rates should be
monitored.
4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes
Water quality monitoring indicates that fecal coliform concentrations can be reduced significantly
by appropriately targeting the operations contributing the most waste. Fecal coliform counts
had a downward trend over the life of the project. However, due to inadequate funding for
monitoring which caused incomplete monitoring, the relationship between hydrological
events and coliform counts could not be assessed.
Several unexpected factors may also have contributed to the variability in fecal coliform counts or
increased sediment loads. These include allowing cattle access to streams during drought, an
undocumented beaver pond upstream of a sampling point, an undocumented hog farm above
an urban area, and high rates of sediment runoff from dirt roads located on Fort Rucker.
Most water quality variables were not consistently monitored due to lack of funding; thus there
are insufficient data for determining the extent of water quality improvement.
There was a serious quality assurance and control (QA/QC) problem in the Fort Rucker lab
where the water analysis was performed. Although a methodological guide for the water
quality analysis existed, very high turnover of laboratory personnel resulted in serious
QA/QC problems. On occasion, reported fecal coliform levels were higher than total coli-
form levels.
4.2.6.2 Recommendations
Water quality analysis should be performed by a certified lab. If it is not possible to contract
with a certified lab, ensure that detailed laboratory and field sampling guides exist so that
technicians will know exactly how to analyze samples and how and where to sample. In
some instances, it would be useful to include pictures in these guides to show exactly where
and how water samples were taken.
Adequate funding and personnel for water quality activities must be insured.
A water quality monitoring and analysis plan must be prepared before sampling is initiated. Pro-
jects may need outside assistance in designing a water quality and water monitoring plaa
Project managers and staff should be aware of changing agricultural or natural conditions that
may affect water quality results.
96
-------
Lake Tholocco RCWP, Alabama
4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
4.2.7.1 Finding
The project lacked the resources necessary to develop a relational data base for land use, land
treatment, and water quality or to statistically analyze such relationships (Lake Tholocco
RCWP, 1991).
4.2.7.2 Recommendations
Water quality and land treatment monitoring must be designed correctly if linkage between the
two are to be documented.
4.3 Project Description
4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame
General RCWP
1980 - 1991
4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions
4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality
4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size
Lake Tholocco (600-acre impoundment) and 27 miles of perennial tributary streams
4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments
Lake Tholocco's designated uses are swimming, fishing, and wildlife. The lake is used for
recreation by over 100,000 people each year. Boating and fishing account for about
20,000 user-days per year. Watershed streams have a fish and wildlife classificatioa
The lake was closed to body contact recreation for 85 days during 1979 due to high bacte-
ria levels. The lake has not been closed to contact recreation since then. Sediment is de-
creasing the capacity of the lake and also impairs boating, fishing, and water-skiing.
4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement
Coliform bacteria impair contact recreation in Lake Tholocco when counts exceed the
state standard (200/100 milliliters (ml) as a geometric mean). Annual mean fecal coliform
counts observed in Lake Tholocco have not exceeded the state standard since 1982. The
standard is still exceeded in the streams during high intensity, spring rainfall events. Ani-
mal operations in the upper watershed are sources of bacteriological contamination.
Sedimentation has reduced the surface area of lake that can be used for boating, skiing,
and fishing. Eroding cropland in the upper watershed is the source of high sediment load-
ing to project area streams.
97
-------
Lake Tholocco RCWP, Alabama
4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals
Water quality objectives:
Reduce or eliminate the discharge of livestock wastes into the streams of the watershed
and, thereby, improve water quality
Reduce sediment buildup in the lake
Water quality goals:
Monitor water quality in Lake Tholocco to determine its suitability for body contact rec-
reation
Measure water quality trends throughout the life of the project
Monitor water quality in the major tributaries to identify significant sources of NFS pollu-
tion
4.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics
4.3.2.2.1 Watershed Area: 51,400 acres
Project Area: 51,400 acres
Critical Area: 9,270 acres
4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors
Mean Annual Precipitation: 55 inches
Geologic Factors: The project area is located in the Lower Coastal Plain. Soils range from
loamy sands to fine sandy loams and are erosive when unprotected. Topography is rolling
to steep. Much of the cropland is on slopes too steep for row crop farming.
4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture
Average farm size in the project area is 80 acres. When the project started, animal opera-
tions included hogs, layers and broilers, feedlot cattle, and pastured cattle. By the end of
the project, all cattle feedlots and several hog operations had closed down or switched to
poultry productioa As livestock numbers declined, there was a shift from mostly corn
(4,500 acres) and some peanuts (1,500 acres) to mostly other crops such as sorghum, soy-
beans (3,400 acres), and some corn (2,000 acres)
4.3.2.2.4 Land Use
Use % of Project Area % of Critical Area
Cropland: 15 90
Pasture/range: 7
Woodland: 55
Urban/roads: 4
Other:
Military reserve 19
Gully and road 10
ditch erosion,
unpaved roads
98
-------
Lake Tholocco RCWP, Alabama
4.3.2.2.5 Animal Operations
Operation # Farms
Hogs 20
Total #
Animals
4,000
Total Animal
Units
1,600
When this project started, four cattle feedlots, two poultry farms, and 14 hog farms were
identified as needing waste management systems. During the project, all cattle feedlots
and three hog producers went out of business. Further, it was determined that the poultry
farms did not need waste management systems.
4.3.3 Total Project Budget
SOURCES
ACTIVITY
Cost Share
Info. & Ed.
Tech. Asst.
Water Quality
Monitoring
SUM
Federal
State
Farmer Other*
1,215,086
12,250
355,626
62,000
1,644,962
0
0
0
10,000
10,000
516,380
0
0
0
516,380
0
40,000
105,934
35,000
180,934
SUM
1,731,466
52,250
461,560
107,000
$2,352,276
a Soil & Water Conservation District, U.S. Army, Alabama Dept. of Environmental Management
and U.S. Army Preventive Medicine Branch
Sources: Lake Tholocco RCWP Project, 1990; Lake Tholocco RCWP Project, 1991
4.3.4 Information and Education
4.3.4.1 Strategy
The I&E strategy was to contact all producers and then "sell" them on the benefits of the RCWP
program. The CES was the lead agency coordinating efforts of U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture (USDA) and county agencies.
4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals
Use education to get voluntary compliance
4.3.4.3 Program Components
Before producers were contacted, the agencies sharing responsibility for project implementation
chose the appropriate BMPs and decided on the cost share rates for BMPs. A letter stating
the problem was sent to all area landowners, who were invited to attend an introductory meet-
ing. Mass media and letters were then used to solicit further participation. Marry personal
contacts were also made not only to solicit participation, but also to encourage participants
throughout the project period to answer questions.
Additional I&E activities included: radio and TV programs; production letters; field days; meet-
ings; and information about specific practices timed to concur with farm activities.
99
-------
Lake Tholocco RCWP, Alabama
4.3.5 Producer Participation
4.3.5.1 Level of Participation
Participation was excellent Eighty-nine participants signed one contract each. Throughout the
implementation phase of the project, the number of contracts signed was continually down-
graded. Fewer contracts were needed due to a decrease in hog and feedlot cattle operations
and because BMP installation goals on critical acres were exceeded.
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation
Cost share rate of 75% for most practices
Payment limitation of $50,000
An aggressive and effective I&E program to recruit potential participants
4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation
Originally, the cost share rate (60%) was too low. At a 75% cost share rate, the project was able
to contract 100% of its planned BMPs within the first five years.
Land leases with absentee landowners were too short to enable the farmer to recoup money spent
on the BMPs.
4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs
Chances for continued maintenance appear to be poor. Already some conservation tillage sys-
tems, terraces, animal waste management systems, and permanent vegetative cover have
been discontinued. Other BMPs that have not been maintained by some farmers are cover
crops, stream protection systems, pesticide management, fertilizer management, woodland ac-
cess, and road stabilizatioa The primary reason for either discontinuation or lack of mainte-
nance of the BMPs seems to be economic considerations and, more importantly, changes in
cropping practices that eliminate the need for certain BMPs.
4.3.6 Land Treatment
4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design
The strategy for land treatment was to treat critical areas within the watershed. Thirteen BMPs
were selected for application to the critical areas.
4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals
The objective of the land treatment was to reduce erosion and sedimentation from critical areas
within the watershed.
The goal was to apply BMPs to eroding farmland and all confined animal systems without waste
treatment measures, except broiler operations.
4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application
Criteria: Confined animal systems without waste treatment measures, sloping cropland without
adequate water disposal, pasture adjacent to creeks that was eroding above tolerance, wood-
land with gullies, eroding road banks, abandoned or active soil mining pits
Application of criteria: The project adhered to the critical area criteria in committing cost share
funds.
100
-------
Lake Tholocco RCWP, Alabama
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used
General Scheme: Treat nearly all cropland; fix gullies; treat hog operations near streams.
BMP$ Utilized in the Project*.
Permanent vegetative cover (BMP 1)
Animal waste management systems (BMP 2)
Terrace systems (BMP 4)
Diversion system (BMP 5)
Grazing land protection systems (BMP 6)
Waterway systems (BMP 7)
Cropland protective systems (BMP 8)
Conservation tillage systems (BMP 9)
Stream protection systems (BMP 10)
Permanent vegetative cover on critical areas (BMP 11)
Sediment retention, erosion, or water control structures (BMP 12)
Tree establishment (BMP 14)
Pesticide management (BMP 16)
*Please refer to Appendix I for description/purpose of BMPs.
4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring & Tracking Program
4.3.6.5.1 Description
Units of planned and applied BMPs were reported annually by SCS and ASCS. Land treat-
ment was tracked by SCS using the contracts. Charts for signed contracts were taped to
the wall and color coded in order to determine stage of completion. By the end of the pro-
ject, tracking had been computerized, which eased the management burden. Annual on-
site status reviews were completed by a technician who had not been responsible for
installing the particular BMP.
4.3.6.5.2 Data Management
No data specific to land treatment were collected.
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results
The project team estimated that sediment control BMPs have reduced average soil loss on
critical acreage from 11 tons/year to 6 tons/year.
Project personnel attempted to use CREAMS to model sediment movement from the field.
However, at the time, the CREAMS model did not account for a restrictive plow pan,
and, therefore, its use was discontinued. The Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) was
used to predict a reduction in erosion, but this model could not predict changes in sedimen-
tation rates due to erosion.
101
-------
Lake Tholocco RCWP, Alabama
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results (continued)
Quantified Project Achievements:
Critical Area Treatment Goals
Pollutant
Source. HnilS iQlal % Implemented lolaL % Implemented
Cropland acres 9,270 80% 6,953 107%
Hog Farms # 11 7% 8 100%
Contracts # 115 77% 96 93%
4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design
The original strategy was for the Dale County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) to
sample the tributaries and for the U. S. Army to sample the lake and analyze all samples.
The data were then transferred to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management
(DEM) for analysis. Due to problems at the U.S. Army lab, the original strategy was
changed and the Dale County SWCD and the Alabama DEM became more involved in sam-
pling and analysis.
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals
Water quality monitoring objectives:
Collect adequate samples in the streams and the lake to establish trends
Locate sources of nonpoint source pollution through stream monitoring
Water quality monitoring goals:
Collect grab samples at nine stations on the major tributaries leading to the lake and at
seven in-lake stations on a regular basis
Evaluate samples for fecal streptococcus and fecal coliform bacteria and for nitrates, am-
monia nitrogen, orthophosphate, total suspended solids, volatile solids, and turbidity
Relate laboratory results to activities in the watershed, including rainfall events
4.3.7.3 Time Frame
1980-1990
4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme
4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations
Monitoring stations:
7 lake stations
9 tributary stations
4.3.7.4.2 Sample Type
Grab
102
-------
Lake Tholocco RCWP, Alabama
4.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency
At the start of the project, sampling was biweekly (June - August) and monthly (Septem-
ber - May). In 1983 and 1984, sampling decreased to seven to nine samples per year re-
spectively. The number of samples collected annually increased to 15 to 16 for the
remaining life of the project. Thus, the yearly number of samples were not uniform over
the life of the project.
4.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed
Fecal coliform (FC), total coliform (TC), total dissolved solids (TDS), total suspended sol-
ids (TSS), volatile suspended solids (VSS), turbidity, nitrite nitrogen (NOz-N), nitrate ni-
trogen (NOs-N), ammonium nitrogen (NFU-N)
Only FC and TC have been monitored throughout the project time frame. NO3-N and tur-
bidity were measured during the first two years of the project at all sampling stations and
then again in 1986,1987, and 1988, but only at tributary stations. Nutrient monitoring
was dropped in 1983. In 1986 only tributaries were being sampled for TDS,TSS, and
VSS. These variables were dropped in 1987 due to a lack of funding.
4.3.7.4.5 Row Measurement
Stream gauges at tributary sampling stations were installed in 1983. The number of
stream gauge readings varied from three per year to 21 per year. No additional funding
or personnel were provided to support the flow measurement effort and thus the effort was
dropped.
4.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements
Precipitation: Four rainfall collection sites were established in 1984.
4.3.7.4.7 Other Important Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information
There was an overall problem in lack of initial water quality monitoring design. Addition-
ally, water quality monitoring suffered from lack of continuity of personnel and variables
measured. There was a high turnover in the lab at Ft. Rucker which contributed to qual-
ity control problems. The lab was only certified to conduct coliform analysis. Many of
the originally measured variables were dropped because there were insufficient staff to
conduct the analyses. Some of the variables were turned over to Alabama Department of
Environmental Management (ADEM) for analysis (such as TDS.TSS, and TVS), but these
analyses were also discontinued due primarily to logistics problems (i.e. it was a two-hour
drive from the field to the ADEM lab). Turbidity and NOs measurements, after being dis-
continued, were subsequently reinstated when the Dale County Soil and Water Conserva-
tion District (SWCD) purchased a spectrophotometer and started analyzing samples.
Sampling frequencies were irregular throughout the life of the project Other variables,
such as rainfall and stream flow, were added after the project started. Monitoring ceased
after the 1989 sampling year. In March of 1990, water from a storm caused a breach in
Lake Tholocco's dam and the subsequent draining of the lake.
4.3.7.5 Data Management
The data from the Army and the SWCD were sent to Alabama DEM for analysis.
103
-------
Lake Tholocco RCWP, Alabama
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results
Analysis:
The project has performed an analysis of FC observations by comparing pre- and post-
treatment data sets.
Comparison 1: first two years (1981-82) versus last two years (1987-88): by the end of
1982 - less than 50% of practices installed / by the end of 1988 - 97% of practices
installed. Comparison 1 was also used to compare pre- and post-treatment turbidity and
nitrate- nitrogen observations in streams.
Comparison 2: first three years (1981-83) versus last three years (1986-88): by the end of
1983 - 72% of practices installed / by the end of 1988 - 97% of practices
installed.
Results:
One of two major goals and objectives were met in this project: Lake Tholocco was re-
turned to a usable water body for contact water sports due to substantial decreases in fecal
coliform. Since sediment was never measured, there is no way to determine whether the
surface area of the lake was maintained over the life of the project.
Comparison of FC means from 1981-1982 versus 1987-1988 shows a decline in FC means
for all tributary stations in the upper watershed. Trends at lake stations are mixed. How-
ever, the station nearest tributary inflow shows a decline in FC means.
Comparison of FC means from 1981-1983 versus 1986-1988 again shows declining FC
means for all tributary stations. However, all lake stations show higher FC means for the
1986-1988 period compared to 1981-1983. Two possible explanations are: 1) most of the
BMP implementation occurred in 1982, suggesting that the greatest reductions in FC
counts occurred during 1983; and 2) other sources, in addition to confined animal opera-
tions, which directly influence the lake, are contributing to bacterial contaminatioa
Results of turbidity monitoring are inconclusive. The project notes that all the mean val-
ues are low and turbidity levels show a seasonal fluctuation.
Mean nitrate values are also low. The pre- and post- treatment comparison suggests a de-
crease in stream nitrate concentrations since the project began; however, the relation to
NFS controls is unclear.
Biweekly sampling during summer months may not be frequent enough to determine com-
pliance with the swimming use classification (geometric monthly mean 200/100ml).
Consistent ambient monitoring was conducted over the project time frame. Monitoring
sites were accurately selected to examine NFS impacts close to sources in the upper water-
shed and at sites where use impairment occurred in the lake. The data analysis technique
used (comparison of pre- and post- treatment data sets) is a good approach; however,
some correction for precipitation effects is needed (Spooner et al., 1991).
4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
This project did not have the resources available to develop a relational data base for land use, land
treatment, and water quality or to statistically analyze such relationships. However, one objective,
lowered fecal coliform levels, was realized.
4.3.9 Impact of Other Federal and State Programs on the Project
None
104
-------
Lake Tholocco RCWP, Alabama
4.3.10 Other Pertinent Information
Although a point source pollution survey had been completed prior to project initiation, an important
source of sedimentation pollution was missed: the unpaved roads on Ft. Rucker Army Reserve. Dur-
ing the project, this source was discovered and there has been an attempt to pave some of these
roads.
4.3.11 References
A complete list of all project documents and other relevant publications may be found in Appendix IV.
Lake Tholocco RCWP Project. 1991. Ten-Year Report.
Spooner, I, J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L. Lanier, M.D. Smolen, andF.J. Humenik.
1991. NWQEP Annual Report: Water Quality Monitoring Report for Agricultural Nonpoint
Source Pollution Control Projects - Methods and Findings from the Rural Clearn Water Program.
National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricul-
tural Engineering Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
4.3.12 Project Contacts
Administration
Joan Grider, ASCS
P.O. Box 891
Montgomery, AL 36101-0891
(205-223-7434)
Water Quality
Victor Payne, USDA Soil Conservation Service
P.O. Box 311
Auburn, AL 36830
(205) 887- 4521
Land Treatment
Bennie Moore, USDA-SCS
984C E. Andrews Ave.
Ozark, AL 36360
(205) 774-4749
Information and Education
CES
P.O. Box 390
Ozark, AL 36360
(205) 774-2329
105
-------
r
LEGEND
• monitoring station
— — project boundary
[ _] town
SCALE IN MILES
Figure 4.2 Appoquinimink River (Delaware) RCWP project map, DE-1.
106
-------
Delaware
Appoquinimink River
(RCWP 2)
New Castle County
MLRA: 149A
HUC: 020402-05
4.1 Project Synopsis
The Appoquinimink drainage basin (30,762 acres) lies entirely in the Atlantic Coastal Plain, with much of its 16-mile
stream length meandering through tidal marsh. Several ponds and lakes are associated with the river. Nearly
two-thirds of the watershed is in active cropland, planted primarily in corn and soybeans.
The project addressed high nutrient concentrations causing advanced eutrophication in Silver Lake, NoxontownPond,
Wiggins Mill Pond, and Shallcross Lake. The principal water uses of these water bodies are primary and secondary
contact recreation, maintenance and propagation of fish and aquatic life, industrial and agricultural water supply,
drainage, navigation (tidal portion), and passage of anadromous fish. Silver Lake has been closed to primary contact
recreation due to bacterial contaminatioa NoxontownPond has been impaired by excessive algae growth, inhibiting
its use for boating. Algae in Silver Lake has caused a decline in desirable fish species populations. Fish kills have
occurred in several of the lakes.
The objective of the Appoquinimink River project was to install best management practices (BMPs) in order to reduce
erosion and nutrient transport, decrease nutrient applications to cropland, and properly manage animal waste. The
BMP emphasized in the project was the conversion of row crop cultivation to no-till. Pesticide and fertilizer
management were also promoted through the RCWP project.
The critical area (13,000 acres) was defined based on soil erosion rates, the presence of gully erosion, concentration
of animal wastes 1,500 feet or less from a stream, and the need for better farm management with respect to application
of fertilizer, pesticides, and animal wastes. The implementation goal was to treat 9,750 acres of the critical area.
A water quality monitoring program included storm event sampling conducted seasonally in Noxontown Pond, Silver
Lake, and Shallcross Lake. However, baseline data for Silver Lake and Noxontown Pond are lacking. Ground water
monitoring was added in 1984 to determine to what extent, if any, the installation of BMPs was affecting ground
water quality.
Producer participation was excellent, with 60% of the farmers, representing 87% of the critical area, participating
in the project. Of the 130 farms in the watershed, 76 were under contract through the RCWP project. Over 11,000
acres in the critical area were treated to reduce nonpoint source (NFS) pollution from agricultural activities.
An unexpected reaction to the project was that farmers outside the project area were upset that they were ineligible
to participate in the RCWP project.
Through the RCWP project, no-till acreage was increased from about 50% of the cropland to 90% in the project
area. In addition, farmers reduced pesticide use; planted cover crops to reduce winter runoff; and installed grassed
waterways, filter strips, and other measures.
Significant reductions hi soil erosion and improved fertilizer and pesticide management practices have lowered the
level of suspended solids in the river by 60%. In one of the ponds, monitoring showed that sediment levels have
declined by 90% and total phosphorus has decreased by 65%.
107
-------
Appoquinimink River RCWP, Delaware
4.1 Project Synopsis (continued)
The Appoquinimink River project combined excellent inter-agency cooperation and an effective information and
education (I&E) program with a farm community having a strong interest in the RCWP project. The water quality
monitoring program was handicapped by lack of pre-project baseline data; however, a significant reduction in
suspended solids and phosphorus in the lakes was measured.
The benefits of the project have extended into other parts of New Castle County; most farmers in the county have
voluntarily adopted no-till as their primary tillage practice. However, the use of no-till in corn production has
significantly dropped due to slug damage and lack of a safe and effective pesticide control.
Project Findings, Recommendations, and Successes
4.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals
4.2.1.1 Findings and Successes
Adequate baseline data is critical in setting effective objectives and goals (Carty et al., 1991).
Original land treatment goals (100% of the critical area) were ambitious, though based on pre-
vious high project participation rates in an earlier demonstration project. The goals were later
revised to more realistic levels (75% of the critical area).
4.2.1.2 Recommendations
Water quality goals should be set in concert with designated uses established by the state (Carty et
al., 1991).
4.2.2 Project Management and Administration
4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes
Identifying "critical areas" for cost sharing is extremely important in maximizing the project dol-
lars for water quality benefits (Carty et al., 1991).
A disproportionate percentage of project funds was earmarked for cost sharing land treatment,
while insufficient funds were available for I&E and water quality monitoring programs.
Early involvement of producers in identifying the water quality problem and its source as well as
deciding on and planning the project is key to a successful outcome.
Administration of the project by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS)
was effective because: 1) members of the ASC County Committee that worked with the Lo-
cal Coordinating Committee (LCC) were farmers elected by their peers, bringing a strong
community base of support; 2) ASCS had experience administering the Agricultural Conser-
vation Program; and 3) ASCS was able to undertake the project without hiring new staff.
4.2.2.2 Recommendations
The National Coordinating Committee (NCC), or similar organization, should assign each mem-
ber to monitor and provide support to specific projects. That person should attend the State
Coordinating Committee (SCC) and LCC meetings of her/his projects at least once a year to
help facilitate inter-project communication and information-sharing nationwide.
Appropriate reporting is necessary to provide feedback to project staff, funding agencies, and the
public and to motivate agency staff to meet project goals. However, water quality project pa-
per work should be streamlined to avoid excess reporting and documentation. Reporting re-
quirements for the entire project period should be clearly outlined at the beginning of the
program (Carty et al., 1991).
108
-------
Appoquinimink River RCWP, Delaware
4.2.2.2 Recommendations (continued)
It may be helpful for SCC members to attend the meetings of other project SCCs on occasion to
help facilitate sharing of resources and solutions among projects nationwide.
Local and state agencies should receive adequate advance notice of water quality program eligibil-
ity to enhance sound planning and selection of projects with a good possibility of success.
4.2.3 Information and Education
4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes
Purchase by the Conservation District of a no-till drill for on-farm workshops and demonstrations
promotes the BMP while allowing first-time users to experiment with its use without having
to make a major financial investment in the equipment first (Carry et al., 1991).
4.2.3.2 Recommendations
Farmers need assistance in understanding, planning, and implementing nutrient and pesticide man-
agement, reduced tillage, and animal waste management practices.
4.2.4 Producer Participation
4.2.4.1 Findings and Successes
Sixty percent of the farmers, representing 87% of the critical area, participated in the project.
Plans were completed for 76 farms resulting in 76 contracts covering 13,000 critical acres.
The project has shown that voluntary programs for BMP implementation have resulted in conser-
vation tillage becoming an acceptable practice for many farmers.
The project has demonstrated that farmers are willing to make adjustments in their practices to
help improve water quality.
4.2.4.2 Recommendations
None
4.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation
4.2.5.1 Rndings and Successes
One-to-one contact with farmers by SCS and the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) was criti-
cal to the success of the project.
Although producers have experienced some problems with slugs in corn crops under conservation
tillage due to a lack of an effective and safe pesticide, conservation tillage is still the BMP of
choice for sediment control and nutrient reduction.
Projects that rely on management BMPs need specialists for effective implementation (e.g., pest
management, weed control, fertilizer use). Technology transfer of management BMPs from
farm to farm is critical for overall project success.
Producers installing conservation measures under the Section 208 program provided a favorable
lead-in for the RCWP.
Most farmers report using soil tests to help plan for nutrient crop needs. In addition, most farm-
ers side-band rather than broadcast fertilizer at planting and apply most nitrogen after crops
are growing (split application), when crop uptake is greatest.
The use of scouting in association with pesticide management has resulted in a reduction of the
amount of pesticides applied in the project area.
An innovation on a BMP developed in this project is the use of rock pads during construction of
waterways to keep gullies from moving up a waterway.
109
-------
Appoquinimink River RCWP, Delaware
4.2.5.2 Recommendations
Maintenance requirements should be clearly defined in the contract with the producer. Follow-up
with the participant is necessary to ensure maintenance throughout the practice life span.
(Carry et al., 1991)
Additional technical help with management practices (fertilizer, pesticide management, tillage) is
very helpful in the field (Carty et al., 1991).
The economics of growing crops and the costs of implementing practices to improve water qual-
ity need to be constantly assessed in order to continue the process of identify and implement-
ing practices that both reduce agricultural NFS pollution and are affordable and acceptable to
producers.
Use of annual aerial photographs could assist in tracking of land use and BMP installation.
4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes
The water quality monitoring program results show that BMPs have decreased the total phospho-
rus and total suspended solids concentrations in the Appoquinimink watershed.
Voluntary programs for BMP implementation have resulted in conservation tillage becoming an
accepted practice for many fanners. Since BMPs were installed, however, orthophosphate
concentrations (as a proportion of total phosphorus concentrations) have increased in the wa-
tershed and BMPs have failed to decrease downstream nitrogen loading.
The project lacked strong pre-project baseline data and the monitoring program would have been
more useful if extended to 10 to 15 years.
Delivery of suspended solids and nutrients from agricultural lands to surface streams has declined
90% from pre-RCWP levels. The delivery of total phosphorus to the stream has shown a
similar decline. Both filtered and unfiltered total phosphorus have been reduced more than
60% from pre-RCWP levels. Orthophosphorus concentrations, however, increased somewhat
over the first years of the study before declining to about 65% of pre-RCWP levels. Nitrogen
loads to the stream have declined less than 25% from pre-project levels.
Reduced suspended solids concentrations, and hence increased water clarity, have resulted in sig-
nificant increases in algal growth in the downstream ponds. Nutrient concentrations have not
varied significantly over the last four years of the project, indicating that pond sediments con-
tribute sizable quantities of nutrients to pond waters. Water quality in the ponds can still be
described as enriched.
4.2.6.2 Recommendations
All land use activities in the watershed should be identified and accounted for in the monitoring
program, particularly when such activities are located immediately upstream of a monitoring
station (Carty et al., 1991).
Funding should be made available for adequate pre-project monitoring and for an extended during
and post-project period in order to maximize chances of documenting the effects of land treat-
ment implemented.
4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
4.2.7.1 Rndings and Successes
Changing tillage practices resulted in an estimated decrease of about 90% in the concentration of
suspended solids and more than 60% of the concentration of total phosphorus reaching pro-
ject area water bodies.
Cover crops reduced suspended solids and phosphorus entering project area lakes and ponds.
110
-------
Appoquinimink River RCWP, Delaware
4.2.7.2 Recommendations
Clear documentation of BMPs implemented prior to initiation of a water quality demonstration
project and their water quality effects is important if a link between project-sponsored land
treatment and changes in water quality are to be clearly demonstrated.
Pre-prpject baseline data are essential to document land treatment - water quality linkage.
4.3 Project Description
4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame
General RCWP
1980-1991
4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions
4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality
4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size
Lakes and streams in the Appoquinimink River basin
4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments
The lakes and streams of the Appoquinimink River watershed are used for recreation by
approximately half a million people who live within 20 miles of the watershed. Water uses
include passive recreation (sightseeing and bird watching) and active recreation (fishing,
hunting, and boating). Contact recreational uses such as swimming have been constrained
by degraded water quality at Silver Lake in recent years.
4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement
All lakes in the Appoquinimink River basin have eutrophic conditions with dense aquatic
vegetation and algal growth due to excessive nutrient concentrations. Fecal coliform bac-
teria standards (200/100ml) were typically violated throughout the watershed during ambi-
ent conditions.
4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals
Improve water quality in the Appoquinimink River Basin by controlling nutrient loads,
sediment, bacteria, and chemical runoff from agricultural sources
4.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics
4.3.2.2.1 Watershed Area: 30,762 acres
Project Area: 30,762 acres
Critical Area: 13,000 acres
111
-------
Appoquinimink River RCWP, Delaware
4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors
Mean Annual Precipitation: 45 inches
Geologic Factors: The watershed is underlain by deep sediments covering the bedrock.
The surface formation consists largely of medium to coarse sands and gravels. This forma-
tion is an important water supply presently used as a potable water source for public and
private supplies. The predominant soil type is deep, well-drained and medium to coarse
textured. Slopes are nearly level in the uplands and steep near the stream channels.
4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture
There are about 130 farms in the project area producing primarily corn, soybeans, and
vegetables. Eighty-five percent of these farms are located in the critical area Most dairy,
beef and hog operations are located along or near streams. None of the operations had ani-
mal waste treatment facilities before the RCWP project was initiated.
4.3.2.2.4 Land Use
Use %of Project Area
Cropland
Pasture/range
Woodland
Urban/roads
Other
Wetlands/
Open water
64
4
13
5
14
% of Critical Area
62
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.3.2.2.5 Animal Operations
Operation # Farms
Dairy
Beef
Hogs
Poultry
7
2
Animals
945
293
NA
70,000
Total Animal
Units
1,323
293
NA
2,310
Total Project Budget
SOURCES Federal
ACTIVITY
Cost Share 873,196
Info. & Ed. 0
Tech. Asst. NA
Water Quality
Monitoring 225,000
SUM 1,098,196
State
Farmer
Other
0
0
0
0
0
328,366
0
0
0
328,366
0
0
NA
90,000
90,000
SUM
1,201,562
0
NA
315,000
$1,516,562*
* Total does not include cost of technical assistance
Source: Carty et al., 1991
112
-------
Appoquinimink River RCWP, Delaware
4.3.4 Information and Education
4.3.4.1 Strategy
Distribute information about the project sufficient to entice producers to meet the project's partici-
pation goals
4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals
Inform the public of the experimental RCWP project
Inform and educate the public about the solutions to the agricultural nonpoint source problem
Target the audience in the critical area
Disseminate information on the outcome of the RCWP project
Provide demonstration plots to show producers how recommended BMPs work
4.3.4.3 Program Components
One-to-one contact by SCS and CES with the farmers
Public meetings/workshops at which conservation tillage equipment was demonstrated
Fact sheet on proper disposal of agrichemicals
New media articles
ASCS newsletter
Statewide meetings of the No-Till Council, a cooperative organization initiated by CES, agribusi-
ness, and others
Demonstrations by CES of side-band application, in-row tillage, and dairy techniques
Tours of participating farms
4.3.5 Producer Participation
4.3.5.1 Level of Participation
Excellent: Sixty percent of the farmers, representing 87% of the critical area, actually partici-
pated in the project Of the 130 farms in the watershed, 76 were under contract through the
RCWP project to implement water quality plans.
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation
Cost share rates up to 75%
Payment limit of $50,000
Strong technical assistance programs for fertilizer and pesticide management programs conducted
by the CES
Perception on the part of the producers that the recommended BMPs would be economically bene-
ficial
A eutrophication problem visible to the community
113
-------
Appoquinimink River RCWP, Delaware
4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation
Resistance to participate in any government program by some producers
Funding limitations: the project stopped accepting applications in 1984 due to lack of funds
Producer's farm not located in the critical area
Inability of some producers to manage their share of the cost of BMP implementation
4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs
Very good because farmers see the economic as well as water quality benefits of the practices.
However, there has been some reduction in use of conservation tillage due to slug and weed
control problems.
The use of no-till will be modified based on fuel costs (the higher fuel costs, the more no-till), the
slug problem, and soil and climatic conditions (no till has a place when it is very wet or very
dry).
The spillover from the project area to the rest of the county has been a major success of the pro-
ject. Many farmers outside the project area wanted to participate in the project but were ineli-
gible. Some of these producers have voluntarily adopted conservation tillage without cost
share assistance through the RCWP.
4.3.6 Land Treatment
4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design
The land treatment strategy was to target management practices that would reduce soil and nutri-
ent losses, hi particular, conservation tillage and fertilizer and pesticide management.
4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals
Reduce soil and nutrient losses from cropland
Reduce the amounts of fertilizer and pesticides applied to cropland
Implement practices to manage manure applications so as to reduce nutrient losses
The original project goal was to have 100% of the critical area (13,00 acres) under contract by
the end of FY 1984 with all contracts implemented by the end of FY 1989; this goal was
later revised to treatment of 9,750 critical acres.
4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application
Criteria:
Soil erosion exceeding T value
Gully erosion (including ephemeral) is present
Concentration of animal wastes 1,500 feet or less from a stream
Need for better farm management with respect to application of fertilizer, pesticides, and
animal wastes
Application of Criteria: Critical area designation for individual contracts was determined by soil
conservationists using the above criteria on a field by field basis.
114
-------
Appoquinimink River RCWP, Delaware
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used
The primary BMP emphasis was on conservation tillage, fertilizer management, and pesticide
management. There was some implementation of animal waste management systems, primar-
ily manure - holding structures and calibration of manure application equipment.
BMPs Utilized in the Project*:
Permanent vegetative cover (BMP 1)
Animal waste management system (BMP 2)
Diversion system (BMP 5)
Waterway system (BMP 7)
Cropland protection system (BMP 8)
Conservation tillage system (BMP 9)
Permanent vegetative cover on critical areas (BMP 11)
Sediment retention, erosion, or water control structures (BMP 12)
Improving an irrigation and/or water management system (BMP 13) (not cost shared)
Fertilizer management (BMP 15) (not cost shared)
Pesticide management (BMP 16) (not cost shared)
* Please refer to Appendix I for description/purpose of each BMP.
4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring & Tracking Program
4.3.6.5.1 Description
BMP installation was tracked and reported through annual reports. A spreadsheet was
used to track each contract. Maintenance was tracked through annual status reviews. Land
use changes were not formally tracked; however, major land use changes did not occur in
the project area during the course of the project.
4.3.6.5.2 Data Management
Details of BMP implementation, cropping (type, acreage, and yield), fertilizer application
rates (nitrogen and phosphorus), and pesticide type and application rate are kept in the
New Castle County Automated Environmental Resources Information (AERI) System.
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results
Improved fertilizer management has cut the phosphorus application rate in half compared
to the pre-project period. Installation of manure holding structures allows farmers to store
animal wastes for timely application to meet crop needs.
Scouting has decreased pesticide applications as well.
115
-------
Appoquinimink River RCWP, Delaware
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results (continued)
Quantified Project Achievements:
Critical Area Treatment Goals
Pollutant
Source Units Tolal % Implemented Total % Implemented
Cropland acres 13,000 87% 9,750 117%
Dairies # 7 43% 5 60%
Water # 160 48% 80 96%
Quality
Plans
Source: Appoquinimink River RCWP Project, 1987. RCWP Progress Summary
for Fiscal Year 1987, form RCWP 3
4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design
The water quality monitoring and evaluation program was designed and conducted by the Univer-
sity of Delaware College of Agricultural Sciences under contract to the Water Resources
Agency for New Castle County.
Storm event samples were taken seasonally in Noxontown Pond, Silver Lake, and Shallcross
Lake.
Ground water monitoring was added in 1984 to determine to what extent, if any, the installation
of BMPs was affecting ground water quality.
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals
Continue an existing physical, chemical, biological, and hydraulic monitoring program being con-
ducted in the Noxontown Pond headwaters (sub-watershed of the Appoquinimink River ba-
sin)
Evaluate the impact of agricultural BMPs on water quality in the Appoquinimink watershed
Evaluate the impacts of improved animal waste handling, erosion and runoff control, fertilizer,
and pesticide management on ground water quality
4.3.7.3 Time Frame
Wiggins Mill Pond: 1980 - 1986
Silver Lake, Shallcross Lake, and Noxontown Pond: 1983 -1986
Ground water: 1984 -1986
4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme
4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations
Wiggins Mill Pond: 1 station to monitor a 2,200 acre sub-watershed / Approximately
1,200 acres of this sub-watershed are in the critical area
Silver Lake, Shallcross Lake, and Noxontown Pond: 3 stations for each water body (2
within the lake and 1 at the outlet)
116
-------
Appoquinimink River RCWP, Delaware
4.3.7.4.2 Sample Type
Grab
4.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency
Wiggins Mill Pond: Frequency varied from 1 to 7 samples per month / data set includes
some storm flow samples
Silver Lake, Shallcross Lake, and Noxontown Pond: Monthly for baseline data / 3 storm
event samples per year
4.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed
Wiggins Mill Pond: Biological monitoring consisting of periphyton and macroinverte-
brates sampled monthly, May-October 1985-86
Silver Lake, Shallcross Lake, and Noxontown Pond: (all stations) water & air tempera-
ture, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), acidity, alka-
linity, hardness, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), suspended solids (SS), dissolved solids
(DS), orthophosphate (OP), total phosphorus (TP), organic nitrogen, ammonia-nitrogen
(NHa-N), nitrite-nitrogen (NOj-N) and nitrate-nitrogen (NOs-N), chlorophyll a, biota,
and coliform, fecal coliform (FC), and fecal streptococci bacteria
Silver Lake, Shallcross Lake, and Noxontown Pond: Biological monitoring consisting of
periphyton and macroinvertebrate sampled monthly (April-Nov., 1985-86)
4.3.7.4.5 Flow Measurement
Instantaneous, taken at each pond spillway whenever outflow samples were collected and
in stream when samples were collected below Wiggins Mill Pond
4.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements
Precipitation: US Weather Bureau station at Middletown, near the center of the watershed
4.3.7.4.7 Other Important Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information
The monitoring program lacks a baseline period for Silver Lake and Noxontown Pond.
Silver Lake, Shallcross Lake, and Noxontown Pond: Point source monitoring - monthly
sampling of point source discharges are conducted to supplement information in NPDES
(National Pollutant Discharge Eliminiation System) Compliance Monitoring Reports, par-
ticularly for nitrogen and phosphorus discharge loads
Wiggins Mill Pond: The dam washed out in the spring of 1979 and was restored in 1984.
Noxontown Pond was dredged in 1984 through 1985 and may have contributed to in-
creased organic nitrogen concentrations.
4.3.7.5 Data Management
The data are managed locally.
117
-------
Appoquinimink River RCWP, Delaware
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results
Analysis:
All water quality data were initially reduced to monthly means to reduce bias introduced
by variation in sample number and period. Data summaries included univariate descriptive
statistics using the SAS MEANS procedure and bivariate statistics using the SAS CORR
procedure.
Analyses for trends were conducted by inspection of annual and seasonal mean concentra-
tions and loading rates, and by evaluation of correlation coefficients to determine the sig-
nificance of water quality changes over time.
Results:
Significant reductions in soil erosion and improved fertilizer and pesticide management
practices have lowered the level of suspended solids in the river by 60%. In one pond,
sediment levels have declined by 90% and total phosphorus has decreased by 65%.
The project team reports the following water quality trends. Delivery of suspended solids
and nutrients from agricultural lands to surface streams has declined 90% from pre-
RCWP levels. The delivery of total phosphorus to the stream has shown a similar decline.
Both filtered and unfiltered total phosphorus have been reduced more than 60% from pre-
RCWP levels. Orthophosphorus concentrations, however, increased somewhat over the
first years of the study before declining to about 65% of pre-RCWP levels. Nitrogen loads
to the stream have declined less than 25% from pre-project levels. Increased concentra-
tions of organics (biochemical and chemical oxygen demand) are attributable to greater
proportions of cropland remaining in vegetative cover from conservation tillage; however,
these levels have not increased to a point where they are a concern (Carry et al., 1991).
Reduced suspended solids concentrations, and hence increased water clarity, have resulted
in significant increases in algal growth in the downstream ponds. Nutrient concentrations
have not varied significantly over the last four years of the project, indicating that pond
sediments contribute sizable quantities of nutrients to pond waters. Water quality in the
ponds can still be described as enriched (Carty et al., 1991).
4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
Implementation of BMPs existed prior to RCWP, but no records of those accomplishments are avail-
able; thus the pre-project level of implementation is difficult to define. This factor, combined with
the lack of baseline data in the sampling program, may preclude demonstrating water quality improve-
ments as a direct result of RCWP BMP implementation.
4.3.9 Impact of Other Federal and State Programs on the Project
Superimposing the federal Payment in Kind (PIK) Program on the RCWP project watershed resulted
in enhancement of both programs as participation in both programs was high. However, program
overlap created some difficulty in assessing pollution abatement attributable to RCWP, especially in
1983, when many farms were left idle and devoted to conservation through PIK (Carry et al., 1991).
The 1980 state sedimentation and erosion control law complemented RCWP in that all land disturb-
ing activities required a plan to control off-site sediment. This included major and minor subdivision
activity that occurred in the watershed (Carty et al., 1991).
Delaware's revised septic system regulations also complemented RCWP in that a site evaluation con-
ducted by a licensed soils evaluator was required. The new standards prevent common failures en-
countered in the old method of total reliance on a percolation test (Carry et al., 1991).
During the project period, the Water Resource Agency developed resource protection area maps that
identified recharge areas and wellhead areas in the county. Development in these areas was restricted
by the county planning department (Carty et al., 1991).
118
-------
Appoquinimink River RCWP, Delaware
4.3.10 Other Pertinent Information
None
4.3.11 References
A complete list of project documents and other relevant publications may be found in Appendix IV.
Appoquinimink River RCWP Project, 1987. RCWP Progress Summary for Fiscal Year 1987, form
RCWP 3.
Carry, C, J.J. Lakatosh, L.R. Irelan, B.L. Dworsky, R. Mulrooney, W. Ritter. 1991. Appoquin-
imink Rural Clean Water Program Ten Year Report. September 1991. Cooperators: ASCS, SCS,
New Castle Conservation District, New Castle County-Water Resources Agency, CES, and the
University of Delaware. 56p. plus appendices.
4.3.12 Project Contacts
Administration
Corinthia Carty
USDA-ASCS
2394 North Dupont Hwy
Middletown, DE 19709
(302) 378-9883
Water Quality
Thomas Russell
Water Resources Agency
2701 Capitol Trail
County Engineering Building.
Newark, DE 19711
(302)731-7670
Dr. William Ritter
College of Agricultural Science
Department of Agricultural Engineering
Townsend Hall
Newark, Delaware 19717- 1303
(302) 831-2501
Land Treatment
Jack Lakatosh
USDA - SCS
2394 North Dupont Hwy
Middletown, DE 19709
(302) 378-4320
Information and Education
Robert Mulrooney
Cooperative Extension Service
039 Townsend Hall
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19717-1303
(302) 831-2506
119
-------
Figure 4.3: Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough (Florida) RCWP project map, FL-1.
120
-------
Florida
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough
(RCWP14)
Okeechobee & Martin Counties
MLRA: U-156A
HUC: 030901 -02
4.1 Project Synopsis
The Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough (TCNS) Basin is located in southern Florida, directly north of Lake Okeechobee.
The watershed covers 120,000 acres of a typically flat landscape with generally poorly drained, coarse textured soils
(Spodosols) that have a low phosphorus retention capacity. Water flow from the basin tributaries enters Lake
Okeechobee through a flow control structure (S-191).
Lake Okeechobee provides drinking and irrigation water, supports commercial and sport fishing, and is a habitat for
many migratory as well as endemic bird species. High phosphorus (P) concentrations in Lake Okeechobee promote
eutrophic conditions that impair all water uses.
Agricultural nonpoint source (NFS) pollution has been documented as a significant water quality problem in the
TCNS watershed (Allen et al., 1982). The TCNS Basin contributes 27% of the external P load but only 4% of
inflowing water to the lake (Federico et al., 1981).
Land use in the watershed is primarily agricultural, consisting of intensive dairy and beef cattle farms whose animals
graze on improved pastures that are surface drained and fertilized. The main sources of high phosphorus loads in
the watershed are thought to be runoff from dairy barns and holding areas, direct stream access by large numbers
of dairy cattle, and runoff from improved pastures.
About 63,109 acres have been identified as critical areas needing treatment. This includes all dairy farms, all beef
cattle pastures that have been extensively ditched for improved surface drainage, and all areas within one-quarter
mile of a waterway. Land treatment and water quality goals were established to: 1) reduce phosphorus and nitrogen
concentrations from the project area to Lake Okeechobee by at least 50%; 2) contract at least 75% of the critical
area; and 3) contract with all dairy farms in the project area (Stanley et al., 1986).
The general treatment strategy was to install best management practices (BMPs) which exclude dairy cows and beef
cattle from waterways and to control wastewater runoff from dairy barns. Principal BMPs used were stream
protection systems, reduction of barn waste by improving water use efficiency and improving effluent disposal with
spray irrigation, animal waste management systems, diversion systems, grazing land protection systems, permanent
vegetative cover, sediment retention structures, and water control structures. Stream protection emphasized fencing
to keep animals out of the water courses, along with providing shade and alternative water facilities. Dairy closures
independent of Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) activities may also have affected water quality within the basin.
The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) imposed a Dairy Rule requiring each dairy to collect
the runoff from high intensity areas and treat the P through spray irrigation, so that the P in the effluent would be
assimilated by plants or absorbed by the soil (nutrient mass balance).
This project has a high level of BMP implementation, most of which occurred in 1985 to 1987. This allowed for a
baseline pre-BMP period of four to six years. Contracts were written for 54,709 acres or 87% of the critical area.
All critical dairies are under contract. Ninety-nine percent of contracted practices were installed. The two most
important reason farmers decided to participate was availability of cost share funds (federal and state) and concern
about future pollution regulations. Increased farm production was given by producers as the second most important
reason.
121
-------
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough RCWP, Florida
4.1 Project Synopsis (continued)
The primary objective of the water quality monitoring network was to evaluate the effectiveness of agricultural BMPs
for reducing P concentrations to Lake Okeechobee, as measured by changes in water quality concentrations
(particularly phosphorus) in the tributaries and basin outlet.
The TCNS project had extensive water quality monitoring. The monitoring design allowed for comparison of the
pre-, during-, and post- BMP implementation periods. Upstream/downstream station pairs were established in a few
tributaries to adjust for pollutant concentrations originating above the BMP implementation sites. Ground water
table depth was also measured. Biweekly grab samples were taken biweekly at 23 tributary stations; some were
monitored since 1978. In 1988, the network was modified to monitor site- specific BMP effectiveness on each dairy.
This modification were a result of the FDER dairy rule.
Due to a high level of BMP implementation and dairy closures, the project exceeded its goal for reduction of
phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations at the project outlet, despite substantial increases in the numbers of cows.
Tracking of BMP implementation by practice and subvvatershed allowed the project to link the water quality and land
treatment data bases on subwatershed drainage area and annual basis. This contributed to the project's ability to
document changes in water quality as a result of land treatment on both subwatershed and project levels.
Subwatersheds with a large amount of BMP implementation such as Mosquito Creek and Nubbin Slough have shown
significant decreases in phosphorus concentrations. In contrast, in northwest Taylor Creek and Lettuce Creek
subwatersheds, increased cattle densities have had a negative effect on water quality. Adjustments of phosphorus
concentrations for changing cow numbers, ground water table depth, and upstream concentrations increased the
ability of the project to document water quality effects from the RCWP BMPs.
Fencing to keep animals out of the water courses, along with providing shade and water facilities, was effective in
reducing the phosphorus concentrations from the project area. However, these BMPs alone were probably not
sufficient to meet the water quality goal of a 50% reduction. BMPs that require more active management, such as
dairy waste water utilization, reduction, and timing of nutrient applications on dairy and beef operations and
controlling the release of high intensity area runoff, seemed to have the greatest impact on water quality.
This project is demonstrating that a large project can be successful, if it is well organized, tightly managed and
sufficiently funded. One key to this project's success was the implementation of an administrative subcommittee.
This subcommittee was made up of the Agricultural Stabilization Conservation Service (ASCS), Soil Conservation
Service (SCS), Cooperative Extension Service (CES), and the South Florida Water Management District (SF WMD).
The subcommittee met regularly to coordinate project activities and each member participated in all phases and
activities of the project.
In 1988, the Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough RCWP project was expanded to include dairies in the Lower Kissimmee
River Basin. Please refer to the profile on the Lower Kissimmee River, Florida RCWP project for further detail.
4.2 Project Findings, Recommendations, and Successes
4.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals
4.2.1.1 Findings and Successes
The Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough (TCNS) RCWP project set realistic quantitative goals for both
water quality and land treatment.
Specific goals for BMP implementation were set by the Local Coordinating Committee (LCC) on
an annual basis.
122
-------
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough RCWP, Florida
4.2.1.1 Rndings and Successes (continued)
Water quality modeling was used in setting quantifiable project land treatment goals. Based on a
modification of the Vollenweider Model, the Lake Okeechobee Technical Advisor Commit-
tee (1986) recommended reducing all phosphorus loadings to the lake by 40% to protect long-
term water quality. From a land treatment management perspective, phosphorus loadings
from the TCNS basin would need to be reduced by 75 to 90% to achieve this objective. The
original project goal was to reduce phosphorus concentrations from the watershed by 50%.
Based on this watershed reduction goal, the project refined their land treatment objectives
and goals by estimating the amount and location of land treatment that would be required to
achieve this increased level of phosphorus reduction.
New state regulations changed the specific land treatment BMP goals. Due to the 1987 FDER
Dairy Rule and the 1989 State of Florida Surface Water Improvement and Management
(SWIM) Plan, the BMP emphasis for waste management, pasture and hayland management,
and irrigation management increased.
The project set land treatment and water quality monitoring objectives and goals that guided the
establishment and maintenance of effective monitoring designs. Monitoring provided valu-
able feedback on progress toward meeting land treatment and water quality goals.
4.2.1.2 Recommendations
Implementation strategy goals need to be flexible for adaptation to watershed conditions and rela-
tive BMP effectiveness, but still support the overall strategy of improving water quality. For
example, BMP selection and emphasis should include all major sources of pollutants, such as
animal and dairy barn waste.
4.2.2 Project Management and Administration
4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes
The local ASCS project administrator also served as the project coordinator. The project coordi-
nator facilitated communication and inter-agency cooperation.
The key to success of the project was the implementation of an administrative subcommittee.
This subcommittee was made up of the ASCS, SCS, CES, and the SFWMD. The subcom-
mittee met regularly to coordinate project activities and each member participated in all
phases and activities of the project.
Full-time water quality monitoring specialists were assigned to the project throughout its dura-
tion, from which the project benefited greatly.
The project was affected by local and state political and regulatory pressures. Regulations that
came into effect mid-project forced changes in both land treatment and water quality goals.
4.2.2.2 Recommendations
A local project coordinator is essential to provide coordination among the agencies and keep the
project on course to meet its goals.
A core project staff, with low turnover rates, is important to provide for a smooth transition as a
project shifts from planning to installation, then to operation and maintenance.
123
-------
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough RCWP, Florida
4.2.3 Information and Education
4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes
Close cooperation among the four local key agencies (ASCS, SCS, CES, and SFWMD) was es-
sential to the success of the information and education (I&E) program.
Field days, demonstration sites, and tours were the most effective methods for presenting the ac-
complishments of the project.
The level of funding for I&E was insufficient and restrictive to accomplish all the I&E goals.
Funding of a laboratory to conduct effluent, manure, tissue, water, and soil sample analysis
would have been useful to producers to encourage proper nutrient management.
4.2.3.2 Recommendations
Demonstration projects should be encouraged.
Management booklets describing management of animal waste systems should have been devel-
oped.
Projects need sufficient and flexible funding for I&E.
4.2.4 Producer Participation
4.2.4.1 Findings and Successes
Technical assistance and increased cost share funds provided by the state increased program par-
ticipation.
One-to-one consultation with producers improved BMP management and maintenance.
The threat of regulations increased participation.
4.2.4.2 Recommendations
One-to-one contact with potential participants should be emphasized because this is the most effec-
tive method in convincing landowners to participate in a water quality project. This tech-
nique also improves BMP management and maintenance.
4.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes
All land treatment goals were met or exceeded.
The project found that explicit guidance for animal waste management practices needed to be writ-
ten into the contracts to ensure that both the management and structural components of these
systems were operated and maintained according to specifications.
Fencing to keep animals out of the water courses, along with providing shade and water facilities,
was effective in reducing the phosphorus concentrations from the project area. However,
these BMPs alone were probably not sufficient to meet the water quality goal of a 50% reduc-
tioa
BMPs that require more active management, such as dairy waste water utilization, reduction, and
timing of fertilizer applications on dairy and beef operations, and controlled release of high
intensity area runoff, seemed to have the greatest impact on water quality.
Fencing cattle out of streams did not prevent runoff into the streams of excess waste from the ad-
jacent lands.
Adoption of BMPs, such as improved fertilizer and feeding practices, was observed in surround-
ing areas.
124
-------
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough RCWP, Florida
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
State regulations, implemented in 1987 and 1989, changed the focus of the water quality goals
and land treatment Dairy fanners and others thought that the original BMPs would be insuf-
ficient to meet the requirements of these new regulations.
A holistic farm management approach is necessary which considers not only milk production, but
also the handling of manure. Improving nutrient management and crop production techniques
were essential for a total project success.
Continued improvements in the quality of water leaving the TCNS basin will require more nutri-
ent management, efficient use of dairy waste water, and management of waste storage la-
goons.
4.2.5.2 Recommendations
Due to the temptation of contractors to increase the cost of structural BMP installation when gov-
ernment cost share funds are involved, the project (ASCS) should set an average price for
each BMP.
Local projects should have flexibility in selecting and modifying BMPs. This will help ensure that
the water quality goals will be met, farmers will participate, and needed BMPs can be imple-
mented in a timely fashion. However, oversight should be given from the state and national
level to ensure that the BMPs selected are directed at the water quality goals.
Management plans are a key element in the operation and maintenance of BMPs.
All farms in the critical area should have a plan written and a contract signed to ensure the pro-
ject's success.
Practices with the greatest water quality benefits should be prioritized and implemented first
Participant involvement in plan preparation is critical in getting a plan suited to the needs of the
participant and the project goals; this also increases the probability of successful implementa-
tion of the plan.
Sufficient time should be devoted to defining the critical area. The TCNS RCWP project initially
designated the entire basin as critical. The critical area was redefined in 1983 based on the
major sources of phosphorus to allow for effective targeting.
Close coordination between the project and regulatory agencies is needed in selecting and imple-
menting BMPs.
Follow-up meetings with participants should be held to facilitate completion of BMP implementa-
tion.
Phosphorus imports into a watershed can be minimized by purchasing animal feed lower in phos-
phorus concentration and reducing phosphorus fertilization rates by animal waste manage-
ment. Practices which encourage exporting of phosphorus should also be incorporated into
the overall basin plan when phosphorus production in the basin exceeds phosphorus needs.
4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes
The TCNS project had multiple years of baseline data collect by the Agricultural Research Serv-
ice (ARS) and the SFWMD. The SFWMD continued to monitor and expand the sampling
program. This allowed for a good pre- project assessment and several years of post-BMP
monitoring.
The project exceeded its goal for reduction of phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations at the pro-
ject outlet.
Trend analysis has shown that significant reductions in phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations
have occurred in more than half of the subwatersheds.
125
-------
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough RCWP, Florida
4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
There has been an overall decrease in total phosphorus (TP concentrations at the project's outlet
to Lake Okeechobee (S-191)), despite an increase in cow numbers. This decrease is largely
a function of the high number of BMPs installed in subwatersheds, especially the Mosquito
Creek and Nubbin Slough subwatersheds, and dairy closures in the Otter Creek subwatershed
(Ritter and Flaig, 1987; Stanley et al., 1988).
4.2.6.2 Recommendations
As demonstrated by the TCNS project, data management is crucial to the success of a monitoring
program. All data should be reviewed frequently and should be stored in a central project
file for efficient integration and subsequent evaluation of hydrologic and water quality vari-
ables.
Lab and field quality assurance and quality control programs that include data evaluation and veri-
fication for precision and accuracy are elements critical in a successful monitoring program.
Flow data should be collected to establish relationship between changes in nutrient concentrations
and changes in flow. Some storm event monitoring may be useful to establish this relation-
ship.
4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
4.2.7.1 Findings and Successes
The TCNS project's tracking of BMP implementation by practice and subwatershed allowed the
project to link the water quality and land treatment data bases on a drainage and annual basis.
This contributed to the project's ability to document changes in water quality as a result of
land treatment on both subwatershed and project levels.
The project achieved a high level of BMP implementation, primarily between 1985 and 1987.
This allowed for a baseline or pre-BMP period of four to six years. Combined with a high
level of land treatment, this type of monitoring increased the ability of documenting BMP ef-
fectiveness.
The fact that total phosphorus concentrations continue to decrease as the length of the post-BMP
data base increases, supports the argument that the BMPs were effective in reducing TP con-
centrations. Consistent improving trends over time support the evidence that changes in
water quality were attributed to BMPs.
Subwatersheds with a large amount of BMP implementation such as Mosquito Creek and Nubbin
Slough have shown significant decreases in total phosphorus concentrations. In contrast, in
northwest Taylor Creek and Lettuce Creek sub watersheds, increased cattle densities have
had a negative effect on water quality (Ritter and Flaig, 1987; Flaig and Ritter, 1989). De-
tection of predicted water quality trends and patterns over multiple water quality monitoring
stations and drainage areas improves the documentation that the changes in water quality
were attributed to the BMPs.
Due to the high degree of variability in the water quality monitoring data and the limited number
of monitoring stations, positive changes in water quality cannot be attributed to any one
BMP, but can be attributed to a cumulative impact of BMPs implemented in a given water-
shed or subwatershed.
Fencing cows out of streams is an example of a passive BMP. External factors, such as increased
cow numbers, changes in fertilizer applications, and nonpoint sources of runoff from high in-
tensity grazing pastures, seem to mask the short-term effect of fencing.
126
-------
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough RCWP, Florida
4.2.7.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
Other factors that confound the interpretation of water quality trend results include variations in
rainfall, water quality depth, pollutant concentrations upstream of BMP implementation, soil
types, and cow numbers. Changes in ground water table depth and cow numbers were the
most important non-RCWP factors affecting phosphorus concentrations. Ground water table
depth is thought by the project to be a surrogate for the project area hydrology and seasoa
In addition, a high water table contributes to increased phosphorus concentrations in the tribu-
taries. Increases in cow numbers increases the potential source of phosphorus. Adjustments
for these variables have allowed for valid interpretations regarding the observed trends, and
have also increased the statistical significance of the decreasing trends (Spooner et al., 1990).
The project team believes that observed decreases on TP concentrations at the watershed outlet to
Lake Okeechobee can be attributed to several BMPs such as fencing, water conserva-
tion/waste water recycling, drainage improvement, and fertilizer management.
The shutdown of dairy operations is a major factor contributing to significant downward water
quality trends. These dairies were a high priority for needing improvements in waste man-
agement. Such closures have resulted in a masking effect, making it difficult to quantify the
impacts of other BMPs located in the same subwatershed.
4.2.7.2 Recommendations
As this project has demonstrated, several years of pre- and post- BMP monitoring are required to
document a consistent trend in water quality and quantify the impact of the BMPs.
Site specific monitoring can enhance the ability of a project to document BMP effectiveness.
Factors that could confound the interpretation of water quality trend results (such as rainfall,
water quality depth, soil types, and changes in cow numbers) should be measured. These
measurements should be matched on a temporal and spatial scale to water quality and land
treatment data to ensure valid interpretations regarding trends in water quality.
BMP implementation and water quality monitoring need to be conducted on similar spatial (i.e.,
drainage) and temporal scales so that the two data bases can be linked.
Sophisticated data management and integration of all water quality and land treatment / land use
variables into a CIS would be useful in future water quality projects.
4.3 Project Description
4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame
General RCWP
1981 - 1991
4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions
4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality
4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size
Streams, canals, Lake Okeechobee
127
-------
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough RCWP, Florida
4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments
Lake Okeechobee is a class I water resource covering 480,000 acres. Lake Okeechobee is
the primary source of public drinking water for five towns around the lake and the secon-
dary source for the lower east coast of Florida from West Palm Beach to Miami. Water
from the lake is also used to irrigate about 500,000 acres of vegetable crops, row crops,
sugar cane, and pasture south of the lake. The lake is part of a water management system
providing flood protection.
The lake supports commercial fishing, valued at $6.3 million annually; sport fishing, val-
ued at $2.2 million annually (Bell, 1987); a significant tourist industry; and habitat for
many migratory as well as endemic bird species.
High phosphorus (P) concentrations in Lake Okeechobee promote eutrophic conditions
that promote algae blooms, with associated low dissolved oxygen levels, and impair all
water uses.
4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement
The Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough Basin contributes a disproportionate amount of phos-
phorus to Lake Okeechobee (~ 28% of the external P load in only 4% of inflowing water
to the lake) (Federico et al., 1981).
Dairy and beef agricultural activities are the primary sources of P in the watershed (Allen
et al., 1982). The main sources of high phosphorus loads are runoff from dairy barns and
holding areas, cattle lounging in and around streams, and runoff from improved pastures
(Allen et al., 1982; Stanley et al., 1986). Streambank erosion from animals lounging in
the stream is also thought to be significant.
Phosphorus concentrations in the runoff is high because the soils are sandy Spodosols
which have low phosphorus retention capacity and rainfall is in excess of evapotranspira-
tioa The water table is usually high, and standing water occurs in low areas during the
rainy season, June to October. Total phosphorus concentration in the tributaries are re-
lated to the water table depth and antecedent precipitation (Ritter and Flaig, 1987). Be-
cause the land is flat and poorly drained, most of the runoff occurs when the ground water
table is close to the surface. Therefore, as suspected, total phosphorus concentrations in
the tributaries increases as the water table depth rises to within two feet of the surface.
4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals
Objective: Measure the success of implementing the selected BMPs in the project area
Goals: Reduce phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations to Lake Okeechobee by at least
50% by 1992 measured at the watershed outlet, S-191
4.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics
4.3.2.2.1 Watershed Area: 120,000 acres
Project Area: 120,000 acres
Critical Area: 63,109 acres
128
-------
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough RCWP, Florida
4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors
Mean Annual Precipitation: 50.0 inches (70-80% occurs from June through October)
Geologic Factors: Topography is relatively flat with an elevation range of about 50 feet.
Soils are coarse textured, mostly poorly drained with rapid surface permeability and mod-
erate internal drainage. An organic hard pan underlies most of the area, typically within a
depth of 30-50 inches from the surface.
Hydrologic Factors: The water table is very shallow. Seasonal ground water fluctuations
are closely related to rainfall amount and intensity. Water flow from the basin tributaries
enters Lake Okeechobee through a flow control structure, S-191.
4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture
Land use in the watershed is primarily agricultural. Major land use consists of intensive
dairy farming, followed by beef cattle which graze on improved pastures that are surface
drained (ditched) and fertilized to improve runoff during the wet seasoa Citrus groves oc-
cupy approximately 1,400 acres and require extensive drainage and irrigation.
4.3.2.2.4 Land Use
Use % of Project Area % of Critical Area
Cropland (primarily citrus groves) 2 1.8
Pasture/range
Dairy 30 50.5
Beef 45 47.7
Woodland (and wet prairies) 18
Urban/roads 5
Other
4.3.2.2.5 Animal Operations
Operation # Farms T_olaL# Total Animal
Animals Units
Dairy 24* 37,166* 52,032*
Beef 56 25,000 25,000
Numbers of cows hi 1980. Cow numbers varied by year and subwatershed. The cow
numbers generally increased during the project period (1980-90), except during 1983. For
example, in 1988, there were 44,365 dairy cows (Stanley and Gunsalus, 1991, p. 52). By
1990 the number of dairies had decreased to 22. In 1991, four additional dairies took ad-
vantage of the State Buy-out Programs, with a resulting decrease in cow numbers.
129
-------
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough RCWP, Florida
4.3.3 Total Project Budget
SOURCES
ACTIVITY
Cost Share
Info. & Ed.
Tech. Asst.
Water Quality
Monitoring
SUM
Federal
State
Farmer
Other
957,440
13,000
404,952
0
1,375,392
310,119
0
12,000
0
322,119
448,920
0
0
0
448,920
0
66,044*
15,908**
400,000***
481,952
SUM
1,716,479
79,044
432,860
400,000
$2,628,383
* CES ** SCS, state of Florida funds
Source: Stanley etal., 1991
***SFWMD (probably a conservative estimate)
4.3.4 Information and Education
4.3.4.1 Strategy
The Cooperative Extension Service (CES) took the lead role in information and education activi-
ties. ASCS, SCS, and the SFWMD also played key roles in the I&E effort.
4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals
Goals: Inform all farmers located in the project area of their eligibility and obligations to receive
federal assistance under the RCWP
Publicize the goals and benefits to be gained from the RCWP to the public
Keep farmers and public informed of the progress being made during the project towards meeting
water quality benefits and goals
4.3.4.3 Program Components
Field days, tours, news articles and releases, TV coverage and material for handouts
A 1986 field day, with participation from many different agencies, landowners, public officials,
and public groups
Field studies and develop management plans
4.3.5 Producer Participation
4.3.5.1 Level of Participation
This project has a high level of BMP implementation, most of which occurred in 1985 to 1987.
Contracts were written for 54,709 acres or 87% of the critical area. All critical dairies are
under contract 99% of contracted practices are installed.
130
-------
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough RCWP, Florida
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation
Cost Share Rates: (federal) 75% for structural BMPs
Supplemental state funds for cost sharing BMPs in some areas to raise cost share to 100%
Payment Limitation: (federal RCWP) $50,000 per landowner
Assistance Programs: Technical assistance for all contracted BMPs
Regulations: A DER rule has been implemented which requires dairies whose drainage reach
Lake Okeechobee to address areas of high cattle intensity on their farms. It has been esti-
mated that on the larger farms it would cost up to $450,000 per barn to comply with this rule.
The two most important reason farmers decided to participate was availability of cost share funds
(federal and state) and concern about future pollution regulations. Increased farm production
was given by producers as the second most important reasoa
4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation
Some producers took advantage of the federal and state dairy buy-out programs
Lack of perception that the producer was causing a water quality problem
4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs
Excellent for most BMPs
BMPs that were most likely to be discontinued after contract expired included: shade structures
(BMP 10), diversions, and fences.
BMPs that are most likely not to be maintained after contracts expire included: rotational grazing,
shade structures, diversions, and fences.
4.3.6 Land Treatment
4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design
The nonpoint source management strategy was to decrease the contribution of phosphorus to the
lake from pastures located on poorly drained, sandy flatwood (coastal) plain soils that are
heavily grazed by dairy cows and beef cattle.
The general treatment strategy was to install BMPs that exclude dairy cows and beef cattle from
waterways (such as fencing) and to control wastewater runoff from dairy barns. Fencing to
keep animals out of water courses, along with providing shade and water facilities, was em-
phasized initially. Waste management (including reduction of commercial fertilizer), pasture
and hayland management, and irrigation management BMPs were added in 1982.
Water quality modeling was used in setting quantifiable project land treatment goals. Based on a
modification of the Vollenweider Model, the Lake Okeechobee Technical Advisor Commit-
tee (1986) recommended reducing all phosphorus loadings to the lake by 40% to protect long-
term water quality. From a land treatment management perspective, phosphorus loadings
from the TCNS basin would need to be reduced by 75 to 90% to achieve this objective.
Based on this watershed reduction goal, the project refined their land treatment objectives
and goals by estimating the amount, type, and location of land treatment that would be re-
quired to achieve this increased level of phosphorus reduction. Consistent with the goal of
additional decreases in phosphorus export, the 1987 FDER Dairy Rule and the 1989 State of
Florida Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan changed the focus of the
water quality goals and the land treatment emphasis. The Regulation (FDER) Dairy Rule re-
quiring each dairy to collect the runoff from high intensity areas and treat the P through
spray irrigation, so that all the P in the effluent would be assimilated by plants or absorbed
by the soil (mass balance concept).
131
-------
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough RCWP, Florida
4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals
Contract at least 75% of the critical area (47,331 acres) for BMP implementation
Contract with all 24 dairy farms in the project area
4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application
Criteria:
All dairy farms in the project area
All beef cattle pastures that have been fertilized and extensively ditched for improved
drainage
All agricultural areas within one-quarter mile of major streams, ditches, and channels that
hold water year-round
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used
General Scheme: The emphasis of BMP contracts is on stream protection, reduction of barn
waste by improving water use efficiency and improving effluent disposal with spray irriga-
tion, animal waste management systems (at the holding areas near the milking barns), and
grazing land protection (i.e., RCWP BMPs 1, 2, 6, and 10).
BMPs Utilized in the Project*:
Permanent vegetative cover (BMP 1)
Animal waste management system (BMP 2), added in 1982
Diversion system (BMP 5)
Grazing land protection system (BMP 6)
Cropland Protection System (BMP 8)
Stream protection system (BMP 10)
Permanent vegetative cover on critical areas (BMP 11)
Sediment retention, erosion, or water control structures (BMP 12)
Improving irrigation system and / or water management system (BMP 13)
*Please refer to Appendix I for description/purpose of BMPs
4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring & Tracking Program
4.3.6.5.1 Description
Cost shared BMPs were monitored in terms of units installed and acres served. A sum-
mary of acres served for each subwatershed and year, by each BMP component and by in-
stalled (structural) BMP systems and management BMP systems was calculated. This
information was provided on a subwatershed and annual basis in each annual progress pro-
ject. Cow numbers per subwatershed, per water quality monitoring station, and per year
were also estimated by a joint effort between the SFWMD and ASCS.
Non-cost shared BMPs were also included in the contracts so they could be tracked for im-
plementation and costs.
132
-------
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough RCWP, Florida
4.3.6.5.2 Data Management
ASCS maintained the land treatment records and prepared reports.
4.3.6.S.3 Data Analysis and Results
Quantified Project Achievements:
Critical Area Treatment Goals
Pollutant
Sjuuce. Units lolal % Implemented JoiaL % Implemented
Cropland acres 63,109 86% 47,337 114%
Dairies #farms 22* 100% 22 100%
Cattle tffarms 35 74% 31 84%
Hogs #farms 2 50% 2 50%
Contracts # 56 82% 51 90%
The number of dairies decreased from 24 in 1980.
Source: Stanley and Gunsalus, 1991
Most land treatment goals were met or exceeded. Two beef cattle operations in the criti-
cal area declined to sign contracts.
Fencing to keep animals out of the water courses, along with providing shade and water fa-
cilities, was effective in reducing the phosphorus concentrations from the project area.
However, these BMPs alone were probably not sufficient to meet the water quality goal of
a 50% reduction.
BMPs that require more active management, such as dairy waste water utilization, reduc-
tion, and timing of fertilizer applications on dairy and beef operations and controlling the
release of high intensity area runoff, seemed to have the greatest impact on water quality.
The project found that explicit guidance for animal waste management practices needed to
be written into the contracts to ensure that both the management and structural compo-
nents of these systems were operated and maintained according to specifications.
Adoption of BMPs, such as improved fertilizer and feeding practices, was observed in sur-
rounding areas.
4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design
The water quality monitoring network emphasis was to measure phosphorus reductions over time
and associate these changes with BMP implementation. Monitoring was performed before,
during, and after BMP implementation. Stations were located in tributaries downstream of
BMP implementation and at the project area outlet to document improvements on a subwater-
shed and project level scale. "Upstream/downstream" station pairs were established in a few
tributaries. In 1988, the network was enhanced with monitoring site-specific BMP effective-
ness on each dairy. This modification was a result of the FDER Dairy Rule.
The monitoring was performed by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD),
Okeechobee, Florida From 1978 to 1981, ARS collected biweekly baseline data, increasing
the length of the pre-BMP data base.
133
-------
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough RCWP, Florida
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals
Objectives:
Evaluate the effectiveness of agricultural BMPs for reducing P concentrations to Lake
Okeechobee, as measured by changes in water quality concentrations in the tributaries and
basin outlet
Goals:
Identify and quantify trends in pollutant concentrations that occurred due to changes in
land use and/or implementation of BMPs
Identify differences in upstream and downstream nutrient concentrations within the major
tributaries
Establish nutrient inputs from subtributaries and to Lake Okeechobee
Using the pre-RCWP water quality monitoring data base: 1) document the general water
quality throughout the 9 major tributaries in the basin; 2) provide a means for identifying
die sources and causes of high episodic P events; and 3) document the need for agricul-
tural BMPs to control P runoff (Ritter, 1988)
Analyze waste water in anaerobic and aerobic lagoons to determine its value for use as a
supplemental fertilizer and treatment efficiency
Monitor nutrient runoff from the holding areas around barns into existing ditches that
eventually drain into the major tributaries
4.3.7.3 Time Frame
1981 to 1990. Most stations have been monitored for water quality since 1978 and some since
the early 1970's. Monitoring is planned to continue after 1990 to support other watershed
management programs.
4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme
4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations
Surface: 38 stations originally; 23 instream stations throughout the 9 major tributaries con-
tinued after 1984. 3 stations located at dairy waste lagoons. From August, 1988 the moni-
toring network was expanded to 53 instream grab sample stations including 34 automatic
sites to meet non- RCWP regulatory requirements. "Upstream/downstream" station pairs
were established in a few tributaries to adjust for pollutant concentrations originating
above the BMP implementation sites.
4.3.7.4.2 Sample Type
Grab and automatic sampler
4.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency
Surface grab sample sites: until Mid-1988 - biweekly; afterwards - weekly
Surface automatic sample sites: daily
Ground water table depth: weekly at 8 stations; hourly at 4 other stations
Lagoon systems: monthly
134
-------
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough RCWP, Florida
4.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed
Total phosphorus (TP), orthophosphate-P (OP), Nitrate- nitrogen (NOs), nitrite-N (NCh),
ammonia-N (NHs-N), total Kjeldahl-N (TKN), lab pH, lab specific conductivity, chlo-
rides, turbidity, and color
4.3.7.4.5 Row Measurement
Staff heights for flow have been taken with grab samples at five stations since 1978 and at
remaining stations since 1983.
4.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements
Precipitation and hourly ground water table levels were monitored at four sites in close
proximity to stations 01, 03, 06, 09, 11, and 23. Four additional ground water and rain-
fall sites were installed in the late 1980's.
Temperature and evaporation were also measured.
4.3.7.4.7 Other Important Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information
None
4.3.7.5 Data Management
All chemical data are stored locally by the SFWMD. In 1991, the PC-based lotus files were con-
verted to a mainframe ORACLE data base.
The trend analyses for pollutant concentrations were summarized in Ritter and Flaig (1987) and
Flaig and Ritter (1989).
The hourly ground water table depth and daily precipitation measurements are stored on a main-
frame data base by the USDA-ARS Southeast Watershed Research Laboratory at Tifton,
Georgia. A copy is also stored on the SFWMD ORACLE data base system at West Palm
Beach, Florida.
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results
Analysis:
Exploratory data analysis included: 1) tabular presentation of the annual means and stand-
ard deviations for water quality concentrations at each station and 2) time plots of the en-
tire period of record with pre-, transitional-, and post-BMP periods indicated.
Water quality trend detection techniques include: 1) the nonparametric Seasonal Kendall
Tau test to detect linear trends over time; 2) linear regression to detect linear trends over
time; 3) double mass curves to compare phosphorus concentrations and cow numbers in
each subwatershed over time to account for changes in P concentrations after accounting
for changes in cow numbers; 4) linear regression with time series errors to detect trends
and adjustments for explanatory variables such as upstream concentrations, precipitation,
ground water table depth, and autocorrelation.
Examination of the measured variability in the water quality data is used to determine the
amount of change in annual mean concentrations required to be statistically significant
(minimum detectable change) (Spooner et al., 1990).
Water quality modeling is being used to develop a watershed phosphorus transport model.
135
-------
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough RCWP, Florida
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results (continued)
Results:
Seven out of 14 water quality monitoring stations tested by Ritter and Flaig (1987) exhib-
ited significant decreasing trends over the period of 1978 through October, 1986.
Subsequent trend analysis using the period of data between 1978 though 1989 (adding data
from 1987-1989) indicates that an increased number of stations exhibit significant decrease
in TP concentrations and that the magnitude of decreasing TP concentrations had in-
creased (Flaig and Ritter, 1989).
There has been an overall decrease in TP concentrations at station S-191, despite a sub-
stantial increase in cow numbers. The project has exceeded its goal of a 50% reduction in
TP concentrations. It is postulated that this decrease is largely a function of the dairy clo-
sures in Otter Creek and the high number of BMPs installed in the other subwatersheds
such as the Mosquito Creek and Nubbin Slough subwatersheds (Ritter and Flaig, 1987;
Stanley et al., 1988). The closed dairies were thought to have been poorly managed, ex-
plaining the significant impact of their closure.
The project team realizes that uncontrollable variables such as weather, changes in land
use, and changes in management, greatly affect the water quality data and make it difficult
to isolate the effects of BMPs. This fact increases the need for a long post-BMP implemen-
tation monitoring period (Stanley et al., 1988). Variations in rainfall, depth to ground
water, and flow must be considered when evaluating changes in land use and BMPs and
their impact on water quality (Ritter, 1988).
4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
Heatwole et al. (1987) used the BASIN model to give an estimate of the expected long-term average
annual response of the Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough basin to a hypothetical "maximum" BMP sce-
nario. They predicted reductions of about 50% in the annual phosphorus loads from this basin.
The TCNS project's tracking of BMP implementation by practice and subwatershed allowed the pro-
ject to link the water quality and land treatment data bases on a drainage and annual basis. This con-
tributed to the project's ability to document changes in water quality as a result of land treatment on
both subwatershed and project levels.
Site-specific monitoring was found to enhance the ability to document BMP effectiveness.
The fact TP concentrations continue to decrease as the length of the post-BMP data base increases
supports the argument that the BMPs were effective in reducing TP concentrations.
Subwatersheds with a large amount of BMP implementation such as Mosquito Creek and Nubbin
Slough have shown significant decreases in TP concentrations. In contrast, in northwest Taylor
Creek and Lettuce Creek subwatersheds, increased cattle densities have had a negative effect on
water quality (Ritter and Flaig, 1987; Flaig and Ritter, 1989).
There is strong evidence that two dairy closures in the Otter Creek subwatershed (in 1980 and 1986)
resulted in a decrease in TP concentrations in Otter Creek and at Station S-191 (the main discharge to
Lake Okeechobee from the project area). The effect of these closures was so large in part because of
their poor waste management. These dairy shutdowns resulted in a masking effect, making it diffi-
cult to evaluate impacts of BMP implemented along this tributary (Ritter, 1988).
Other factors that confound the interpretation of water quality trend results include variations in rain-
fall, water quality depth, pollutant concentrations upstream of BMP implementation, soil types, and
cow numbers. Changes in ground water table depth and cow numbers were the most important, non-
RCWP factors affecting phosphorus concentrations. Ground water table depth is thought by the pro-
ject to be a surrogate for the project area hydrology and season. In addition, a high water table
contributes to increased phosphorus concentrations in the tributaries. Increases in cow numbers in-
creases the potential source of phosphorus. Adjustments for these variables have not only allowed
for valid interpretations regarding the observed trends, but have also increased the statistical signifi-
cance of the decreasing trends (Spooner et al., 1990).
136
-------
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough RCWP, Florida
4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality (continued)
The project team believes that observed decreases on TP concentrations at the watershed outlet to
Lake Okeechobee can be attributed to several BMPs such as fencing, water conservation/waste water
recycling, drainage improvement, and fertilizer management.
Documentation of water quality improvements in Lake Okeechobee may be difficult in the short
term. Canfield and Hoyer (1988) suggests that a 40% reduction in phosphorus loadings to the lake
may have only a minor impact on the short-term water quality (as reflected by the phosphorus concen-
tration), because the lake has a substantial phosphorus reserve. However, although changes in Lake
Okeechobee's phosphorus impairment may be undetectable over a short period, monitoring external
concentrations and loadings provides valuable information to use to project long-term effects from
land treatment in surrounding watersheds.
4.3.9 Impact of Other Federal and State Programs on the Project
One dairy in the Otter Creek subwatershed participated in the Dairy Termination Program in 1986.
Several dairies reduced their cow numbers in 1984 and 1985 by participating in the Federal Milk Di-
version Program. A reduction in cow numbers usually resulted in a decrease in P entering the adja-
cent tributary.
In 1989 and 1990, three dairies participated in the Florida state buy-out program and ceased opera-
tion.
The 1987 FDER Dairy Rule and the 1989 State of Florida Surface Water Improvement and Manage-
ment (SWIM) Plan changed the focus of the water quality goals and the associated land treatment em-
phasis. The Regulation (FDER) Dairy Rule requiring each dairy perform nutrient management such
that minimum phosphorus left the operation. In 1989, the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD) set standards for P concentrations at tributary discharges and the basin outlet (at S-191) to
meet the requirements of the SWIM Plan.
4.3.10 Other Pertinent Information
A new dairy opened in 1986 in the Otter Creek subwatershed.
137
-------
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough RCWP, Florida
4.3.11 References
A complete list of all project documents and other relevant publications may be found in Appendix IV.
Allen, L.H., Jr., J.M Ruddell, G.J. Ritter, F.E. Davis, and P. Yates. 1982. Land Use Effects on Tay-
lor Creek Water Quality, p. 67-77. In: Proc. Specialty Conference on Environmentally Sound
Water and Soil Management. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, New York.
Bell, F. W. 1987. Economic Impact and Evaluation of the Recreation and Commercial Fishing Indus-
tries of Lake Okeechobee, Florida. Dept. Economics, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Canfield, D.E., Jr. andM.V. Hoyer. 1988. The Eutrophication of Lake Okeechobee. Lake and Reser-
voir Management, 4(2):91-99.
Federico, A.C., K.G. Dickson, C.R. Kratzer, and F.E. Davis. 1981. Lake Okeechobee Water Quality
Studies and Eutrophication Assessment Tech, Pub. 81-2. South Florida Water Management Dis-
trict. West Palm Beach, Florida. 270p.
Flaig, E.G. and G. Ritter. 1989. Water Quality Monitoring of Agricultural Discharge to Lake
Okeechobee. ASAE Paper No. 89-2525, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St Joseph,
MI. 17p.
Heatwole, C.D., A.B. Bottcher, K.L. Campbell. 1987. Basin Scale Water Quality Model for Coastal
Plain Flatwoods. Transactions of the ASAE, 30(4): 1023-1030.
The Lake Okeechobee Technical Advisory Committee (LOTAC). 1986. The overall review of South
Florida Water Management District Lake Okeechobee research, Final report to Florida Depart-
ment of Environmental Regulation.
Ritter, G. 1988. Project Spotlight - Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough RCWP. NWQEP NOTES, 3:2-3 .
Ritter, G. and E.G. Flaig. 1987. 1986 Annual Report - Rural Clean Water Program. Technical
Memorandum. South Florida Water Management district, West Palm Beach, Florida. 71p.
Spooner, J., D. A. Dickey, and J. W. Gilliam. 1990. Determining and Increasing the Statistical Sensi-
tivity of Nonpoint Source Control Grab Sample Monitoring Programs, p. 119-135. In: Proceed-
ings International Symposium on the Design of Water Quality Information Systems. Information
Series No. 61, Colorado Water Resources Research Institute, Colorado State University, Fort Col-
lins, Colorado. 473p.
Stanley, J., G. Ritter, V. Hoge, andL. Boggs. 1986. Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough RCWP No. 14,
November, 1986. Annual Progress Report. Okeechobee County, FL.
Stanley, J., V. Hoge, L. Boggs, G. Ritter. 1988. Taylor Creek- Nubbin Slough Project, Rural Clean
Water Program Annual Progress Report. Okeechobee County, Okeechobee, FL.
Stanley, J. W. and B. Gunsalus. 1991. Taylor Creek Nubbin Slough Project, Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram Okeechobee, Florida Ten Year Report 1981 -1990. September, 1991. Cooperators:
Okeechobee ASCS, Okeechobee CES, Okeechobee SCS, and the South Florida Water Manage-
ment District. Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough, Florida RCWP Local Coordinating Committee,
Okeechobee, Florida. 23 Ip.
138
-------
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough RCWP, Florida
4.3.12 Project Contacts
Administration
Diane N. Conway / Jack Stanley, USDA-ASCS
609 SW Park St
Okeechobee, Florida 34972
(813) 763-3345
Water Quality
Greg Sawka / Joe Albers, South Florida Water Management District
1000 NE 40th Ave.
Okeechobee, Florida 34973
(813) 763- 3776
Land Treatment
District Conservationist, USDA-SCS
611 SW Park St.
Okeechobee, Florida 34972
(813) 763-3619
Information and Education
Vickie Hoge, Cooperative Extension Service
501 N.W. Fifth Ave.
Okeechobee, FL 34972
(813) 763-6469
139
-------
\
1
V.
LOWER KISSIMMEE
RIVER BASIN
LEGEND
O WEEKLY WATER QUALITY SAMPLING STATION, DAIRIES
• WEEKLY WATER QUALITY SAMPLING STATION, TRIBUTARIES
• RESEARCH SITE, FLUME, AND AUTOMATIC SAMPLERS
* WEEKLY GRAB, DAILY AUTOMATIC SAMPLER. AND LOAD
DETERMINATION FROM WATER CONTROL STRUCTURE
0 TOWN
PROJECT BOUNDARY
Figure 4.4: Lower Kissimmee River (Florida) RCWP project map, FL-2.
140
-------
Florida
Lower Kissimmee River
(RCWP14 A)
Okeechobee, Highlands, and Glades Counties
MLRA: U-156A
HUC:030901-02
4.1 Project Synopsis
In 1988, the Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough (TCNS) RCWP project was expanded to include the Lower Kissimmee
River Basin (LKR). The Lower Kissimmee River Basin is located in southern Florida west and adjacent to the TCNS
Basin. Water flow from the LKR and its tributaries enters Lake Okeechobee through two flow control structures
(S154 and S65E). The 223,700-acre watershed is a typically flat landscape with poorly drained soils having low
phosphorus retention capacity.
Lake Okeechobee provides drinking and irrigation water, supports commercial and sport fishing, and is a habitat for
many migratory and endemic bird species. High phosphorus (P) concentrations in Lake Okeechobee promote algal
blooms and eutrophic conditions that impair all water uses.
The Lower Kissimmee River Basin is the second largest source of external phosphorus loading to Lake Okeechobee,
delivering 20% of the total phosphorus (TP) and 25% of the total nitrogen in 31% of the inflow to the lake. The
project seeks to reduce phosphorus loadings to Lake Okeechobee by 43%, as measured at the watershed outlets (S65E
and S154).
Over 95% of the land use in the watershed is agricultural. Dairy and beef operations are the primary sources of
phosphorus. Runoff from dairy holding areas and milking barns, direct stream access by large numbers of dairy
cattle, and runoff from improved pastures are the main contributors. Most of the beef cattle pastures have been
fertilized and surface drained to improve drainage during the wet season. The critical area covers 15,500 acres and
includes all dairies in the project area. In 1988 there were 19 milking barns with approximately 12,655 milking
cows in the project area. The number of milking barns decreased to 11 in 1992; however, the number of milking
cows remained in excess of 10,000.
Regulation has played a major role in defining land treatment and water quality goals. The best management practices
(BMPs) implemented through the RCWP project are directed toward recycling nutrients produced on the farm to
comply with the 1987 Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) Dairy Rule. This rule requires
dairies to collect and then dispose of runoff from milking barns and high animal intensity areas through spray
irrigation, so that the phosphorus in the effluent is assimilated by plants or absorbed by soil. In addition, in 1989,
the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) set standards for TP concentrations at tributary discharges
and the basin outlet to meet the requirements of the 1987 Florida Surface Water Improvement Management Act
(SWIM-Act).
The RCWP BMP emphasis includes animal waste management, diversion systems to capture effluent from milking
barns, stream protection, fertilizer management, grazing land protection, permanent vegetative cover, and pesticide
management.
141
-------
Lower Kissimmee River RCWP, Florida
4.1 Project Synopsis (continued)
The Lower Kissimmee River RCWP project has an extensive water quality monitoring program. Baseline water
quality data have been collected since 1986. Since 1987, a combination of instream and BMP site-specific water
quality monitoring stations have been employed to document long-term trends and the effectiveness of implementing
a set of intensive animal waste management BMPs, combined with removing cows from the streams. Grab and time-
weighted proportional samples were taken from major tributaries, water control structures, and at the major outflow
of each dairy. The weekly grab samples are utilized to document long-term trends; the automated samples are
utilized to quantify loads and determine the efficiency of individual management practices.
Beginning in October, 1991, the dairy monitoring program was streamlined to better support the FDER Dairy Rule.
Monitoring of all dairy offsite discharges continues with grab samples taken two times per month.
By September, 1990, approximately 97% of the critical area was under contract and BMPs were 45% implemented
As of April, 1992, implementation of BMPs was complete on 100% of critical area, including all dairies. Cost share
was available under RCWP and other federal and state programs.
The project did not start BMP implementation until 1988; therefore, changes in phosphorus loadings to Lake
Okeechobee have not been quantified. However, BMPs appear to be improving water quality at individual dairies
within a year after implementation. Preh'minary results indicate that a reduction in TP has occurred on at least 80%
of the dairies that have implemented BMPs.
4.2 Project Findings, Recommendations, and Successes
4.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals
4.2.1.1 Findings and Successes
The goals and objectives were refined from the experience of the RCWP effort in the Taylor
Creek - Nubbin Slough Basin and from recent state regulations.
State regulations were used to establish both the land treatment and the water quality goals. The
1987 Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Dairy Rule requires dairies to collect
and dispose of runoff from high animal intensity areas through spray irrigation, so that most
of the phosphorus in the effluent is assimilated by plants or absorbed by soil (nutrient mass
balance concept). In addition, in 1989, the SFWMD set standards for TP concentrations at
tributary discharges, the basin outlet, and various land uses, to meet the requirements of the
SWIM-Act. The project calculated its goal to reduce phosphorus and nitrogen loadings by
43% at the LKR Basin outlet by applying the basin discharge concentration standard required
by the SWIM-Act (0.18 milligram P per liter, mg P/l) concentration at the watershed outlet
to Lake Okeechobee.
From the experience in the TCNS Basin, intensive waste management BMPs, along with fencing
to remove cows from the stream, were thought to be required to meet the water quality
goals.
4.2.1.2 Recommendations
None
4.2.2 Project Management and Administration
4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes
The Lower Kissimmee River Basin portion of the Florida RCWP is administered as an expansion
to the Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough Basin RCWP project by the local Agricultural Stabiliza-
tion Conservation Service (ASCS), in consultation with Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Co-
operative Extension Service (CES), and the SFWMD.
142
-------
Lower Kissimmee River RCWP, Florida
4.2.2.2 Recommendations
None
4.2.3 Information and Education
4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes
Close cooperation among the four local key agencies (ASCS, SCS, CES, and SFWMD) has con-
tributed to the success of the information and education (I&E) program.
4.2.3.2 Recommendations
None
4.2.4 Producer Participation
4.2.4.1 Findings and Successes
The majority of landowners are aware of the water quality problems and plan to participate in the
RCWP.
The two most important reason fanners decided to participate is the availability of cost share
funds (federal and state) and concern about meeting pollution regulations. Technical assis-
tance was also important.
4.2.4.2 Recommendations
None
4.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes
There is a high level of BMP implementation on the dairy farms, most of which occurred after
1988. As of April, 1992, implementation of BMPs was complete on 100% of critical area,
including all dairies. By September, 1990, approximately 97% of the critical area was under
contract and BMPs were 45% implemented. Not all the contacts are under the RCWP.
RCWP contracts cover 57% of the critical acres. The rest are cost shared under state pro-
grams or the federal Long Term Agreement (LTA) Program with ASCS's Agricultural Con-
servation Program (ACP) funds.
Regulation has played the major role in defining land treatment. The BMPs implemented through
the RCWP project are directed toward recycling most of the nutrients produced on the farm
to comply with the 1987 FDER Dairy Rule. This rule requires dairies to collect and dispose
of runoff from high animal intensity areas through spray irrigation, so that phosphorus in the
effluent is assimilated by plants or absorbed by soil (nutrient mass balance concept). In addi-
tion, in 1989, the SFWMD set standards for TP concentrations at tributary discharges and
the basin outlet to meet the requirements of the SWIM-Act.
To meet the objective of substantial decreases in P loadings at the watershed outlet, the BMPs rec-
ommended by LOT AC (1986) were more intensive than those used in the Taylor Creek -
Nubbin Slough Basin. The emphasis was on a set of expensive animal waste management
BMPs to achieve nutrient mass balance, combined with removing cows from the streams.
Using the lessons learned from Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough, priority of BMP components and
implementation is based on expected water quality benefits.
143
-------
Lower Kissimmee River RCWP, Florida
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
Based on the Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough portion of the project and other studies, the planned
land treatment program, although costly, is thought to the be most cost effective method to
achieve the desired P reduction. Alternatives for nutrient reduction, such as treatment plants,
relocation of dairies, and total confinement operations are considered more costly.
4.2.5.2 Recommendations
Practices with the greatest water quality benefits should be prioritized and implemented first
Close coordination between the project and regulatory agencies is needed in selecting and imple-
menting BMPs.
Animal waste management and fertilizer management should be used as a complementary set of
BMPs.
4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes
The LKR project has an extensive water quality monitoring program. Baseline water quality data
has been collected since 1986. Since 1987, a combination of instream and BMP site-specific
water quality monitoring stations have been employed to document long-term trends and the
effectiveness of implementing a set of intensive animal waste management BMPs, combined
with removing cows from the streams. Grab and time-weighted proportional samples are
taken on major tributaries, at water control structures, and at each of the major dairies. The
weekly grab samples are utilized to document long-term trends and the automated samples
are utilized to quantify loads.
Although monitoring the efficiency of individual BMPs was an original goal of the autosampling
program, that goal was never realized, primarily due to the inter-relationships of the prac-
tices. For example, fencing to exclude cows from streams was implemented at the same time
as fertilizer management, reduced phosphorus in the feed, and possibly portable shades or
feed/water/shade in the high intensity areas around milking barns. Therefore, the monitoring
program is not capable of separating the effects of the individual practices.
The project did not start BMP implementation until 1988; therefore, changes in phosphorus load-
ings to Lake Okeechobee have not been quantified. However, BMPs appear to be improving
water quality at individual dairies within a year after implementation. Preliminary results in-
dicate a reduction in TP has occurred on at least 80% of the dairies that have implemented
BMPs.
4.2.6.2 Recommendations
Different spatial and temporal complexities (levels) of monitoring may be useful to address BMP
effectiveness on a BMP site-specific location as compared to a subwatershed scale. For ex-
ample, automatic samplers and load calculations may be required for site-specific BMP effec-
tiveness monitoring.
4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
4.2.7.1 Findings and Successes
Site-specific water quality monitoring in this project has been able to determine farm-level BMP
effectiveness.
The project is conducting a study to document the effectiveness of implementing an expensive nu-
trient mass balance set of animal waste and fertilizer management BMPs, combined with pre-
venting animal access to a stream.
More efficient use of dairy waste water and effective management of waste storage lagoons has re-
sulted in improvements at the individual dairy operations and downstream water quality.
144
-------
Lower Kissimmee River RCWP, Florida
4.2.7.2 Recommendations
Water quality analysis should adjust for variations in flow, ground water, and changes in land use
such as changes in cow numbers during the project period. For example, the water table
depth was a surrogate for seasonally, in addition to a high water table contributing to in-
creased phosphorus concentrations in the tributaries. Incorporation of these variables into the
analyses allowed for greater evidence that the RCWP BMPs significantly decreased the phos-
phorus loadings.
The use of computer models is useful to predict the fate of nutrients on a field, subwatershed, and
watershed scale as well as provide a mechanism for integration of multiple environmental
variables such as rainfall, water table, soils, water quality, animal units, land area, topogra-
phy, cow numbers, and flow.
4.3 Project Description
4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame
General RCWP (an expansion of the Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough RCWP project in 1988)
1988 -1995
4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions
4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality
4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size
Streams, canals, Lake Okeechobee
4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments
Lake Okeechobee is a class I water resource covering 480,000 acres. The lake is the pri-
mary source of public drinking water for five towns around the lake and the secondary
source for the lower east coast of Florida from West Palm Beach to Miami. Water from
the lake is also used to irrigate about 500,000 acres of vegetable crops, row crops, sugar
cane, and pasture south of the lake. The lake is part of a water management system pro-
viding flood protection.
The lake supports commercial fishing, valued at $6.3 million annually; sport fishing, val-
ued at $2.2 million annually (Bell, 1987); a significant tourist industry; and habitat for
many migratory as well as endemic bird species. A diverse wildlife habitat draws many
tourists to the lake area.
High phosphorus (P) concentrations in Lake Okeechobee promote eutrophic conditions
that promote algae blooms, with associated low dissolved oxygen levels, and impair all
water uses.
145
-------
Lower Kissimmee River RCWP, Rorida
4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement
The Lower Kissimmee River Basin is the second largest source of phosphorus (P) loading
to Lake Okeechobee, delivering 20% of the total phosphorus and 25% of the total nitro-
gen to Lake Okeechobee with 31% of inflow to the lake (Lake Okeechobee Technical Ad-
visory Committee, 1986).
Over 95% of the land use in the watershed is agricultural. Dairy and beef operations are
the primary sources of P. Runoff from dairy holding areas, milking barns, direct stream
access by large numbers of dairy cattle, and runoff from improved pastures are the main
contributors. Most of the beef cattle pastures have been fertilized and surface drained to
improve drainage during the wet season.
Phosphorus concentrations in runoff are high because the soils are sandy Spodosols with
low phosphorus retention capacity and rainfall is in excess of evapotranspiration. Most of
the P loss occurs in the dissolved phase as orthophosphate phosphorus (OP). The water ta-
ble is usually high, and standing water occurs in low areas during the rainy season, June
to October. Total phosphorus concentration in the tributaries are related to the water table
depth and antecedent precipitation (Ritter and Flaig, 1987). Because the land is flat and
poorly drained, most of the runoff occurs when the ground water table is close to the sur-
face. Therefore, total phosphorus concentrations in the tributaries increases as the water ta-
ble depth rises to within two feet of the surface.
4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals
The project seeks to reduce phosphorus loadings to Lake Okeechobee by 43%, measured
at the watershed outlets (Flaig and Ritter, 1989).
4.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics
4.3.2.2.1 Watershed Area: 223,700 acres
Project Area: 223,700 acres
Critical Area: 15,500 acres
4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors
Mean Annual Precipitation: 50.0 inches (primarily from June to October)
Geologic Factors: Topography is relatively flat with an elevation range of about 40 feet
(17 to 58 feet above mean sea level). Soils are coarse textured, mostly poorly drained with
rapid surface permeability and moderate internal drainage. An organic hard pan underlies
most of the area, typically within a depth of 30-50 inches from the surface.
Hydrologic Factors: The water table is very shallow. Seasonal ground water fluctuations
are closely related to rainfall amount and intensity. In upland areas, the water table sea-
sonally fluctuates from ground surface to three to five feet. In undrained flood plains and
low-lying flood prone areas, the water table is above ground surface or very near the sur-
face most of the year. Much of the watershed has been extensively drained for control of
high water tables.
The Lower Kissimmee River is channelized (sometimes referred to as Canal 38) with flow
control structures such as S-65C, S-65D, and S-65E. Water flow from the Lower Kissim-
mee River Basin and its tributaries enters Lake Okeechobee through flow control struc-
tures S-65E and S-154.
4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture
There are approximately 175 farms in the project area, mostly beef and dairy. The aver-
age size of the farms is 1278 acres.
146
-------
Lower Kissimmee River RCWP, Florida
4.3.2.2.4 Land Use
Use % of Project Area % of Critical Area
Cropland (mostly citrus groves) 0.1
Pasture/range
Dairy (milk barns/pasture) 7 100
Beef grazing 91
Woodland (and wet prairies) 1
Urban/roads 1
Other
4.3.2.2.5 Animal Operations
Operation # Farms loiaLS Total Animal
Animals Units
Dairy* 15 18,000 25,200
Beef 155 68,500 68,500
1988 numbers (12,655 of the dairy animals were milking cows, the remaining were pri-
marily dry cows and springers). In 1988, there were 19 milking barns. From May, 1989
to August, 1992, 7 milking barns chose to take advantage of the State Buy-out and closed.
In January, 1992, another milking barn removed its cows due to participation in the Florida
Save Our Rivers Program. In May of 1992, there were an estimated 10,930 milking cows
(plus non-milking cows) and 11 milking barns in the LKR Basin.
4.3.3 Total Project Budget
SOURCES Federal State Fanner Other
ACTIVITY SUM
Cost Share 835,840 2,570,000 601,030 0 4,006,870
Info. & Ed. 110,000 0 00 110,000
Tech. Asst. 504,000 113,000 0 0 617,000
Water Quality
Monitoring 0 1,167,422 0 0 1,167,422**
SUM 1,449,840* 3,850,422 601,030 0 $5,901,292
* $1,249,840 of this is RCWP funds; $200,000 in ACP funds were available for cost
share to the dairies under the LTA program.
** Water quality monitoring budget only reflects FY87 - FY91 expenditures.
Source: Stanley and Gunsalus (1991) and personal communication, SFWMD staff
4.3.4 Information and Education
4.3.4.1 Strategy
Intensify the ongoing I&E effort currently in effect in the Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough Basin
project. CES is taking the lead role in information and education activities. ASCS, SCS, and
the SFWMD also are playing key roles.
147
-------
Lower Kissimmee River RCWP, Florida
4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals
Make landowners aware of the water quality problem and funding from the RCWP and the state
Keep farmers and public informed of the progress being made during the project towards realiz-
ing water quality benefits and goals
4.3.4.3 Program Components
Similar to I&E efforts under the RCWP in the Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough Basin with:
Field days, tours, news articles
Field studies and development of management plans
4.3.5 Producer Participation
4.3.5.1 Level of Participation
There is a high level of BMP implementation on the dairy farms, most of which occurred after
1988. As of April, 1992, implementation of BMPs was complete on 100% of critical area,
including all dairies. By September, 1990, approximately 97% of the critical area was under
contract and BMPs were 45% implemented. Not all the contacts are under the RCWP.
RCWP contracts cover 57% of the critical acres. The rest are cost shared under state pro-
grams or the LTA Program with federal ACP funds.
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation
RCWP cost share rate of 75% for structural BMPs
Supplemental federal funds under the LTA and from state funds
RCWP payment limit of $50,000 per landowner
Technical assistance for all contracted BMPs
Regulations: A FDER rule has been implemented which requires dairies whose drainage reach
Lake Okeechobee to address areas of high cattle intensity on their farms. It was estimated
that the average cost will be $238,000 per barn to comply with this rule. The actual costs
were as much as two to three times this estimate.
The two most important reason farmers decided to participate was availability of cost share funds
(federal and state) and concern about pollution regulations.
4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation
High cost of BMPs
The $50,000 per farm cost share limit under RCWP has been a constraint to addressing the waste
disposal problems of these dairies.
Implementing the nutrient mass balance concept at the farm level required innovative manage-
ment strategies on the dairies that were expensive and required major management changes.
4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs
Presently unknown, since the project is ongoing. The FDER Rule requires the continued opera-
tion and maintenance of the BMPs.
148
-------
Lower Kissimmee River RCWP, Florida
4.3.6 Land Treatment
4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design
Areas with high animal concentrations are targeted for priority treatment BMPs are directed to-
ward recycling nutrients produced on farm to comply with the FDER Dairy Rule requiring
collection of runoff from high intensity areas and treatment of phosphorus (P) through spray
irrigation, so that it assimilated by plants or absorbed by soil (nutrient mass balance).
4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals
Objectives: Keep the nutrients on the farm and employ the nutrient mass balance concept
Goals: Contract 100% of the critical area
Contract all 15 dairy farms with their 19 milking barns in the project area
This objective was modified to include only the 11 milking barns in the project area
that did not cease operation as a result of the buyout programs.
Implement BMPs over a three-year period
4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application
Criteria: All dairy farms in the project area
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used
Emphasis of BMP contracts is on stream protection, reduction of barn waste by improving water
use efficiency, and improving effluent disposal with spray irrigation, animal waste manage-
ment systems, stream protection, and grazing land management. (BMP priority: 2, 5, 10, 15,
12, 6, 1, 16, and 8.) Emphasis is similar to the Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough project, with
greater emphasis on Waste Management Systems (BMP 2) to capture and recycle nutrients.
BMPs Utilized in the Project*:
Permanent vegetative cover (BMP 1)
Animal waste management system (BMP 2)
Collection and spray irrigation of waste water from milking barns and runoff from intensive
holding pastures
Diversion system (BMP 5)
Diversion of runoff from holding pasture areas and milking barns to holding ponds and la-
goons, respectively
Grazing land protection system (BMP 6)
Rotational grazing with water available away from streams
Cropland Protection System (BMP 8)
Proper crop rotation to utilize waste effluent
Stream protection system (BMP 10)
Fencing, portable shades, and watering facilities to keep animals away from streams and low
areas; filter strips to control runoff from lower animal density pastures
Sediment retention, erosion, or water control structures (BMP 12)
Collect runoff from pastures and irrigation fields
Fertilizer Management (BMP 15)
Split applications; liming to optimize P uptake; soil testing
Pesticide Management (BMP 16)
Please refer to Appendix I for description/purpose of BMPs
149
-------
Lower Kissimmee River RCWP, Florida
4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring & Tracking Program
4.3.6.5.1 Description
Cost shared BMPs are monitored in terms of units installed and acres served (see Stanley
et al., 1988). A summary of acres served by each BMP component and by installed (struc-
tural) BMP systems and management BMP systems is calculated. ASCS maintains the
land treatment records and prepares reports. Cow numbers per subwatershed, per water
quality monitoring station and per year are also estimated by a joint effort between the
SFWMD and ASCS.
Non-cost shared BMPs were also included in the contracts so they could be tracked for im-
plementation and costs.
4.3.6.5.2 Data Management
ASCS maintains the land treatment records and prepares reports.
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results
Quantified Project Achievements (as of 9/30/90):
Critical Area Treatment Goals
Pollutant
Source Units Total % Implemented lolaL % Implemented
Pasture/range acres 15,500 45%* 15,500 45%*
Dairies tfmilking 13 NA** 14 NA**
barns
Contracts # 15 NA** 15 NA**
* These numbers reflect installed practices as of 9/30/90. As of this date, 97% of the criti-
cal were under contract (9 dairies had RCWP contracts on 8,883 acres or 57% of the criti-
cal area and 5 additional dairies had contracts under the LTA and/or state programs on
6,155 acres or 40% of the critical area). By December, 1991, implementation was 100%
complete.
** As of 9/30/90, contracts had been made on 13 milking barns (9 under RCWP and 4
with the LTA or state programs). Implementation was in progress on 9 contracts and 1
contract was completely installed. By April, 1992, implementation was 100% complete
on 11 milking barns.
Source: Stanley and Gunsalus (1991)
4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design
A combination of instream and BMP site-specific monitoring stations was used to determine the
reduction in phosphorus concentrations as a result of implementation of BMPs. There are
three sets (or levels) of water quality monitoring objectives based on three spatial and tempo-
ral levels of detail; each set has a corresponding degree of water quality monitoring complex-
ity. Weekly grab samples allow assessment of long-term trends in the tributary and basin
outlet. Automated samples are used to calculate loadings. Individual dairies are monitored
with grab samples taken two times per month.
The monitoring is performed by the SFWMD, Okeechobee, Florida.
150
-------
Lower Kissimmee River RCWP, Florida
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals
Overall Objectives:
Identify the causes of high episodic phosphorus events in the Lower Kissimmee River Ba-
sin, specifically in the areas upstream of flow control structures S-65D and S-65E (re-
ferred to as Pool D and Pool E)
Document the effectiveness of implementing an expensive nutrient mass balance set of ani-
mal waste management BMPs combined with removing cows from streams
Level 1 - Water Quality Assessment:
Assess water quality and provide baseline stream water quality data for support of
FDER's Dairy Rule.
Evaluate the effectiveness of agricultural BMPs for reducing P loads to Lake Okeechobee,
as measured by changes in water quality concentrations and loads at individual dairies, se-
lected ditched pastures, in key tributaries and basin outlets
Identify episodic high P loads and locate source areas
Level 2 - Phosphorus Assessment and Forecasting:
Quantify P loadings at key dairies, tributaries and structures on the LKR.
Estimate P load reductions resulting from implementation of BMPs
Forecast the movement of phosphorus throughout the LKR Basin, specifically, investigate
P movement and retention in soil by monitoring one or more dairies and modeling P-trans-
port.
Level 3 - Evaluation of Specific BMPs:
Determine the site-specific efficiency of specific BMPs (fencing, lagoons, spray irrigation
systems) for P load attenuation.
Evaluate the efficiency and long-term effectiveness of individual BMP practices on typical
soils and land drainage patterns
4.3.7.3 Time Frame
RCWP monitoring is from 1987 to 1995 for Levels 1 and 3
RCWP monitoring is from implementation date to 1995 for Level 3
Some baseline data has been collected since January 1986 at selected tributary sites
Monitoring is planned to continue after 1995 by the SFWMD
Flow control structure S-154 (on a tributary to LKR) has been monitored since 1973
Flow control structure S-65E has been monitored since 1982
Level 1 monitoring will continue to support the FDER after the RCWP project ends
4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme
4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations
Instream grab and automatic sampler stations
Individual dairy and beef sites with automatic and weekly grab samplers
Ground water: Ground water levels are monitored two times per month at 11 sites
151
-------
Lower Kissimmee River RCWP, Florida
4.3.7.4.2 Sample Type
Grab and event sampling (with automatic samplers)
4.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency
Dairy grab samples every two weeks, weekly for tributary, daily for automatic sampler
samples, and one dairy spray field. In addition, continuous automated samplers collecting
time-proportional water samples are used on major tributaries, at water control structures
along major canals (S-65C, D, and E). Initially, automatic samplers were used at each ma-
jor dairy. Sampling at the dairies was changed to weekly during the first few years and
then to every two weeks in November of 1991.
4.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed
Total phosphorus (TP), orthophosphate-P (OP), nitrite plus nitrate-N (NOa + NOa-N), am-
monia-N (NHs-N), total Kjeldahl-N (TKN), pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, tempera-
ture, chlorides, and color.
Dairies are monitored for TP and TKN only.
4.3.7.4.5 Flow Measurement
Stream stage (where available) and flow conditions are recorded with each water quality
sample.
4.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements
Precipitation and ground water table depth are monitored at several sites within the project
area.
Temperature and evaporation is also measured.
4.3.7.4.7 Other Important Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information
Surface ground water table levels are monitored at key dairies within the project area.
4.3.7.5 Data Management
All chemical data are stored
verted to a mainframe <
Ground water level data are stored in a PC-based Lotus file by the SFWMD.
All chemical data are stored locally by the SFWMD. In 1991, the PC-based lotus files were con-
verted to a mainframe ORACLE data base.
152
-------
Lower Kissimmee River RCWP, Florida
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results
Analysis:
Exploratory data analysis includes: 1) tabular presentation of the annual means for water
quality concentrations at each station and 2) time plots.
Water quality trend detection techniques includes: 1) nonparametric tests to detect linear
trends over time and 2) the double mass curve method to correct the data for changes in
hydrologic variation using rainfall and ground water stage data.
Water quality modeling is being used to develop a watershed phosphorus transport model.
Time series analysis will be used to examine trends (step and linear) over multiple years.
Changes in ground water table depth and cow numbers will be incorporated to adjust for
changes in water quality not directly related to the RCWP.
Load reductions will be estimated based on hydraulic model simulations.
Results:
The project did not start implementation until 1988; therefore, changes in phosphorus load-
ings to Lake Okeechobee from this watershed due to RCWP have not been quantified.
For most of the dairies, the quality of agricultural runoff from improved pastures and dair-
ies is poor and well above the standards allowed for land uses (Flaig and Ritter, 1989).
BMPs appear to be improving water quality at individual dairies a year after implementa-
tion (Flaig and Ritter, 1989; Stanley and Gunsalus, 1991). BMPs appear to be improving
water quality at individual dairies within a year after implementation. Preliminary results
indicate a reduction in TP has occurred on at least 80% of the dairies that have imple-
mented BMPs.
TP concentrations have decreased at flow control structure S- 65E during the 1980s, possi-
bly from improvements prior to the RCWP project (Flaig and Ritter, 1989).
TP concentrations have increased dramatically over the last 15 years at flow control struc-
ture S-154, probably from increased dairy activity in the basin (Flaig and Ritter, 1989).
Phosphorus concentrations in discharges at the outlet from this project area may exceed
1.0 milligram/liter (mg/1). Baseline data are currently being evaluated.
4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
Effectiveness of BMPs: The project is conducting a study to document the effectiveness of implement-
ing an expensive 'nutrient mass balance' set of animal waste management BMPs combined with re-
moving cows from a stream. Implementation was initiated in 1988 and only baseline data are
available at this time. A combination of site-specific and tributary monitoring/modeling, along with si-
multaneous land treatment/use and ground water monitoring, should be effective in evaluating BMP
effectiveness.
153
-------
Lower Kissimmee River RCWP, Florida
4.3.9 Impact of Other Federal and State Programs on the Project
The 1987 FDER Dairy Rule and the 1987 State of Florida Surface Water Improvement and Manage-
ment (SWIM) Plan dictated the focus of the water quality goals and the associated land treatment em-
phasis for the LKR Basin. The FDER Dairy Rule required that each dairy perform nutrient
management such that minimum phosphorus left the operation. In 1989, the SFWMD set standards
for TP concentrations at tributary discharges and the basin outlet to meet the requirements of the
SWIM Plan. The standard set for the basin discharge was TP = 0.18 mg/1. To comply with this
standard, allowable discharge standards were made for runoff concentrations at various land uses
(1.2 mg P/l for dairies, 0.35 mg P/l for improved pastures, heifer operations, and beef cattle; 0.18
mg P/l for native range; and 1.2 mg P/l for all other land uses). The P and N loading reduction goal
of 43% from the project area to Lake Okeechobee was established by applying the basin discharge
concentration standard required by the SWIM-Act to the average annual discharge for each basin
(Flaig and Ritter, 1989).
Financial assistance for animal waste management systems is also available through the federal LTA
and state cost share programs, in addition to the RCWP. These monies allow for a greater portion of
the expensive systems to be cost shared than would be allowed under the RCWP.
State and federal dairy buy-out programs decreased the number of milking barns in the LKR Basin
from 19 in 1988 to 11 in 1992. However, the number of milking cows decreased only by 14%.
4.3.10 Other Pertinent Information
None
4.3.11 References
A complete list of all project documents and other relevant publications may be found in Appendix IV.
Bell, F. W. 1987. Economic Impact and Evaluation of the Recreation and Commercial Fishing Indus-
tries of Lake Okeechobee, Florida. Dept. Economics, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Flaig, E.G. and G. Ritter. 1989. Water Quality Monitoring of Agricultural Discharge to Lake
Okeechobee. ASAE Paper No. 89-2525, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St Joseph,
MI. 17p.
Lake Okeechobee Technical Advisory Committee (LOTAC). 1986. The overall review of South Flor-
ida Water Management District Lake Okeechobee research, Final report to Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
Ritter, G. and E.G. Flaig. 1987. 1986 Annual Report - Rural Clean Water Program. Technical
Memorandum. South Florida Water Management district, West Palm Beach, Florida. 71p.
Stanley, J. W. and B. Gunsalus. 1991. Taylor Creek Nubbin Slough Project, Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram Okeechobee, Florida Ten Year Report 1981 -1990. Cooperators: Okeechobee ASCS,
Okeechobee CES, Okeechobee SCS, and the South Florida Water Management District.
Okeechobee RCWP Local Coordinating Committee, Okeechobee, Florida. 23 Ip.
Stanley, J., V. Hoge, L. Boggs, G. Ritter. 1988. Lower Kissimmee River Project, Rural Clean
Water Program Annual Progress Report. Okeechobee County, Okeechobee, FL.
154
-------
Lower Kissimmee River RCWP, Florida
4.3.12 Project Contacts
Administration
Diane N. Conway
USDA-ASCS
609 SW Park St.
Okeechobee, Florida 34972
(813) 763-3345
Water Quality
Greg Sawka / Joe Albers
South Florida Water Management District
1000 NE 40th Ave.
Okeechobee, Florida 34973
(813) 763- 3776
Land Treatment
District Conservationist
USDA-SCS
611SWParkSt.
Okeechobee, Florida 34972
(813) 763-3619
Information and Education
Vickie Hoge
CES
501 N.W. Fifth Ave.
Okeechobee, FL 34972
(813) 763-6469
155
-------
012 3mH«i
SCALE
LEGEND
A monitoring stations
• subbasin monitoring stations
JIM slreambank erosion study sites
I.. : j town
— — project boundary
NOTE: Diversions from the High and
Low Line canals are controlled.
High and Low Line canals bypass
Rock Creek.
Figure 4.5: Rock Creek (Idaho) RCWP project map, EM.
156
-------
Idaho
Rock Creek
(RCWP 3)
Twin Falls County
MLRA: B-11
HUC: 170402-12
4.1 Project Synopsis
The Rock Creek, Idaho RCWP project, one of five RCWP Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation (CM&E)
projects, is located in south Central Idaho and covers 45,000 acres within a 198,400-acre watershed. The primary
agricultural activities in the project area are irrigated pasture and cropland and rangeland. Irrigation is required for
crop production because annual rainfall is low (9 inches/year). Irrigation water diverted from the Snake River is
delivered to the farms through a network of canals and laterals (drains or ditches). Irrigation return flows eventually
empty into Rock Creek, which discharges into the Snake River.
Rock Creek has poor water quality that impairs beneficial uses, including contact recreation, salmonid spawning,
and fishing. In addition, Rock Creek delivers a disproportionate load of sediment to the Snake River. Major sources
of nonpoint source (NFS) pollution in the area are sediment and associated pollutants (phosphorus and organic
nitrogen) from irrigation return flows. Streambank erosion in the upper reaches of Rock Creek is also a major
problem. Animal waste is another contributor to the NPS problem.
The NPS management strategy of the RCWP project was to reduce the amount of sediment, sediment-related
pollutants, and animal waste discharging into Rock Creek from agricultural land. All irrigated cropland and animal
production facilities were considered part of the critical area (28,159 acres). Best management practices (BMPs)
were implemented to prevent sediment from entering the drains by controlling erosion within the farm fields and
trapping sediment at field edges. The BMPs used in the project included: sediment retention structures, irrigation
water management, vegetative filter strips, cover crops, conservation tillage, and animal waste management.
Seventy- five percent of the critical area was treated on a voluntary basis.
The water quality monitoring program objectives included documentation of: 1) beneficial use improvements by
monitoring in-stream habitats, benthic macroinvertebrate, and fish populations and 2) changes in pollutant concen-
trations of sediment and nutrients associated with BMP implementation. The experimental design for the chemical
monitoring was an "upstream/downstream" strategy with monitoring before, during, and after BMP implementation
over a 10-year period in several subwatersheds. Monitoring stations were located on Rock Creek and at
downstream/upstream pair locations in the subwatersheds, with the downstream stations representing outlets from
the subwatersheds to Rock Creek.
Grab samples for chemical and physical parameters were taken biweekly during the irrigation season at the Rock
Creek stations; the subwatersheds were sampled biweekly at the beginning and end of the irrigation season, and
weekly during the middle of the season. Monthly grab samples were taken in Rock Creek during the non-irrigation
season. Fish populations were surveyed annually when possible and macroinvertebrates were surveyed on a quarterly
basis. Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) analyses were also utilized. Techniques to measure trout spawning
habitat studies by using simulated trout redds to directly measure substrate dissolved oxygen were developed by the
RCWP project personnel.
Assessment of BMP effectiveness and the importance of slope and crop type conducted by the Agricultural Research
Service (ARS) was a successful component of this project. Sediment ponds were effective in demonstrating to farmers
the magnitude of the soil erosion / water quality problem. However, the economic evaluation conducted by the
Economic Research Service (ERS) indicated that management practices such as conservation tillage and water
management were the most cost-effective BMPs for reducing sediment loss on a per acre basis.
157
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.1 Project Synopsis (continued)
Monitoring results indicate that the BMPs implemented under the project decreased the delivery of sediment and
phosphorus to agricultural drains and improved water quality in Rock Creek. Rock Creek contributions to the Snake
River showed a 75% decrease in sediment loadings and a 68% decrease in phosphorus loadings.
Beneficial uses have improved, including salmonid spawning and primary contact recreation, but remain impaired
on lower Rock Creek. However, if reductions in pollution continue as past trends have indicated, Rock Creek could
eventually fully support all designated in-stream uses.
4.2 Project Findings, Recommendations, and Successes
4.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals
4.2.1.1 Findings and Successes
Having adequate data documenting water quality problems and previous research on BMPs
proved invaluable in setting satisfactory goals.
Joint participation in goal setting by agencies participating in the project fostered stronger commit-
ment to and cooperation in the project.
Realistic, quantitative goals for reduction in the primary pollutants (sediment, phosphorus, total
nitrogen, and pesticides) were established at the beginning of the project. The goals pro-
vided a good focus for project activities.
Initially, not all agencies and landowners agreed upon the BMPs that should be employed to meet
the land treatment and water quality goals. For example, the Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) favored structural BMPs, the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) thought that water
use and nutrient management should be a strong land treatment component, and others fa-
vored conservation tillage.
The economic goals were not developed adequately for this project, making collection of eco-
nomic data and analysis of results difficult.
4.2.1.2 Recommendations
Water quality goals should be designed to achieve the designated uses established by the state.
This enables the establishment of a water quality monitoring design that can be directed to-
wards these use- support goals.
All agencies and landowners should agree on the land treatment and water quality goals at the be-
ginning of the project.
4.2.2 Project Management and Administration
4.2.2.1 Rndings and Successes
The Local Coordinating Committee (LCC) contributes profoundly to the success of a project. In
the Rock Creek project, the LCC was, in essence, the driving force behind the project.
Members of the LCC represented Agricultural Stabilization Conservation Service (ASCS),
SCS, the Snake River and Twin Falls Soil Conservation Districts (SCD), Agricultural Re-
search Service (ARS) Soil and Water Management Research Unit, Twin Falls CES, Idaho Di-
vision of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the University
of Idaho, the Twin Falls Canal Company, and the county commissioner. However, the pro-
ject only had a full-time project coordinator during the contracting phase. Employment of a
project coordinator throughout the entire project period would have enhanced planning, pro-
vided a primary contact, and helped monitor progress.
158
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
A technical advisory committee composed of representatives from SCS, ASCS, and DEQ pro-
vided valuable guidance for local coordination, innovative activities, water quality monitor-
ing, and analysis of results.
A major reason for the success of project administration was the commitment of the ASCS county
committee and its staff to the goals of the project and to project administratioa
The ARS provided valuable research and recommendations regarding the development and evalu-
ation of conventional and new BMPs, particularly conservation tillage and no-tillage.
The Food Security Act of 1985 substantially reduced the amount of technical assistance given to
farmers in the project due to competing work commitments of SCS staff.
Farm managers from local banks were influential in getting absentee landowners to sign water
quality contracts. Local bankers helped farmers identify positive economic assets, such as
tax benefits, cash flow, and net assets resulting from the RCWP project.
4.2.2.2 Recommendations
Representatives on the LCC must be willing to dedicate much time and effort to the project.
They must also be innovative and creative and have communication, negotiation, and prob-
lem-solving abilities.
A full-time project coordinator is essential for optimum project continuity.
Before a project begins, a detailed plan of work should be written, outlining goals and direction
as well as defining the role of each participating agency.
If economic evaluations are an objective of the project, a local economist should be included as
an active member of the LCC from the beginning of the project.
4.2.3 Information and Education
4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes
Technical assistance was provided by close cooperation among the SCS and Snake River and
Twin Falls Soil Conservation Districts and cooperators.
A full time information and education (I&E) staff person was only available for part of the pro-
ject.
The use of multimedia I&E activities contributed to the high level of participation in this project.
DEQ produced many documents and gave many presentations on the radio, TV, newspaper, and
oral presentations.
The I&E components of this project could have been strengthened if a more significant role for
the CES had been incorporated into the project work plan. The initial BMP emphasis was to-
ward structural BMPs, the primary expertise of SCS personnel. However, the major
strengths of CES personnel were in the areas of irrigation water use, nutrient, and pesticide
management; these components should have received more attention.
159
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.2.3.2 Recommendations
An I&E specialist should be available at the beginning of the project (and continue through the en-
tire project) to help develop strategies for project implementation and to ensure program par-
ticipants are committed to the project.
I&E activities should be initiated to explain objectives and goals at the project's inception to dem-
onstrate progress throughout the project period, and emphasize successes as the project
reaches completion.
A mixture of media is essential since different types of communications reach different people.
Both the general public and the farmers should receive information and education, especially
regarding the water quality benefits derived from the project.
Water quality monitoring results should be used to provide feedback on project successes to the
participants and the public.
4.2.4 Producer Participation
4.2.4.1 Findings and Successes
Availability of cost share funds was the most important incentive for fanner participation.
Farm sites were used to demonstrate BMP application The University of Idaho has demonstra-
tion and research plots for conservation tillage. Researchers at the USDA-ARS station at
Kimberly, Idaho, have conducted extensive research on conservation tillage as a management
practice for southern Idaho.
The economic conditions and costs of BMPs were thought by project staff to be the most impor-
tant reason fanners decided not to participate in the RCWP.
4.2.4.2 Recommendations
Mechanisms should be established to ensure maintenance of BMPs after the contracting period
ends in order to ensure continued pollution control.
4.2.5 Land Treatment implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes
The project's goal of treating 75% of the critical area with BMPs in order to control sediment
losses was met.
Management practices are by far the most cost-effective BMPs for reducing sediment loss on a
per-acre basis.
Cost sharing of irrigation practices, such as concrete ditches and gated pipe, although not the
most cost-effective practices, was highly effective in obtaining farmer participation.
Assessment of BMP effectiveness was a successful component of this project Sediment reduc-
tion coefficients for the sediment retention BMPs were developed by the ARS at Kimberly,
Idaho. Mini- basins, I- slots, sediment basins, and buried pipe runoff were effective with
coefficients between 75 and 92%. Vegetative filter strips have a coefficient of 50%; irriga-
tion improvements of 5 to 40%; and conservation tillage of 60%.
Sediment retention ponds were effective in demonstrating to farmers the magnitude of the soil ero-
sion / water quality problem.
160
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
A furrow irrigation sediment yield model based on stream power concepts was developed and
tested. The model is sensitive to furrow end slope and furrow roughness. Using actual run-
off hydrographs, the model was able to predict annual sediment yields within 10% of meas-
ured yields. The model does not account for sediment deposited in drains or on fields due to
re-use of irrigation return flows. However, it does adjust sediment yields to account for
BMPs installed at field edge by using their sediment removal efficiency. The model was
used to estimate sediment yields from various crop types, slopes, and irrigation water man-
agement BMPs (Brockway and Robison, 1984). The actual use of the model was limited due
to insufficient crop, irrigation system, and BMP data. However, the model was a useful tool
in demonstrating that slope was a significant factor in determining erosion. Also demon-
strated was that fact that row crops such as beans, corn, and sugar beets had substantially
greater erosion potential as compared to alfalfa.
The LQ Drain Project, a project conducted in the 1970's, was designed to control erosion using
sediment retention practices (such as sediment ponds, T-slots, and mini basins) and was lo-
cated near the RCWP project area. Results from the project showed that significant reduc-
tions in sediment loads may be lost if sediment retention devices are not property maintained.
The RCWP project team is hopeful that the change from the more expensive structural prac-
tices to conservation tillage and other inexpensive BMPs will make it easier for farmers to
continue practicing soil conservation after the RCWP project ends.
Some landowners have implemented BMPs on their own without RCWP funding.
Originally, the Economic Research Service (ERS), in Corvallis, Oregon, agreed to maintain a
land treatment / land use data base. This decision was made because ERS had better data
management capabilities than the local project offices. However, the distance from the pro-
ject area was too great and the land treatment / land use data base was not being effectively
maintained. The project has maintained the data locally since 1985.
Streambank erosion was not adequately addressed. In addition, there were several illegal stream
alterations due done without permits and/or were done incorrectly that contributed to the
problem.
4.2.5.2 Recommendations
Research needs to be ongoing during the project to facilitate definition of BMPs and, if needed,
development of new BMPs.
Land treatment / land use data should be maintained and easily accessible to the project personnel
to enhance effective storage, maintenance, and utilization. However, technical assistance
with the design and implementation of the data management system, such as was provided by
the ARS and ERS in the Idaho RCWP, may be needed.
Water quality models are useful tools for the identification and prioritization of critical areas.
BMPs developed to target problems in riparian areas would improve in-stream habitat, increase
flow in areas affected by dewatering, and reduce the total pollution entering Rock Creek.
More incentives should be developed for the use of streambank protection practices to im-
prove riparian areas.
Sources of pollutants other than sediment that contribute to beneficial use impairments should also
be targeted for treatment. Nutrient management should be addressed on cropland, animal
grazing, and animal confinement operations. In addition, other sources of nutrients, such as
rangeland runoff and fish hatcheries, should be treated. The project team suggested that the
fish farms should have been eligible for RCWP cost share funds because such farms contrib-
ute to nutrient loading.
For long-term soil erosion and water quality benefits, emphasis should be placed on converting ir-
rigation systems from surface- irrigation to sprinkler irrigation. Concurrent strategies would
have to be developed to reduce the energy costs to facilitate this conversion.
Tracking of BMP maintenance is an important component of land treatment tracking.
161
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.2.5.2 Recommendations (continued)
Quality assurance is needed on all aspects of land treatment implementation, tracking, and evalu-
ation.
Incentives should be provided for conservation of water.
4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes
The goals of producing significant reductions in the amount of sediment, nutrients, and animal
waste entering Rock Creek were met.
Analysis of water quality data from 1980 to 1990 showed significant decreases in suspended sedi-
ment concentrations and other pollutants in the agricultural drains and in Lower Rock Creek
(Maretetal., 1991).
Rock Creek loading contributions to the Snake River showed a 75% decrease in sediment and a
68% decrease in phosphorus. To a lesser degree, total organic nitrogen and volatile sus-
pended solids concentrations have also declined.
Surface grab samples for suspended sediment used in this project gave comparable concentration
and loading estimates to those provided by depth integrated samples and served as a viable
method to measure sediment loadings. However, a large amount of sediment originating
from streambank erosion and a recently burned watershed is transported in Rock Creek in the
formofbedload.
Nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations remain higher than the recommended criteria for protec-
tion of cold-water biota, indicating that BMPs targeted at fertilizer management, grazing man-
agement, and animal waste management were insufficient to reduce in-stream nutrient
concentrations to the extent needed.
Bacteria levels in Lower Rock Creek exhibited a slight decline, but continue to exceed primary
contact standards.
Pesticide concentrations in the Rock Creek water column, sediment, and fish tissue were below
levels established for public health concerns.
Fish populations in Rock Creek below the agricultural subbasins appear to have improved since
the pre-project period (1981). Steelhead were stocked in lower Rock Creek in the fall of
1989 to provide a trophy fishery for local anglers. This activity was well received by area
residents and should become an annual event as water quality continues to improve in lower
Rock Creek (Maret et al., 1991). Macroinvertebrate analysis has not shown any improving
trends.
The project team developed techniques to directly measure trout spawning habitat The tech-
niques involve the use of simulated trout redds to measure substrate dissolved oxygen. Since
these are installed where fish eggs and fry live, they give a more accurate picture offish habi-
tat than simply measuring the same variables in the water columns.
Substrate analysis using percent composition, embeddcdness, habitat evaluation procedures, and
artificial egg pocket and intragravel dissolved oxygen methods in Rock Creek reveals that all
stations remain degraded by fine sediment. Fine sediment increases from the headwaters to
lower reaches and in areas of active streambank erosion.
In-stream monitoring of beneficial uses, including salmonid spawning and primary contact recrea-
tion, show that such uses remain impaired on Lower Rock Creek. If reductions in pollution
(such as fine sediment) continue, Rock Creek could eventually fully support all designated in-
stream uses (Maret et al., 1991).
162
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
Streambank erosion continues to be a major source of sediment reaching Rock Creek. The influx
of sediment from streambank erosion makes it difficult to document the effectiveness of
BMPs. From project estimates, the sediment contributions from the two major sources,
streambank erosion and irrigation return flow, were similar in magnitude when the project be-
gan. In contrast, from 1987 to 1990, monitoring indicated that streambank erosion contrib-
uted two to over five times the amount of sediment added from cropland in the subbasins
during the May - August irrigation season. The problem of streambank erosion will continue
to mask in-stream benefits from the RCWP land treatment.
Ground water monitoring of tunnel drains indicates nitrate concentrations range from 3.3 to 5.4
milligrams/liter (mg/1). Although these concentrations are below the drinking water standard
(10 mg/1), there is a large volume of discharge from the drains and the nitrogen load losses
are probably large. Pesticides, particularly dacthal, were found in trace amounts in some
drains.
In 1987, a fire occurred in the headwaters of the watershed, resulting in increased sediment load-
ing to Rock Creek. The majority of this sediment was coarse bedload material.
4.2.6.2 Recommendations
A monitoring program should be designed only after clear objectives that identify impaired or
threatened beneficial uses have been established. A use attainability assessment of the water
body being studied should be conducted prior to developing a long-term monitoring program
if existing data are not available.
A monitoring plan which clearly defines objectives and agency roles should be written. This plan
should include objectives and goals, locations of stations, duration of monitoring, methodol-
ogy, data storage, frequency of sampling, assessment methods, reporting requirements,
costs, and personnel.
Data management systems, quality assurance methods, and analysis techniques should be clearly
identified and planned prior to monitoring to ensure that all water quality and land treatment
/ use data are being collected in a manner that will allow effective trend analysis and valid in-
terpretations.
Monitoring programs must start with an evaluation of water resource quality, which includes habi-
tat quality, biotic integrity, water quality, and water availability. This approach must be in-
terdisciplinary and requires evaluation of chemical, physical, and biological variables.
Several years of background water quality data are needed before any land treatment begins.
Direct measures of use support (aquatic biota, spawning assessments, other biological and habitat
variables) should be used. Reference stations characterizing attainable conditions are re-
quired to evaluate the health of the aquatic biota and habitat potential.
Covariates such as flow, seasonably, upstream concentrations, precipitation, water use (in irri-
gated areas), and other variables should be monitored to ensure accurate interpretations of
monitoring results.
Selection of monitoring variables should be specific to beneficial uses impaired.
Long-term monitoring (6-10 years) with biweekly grab samples is sufficient to document water
quality trends in a water resource that exhibits at least a 40% change in pollutant concentra-
tions.
Sampling bedload in a stream during runoff periods should be performed or sediment loadings
may be underestimated. Total sediment loadings need to be measured where bedload is sig-
nificant.
Funding for monitoring is essential for any water quality demonstration project since monitoring
is the primary means for evaluating the effectiveness of land treatment implemented.
163
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
4.2.7.1 Findings and Successes
This RCWP project contributed information on the effectiveness of BMPs in an irrigated system.
Monitoring results indicate that the BMPs implemented under the RCWP decreased the delivery
of sediment and phosphorus to the agricultural drains and improved water quality in Rock
Creek. This conclusion was drawn from the association that eight of ten subbasins have docu-
mented reduced loadings over the same time period that BMP implementation occurred.
The long pre- and post-BMP water quality and land treatment monitoring time frames, as well as
the high level of land treatment in the critical area, increased the ability to the project to docu-
ment BMP effectiveness.
This project demonstrated that BMP effectiveness monitoring is important to evaluate implementa-
tion programs and their off-site effect on water quality.
The downstream/upstream water quality monitoring data from the subbasins was used success-
fully to quantify sediment concentrations and loads to Rock Creek and to indicate which sub-
basins could benefit most from BMPs (Clark, 1985).
Lack of participation and failure to implement BMPs can have a significant negative effect on
monitoring results, particularly when the farm is located immediately upstream of a monitor-
ing station.
A post-project analysis is being conducted to further analyze the water quality and land treatment
/ land use data The project team has taken the initiative to update and revise land treatment
/ land use data base such that linkage between the land treatment and water quality data bases
could be quantitatively performed. The project would have benefited from 1) updating these
data bases annually, 2) verifying that the land treatment / land use and water quality data
bases were being compiled such that they could be linked on a drainage basis, and 3) that all
pertinent information was being collected and compiled.
Based on project experience and modeling, the two most critical parameters that affect soil ero-
sion (as measured by suspended sediment load) are: 1) percent acres treated with BMPs and
2) the erosion index developed by project SCS personnel which is a function of crop type and
field slope. Land use and crop data (on an annual basis for each subbasin) are being com-
piled to create an erosion index to be matched with water quality monitoring data.
The hydrologic characteristics of each subbasin are currently being entered into a geographic in-
formation system (GIS) by SCS and DEQ. A direct spatial (hydrologic) linkage between the
land treatment and water quality data bases is currently being established to assist in evaluat-
ing land use/water quality relationships.
4.2.7.2 Recommendations
In-stream and field monitoring results should be used as fully as possible to guide resource manag-
ers in selecting BMPs and prioritizing land treatment.
Monitoring and data management schemes for both water quality and land treatment should be set
up by hydrologic (drainage) units to facilitate evaluation of BMP effectiveness.
Land treatment data should be electronically stored throughout the life of the project.
The evaluation of land treatment and resulting water quality changes must consider non-partici-
pants and non-compliance (failure to install and maintain BMPs properly) to explain trends in
the monitoring data. Other significant land use activities that would affect pollutant loadings
should be documented.
Non-participant land use and cropping patterns should be tracked along with participant land use
and cropping patterns and recorded in the land treatment data base. Tracking of land treat-
ment data should not end with expiration of contracts.
164
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.2.7.2 Recommendations (continued)
Projects should allow ample time and funds for analysis and assessment of monitoring data to ade-
quately document trends in water quality associated with land treatment. Information from
the analysis is important to provide feedback to project personnel, policy makers, and the
public.
BMP effectiveness monitoring at a few BMP treatment sites have a high probability of document-
ing and quantifying water quality impacts. These small scale monitoring components of a
project should be encouraged because they provide direct and rapid feedback to project par-
ticipants. This feedback includes the demonstration of pollutant losses from the landowner's
operation and the documentation of the relative effectiveness of each practice.
Funding for monitoring of both land treatment and water quality is essential for a water quality
demonstration program if it is to be able to provide adequate evaluation of the program.
4.3 Project Description
4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame
Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation (CM&E) RCWP Project
1981 -1990 for water quality monitoring; BMP implementation will continue until 1995.
1991 -1992 Post-project water quality / land use data analysis
4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions
4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality
4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size
Irrigation drains and canals and Rock Creek (approximately 25 miles) flowing into the
Snake River
4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments
Rock Creek provides diverse habitat for wildlife and salmonid spawning. It is a popular
stream for swimming, tubing, and cold water trout fishing. Water skiing, swimming,
boating, fishing, and hunting are major recreational activities in the Snake River, 10 to 15
miles downstream from the confluence of Rock Creek with Snake River.
Irrigation water diverted from the Snake River is delivered to farms through a network of
canals and laterals (drains or ditches). Irrigation water is available at a near constant flow
from about April 15 through October 15. Rock Creek receives irrigation return flow from
the RCWP project area Irrigation return flows eventually empty into Rock Creek, which
delivers a disproportionate load of sediment to the Snake River.
The Lower Rock Creek and the Low Line Canal are also used for hydroelectric power
generation. Due to plant demands for water, Rock Creek receives additional water before
and after irrigation season. During the summer and fall, Rock Creek is completely dry
for a short distance near the Rock Creek Town site (between water quality monitoring sta-
tions S-5 and S-6).
High sediment loads in Rock Creek have created additional equipment and maintenance
costs for filtering sediment and removing gravel at the hydroelectric plant near the conflu-
ence of Rock Creek with Snake River. These costs have not been formally documented.
In addition, construction of two hydro-plants created large sources of sediment to Rock
Creek.
165
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments (continued)
Large horizontal tunnels, made into the basalt rims above Rock Creek, drain a high water
table area in the project area. Four trout hatcheries utilize the outflow for fish production.
The primary use impairments are to fishing, salmonid spawning, and contact recreation in
Rock Creek. Impairments also occur in irrigation ditches, canals, and drains, which be-
come clogged with sediment.
Sediment loads entering the Snake River from Rock Creek do not appear to be signifi-
cantly impairing downstream reservoir capacity or increasing the cost of power generation
at downstream power plants that rely on reservoir capacity because the nearest such plant
is located 120 miles downstream from the project area. However, there are two river-run
hydroelectric dams within 20 miles of the confluence. The slack water pools behind the
dams are being filled with sediment.
The muddy color of Rock Creek is an aesthetic impairment which also effects the Snake
River.
4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement
The primary pollutants in Rock Creek are sediment, phosphorus, nitrogen, and bacteria.
Uses are impaired by high sediment and nutrient loads originating from furrow-irrigated
cropland and streambank erosion. Overgrazing in riparian areas may contribute to stream-
bank erosioa Animal wastes from feedlot runoff also contribute to the water quality im-
pairments.
Non-cropland activities in the project area also affect the pollutant loading to Rock Creek
and Snake River. Expanded fish hatchery production has increased the phosphorus, nitro-
gen, and organic matter loadings to Rock Creek from this industry and decreased water
flow in Rock Creek by diversion. The Lower Rock Creek (downstream of monitoring sta-
tion S-4) is thought to be affected by the hatcheries. Illegal gravel mining and illegal
stream alterations have degraded the channel and riparian zone between Rock Creek water
quality monitoring stations S-4 and S-5 and have negated many of the RCWP improve-
ments. An example of illegal stream alteration included a landowner who bulldozed the
stream banks to allow center-pivot sprinklers to cross Rock Creek.
Other factors that have a detrimental impact on the water quality of Rock Creek by in-
creased delivery of sediment and sediment-related nutrients include: chaining the canal sys-
tem to mechanically remove vegetation, increased sediment loadings from Harrington
Fork (in the headwaters of the watershed) due to a fire in 1987, construction and opera-
tion of a new hydroelectric generating plant in 1989, and a 40% increase in row-cropped
bean production in 1989.
4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals
Objective: Reduce the amount of sediment, sediment related pollutants, and animal waste
discharging into Rock Creek from agricultural lands through application of BMPs
Specific goals:
Reduce the subbasin contributions to Rock Creek of sediment by 70%, of phosphorous
by 60%, of total nitrogen by 40%, and of pesticides by 65%
Improve the beneficial uses of surface waters in the project area, specifically trout fishing
and contact recreation
166
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics
4.3.2.2.1 Watershed Area: 198,400 acres
Project Area: 45,238 acres
Critical Area: 28,159 acres
4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors
Mean Annual Precipitation: 9 inches (supplemental irrigation water is required to grow
dry beans, alfalfa, pasture, dry peas, sugar beets, and corn)
Average Growing Season: 120 days
Geologic Factors: The watershed is underlain by limestone, quartzite, shale, sandstone,
granite, and metamorphosed sediments. The lower watershed (most of the fanned area) is
underlain by deep layers of fractured basalt. This formation yields large supplies of
ground water to the northeast Soils in the project area are highly erosive. Subsoils range
from silty to loamy. Surface soils are generally medium textured. Slopes range from
nearly level to very steep on hill and mountain sides. The slope on the irrigated crop
lands is predominately 0 to 2% with a range from 0 to 8%.
4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture
The primary agricultural activities are irrigated pasture and cropland and rangeland. The
primary crops produced are dry beans, dry peas, alfalfa, sugar beets, corn, small grain, al-
falfa, and livestock.
4.3.2.2.4 Land Use
Use % of Project Area
Cropland 75
(Irrigated beans,
grain, alfalfa,
pasture)
Other pasture/ NA
range
Woodland NA
Urban/roads NA
Other NA
% of Critical Area
100
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.3.2.2.5 Animal Operations
Operation # Farms
Dairy
Beef
Mink*
Not thought to be a critical farm by the project (personal communication, Bill Clark,
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, August 1986)
ms
34
21
1
Total #
Animals
6,800
6,300
20,000
Total Animal
Units
9,520
6,300
-200
167
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.3.3 Total Project Budget
SOURCES Federal
ACTIVITY
Cost Share 1,988,757
Info. & Ed. (CES) 135,458
Tech. Asst. 1,729,286
Water Quality
Monitoring 1,388,966
SUM 5,242,467
State
Fanner
Other
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
NA
0
NA
NA
0
NA
SUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Source: Maret et al., 1991
4.3.4 Information and Education
4.3.4.1 Strategy
The Cooperative Extension Service was charged with developing and coordinating I&E activities.
ASCS informed landowners about the cost share opportunities. CES was unable to provide
the level of I&E required. The major areas of expertise of CES personnel were irrigation
water use, nutrient, and pesticide management. However, the initial BMP emphasis was to-
ward structural BMPs. After 1985, SCS and the SCDs took the lead responsibility for pro-
viding technical assistance to the farmers by hiring an I&E specialist. The state water quality
agency, Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ), provided feedback to the farmers and the
public regarding the water quality monitoring results. Numerous articles about the Rock
Creek RCWP project, many in the popular press, were written by project personnel from all
participating agencies.
There was a need for more technical assistance for animal waste management.
4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals
Objectives:
Create and implement an educational program that would aid in accomplishing the project
goals
Goals:
Increase public understanding of erosion/water quality problems
Increase public understanding of the solutions to these agricultural water quality problems
Increase public understanding of the RCWP
Target audiences in critical areas
Provide information and educational opportunities necessary to enable farmers in critical
area to participate in the RCWP
Disseminate information on project activities, goals, accomplishments, and events with
emphasis on conservation tillage and animal waste systems (added as a goal in 1985)
168
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.3.4.3 Program Components
News releases
Rock Creek Review Project Newsletter
Flyers
Brochures
Slide presentations
Informational meetings
Demonstrations and tours
Posters
Public service announcements on radio and television
Awards programs for participating farmers
Scientific and technical publications and journal articles
4.3.5 Producer Participation
4.3.5.1 Level of Participation
The level of participation was high in this project, particularly for structural irrigation manage-
ment practices, but it was very low for conservation tillage and animal waste management.
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation
Availability of cost share funds was 50% or 75%, depending on the practice. Most farmers were
satisfied with the level of financial assistance they received.
Farm sites were used to demonstrate BMP applicatioa The University of Idaho has demonstra-
tion and research plots for conservation tillage. Researchers at the USDA-ARS station at
Kimberly, Idaho, have conducted extensive research on conservation tillage as a management
practice for southern Idaho.
Improving irrigation management decreased landowner's labor.
4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation
Economics
CostofBMPs
The limit of $50,000 for large sediment retention structures and animal waste control systems
Inflexibility to design inexpensive systems
4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs
Good, particularly for conservation tillage and other management BMPs. From 50 to 70% of the
critical area BMPs are estimated by land treatment personnel to have been continued. BMPs
with a life span of one year, such as filter strips, mini-basins, and I-slots, are the BMPs most
often discontinued after contracts expire.
Structural components of irrigation water management (BMP 13) are likely to be maintained after
contracts expired. Sediment basins were the BMPs most often not maintained after contracts
expired.
169
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.3.6 Land Treatment
4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design
The strategy used by the project was to implement BMPs designed to reduce the amount of sedi-
ment, sediment-related pollutants, and animal waste discharging into Rock Creek from agri-
cultural land.
BMP emphasis during the first five years of the project was towards removal of sediment from
runoff at the edge of field. Emphasis shifted for the last half of the project to reduction of
erosion within the field (using conservation tillage) and animal waste management.
The original contracting period was 1981 to 1986. Conservation tillage was approved as a cost
shared practice in 1985. Amendments to existing contracts to add conservation tillage and fer-
tilizer management were allowed beyond 1986. However, conservation tillage was imple-
mented too late to be useful in reducing pollutants to Rock Creek during the project period.
4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals
Contract and implement BMPs to serve 75% of the critical area
Improve the use and conservation of irrigation water
Reduce the amount of on-farm erosion
Cany out intensive research on reduced tillage and residue management systems that could be
used within the project area
Evaluate and promote the potential for double cropping of grain and beans
Incorporate conservation tillage into existing RCWP contracts (added to the goals in 1985)
Demonstrate new technology, such as conservation tillage, cropping sequences to utilize available
nitrogen following legumes, and water management under conservation tillage (added to the
goals in 1985)
Accelerate implementation of animal waste systems by planning for and contracting with all op-
erators needing these systems (added to the goals in 1985)
4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application
All irrigated cropland and animal production facilities were considered critical. Critically erosive
land was given highest priority, including steep slopes, rented land, intensively cropped land,
and land with few irrigation management improvements.
Treatment has exceeded goals for cropland operations. The implementation of BMPs has not fol-
lowed the order of subbasin priority because of economic conditions and the desire to issue
contracts in the order that applications were received.
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used
General Scheme:
Focus during 1981-1985 was on sediment retention structures and irrigation management
systems with some permanent vegetative cover on critical areas (BMPs 12, 13, and 11).
These BMPs prevented sediment from entering the drains by trapping sediment at the edge
of the farm fields. Several other practices were approved, but few were implemented
(i.e., BMPs 2, 9, 10, 15, and 16).
For the duration of the project emphasis shifted to conservation tillage (BMP 9) and ani-
mal waste management (BMP 2). Conservation tillage controlled erosion on-site.
There were a few community-size sediment ponds that served several farms.
170
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used.(continued)
BMPs Utilized in the Project*:
Permanent vegetative cover (BMP 1)
Fencing
Pasture and hayland planting
Animal waste management system (BMP 2)
Waste storage and handling
Conservation tillage system (BMP 9)
Stream protection system (BMP 10)
Permanent vegetative cover on critical areas (BMP 11)
Filter strips
Sediment retention, erosion, or water control structures (BMP 12)
Mini basins
I-slots
Sediment basins
Buried pipe runoff control systems
Improving irrigation system and / or water management system (BMP 13)
Irrigation water management
Concrete ditch
Concrete pipeline
PVC pipeline
Gated pipeline
Land smoothing
Structure for water control
Fertilizer Management (BMP 15)
Pesticide Management (BMP 16)
*Please refer to Appendix I for description/purpose of BMPs.
Source: Maretetal., 1991
4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring & Tracking Program
4.3.6.5.1 Description
Cost shared and non-cost shared land treatment / land use activities were monitored in
terms of units installed and acres treated. Data were collected on a field, subbasin, and an-
nual basis.
Data on acreages for each crop on a field, subbasin, and annual basis were maintained by
ASCS.
Tracking of BMP maintenance was weak. Most of the tracking occurred during the con-
tracting period.
171
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.3.6.5.2 Data Management
Data are collected by SCS. Originally, the Economic Research Service (ERS) in Corval-
lis, Oregon, agreed to maintain a land treatment / land use data base. This decision was
made because ERS had better data management capabilities than the SCS field office.
However, the distance from the project area was too great and the land treatment / land
use data base was not being effectively maintained. In 1985, with assistance from ARS
and the University of Idaho, the local project SCDs starting maintaining the land treatment
and land use records on dBASE (a PC data base). The data are being converted to dBASE
and SAS for linkage with the water quality data base for post-project analysis. BMP imple-
mentation data from 1981 to 1990 are reported in the project's Ten-Year Report (Maret et
al., 1991).
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results
Analysis:
Sediment reduction coefficients for the sediment retention BMPs have been developed by
the ARS and the University of Idaho at Kimberly, Idaho.
ARS and the University of Idaho also developed and tested a furrow irrigation sediment
yield model based on stream power concepts. The model is sensitive to furrow end slope
and furrow roughness.
SCS maintained a data base for land treatment which was recorded on a annual, contract,
and farm field basis.
Results:
Quantified Project Achievements (as of 12/31/91):
Critical Area Treatment Goals
Pollutant
SflUECfi Units lolal % Implemented Total % Implemented
Cropland acres 28,159 75% 21,119 100%
Conservation acres 10,000 65% 10,000 65%
Tillage
Dairies # 8 50% 8 50%
Feedlots # 17 35% 17 35%*
Contracts # 235 78% 176 104%
All feedlots have contracts, but implementation is not complete.
Source: Maret et al., 1991; SCS et al., 1989
Assessment of BMP effectiveness was a successful component of this project. Mini-ba-
sins, I-slots, sediment basins, and buried pipe runoff were effective, with coefficients be-
tween 75 and 92%. Vegetative filter strips have a coefficient of 50%, irrigation
improvements 5 to 40%, and conservation tillage 60%.
Sediment ponds were effective in demonstrating to fanners the magnitude of the soil ero-
sion / water quality problem.
172
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results (continued)
Using actual runoff hydrographs, the furrow irrigation sediment yield model was able to
predict annual sediment yields within 10% of measured yields. The model does not ac-
count for sediment deposited in drains or on fields due to re-use of irrigation return flows.
However, it does adjust sediment yields to account for BMPs installed at field edge by us-
ing their sediment removal efficiency. The model was used to estimate sediment yields
from various crop types, slopes, and irrigation water management BMPs (Brockway and
Robison, 1984). The actual use of the model was limited due to insufficient crop, irriga-
tion system, and BMP data. However, the model was a useful tool in demonstrating that
slope was a significant factor in determining erosion. Also demonstrated was the fact that
row crops such as beans, corn, and sugar beets had substantially greater erosion potential
as compared to alfalfa.
Results from the LQ Drain Project, an earlier project also designed to control erosion us-
ing sediment retention BMPs (sediment ponds, T- slots, and mini basins) located near the
RCWP project area and conducted in the 1970s, showed that significant reductions in sedi-
ment loads may be lost if sediment retention devices are not property maintained. The
RCWP project team is hopeful that the change from the more expensive structural prac-
tices to conservation tillage and other inexpensive BMPs should make it easier for farmers
to continue practicing soil conservation after the RCWP project ends.
Some landowners have implemented BMPs on their own without RCWP funding.
Based on a model of the watershed performed by Kasal et al. (1987), modification of con-
tracts to implement 10,000 acres of conservation tillage was expected to reduce sediment
loadings substantially beyond reductions resulting from structural controls and provide a
low-cost alternative to structural controls. The project increased its emphasis on conserva-
tion tillage as an effective, low-cost alternative to structural practices for improving water
quality. However, the adoption rate of conservation tillage was low. Many farmers re-
jected conservation tillage because it was a non-traditional farming method. Custom op-
erators who farm rented land did not have an economic incentive to implement the
practice. Most of the crops grown in the project area are dry beans (garden and commer-
cial seed varieties) and sugar beets. Contractors for dry beans know that conventional till-
age methods yield good bean crops and they were prone to contract with farmers who
practiced conventional methods. While several surface-applied herbicides are registered
for use on soybeans, there are no such products registered for dry beans. This was a deter-
rent to adoption of conservation tillage.
4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design
The project monitored subbasin pollutant contributions to Rock Creek and tracked changes in sedi-
ment load and associated pollutants as close to their sources and BMPs as possible. Pollutant
concentrations in Rock Creek were also monitored. The basic experimental design was an
"upstream/downstream" strategy with monitoring before, during, and after BMP implementa-
tion over a 10-year period. The project also had an extensive biological and habitat monitor-
ing program to document changes in beneficial use support in Rock Creek over time.
The water quality monitoring was conducted by Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare, Division of
Environmental Quality (DEQ).
173
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals
Objectives:
Evaluate the RCWP project and BMP effectiveness in meeting water quality goals
Provide water quality information to project managers for use in making adjustments in
project implementation to meet the water quality goals
Develop improved water quality nonpoint source monitoring methodologies to be utilized
in other Idaho projects
Determine the local quality of the rural drinking water supply and the quantity of ground
water entering Rock Creek from the project area
Goals:
Detect trends in water quality variables on a subbasin and project area basis
Document beneficial use improvements by monitoring in-stream habitats, benthic macroin-
vertebrates, and fish populations
Measure rainbow trout habitat suitability in Rock Creek using Habitat Evaluation Proce-
dures (HEP) analyses
Evaluate salmonid spawning habitat of rainbow and brown trout in Rock Creek using in-
stream bioassay to determine survival to emergence, intragravel dissolved oxygen, and
percent fines in artificial redds
Develop techniques to directly study fish spawning habitat by using simulated trout redds
to measure substrate dissolved oxygen
Demonstrate the water quality effects of conservation tillage, sediment retention struc-
tures, irrigation water management, vegetative filter strips, cover crops, and animal waste
management for surface water protection
Relate measured water quality changes in the agricultural drains and in Rock Creek to
land treatment and changes in land use
Obtain an accurate estimate of water and sediment budgets
Document current ground water quality status and ground water budgets by monitoring
drainage tunnels
Assess the effect of conservation tillage on pesticide and nitrogen concentrations in the
ground water
4.3.7.3 Time Frame
Surface water: 1980-1990 for Rock Creek and 1981-1990 for subbasin chemical water quality
monitoring. Water quality monitoring was initiated at the Rock Creek Stations in 1980; sam-
pling at S-l became obsolete in 1983 due to the construction of a new hydroelectric plant im-
mediately upstream of S-l; S-2 was initiated as a replacement BMP implementation will
continue until 1995.
Ground water: 1988 -1990
Streambank erosion: 1986 -1990
174
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme
4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations
Surface Water:
For chemical variables, there were 21 subbasin monitoring stations and five active Rock
Creek monitoring stations. Subbasin monitoring occurred on six of the 10 subbasins.
The subbasin stations were located on irrigation drains (ditches). Most of the subbasin
stations were positioned in pairs, with the downstream stations representing outlets from
the subbasins to Rock Creek. The upstream stations monitored pollutant concentrations
from natural and agricultural sources upstream from the BMP implemented agricultural
areas.
Ground Water:
Discharge from 8 drainage tunnels in the lower watershed was monitored. These tunnels
are excavations into basalt that drain localized areas with high water tables to prevent salt
accumulations. Samples were taken where the water exits into the Rock Creek canyon.
Streambank Erosion:
8 sites were monitored to evaluate the magnitude of stream bank erosion and effect of
streambank stabilization on Rock Creek and Cottonwood Creek.
Harrington Fork was monitored in 1987 to determine the contributions of pollutants re-
sulting from a fire in the watershed.
4.3.7.4.2 Sample Type
Grab (for water column chemistry and bacteriology)
4 step removal for fish
Triplicate Hess samples for macroinvertebrates
4.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency
Subbasin surface water sites: Weekly chemical sampling during the irrigation season (the
drains are dry during the non-irrigation period)
Rock Creek: Weekly to biweekly chemical sampling during the irrigation seasons;
Monthly chemical sampling during the non-irrigation season
Fish populations (game and non-game): Approximately annually (in the spring of 1981,
1985, 1987, 1988, and 1990)
Pesticides in fish tissue: Same frequency as for fish populations
Macroinvertebrate surveys: Quarterly (in March, June, August, and November)
Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) analyses: 1981, 1984, and 1988
Salmonid spawning habitat evaluations: Annual (began in 1989)
Ground water sites: Seasonally (spring, summer, and fall, began in 1988)
Streambank erosion sites: Annually (since 1986)
Creel Survey (Fall, 1988)
175
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed
Surface sites: suspended sediment (SS), total phosphorus (TP), orthophosphate-phosphorus
(OP-P), fecal coliform (FC), nitrite-nitrogen plus nitrate- nitrogen (NCh-N + NOs-N), to-
tal Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Additional variables analyzed at the Rock Creek stations: turbidity, pesticides, trace met-
als, fish population sampling, fish tissue analyses for pesticides, benthic macroinverte-
brates, cobble embeddedness, intragravel dissolved oxygen (IGDO), stream channel
substrate sediment, core sampling, Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP), and salmonid
(trout) spawning habitat evaluations of rainbow and brown trout and in-stream bioassays
to estimate survival. Creel Survey to document any increased fishing activity as a result of
improved fish populations
The trout spawning habitat studies involve the use of simulated trout redds to measure sub-
strate dissolved oxygea Since these are installed where fish eggs and fry would live, they
give a more accurate picture offish habitat than simply measuring the same variables in
the water columns. This technique of direct habitat measurement was developed by the
RCWP project personnel.
HEP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, 1980) analyses to assess the physical features of
trout habitat
Stream channel substrate composition and cobble embeddedness to measure substrate suit-
ability for trout spawning. Core sampling to measure the amount of fine sediment in trout
spawning habitats
Ground water sites: NOa-N, pesticides, and FC
Streambank erosion
4.3.7.4.5 Row Measurement
Stream discharge recorded with all grab samples. A U. S. Geological Survey gauge re-
cords continuous flow on Rock Creek at station S-l (later moved to station S-2). Flow
was also collected at the ground water tunnel outlets to determine seasonal changes in dis-
charge.
4.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements
Daily precipitation was recorded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric and Admini-
stration (NOAA).
4.3.7.4.7 Other Important Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information
The project placed major emphasis on quality assurance / quality control for both the labo-
ratory and field portions of its water quality monitoring.
Color photographs were taken of each sample station over time to provide a visual record
of seasonal changes, water quality, riparian conditions, and sediment deposits. The photo-
graphs and Rock Creek library are on file at DEQ, Boise, Idaho.
4.3.7.5 Data Management
All surface and ground water chemical and biological data are stored locally at the Idaho Depart-
ment of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality. The data were also summa-
rized in the project's annual progress reports (such as Maret, 1990) and the 10-Year Report
(Maretetal., 1991).
All surface and ground water chemical data are stored on STORET.
176
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.3.7.5 Data Management (continued)
STORET agency codes: 21IDSURV, 21IDAHO, 112WRD
STORET STORET PROFILE
AGENCY CODE STATION NO. MAP / STATION
(COMMENTS)
Rock Creek Stations (most labeled on project map):
21IDSURV 2060146 ID-1 / S-l
21IDAHO 151163 ID-1 / S-l
112WRD 13093095 ID-1 / S-l
21DDSURV 2060148 ID-1 / S-2
21IDSURV 2060145 ID-1 / S-3
112WRD 13092747 ID-1 / S-3
21IDSURV 2060144 ID-1 / S-4
112WRD 13092710 ID-1 / S-4
21IDSURV 2060147 ID-1 / S-5
21IDSURV 2060143 ID-1 / S-6
112WRD 13092000 ID-1 / S-6
21IDSURV 2060149 S-6A (Harrington Fork confluence, discontinued)
21IDSURV 2060150 S-6B (below confluence of Fourth Fork Rock Creek,
discontinued)
21IDSURV 2060158 S-7 (below confluence of Harrington and Fourth
Forks, upstream of project area)
21IDSURV 2060159 S-8 (above confluence of Harrington and Fourth
Forks, upstream of project area)
21IDSURV 2060160 HF-1 (Harrington Fore, near mouth, upstream of
project area)
21IDSURV 2060142 C-l (Twin Falls Main Canal near Hansen, discontinued)
Sub-basin Monitoring Stations (most labeled on project map):
21IDSURV 2060137 ID-1 / 1-1
2060138 ID-1 / 1-2
2060135 ID-1 / 2-1
2060136 ID-1 / 2-2
2060139 2-3
2060140 2-4
2060240 2-5
2060131 ID-1 / 4-1
2060132 ID-1/ 4-2
2060133 ID-1/ 4-3
2060134 ID-1/ 4-4
2060129 ID-1 / 5-1
2060130 ID-1 / 5-2
2060123 ID-1 / 7-1
2060124 ID-1 / 7-1
2060125 ID-1 / 7-3
2060126 ID-1 / 7-4
2060127 7-6
2060128 7-7
206014 10-1
2060245 CW-3 (Cottonwood Creek near discharge into Rock Creek)
177
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.3.7.5 Data Management (continued)
STORET STORET PROFILE
AGENCY CODE STATION NO. MAP / STATION
Tunnel Drains (not labeled on map):
21IDSURV 2060272 T-l
2060273 T-2
2060274 T-3
2060275 T-4
2060276 T-5
2060277 T-6
2060278 T-7
2060279 T-8
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results
Analysis:
Exploratory data analysis included tabular presentation of the data on an annual/subbasin
basis, time plots, calculation of means and ranges for the water quality concentrations at
each site, and calculation of monthly suspended sediment and TP loads at each site.
Indexes calculated:
Water quality index values were calculated using the STORET program called WQI
which weighted values of measured chemical and physical variables from the Rock
Creek stations fro 1982 to 1988
Species diversity and biotic indices were calculated from macroinvertebrate data
HEP values were derived from 17 habitat variables (Maret et al., 1991, p. 112).
Comparison of seasonal sediment loadings from the subbasins from 1982 to 1990 was con-
ducted.
Percent exceedance was calculated by comparing FC, suspended sediment, TP, and turbid-
ity concentrations at the Rock Creek Stations to exceedance criteria.
Seasonal sediment loadings from the subbasins from 1982 to 1990 were compared.
Water quality trend detection techniques include:
Nonparametric trend analyses using monthly median concentration and monthly mean
loading values, student's t-test to compare pre- and post- BMP periods
Linear regression to detect a linear trend over time
Covariate analysis that adjusted for upstream concentrations paired with downstream
stations.
Examination of the measured variability in the water quality data was used to determine
the amount of change in annual mean concentrations required to be statistically significant
(i.e. minimum detectable change).
178
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results (continued)
Results (Maret at al., 1991):
Analysis of water quality data from 1980 to 1990 showed significant decreases in sus-
pended sediment concentrations and other pollutants. Significant reductions in sediment
loadings for 8 out of 10 subbasin stations. These reductions are thought to have a direct
impact on Rock Creek because approximately 85% of the sediment in lower Rock Creek
is wash load or sediment originating from irrigation return flow (Sterling, 1983).
Rock Creek contributions to the Snake River showed a 75% decrease in sediment loadings
and a 68% decrease in phosphorus loadings. To a lesser degree, total organic nitrogen
and volatile suspended solids concentrations have also declined.
Nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations remain higher than the recommended criteria for
protection of cold-water biota, indicating that BMPs targeted at fertilizer management,
grazing management, and animal waste management were insufficient.
Bacteria levels in Lower Rock Creek exhibited a slight decline, but continue to exceed pri-
mary contact standards. The primary bacteria sources are from cattle in pastures, ran-
geland, or confinement.
Fish populations in Rock Creek below the agricultural subbasins appear to have improved
since 1981.
Substrate analysis for Rock Creek using percent composition, embeddedness, habitat
evaluation procedures and artificial egg pocket and intragravel dissolved oxygen methods
revealed that all stations remained impacted by fine sediment. Fine sediment increased
from the headwaters to lower reaches and in areas of active bank erosion.
In-stream monitoring of beneficial uses, including salmonid spawning and primary contact
recreation, showed that uses remain impaired on Lower Rock Creek (below S-6). How-
ever, if reductions in pollution (e.g., fine sediment) continue as past trends have indicated,
Rock Creek could eventually fully support all designated in-stream uses (Maret et al.,
1991).
Streambank erosion continues to be a major source of sediment reaching Rock Creek.
The influx of sediment from streambank erosion makes it difficult to document the effec-
tiveness of BMPs. From project estimates, the sediment contributions from the two major
sources, streambank erosion and irrigation return flow, were similar in magnitude when
the project began. In contrast, from 1987 to 1990, monitoring indicated that streambank
erosion contributed two to over five times the amount of sediment added by cropland in
the subbasins during the May to August irrigation season. This problem will continue to
mask in-stream benefits from the RCWP land treatment.
The domestic wells did not show nitrate contamination, but did indicate possible bacterial
contamination (Maret, 1990).
Ground water monitoring of tunnel drains indicated that nitrate concentrations range from
3.3 to 5.4 mg/L. Pesticides, particularly dacthal, were found in trace amounts in some
drains.
Macroinvertebrate analysis has not shown any improving trends.
4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
Monitoring results indicated that the BMPs implemented under the RCWP decreased the delivery of
sediment and phosphorus to the agricultural drains and improved water quality in Rock Creek. This
conclusion was drawn from the association that 8 of 10 subbasins have documented reduced loadings
over the same time period that BMP implementation occurred.
The long pre- and post-BMP water quality and land treatment monitoring time frames, along with the
high level of land treatment in the critical area, increased the ability to this project to document BMP
effectiveness.
179
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality (continued)
The downstream/upstream water quality monitoring data from the subbasins was used successfully to
quantify sediment concentrations and loads to Rock Creek and to indicate which subbasins could
benefit most from BMPs (Clark, 1985).
This project demonstrated that BMP effectiveness monitoring is important to evaluate implementation
programs and their effects on off-site water quality.
Lack of participation and failure to implement BMPs can have a significant negative effect on moni-
toring results, particularly when the farm is located immediately upstream of a monitoring station.
A post-project analysis is being conducted to further analyze the water quality and land treatment /
land use data.
Based on project experience and modeling, the two most critical parameters that affect soil erosion
(as measured by suspended sediment load) are: 1) percent acres treated with BMPs and 2) the erosion
index developed by project SCS personnel which is a function of crop type and field slope. Land use
and crop data on an annual basis for each subbasin are being compiled to create an erosion index to
be matched with water quality monitoring data.
The hydrologic characteristics of each subbasin are currently being entered into a CIS by SCS. A di-
rect spatial (hydrologic) linkage between the land treatment and water quality data bases is currently
being established to assist in evaluating land use/water quality relationships.
Multiple BMPs serving the same acres were tracked as individual BMPs. During the post-project
analysis phase, the number of critical acres treated per subbasin-year is being calculated from the
land treatment data base and the dominate BMP on each field is being identified to estimate sediment
reduction leaving each field. The relative dominance of each BMP for this project was estimated by
ARS.
4.3.9 Impact of Other Federal and State Programs on the Project
The Food Security Act (FSA) of 1985 had a significant impact. Technical assistance from SCS to the
farmers for the RCWP decreased due to competing work commitments required for the FSA.
The General Permit for Confined Animal Feeding Operations in Idaho (U. S. EPA Region X) was
passed into law in June 1987. Since by that time the deadline for RCWP contracts had already
passed, the new law did not immediately serve to increase producer participation for animal waste
management. Fines for violating the state permitting system should now serve to speed implementa-
tion of animal waste management. Existing RCWP contracts can still be modified to include animal
waste management systems (BMP2).
4.3.10 Other Pertinent Information
None
4.3.11 References
A complete list of all project documents and other relevant publications may be found in Appendix IV.
Brockway, C.E. andC.W. Robison. 1984. Development of a Sediment Generation and Routing
Model for Irrigation Return Flow. Idaho Water Resources Research Institute, University of Idaho,
Kimberly, Idaho. 8p.
Clark, W.H. 1985. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program Comprehensive Monitoring and Evalu-
ation Annual Report. Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare, DEQ, Boise, Idaho 83720. 153p.
Kasal, J., R. Magleby, D. Walker, and R. Gum. 1987. Economic Evaluation of the Rock Creek,
Idaho, Rural Clean Water Project. Economic Research Service, USD A.
180
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
4.3.11 References (continued)
Maret, R., R. Yankey, S. Potter, J. McLaughlin, D. Carter, C. Brockway, R. Jesser, and B. Olm-
stead. 1991. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program Ten Year Report. Cooperators: USDA-
ASCS, USDA-SCS, USDA-ARS, Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, Twin Falls and Snake
River Soil Conservation Districts. 328p.
Maret, T. 1990. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program Comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring
Annual Report: 1989. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environment, Boise,
Idaho. 179p.
Soil Conservation Service, Soil Conservation Districts, Idaho Department of Health, Welfare-Division
of Environment, Agricultural Research Service, and Agricultural Stabilization, and Conservation
Service. December, 1989. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program 1989 Annual Progress Report.
USDA Soil Conservation Service, Twin Falls, ID.
Sterling, R.P. 1983. Stream Channel Response to Reduced Irrigation Return Flow Sediment Loads.
M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow. 113p.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat suitability index for rainbow trout species, narrative
and model. Draft Report.
4.3.12 Project Contacts
Administration
Jim McLaughlin
USDA-ASCS
671 Filer St.
Twin Falls, ID 83301
(208) 733-6132
Water Quality
Don Zaroban
Division of Environmental Quality
Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare
1410 N. Hilton
Boise, Idaho 83706
(208) 334- 5860
Land Treatment
Rich Yankey
Rock Creek RCWP
Soil Conservation Service
634 Addison Ave. W.
Twin Falls, ID 83301
(208) 733-5380
Information and Education
Gayle Stover
Information and Education Specialist
Rock Creek RCWP
Soil Conservation Service
634 Addison Ave. W.
Twin Falls, ID 83301
(208) 733-5380
181
-------
Rte. 70
LEGEND
O lake sampling site
• field monitoring site
stream gauge
1 2
*
SCALE IN MILES
Figure 4.6: Highland Silver Lake (Illinois) RCWP project map, IL-1.
182
-------
Illinois
Highland Silver Lake
(RCWP 4)
Madison County
MLRA: M-114
HUC: 071402-04
4.1 Project Synopsis
Silver Lake, located in southwest Illinois, was constructed in 1962 to provide a drinking water supply for the City
of Highland. Anglers and boaters have also used the lake, but high turbidity levels have resulted in reduced
recreational use and increased water treatment costs. Fine natric soil particles from cropland and resuspension of
sediment are responsible for the turbidity problem. Project area land use is 82% cropland. Major crops include
corn, soybeans, and wheat. There are approximately 20 medium- to small-sized animal operations in the watershed
with a total livestock population of approximately 695 beef cattle, 1000 dairy cows, and 440 swine.
Critical areas were composed of crop and pasture lands characterized by line-particle-size natric soils, high credibility,
and slopes greater than two percent. Also critical were crop and pasture lands of non-natric soils with slopes greater
than five percent with high credibility and close proximity to the water course. Feedlots were designated as critical
based on animal units and distance to streams.
The water quality objectives of the project were to: 1) increase the useful life of the reservoir as a public water
supply; 2) reduce water treatment costs and taste and odor problems; 3) improve habitat for sport fish by increasing
water transparency; and 4) provide better boating, fishing, hunting and other recreational opportunities for users of
Highland Silver Lake.
Best management practices (BMPs) emphasized in the project were conservation tillage, sediment retention basins,
grassed waterways, animal waste management, and permanent vegetative cover. The land treatment teams were
very effective in contracting and implementing BMPs; 83% of the cropland treatment goal was implemented and
even a higher percentage was achieved for animal waste implementatioa Contracting reached 118% of the goal.
Comprehensive monitoring and evaluation were conducted at the lake, tributary, and field levels. Tributary and
field level water quality monitoring was conducted for less than three years and was essentially ineffective for assessing
project or BMP effectiveness. However, lake monitoring showed that resuspension of particles was partly responsible
for turbidity and that turbidity, not nutrients, was most important for limiting algae production. CREAMS modeling
showed that no-till operations reduced sediment yield. AGNPS modeling helped to verify critical areas and to assess
relative effectiveness of structural versus management BMPs.
Project management and administration were effective. A high level of land treatment was achieved because the
information and education and land treatment teams worked together in reaching farm community leaders and tailoring
technical services to match production, land resource protection, and water quality needs. Initially, the water quality
problem was not clearly defined, nor was the critical area, creating difficulties for the project team in formulating
effective project goals. Monitoring agencies were unable to design the program and organize resources to achieve
meaningful experimental results.
183
-------
Highland Silver Lake RCWP, Illinois
4.2 Project Rndings, Recommendations, and Successes
4.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals
4.2.1.1 Findings and Successes
The project had a good set of overall objectives that were comprehensive and reflected the de-
sired state for the designated use of Highland Silver Lake.
Initial project goals were not well formulated because they were based on the incorrect assump-
tion that sedimentation and nutrient delivery had a significant effect on the impairment
The pre-project sediment delivery ratio was determined to be 25%; however, further investigation
revealed that the sediment delivery ratio is closer to 47%. The new ratio may be used to set
land treatment goals.
4.2.1.2 Recommendations
Detailed water quality problem analysis should be the first step toward the development of effec-
tive goals.
If sedimentation is suspected as a problem, it should be quantified by using a sedimentation sur-
vey. This information can then be used to develop a goal of reducing sediment delivery.
If turbidity is the problem, then a detailed analysis of the sources (watershed, resuspension) of the
turbidity is needed. This information, along with lake modeling, can be used to determine if
setting a turbidity goal is reasonable. If turbidity can be reduced, then a quantitative reduc-
tion goal can be set.
A spatially distributed pollutant runoff model should be used to identify critical areas contributing
to the sedimentation and/or turbidity problem. The model may also be used to set treatment
goals.
Monitoring below suspected critical areas should be used to verify modeling results and should be
used to characterize the water quality problem, which in turn makes setting goals more effec-
tive.
4.2.2 Project Management and Administration
4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes
The local project staff were successful in gaining participation, providing information and educa-
tion, and installing BMPs. There was very good coordination of activities related to imple-
menting practices. The local land treatment staff provided valuable land use and land
treatment survey data to the water quality monitoring group. The Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) and the Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) worked well together to com-
plete farm plans, develop practice designs, and install BMPs. Coordination and planning was
improved by the participation of the agency responsible for section 208 planning, the S. W. Il-
linois Metro-Area Planning Commission (SWIMPC).
The project suffered from an inadequate definition of the water quality problem and the critical
area. A more complete analysis of lake algal production, nutrient dynamics, and factors af-
fecting turbidity would have helped the project target specific pollutants and their sources in
the watershed.
The project team met annually in early years with the State Coordinating Committee (SCC) but
needed more meetings and feedback. The project would have benefited from SCC leadership
on project direction. The SCC supported the project by requesting cost share for additional
BMPs.
The SCC should have devised a land use / land treatment tracking system for use and by all agen-
cies and for input into a geographic information system (CIS).
184
-------
Highland Silver Lake RCWP, Illinois
4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
The project would have benefited from more guidance on reporting. In some cases, the local pro-
ject personnel were unaware of the intended audience for a report or how the information
would be used.
The content of the conservation plan and the requirement to complete the plan as determined by
the county Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation (ASC) Committee is critical to the
overall success of the land treatment program. Some fanners were very interested in treating
gullies with grassed waterways, but were reluctant to implement conservation tillage to re-
duce sheet and rill erosion. Project administration would therefore determine if producers
were required to complete the plan or if a change would be made to accommodate the wishes
of the fanner and avoid the reduced tillage treatment.
The project was expected to accelerate the adoption of practices prior to having an adequate defi-
nition of the water quality problem and the critical area. The pressure to accelerate the adop-
tion of practices meant less effort was spent on setting priorities. Loss of early planning
opportunities diminished the project's effectiveness in targeting resources to the greatest
need.
Water quality monitoring at field and stream sites was not synchronized with land treatment, pro-
viding little feedback to project staff on problem areas. Ninety percent of the contracts were
written before there were any useful monitoring results on problem area runoff and the effec-
tiveness of BMPs. Improved management of the water quality monitoring program, including
continuation of the tributary and field site monitoring, would have supported critical area re-
definition and strengthened the project.
Early in the project, there were some difficulties in selecting construction materials for some
BMP components. Problems determining cost share rates on materials and labor were re-
solved through agency cooperation and communication with producers. Once procedures
were established, the cost share payment system functioned smoothly.
4.2.2.2 Recommendations
The SCC should provide technical leadership in the definition of the water quality problem and
the critical area before BMPs are adopted. Projects always benefit from a carefully devel-
oped problem statement.
The SCC should provide technical leadership in the timing and intensity of water quality monitor-
ing to match the goals of the project. Projects should make individuals accountable for suc-
cessful implementation of a monitoring program.
Projects should have an overall coordinator with some authority to develop a timetable for land
treatment and water quality monitoring consistent with trend detectioa
4.2.3 Information and Education
4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes
It was not clear if educational methods or technical assistance for implementation of nutrient man-
agement utilized in the information and education (I&E) program were effective.
Pre-project I&E would have reduced the contracting period (Illinois State Coordinating Commit-
tee, 1986) by making farm operators aware of the need for adopting structural and manage-
ment practices.
SCS and the SWCD utilized 95% of the total I&E and technical assistance funds expended for
treating the turbidity problem.
The primary activities of the Extension Service (ES) were I&E and technical assistance for nutri-
ent management and conservation tillage.
185
-------
Highland Silver Lake RCWP, Illinois
4.2.3.1 Rndings and Successes (continued)
Land treatment technical staff for cropland conservation practices gained the trust of producers de-
spite technical difficulties related to critical area determination, critical area treatment, new
BMPs, and soils that made construction difficult.
4.2.3.2 Recommendations
The project would have benefited from having an I&E agent to work with producers nearly full
time on conservation tillage and critical area stabilizatioa The special problems associated
with drainage and natric (sodic) soils required special attention.
4.2.4 Producer Participation
4.2.4.1 Findings and Successes
Producer participation was very good to excellent. More pre-project I&E would have reduced
the contract period, but might not have increased the total number of participants or practices
installed.
Factors that motivated producers' adoption of practices included cost sharing, seeing conservation
and aesthetic improvements on a neighbor's farm, and interest in natural resource conserva-
tion and water quality improvements in the lake.
Economics was the primary barrier to participatioa Many farmers waited to see how new prac-
tices would affect production and labor before adopting them. Some farmers resented the
City of Highland for condemning farmland in 1962 to create the lake and, for this reason, re-
fused to participate in the project. The project also lacked technical assistance in the form of
soil conservationists for I&E, which decreased effectiveness of I&E efforts.
The chances of continued maintenance and adoption of practices seems to be good, but they are
dependent upon the practice. Structural practices will most likely be maintained. Continued
tillage and residue management is less likely due to poorly drained soils. No-till, reduced till-
age, and sufficient residue levels may not be maintained. There is also a question as to
whether nutrient management will be maintained.
4.2.4.2 Recommendations
This project serves as a model for producer participation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) agencies, SWIMPC, and local agencies worked well together and achieved a high
rate of contracting and implementation.
4.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes
The project team had difficulty defining the critical area because the water quality problem and
impairment of designated use were not clearly identified at the start of the project. Project
personnel determined implementation goals to treat the lake sedimentation and turbidity prob-
lem and the original critical area was selected to target erosion and runoff from cropland.
The use of soil maps that did not indicate areas where slopes were less than 2% resulted in
overestimation of the actual critical area. Field investigations were used to delineate a re-
vised critical area based on both soils and slope.
Watershed monitoring studies indicated that suspended sediments were from natric soils with
slope less than 2%. If the project team had had access to this information at the beginning of
the project, the critical area would have been more narrowly defined based on treatment of
natric soils. There are some natric soils in the watershed that are not currently in the critical
area that should be considered if a new critical area was developed.
186
-------
Highland Silver Lake RCWP, Illinois
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
Many farm fields contained both natric and non-natric soils. Although the land treatment goal was
to treat natric soils, farm fields were treated as single units for practical reasons. The result
was lower crop productivity on non-natric soils treated with conservation tillage. Manage-
ment was a key factor in the success of no-till and reduced till for fields where only part was
poorly drained.
Farmers should have received more follow-up assistance from the technical agencies on the
proper implementation of cost shared fertilizer management. Once a soil test was taken, farm-
ers needed assistance to assure that proper levels of nutrients were being applied to minimize
losses. The Extension Service had the responsibility as the technical agency for nutrient man-
agement but may not have had the staff to follow up and monitor implementatioa
The SCS did a good job of follow-up with assistance to farmers on conservation tillage in order to
ensure that farmers continued the practice after the three-year cost sharing period expired.
4.2.5.2 Recommendations
Water quality monitoring should be timed so that results may be used to refine the problem state-
ment or critical area definition. The design of land treatment and water quality monitoring
programs should reflect the need for on-going feedback and refinements in both areas.
4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes
The monitoring strategy was developed to quantify important hydrologic factors affecting water
quality. The overall design of lake, stream, and field monitoring was appropriate and well
supported for comprehensive monitoring. The primary difficulty was too much concentrated
monitoring at the start of the project, which exhausted funds for much further work.
The primary impairment of designated uses was turbidity. The respective contributions of algal
and nonalgal turbidity to the water quality problem were not known. The Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency (ILEPA) indicated that lake productivity is light limited and not nu-
trient limited, and that the current ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus in the water column may
encourage the production of bluegreen algae if transparency improves.
One of the most common mistakes made in monitoring programs is the sampling of many vari-
ables (similar to ambient monitoring strategies) Trend detection is very specific and the num-
ber of variables monitored is much lower than in monitoring programs designed to assess
overall conditions.
Field sampling requires carefully controlled conditions and is essentially research on the effective-
ness of individual BMPs or BMP systems.
4.2.6.2 Recommendations
Stream sampling should be implemented for the duration of nonpoint source (NPS) projects, re-
flecting pre- during- and post- implementation periods. The paired watershed design or the
upstream-downstream design is preferred. Stream sampling protocols should follow the
USEPA 319 National Monitoring Protocol. Water quality variables and covariates measured
should reflect the impairment and should avoid typical ancillary variables that do not support
trend detections goals.
Future monitoring of the Highland Silver Lake project should be directed toward trend detection
with a smaller number of variables sampled at a greater frequency. Variables measured
should be more directly related to characterizing the nonalgal and algal portions of the turbid-
ity problem. The nutrient series does not need to be measured as often and can be reduced to
spring turnover, and once during the peak growing season. Sampling at the three stations
should be more frequent (e.g. weekly or biweekly) during high precipitation seasons to re-
flect storm event effects on turbidity.
187
-------
Highland Silver Lake RCWP, Illinois
4.2.6.2 Recommendations (continued)
Water supply reservoir sampling for trend detection should be reduced to three main stem sta-
tions: 1) near the water supply intake, 2) mid- lake, and 3) one lake station near the tributary
receiving the bulk of turbid inflow. The mid-lake and tributary stations are less important,
but can help in analyzing relative contributions of inflows and resuspension to turbidity.
4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
4.2.7.1 Rndings and Successes
The monitoring program was ineffective in linking land treatment to water quality. However, the
overall strategy of field, tributary, and lake monitoring might have shown a linkage for some
variables if the monitoring design had been changed.
4.2.7.2 Recommendations
In order to improve monitoring design to link water quality and land treatment, the number of un-
controlled variables should be reduced; monitoring should be conducted before, during, and
after implementation; and changes in treatment and covariates should be quantified through-
out the study.
4.3 Project Description
4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame
Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation (CM&E) RCWP Project
1980 - 1990
4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions
4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality
4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size
Highland Silver Lake (600-acre impoundment) and tributaries
4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments
Highland Silver Lake provides a public water supply for about 8,500 residents in the
county. Several industrial firms located in the city of Highland also use the lake for water
supply. Non-contact recreational use of the lake includes boating, fishing, and waterfowl
hunting.
Use of the lake is impaired by suspended sediments, and, potentially, nutrients and con-
taminants in fish. High turbidity levels are caused by suspension and resuspension of fine
natric soil particles. Excessive nutrient concentrations contribute to eutrophic conditions.
Agricultural chemicals in surface runoff entering the lake may be a public health concern
(Madison County Soil and Water Conservation District, 1979).
4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement & Status
Sedimentation, high turbidity, and eutrophication impair non-contact recreational uses of
the lake. High turbidity levels are caused by sediment delivered to the lake and in-lake re-
suspension of fine natric soil particles. Erosion and runoff from croplands are the primary
sources of pollutants.
188
-------
Highland Silver Lake RCWP, Illinois
4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals
Water quality objectives for the project include:
Increase the useful life of the reservoir as a public water supply
Reduce water treatment costs and taste and odor problems
Improve habitat for sport fish by increasing water transparency
Provide better boating, fishing, hunting, and other recreational opportunities for users of
the Highland Silver Lake resource.
Water quality goals include:
Reduce sediment delivered to the lake by 60% (with parallel reductions in phosphorus
and organic nitrogen)
Increase lake transparency to greater than 2 feet and reduce suspended solids to less than
an average of 25 milligrams per liter (mg/1)
4.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics
4.3.2.2.1
Watershed Area: 30,946 acres
Project Area: 30,348 acres
Critical Area: 6,525 acres
4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors
Precipitation: annual = 43 inches
Geologic Factors: Soils in the project area are almost entirely glacial in origin. Topogra-
phy ranges from nearly level to very gently sloping.
4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture
Major crops grown in the watershed include corn, soybeans, and wheat. Beef cattle,
dairy cows, and hogs are also raised.
4.3.2.2.4 Land Use
Use % of Project Area
Cropland
Pasture/range
Woodland
Urban/roads
Other
82
5
4
2
7
% of Critical Area
100
4.3.2.2.5 Animal Operations
Operation $ Farm§
loiaLS
Animals
Beef NA NA
Dairy NA NA
Hogs NA NA
The project area has 20 animal operations.
Total Animal
Units
944
760
1,178
189
-------
1,502,372
47,738
462,560
1,479,483
3,492,153
5,000
0
0
3,846
8,846
466,990
0
0
0
466,990
0
0
109,427
245,963
355,390
1,974,362
47,738
571,987
1,729,292
$4,323,379
Highland Silver Lake RCWP, Illinois
4.3.3 Total Project Budget
SOURCES Federal State Fanner Other
ACTIVITY SUM
Cost Share
Info. & Ed.
Tech. Asst.
Water Quality
Monitoring
SUM
Source: Illinois State Coordinating Committee, 1986
4.3.4 Information and Education
4.3.4.1 Strategy
Control livestock waste through prevention of runoff from livestock operations
Erosion and sediment control to reduce sediment delivery
Nutrient management through fertility programs
Pesticide management through proper application
4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals
Help people in the watershed area understand the water quality problem
Help people in the watershed understand the impact soil erosion has on water quality
Assist landowners and operators in using plant nutrients in such a way that good water quality can
be maintained.
Help landowners and operators use pesticides in a manner that contributes to the maintenance of
good water quality
Help livestock operators understand the best methods of handling livestock waste to maintain
good water quality
Help landowners learn how to estimate soil losses
Help landowners and operators understand the cost and benefit of the various soil and water qual-
ity management practices on their farm operation
Help landowners and operators understand the principles of good soil conservation
4.3.4.3 Program Components
Letters to producers about the RCWP project
Meetings with potential participants about the RCWP project
Field demonstrations of BMPs
Tours of demonstration farms
Field spot checks related to RCWP contracts
190
-------
Highland Silver Lake RCWP, Illinois
4.3.5 Producer Participation
4.3.5.1 Level of Participation
Participation was good to excellent.
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation
Cost share rate of 75%
Payment limit of $50,000 per landowner
Extension I&E and SCS technical assistance
Encouragement from other farmers and demonstrations of recommended BMPs
4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation
The dislike for government programs and economic conditions were leading barriers to participa-
tioa
Farmers also did not like to be told how to farm, felt current farming systems worked well
enough, and thought changing practices was too much trouble.
4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs
Chances are greater than 80% that most critical area BMPs will be maintained, according to a sur-
vey of project personnel conducted by the National Water Quality Evaluation Project at
North Carolina State University.
4.3.6 Land Treatment
4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design
The land treatment strategy was to increase ground cover, decrease velocity of surface runoff,
and improve management of livestock waste.
4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals
Reduce the amount of animal waste entering the water by applying waste management systems on
10 swine, five beef, and five dairy operations
Reduce the amount of sediment and sediment related pollutants entering the lake by applying
BMPs on 10,500 acres through 85 RCWP contracts
Reduce sediment delivered to the lake by 60%
4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application
Criteria:
Crop and pasture lands composed of natric soils with fine particle size and high credibility
and slopes greater than 2%
Crop and pasture lands of non-natric soils with slopes greater than 5% with high credibil-
ity and close proximity to water courses
Animal operations were prioritized according to the number of animal units and distance
to stream.
191
-------
Highland Silver Lake RCWP, Illinois
4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application (continued)
These criteria were found to be a fairly accurate assessment of high pollutant source areas accord-
ing to the AGNPS modeling results.
Application of Criteria: The criteria were followed carefully in selection of farm fields for con-
tract.
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used
The project used practices designed to increase ground cover, decrease the velocity of surface run-
off, and improve the management of livestock waste.
BMPs Utilized in the Project*:
Permanent vegetative cover (BMP 1)
Animal waste management system (BMP 2)
Terrace system (BMP 4)
Diversion system (BMP 5)
Waterway system (BMP 7)
Cropland protection system (BMP 8)
Conservation tillage systems (BMP 9)
Stream protection system (BMP 10)
Permanent vegetative cover on critical areas (BMP 11)
Sediment retention, erosion, or water control structures (BMP 12)
Tree planting (BMP 14)
Fertilizer management (BMP 15)
*Please refer to Appendix I for description/purpose of BMPs.
Quantified Project Achievements:
Pollutant
Source Units
Acres
Cattle farms
Dairy farms
Hog farms
Contracts
Critical Area
#
#
#
#
#
Total
6,525
695
727
1,116
125
% Contracted
82%
119%
80%
23%
89%
Total
4,894
521
545
837
94
Treatment Coals
% Implemented
83%
143%
84%
138%
118%
4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring & Tracking Program
4.3.6.5.1 Description
BMP implementation was reported by units applied (acres, systems, feet). Data on animal
units, tons of manure, and tons of phosphorus and nitrogen from manure treated by BMPs
were recorded. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) enrollment within the project area
was also reported.
192
-------
Highland Silver Lake RCWP, Illinois
4.3.6.5.2 Data Management
Land use monitoring data were collected at the field, subwatershed, and watershed levels
for analysis with water quality data.
The project had two detailed land use / land treatment surveys early in the project. Illi-
nois State Water Survey had a GIS system and some watershed data was used in the sys-
tem.
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results
Not available
4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design
Conducted by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and Illinois State Water Survey.
The monitoring approach was designed to consider event and non-event sediment loadings and to
measure BMP effectiveness at the field, stream, and lake levels.
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals
Determine if BMP application reduces sediment and nutrient loads sufficiently to achieve the fol-
lowing four goals:
Improve recreational potential by increasing aesthetic appeal
Improve sport fishing and aquatic habitat
Increase "useful life" of the reservoir
Minimize water treatment costs and taste and odor problems
4.3.7.3 Time Frame
Intensive monitoring supported by CM&E funding from December 1981-October 1985
Ambient lake monitoring continued from 1986 through 1990
Lake stations: May 1981 -1990
Stream stations: January 1982 - October 1984
Field sites: spring 1982 - October 1984
4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme
4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations
9 lake sites and 1 lake outflow site
3 stream sites
8 field sites (7 cropland sites from 29 to 332 acres; 1 livestock waste management
system)
4.3.7.4.2 Sample Type
Lake sites: grab (automatic at spillway)
Stream sites: automatic
Field sites: automatic
193
-------
Highland Silver Lake RCWP, Illinois
4.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency
See sections 4.3.7.4.4 and 4.3.7.4.7 below
4.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed
Lake: Total suspended solids (TSS), total volatile solids (TVS), turbidity, total phospho-
rus (TP), dissolved phosphorus (DP), nitrate and nitrite nitrogen (NO2-N+ NOs-N), am-
monia nitrogen (NHa-N), total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), temperature, dissolved oxygen
(DO), pH, conductivity, total alkalinity, chlorophyll a, and metals (monthly)
Stream and lake spillway: TSS, TVS, turbidity, temperature, DO, pH, and conductivity
(three times per week)
TP, DP, TKN, N0a+ NOs-N, NH3-N (twice a month)
Total alkalinity, chlorophyll a, and metals (monthly)
Field: TSS, TVS, turbidity, TKN, TP, chemical oxygen demand (COD) (event-based)
4.3.7.4.5 Row Measurement
Spillway: daily
Streams: continuous
Field Sites: H-flumes for continuous stage records during runoff events
4.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements
Precipitation: 3 sites in watershed
4.3.7.4.7 Other Important Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information
Biomonitoring: macroinvertebrates monitored near stream sampling sites twice per year
Channel & streambed surveys: December 1981 & November 1984
Sedimentation surveys: lake and bay - July 1981 / lake - September 1984
4.3.7.5 Data Management
Data from lake stations are in STORET. Other data are managed locally and by the Illinois State
Water Survey.
STORET
AGENCY CODE
21ILLAKE
STORET
STATION NO.
RO-A04ZA-1
RO-A04ZA-2
RO-A04ZA-3
RO-A04ZA-4
RO-A04ZA-5
RO-A04ZA-6
RO-A04ZA- 7
RO-A04ZA-9
RO-A04ZA-10
PROFILE / STATION
MAP /NO.
IL-1/1
IL-1/2
IL-1/3
IL-1/4
IL-1/5
IL-1/6
IL-1/7
IL-1/9
IL-1/ 10
194
-------
Highland Silver Lake RCWP, Illinois
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results
Analysis:
For field sites, pollutant runoff data was summarized by event into an event mean concen-
tration (EMC). Trends in EMCs for total suspended solids, total volatile solids, and tur-
bidity were analyzed. Multivariate analysis was used to determine variables that would
effect loading rates.
Trend analysis of EMCs and multivariate analysis of loads were both inconclusive. Each
type of analysis suffered from lack of good experimental design and control of important
factors such as land use. The length of the study was also a major factor, because only a
few events were measured.
To assess temporal and spatial trends of tributary sites, the data were stratified by periods
conforming to typical agricultural patterns in the watershed (Kelly and Davenport, 1986).
Periods were defined as follows:
Period 1 (PI): fertilizer, seedbed and establishment (April-June)
Period 2 (P2): reproduction and maturation (July-November)
Period 3 (P3): residue (December-March)
Data were routinely analyzed by site, sampling year, period, and by period-sampling year.
Multiple comparison of means was accomplished using Tukey's studentized multiple range
test. Pearson's product moment correlation coefficients were routinely calculated for vari-
ous stratifications of data (temporal and spatial) and resultant matrices examined for sig-
nificant correlations. If significant correlations were found, they were examined by
scattergrams to insure that a significant relationship did exist. When appropriate, multiple
linear regression analysis was used. Cluster analysis followed by canonical discriminant
analysis was also used on field site event data to determine which variables were most im-
portant in accounting for variance in runoff water quality.
Lake water quality data were analyzed graphically and using regression analysis.
Results:
Lake data from 1980-1990 showed limited improvements. Average annual Secchi trans-
parency increased from 10 inches in early project years to 12 inches from 1985-1990.
The project goal was to increase Secchi transparency to 24 inches. Total suspended solids
also improved with an early project mean of 40 milligrams per liter (mg/1) and a reduction
to an average of 33 mg/1 in latter years. The project goal was 25 mgVl (Kite and Bickers,
1991).
Annual weighted lake means for turbidity, volatile suspended solids, and total ammonia
showed limited reductions in later project years. Chlorophyll a concentrations increased
significantly when regressed with BMP implementation (Kite and Bickers, 1991).
Analysis of changes in lake quality due to BMP implementation was confounded by resus-
pension of fine natric soil particles from the sediment, low particle settling velocity, lake
turnover, and wind actioa These factors are difficult to distinguish from the effects of re-
duced watershed loadings.
A sedimentation survey indicated an average annual capacity decrease by 0.67 %. This
rate does not pose a threat to use of the lake for municipal water supply.
Generally dry conditions with few rainfall events resulted in a small, sporadic, stratified
data set from the field monitoring sites (Makowski et al., 1986). The data were used to
calibrate the CREAMS model. CREAMS results indicated that no-till is effective in reduc-
ing sediment yield. Results also indicated that contouring, grassed waterways, and grade
stabilization structures are effective in reducing sediment yield (Davenport, 1984).
195
-------
Highland Silver Lake RCWP, Illinois
4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
The project was unable to link land treatment and water quality.
4.3.9 Impact of Other Federal and State Programs on the Project
None
4.3.10 Other Pertinent Information
None
4.3.11 References
A complete list of all project documents and other relevant publications may be found in Appendix IV.
Davenport, T.E. 1984. Field Modelling in the Highland Silver Lake Watershed: Interim Report.
IEPA/WPC/84-026. IL EPA, Div. of Water Pollution Control, Springfield, IL.
Kite, R.L. and C. Bickers. 1991. Highland Silver Lake RCWP Water Quality Monitoring Report. Illi-
nois Environmental Protection Agency, Marion, IL. 56 p.
Illinois State Coordinating Committee. 1986. Highland Silver Lake Watershed RCWP: Summary Re-
port Fiscal Year 1986. Springfield, IL.
Kelly, M.H., and T.E. Davenport. 1986. Water Resource Data and Trend Analysis for the Highland
Silver Lake Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Project, Madison County, Illinois, Phase
IV. Planning Section, Div. of Water Pollution Control, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Rd., Springfield, IL 62706.
Madison County Soil and Water Conservation District, 1979. Highland Silver Lake: Application for
Rural Clean Water Program. Madison County, Illinois.
Makowski, P.B., M.T. Lee, and M. Grinter. 1986. Hydrologic Investigation of the Highland Silver
Lake Watershed: 1985 Progress Report. SWS Contract Report 380. Illinois Dept. of Energy and
Natural Resources, State Water Survey Div., Surface Water Section at the University of Illinois,
Champaign, IL.
196
-------
Highland Silver Lake RCWP, Illinois
4.3.12 Project Contacts
Administration
Ray Gvillo
USDA - ASCS
Box 246
Edwardsville, IL 62025
(618)656-7300
Water Quality
Robert Kite
Division of Water Pollution Control
Planning Section
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2209 W. Main St.
Marion, IL 62959
(618)997-4371
Land Treatment
Wayne Kinney
USDA - SCS
Rt. 1 Box 35
Edwardsville, IL 62025
(618) 656-4710
Information and Education
None
197
-------
cropland
\
/
LEGEND
HI state park
project boundary
LEGEND
• »ampling stations
ES3 beach area
«BK park road
Figure 4.7: Prairie Rose Lake (Iowa) RCWP project map, IA-1.
198
-------
Iowa
Prairie Rose Lake
(RCWP 5)
Shelby County
MLRA: M-107
HUC: 102400-020
4.1 Project Synopsis
Prairie Rose Lake is a 215-acre impoundment located within a state park in west central Iowa about 75 miles west
of Des Monies. The Prairie Rose Lake RCWP project encompassed the surrounding 4,610-acre bowl-shaped
watershed, of which almost 80% (3,648 acres) is cropland. The lake and adjacent state park comprise 648 acres
within the watershed, which drains into the lake.
All of the area except the state park was identified as critical area. Soils in the watershed are subject to severe erosioa
The lake and adjacent state park comprise an important local recreational resource for fishing, boating, swimming,
camping, and other activities. Sediment in runoff from the surrounding cropland was causing turbidity and loss of
lake volume and surface area. Approximately 19% of the lake volume and 10% of the lake area was lost between
1971 and 1980. Sediment damage to spawning areas of desirable game fish resulted in decreased populations.
Nutrients and pesticides entering the lake were also of concern due to the fact that the lake is a source of drinking
water for the state park and a major fishing resource for that part of the state. Algae blooms were occurring.
The major goal of the project was to reduce sediment yield from excessively eroding cropland.
Best management practices (BMPs) implemented through the project consisted of management and structural sediment
control practices, animal waste controls, and fertilizer and pesticide management practices.
The project was well received by landowners in the watershed, who were already aware of the water quality problems
in the lake. Thirty-four producers (92%) in the project area participated in the RCWP project. Ninety percent of the
critical area was treated (83% through RCWP and 7% through other programs). Fertilizer management and Integrated
Pest Management were implemented on 27 farms totaling 2,379 acres.
A water quality monitoring program was conducted in the lake by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. A
confounding factor in the water quality data analysis was the effect of the draining and restocking of the lake in the
fall of 1981.
Water clarity was highest in 1982-83, following draining of the lake. Since then, water clarity has deteriorated to
pre-RCWP levels. Reduction in sediment delivery due to adoption of conservation practices may have improved
water clarity, but algal density has increased, apparently because of greater light penetration. Recreational lake use
has increased. Users perceive water quality improvement, although monitoring data cannot document this.
The Prairie Rose Lake RCWP project demonstrates that a very high rate of implementation is possible in a voluntary
nonpoint source (NPS) control project Inter-agency cooperation was exemplary at both the local and state levels.
Producer participation was excellent due to a number of factors, including 1) a highly visible water quality problem
in a valued recreational lake, 2) strong leadership within the farm community, 3) a strong positive relationship
between the park ranger and landowners in the watershed, 4) a previously existing conservation ethic within the
community, and 5) pre-project work by the participating agencies encouraging community involvement in and support
for the project. Other factors that contributed to the success of the project were: substantial amounts of money
available for cost sharing, preferred BMPs (terracing in this case), a strong technical assistance program, active
publicity programs, services to assist farmers in fertilizer management and integrated pest management, and good
economic years during the beginning of the RCWP project.
199
-------
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP, Iowa
4.2 Project Findings, Recommendations, and Successes
4.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals
4.2.1.1 Findings and Successes
The cause of the water quality impairment was clearly understood and there was consensus
within the community about the source of the problem. As a result, the water quality and
land treatment goals were well defined, realistic, and adequate to guide project development
and evaluate progress.
4.2.1.2 Recommendations
None
4.2.2 Project Management and Administration
4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes
Interagency cooperation at both the local and state levels was exemplary and contributed signifi-
cantly to the success of the project. The physical proximity of the participating agencies facili-
tated frequent and effective communication about the project. The annual report served as a
method for keeping all participants informed about all aspects of the project.
The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation (ASC) County Committee chairperson headed
the Local Coordinating Committee (LCC) and was responsible for developing and administer-
ing the RCWP program. The LCC coordinated the implementation by participating agencies
of the RCWP work plan.
4.2.2.2 Recommendations
Up front payment (versus three smaller payments) to producers for implementation of conserva-
tion tillage practices would allow the cooperators to purchase equipment and would reduce
administrative expense and problems (Lawyer et al., 1991)
In projects where considerable state or other publicly-owned land is included in the drainage area,
a commitment to implement needed practices by the public landowner should be obtained.
This could be accomplished by inventorying public land and signing an agreement at the in-
itiation of the project. (Lawyer etal, 1991)
Purchase of expensive conservation tillage equipment by the soil and water conservation district
for demonstration and loan purposes at the initial stages of a project can facilitate adoption
of practices that require a large initial outlay of capital.
4.2.3 Information and Education
4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes
The Cooperative Extension Service (CES) coordinated a strong information and education pro-
gram, assisted by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and the Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (ASCS). Cooperation among the agencies was excellent and essential
for the success of the project.
Three public meetings were held to inform the community about the RCWP project before the ap-
plication was submitted were effective in helping to get the project off on a fast start once
funded.
4.2.3.2 Recommendations
Involvement of the affected community in project planning prior to submission of an application
for funding contributes to community ownership and involvement in the project.
200
-------
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP, Iowa
4.2.4 Producer Participation
4.2.4.1 Findings and Successes
Landowner participation was high, with 34 landowners signing contracts for over 83% (3,239
acres) of the critical area (Lawyer et al., 1991).
A high rate of BMP implementation was possible because the water quality problem as well as
the project objectives and goals were clear.
The practices recommended for improving the water quality of the lake were considered desir-
able by the landowners. Farmers recognized the need for terracing to prevent soil erosion,
and they believed this practice would improve the quality of the recreational lake.
Assistance in the form of cost sharing, soil testing, and pest scouting helped promote this project.
The water quality problem was highly visible to producers. After heavy rains the lake was filled
with cornstalks, indicating extensive surface runoff directly into the lake. Residents could see
the reduction in lake area and notice the decrease in desirable fish species. These factors
helped motivate farmers to become involved in the project.
There was a strong sense of community in the project area and strong leadership by community
leaders who were also producers. These factors, as well as the high cost share rate, contrib-
uted to the high rate of producer participation.
4.2.4.2 Recommendations
Producers should be involved in project selection and development so that they will feel commit-
ted to the project once it is funded.
4.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes
Ninety percent of the critical area was treated (83% through RCWP and 7% through other pro-
grams), exceeding the project goal of treating 75% of the critical area.
Through the cooperative efforts of private landowners and a number of federal, state, and local
agencies, the Prairie Rose Lake RCWP project made substantial progress in reducing sedi-
ment and nutrient delivery to the lake (Link, 1991).
Soil losses in the watershed were reduced from a pre-project level of 80,800 tons per year to a
current level of 19,000 tons per year. Assuming a sediment delivery ratio of 32%, the annual
sediment delivery to the lake has been reduced by 76%, from a pre-project level of 26,300
tons to a current level of 6,200 tons (Link, 1991). This reduction has slowed the rate of lake
volume change compared to the pre-project period.
Data from participating farmers indicates that the nutrient management program influenced their
use of fertilizers, with average application rates of phosphorus declining from 44 to 20
pounds per acre for corn and from 55 to 6 pounds per acre for soybeans (Link, 1991).
Two-foot contour maps were helpful in selling a terrace- contour program because they enabled
the producer to readily visualize what the implemented BMP would look like.
One-to-one contact was important in gaining the participation of producers.
4.2.5.2 Recommendations
If pesticide and nutrient management are included as BMPs in a project, the Cooperative Exten-
sion Service (CES) should hire a management specialist locally to get the program started.
201
-------
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP, Iowa
4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes
Water clarity has increased during most seasons of the year, and lake turbidity no longer rou-
tinely increases following runoff events.
Water quality monitoring indicates that sediment has become secondary to algae as the cause of
turbidity following implementation of erosion control practices. Algal growth during late sum-
mer periods appears to be increasing, due to a combination of high in-lake nutrient levels and
decreased sediment related turbidity levels.
Water clarity was highest in 1982-83, following draining of the lake and restocking offish in the
fall of 1981 in an attempt to improve the fishery. Since then water clarity has deteriorated to
pre-RCWP levels. Analysis of biweekly data shows that year-to-year variability is greater
than within-year variability.
Although it may appear that the RCWP project has simply changed the lake's water quality prob-
lem from one of excessive sedimentation to one of problematic algal growth, it is important
to recognize that sedimentation was threatening the very existence of the lake. The problems
associated with algal growth are minor as compared to the previous sedimentation problem.
(Link, 1991)
Recreational lake use has increased. Users perceive water quality improvement, although moni-
toring data do not confirm this.
Clarity improvement from reduced sediment loading may be masked by turbidity due to algal
growth increase. Monitoring data are highly variable. After correcting for both precipita-
tion and chlorophyll a, there is no significant trend over time.
Monitoring sediment concentrations (weight/water volume), as was done with chlorophyll a con-
centrations, would have been useful for interpretation of changes in turbidity and estimation
of sediment and algal contributions to turbidity levels in the lake. A physical separation, char-
acterization, and quantification of sediment particulates would have made possible a direct de-
termination of whether sediment concentrations were decreasing, increasing, or remaining
stable with respect to base period measurements. This, in turn, would have helped the project
team to relate sediment to turbidity. (Lawyer et al., 1991)
Draining of the lake and direct manipulation of the fish population may have obscured some
water quality results.
4.2.6.2 Recommendations
Draining of a lake located in an experimental study should not be conducted unless all project
participants have been informed and plans have been made to account for changes in water
quality due to the draining as opposed to land treatment or other experimental activities.
A sedimentation survey of a lake may be used to determine the current rate of sedimentation if
baseline survey results are available for comparison.
4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
4.2.7.1 Findings and Successes
The Prairie Rose Lake RCWP project appears to have been successful in meeting its primary
water quality goal of reducing sediment loads entering the lake from the watershed. Evidence
of the effectiveness of the project BMPs was a slowed rate of lake volume change (measured
using lake contour map information) during the project period. Water quality data indicate
that sediment became secondary to algae as a cause of turbidity, thus lending support to the
thesis that land treatment implemented through the project was effective in reducing sediment
delivery to the lake. (Lawyer et al., 1991)
202
-------
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP, Iowa
4.2.7.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
Lack of a longer-term pre-BMP implementation data base and the mid-project draining of the lake
hindered the project team's ability to document a clear land treatment - water quality link.
Recreational use of the lake increased during the project period. This may be at least partially at-
tributable to the attention it has received as an RCWP project as well as user perceptions that
the water quality of the lake has improved.
Reduction of the sedimentation problem by extensive adoption of conservation practices (primar-
ily terracing) may have improved water clarity, but this appears to have allowed algal density
to increase. Evidence suggests that BMPs have not reversed eutrophication.
The loss of lake volume to sedimentation has been significantly slowed.
4.2.7.2 Recommendations
Pre-BMP implementation water quality monitoring (and funding to support such monitoring) is es-
sential if a project is to document land treatment - water quality links.
The water quality changes observed in relation to the RCWP project indicate that implementing
BMPs in the watershed surrounding a lake will not necessarily correct all of the lake's water
quality problems. Other measures may be needed. (Link, 1991)
4.3 Project Description
4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame
General RCWP
1980 - 1991
4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions
4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality
4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size
Prairie Rose Lake
215-acre impoundment
4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments
Prairie Rose Lake is a man-made lake located in one of the largest parks in west central
Iowa. The lake is used for swimming, boating, and fishing by about one-quarter of a mil-
lion park visitors each year. The lake also provides a source of drinking water for a state
park.
Use of the lake is impaired by sediment, turbidity and agricultural chemicals. The lake is
eutrophic.
203
-------
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP, Iowa
4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement
Swimming, boating, fishing, and related recreational activities were impaired by eutrophic
conditions and by accumulations of sediment. Lake turbidity increased after significant
runoff events.
Lake water quality has been impaired by loadings of agricultural nutrients and pesticides,
often attached to eroded soil particles.
Between 1971 and 1980, 10% of usable boating and fishing areas and 19% of lake volume
were lost due to sedimentation.
Total recreational use of the lake increased from 1981 to 1985 before declining in 1986 to
the lowest level since 1981. Fishing use decreased from 1981 to 1983, following a total
fishery renovation, but increased from 1983 to 1985. Use of the swimming beach also in-
creased annually from 1981 to 1985. (Increased swimming use may have been a reflection
of improved public perception of lake aesthetics. Construction on the park access road in
the latter part of 1985 may have depressed the annual increase of park visitors and contrib-
uted to decreased user totals in 1986. The sudden decline in lake use in 1986 may be at-
tributable to the institution of a state park user fee, predominantly wet weather, and
additional roadway construcu'oa)
There has been no documented decrease in turbidity since the RCWP begaa Water qual-
ity monitoring data indicate high variability with no consistent trend in surface turbidity
and water clarity. Chlorophyll a concentration may explain a large portion of this variabil-
ity, and improved clarity may be masked by increasing algal growth.
Draw down and fish toxicant applications in the Prairie Rose Lake in 1981 may have re-
sulted in the relatively high water clarity observed in 1982 and 1983.
4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals
Water quality objectives:
Reduce the impacts of sediment from the watershed on in-lake turbidity levels and the
lake's fisheries
Reduce the rate at which sedimentation was reducing the lake's depth, area, and volume
Reduce the impacts of other NFS pollutants (nutrients, pesticides, and animal wastes) on
the lake's water quality; and designated uses.
Reduce resuspension of lake bottom sediments and renovate the lake fishery by eliminat-
ing carp and other rough fish and restocking with desirable game fish.
Specific goals:
Control excessive soil erosion on at least 80% of the agricultural land area
Reduce sediment delivery rate by 60%
4.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics
4.3.2.2.1 Watershed Area: 4,568 acres
Project Area: 4,568 acres
Critical Area: 3,920 acres
204
-------
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP, Iowa
4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors
Mean Annual Precipitation: 29.15 inches
USLE 'R' Factor: 175
Geologic Factors: Upland soils are generally well-drained, silty clay loams that developed
in loess. Soils in the drainage ways are alluvial. Slopes in the watershed range from 0-
18%.
4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture
Approximately 80% of the project area is cropland. Principal crops are corn, soybeans,
small grains, and hay.
4.3.2.2.4 Land Use
Use.
Cropland
Pasture/range
Woodland
Urban/roads
Other
Lake/park land
% of Project Area
80
3
3
0
14
% of Critical Arep
93
4
3
0
4.3.2.2.5 Animal Operations
Operation Total # Total Animal
Beef
Hogs
Animals
120
2,700
Units
120
1,080
State
Farmer
4.3.3 Total Project Budget
SOURCES Federal
ACTIVITY
Cost Share 331,229
Info. & Ed. 18,750
Tech. Asst. 131,140
Water Quality
Monitoring NA
SUM 481,119
* Total does not include water quality monitoring costs
Sources: Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Project, 1989; Lawyer et al., 1991
Other
0
0
0
NA
0
148,748
0
0
0
148,748
0
0
0
0
0
SUM
479,977
18,750
131,140
NA
$629,8670*
4.3.4 Information and Education
4.3.4.1 Strategy
The information and education (I&E) program was focused on involving the farming community
in the RCWP project beginning even before funding was granted.
205
-------
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP, Iowa
4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals
Provide information that will lead to the incorporation of pesticide and nutrient management tech-
niques, principally by farmers in the project area, but also by producers outside the watershed
Inform the public about the RCWP and supply basic information to farmers about BMPs
4.3.4.3 Program Components
One-to-one contact with producers by SCS and CES personnel
Public meetings prior to submission of the RCWP project application
Technical assistance for cost shared BMPs
Technical assistance for nutrient and pesticide management (not cost shared)
Free soil tests conducted the first and fourth years, with individual follow-up by extension agrono-
mist
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) scout visited fields every three days
Group meetings of producers with agronomist for presentations and discussions
Newsletter for producers during early stages of RCWP (1981- 1987)
Weekly IPM newsletter for participants
Publicity in local newspapers, magazines in Iowa and other states
Tours of participating farms by farmers from within and outside the project area
Opening and closing ceremonies
RCWP project annual reports
Survey of producers outside the project area toward the end of the project
4.3.5 Producer Participation
4.3.5.1 Level of Participation
Excellent: 92% of the producers whose farms were located in the critical area participated in the
RCWP project.
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation
Cost share rates of 75%, except for nutrient and pesticide management
Payment limit of $50,000 per farm
Number and type of practices available for cost share attractive to the producers
Ability to cost share a complete program, including waterways, tile, and other materials not paid
for through any other federal or state cost share programs
Extensive information and education technical assistance in nutrient and pesticide management.
Recreational resource valued by producers was at risk
Strong leadership by producers within the project area
Sense of community
Individual visits by SCS with key producers helped encourage the first few producers to sign up
Demonstration of BMP implementation on community leaders' farms convinced others to try them
206
-------
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP, Iowa
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation (continued)
Water quality problem was easily visible: the farmers could see what was happening to the lake.
Just before the opening RCWP ceremony there was a heavy rain and the lake was filled with
corn stalks and debris.
Existing conservation ethic within the farming community, particularly among community leaders
The state park manager was a good neighbor and well-liked; producers listened to him
Free soil testing for RCWP participants
4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation
Absentee landowners not interested
Inability of producers to carry their share of the cost of implementing BMPs '
4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs
Good; the 579 acres of conservation tillage implemented through the RCWP project have now in-
creased to every row crop acre in the watershed except one farm where the producer is still
plowing.
4.3.6 Land Treatment
4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design
The land treatment strategy was to implement BMPs designed to reduce soil erosion and sedimen-
tatioa
4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals
Control excessive soil erosion on at least 80% of the agricultural area
Treat 83% of the critical area with BMPs by RCWP contract
Install one sediment basin with 60 acre-feet of capacity at the east end of the lake
Install one sediment basin with 5 acre-feet of capacity on state park property
Treat 300 acres with other programs to a level equal to that obtained with RCWP contracts
4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application
Criteria: all land draining into the lake except the state park. This definition was chosen because
of the bowl-shaped watershed which drains into Prairie Rose Lake. The critical area is all
close to the lake, with the farthest point slightly more than two miles from the lake. All crop-
land was intensively farmed, very erosive, and not protected by needed conservation meas-
ures.
Application of Criteria: consistently applied
207
-------
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP, Iowa
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used
General Scheme: Sediment control practices used included conservation tillage, contour farming,
terraces, grassed waterways, grade stabilization structures, and pasture management.
RCWP funds were used to pay for up to 75% of the installation costs of structural practices such
as terraces and grade stabilization structures, while a per-acre payment was made for manage-
ment practices such as conservation tillage. Technical assistance for fertilizer and IPM were
provided through the information and education program.
The original RCWP project application identified a need for up to eight animal waste control sys-
tems and set as a project goal the installation of six systems. However, further evaluation de-
termined that only one cattle feedlot posed a problem and required additional waste controls.
This cattle feedlot was closed in 1986. At present, four small cow-calf operations (averaging
30 stock cows per operation) and nine small swine feeding operations (averaging 300 pigs
per operation) are located in the project area. None of these operations is considered to re-
quire additional waste controls at this time.
BMPs Utilized in the Project* Units Project Accomplishments
Permanent vegetative cover (BMP 1) acres 32
Animal waste management system (BMP 2) #
Terrace system (BMP 4) miles 55
Diversion system (BMP 5)
Waterway system (BMP 7) acres 12
Conservation tillage system (BMP 9) acres 579
Permanent vegetative cover on critical acres
areas (BMP 11)
Sediment, retention, erosion, or water # 13
control structures (BMP 12)
Fertilizer management (BMP 15) acres 2,379
(not cost shared)
Pesticide management (BMP 16) acres 2,379
(not cost shared)
* Please refer to Appendix I for description/purpose of each BMP
Source: Link, 1991
4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring & Tracking Program
4.3.6.5.1 Description
Follow-up and status reviews were used by SCS to track maintenance of BMPs. CES used
soil tests in years 1 and 4 of contract period to evaluate status of nutrient management and
field monitoring to evaluate the IPM practice.
4.3.6.5.2 Data Management
Regular record keeping is conducted by project personnel and reported in RCWP annual
reports.
208
-------
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP, Iowa
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results
Ninety-two percent of the producers in the project area participated in the RCWP. Ninety
percent of the critical area was treated (83% through RCWP and 7% through other pro-
grams)
By the end of the RCWP project, conservation tillage was being used on all but about 300
acres of cropland (3,648 acres) in the project area.
Quantified Project Achievements:
Critical Area
Pollutant
Source Units Total % Implemented lolaL
Treatment Goals
% Implemented
3,648
148
8
120
47
80%
34%
0%
54%
72%
2,926
111
6
95
37
99%
45%
0%
68%
92%
Cropland acres
Pasture acres
Feedlots #
Farmsteads #
Contracts #
Source: Prairie Rose RCWP Project, 1989 (form RCWP 3)
4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design
Water quality monitoring was designed to determine trends in water quality using 1981 as a basis
for comparison with following years. It was necessary for 1981 to serve as the base year be-
cause insufficient pre-1981 water quality data were available. BMP implementation com-
menced in 1981 as well. (Lawyer et al., 1991)
The monitoring was conducted by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources in cooperation with
the University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals
Determine whether there is a statistically significant correlation between watershed BMP imple-
mentation (erosion reduction) and water quality improvement, mainly related to water clarity
(Secchi depth, turbidity, and chlorophyll a levels)
Measure the rate of sediment accumulation in the lake
4.3.7.3 Time Frame
1981 - 1989
4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme
4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations
3 mid-lake stations (upper, middle, and lower reaches) sampled at surface and bottom
1 station at drinking water intake
1 station at the swimming beach
209
-------
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP, Iowa
4.3.7.4.2 Sample Type
Grab
4.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency
Mid-lake stations: every other week May - September
Water intake and beach: after rainfall events that exceed 1 inch of precipitation
4.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed
Miscellaneous: turbidity, chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, temperature, Secchi
depth, wind direction and speed, cloud cover, precipitation, lake depth
Nutrients: total phosphorus (TP), orthophosphate (OP), nitrite-nitrogen (NOa-N) and ni-
trate-nitrogen (NOs-N) , total ammonia-nitrogen (NHs-N)
Microorganisms: coliform bacteria
Other: heavy metals, selected pesticides (once only, at water intake)
4.3.7.4.5 Row Measurement
None
4.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements
Iowa Department of Natural Resources rain gauge at Harlan, Iowa, six miles west of Prai-
rie Rose Lake (records kept at lake)
4.3.7.4.7 Other Important Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information
Prairie Rose Lake was partially drained in the fall of 1981, after which rotenone was
added to kill the lake's existing fish population. Lake refilling, stabilization, and restock-
ing with desirable game fish took place over the next several years; thus water quality data
for 1982-83 are not representative of the filled lake.
One purpose of the intentional fish kill in 1981 was the removal of carp. Bottom feeding
and spawning activity by carp result in resuspension of bottom sediments and aggravate
turbidity. Either fishery renovation was not completely successful in eliminating carp from
the lake or carp were introduced. In any case, carp reappeared in significant numbers in
1987 and 1990 surveys. In addition, the activities of the large population of bullheads (bot-
tom feeders) that developed from a 1982 stocking may have contributed significantly to re-
suspended sediments (turbidity) (Lawyer et al., 1991).
210
-------
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP, Iowa
4.3.7.5 Data Management
The data are in STORET.
STORET
AGENCY CODE:
21IOWA
If
II
M
M
STORET
STATION NO.
L00580
L00589
L00578
L00581
L00579
PROFILE / STATION
MAP /NO.
(depths of sampling)
IA-1 / 1 (0, 8 ft)
IA-1 / 2 (0, 11 ft)
IA-1 / 3 (0, 24 ft)
IA-1 / 4 (0, 15 ft)
IA-1 / 5 (0, 11 ft)
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results
Analysis:
Annual mean values of Secchi depth, turbidity, chlorophyll a, TP, and OP were compared
for evidence of overall trends. Linear association of water clarity with land treatment was
tested by covariate analysis.
Results:
Water clarity has increased during most seasons of the year, and lake turbidity no longer
routinely increases following runoff events.
Water quality monitoring indicates that sediment has become secondary to algae as the
cause of turbidity following implementation of erosion control practices. Algal growth dur-
ing late summer periods appears to be increasing, due to a combination of high in-lake nu-
trient levels and decreased sediment related turbidity levels.
Water clarity was highest in 1982-83, following draining of the lake and restocking offish
in the fall of 1981 in an attempt to improve the fishery. Since then water clarity has dete-
riorated to pre-RC WP levels. Analysis of biweekly data shows that year-to-year variabil-
ity is greater than within-year variability.
Clarity improvement from reduced sediment loading may be masked by turbidity due to al-
gal growth increase. Monitoring data are highly variable. After correcting for both pre-
cipitation and chlorophyll a, there is no significant trend over time.
Although it may appear that the RCWP project has simply changed the lake's water qual-
ity problem from one of excessive sedimentation to one of problematic algal growth, it is
important to recognize that sedimentation was threatening the very existence of the lake.
The problems associated with algal growth are minor as compared to the previous sedi-
mentation problem. (Link, 1991)
Monitoring sediment concentrations (weight/water volume), as was done with chlorophyll
a concentrations, would have been useful for interpretation of changes in turbidity and esti-
mation of sediment and algal contributions to turbidity levels in the lake. A physical
separation, characterization, and quantification of sediment particulates would have made
possible a direct determination of whether sediment concentrations were decreasing, in-
creasing, or remaining stable with respect to base period measurements. This, in turn,
would have helped the project team to relate sediment to turbidity. (Lawyer et al., 1991)
Draining of the lake and direct manipulation of the fish population may have obscured
some water quality results.
211
-------
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP, Iowa
4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
The Prairie Rose Lake RCWP project appears to have been successful in meeting its primary water
quality goal of reducing sediment loads entering the lake from the watershed. Evidence of the effec-
tiveness of the project BMPs was a slowed rate of lake volume change (measured using lake contour
map information) during the project period. Water quality data indicate that sediment became secon-
dary to algae as a cause of turbidity, thus lending support to the thesis that land treatment imple-
mented through the project was effective in reducing sediment delivery to the lake. (Lawyer et al.,
1991)
Lack of a longer-term pre-BMP implementation data base and the mid-project draining of the lake
hindered the project team's ability to document a clear land treatment - water quality link.
4.3.9 Impact of Other Federal Programs on the Project
BMPs installed in the project area prior to RCWP included contour farming on 1,000 acres, grassed
backslope terraces protecting 528 acres and two sediment control structures and 14 conservation
plans covering 2,270 acres. Approximately 150 more acres have been treated through other pro-
grams (Agricultural Conservation Program, state, county, private).
4.3.10 Other Pertinent Information
None
4.3.11 References
A complete list of project documents and other relevant publications may be found in Appendix IV.
Lawyer, M., D. Feltz, U. Agena, B. Bryant. 1991. Ten Year Report: Prairie Rose Rural Clean
Water Project, Shelby County, Iowa. March 1991. Cooperators: USDA-SCS, USDA-CES, and
the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
Link, R. V., T. Oswald, and B. Bryant. 1991. The Prairie Rose Lake Rural Clean Water Program
Project. Presented at the Regional Lake Management Conference, June 11, 1991, Des Moines,
Iowa, 15p.
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Project. 1987. Annual Report.
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Project. 1989. Annual Report.
212
-------
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP, Iowa
4.3.12 Project Contacts
Administration
Rose Coenen
Shelby County ASCS
1110 Morningview Dr.
P. O. Box 106
Harlan, IA 51537
(712) 755-5116
Water Quality
Ubbo Agena
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Wallace State Office Building.
East 9th & Grand Ave.
DesMoines, IA 50319-0034
(515) 281-6402
Land Treatment
Merle Lawyer
SCS
1112 Morningview Dr.
RR#4
Harlan, IA 51537
(712) 755-2417
Information and Education
Duane R. Feltz
Shelby County Extension Service
1105 8th Street
Harlan, IA 51537
(712)755-3104
213
-------
. :
11
a i s S
i i S 5
IU 3 K a
$ S J S
S
o s
2 S
§S§I55S5s
I,,, > :,:TI )";
ii° I ?([;,)
Figure 4.8: Upper Wakarusa (Kansas) RCWP project map, KS-1.
214
-------
Kansas
Upper Wakarusa
(RCWP6)
Osage, Shaw nee & Wabaunsee Counties
MLRA: M-106
HUG 102701
4.1 Project Synopsis
The Upper Wakarusa RCWP project, located in the true prairie region of northeast Kansas, was initiated to control
sediment and nutrient pollutant transport to water supply reservoirs. The alleged water quality problem was sediment
delivery and nutrient loading causing taste and odor problems attributed to algal growth and sediment. Sediment
deposition had already caused fish habitat degradation and was a potential problem for the Clinton reservoir, an
important water supply for the City of Lawrence. The total project area was 154,011 acres of which 43,252 acres
were considered critical. The drainage area of two public water supplies was targeted as the number one priority for
land treatment. Drainage areas of 14 constructed and eight planned PL-566 structures were given second and third
priority.
Critical area land use was 83 % cropland, 9% rangeland, with the remainder being primarily pasture and forest.
Crops grown in the area include corn, wheat, grain sorghum, soybeans, and alfalfa. At the time the RCWP project
was initiated, there were seven hog farms with total of 2,100 animals and 10 dairies with a total of 375 cows in the
project area.
Best management practices (BMPs) were focused on conservation tillage, vegetative cover, and water control
structures. The land treatment goal was to implement BMPs on 100% of the critical area. Actual implementation
was 10,506 acres or 24% of the goal. There were 485 potential participants; of these, 123 (25%) completed or nearly
completed their contracts.
The water quality monitoring design was a single downstream station sampled to assess overall ambient conditions.
The monitoring program detected no trends in water quality.
The Upper Wakarusa RCWP project played an important role in the beginning of coordination of state nonpoint
source (NFS) programs in Kansas. Overall management and administration during the short project was exemplary.
However, the project lacked essential technical assistance to document a water quality problem linked to a use
impairment, target well-defined critical areas, or establish a meaningful water quality monitoring program. The
project team interacted well with the State Coordinating Committee (SCC), but needed more assistance on water
quality problem and critical area identification. The project was terminated in September of 1983, for failure to meet
basic program requirements.
4.2 Project Findings, Recommendations, and Successes
4.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals
4.2.1.1 Findings and Successes
Overall project objectives were very general and provided little direction for project activities.
The water quality objective did not mention any water resource by name or designated use.
Goals were set using rule-of-thumb estimates of what was thought to be achievable.
215
-------
Upper Wakarusa RCWP, Kansas
4.2.1.2 Recommendations
Project objectives are very important because they help keep activities on track. Inadequate atten-
tion to developing objectives results in fragmented, non-targeted activities. The total set of
project objectives should be comprehensive, making sure all important concerns are ad-
dressed. Individual objectives should be clearly focused, and should not overlap. An achiev-
able, measurable goal should be established to support each objective. Setting goals is based
on knowledge of the system and can be enhanced by using a model to simulate change in a
variable that is meaningful for progress toward the objective.
4.2.2 Project Management and Administration
4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes
The project was well organized and had a very active Local Coordinating Committee (LCC). The
chairman of the LCC was effective in promoting the project and facilitating teamwork. The
LCC met monthly and members were required to report on their progress at each meeting.
Administrative, information and education (I&E), and technical advisory committees were
formed and were active in project planning and implementatioa Initial advisory committee
task assignments resulted in some overlap of duties and some committees had too many mem-
bers. These problems were addressed so that individual committee tasks did not overlap and
committee membership was reduced to an optimal size. The project benefited from the exten-
sive committee participation of concerned individuals in the community.
The project had a manager; the position was held alternately by the Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) and the Extension Service (ES). The quarter-time manager position was rated as some-
what to very effective by project staff.
Members of the State Coordinating Committee (SCC) felt the National Coordinating Committee
(NCC) could have provided more guidance on developing project direction and setting goals.
The SCC members also felt they did not receive a clear definition of what was expected of
them and that adequate guidance was not available. Technical guidance (such as critical area
definition and establishment of practice standards for nutrient and pesticide management) was
not available; as a result, the project team had to develop methods based on expertise in the
state or to rely on other sources.
The SCC supported the project. A representative of the SCC attended the LCC meetings on a
regular basis. SCC members saw their role as providing information to the project and an-
swering questions. There was good interaction and cooperation between the LCC and the
SCC.
The project area was located in three counties, making the project somewhat difficult to adminis-
ter. The project failed to use the standard RCWP reporting forms, making the tracking of
contracts and critical area treatment difficult. Although the project had 17 critical area feed-
lots it is difficult to determine if any of the animal waste from 1,365 animal units was
treated. Also, the project was difficult to manage due to its large size (154,011 acres).
An inter-agency appraisal of the project was conducted by representatives of ASCS, SCS,
USEPA, and ES of the project in June, 1983. The conclusions of the appraisal team were
that: a) there was no documentable water quality problem resulting in impaired uses of the
waters of the project area, b) there was some overlap of RCWP and PL-566 activities
(RCWP activities were being used in a preventative mode to protect PL-566 structures), c)
there was no definitive delineation of critical areas and that such delineation was not feasible
in the absence of impaired uses of water. Based on the findings of the inter-agency review
team, the NCC canceled the project in September, 1983. Authority to approve additional con-
tracts after that date was terminated, with contracts approved before that date honored and
serviced in the regular manner.
216
-------
Upper Wakarusa RCWP, Kansas
4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
Available information indicates high pollutant levels in streams, especially during the runoff sea-
soa Other problems regarding taste, odor, and fishery degradation are important findings.
However, the project needed outside technical assistance from USEPA or the NCC to docu-
ment a use impairment. Greater coordination between the NCC and the SCC may have re-
sulted in technical support to the project. The water quality baseline data known to the NCC
at the time of the application was similar to the data available in June 1983 when the inter-
agency team made their appraisal. It is unclear whether the NCC expected the project to
document a problem at some point or it is possible that the lack of a water quality problem
was overlooked when the project was funded.
4.2.2.2 Recommendations
This project serves as a model for overall project management and administration. The highly or-
ganized LCC met monthly, was well attended, and had advisory committees to help ensure
progress. The SCC regularly attended the LCC meetings, which served to foster team work
by state and local level project personnel. The project had an active and effective LCC chair
who promoted the project and gained farm operator participatioa We recommend projects
choose a management and administration style similar to this project. The project needed a
manager with water quality expertise as well as knowledge of USD A agencies.
While project administrators must rely on the technical expertise of the water quality agency pro-
posing a project, they must demand clear documentation of the problem. The technical merit
of the entire project is based on the problem definition. Critical area definition and BMP se-
lection are also determined based on the definition, of the water quality problem.
The NCC should develop detailed project selection criteria to improve the chances that projects
will contribute to the objectives of the program.
Projects should follow the annual reporting format established at the national level (such as by
the NCC in the RCWP). Standardized data collection facilitates tracking of BMP implementa-
tion, meaningful data analysis, and program evaluation.
Realization of lack of problem documentation at the start of the project by the NCC could have re-
sulted in more technical assistance, changing the project area, or not funding the project.
Any of these choices would have been preferable, since the project has contributed little to-
ward the objectives of RCWP. National program staff must provide a minimum standard and
methodology for water quality problem definition to guide project personnel. Local project
staff should study the problem statement provided by the water quality agency to ensure ade-
quacy and should seek outside help if needed.
The overall goal of the state was to protect Clinton Reservoir from sedimentation and nutrient im-
pacts. The objectives of both the RCWP and federal PL-566 program included reduction of
sedimentation of the reservoir. The implementation of the PL-566 program at the same time
as the RCWP project made it difficult to differentiate the effects of one program from the ef-
fects of the other. A higher level of planning and coordination is needed when large federal
programs with overlapping goals are implemented in the same area.
This project illustrates the need to include in NPS programs projects intended to protect a water
supply or other water resource. In the Upper Wakarusa project area, ground water is not a vi-
able water supply, so surface impoundments must be used for domestic sources. If sedimenta-
tion is the primary problem, then protection is the preferred management approach because
restoration involves dredging, which can be prohibitively expensive.
217
-------
Upper Wakarusa RCWP, Kansas
4.2.3 Information and Education
4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes
The information and education (I&E) program relied on several methods to encourage participa-
tion and adoption of BMPs. Fanners did not receive as much one-to-one contact as was
needed to explain the program. Farm operators also needed information on the differences be-
tween BMPs to conserve soil and those needed to improve water quality.
As a result of the RCWP project, area farm operators developed some awareness of the water
quality problem and an awareness of the potential impact of agricultural NFS pollution. Over-
all, the I&E program was somewhat effective in developing farm operator knowledge of man-
agement and structural BMPs. However the I&E program was not very effective in
developing an attitude change that would have resulted in implementation of both manage-
ment and structural BMPs. In general, farmers did not develop the skills to implement man-
agement BMPs nor did they maintain BMPs for the long term. Farmers implemented
traditional practices rather than practices specifically designed to protect water quality. Also,
farm operators were also not very interested in tracking project success for the long term.
These shortcomings resulted in part due to the cancellation of the project at the end of the
third year.
Field demonstrations on chemical applications and minimum tillage were thought to be less effec-
tive I&E tools than one-to-one contact. Agrichemical companies helped to promote the
proper use of chemicals with demonstrations.
A larger staff was needed to make one-to-one contact with 485 potential participants. Farm opera-
tors had difficulty understanding the difference between the state project in the watershed and
the RCWP. Due to this confusion, more individual contact with the producers by project
staff were required to make one-to-one contacts to explain the unique features of the RCWP
program.
4.2.3.2 Recommendations
Keeping farm operators informed is a major key to success in a project. Farmers need to know
the overall plan of work and what they can expect from the project staff. Lack of a clearly de-
fined water quality problem reduced the effectiveness of the project. Farm operators need
specific information on pollutants and impacts so they can better understand how the opera-
tion of their farm is important to the goals of the project.
Farmers needed more education on the differences between BMPs to protect water quality and
those needed to save soil.
Greater emphasis on I&E was needed to change farmers' attitudes and develop their skills to im-
plement and maintain management BMPs. Development of these attributes in on-going and
future programs is important because management practices are less expensive than structural
practices and can be very effective. Because future maximum payment levels are likely to be
less than the $50,000 level used for RCWP, less expensive practices will be increasingly im-
portant and desirable.
218
-------
Upper Wakarusa RCWP, Kansas
4.2.4 Producer Participation
4.2.4.1 Findings and Successes
The project completed or nearly completed a total of 123 contracts (25%) out of a potential 485
during the three-year contracting period. This rate of contracting is quite good considering
the length of time available for contracting. The project was successful in attracting the inno-
vative fanners, but not as successful in gaining participation from the farmers who could
have had the greatest impact on water quality .
The primary reason that farm operators decided to participate in the RCWP project was the avail-
ability of cost share funds. Other important incentives were the concern for water pollution,
concern about future pollution regulations, conservation ethic, and assistance and encourage-
ment from the government. Reasons why farm operators did not participate included poor
economic conditions, insufficient cost share rates, the perception that the project would in-
volve too much red tape, resistance to changing practices, lack of interest in investing in
rented land, not wanting to be told how to farm, and the opinion that the current system was
working well enough.
4.2.4.2 Recommendations
Projects should use monitoring data to help explain the nature of the water quality problem to
farmers, thereby encouraging participation.
4.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes
The project area was identified as the state's number one priority agricultural NPS water quality
management area based on criteria established by the State Water Quality Management Plan
adopted in 1979 (Upper Wakarusa River RCWP Project, 1980). The state criteria empha-
sized the protection of water resources and not restoration. Problem definition for projects
emphasizing protection is a particularly difficult task. The RCWP project team was unable to
adequately identify the problem; as a consequence, they had trouble defining the critical area
and selecting BMPs. The project also needed more assistance on the best use of management
versus structural BMPs.
SCS allotted a full time staff position to the project; this person was responsible for writing farm
plans and allocating funds to treat critical area pollutant sources. The assignment of this staff
person to the RCWP project helped the project move forward on farm plan development
much faster than if regular field office staff had been responsible for the task.
The project also had a full-time ES agent responsible for I&E and technical assistance on nutrient
and pesticide management. The ES agent also helped farm operators keep implementation of
farm plans on schedule. However, the project received very little guidance on and few prac-
tice standards for nutrient and pesticide management. The project also needed guidance on ag-
ricultural waste management as applied to nutrient management.
BMP maintenance occurred on 50% of the practices installed. This was in part due to farmers'
lack of water quality knowledge and lack of skills needed to continue the practices installed.
The soil testing program was effective due to participation from the farmers' cooperative and the
ES.
Program administrators felt that conservation tillage should have been dropped from the list of
cost shared BMPs. Although the practice was useful for increasing participation, many farm
operators in the watershed were already using minimum tillage and conservation tillage. Also
many farm operators getting cost share for conservation tillage were reluctant to install struc-
tural practices such as waterways, terraces, and sediment ponds. However, one land treat-
ment person felt that lack of cost share for management practices hurt the project because
many of the farm operators would not implement a new practice without cost share.
219
-------
Upper Wakarusa RCWP, Kansas
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
The cost-effectiveness of practices was an issue raised by some project staff. Filter strips and con-
tour grass strips were thought to be an effective means of reducing sediment yield. However,
these BMPs were not cost-effective from the farm operators' viewpoint because they require
that acreage be taken out of production.
The project should have emphasized management BMPs as an alternative to structural BMPs to
reduce sediment delivery.
4.2.5.2 Recommendations
The SCC should spend more time at the beginning of a project to discuss the general purpose,
help with the identification of critical areas, and assist with the selection of BMPs.
The NCC should provide technical assistance for critical area selection incorporating the use of a
spatially distributed pollutant runoff model (such as AGNPS).
4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.2.6.1 Rndings and Successes
The water quality monitoring program provided very little information to the project or toward
achieving the objectives of the RCWP.
The water quality problem was not clearly identified and minimal monitoring data were available
for use by the project team in defining the problem. If the problem was a potential for the
loss of storage capacity in Clinton Reservoir by sedimentation, surveys to measure the rate of
sedimentation should have been performed.
The water quality agency indicated that the following analyses would be completed in the Strow-
bridge and Shawnee County Rural Water Supply District No. 6 public water supplies: taste
and odor, filtration and chemical use, algae control chemical use, sedimentation rate, trophic
state index, and organic chemicals (Upper Wakarusa River RCWP Project, 1980). These
analyses, if completed, would have supported either the need for or the termination of the
project.
High concentrations of suspended sediment and high turbidity during runoff conditions were meas-
ured, but these concentrations are not documented as causing a specific impairment or threat
to designated use.
4.2.6.2 Recommendations
All projects should have adequate problem identification monitoring and assessment Problem
identification is the key to all projects, since the specific pollutant(s) and conditions must be
treated if there is to be any hope of protection or improvement of water quality.
When the objective of the project is to protect a lake or reservoir from degradation, the monitor-
ing design should have two major elements: a) monitoring of the subwatershed stream di-
rectly below the critical area before, during, and after implementation to evaluate trends in a
water quality variable in response to BMP implementation and b) monitoring of the lake or
reservoir for trends in variables associated with the threat to loss of use.
Projects with potential sedimentation problems should complete pre-, during, and post-sedimenta-
tion surveys to determine sedimentation rate. Sedimentation survey protocols are well docu-
mented and the technique is a basic tool for water supply lake management.
Because the relative treatment strength or impact of BMPs is greater for smaller areas, projects
should monitor small subwatersheds rather than trying to monitor near the outlet to the entire
watershed.
Water quality agencies should be held more accountable on commitments to monitor according to
the plan of work submitted to the NCC.
220
-------
Upper Wakarusa RCWP, Kansas
4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
4.2.7.1 Findings and Successes
The project did not track land treatment data for linkage with water quality data.
4.2.7.2 Recommendations
None
4.3 Project Description
4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame
General RCWP
1980 -1994 (Although the project was terminated in 1983, RCWP contracts executed prior to pro-
ject termination were carried out and water quality monitoring was conducted through 1991.)
4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions
4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality
4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size
Wakarusa River and its tributaries, water district reservoirs, Clinton Reservoir, watershed
flood- retarding reservoirs
4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments
Water resource uses include public and domestic water supplies, recreation, agriculture,
and fish and wildlife habitat. Water supplies and reservoirs were reported to have peri-
odic taste and odor problems attributed to algal growth and sediment. Sedimentation
posed potential threats to wildlife and fish habitat along project streams as well as excess
sediment loads to Clinton Reservoir. Potential threat of impairments of drinking water sup-
plies from phosphorus, bacteria and pesticides was also a concern.
4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement
Sediment deposition in ponds and stream channels is a problem below sloping untreated
croplands. Excess sediment loads of the Wakarusa River are deposited in the upper end of
Clinton Reservoir. Sediment in agricultural runoff is a limiting factor for fish populations
in the Wakarusa River. High inorganic turbidity in runoff is linked to a change in the dis-
tribution of several species of fish in the Wakarusa River and tributaries.
4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals
The objective of the project was to improve and maintain water quality in the water im-
poundments and streams within the 154,011-acre project area by applying BMPs to con-
trol agricultural NPS pollution (Upper Wakarusa River RCWP Project, 1980).
Specific Goals:
Reduce pollutant loading from livestock operations by 75%
Reduce nitrogen loading by 41%
Reduce phosphorus loading by 43%
Reduce organic matter entering waters by 45%
Reduce soil loss from 5.2 to 2.8 tons/acre/year
221
-------
Upper Wakarusa RCWP, Kansas
4.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics
4.3.2.2.1 Watershed Area: 154,011 acres
Project Area: 154,011 acres
Critical Area: 43,252 acres
4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors
Mean Annual Precipitation: 34.46 inches (most during April- October)
Geologic Factors: Topography of the region varies from nearly level flood plains to bluffs
and slopes up to 30%. The upland soils are deep to moderately deep silt loams to silty
clay loams, bottom soils are deep and friable silty clay loams.
4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture
Most of the farms are diversified and the primary crops are corn, wheat, grain sorghum,
soybeans, and alfalfa. Corn, wheat, and soybeans are the major cash crops with most of
the other grains and hay being fed to livestock.
4.3.2.2.4 Land Use
Use
Cropland
Rangeland
Pasture
Forest
Other
% of Project Area
40
41
7
7
5
% of Critical Area
83
9
2
3
3
4.3.2.2.5 Animal Operations
Operation # Farms
Hogs
Dairy
7
10
Animals
2100
375
Total Animal
Units
840
525
4.3.3 Total Project Budget
SOURCES Federal
ACTIVITY
Cost Share 2,229,000
Mo. & Ed. 87,000
Tech. Asst. 466,344
Water Quality
Monitoring 78,000
SUM 2,860,344
State
2,328,800
Farmer
Other
0
0
0
)0
)0
2,928,000
0
0
0
2,928,000
0
5,000
72,540
1,500
79,040
SUM
5,157,000
92,000
538,884
2, 408,300
$8,196,184
Source: Upper Wakarusa River RCWP Project, 1987
222
-------
Upper Wakarusa RCWP, Kansas
4.3.4 Information and Education
4.3.4.1 Strategy
To develop a special educational program to help landowners and farm operators understand the
importance of clean water for a community even if clean water in itself does not benefit them
directly.
4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals
The objective was to effect changes in attitudes and behaviors by producers as evidenced by ac-
ceptance and implementation of BMPs that improve water quality.
Goals were to:
Use the I&E delivery system to achieve project objectives using existing programs as a
base
Coordinate information among federal, state, and local agencies involved in the project
Conduct educational programs for landowners toward the adoption of BMPs that will re-
duce siltation and minimize the presence of fertilizer, pesticides, and animal waste in the
main streams and tributaries
Assist in the project monitoring and evaluation, as appropriate, in cooperation with agen-
cies involved in the monitoring phase of the project
Provide current information to both Kansas and national audiences on the positive impacts
resulting from the adoption of BMPs by landowners in the project area to improve water
quality
Evaluate farmers' attitudes toward the project
4.3.4.3 Program Components
A variety of printed materials including newsletters, brochures, form letters, and facts
sheets
Mass media including radio, newspapers, and television
Public meetings
One-to-one contacts with producers
Tours of participating farms
Demonstrations of tillage, proper fertilizer use, range and pasture management, proper
pesticide usage, and BMP maintenance
4.3.5 Producer Participation
4.3.5.1 Level of Participation
The contracting period was three years because the project was canceled in 1983. The project
was able to write 123 contracts out of a possible 485 potential participants, resulting in 25%
of the participation goal of 485 participants being achieved.
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation
Cost share rate of 75%, except for grazing land protection (60%)
Payment limit of $50,000 per farm
223
-------
Upper Wakarusa RCWP, Kansas
4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation
Economic conditions
Secondarily, fanner preference not to participate in government programs, nor to change their
farming methods
4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs
The chances of maintaining BMPs was rated 50 to 90% by project personnel surveyed in 1992.
These findings seem consistent with the conservation status prior to the project.
4.3.6 Land Treatment
4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design
The project had a general strategy to apply BMPs to control NPS pollution from agricultural
land.
4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals
The objective was to improve and maintain water quality in water impoundments and streams
within the 154,011-acre project area. The goal was to treat all of the 43,252-acre critical area
4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application
The drainage area of two public water supplies was targeted as the number one priority. Drain-
age areas of 14 constructed and eight planned PL-566 watershed retarding structures were tar-
geted as second and third priorities. The remainder of the critical area was fourth priority.
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used
Emphasis of the project was placed on sediment reduction. Land treatment was achieved through
conservation tillage, vegetative cover, and control structures.
BMPs Utilized in the Project*
Permanent vegetative cover (BMP 1)
Terrace system (BMP 4)
Diversion system (BMP 5)
Grazing land protection (BMP 6)
Waterway system (BMP 7)
Conservation tillage systems (BMP 9)
Permanent vegetative cover on critical areas (BMP 11)
Sediment retention, erosion, or water control structures (BMP 12)
* Please refer to Appendix I for BMP descriptions/purpose.
224
-------
Upper Wakarusa RCWP, Kansas
4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring & Tracking Program
4.3.6.5.1 Description
Land treatment was not tracked.
4.3.6.5.2 Data Management
No data management system was in place during the project.
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results
Quantified Project Achievements:
Pollutant Critical Area
Source.
Units Total % Implemented
Treatment Goals
Cropland/
rangeland/other
Feedlots
Contracts
acres
#
#
43,252
21
485
24%
0%
25%
43,532
17
262
% Implemented
24%
0%
49%
Source: Upper Wakarusa River RCWP Project, 1990
4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design
The monitoring strategy included two overall designs. The first design was an intensive before
and after study. Baseline conditions were monitored at the start of the project and then after
95% land treatment implementatioa A post-project evaluation was planned to determine
overall treatment effect. The second design employed sampling at a single station near the
watershed outlet to integrate all treatment effects.
Monitoring was conducted by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals
Objectives were to:
Evaluate the water quality effectiveness of applying BMPs to agricultural land
Evaluate the public water supply impacts of BMP applications
*';aluate the fisheries impacts on BMP applications
.valuate the recreation impacts of BMP applications
Evaluate the impact of the project on Clinton Reservoir
ater quality monitoring goals were established.
/.3 Time Frame
981 -1990
225
-------
Upper Wakarusa RCWP, Kansas
4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme
4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations
Single sampling station at the Wakarusa River near Richland
36 stations were monitored throughout the project area to gather baseline data in 1982
4.3.7.4.2 Sample Type
Grab
4.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency
Monthly and for selected runoff events
4.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed
Sediment, turbidity, nutrients, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), pesticides, total sus-
pended solids (TSS), nitrate (NCh), ammonia (NHa), phosphorus (P)
Periodic analysis of macroinvertebrates, fish, and fish tissues
4.3.7.4.5 Row Measurement
None
4.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements
None
4.3.7.4.7 Other Important Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information
Macroinvertebrate samples were collected and analyzed using a biotic index.
4.3.7.5 Data Management
All chemical data was entered into STORET.
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results
None
4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
None
4.3.9 Impact of Other Federal Programs on the Project
Federal PL-566 funding in the watershed was used to construct up to 22 structures for flood conu
Some highly credible land was seeded with funds from the Conservation Reserve Program. The im
pact of these programs has not been quantified
226
-------
Upper Wakarusa RCWP, Kansas
4.3.10 Other Pertinent Information
None
4.3.11 References
A complete list of project documents and other relevant publications may be found in Appendix IV.
Upper Wakarusa River RCWP Project. 1980. RCWP Plan of Work.
Upper Wakarusa River RCWP Project. 1987. Annual Progress Report.
Upper Wakarusa River RCWP Project. 1990. Annual Progress Report.
4.3.12 Project Contacts
Administration
Earlene Jirik
Shawnee County ASCS Office
3410 SW Van Buren
Topeka, KS 66611-2228
(913) 266-9053
Water Quality
Don Snethen
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Forbes Field
Topeka, KS 66601
(913) 296-5567
Land Treatment
Bob Plinsky
USDA-SCS
444 SE Quincy
Room 190
Topeka, KS 66683
(913) 296 5567
Information and Education
None
227
-------
ARKANSAS
-------
Louisiana
Bayou Bonne Idee
(RCWP 7)
Morehouse Parish
MLRA-.0-134
HUC: 080500-01
4.1 Project Synopsis
The project area, located in the Mississippi delta region of northeastern Louisiana, consisted primarily of large,
relatively flat cotton fields. Sediment and pesticides from these fields were polluting the Bayou Bonne Idee, impairing
its uses for primary contact recreation and sport and commercial fishing.
The purpose of the project was to reduce the influx of sediment and pesticides to the bayou by implementing best
management practices (BMPs) on 75% of the cotton land within 0.75 miles of the bayou (critical area). The most
common BMPs used were permanent vegetative cover on critical areas (BMP 11), conservation tillage systems (BMP
9), and improving an irrigation and/or water management system (BMP 13). Because the last two of these BMPs
were expensive and labor intensive to implement, the project critical area was decreased from 166,452 to 44,880
acres, after the project team realized that the original critical area was too large to achieve adequate BMP coverage
with available resources. This downsizing caused a drain on project resources because the many contracts developed
for land (about 20,000 acres) outside the revised critical area still required cost share and technical assistance. Even
with this drain, the project succeeded in contracting nearly 60% (27,103 acres) of the revised critical area representing
about 81% of the land treatment goal.
lie water quality monitoring program consisted of ambient monthly grab sampling at four sites along the 75-mile
•ou. Trend analysis indicated slight decreases in turbidity, total suspended solids, and total phosphorus over the
ct period; however, these decreases were not statistically significant or specifically linked to land treatment.
>ject Findings, Recommendations, and Successes
2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals
4.2.1.1 Findings and Successes
Project personnel realized during the sign-up period that the goal of treating 75% of the original
166,452 acre critical area was too ambitious considering available resources, so the project
area was decreased to include only land draining directly to Bayou Bonne Idee. This down-
sizing may have been necessary, at least partially, due to an unfulfilled promise of additional
funding made by the National Coordinating Committee (NCC).
xe formation of objectives and goals depends on an accurate assessment of the water resource
impairment, without which it is difficult to identify critical areas and choose appropriate
water quality BMPs.
commendations
/*" J°s that best address the pollution problem should be emphasized in the implementation
K' <<2f statements, thereby maximizing the chances of realizing the water quality objective.
ft *
V
objectives and goals must be established with respect to the amount of resources avail-
4 accomplish them.
229
-------
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP, Louisiana
4.2.2 Project Management and Administration
4.2.2.1 Rndings and Successes
Cooperative ties between USD A agencies, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and state
agencies involved in nonpoint source (NFS) pollution control established during the RCWP
have helped subsequent water quality projects.
The voluntary and multi-agency nature of the project made it difficult to manage because person-
nel involved placed less priority on cooperative efforts than on projects totally under their
agency's control.
The project's overall effectiveness suffered from a lack of cooperation between agencies due to
conflicts between key individuals and a lack of funds for water quality monitoring.
Project personnel attempted to manage and direct the RCWP effort in nearly the same manner
and using the same decision groups as they had utilized for previously established programs,
such as the Agricultural Conservation Program, (ACP): establishing strong local and state
coordinating committees or a project advisory group might have been more effective.
4.2.2.2 Recommendations
Project personnel indicated that because this type of project was new, more guidance from the
NCC early in the project should have been given. Future projects would benefit from the
same early guidance.
For multi-agency projects to be successful, each agency should recognize its responsibility and
have a method of making its employees accountable to the project.
4.2.3 Information and Education
4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes
Although the project designated only limited resources ($6,000) toward information and educa-
tion (I&E) efforts, overall producer interest and participation was relatively high. However,
perhaps more resources designated for I&E, especially pesticide management, would have
been appropriate since the emphasis of the project was on reducing pesticide levels in Bayou
Bonne Idee.
One-to-one visits to producers by Cooperative Extension Service (CES) staff after initial corre-
spondence had been sent were most successful in convincing producers to reduce nutrient
pesticide inputs. On-farm demonstrations of proven research technology were also effea
in persuading producers to use less pesticides in their integrated pest management scher
The efforts of both the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and the CES were essential, initial
helping producers become aware of and understand the project. Regular newsletters
the Agricultural Stabilization Conservation Service (ASCS) kept farmers aware of P
changes and progress.
Letters, newsletters, and news articles in themselves were not effective methods of pr
project; however, they did serve as continual reminders of the program.
4.2.3.2 Recommendations
On-farm visits by project staff who can communicate water quality objectives are r
cially to ensure proper implementation of management intensive BMPs.
Close cooperation among participating agencies should be maintained. All agenc'
age producers to adopt BMPs best suited to address the water quality prov"
just those BMPs the agency is primarily responsible for implementing.
Additional resources should be made available for the I&E efforts of agencV^ \
plementing BMPs that best address the water quality problem, espec;^ ^ •£ \
a significant management component. ^> % ^ %.
\
230
-------
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP, Louisiana
4.2.4 Producer Participation
4.2.4.1 Findings and Successes
High implementation levels can be achieved for practices that are perceived to significantly in-
crease farm production or decrease labor needs.
Project personnel reported fair to excellent participation in the project, as well as adoption of
some BMPs by non-participants.
Participation was limited by a lack of cost share funds near the end of the sign-up period.
BMPs, such as irrigation improvements, that benefit the producer were instrumental in getting
farmers to participate in the RCWP and to agree to implement other, often less desirable
BMPs.
The poor agricultural economy during the sign-up period limited participation.
4.2.4.2 Recommendations
A low interest loan program, perhaps sponsored by the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), should be offered to help producers finance their portion of BMP installation costs,
especially when interest rates are high. Such a program might significantly increase pro-
ducer participation in programs like the RCWP.
Linking commodity price supports to water quality improvements might be a method of increas-
ing participation in future projects.
4.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes
Practices having primarily off-site benefits can be added to contracts that include practices with
high on-site benefits such as irrigation improvements.
Nearly 60% (27,103 acres) of the revised critical area was treated with BMPs. This represented
about 81% of the land treatment goal.
The high turnover rate (about one per year) of soil conservationists used to develop farm plans
and provide technical assistance for the project made BMP tracking and evaluation difficult.
Project personnel report that land leveling and smoothing has reduced the amount of sheet erosion
occurring on cropland draining to Bayou Bonne Idee, although there are no monitoring data
to substantiate this claim.
Tracking of BMPs included standard farm-by-farm review of implementation.
4.2.5.2 Recommendations
The implementation of BMPs that best mitigate the water quality problem should be emphasized
even though they may not be popular with producers. As an experimental program, the
RCWP was designed to initiate and encourage the use of innovative, sometimes unpopular,
practices to abate agricultural pollution.
BMPs which are very effective at reducing pollution, but not popular with producers, should be
cost shared at higher rates to encourage their adoption.
People hired for project term positions should be encouraged to remain in the position for several
years with the understanding that they will be offered the next available permanent position
after this period.
Critical area criteria should be based on more than simply proximity to the water resource, but
should also include factors such as critical sources of pollutants and probability of pollutant
transport to the impaired water resource.
231
-------
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP, Louisiana
4.2.5.2 Recommendations (continued)
Land treatment tracking should include where and when BMPs are implemented and how well
they are being maintained, not just the total number implemented. Management factors such
as maintenance and timing of tillage and pesticide application often determine BMP effective-
ness and, therefore, should be included in the BMP and also tracked for producer compli-
ance.
4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes
No significant reductions in sediment or turbidity levels have been documented with the water
quality monitoring data collected during this project. Trend analysis of monitoring data indi-
cated slight improvements in dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity, total suspended solids, and to-
tal phosphorus; however, these improvements may have been due to climatic variability.
Part of the objective of the project was to reduce the influx of pesticides to the Bayou, but very lit-
tle pesticide monitoring data were reported. Monitoring was limited by the high cost of sam-
ple analysis and the limited availability of funding for monitoring.
Annual fish tissue analysis conducted during the first half of the project (prior to 1986) showed
significant decreases in the residue levels of organochlorine insecticides. This decrease is at-
tributable primarily to the banning of several pesticides by USEPA in the late 1970s.
4.2.6.2 Recommendations
Monitoring is required at the field level, or at least subwatershed level, to assess the effectiveness
of BMPs, especially if BMPs are not implemented on a very high percentage of the critical
area.
4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
4.2.1.1 Rndings and Successes
Neither the water quality monitoring nor the land treatment tracking/monitoring were designed to
meet the goal of relating changes in water quality to land treatment.
4.2.1.2 Recommendations
In order to establish linkages between water quality changes and land treatment, projects should
include field or stream level water quality monitoring in which a high portion of the land
draining to the monitoring station is treated with BMPs.
4.3 Project Description
4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame
General RCWP
1980 -1991
4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions
4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality
4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size
A meandering, approximately 75-mile long bayou
232
-------
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP, Louisiana
4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments
Bayou Bonne Idee is used mainly for water sports and fishing. It is popular for recreation
that contributes significantly to the local economy. An estimated 10,000 recreational fish-
erman use the project area water resources each year. Use of project area water resources
is impaired by turbidity, sedimentation, and toxic agricultural chemicals in cropland run-
off.
4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement & Status
High turbidity levels impair recreational uses (water sports and fishing) of Bayou Bonne
Idee. Pesticide residues in fish tissue have also been a concern.
4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals
Abate NFS pollution (sediment and toxic agricultural chemicals) to a level compatible
with state water quality standards
4.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics
4.3.2.2.1 Watershed Area: 66,000 acres
Project Area: 66,000 acres (originally 220,000)
Critical Area: 44,880 acres (originally 166,452)
4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors
Mean Annual Precipitation: 48 inches
Geologic Factors: The project area is in the Arkansas River Alluvial Plain within the
Southern Mississippi Valley Alluvium Major Land Resource Area. Topography is nearly
level to gently sloping. Soils are highly erodible.
4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture
Cotton is the primary crop grown in the watershed critical area. Some soybeans and rice
are also grown in the watershed.
4.3.2.2.4 Land Use
Use. % of Project Area % of Critical Area
Cropland 75 100
Pasture/range 4
Woodland 11
Urban/roads 10
Other
4.3.2.2.5 Animal Operations
None of significance
233
-------
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP, Louisiana
4.3.3 Total Project Budget
SOURCES Federal State Farmer Other
ACTIVITY SUM
Cost Share 2,300,000 0 2,320,000 0 4,620,000
Info. & Ed. 6,000 NA 0 15,000 21,000
Tech. Asst. 765,921 NA 0 64,440 830,361
Water Quality
Monitoring 300,000 72,000 0 0 372,000
SUM 3,371,921 72,000 2,320,000 79,440 $5,843,361
Source: Smolen et al, 1989; Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP Project, 1992.
4.3.4 Information and Education
4.3.4.1 Strategy
Responsibility for the information and education (I&E) effort was divided, with the Cooperative
Extension Service (CES) agents concentrating on fertilizer and pesticide management (BMPs
15 and 16), the SCS handling all other BMPs, and the ASCS overseeing the overall project.
4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals
Objectives and goals were not clearly stated, but generally focused on publicizing the RCWP and
educating producers.
4.3.4.3 Program Components
Farm demonstrations of proven practices such as fertilizer placement, biological pest control, and
cover crops
Personal contacts to train and assist producers in BMPs related to nutrient and pesticide manage-
ment
Several articles in the local newspaper explaining the project and announcing the first contract
signing
One public meeting sponsored by the SCS to announce the RCWP project and answer questions
Local ASCS newsletters to publicize RCWP changes and announcements
4.3.5 Producer Participation
4.3.5.1 Level of Participation
Although the project did not reach its BMP implementation goal, producer participation was
good, limited mainly by the cut-off of cost share funds.
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation
Cost share rates of 75% for soil conservation practices, 50% for irrigation improvements, and
90% for farmers located adjacent to the Bayou Bonne Idee
The perception that recommended BMPs would reduce labor requirement or increase productivity
234
-------
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP, Louisiana
4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation
Total cost share limit of $50,000
Economically difficult situation during sign-up period
Perception that implementing certain BMPs would decrease soil productivity
Unwillingness to change from traditional farming practices
Relatively low regard for water quality problems, in a few cases
4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs
The chances of continued adherence to many BMPs is not good. The chances of the adoption of
BMPs on additional land without cost share assistance are slim to none.
4.3.6 Land Treatment
4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design
The basic strategy was to treat all land within the revised critical area.
4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals
Implement BMPs on 75% of the revised critical area to reduce sediment and toxic chemical yield
from cropland along Bayou Bonne Idee.
4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application
The revised critical area was all land within 3/4 mile of the bayou. More than 20,000 acres of
land outside the critical area was treated because it was contracted before the downsizing of
the project.
235
-------
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP, Louisiana
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used
BMP Utilized in the Project* Units Planned Installed
Permanent vegetative cover (BMP 1) feet 4,972 4,800
Terrace system (BMP 4) feet 20,400 8,334
Waterway system (BMP 7) ac. served 120 60
Cropland protection system (BMP 8) acres 7,721 7,916
Conservation tillage system (BMP 9) acres 48,817 61,491
Permanent vegetative cover on critical acres 194 133
areas (BMP 11)
-Field border feet 1,257,851 1,035,260
Sediment retention, erosion, or water number 134 31
control structures (BMP 12)
Improving an irrigation and/or water acres 11,177 9,104
management system (BMP 13)
- Irrigation water conveyance feet 78,295 81,909
Fertilizer management (BMP 15) acres 10,071 4,380
Pesticide management (BMP 16) acres 15,820 11,764
*Please refer to Appendix I for description/purpose of BMPs.
4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring & Tracking Program
4.3.6.5.1 Description
An annual table of BMP implementation showed amount planned, cost share earned, and
amount applied. Accomplishments under other programs were also reported. ASCS and
SCS maintain the land treatment and land use records.
4.3.6.5.2 Data Management
The data were managed locally by the project.
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results
Quantified Project Achievements:
Critical Area Treatment Goals
Pollutant
Source Units Total % Implemented Total * % Implemented
Cropland acres 44,800 35% 33,600 47%2
1 Usually 75% of the project critical area.
2 Project has contracted 27,103 acres or 60% of the critical area.
236
-------
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP, Louisiana
4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design
The original monitoring program design called for more extensive data collection, including auto-
matic stormwater sampling, an area-wide stormwater monitoring program, and fish tissue
analysis for pesticide residues. These activities would have contributed to a better under-
standing of pollutant loading to Bayou Bonne Idee. However, due to budgetary constraints
and weather, only ambient monitoring at five stations on Bayou Bonne Idee has taken place
since the project began.
Conducted by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals
Assess the initial water quality of project area water resources and determine the effects of BMP
implementation on water quality as the project progressed
Reduce sediment and toxics levels to comply with state water quality standards
4.3.7.3 Time Frame
1980-1990
4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme
4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations
5 sites along Bayou Bonne Idee
4.3.7.4.2 Sample Type
Grab
4.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency
Monthly
4.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed
Total suspended solids (TSS), nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen (NO2+ NCb-N), turbidity, peri-
odic pesticide scans
4.3.7.4.5 Flow Measurement
Instantaneous measurement with each grab sample
4.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements
None reported
237
-------
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP, Louisiana
4.3.7.4.7 Other Important Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information
Automatic stormwater monitoring sampling was unsuccessful due to weather and equip-
ment problems. No sampling has been done under the area-wide stormwater monitoring
project.
4.3.7.5 Data Management
The data are in STORET.
STORET
AGENCY CODE
Z1LA10RS
STORET
STATION NO.
58010121
58010122
58010125
58010126
58010127
58010128
58010123
PROFILE / STATION
MAP / NO.
LA-1 / 121 (1981-86)
LA-1/ 122(11/81-12/89)
LA-1 / 126 (switched w/ STORET126) (7/82-12/89)
LA-1 / 125 (switched w/ STORET125) (7/82-12/89)
LA-1 / 127 (7/82-12/89)
LA-1 / 128 (southwest of Oak Ridge)
LA-1 / 123 (2/82-12/86 Cypress Bayou west of Oak Grove)
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results
Trend analysis was performed by grouping all observations at each station and comparing mean
values between stations for total suspended solids, nitrate-nitrogen, and turbidity.
The data analysis technique employed to determine water quality trends is insufficient to detect a
real change. The technique does not account for precipitation influences, which may have a
significant impact on the annual water quality parameter values.
4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
No attempt was made to link land treatment and water quality because neither the land treatment/use
nor the water quality monitoring systems were geared to this task.
4.3.9 Impact of Other Federal and State Programs on the Project
The federal Payment-In-Kind (PIK) program significantly reduced (30,000 acres) cotton acreage in
1983. Since that time, acreage has varied, to a lesser extent, with changes in government commodity
programs.
An SCS watershed project to clean out Bayou Bonne Idee was sometimes confused with the RCWP
project, but it helped improve the public's perception of the effect of the RCWP project by improv-
ing the drainage of the Bayou.
4.3.10 Other Pertinent Information
None
238
-------
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP, Louisiana
4.3.11 References
A complete list of all project documents and other relevant publications may be found in Appendix IV.
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP Project. 1992. Bayou Bonne Idee Rural Clean Water Program Ten-Year Re-
port. 26p.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, J. Spooner, A. Larder, T.B. Bennett, S.W. Coffey, andKJ. Adler.
1989. NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural Nonpoint Source Projects. EPA 506/9-
89/002. p69-73.
4.3.12 Project Contacts
Administration
J.B. LeRay
USDA-ASCS
3737 Government Street
Alexandria, LA 71302
(318) 473-7738
Water Quality
Jan Boydstun
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 44274
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
(504) 765-0634
Land Treatment
Bennett C. Landreneau
USDA - SCS
3737 Government Street
Alexandria, LA 71302
(318) 473-7759
Information and Education
Terry Erwin
Morehouse Parish Extension Office
P.O. Box 192
Bastrop, LA 71221-0192
(318) 281-5742
239
-------
Big Pipe Creek Watershed
N
LEGEND
A flow monitoring & water sampling site
1 - Schwartzbeck Farm
2 - Stambaugh Farm
3 - Divers Farm
4 - Lease Farm
O recording ratngauge
Q totalizing raingauge
• — watershed boundary
— project boundary
-) V
/Little Pipe Creek Watershed
SCALE IN MILES
Figure 4.10: Double Pipe Creek (Maryland) RCWP project map, MD-1.
240
-------
Maryland
Double Pipe Creek
(RCWP 8)
Carroll County
MLRA-.S-148
HUC: 020700-09
4.1 Project Synopsis
The Double Pipe Creek drainage basin is part of the multi-county Monocacy River basin which runs from within
Pennsylvania southeast to the Potomac River. The watershed consists of two subbasins, Big Pipe Creek (58% of the
Double Pipe Creek watershed) and Little Pipe Creek (42% of the watershed) (McCoy and Summers, 1992).
Carroll County, located in the north central part of the state, is one of the leading dairy counties in Maryland. In
1980, there were approximately 18,000 dairy cattle in the county; by 1990, the number of dairy cattle had dropped
to 12,900 (Sanders et al., 1991). Geographically, the area is characterized by rolling hills and lush valleys. Land
use in the watershed/RCWP project area (112,200 acres) consists of 65% cropland, 15% woodland, 12% pasture,
and 8% urban/roads. High fecal coliform counts, an indicator of pathogenic bacteria, in Little Pipe and Big Pipe
Creeks threaten domestic water supplies, aquatic life, and contact recreation. Sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and
herbicides are other water quality concerns. Sources of pollutants besides agricultural operations include two
wastewater treatment plants and two quarries, all located on Little Pipe Creek.
The primary goal of the RCWP project was to improve water quality in the Double Pipe Creek basin through the
application of best management practices (BMPs), particularly animal waste management. Emphasis was placed on
treating cropland with conservation tillage and installing grassed waterways, building waste storage structures for
critical animal operations, and spreading manure based on soil tests.
The project critical area included 18,180 acres. The first priority critical area included farms where livestock and
the waste management situation presented a water quality problem and where severe gully erosion existed. Farms
with erosion control problems due primarily to sheet and rill erosion were the second priority critical area.
Analysis of baseline monitoring data showed the project area to be a substantial source of nonpoint source (NPS)
pollutants entering the Monocacy River. During the baseline monitoring period, a problem was encountered with
BMP installation at three farm sites chosen as monitoring stations. Two landowners did not implement BMPs and
the other landowner installed practices during the pre-treatment monitoring period. Monitoring at these sites was
discontinued shortly thereafter. A new site (Lease farm) was established with the objective of estimating the
effectiveness of BMPs for animal waste runoff control. These disruptions in the water quality monitoring program,
as well as funding limitations, made it difficult for the project team to demonstrate definitive links between land
treatment initiated through the project and water quality changes.
Water quality monitoring results through 1990 suggest that BMPs implemented under the RCWP in the project area
improved water quality in Big Pipe Creek. Concentrations of ammonia and total organic carbon decreased in Big
Pipe Creek. Total nitrogen and nitrate-nitrite nitrogen concentrations increased during the project period. The specific
water quality goals of meeting the state standards for turbidity and fecal coliform were not met. (Sanders et al., 1991;
McCoy and Summers, 1992)
241
-------
Double Pipe Creek RCWP, Maryland
4.1 Project Synopsis (continued)
Inter-agency coordination, communication, and cooperation in this project were outstanding. The Local Coordinating
Committee (LCC) functioned effectively and smoothly, with support, but without interference, from the state level.
The agencies' existing relationships with the producers were strong and positive and thus set the stage for a successful
project in terms of producer participation. The timing of the project, which coincided with increasing regional concern
and activity related to improving the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay, served to enhance the success of the
RCWP project. Technical assistance was effective and embodied the experimental nature of the RCWP with the
result that much was learned about the best designs for animal waste storage BMPs in the area. RCWP funds were
used to hire a nutrient management specialist. This approach was so successful that when RCWP funds for the position
ran out, the Maryland Department of Agriculture allotted funds to the Cooperative Extension Service to continue the
position.
The one weak link in the project was the water quality monitoring program, which was handled sequentially by two
different agencies and for which funding was insufficient. The loss of the original monitoring sites resulted in a lack
of baseline data on which to base a water quality analysis. Although improvements in water quality appear to have
occurred in Big Pipe Creek, the project has not been able to clearly link these changes to land treatment.
4.2 Project Findings, Recommendations, and Successes
4.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals
4.2.1.1 Findings and Successes
The goals of the project must be clearly understood by all parties involved.
Water quality goals were not set at attainable levels. The goals of meeting the state standards for
fecal coliform and turbidity during the project period were unrealistically high.
The land treatment goal of having 50% of the critical area under contract by the end of the third
year was realistic. However, the goal might have been more meaningful if it had been set to
measure BMPs implemented versus contracted.
More time should have been provided during the application period for needs assessment and es-
tablishment of goals.
4.2.1.2 Recommendations
Water quality goals should be defined clearly and early and should be set at achievable levels.
4.2.2 Project Management and Administration
4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes
The roles of the agencies must be clearly defined and accepted by agency personnel. The Double
Pipe Creek RCWP project responsibilities and work were well balanced among the three
agencies. All felt important and no agency overshadowed any other agency.
Inter-agency coordination, communication, and cooperation were major keys to the success of the
project.
The team building that resulted from RCWP activities strengthened the cooperative working rela-
tionships among the agencies on the local level and now makes their work together even
more effective than pre-RCWP.
242
-------
Double Pipe Creek RCWP, Maryland
4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
The State Coordinating Committee (SCC) recognized that the LCC was doing its job well and did
not try to control the project from the state level. The SCC tried to support the LCC as re-
quested. For example, the SCC requested and obtained additional funding to enable the Coop-
erative Extension Service (CES) to hire an agent to work on nutrient and pesticide
management within the RCWP project.
The structure of the LCC and SCC provided a coordinated approach to solving water quality prob-
lems. This team approach was highly successful.
Giving administrative decision making responsibilities to the local personnel actually implement-
ing the project was important. The structure of the RCWP worked well in that both responsi-
bility and credit for good work done lay at the local level. Top-down administration would
have been a severe deterrent to effective working relationships at the local level and to the
success of the Maryland RCWP project
A city official in charge of the Westminster Wastewater Treatment Plant was an active member
of the LCC. This was very important, since the plant had a big impact on the water quality
of Little Pipe Creek. The official's involvement in the project also made the farmers feel that
they were not being singled out as the sole source of pollution, but that other contributors
were also playing a part in the project.
Having the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) administer the project
was a tremendous advantage, since the agency already had experience administering cost
sharing programs.
Excellent cooperation existed among all the agencies involved in the Double Pipe Creek Project.
The LCC and information and education subcommittee had good participation from local
farm organizations and public officials.
The Carroll County ASCS set up its own system for tracking cost share and BMP implementa-
tioa Clearer direction from the National Coordinating Committee (NCC) and/or more com-
munication among projects on approaches to program administration would have been
helpful.
BMPs already being practiced in the project area, especially conservation tillage, were not cost
shared under RCWP. In this way, the LCC ensured that the funds were used to implement
new practices that would probably not have been installed, without RCWP cost share funds.
Although agency roles and personnel changed throughout the project, these changes seemed to
have minimal impact on the successful reaching of project goals and objectives, probably as a
result of the strong on-going working relationships among the agencies.
4.2.2.2 Recommendations
It is important to invite all potential players with an interest in the project to participate in the in-
itial LCC meetings. In this way, the whole community has been tied into the project at the in-
itial stages and all parties feel that they are part of the project (such as mayors, other local
agencies).
For water quality demonstration projects of this type, management staff at the national, state, and
local levels need to insure that adequate staffing is available to carry out the special project
without negatively affecting the ongoing local program.
A separate budget line should be added to provide for the printing of the annual and 10-year re-
ports.
The initial guidelines for the project should clearly outline the expected contents of the yearly, 10-
year, and end-of-project reports.
243
-------
Double Pipe Creek RCWP, Maryland
4.2.2.2 Recommendations (continued)
Eligibility rules should be clearly thought through and established, perhaps on the national level,
in order to avoid conflicts. Lack of clearly stated rules sometimes led to conflicts and unfair
treatment of producers. For example, a father and son, each owning a farm but working
them together in a partnership, were considered one farm (and thus limited to $50,000 cost
share), whereas non-related partners, each owning a farm and working them together, were
considered two farms (and were limited to $100,000 cost share).
More (funded) opportunities for interaction among project staff nationwide would be helpful in or-
der to facilitate inter-project information exchange.
4.2.3 Information and Education
4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes
A wide variety of information and education (I&E) activities were conducted to promote the Dou-
ble Pipe Creek Project. The result was that the objectives and activities of the RCWP project
were effectively communicated to both the farm community and the general public.
The Double Pipe Creek RCWP project increased awareness in the project area and throughout the
state of NFS pollution and the connection between land use and practices within the project
area and the quality of Chesapeake Bay. The RCWP project activity was closely followed by
increasing efforts to protect the Bay; the two programs enhanced each other and together in-
creased citizen awareness of the need to protect water quality.
Project personnel consciously directed recruitment efforts to the large producers. The level of
treatment indicates that this was an effective strategy.
At the end of the sign-up period, much effort revolved around one-to-one contact with producers.
More personnel efforts during this time might have resulted in a higher number of contracts.
The Cooperative Extension Service (CES) had an opportunity to refine its techniques for prepar-
ing fact sheets and bulletins that targeted specific information to specific client groups.
Techniques developed during the RCWP are now being used in the daily work of the local and
state agencies. For example, the concept of nutrient management was introduced to the pro-
ject area during the Double Pipe Creek RCWP project. Additional RCWP funds were ob-
tained to employ an agent specifically to work with RCWP farmers on nutrient management.
When these funds ran out, the success of this phase of the project was so evident that the
Maryland Department of Agriculture allotted funds to the CES to continue the positioa
4.2.3.2 Recommendations
More interchanges between local level project personnel and personnel working on other RCWP
projects would be helpful, especially in I&E, in order to provide training and support to pro-
ject staff.
4.2.4 Producer Participation
4.2.4.1 Findings and Successes
The voluntary nature of the program was one reason for the success of the RCWP project. This is
particularly striking because the sign-up and implementation years of the RCWP (decade of
the 1980s) were among the worst years for agriculture in decades and there were four
droughts during the RCWP project period.
Leadership provided by Soil Conservation District Board of Supervisors was important to the suc-
cess of the project. One member of the Board was the first dairy farmer to sign a RCWP con-
tract and complete a practice. The on-the-ground demonstration of the practices by a few
farmers helped encourage other farmers to sign up under the RCWP. Seeing the practices im-
plemented helped farmers understand the practices, their functions, and the benefits to be
gained from them.
244
-------
Double Pipe Creek RCWP, Maryland
4.2.4.1 Rndings and Successes (continued)
The willingness of project area farmers to implement practices that would help improve water
quality was a critical factor in the success of the project. Animal waste storage was increased
by 30% in the project area.
4.2.4.2 Recommendations
Agricultural cost share programs aimed at water quality improvement through voluntary BMP im-
plementation should be continued because they have been shown to be an effective way of re-
ducing agricultural nonpoint source pollution.
4.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes
The project goal of BMP implementation on at least 50% of the farms in the critical area (primar-
ily animal waste management, grassed waterways, and stripcropping) was met. These prac-
tices are generally being maintained. Water Quality Plans covering 20,273 acres had been
written and approved for 149 contracts by the end of the contracting period (1986).
Implementation is correlated to farm income and farm income is difficult to project over a 10-15
year program period. Weather cycles affect farm income. During the project, the area experi-
enced several serious droughts.
The flexibility to modify and experiment with BMPs and the $50,000 payment limitation were
great assets to the project. Many different and innovative waste storage facility designs were
tried and RCWP cost share funds were used to modify the designs that didn't work as well as
others (unless the farmer had already reached the $50,000 limit). The end result was that Soil
Conservation Service (SCS), ASCS, and CES learned a lot about what designs do work best
under local conditions.
The tracking and record system could have been better developed at the beginning of the project
to facilitate more pertinent data collection in the form later requested.
Availability of contractors with the required experience, equipment, and ability was not a prob-
lem.
More personnel were needed to work with landowners and operators on management and mainte-
nance of installed BMPs.
4.2.5.2 Recommendations
It is important to address all problems on a farm that are affecting water quality. This is feasible
when the project area acreage is small and when the local agencies have adequate staffing to
get the job done.
4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.2.6.1 Rndings and Successes
Results through 1990 suggest that BMPs implemented under the RCWP in the project area im-
proved water quality in Big Pipe Creek, where concentrations of ammonia and total organic
carbon decreased by 44% and 51%, respectively. Total nitrogen increased by 25% and ni-
trate-nitrogen increased by 34% in Big Pipe Creek during the project period.
The results of the monitoring program indicate that the state's turbidity and fecal coliform stand-
ards are exceeded regularly in Big Pipe Creek.
245
-------
Double Pipe Creek RCWP, Maryland
4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
An adequate pre-implementation water quality characterization was difficult to obtain. Once moni-
toring sites were picked, both producer and project team were anxious to begin implementing
BMPs. The original project guidelines indicated that BMPs had to be implemented within one
year of the producer signing a contract. Because of this rule, monitoring sites were chosen on
three farms not under contract in order to get two years of pre- project water quality data.
These producers either never signed a contract or never implemented the practices and it be-
came impossible to collect post- implementation data.
Water quality data were affected by four major droughts in the project area during the RCWP dec-
ade. It is thus possible that some of the perceived water quality improvements were due to
lower volumes of runoff rather than the effects of land treatment implemented through the
project.
4.2.6.2 Recommendations
Several years and much money were spent monitoring three specific farm sites; however, two
farmers decided not to implement BMPs. This illustrates the importance of developing a bind-
ing contract with landowners whose participation is essential to the monitoring program,
even if implementation of such a contract requires providing special incentives to the land-
owner.
It would be helpful for project teams to have more guidance on establishing effective water qual-
ity monitoring programs within existing/realistic budgets.
Projects should plan an approach to water quality data analysis from the very beginning of the
project and then stick to the plaa The Maryland project's monitoring design went through
several changes, making it difficult to link the earlier and later phases of the monitoring data
and diminishing the ability of the project to document water quality improvements linked
with BMP implementation.
4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
4.2.7.1 Rndings and Successes
None of the BMPs used in the RCWP project appear to have been effective in reducing fecal coli-
form densities in Big Pipe Creek. Additional work is required to determine what practices
are effective in reducing fecal coliform densities. (McCoy and Summers, 1992)
To demonstrate a relationship between land treatment and water quality, the project would have
had to work with a smaller sub-basin, comparing data collected under normal agricultural
practices with post-BMP implementation data.
4.2.7.2 Recommendations
Careful planning of a water quality monitoring and data analysis strategy at the beginning of the
project is critical. The monitoring design went through several changes, with the result that it
was difficult to link water quality with land treatment.
4.3 Project Description
4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame
General RCWP
1980 -1994
246
-------
Double Pipe Creek RCWP, Maryland
4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions
4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality
4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size
Streams: Big Pipe Creek, Little Pipe Creek, and Double Pipe Creek (formed by the conflu-
ence of Little and Big Pipe Creeks)
4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments
Project area streams and ponds provide public water supply for the city of Westminster
and surrounding areas, serving approximately 18,000 people and several businesses. Sec-
ondary uses of water resources are contact recreation and fishing.
4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement
High levels of suspended sediment and coliform bacteria impair multiple uses of project
area streams. Nutrient export to Chesapeake Bay is a concern.
4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals
Objectives:
Apply BMPs to address the most critical water quality problems in the project, specifi-
cally high fecal coliform bacteria and potential sediment loads
Show a measurable improvement in the degree of water quality
Goals:
Reduce the level of fecal coliform bacteria to below 200MPN/100ml (state standard)
Meet the state standard for turbidity (150 NTU, JTU, or FTU units or a monthly average
of 50 units) at all times
Reduce the sediment delivery to the streams by approximately 36,000 tons per year
4.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics
4.3.2.2.1 Watershed Area: 112,200 acres
Project Area: 112,200 acres
Critical Area: 18,180 acres
4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors
Mean Annual Precipitation: 45 inches
Geologic Factors: The project area lies within the north central Piedmont Region and is
characterized by gently rolling to steep uplands with streams of average to steep gradient
feeding into the bottom lands. Predominant soils are moderately credible. Ground water
within the project area occurs primarily in fractures and bedding-plane partings of rocks.
It may also occur in solutional cavities in limestone and marble.
4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture
Agriculture in the project area consists primarily of dairy and cash grain. Corn, soybeans,
small grain, and hay are the principal crops grown. (Schaeffer, 1992)
247
-------
Double Pipe Creek RCWP, Maryland
4.3.2.2.4 Land Use
Use % of Project Area
Cropland 65
Pasture/range 12
Woodland 15
Urban/roads 8
Other
% of Critical Area
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.3.2.2.5 Animal Operations
Operation # Farms Total # Total Animal
Hails
27,684
6,958
23,100
2,489
15,494
These data are as of 1980. Dairy cow numbers decreased by approximately 5,000 animals
between 1980 and 1990 (Sanders et al., 1991) and poultry numbers decreased to 330,000
during the same period (D. Greene, Carroll County Cooperative Extension Service, per-
sonal communication).
Dairy
Beef
Poultry
Hogs
Horses
75
NA
6
NA
NA
Animals
19,774
6,958
700,000
6,222
7,747
4.3.3 Total Project Budget
SOURCES Federal
ACTIVITY
Cost Share 3,576,137
Info. & Ed. 58,939
Tech. Asst. 1,232,569
Water Quality
Monitoring 0
SUM 4,867,645
State
0
0
0
0
0
Farmer
1,227,613
0
0
0
1,227,613
Other
SUM
0 4,803,750
0 58,939
0 1,232,569
0 0
0 $6,095,258
4.3.4 Information and Education
4.3.4.1 Strategy
The Information and Education program was designed to utilize a wide diversity of communica-
tion methods to promote the Double Pipe Creek RCWP project among the farm community
and general public.
248
-------
Double Pipe Creek RCWP, Maryland
4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals
Inform the public and the farming community about the RCWP project and how the project
would be funded and administered (Sanders et al., 1991)
Help fanners realize that they were part of the problem and help the rest of the community real-
ize that they were also part of the solution
Encourage fanner and landowner participation in the RCWP (Sanders et al., 1991)
4.3.4.3 Program Components
Media coverage (press conferences, television/radio, news releases, farm newsletters)
RCWP Newsletter; flyers about the RCWP, Double Pipe Creek RCWP project, soil con-
servation, tours, and demonstrations
Fact sheet on grassed waterway maintenance
Informational displays
Slide tape show
Picture album of sample BMPs
Tours of participating farms for county officials, the general public, and producers
Manure spreader calibration demonstrations during field days and farm tours
Signs for "RCWP Cooperating Farms" and plaques for cooperators completing all of their
planned BMPs
Communication with Vocational Agriculture teachers and classes
Individual farm visits
Meetings with contractors who build soil conservation BMPs
Demonstrations for schools, service clubs, and farm meetings of a mechanical ground
water model to show the interaction of ground and surface water and how it is affected by
human activities
4.3.5 Producer Participation
4.3.5.1 Level of Participation
Producer participation in the RCWP project was very good. The land treatment goal of having an
acreage equal to 50% of the critical area under contract by the third year of the project met.
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation
Cost share rate of 75% for most practices
$50,000 payment limit per producer
Environmental concern during the 1980s related to the necessity of cleaning up the Chesapeake
Bay created an awareness in the farm community that there was a problem with NFS pollu-
tion from farms and that farm operators would be expected to help solve the problem
(Greene, 1992)
Strong leadership within the farm community
Peer pressure
Option for SCS to be flexible in adjusting designs to deal with problems and individual sites
249
-------
Double Pipe Creek RCWP, Maryland
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation (continued)
Fear of regulation of farming operations by federal and/or state agencies motivated some farmers
to participate in voluntary programs
Success of the initial RCWP contracts
Effectiveness of SCS in properly designing practices and working with farmers
Perception that BMPs installed would benefit the farmer economically and contribute to sustain-
ability of the farm
Interest in manure management as a labor- and cost-saving technique
4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation
Economics of the dairy situation during the 1980s had a negative impact on farmer participation
Inability of some farmers to afford their share of the cost of implementing BMPs
$50,000 payment limit (for farmers owning more than one farm)
Unwillingness of some producers to participate in any government program
Fear on the part of some producers of being cited for water quality violations if they allowed fed-
eral and state agencies on their farms
Lack of interest by absentee landowners in investing in their land
Economic hardship due to three droughts during the project period (Sanders et al., 1991)
4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs
Excellent because of 1) awareness by producers of the connection between their practices and the
water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and 2) the personal investment made by farmers in the
BMPs.
4.3.6 Land Treatment
4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design
Major emphasis was placed on prevent at ive measures and management of the soil resource which
directly affected water quality in order to make the project more cost- effective. For exam-
ple, the concept of diverting fresh water around a livestock area as well as the proper han-
dling of animal wastes inside the facility was considered in all applicable plans. Preventing
the displacement of soil particles in a water course was emphasized over collecting it down-
stream.
4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals
Objective:
Reduce the agriculturally generated pollutant load in the watershed
Goals:
Have an acreage equal to 50% of the critical area under contract by the end of the third
year of the project
Treat cropland with conservation tillage and grassed waterways, and improve procedures
for animal waste storage and field application
250
-------
Double Pipe Creek RCWP, Maryland
4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application
Criteria:
Distance from major streams
Size of farm operation (especially size of livestock herd)
Present conservation status
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used in the Project
The general scheme was to treat cropland with conservation tillage and install grassed wa-
terways; build waste storage structures for critical animal operations; and spread manure
based on soil tests.
There has been a significant shift in BMP emphasis to conservation tillage without RCWP
funding in the project area.
BMPs Utilized in the Project * Project Accomplishments
Permanent vegetative cover (BMP 1) 252 acres
Animal waste management system (BMP 2) 100 systems
Stripcropping system (BMP 3) 2,031 acres
Diversion system (BMP 5) 12,287 feet
Grazing land protection system (BMP 6) 84 systems
Waterway system (BMP 7) 213,148 feet
Stream protection system (BMP 10) 22 systems
Permanent vegetative cover on critical areas (BMP 11) 14 acres
Fertilizer management (BMP 15) 26 contracts
Pesticide management (BMP 16) 28 contracts
*Please refer to Appendix I for description/purpose of BMPs.
Source: Sanders et al., 1991
4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring & Tracking Program
4.3.6.5.1 Description
ASCS reported BMP implementation by units and cost share earned. Animal waste produc-
tion, major crops, average yields, and fertilizer and pesticide use were also reported.
Maintenance was tracked by SCS through annual status reviews of farms.
Land use was not tracked. There were few major land use changes in the project area dur-
ing the RCWP project period (for example, cropland to residential or woodland); how-
ever, significant changes in rotation, contouring, and strip cropping did occur.
4.3.6.5.2 Data Management
Data were maintained by ASCS and SCS.
No geographic information system or other mapping was used.
251
-------
Double Pipe Creek RCWP, Maryland
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results
Quantified Project Achievements:
Pollutant Project Area *
Source Units Total Implemented
Cropland acres 72,930 19,847
Pasture acres 13,464 6,466
Dairies # NA 102
Feedlots # NA 37
Poultry Farms # NA 5
Contracts # 235 140
* Data not available for critical area only
Sources: Double Pipe Creek RCWP Project, 1990 (form RCWP 3), Sanders et al., 1991,
and personal communication from E. Schaeffer, County Executive Director, Carroll
County ASCS.
Treatment has exceeded goals for cropland and livestock operations.
The installation of BMPs in the basin resulted in an estimated reduction of in-field soil ero-
sion from cropland of 25,646 tons per year and the storage of 99,919 tons of manure per
year by 1989. Based on a calculated average erosion rate of 9.6 tons of soil per acre of
cropland for the basin, the net reduction of in-field soil erosion from cropland is approxi-
mately 4%. Based on the livestock population numbers for 1989, the net quantity of ma-
nure stored increased by 28%. The reduction in soil erosion and the increase in manure
stored can be converted into pounds of N and P using the conversion factors of 1.1 pounds
of P/ton and 5.4 pounds of N per ton for soil and 1.3 pounds of P per ton and 7.0 pounds
of N per ton for manure. The net reduction of nutrients available from eroded soil and ma-
nure as a result of the implementation of BMPs was 13% for both N and P. (McCoy and
Summers, 1992)
4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design
The water quality monitoring program had two elements. The first element was designed to detect
long-term changes in water quality. The second element was a before/after study to measure
the effectiveness of a specific set of BMPs. (McCoy and Summers, 1992)
Conducted in two phases by Versar, Inc. (1982 -1985) and by the Maryland Department of the
Environment (1987 -1992)
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals
Establish a baseline water quality data base for evaluating BMP effectiveness at the watershed
and field levels by comparing storm event water quality data from a pre-treatment period
with data from a post-treatment period
Determine the project's impacts on turbidity levels and fecal coliform levels in Big Pipe Creek
Provide sufficient data to design a long-term monitoring program in the area
4.3.7.3 Time Frame
Phase I - Baseline Monitoring: 1982-1985
Phase II - Final Monitoring: 1987-1992
252
-------
Double Pipe Creek RCWP, Maryland
4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme
4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations
Baseline:
Big Pipe Creek at the Bruceville U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauge no. 01639500
(50% of project area drainage above this site)
3 sites (Schwartzbeck, Stambaugh, Divers farms) monitoring effects of BMPs to treat
animal waste, animal waste and erosion, and erosion
Final Monitoring:
Big Pipe Creek at Bruceville
1 site (Lease farm) monitoring effect of BMPs to treat animal waste runoff
4.3.7.4.2 Sample Type
Automated, flow-proportional composite over the duration of each storm event (all sites)
4.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency
2-3 storm events per season (8-12 per year) plus some base flow (all sites)
Baseflow samples collected monthly at the Lease farm and Bruceville site
4.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed
(all sites) total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrite-nitrogen (NCh-N), nitrate-nitrogen (NOs-
N), ammonia-nitrogen (NHs-N), total phosphorus (TP), orthophosphate (OP), total sus-
pended solids (TSS), total organic carbon (TOC), fecal coliform (FC) and total coliform
(TC) bacteria
4.3.7.4.5 Row Measurement
Continuous flow over the duration of each storm event sampled
Stream gauge at watershed outlet station
H-type flumes for runoff at three baseline farm sites
24" culvert at Lease farm site
4.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements
Precipitation gauge at one farm site
4.3.7.4.7 Other Important Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information
None
253
-------
Double Pipe Creek RCWP, Maryland
4.3.7.5 Data Management
All data have been compiled into a single data base and verified by the Maryland Department of
the Environment as part of the state of Maryland's Trend Monitoring Network.
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results
Analysis:
The strategy was originally planned as a collection and analysis of before and after water
quality data using a step trend. This design was modified in 1987 due to inadequate pre-
project data. A decision was made at that time to utilize parametric linear trend analysis.
The following statistical tests were performed on three data bases from the first phase
(base flow concentrations, storm flow concentration, and storm flow loadings): 1) paramet-
ric: one-way ANOVA, two-way ANOVA, and Scheffe's Multiple Range Test to deter-
mine differences between sites, groups of sites, seasons, and storms classified by quantity
of precipitation and 2) non-parametric: Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA (test for skewed
data sets), Median Test (test of medians for skewed data sets).
The whole data base was analyzed for trends by regressing the log (concentration) against
time and time . A second analysis was performed which adjusted for the effects of flow
and seasoa Specifically, this second analysis involved a two-step process where the re-
siduals from the regression of the log (concentration) against flow (flow ) and season (sin
and cos) were generated and then these residuals were regressed against time and time '
Results:
Water quality monitoring data (1981 through 1990) indicate improved water quality in Big
Pipe Creek. Concentrations of ammonia and total organic carbon decreased. Total nitro-
gen and nitrate-nitrite nitrogen concentrations increased during the project period.
The specific goals of meeting the state standards for turbidity and fecal coliform were not
met (Sanders et al., 1991; McCoy and Summers, 1992). Monitoring data indicate that the
standard for fecal coliform is regularly exceeded in the creek. The turbidity standard was
exceeded several times between 1982 and 1990 (McCoy and Summers, 1992).
The project increased the storage of animal waste in the basin by approximately 99,919
tons per year, thus decreasing the quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus readily available
from manure for transport to the stream system by 28%. Decreasing trends in NH4 and
TOC concentrations may indicate that less manure is being washed off the land surface,
since NHU and TOC are major manure runoff constituents (McCoy and Summers, 1992).
It has been estimated that the project has reduced the quantity of nutrients available for ex-
port from soil erosion and manure application in the basin by approximately 13%. The
13% reduction has not shown up in the PO4 and TP constituent trends because 13%
change is too slight to be statistically detected given the large natural variability in PO4
and TP concentrations with changes in river flow (McCoy and Summers, 1992).
Similarly, the project team estimated that soil erosion has been reduced by 25,646
tons/year (4% reduction). This reduction has not shown up in TSS constituent trends be-
cause the magnitude of the change is too small to be statistically detected given the vari-
ability of TSS concentrations with storm events (McCoy and Summers, 1992).
254
-------
Double Pipe Creek RCWP, Maryland
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results (continued)
Results (continued):
The increasing trend in nitrate-nitrite nitrogen, which leads to a corresponding increase in
total nitrogen, indicates that the soluble forms of nitrogen are leaching through the system.
A variety of factors are probably contributing to the observed increase in nitrate-nitrite ni-
trogen. The increased use of conservation tillage in the region over the last 15 years may
have increased infiltration and thus increased the leaching of soluble chemicals into the
ground water. The increased storage of animal waste reduces nitrogen losses to the atmos-
phere and to streams through direct runoff. However, storage of animal waste does result
in more manure being applied to the fields, which increases the potential for leaching. The
proper timing of manure applications and die incorporation of applied manure also re-
duces atmospheric losses of nitrogen and increases the quantity of nitrogen being applied.
Increased atmospheric deposition of nitrogen and increasing numbers of residences with
septic systems also contribute to the nitrogen load increases (McCoy and Summers, 1992).
4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
Changes in the water quality monitoring program in mid-project made it difficult for the project to
document a link between land treatment and water quality changes. Meteorological conditions (sev-
eral severe droughts) also made the establishment of such a linkage difficult.
None of the BMPs used in association with the RCWP project appear to have been effective in reduc-
ing fecal conform densities in Big Pipe Creek. Additional work is required to determine what prac-
tices are effective in reducing fecal coliform densities. (McCoy and Summers, 1992)
4.3.9 Impact of Other Federal Programs on the Project
Approximately 75% of the land in Carroll County is highly credible based on the 1985 Farm Bill cri-
teria. The emphasis placed by the law on establishing conservation plans on farms whose owners
wanted to participate in government programs had a positive effect on the willingness of farmers to
participate in the RCWP and eventually on the water quality of the project area. (Sanders et al., 1991)
By helping farmers focus on the need for a farm conservation plan, the Wheat and Feed Grain Pro-
gram helped encourage farmers to implement BMPs contracted for under the RCWP.
The Maryland Agriculture Land Preservation Program complemented the effects of the Double Pipe
Creek RCWP project. In order for a farm to be accepted into the state program, a conservation plan
must be developed when easement rights are sold to the state. Since 1980, 21,473 acres of farmland
in the Double Pipe Creek project area have been accepted into the program. The program has thus en-
abled many farmers to remain in fanning and at the same time, the Agriculture Land Preservation
Program has contributed to unproved water quality (Sanders et al., 1991).
255
-------
Double Pipe Creek RCWP, Maryland
4.3.10 Other Pertinent Information
None
4.3.11 References
A complete list of project documents and other relevant publications may be found in Appendix IV.
Greene, D.L. 1992. Diversity of I&E Efforts Help Obtain Goals for Double Pipe Creek RCWP, In
The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium, Ten Years of Controlling Agricultural Non-
point Source Pollution: The RCWP Experience, September 13 - 17, 1992, Orlando, Florida,
EPA/625/R-92/006, p. 313-319.
McCoy, J.L. and R.M. Summers. 1992. Water Quality Trends in Big Pipe Creek During the Double
Pipe Creek Rural Clean Water Project, In The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium,
Ten Years of Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution: The RCWP Experience, Septem-
ber 13 - 17, 1992, Orlando, Florida, EPA/625/R-92/006, p. 181-191.
Sanders, J.H., D. Valentine, E. Schaeffer, D. Greene, J. McCoy. 1991. Double Pipe Creek Rural
Clean Water Program Ten Year Report. Cooperators: USDA-SCS, USDA-ASCS, University of
Maryland Cooperative Extension Service, Maryland Department of the Environment, and the Car-
roll Soil Conservation District. 122p.
Schaeffer, E. A. 1992. Farmer Participation in the Double Pipe Creek Rural Clean Water Program, In
The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium, Ten Years of Controlling Agricultural Non-
point Source Pollution: The RCWP Experience, September 13 -17, 1992, Orlando, Florida,
EPA/625/R- 92/006, p. 269-272.
256
-------
Double Pipe Creek RCWP, Maryland
4.3.12 Project Contacts
Administration
Mavis Robertson, Carroll County ASCS
1004 Littlestown Pike Suite C
Westminster, MD 21157
(410) 848-2780
Water Quality
John McCoy, Water Management Administration,
Maryland Department of the Environment
2500 Broening Hwy.
Baltimore, MD 21224
(301) 631-3681
Land Treatment
John Sanders/Douglas Valentine, Carroll County SCS
1004 Littlestown Pike, Suite B-l
Westminster, MD 21157
(410) 848-6696
Information and Education
David Greene, Carroll County Cooperative Extension Service
University of Maryland
700 Agriculture Center
Westminster, MD 21157
(410) 848-4611
257
-------
LEGEND
• monitoring station
critical area boundary
---- subbasinboundary
project boundary
Figure 4.11: Westport River (Massachusetts) RCWP project map, MA-1.
258
-------
Massachusetts
Westport River
(RCWP15)
Bristol County
MLRA: R-145
HUC: 010900-04
4.1 Project Synopsis
The Westport River project is located in southeastern Massachusetts. The Westport River is an estuary containing
shellfish resources of significant commercial value (bay scallops, oysters, hard and soft shell clams). The
watershed/project area (47,000 acres) contained 15 dairy farms on which large numbers of cows were kept on
extremely small acreages immediately adjacent to the estuary. Although a number of farms have gone out of business
since the beginning of the RCWP project, the number of dairy cows in the critical area has actually increased.
The primary water quality problem was identified as bacterial contamination from animal sources. Additional sources
of coliform bacteria entering the estuary include urban stormwater runoff, poorly maintained and leaking septic tanks
located in the rapidly-growing residential developments also located in the watershed, and some small point sources.
The lack of data demonstrating the proportion of the water quality problem being caused by each of these sources
was problematic for the project.
The Westport River estuary has been completely or conditionally closed to shellfishing since 1980. The river was
closed to shellfishing in its entirety during parts of the summer of 1991. The permanently closed shellfishing area
has decreased in size during the project period. A larger rain event is now required before shellfish beds are closed,
and the time period between a storm and the re-opening of the beds has been shortened from eight to five rain-free
days.
The objective of the project was to implement agricultural BMPs on dairy farms in order to decrease coliform bacteria
counts in the Westport River so that shellfish areas in the estuarine portions of the river could be reopened for
commercial and recreational harvesting. This objective was not met.
The critical area (473 acres) was defined as all agricultural land within the project area. In 1986, the critical area
was redefined to include additional dairy farms adjacent to the East Branch of the Westport River and tributaries.
Eight dairies were thus ultimately included in the critical area. The best management practice (BMP) emphasis was
placed on animal waste management systems for dairy farms in the critical area.
Few BMPs were actually implemented. Acres treated included 24 acres of pasture planting and 100 acres of crop
and hay land on which contractual agreements were signed requiring avoidance of manure spreading on areas which
would contribute significant unfiltered runoff to the river. Of eight dairy farms located hi the critical area, one
contracted for RCWP cost share funds. Two other farms outside the critical area were contracted.
A water quality and shellfish monitoring program was conducted with sample collection handled by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Soil Conservation Service (SCS); analysis was conducted by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration's (FDA) Shellfish Sanitation Branch The water quality monitoring program was unable
to demonstrate any improvements in water quality as a result of BMP implementation through the RCWP project.
The data collected in this project contributed to the demonstration of the importance of rainfall events on the bacterial
loadings hi the Westport River. This information allowed the state to establish conditional openings and closings of
the shellfish growing areas based on the amount of rainfall.
259
-------
Westport River RCWP, Massachusetts
4.1 Project Synopsis (continued)
Although several valuable lessons were learned from this project, a variety of factors limited its success in addressing
the water quality problem and documenting a link between land treatment and water quality improvements. These
factors included: 1) the severity of the water quality/land use situation, with huge numbers of dairy cows on extremely
small acreages immediately adjacent to an estuary; 2) poor inter-agency cooperation and communication; 3) lack of
strong leadership within the farm community, within the local inter-agency team, and at the state level; 4) the dismal
economic situation of dairy farmers in the northeastern United States during the project period; 5) the effects of a
state (Purchase of Development Rights) program which, though positive in assisting fanners to stay in farming, failed
to require adoption of BMPs aimed at water quality protection; 6) high SCS staff turnover at the local level; 7) failure
to involve the community in the choice and designing of the RCWP project, and the consequent lack of community
support for the project; 8) lack of community consensus that the dairy farms were the major source of the bacteria
entering the estuary; 9) a possible lack of flexibility in the designing of BMPs suitable to address the problem and
affordable for producers; 10) difficulties with the water quality monitoring program and in linking land treatment
with water quality changes (both because of significant land use changes during the project and because of lack of
funds and involvement in the monitoring program by the state water quality agency); and 11) a weak information
and education program.
This project illustrates the important lesson that projects must be initiated and supported by the local community if
they are to have any chance of succeeding.
A major result and success of this project is a new approach to farm visits developed by the local USDA agencies
in which staff of both the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) and SCS now routinely visit
farms together to work on a variety of programs and projects. In this way, inter-agency cooperation and
communication has been strengthened and messages received by farmers from the local agencies are now uniform.
(The Cooperative Extension Service (CES) no longer has an extension agent in the county due to severe statewide
funding cutbacks.) The RCWP project also served as the first step in a process to forge a spirit of cooperation
between the fishing and farming portions of the Westport area community.
4.2 Project Findings, Recommendations, and Successes
4.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals
4.2.1.1 Findings and Successes
The community was not involved in the definition of the RCWP project and its objectives and
goals. As a result, consensus about both the need for the project and the source of the prob-
lem were lacking among the general community, the dairy farming community, and the local
agencies involved in the project. This lack of consensus resulted in poor participation by pro-
ducers.
Inadequate documentation of the source of the water quality problem contributed to the project's
inability to meet the stated objectives and goals.
This project involved a complex nonpoint source problem in that the dairy fanning operations
were almost exclusively feedlot operations. The small size of the farms meant that most farm-
ers were using their land only to house dairy cows and were buying feed as opposed to grow-
ing it For this reason, farmers were not highly concerned about utilizing the manure
productively. The waste generated presented a disposal problem rather than a resource for on-
farm utilization. In cases where on-farm nutrients exceed crop needs, mechanisms for mar-
keting and exporting manure should be considered as part of an experimental water quality
project.
Projects in areas with high animal densities should consider means for encouraging reductions in
animal densities, exporting manure out of watersheds, and land use changes to reduce water
pollution.
260
-------
Westport River RCWP, Massachusetts
4.2.1.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
This project might have been more successful if funds had been available to address all of the pol-
lutant sources affecting the estuary rather than just the agricultural sources. As the project
was structured and handled, the fanning community felt unfairly singled out as polluters of
the estuary.
4.2.1.2 Recommendations
Funds should be available for pre-proposal assessment and planning: identifying the problem, its
causes, alternatives, educating the community about the water quality problem, and develop-
ing a broad base of support for the project.
There must be agreement on what the problem is and the approach to be taken to reduce or elimi-
nate the problem. Ideally, this consensus would be reached prior to submission of the pro-
posal. If this is not possible, the time necessary to reach consensus should be invested prior
to beginning the project.
The source of the water quality problem must be clearly defined and documented, and all relevant
agencies and the public must be in agreement about the principal source of the problem.
When the source of the water quality problem is not clearly defined, different sectors of the
community may tend to blame the pollution on other sectors, detracting from the goal of re-
ducing the problem.
There appears to have been a particularly strong emphasis at the state level (which affected the lo-
cal project) on keeping on schedule and demonstrating progress. This translated into extreme
pressure on agency personnel to get as many contracts signed as possible. The result was an
emphasis on getting any BMPs the farmer was willing to contract for installed, without re-
quiring that the plan address the total needs of the farm for water quality- related BMPs or be
cost-effective. In addition, this pressure resulted in a broadening of eligibility criteria for the
project in order to present the appearance of success. Instead of addressing the core problems
of the project, this progress-oriented approach and pressure seems to have been counter-pro-
ductive. There is a strong need for the clear establishment of interim objectives accompanied
by sufficient time to allow for proper evaluation to take place.
4.2.2 Project Management and Administration
4.2.2.1 Rndings and Successes
Cooperation and coordination among all agencies (federal, state, local) is critical. The definition
of each agency's role within the project must be acceptable to all the agencies.
This project might have benefited from the presence of an effective project coordinator accepted
by all the agencies.
Stronger leadership on the state level might have helped this project get off to a stronger start or
to carry out mid-course corrections.
Joint visits to farms by the local USDA agencies help provide a united presentation and approach
to any project or program and a way to improve inter-agency cooperatioa In Massachusetts,
local ASCS and SCS personnel now routinely visit farms together to work on a variety of pro-
grams or projects.
4.2.2.2 Recommendations
Community involvement in the choice and design of a watershed project prior to submission of a
proposal is key. Also, all relevant agencies need to be involved in the choice of project and
submission of proposal. In this way, the chances that the entire professional and public com-
munity will support the project and be ready to participate once it is funded are enhanced
Development of a comprehensive approach integrating all programs and issues related to the prob-
lem is important. Everybody should have a role. Such plans take time to develop (one to two
years pre-proposal funding).
261
-------
Westport River RCWP, Massachusetts
4.2.3 Information and Education
4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes
There was a significant lack of consensus among the three local agencies (SCS, ASCS, CES) in-
volved in the RCWP project about the importance of the project, the major source of the coli-
form problem, and the value of the BMPs being recommended to producers. Mixed messages
sent to producers by different agencies presented a major barrier to the success of the project.
Information and education was not a strong component of this project, at least partly because of
the weak position of the CES in the state. There is, for example, no longer an extension
agent assigned to the county or area due to budget cuts. In addition, project team members re-
ported that there was a CES policy that extension agents were to visit farms only upon invita-
tion by the producer. Thus, one-to-one contact initiated by the extension agent apparently did
not occur.
4.2.3.2 Recommendations
Resolution of differences of opinion about the approach being taken in a water quality project
must occur prior to initiation of the project. State-level agency staff should take the lead in
ensuring that objectives, goals, roles, and approaches are clear and that there is no disagree-
ment about them at the local level. This clarification should take place as the project is devel-
oped and prior to implementation. Cooperation and coordination among all agencies in
implementing the project is critical to success.
4.2.4 Producer Participation
4.2.4.1 Findings and Successes
Participation in this project was poor. The success of experimental water quality projects like the
RCWP depends heavily on the producers' attitudes and willingness to implement BMPs. Fac-
tors contributing to limited participation included: 1) the precarious economic situation of
dairy farmers during the project period; 2) the effects of other federal and state programs
(see section 4.3.9); 3) the effects of the residential development in the area during the project
period, which tended to make farmers think they could sell their farms at a huge profit, de-
creasing their motivation to invest in them); 4) conflicting messages received from the three
local agencies relating to the importance of the project, the major source of the bacteria prob-
lem (residential versus agricultural), and the value of the recommended BMPs; and 5) lack of
trust in the local SCS staff due primarily to extremely high staff turnover and possibly to cul-
tural differences.
4.2.4.2 Recommendations
The messages sent to producers by the local agencies implementing a water quality project must
be consistent and uniform.
Economic factors must be considered when choosing and designing a water quality project. BMP
installation must be perceived by the farmer as either economically profitable or economi-
cally sustainable. When these conditions are not met, farmers will not be motivated to adopt
practices.
The farm community must be involved in the choice of the project, definition of the water quality
problem, and definition of project objectives and goals.
Incentives for fanners to participate in a project must be designed so as to outweigh other factors
tending to motivate farmers not to participate, such as incentives to sell their land to the high-
est bidder in areas where rapid residential development is occurring.
262
-------
Westport River RCWP, Massachusetts
4.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes
Technical solutions to water quality problems must be perceived by the producer as practical,
workable, economically supportable, and advantageous.
The RCWP was designed as an experimental program; however, in several projects the BMPs im-
plemented were primarily traditional soil conservation practices. There needs to be more
flexibility in the selection and modification of practices and the use of the funds to respond to
local conditions. In the case of the Massachusetts RCWP project, more innovation and experi-
mentation in the approach to land treatment as well as an effort to look beyond on-farm
BMPs to the development of a community initiated and supported area-wide solution to the
manure disposal problem might have been a more productive approach to reducing the NFS
problem.
Joint visits to farms by the local USDA agencies help provide a united presentation and approach
to any project or program and one way to work toward better inter-agency cooperation. In
Massachusetts, local ASCS and SCS personnel now routinely visit farms together to work on
a variety of programs or projects.
The unique characteristics of the Massachusetts project area (large dairy herds on extremely small
acreages adjacent to a major shellfishing resource) might have required different use of the
project funds than was allowable under the RCWP. For example, if the farms could have
been documented through monitoring to be contributing a large proportion of the coliform
count in the river, it might have been more effective to spend more funds on only a few high-
impact farms, given the economically marginal situation of the dairy business and the reluc-
tance of the producers to commit themselves to their portion of the cost of BMP
implementatioa
Success of the implementation program depends heavily on the producers' attitudes and willing-
ness to implement BMPs.
During the early years of the project, construction costs in Massachusetts were extremely high as
residential development was booming. This diminished the value of the $50,000 payments
available to farmers and tended to increase the total cost of BMP installation at a time when
milk prices were very low.
More emphasis on fencing and streamside buffers might have been helpful.
4.2.5.2 Recommendations
The choice of BMPs must be appropriate both to the land use/water quality situation and to the
economic situation. BMP installation must be perceived by the farmer as either economically
profitable or economically sustainable.
4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes
The source of the water quality problem must be clearly defined and all relevant agencies and the
public must be in agreement about the source of the problem.
This project would have benefited from technical oversight and planning by a water quality spe-
cialist specifically assigned responsibility for the project's water quality monitoring program.
Monitoring bacteria concentrations from multiple sources including point and nonpoint sources is
extremely difficult. Meteorological events, slope, and soil type were especially critical vari-
ables within the Westport River watershed.
On several of the principal tributaries there exists sufficient distance between sources that it ap-
pears possible to isolate their respective effects. More discrete sampling couples with BMPs
might have been sufficient to document reductions in loadings as a result of land treatment.
263
-------
Westport River RCWP, Massachusetts
4.2.6.1 Rndings and Successes (continued)
The sampling grid along the tributaries would have benefited by more discrete sampling along the
tributary lengths to better isolate the sources and their relative significance. Establishment of
hydrographs for each of the streams could have been useful in developing loading curves to
convert the estimates from strictly measurements of concentration to mass loadings. The use
of dyes to highlight sources would also help in focusing land treatment efforts on specific
problem areas.
Newer technologies, such as gene probes, used to differentiate between human and animal bacte-
ria in water might have helped resolve the lack of consensus about the source of the coliform
bacteria problem.
4.2.6.2 Recommendations
Funds must be made available for water quality monitoring. Such funds can help encourage the
active participation of state water quality agencies. Involvement of the state water quality
agency in selection of the project and preparation of the proposal is also important as an ef-
fort to ensure state agency commitment to the project.
4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
4.2.7.1 Findings and Successes
Because of limited BMP implementation in this project, as well as significant land use changes
during the project period, it was not possible to establish a link between land treatment and
water quality.
4.2.7.2 Recommendations
None
4.3 Project Description
4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame
General RCWP
1981 -1991
4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions
4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality
4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size
Westport River, the lower portion of which is an estuary of commercial and recreational
shellfishing importance. Wetlands and lakes in the upper section of the watershed drain
into the West Branch of the Westport River.
4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments
Ponds in the project area are used for recreation (limited to local residents) and for munici-
pal water supply. The Westport River estuary supports commercial shellfishing (average
of $425,000 annually from 1980-1984, $2,671,000 in 1985 due to extremely high scallop
harvest), and public recreation.
The main use impairment is the closure of shellfishing beds in the estuary due to bacterial
contaminatioa Other impaired uses include boating, contact recreation, and fishery.
264
-------
Westport River RCWP, Massachusetts
4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement
Bacterial contamination is the major water quality problem in the Westport River. Dairy
wastes are the major source of bacterial contamination. Other suspected sources are road
runoff, septic systems, and waterfowl. Much of the Westport River East Branch is perma-
nently closed or conditionally closed to shellfishing due to this contamination.
4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals
Decrease coliform bacteria counts in the Westport River through the implementation of ag-
ricultural BMPs on dairy farms so that shellfish areas in the estuarine portions of the river
could be reopened for commercial and recreational harvesting
4.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics
4.3.2.2.1 Watershed Area: 47,000 acres
Project Area: 47,000 acres
Critical Area: 473 acres
4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors
Mean Annual Precipitation: 39.8 inches
Geologic Factors: The project is located in the central lowland section of the New Eng-
land Physiographic Province. Topography is gently rolling. Soils are loamy and moder-
ately to well drained. Substrata are compact and permeability is slow. The surface
drainage pattern is a series of wetland areas connected by a system of streams and the
river.
4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture
The project area agriculture consists primarily of small- acreage dairy farms housing high
numbers of cows on land located immediately adjacent to the Westport River. Some pas-
ture and hay land is also located in the project area.
4.3.2.2.4 Land Use
Use % of Project Area % of Critical Area
Cropland 3 62
Pasture/range 10 38
Woodland 75
Urban/roads
Other 12
265
-------
Westport River RCWP, Massachusetts
4.3.2.2.5 Animal Operations
Operation # Farms
Dairy 15
Horses 1
Total #
Animals
1,250
5
Total Animal
Units
1,750
10
The number of dairy farms in the project area decreased during the project period due
primarily to the closure of farms as a result of both economically difficult times and by
the federal Dairy Termination Program (DTP). Five out of 15 dairy farms in the project area
went out of business during the project period due to buyout by the DTP. In addition, several other
farmers went out of business or sold their herds during the project period. However, the
number of animals in the critical area increased during the project period from
approximately 1250 in 1986 to approximately 1295 cows in 1990.
4.3.3 Total Project Budget
SOURCES Federal
ACTIVITY
Cost Share 205,523
Info. & Ed. 10,350
Tech. Asst. 203,590
Water Quality
Monitoring NA
SUM 419,463
State
0
0
500
NA
500
Fanner
152,661
0
0
0
152,661
Other
0
500
0
SUM
358,184
10,850
204,090
0
500
NA
$573,124
* Total does not include costs of water quality monitoring conducted by U. S. Food and Drug
Administration, Shellfish Sanitation Branch and state water quality agency
Source: Westport River RCWP Project, 1992
4.3.4 Information and Education
4.3.4.1 Strategy
The information and education (I&E) program was designed to convince farmers that by partici-
pating in the RCWP program they would not be admitting to contributing to the water quality
problem and that implementing BMPs would be economically feasible and advantageous to
them.
4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals
Objectives of the I & E program were to generate public awareness and support for the program,
provide direct contact with all farmers in the project area, and provide educational programs
related to alternative farm management practices. These objectives were to be accomplished
through client counseling, fact sheets, field days, and demonstration tours. (Westport River
RCWP Project Local Coordinating Committee, 1991)
There was a significant lack of consensus on the part of the local agencies as to the value of the
project and the BMPs being recommended.
266
-------
Westport River RCWP, Massachusetts
4.3.4.3 Program Components
Clientele counseling
BMP seminar
Fact sheets on the project
Field day
Demonstration plots
Updating of town officials on the progress of the project
4.3.5 Producer Participation
4.3.5.1 Level of Participation
Participation was poor due to a combination of factors outlined in 4.1 (Project Synopsis), 4.2
(Project Findings, Recommendations, and Successes), and 4.3.5.3 (Barriers to Participation).
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation
Cost share rates (75%) and $50,000 RCWP payment limit were much higher than other federal
programs
Threat of state regulatory action
Threats by the town of Westport Board of Health to shut down farms adjacent to the estuary
which were identified as the source of coliform bacteria
4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation
There was a significant lack of agreement on the need for, purpose, and goals of the project
within the inter-agency community, the fanning community, and the community at large.
In many cases, because of the economic situation of dairies during the project and the cost of the
recommended BMPs (especially roofed feedlots), the payment limitation of $50,000 per land-
owner served as a barrier to participation
High staff turnover in SCS technicians made it difficult for the agency to establish a good rapport
with the producers.
Lack of cooperation and coordination among the local agencies resulted in farmers receiving con-
flicting messages about the value of the project and of the appropriateness of particular ap-
proaches to the water quality problem.
Lack of farm community leadership and the absence of an organization with financial leverage,
such as the Tillamook Creamery Association in the Oregon RCWP project, to bring pressure
on producers to participate in the RCWP project
Lack of an economic incentive to change management of animal waste
4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs
Fair to poor given the minimal participation in the project. Also, maintenance appears unlikely be-
cause of large increases in herd numbers (on the same acreage) since the beginning of the pro-
ject period. BMPs designed for 250 cows may not be continued on farms that have increased
animal numbers up to 650, as occurred on one farm. Practices that benefit the operation eco-
nomically will be maintained.
267
-------
Westport River RCWP, Massachusetts
4.3.6 Land Treatment
4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design
The strategy was to work with dairy fanners whose operations abutted the river in order to imple-
ment waste management BMPs that would reduce runoff of animal wastes into the river.
Originally, soil erosion was also considered to be a problem and the project team planned to
address sedimentation by implementing BMPs on 1,715 acres of agricultural land adjacent to
the estuary.
4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals
Implement animal waste management practices in order to decrease coliform bacteria levels in the
Westport River estuary
Quantified implementation goal was to contract with all 8 dairies in critical area and to treat all
agricultural land within the critical area (293 acres of cropland and 180 acres of pasture)
4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application
Originally, the entire Westport River watershed was defined as the critical area. In 1986 the pro-
ject redefined the critical area, focusing on eight dairy farms, a major source of bacterial con-
taminatioa
Application of Criteria: Participation within the critical area was poor. Practices were imple-
mented and cost shared outside the critical area.
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used
The main BMP emphasis was on animal waste management system (BMP 2).
BMPs Utilized in the Project * Project Accomplishments
Permanent vegetative cover (BMP 1)
Pasture and hayland planting 24 acres
Animal waste management system (BMP 2)
Heavy use area protection 2 systems
Waste management system 3 systems
Waste storage structures 3 structures
Roofing for runoff control 2 (partially completed)
Diversion system (BMP 5) 1 system
Waterway system (BMP 7) 200 feet
Lined waterway 370 feet
Grassed waterway 100 feet
* Please refer to Appendix I for description/purpose of BMPs.
Source: Westport River RCWP Project Local Coordinating Committee, 1991.
4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring & Tracking Program
4.3.6.5.1 Description
Cost shared BMPs were reported in terms of acres treated by year in the critical area in
RCWP annual progress reports.
268
-------
Westport River RCWP, Massachusetts
4.3.6.5.2 Data Management
Land use was monitored by SCS personnel based on numbers of animals on each farm.
BMP installation was reported in descriptive text and on a percent complete basis. Imple-
mentation was tracked via annual status reviews including a visit to each farm.
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results
Quantified Project Achievements (as of 1990):
Critical Area
Treatment Goals
Pollutant
Source
Cropland
Pasture
Dairies
Feedlots
Horses
Contracts
Units
acres
acres
# farms
# farms
# farms
#
lolal
293
180
8
8
1
8
% Implemented loiaL
34%
13%
13%
13%
0%
13%
293
180
8
8
1
8
% Implemented
34%
13%
13%
13%
0%
13%
Sources:
Westport River RCWP Project Local Coordinating Committee, 1988 (form RCWP 3)
Westport River RCWP Project Local Coordinating Committee, 1991 (form RCWP 3)
4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design
The water quality monitoring program was aimed at sampling bacterial variables in the tributaries
and the estuary. Sample collection was conducted by the USDA - Soil Conservation Service.
Analysis of the samples was handled by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Shellfish
Sanitation Branch.
In 1986, a survey was conducted between September 20 and October 10, during which a total of
seven samples were taken and analyzed for salinity, fecal strep, and fecal coliform. Tempera-
ture was measured and E. coli was included in this list for the fresh water runoff. After this
survey, sampling returned to the original scheme.
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals
The objective of the water quality monitoring and evaluation program was to establish a data set
of water quality variables sufficient to document water quality conditions before, during, and
after implementation of BMPs in order to evaluate their effectiveness.
4.3.7.3 Time Frame
1982 - 1986
269
-------
Westport River RCWP, Massachusetts
4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme
4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations
9 along the fresh water tributaries
1 in the tidal estuary
4.3.7.4.2 Sample Type
Grab
4.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency
6-10 times annually
4.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed
Temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), total carbon (TC), fecal coliform (FC), fecal
streptococci (FS), chloride, total solids (TS), dissolved solids (DS), suspended solids (SS),
nitrite-nitrogen (N02-N), nitrate-nitrogen (NOs-N), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammo-
nia-nitrogen (NHs-N), total phosphorus (TP), dissolved phosphorus (DP) (all phosphorus
present after passing through 0.45 micron filter), conductivity, total alkalinity
4.3.7.4.5 Flow Measurement
Discharge
4.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements
Precipitation: 2 gauges
4.3.7.4.7 Other Important Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information
None
4.3.7.5 Data Management
The data are managed locally.
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results
Trend Analysis: Comparison of annual log means and medians of total coliform, fecal coliform,
and fecal strep at each station for 1985 vs. 1988. Number of samples varies with station, av-
eraging 6 in 1985 and 8 in 1988.
Geometric means were generated on the bacteria data along with fecal coliform to fecal strep ra-
tios to aid in determining source dominance (i.e., animal versus human) (L. Gil interview,
1991)
270
-------
Westport River RCWP, Massachusetts
4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
The project was unable to demonstrate water quality improvements due to BMP implementation.
4.3.9 Impact of Other Federal and State Programs on the Project
The federal Dairy Termination Program (DTP) had an impact on the project area, with five dairy
farms in the watershed closing from 1986-87 through this program. Although this program may have
appeared to have had a positive effect on the problem of too many animals on too little acreage, the
reality was that the total animal numbers in the project area did not decrease as a result of the DTP.
Although the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture's Purchase of Development Rights Program
(PDR) had a positive effect in assisting farmers to stay in farming, it worked against RCWP goals be-
cause it enabled the state to purchase development rights from farmers without requiring implementa-
tion of practices to reduce NFS pollution. In 1986, the PDR acquired development rights to five
farms in the project area; some of these farms were major violators of water quality standards.
4.3.10 Other Pertinent Information
The impact of the residential development boom in Massachusetts in the early 1980's was significant.
Land prices were very high and the idea that they could always sell their farm at a high price may
have caused farmers to be reluctant to make long-term financial investments in their dairies.
4.3.11 References
A complete list of project documents and other relevant publications may be found in Appendix IV.
Westport River RCWP Project Local Coordinating Committee. 1988. Plan of Work and Annual Pro-
gress Report. Westport, MA.
Westport River RCWP Project. 1992. Revised 10-Year Report - Westport. 7p.
Westport River RCWP Project Local Coordinating Committee. 1991. 10-Year Report. Westport, MA.
28p. plus appendixes.
4.3.12 Project Contacts
Administration
David Rose, Bristol County ASCS
84 Center Street
Dighton, MA 02715
(508) 669-6621
Water Quality
Larry Gil, Water Pollution Control
Department of Environmental Protection
1 Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 292-5884
Land Treatment
Leonard Reno, District Conservationist
SCS
21 Spring St.
Taunton, MA 02780
(508) 824-6668
Information and Education (None)
271
-------
0123
SCALE IN MILES
LENAWEE CO 91 MONROE CO
Rte. 12
LEGEND
• monitoring station
Macon Creek subbasin
—— project boundary
[=T71 town
Figure 4.12: Saline Valley (Michigan) RCWP project map, MI-1.
272
-------
Michigan
Saline Valley
(RCWP 9)
Washtenaw & Monroe Counties
MLRA: M-111 and L- 99
HUC: 041000-01
4.1 Project Synopsis
The Saline Valley is located in rural southeastern Michigan, an area of intensive agricultural production. Farms
average 210 acres in size and crops grown include corn, small grains, and soybeans. Small livestock operations are
present with a total of 9,600 livestock in the 76,600- acre project area. The project lies in Washtenaw and Monroe
counties and includes portions of the Saline River and Macon Creek watersheds. The terrain varies from flat to
small hills; flatter areas are poorly drained and have high water tables.
Excessive phosphorus (P) is the major water quality problem. The Saline Valley has been identified as having one
of the highest phosphorus loadings in southeast Michigan and as a contributor of excessive phosphorus to Lake Erie.
Soil erosion, sediment delivery, improper fertilizer management, and animal waste contribute to the problem.
The project objective was to reduce the amount of phosphorus entering the aquatic environment. The critical area
was defined as those areas where phosphorus easily enters the riverine system (42,428 acres), primarily cropland
but also containing 27 animal operations. Land treatment consisted mainly of conservation tillage, animal waste
management, and fertilizer management with goals of implementing best management practices (BMPs) on 32,241
acres and 25 animal operations using 225 contracts. About 45% of the critical area was eventually treated with
BMPS. It is uncertain if the BMPs will be continued by the producers beyond the end of the RCWP project.
Water quality monitoring suffered due to lack of funding, very low density of BMP implementation in the overly
large project area with poor coverage of any watershed or subbasin, and lack of pre-BMP implementation baseline
water quality data from the watersheds.
It was not possible to document water quality changes resulting from agricultural land treatment Declines in
phosphorus were observed in the Saline River, but were attributed to improved treatment at two municipal sewage
treatment plants and the elimination of one industrial discharge. Spot monitoring of ground water near an animal
waste storage facility indicated the presence of elevated concentrations of pollutants in the underlying ground water,
but such pollution has not posed a threat to water supplies.
The project lacked support, proper administration, cooperation, and coordination from the state level, especially in
its early stages. Water quality problems were never clearly defined, and the overall project lacked a comprehensive,
coordinated strategy of selecting a subbasin with the potential to document water quality improvements resulting
from land treatment.
Water quality monitoring was thorough and well-performed; however, meaningful results were not obtained due to
poor communication between state and local agencies and a failure to link efforts between the project's land treatment
and water quality monitoring teams.
273
-------
Saline Valley RCWP, Michigan
4.2 Project Findings, Recommendations, and Successes
4.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals
4.2.1.1 Findings and Successes
Program objectives were not clear, in part because the water quality problems were not clear and
impairment of uses were not documented.
The project area was much too large and not defined on a hydrological basis. The large size and
multiplicity of subbasins prevented the project team from conducting the intensive monitoring
necessary to document water quality improvements. The large size of the project area also
made it less likely that the high degree of BMP implementation necessary to measure water
quality improvements could be achieved.
Project goals of phosphorus reduction were unrealistic given the size of the project area and the
nature of agriculture in the area.
4.2.1.2 Recommendations
Project objectives of nonpoint source (NFS) control projects need to be well defined.
Water quality problems must be clearly defined and documented.
Project areas should be delineated on a hydrological basis. The preferred approach is to identify a
small subbasin with very cooperative producers so that a high degree of BMP implementation
can occur, thus enhancing the project team's ability to document measurable water quality im-
provements due to land treatment.
4.2.2 Project Management and Administration
4.2.2.1 Rndings and Successes
The roles of the agencies involved were not clearly defined initially. This lack of clear role defini-
tion occurred partly because of the lack of cooperation and communication among agencies
at the state level.
No personnel were assigned directly to the RCWP project (with the exception of an Extension in-
formation and education (I&E) agent); hence RCWP duties were added on to already full
schedules. Few employees could afford the time to become familiar with the RCWP program
and/or nonpoint source control principles.
Personnel turnover contributed to confusion and lack of direction in the project.
Innovation in procedures, methods, and land treatment practices was not supported. The lack of
support at the state level left hampered the Local Coordinating Committee (LCC) and the lo-
cal agency offices.
Some farmers encountered difficulties when participation in one program made them ineligible
for another program. Agencies could provide direction and information to assist producers
in choosing appropriate programs in which to participate. Concurrent programs need to be co-
ordinated to avoid conflicts, ineligibility, and confusion.
4.2.2.2 Recommendations
Agency roles should be clearly defined and specific personnel should be assigned, with sufficient
time, to carry out the program. All concurrent programs offered should be coordinated to
avoid conflicts.
Agencies should make provision for continuity in project activities and administration in case of
personnel turnover.
274
-------
Saline Valley RCWP, Michigan
4.2.2.2 Recommendations (continued)
Innovative techniques that enhance the acceptance and function of the project should be supported
and encouraged at the local and state levels. Such support has resulted in innovation and
great gains in developing nonpoint source program participation in other RCWP projects (for
example, see the project profile for the Conestoga Headwaters RCWP project, Pennsylva-
nia).
To speed planning and administration, cost sharing for BMP implementation should be based on a
set cost for each BMP rather than on a percentage of actual cost. The project staff could de-
termine a reasonable cost for the implementation of a BMP in their project area and the
amount of cost share funds required for the BMP. In this manner, the project could reason-
ably project the number of each BMPs it can support and the amount of activity for each
year.
4.2.3 Information and Education
4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes
The information and education (I&E) program was not established in advance of land treatment ef-
forts, resulting in much confusion about the purpose of the project and low participation.
Individual contacts were the most effective means for achieving producer participation. Demon-
stration plots, especially of conservation tillage techniques, were very effective in gaining co-
operation of producers.
4.2.3.2 Recommendations
I&E programs should be implemented well in advance of land treatment efforts. The I&E pro-
gram should use personnel known and trusted by producers, and should incorporate individ-
ual contacts and on-site demonstrations of new techniques.
Group meetings where producers can communicate with each other and view BMPs in place
should be planned.
4.2.4 Producer Participation
4.2.4.1 Findings and Successes
Producers were reluctant to participate due to economic pressures and lack of a documented
water quality problem.
The high cost of animal waste management systems deterred many operators from participating.
4.2.4.2 Recommendations
Smaller watersheds with documented water quality problems and cooperative producers should be
selected for nonpoint source control projects. High producer participation and thorough cov-
erage of the watershed with BMPs are necessary if water quality improvements are to be
documented.
Small watersheds with high participation can increase peer pressure on producers to participate in
a NPS control project.
Agency personnel should be well informed about the relevant water pollution problem so they can
help producers understand and recognize the problem.
Programs should appeal to producers' desires to conserve and protect soil and water and should
relate local successes in water quality improvements to demonstrate the benefits to the envi-
ronment.
275
-------
Saline Valley RCWP, Michigan
4.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation
4.2.5.1 Rndings and Successes
The original 200,000-acre project area was too large to achieve adequate BMP coverage with the
available cost share funding and technical assistance personnel.
BMP effects are best observed if monitoring focuses on smaller subbasins with a high level of
BMP implementation.
No priorities were set for implementing BMPs.
There were no methods to ensure that manure spreading plans were carried out or to ensure that
BMPs were continued.
It was difficult to get farmers to believe the results of soil analysis were meaningful and to incor-
porate recommended fertilizer application rates in their farming decisions.
Participating producers were scattered throughout the watersheds; many were very far from the
waterways. As a result, BMP implementation had little effect on the water quality.
4.2.5.2 Recommendations
NPS program managers should consider selecting smaller watersheds where a high degree of
BMP implementation can be obtained, tracked, and more easily evaluated.
Land treatment teams must set priorities for BMP implementation and develop methods to ensure
that plans are carried out by the cooperator. BMPs should be employed as systems to effect
the greatest reduction in pollutants. For example, to maximize the reduction of phosphorus
entering the water, both animal waste management and fertilizer management should be em-
ployed, in order to control both animal and crop sources of phosphorus.
4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.2.6.1 Rndings and Successes
Water quality monitoring was thorough and well- performed; however, meaningful results were
not obtained. This lack of documentable changes was due to a lack of severity of the water
quality problem, insufficient numbers and improperly located BMPs, poor communication be-
tween state and local agencies and a failure to link efforts between the project's land treat-
ment and water quality monitoring teams.
Monitoring was inconclusive as to the effect of land treatment on water quality.
Water quality monitoring was inadequately funded, poorly coordinated, and suffered from lack of
support from the state and federal levels. At the local level, the lack of funding and the inabil-
ity to obtain a solid experimental design hampered the monitoring effort.
4.2.6.2 Recommendations
Water quality problems need to be well defined at the commencement of the project.
Water quality monitoring should be administered/directed by technically trained staff in order to
develop a monitoring plan that can show results and is technically sound.
Selection of projects located in small watersheds can facilitate intensive monitoring. Possibilities
for monitoring designs and analytical techniques include paired watersheds, the before/after
approach on a single watershed, and time-trend analysis on a single watershed.
The national level program should develop guidance on water quality monitoring and evaluation
including details on monitoring and sampling protocols, location of stations, and statistical
analysis and provide adequate funding to carry out meaningful monitoring efforts.
276
-------
Saline Valley RCWP, Michigan
4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
4.2.7.1 Rndings and Successes
There was no planned effort to implement those BMPs which improved water quality in locations
where the water quality effects could be seen. Thus, the land treatment efforts were not
driven by the water quality results.
Records on BMP implementation had little information on locations of land treatment and there
was little follow-up on continuance of practices.
Participating producers were scattered throughout the watersheds; many were very far from the
waterways. As a result, BMP implementation had little effect on the water quality.
No real BMP effects on water quality have been documented. The project encountered confound-
ing factors such as low level of BMP implementation, difficulty in assessing the effects of the
subbasin areas in which BMPs were not implemented, large variations in sources and trans-
port of sediment and nutrients over time, and large variations in accuracy or meaningfulness
of estimates of the area in which BMPs were implemented.
4.2.7.2 Recommendations
Effective communication between the water quality monitoring and land treatment teams to guide
and direct land treatment based on monitoring results.
Projects should consider tying cost share funding to water quality monitoring results. Subbasins
in which producer participation is high and in which water quality improvements can be docu-
mented could become eligible for a second tier of cost share funding that would increase the
portion of costs borne by the project, reducing producer costs. This scheme could be used to
fund other items of interest to producers such as more advanced BMPs or technical training
in various aspects of agriculture and water pollution control.
4.3 Project Description
4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame
General RCWP
1980 - 1990
4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions
4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality
4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size
Streams and Saline River draining to Lake Erie
4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments
Water resources in the project area are used for recreation and public water supply. Water
quality impairments are not clearly defined.
4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement
Excess phosphorus in project area streams impairs recreation and public water supplies.
Phosphorus loads from the project area contribute to the eutrophication of Lake Erie.
Cropland runoff and animal waste runoff are the primary nonpoint sources of phosphorus.
277
-------
Saline Valley RCWP, Michigan
4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals
Objective:
Reduce phosphorus loading to project area water bodies and Lake Erie. Reduction of P
loading to Lake Erie will contribute to meeting the objectives of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (International Joint Commission, United States and Canada, 1978).
The agreement calls for a goal of reducing P input to the Great Lakes by 30%.
Goals:
Reduce phosphorus entering project water bodies from agricultural fertilizer losses by
50% or 22,600 pounds (Ibs)
Reduce phosphorus entering project water bodies from animal wastes by 30% or 9,600
Ibs
Reduce phosphorus entering project water bodies from soil loss and sedimentation by
30% or 430 Ibs
4.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics
4.3.2.2.1 Watershed Area: 76,600 acres
Project Area: 76,600 acres
Critical Area: 42,428 acres
4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors
Mean Annual Precipitation; 32 inches
Geologic Factors: Project area soils vary from clay loam to organic deposits to sand. Gla-
cial moraines run through the center of the project area. Steep slopes and highly erodible
soils occur on about 20% of the farmland.
4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture
The area is intensively farmed, with major crops being corn, small grains, and soybeans.
About 13% of the land is pasture and there are 27 animal operations with total animal
population of 9,600 in the project area.
4.3.2.2.4 Land Use
ES£ % of Project Area % of Critical Area
Cropland 67 100
Pasture/range 10
Woodland 21
Urban/roads 2
Other
278
-------
Saline Valley RCWP, Michigan
4.3.2.2.5 Animal Operations
Operation # Farms
Dairy
Beef
Hogs
Horses
Sheep
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total #
Animals
5,590
960
860
141
1,925
Total Animal
Units
7,826
960
344
282
192
Source: Saline Valley Rural Clean Water Project, 1987
4.3.3 Total Project Budget
SOURCES Federal
ACTIVITY
Cost Share 1,888,106
Info. & Ed. 90,112
Tech. Asst. 758,887
Water Quality
Monitoring 0
SUM 2,737,105
State
Fanner
Other*
0
0
0
0
0
629,386
0
0
0
629,386
0
0
10,000
186,761
196,761
SUM
2,517,492
90,112
768,887
186,761
$3,563,252
Other = Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratories (SEA GRANT), Southeast Michigan
Council of Governments (SEMCOG), Washtenaw Soil Conservation District, Washtenaw
and Monroe County Boards of Commissioners, Michigan Department of Agriculture
and grants
Source: Smolen et al., 1989; Bob Payne, USDA-ASCS, East Lansing,
MI, September 29, 1992, personal communication.
4.3.4 Information and Education
4.3.4.1 Strategy
Primary efforts were individual contacts supported by group presentations, mass media coverage,
and field demonstrations by Cooperative Extension Service (CES) personnel.
4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals
Create awareness of rural nonpoint water pollution among farmers and let them know about tech-
nical and financial assistance available
Promote BMP implementation as a practical and effective solution to nonpoint source pollution
Inform the general public of problems and solutions of NFS pollution and how farmers are con-
tributing to the general public well-being
279
-------
Saline Valley RCWP, Michigan
4.3.4.3 Program Components
I&E efforts were carried out by CES with cooperation from Monroe and Washtenaw County Soil
and Water Conservation Districts. The I&E program consisted primarily of one-to-one con-
tacts with producers. Field demonstrations and group meetings were also held.
4.3.5 Producer Participation
4.3.5.1 Level of Participation
Participation was moderate. Many producers were not eager to change farming methods (such as
would be needed for conservation tillage) and others felt that animal waste management facili-
ties were too expensive or were not designed to fit their needs.
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation
Cost share rate of 75% for most practices
Payment limit of $50,000
4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation
The project experienced low acceptance due to poor definition of the water quality problem, an
oversized project area, and lack of adequate project staff. Animal waste management sys-
tems were considered by producers to be prohibitively expensive.
4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs
Chances of adoption and maintenance of practices are moderate. Those producers who have in-
vested in animal waste management facilities will continue to use them (mainly because of
added convenience and flexibility). Conservation tillage is now being practiced more
widely; however, many of the other practices were not seen as particularly beneficial and
were less likely to be practiced.
4.3.6 Land Treatment
4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design
Land treatment strategy was not clearly defined, with the result that BMPs were implemented
over a wide area in order to demonstrate to other producers the benefits of the practices. The
strategy was thus to spread the money and technical assistance around as much as possible,
rather than to concentrate on implementing a significant amount of BMPs in a selected subba-
sin.
4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals
Reduce nonpoint source phosphorus loads by 40% by reducing surface water runoff
Improve application of phosphorus fertilizers
Improve animal waste handling and disposal
Reduce soil erosion and sediment delivery to the aquatic system
Implement BMPs on 32,241 acres and install 25 animal waste management systems
280
-------
Saline Valley RCWP, Michigan
4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application
Criteria:
Animal waste (animal waste critical areas vary by season):
May - Nov., within 300 ft. of streams
Dec. - April, within 1,000 ft. of streams
Cropland: all cropland within 1/4 mile of streams
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used
General Scheme: phosphorus loading reduction through the use of various BMPs
BMPs Utilized in the Project* Project Accomplishments
Permanent vegetative cover (BMP 1) 1909 acres
Animal waste management system (BMP 2) 23 systems
Diversion system (BMP 5) 4770 feet
Waterway system (BMP 7) 86 acres
Cropland protection system (BMP 8) 7522 acres
Conservation
tillage system (BMP 9) 31411 acres
Stream protection system (BMP 10) 0 feet
Permanent vegetative cover on critical 36 acres
areas (BMP 11)
Sediment retention, erosion, or 44 structures
water control structures (BMP 12)
Fertilizer management (BMP 15) 32,320 acres
Pesticide management (BMP 16) 22,301 acres
* Please refer to Appendix I for description/purpose of BMPs.
Source: Saline Valley Rural Clean Water Project, 1989
4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring & Tracking Program
4.3.6.5.1 Description
The project tracks RCWP and non-RCWP BMP implementation in units applied (acres,
systems, feet). Reporting is done by SCS, Washtenaw County Soil Conservation District,
ASCS, and CES.
4.3.6.5.2 Data Management
Data are reviewed annually by SCS.
281
-------
Saline Valley RCWP, Michigan
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results
Quantified Project Achievements:
Pollutant Critical Area _ _ Treatment Goal _
Unils Total % Implemented lolaL % Implemented
Cropland acres 42,428 41% 26,400 66%
Dairies # 27 89% 24 96%
Contracts # 263 45% 165 72%
4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design
The water quality monitoring program was intended as a before/after analysis of phosphorus load-
ing in the aquatic environment; however, there were insufficient pre-BMP implementation
data to make the before/after comparison possible. Therefore, a time-trend analysis was at-
tempted.
Water quality monitoring was conducted by the Washtenaw County Soil Conservation District,
the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, and The University of Michigan De-
partment of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Science .
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals
Determine if there were any significant differences in pollutant loads between years or between
stations and relate these changes to land use or implemented BMPs
4.3.7.3 Time Frame
1980 - 1990
4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme
The sampling scheme consisted of taking grab samples and instantaneous discharge measurements
at eight stations on a fixed weekly schedule. Initially, the sampling scheme was to be ad-
justed to include additional sampling during storms and snow melt. Constraints of time, fund-
ing, and personnel limited the number of sampling periods to 35 to 40 per year after the first
year. Sampling was performed on a fixed day of the week, but a two-week interval some-
times occurred between sampling.
Program design was based on a subbasin approach allowing for monitoring and tracking of BMP
implementation close to water quality monitoring sites.
Discharge was not monitored continuously at any station; therefore, the accuracy of loading esti-
mates is low.
Conducted by Dennis Rice, Washtenaw County Soil Conservation District
Water quality analysis was performed by T. Johengen, University of Michigan Center for
Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences Laboratory.
282
-------
Saline Valley RCWP, Michigan
4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations
8 stream stations associated with subbasins
9 ground water monitoring wells around 3 animal waste holding structures
4.3.7.4.2 Sample Type
Streams: grab
Ground water: bailer (two bailer volumes rinsed before sample taken)
4.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency
Streams: weekly (some adjustments were made for storm events and snow melt)
Ground water: 2-4 times per year
4.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed
Streams: suspended solids (SS), total phosphorus (TP), soluble reactive phosphorus
(SRP), ammonia-nitrogen (NHs- N), nitrate-nitrogen (NOa-N), silica, pH, conductivity
Ground water: ground water chemistry included NHa-N, SRP, NOs-N, and chloride (Cl)
4.3.7.4.5 Row Measurement
With each grab sample
4.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements
None
4.3.7.4.7 Other Important Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information
None
4.3.7.5 Data Management
The data are managed locally by the project.
283
-------
Saline Valley RCWP, Michigan
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results
Analysis:
The project has performed annual linear regressions of log- transformed concentration ver-
sus discharge for SS, TP, SRP, and NOs-N.
Regression analysis was used to test whether BMP implementation changed the concentra-
tion/discharge relationship in each monitored parameter over time. This approach was
chosen because BMP implementation has occurred throughout the project and there is no
clear break between pre-and post-treatment data sets. (Johengenet al., 1989)
Annual loadings at each monitoring station were calculated using the sum of weekly esti-
mates. Weekly estimates assumed a constant load over the interval between the midpoints
of consecutive sampling periods.
Predicted concentrations at discharges of 0.1 and 0.5 cubic meter per second (m3/sec)
were plotted against yearly estimates of the percentage of subbasin area treated by BMPs.
Results:
Final analysis shows that no documentation of water quality changes resulting from BMP
implementation is possible (Johengen, 1991).
Monitoring results showed that the strength of all pollutant sources must be identified be-
fore attempting to assess the effectiveness of a nonpoint source control program (Johengen
etal., 1991).
The project's ability to reduce phosphorus input to the aquatic system was hampered by
the lack of documented water quality impairment and that nonpoint source loading was
lower than expected (Johengen et al., 1991).
Monitoring established seasonal trends in chemical parameters; however, no trends in
water quality at the watershed level were documented probably due to the fact that overall
BMP installation was generally low.
A reduction in phosphorus at station 8 (project outlet) coincided with implementation of a
new sewage treatment facility for the city of Milaa (Holland et al., 1987) Other phospho-
rus reductions occurred due to upgrading the City of Saline sewage treatment plant, and
the elimination of a high phosphate industrial waste discharge.
Notable increases in all forms of phosphorus were observed at half or more of the monitor-
ing stations during the three-year monitoring period between 1984 and 1986. This increase
did not continue in 1987. These data suggest that increases in soluble reactive phosphorus
(SRP) concentrations at stations 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 (all upstream from urban areas) could be
explained by increased mean discharge at these stations. (Holland et al., 1987)
4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
No linkage of water quality and land treatment was possible due to inconclusive monitoring re-
sults. The project's ability to document basin level phosphorus reductions from cropland treat-
ment was also hampered by low BMP implementation. The project has been very successful
in implementing animal waste system (BMP 2) but was not able to measure phosphorus reduc-
tions related to improved management of dairy waste.
4.3.9 Impact of Other Federal and State Programs on the Project
Approximately 32,900 acres in the project area have been planned for conservation reserve system
due to requirements of the Food Security Act. The impact of this land entering the conservation re-
serve system will be minimal on the RCWP project.
284
-------
Saline Valley RCWP, Michigan
4.3.10 Other Pertinent Information
None
4.3.11 References
A complete list of project documents and other relevant publications may be found in Appendix IV.
Holland, R.E., A.M. Beeton, and T. Johengea 1987. Saline Valley Rural Clean Water Project In-
terim Report on Monitoring During 1986.
Johengen, T.H., A.M. Beeton, and R. Holland. 1991. A Final Water Quality Monitoring Report and
Evaluation of the Saline Valley Rural Clean Water Project. 137p.
Saline Valley Rural Clean Water Project, Michigaa 1987. Annual Progress Report.
Saline Valley Rural Clean Water Project, Michigaa 1989. Annual Progress Report, 27 p.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, J. Spooner, A. Lanier, T.B. Bennett, S.W. Coffey, andKJ. Adler.
1989. NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural Nonpoint Source Projects. EPA 506/9-
89/002.
4.3.12 Project Contacts
Administration
Robert Payne
Michigan State ASCS Office
1405 S. Harrison Rd., Room 111C
East Lansing, MI 48823
(517) 337-6671
Water Quality
Tom Johengen
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
2205 Commonwealth Blvd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48105-1593
(313) 747-2728
Land Treatment
Robert Payne
ASCS
1405 S. Harrison Rd.
Room 1116
Fort Lansing, MI 48823
(517) 337-6671
and
Dennis Rice or Gary Rinkenberger
Soil Conservation Service
6101 Jackson Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
(313) 761-6722
Information and Education
Bill Ames
Cooperative Extension Service
P.O. Box 8645
4133 Washtenaw Ave.
Ann Arbor, MI 48107
(313)971-0079
285
-------
Figure 4.13: Garvin Brook (Minnesota) RCWP project map, MN-1.
286
-------
Minnesota
Garvin Brook
(RCWP16)
Winona County
MLRA: M-105
HUC: 070400-03
4.1 Project Synopsis
The Garvin Brook RCWP project encompasses two distinct projects. The original project targeted Garvin Brook, a
15.2-mile trout stream. Trout fishing was impaired due to sedimentation and habitat destruction. Any area that had
high to moderate sediment losses or moderate nitrogen or phosphorus losses was designated as critical. In 1985, after
determining that ground water pollution due to nitrate-nitrogen (NOs-N) and pesticides was a problem (many domestic
wells tested over the allowable drinking water standard of 10 milligrams per liter (mg/1) NOa), the critical area was
redefined to include the entire ground water recharge area for Garvin Brook.
The primary objectives of the project were to decrease bacteria and turbidity violations, improve stream aesthetics,
and to increase trout in Garvin Brook; and to reduce NOa in ground water to acceptable drinking water standards.
The Garvin Brook watershed is located in Winona County, Minnesota. The watershed affecting surface water quality
consists of narrow ridges and broad valleys. The watershed affecting ground water quality consists of broad ridges
and narrow valleys. The underlying fractured, karst geology of the region allows preferential solute flow into the
ground water. Together the Garvin Brook watershed (GBW) and the ground water recharge area (GWW) comprise
46,516 acres. Of these 46,516 acres, 20,255 acres are in the designated critical area. Sixty- seven percent of the
total watershed, or 31,282 acres, is cropland. Corn is produced on approximately 15,000 acres. Many farmers in
this area have mixed farming operations with dairy cows being the predominant livestock type.
Best management practices (BMPs) were implemented to decrease sediment and fecal coliform loads into streams
and to reduce the amount of excess fertilizer and manurial nitrogen applied to soils. Two BMPs, fertilizer and
pesticide management, were utilized extensively. One BMP, stream protection system, was so thoroughly disliked
by area farmers that the insistence that it be implemented as a condition for other BMPs being contracted caused a
refocusing of the project. This BMP was subsequently dropped and the focus of water quality shifted from surface
to ground water. Eighty-one contracts were signed, representing 65% of the estimated 125 contracts that were needed
to meet project objectives and goals.
Domestic wells, streams, and soil were monitored. Land treatment during the RCWP project did seem to make a
difference for some of the variables measured. During the project period, the number of wells with greater than 10
mg/1 of NOs decreased, although the number of wells with NOs levels between 3 and 9.9 mg/1 increased. Trout
numbers were increasing, although fingerling numbers decreased in 1989, probably as a result of high rainfall.
Turbidity, total suspended solids (TSS), total phosphorus (TP), and median fecal coliform (FC) declined during mid-
project years, but had increased by project's end (Garvin Brook RCWP Project, 1991).
The ground water project was very successful. The farmers understood the problem of ground water contamination
and were willing to address the problem through the use of fertilizer and pesticide management BMPs. These BMPs
were saving the farmers money and potentially reducing ground water contamination. Conversely, the surface water
project almost failed. It never appeared that increasing trout populations in Garvin Brook was a compelling enough
reason to entice farmers to spend money on BMPs. Additionally, some BMPs selected were either too expensive or
the farmers were unconvinced that the practice would help the water quality of Garvin Brook. If a project is to
succeed, farmers must be supportive of project objectives and goals; this was not the case for the surface water
project.
287
-------
Garvin Brook RCWP, Minnesota
4.2 Project Rndings, Recommendations, and Successes
4.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals
4.2.1.1 Findings and Successes
The ground water quality objectives were adequate. However, there were problems with the sur-
face water quality objectives. The objectives weren't compelling enough to interest the farm-
ers in solving the problem.
There was a problem with both the surface and ground water quality goals that were selected for
this project. The surface water quality goals of reducing fecal coliform, sediment loading,
and turbidity by such large and specific amounts were unrealistic, even if all BMPs had been
applied. Since many of the BMPs aimed at solving the surface water quality problem were
either not implemented or only partially implemented, there was no chance of reducing sur-
face water pollutants. The ground water goal of reducing NOs levels to less than 10 mg/1
was also unrealistic because there was not enough information about the residence time of the
applied fertilizer in the soil or the effects of the nitrogen fertilizer management on ground
water.
4.2.1.2 Recommendations
Water quality objectives must be supported by the farmers or they will not participate in the pro-
ject.
Numerical goals should be set following initial monitoring and evaluation. These water quality
goals should be reasonable if they are to be met during the project.
4.2.2 Project Management and Administration
4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes
In addition to the LCC, there was a Local Technical Committee (LTC) which established costs
and guidelines for BMP installation. This committee appeared to be a neutral force in the pro-
ject.
The National Coordinating Committee (NCC) assisted this project by raising questions and help-
ing re-orient the focus of the project when it was floundering.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency was the lead monitoring agency (MPCA). Other agen-
cies involved in monitoring included the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA), the
Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR), the Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS), the Winona County Extension Service,
and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). These different agencies provided outstanding tech-
nical support to the project without any territorial disputes.
4.2.2.2 Recommendations
RCWP should include funds to hire a project coordinator at the start of the project to coordinate
information and education (I&E) activities, BMP implementation, monitoring and evaluatioa
The coordinator should not have close ties but be familiar with all government agencies in-
volved. This individual needs to be comfortable communicating one-to-one with project area
landowners and participants.
The LCC needs to be representative of area farmers and the LCC must listen to their concerns
and recommendations.
The SCC needs to have structured meetings just for RCWP business, otherwise RCWP affairs
may not get the attention they deserve.
The NCC should actively assist project teams in refocusing or re-orienting a project, as needed
288
-------
Garvin Brook RCWP, Minnesota
4.2.3 Information and Education
4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes
A respected local farmer was hired early in the project by the Cooperative Extension Service
(CES) as a part-time program assistant. His duties included visiting landowners to sign-up
participants and answer questions, preparing a quarterly newsletter, working with farmers
on split nitrogen contracts, and testing wells. The well testing and subsequent identification
of high NOs levels led to an interest in the project by area farmers and subsequent RCWP
contracts.
Nitrogen plot studies conducted by the CES and the University of Minnesota led to a reduction in
recommended nitrogen fertilizer rates.
The CES conducted demonstration plots for nitrogen application rates, rootworm insecticide
rates, and weed control methods. Some of these practices, such as lowered nitrogen and in-
secticide rates, have been adopted by area farmers.
4.2.3.2 Recommendations
Projects should establish plot studies and use field demonstrations in the project area to convince
and encourage producers to participate and give them confidence in the BMPs.
Specific services provided through Information and Education (I&E), such as well testing, can
promote producer "ownership" of the project and increase participation.
One-to-one contact is essential to maintain communication links between farmers and project per-
sonnel. People with roots in the community can often promote BMPs more effectively than
people who are perceived as outsiders.
4.2.4 Producer Participation
4.2.4.1 Findings and Successes
Initial producer participation was very limited due to the following reasons:
1983-1987 were difficult financial times for farmers and they did not have extra dollars to
invest in cost share activities.
The first animal waste treatment system installed was extremely expensive. The system
was expensive because it was the first but also because the farmer who installed it was
relatively wealthy and has been described as wanting to have a "showcase farm". Other
area farmers incorrectly believed they would have to install the same kind of system
which most of them could not afford.
Originally, producers did not understand that they would have to address ALL water qual-
ity problems on their farms. Many producers in the area were pasturing streambanks and
were unwilling to install fencing to keep the cows off the streambanks (which causes ero-
sion into the streams) and out of the streams (which increases fecal coliform levels and
trout habitat destruction).
The overriding participation problem appeared to be a lack of interest in the primary
water quality problem: declining trout populations in Garvin Brook.
289
-------
Garvin Brook RCWP, Minnesota
4.2.4.1 Rndings and Successes (continued)
In 1985, the project underwent a major revision and change in emphasis from surface water
remediation to ground water remediatioa Project participation increased after this point for
several reasons:
The stream protection system (fencing off streams) was dropped as a mandatory BMP.
An additional 12,681 critical acres were included due to the potential in this area for
ground water contamination from pesticides and fertilizers.
Cost share rates increased temporarily to 90% due to the County Commissioners agreeing
to cost share an additional 15% of any BMP.
Ground water deterioration caused by increased NOa levels from fertilizer and manure
had a direct impact on the lives of the farmers and they could understand the value of
changing farming practices to reduce ground water contaminatioa
Cost share for split nitrogen applications was allowed.
Although the number of contracts signed and the number of structural BMPs installed fell below
expected goals, farmer participation for the fertilizer and pesticide management BMPs ex-
ceeded expectations. More contracts were signed by farmers in the ground water project
area than the original surface water project area.
4.2.4.2 Recommendations
Expensive structural BMPs (such as BMP 2) are difficult to sell in times of depressed economic
conditions, even with cost sharing as high as 90%. Lower cost manure structural alternatives
should be promoted from the beginning of a project.
Pre-project surveys of farmers in order to assess their opinions about implementing certain BMPs
(such as fencing cattle out of streams) can help project staff re-evaluate project implementa-
tion, cost share, and other considerations.
If a BMP is unacceptable to area farmers to the point that it is jeopardizing the entire project, con-
sideration should be given to dropping or modifying that BMP if possible.
Identification of water quality projects that farmers are interested in solving is critical to project
success.
Try to provide more than one BMP for each problem. This will allow farmers more flexibility in
matching BMPs with their farm operations and prevailing economic conditions.
Increasing cost share rates may be necessary in periods of financial stress.
Implementation of BMPs by landowners may be enhanced by linkage of BMP implementation
plans to ground water protection, since people are often more aware of the direct impact on
their lives of well water protection than stream protectioa Often the BMPs critical to protect-
ing both surface and ground water resources are similar.
4.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes
Sixteen BMPs were originally selected; only twelve were utilized. Of the twelve BMPs, only
four were used by 30% or more of the producers: conservation tillage system, permanent
cover on critical areas, fertilizer management, and pesticide management.
The stream protection system (fencing) was unacceptable and therefore was discontinued. The
animal waste system was too expensive and emphasis was shifted from large animal waste
systems which were designed to hold all runoff from barnyard areas to systems which util-
ized grass filter strips and settling ponds to treat runoff.
290
-------
Garvin Brook RCWP, Minnesota
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
Fertilizer management began as an educational practice to demonstrate to farmers the effective-
ness of nutrient management based on a nitrogen budget. Before the project, the fanner's at-
titude was that manure was something to be disposed of on the nearest field. It was important
to illustrate the value of animal waste as a nutrient resource to the farmers.
When NOs ground water contamination was discovered, the LCC made the fertilizer management
BMP a cost share practice. Fanners made money on this practice twice: once through the
cost share money and again through lower fertilizer rates which produced the same corn
yields.
Sinkholes were filled and old abandoned wells were sealed to reduce their potential to contami-
nate ground water resources. Very late in the project, due to vadose zone monitoring, it was
discovered that sink holes near commercial pesticide application facilities and those adjacent
to corn fields were serving as a potential path for ground water contamination.
During the project there were frequent SCS staff changes. This lack of continuity made the imple-
mentation of structural BMPs more difficult and time consuming as it took the new SCS tech-
nician time to become acquainted with individual farm plans.
BMP maintenance was tracked by the agency responsible for technical assistance on the particular
BMP. For example, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) tracked the structural BMPs and
the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) tracked the nitrogen and pesticide management
BMPs.
The only direct evaluation for BMP effectiveness was vadose zone monitoring for nitrogen and
pesticides, conducted on corn cropland, sinkholes, Crop Reserve Program (CRP) land, pon-
ded run-off, and a research plot.
Modeling was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of combined BMPs on stream water qual-
ity.
4.2.5.2 Recommendations
BMP identification and implementation decisions should be made with water quality goals and
available resources in mind.
Management BMPs are more acceptable to absentee landowners since they do not cost the land-
owner any money and the operator receives the cost share payment.
Farm economics, along with the cost of damage to the environment, should be considered
throughout the project, with changes being made in the program as necessitated by changing
economic times.
The first structural BMPs installed should be representative for the area (average size and cost).
Prepare for personnel changeover in long-term projects by keeping detailed, accurate, up-to-date
records; writing detailed semi-annual or annual reports; and allowing time for personnel train-
ing.
Development of nitrogen budgets for farmers' fields, which account for nitrogen from manure
and legumes, not only keeps excess quantities of commercial fertilizer from being available
for leaching, but also allows the farmer to optimize the use of N from manure and legumes.
Tailor land treatment to site specific problems and landowner needs within technical standards
and specifications.
A computerized land tracking system is useful for monitoring land use changes.
291
-------
Garvin Brook RCWP, Minnesota
4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes
At the primary monitoring station near the mouth of Garvin Brook, surface water chemistry im-
provements were not evident during the project. During mid-project years, there were de-
creases in total suspended solids (TSS), turbidity, and fecal coliform (FC). However, during
the last years of the project, all non-biological water quality indicators rose to pre- levels
near those in 1982. Trout populations increased during the project. At the last sampling, fin-
gerling numbers had dropped precipitously, which may indicate a change in this upward
trend or just a temporary drop in trout numbers.
The objective for ground water was to reduce NOs below the acceptable drinking water stand-
ard. This objective was partially met. There was a 10% reduction in the number of wells in
which concentrations exceeded the acceptable drinking water standard. Of the 51 wells with
nitrate-N originally above 10 mg/1, there was a significantly decreasing trend in nitrate for
31% of the wells and no wells had a significant increasing trend. Since the ground water ob-
jective was added later in the project, and since there is a lag time between nitrogen fertilizer
application and an increase in ground water NOs, it is expected that water quality will con-
tinue to improve in the future.
Vadose zone monitoring was useful in determining sources of ground water contamination. Most
pesticide contamination was determined to be a point source pollution problem caused by
commercial pesticide application facilities. Improper handling of pesticides by commercial
pesticide facilities were believed to be responsible for the high levels of pesticides found in
some of the wells around Lewiston. Three of the five commercial pesticide application facili-
ties located in Lewiston were found to have extremely high soil pesticide levels due to sloppy
pesticide handling practices. These pesticides were leaching through the soil into the ground
water or were being transported to nearby sinkholes. The majority of the nitrogen entering
the ground water is from fertilized fields. High NCb concentrations were found in the soil so-
lution even after fields had been under the fertilizer management BMP for two to four years.
Great variability in nitrate and pesticide concentrations was found among various sinkholes.
Although there were some omissions in overall planning at the beginning of the project, inconsis-
tent funding sources, and changes in project emphasis, water quality monitoring was rela-
tively thorough and continuous. Ground water and vadose zone monitoring were especially
thorough in the latter half of the project. Using the project assistant to test well water served
a two- fold purpose of both collecting data and promoting the project to area farmers.
A comparison of nitrate concentrations in water collected at the same places and times, but ana-
lyzed at three different laboratories, showed significant and consistent differences in reported
concentrations. Thus, there was a quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) problem with
certain analyses.
4.2.6.2 Recommendations
Nitrate testing of domestic wells in the project area can be a valuable service that promotes water
quality awareness and provides another means for contacting landowners and tracking project
progress.
Long-term monitoring strategies, including monitoring before, during, and after BMP implemen-
tation, should be developed at the beginning of the project.
Project money for long-term monitoring should be available from the outset of the project.
If long-term funding is not secured at the onset of a project, the monitoring strategy should be de-
veloped such that meaningful data can be obtained regardless of future funding levels.
Very strict field and laboratory QA/QC is needed in order to ensure reliable data for long-term
trend monitoring.
A long-term project representative is needed to ensure coordination of all aspects of the project,
including land use and water quality monitoring activities.
292
-------
Garvin Brook RCWP, Minnesota
4.2.6.2 Recommendations (continued)
Quantitative water quality goals should be established prior to implementation of BMPs in order
to establish a target Monitoring results can be used to set aggressive but realistic goals.
Future projects should focus monitoring in critical subwatersheds and use biomonitoring to aid in
assessing long-term trends.
4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
4.2.7.1 Findings and Successes
There was no established linkage between land treatment and surface water quality in this project
because water quality and land treatment monitoring were insufficient.
Vadose zone sampling was useful in establishing linkage between ground water quality and land
treatment. The vadose zone was monitored for nitrogen and pesticides on corn cropland,
sinkholes, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land, ponded runoff, and a research plot.
Results of the vadose zone monitoring were as follows:
Even after two to four years of using nitrogen management BMPs, residual soil nitrogen
contents were still in the range of 20 - 50 mg/1. Either more stringent measures are
needed to reduce nitrate leaching or more time is needed to observe the full benefits from
the implemented BMPs.
Many sinkholes currently contribute very little nitrate to ground water.
Point sources of pollution (pesticide distribution and application facilities) contributed to
ground water pesticides.
4.2.7.2 Recommendations
Since it is difficult to differentiate land treatment effects on water quality from climatic effects on
water quality, the use of paired watersheds should be considered in future experimental stud-
ies.
Land management changes (such as types of crops grown, number of livestock produced, set
aside programs, conservation programs) should be monitored throughout project duration.
Vadose zone sampling should be used to help determine the effectiveness of the implementation
of particular BMPs.
Point sources of pollution should be targeted in pollution prevention efforts.
4.3 Project Description
4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame
General RCWP
1982 - 1994
4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions
4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality
4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size
Garvin Brook, a designated trout stream
Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer, an impaired ground water resource
293
-------
Garvin Brook RCWP, Minnesota
4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments
Current project area population is estimated at 2,500, most of whom rely on domestic
wells for water supply. The primary ground water impairment is decreased drinking water
quality due to high nitrate concentration and pesticide contamination.
Approximately 25,000 people use Garvin Brook for recreation, primarily swimming and
fishing. Use of Garvin Brook for trout fishing is reportedly impaired; however, fishing im-
pairments are not well documented. The primary pollutants in Garvin Brook are bacteria,
sediment, and turbidity. Pollutant sources include nitrogen fertilizers, animal operations
(mostly dairy), and pesticides.
4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement
Reductions in trout productivity in Upper and Lower Garvin Brook and in Stockton Valley
Creek are the major surface water quality impairments. (Lower Garvin Brook and Stock-
ton Valley Creek join near Stockton, Minnesota, to form Upper Garvin Brook). Sediment
from farming activities and bacteria from barnyards have been identified as major causes
of impairment.
Nitrate and fecal coliform bacteria contamination of well water exceeding health standards
and pesticides in some domestic wells are the major ground water concerns.
4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals
Final objectives and goals for surface and ground water were:
Surface water objectives: Increase the recreation potential of Garvin Brook
Surface water goals: Decrease sediment loading by 50%, decrease turbidity violations
from 100% to less than 15%, and decrease fecal coliform bacteria violations from 79%
to less than 40%
Ground water objectives: Decrease levels of biological and chemical health-related pollut-
ants entering local aquifers
Ground water goals: Reduce nitrate levels to less than the 10 mg/1 drinking water stand-
ard in the karst area and reduce health related pollutants
Initial goals and objectives for surface water only were:
Surface water objectives: Water quality improvement will focus on the improving trout
fisheries and on enhancing contact recreation activities
Surface water goals: Decrease sediment load by 50%, decrease turbidity violations from
100% to below 15%, and decrease fecal coliform from 79% to 40%
43.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics
4.3.2.2.1 Watershed Area: 46,516 acres:
Project Area: 46,516 acres
Surface watershed: 30,720 acre
Ground water recharge area: 15,796 acres
Critical Area: Total - 20,255 acres
Surface Watershed - 7,574 acres
Ground Water Recharge Area- 12,681 acres
294
-------
Garvin Brook RCWP, Minnesota
4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors
Mean Annual Precipitation: 33 inches (75% occurs April- Sept.)
Geologic Factors: The watershed is characterized by karst topography. The bedrock is
near-surface fractured and cavernous Dolomitic limestone and Paleozoic sandstone with
sinkhole development. Sinkholes and rock fissures can be direct channels for contaminated
agricultural runoff into the Prairie du Chien aquifer.
4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture
There are 218 farms in the project area, of which approximately 40% are livestock and
grain operations. The remaining 60% are cash grain farms. Of the farmers who produce
livestock, 64% are dairy farmers. Only 16% of the farmers own more than 500 acres. Of
the 31,282 total cropped acres, 15,401, or 33% of the acreage, is in corn. Approximately
80% of all watershed farmers use some form of conservation tillage in their corn produc-
tioa
Nitrogen fertilizer usage on contracted acres has dropped approximately 38 pounds per
acre (Ib/ac) since nitrogen has been applied as a split. This has reduced total applied nitro-
gen by 926,202 Ibs since split nitrogen application started in 1985 (Wall, D.B., 1989;
Garvin Brook RCWP, 1991).
4.3.2.2.4 Land Use
list. % of Project Area % of Critical
Surface Water Area
Cropland: 58 NA
Pasture/range 12 NA
Woodland 25 NA
Urban/roads 5 NA
Other - NA
Ground Water Area
Cropland 85 NA
Pasture/range 5 NA
Woodland 5 NA
Urban/roads 5 NA
Other - NA
Surface and Ground Water Areas Combined
Cropland 67 NA
Pasture/range 9 NA
Woodland 17 NA
Urban/roads 7 NA
Other - NA
295
-------
ma
54
9
13
8
Total #
Animals
5,100
1,530
4,355
NA
Total Animal
Units
7,140
1,530
1,742
85
Garvin Brook RCWP, Minnesota
4.3.2.2.5 Animal Operations
Operation # Farms
Dairy
Beef
Hogs
Other
Animal numbers appear to have been stable over the life of this project.
4.3.3 Total Project Budget
SOURCES Federal State Fanner Other
ACTIVITY SUM
Cost Share 1,747,000 0 582,333 180,000 2,509,333
Info. & Ed. 112,220 7,500 0 0 119,720
Tech. Asst. 599,478 0 1,000 23,376 623,854
Water Quality
Monitoring 40,000 227,000 500 14,500 282,000
SUM 2,498,698 234,500 583,833 217,876 $3,534,907
Source: Garvin Brook RCWP Project, 1992; Smolen, etal., 1989
4.3.4 Information and Education
4.3.4.1 Strategy
The information and education (I&E) strategy was to increase the awareness among local produc-
ers of water quality problems. It was then expected that landowners' increased awareness of
water quality problems would translate into a change in management practices. CES provided
the lead role in I&E with additional education support through the SCS as they worked with
area fanners.
4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals
Inform the landowners in the project area of the RCWP
Keep landowners up-to-date on current activities concerning the RCWP program through newslet-
ters, public meetings, and tours
Keep RCWP participants informed of the project status
Inform the public of the project and keep them abreast of its status through radio programs and
printed news media
Meet with elected officials, civic organizations, and other interested groups to inform them of the
RCWP, its purpose, and the status of the Garvin Brook project
Evaluate the project each year with the project landowner cooperators through personal visits and
a winter meeting
296
-------
Garvin Brook RCWP, Minnesota
4.3.4.3 Program Components
Public meetings
Educational meetings
Fanner surveys
Tours
Quarterly newsletter
Individual contacts
Demonstrations
Tillage, nitrogen, and pesticide plots
Soil testing and analysis
Agricultural waste analysis
Surface and ground water studies
Media coverage (newspaper and radio)
Slide/tape show on sinkhole contamination
4.3.5 Producer Participation
4.3.5.1 Level of Participation
Project personnel estimated that 125 contracts were needed and set their goal at 94 signed con-
tracts (75%). Only 81 contracts were signed (65% participation). The majority of the con-
tracts were signed in the ground water watershed area.
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation
Cost share rates of 90% (75% from RCWP and 15% from the Winona County Board of Commis-
sioners)
Payment limitations of $50,000 in RCWP funds plus $6,000 from Winona County per contract
Technical assistance programs: CES prepared nitrogen budgets for BMP 15 and included the use
of legumes and manure; public meetings; newsletter; split nitrogen application demonstration
farm; crop scouting; free soil testing; well testing.
4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation
The requirement that all BMPs necessary to treat water quality problems be implemented and the
universal dislike by the farmers of the stream protection system
A downturn in the farm economy during mid-project years
An initial overpriced waste management system which dissuaded many farmers from installing
waste management systems
Lack of interest in the original water quality goals
Unwillingness to involve the government in individual farming decisions
297
-------
Can/in Brook RCWP, Minnesota
4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs
Chances of continuation of certain BMPs appear to be excellent. In a fanner survey conducted
by CES and MPCA, 95% of the respondents indicated that they would continue BMPs after
the project ended. This is not surprising since the most popular BMPs, fertilizer and pesti-
cide management, were saving the farmers money.
4.3.6 Land Treatment
4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design
The land treatment strategy was to keep soil and manure from reaching the trout stream through
the use of waste management systems, stream fencing, terracing, diversion and waterway sys-
tems, erosion and water control systems, and conservation tillage.
4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals
The original objective was to treat nonpoint sources of pollutants affecting surface water (Garvin
Brook) and to protect ground water from sinkholes and abandoned wells. Project emphasis
was expanded in 1985 to include a more comprehensive protection of ground water quality.
4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application
Initial criteria was any area within 300 feet of flowing water, sinkholes, abandoned wells, or feed-
lots with a high rating.
Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution Model I (AGNPS I) computer simulation model was
used to evaluate the surface watershed and designate priority areas. Critical areas were sub-
stantially redefined in 1985 using new information about ground water problems both within
and outside of the original surface watershed project area. The change was made after analy-
sis of samples from 80 wells within the surface watershed showed that 21% of the wells had
levels of NOa exceeding the 10 mg/1 drinking water standard. During the summer of 1985,
64 additional wells in the expanded ground water watershed were tested for NOs. Fifty-six
percent of these wells had NOs-N levels exceeding the 10 mg/1 standard. Measurable amounts
of alachlor and/or atrazine, which were below health advisory levels, were found in six of 10
wells tested. The project area was expanded to include all of the ground water watershed
(approximately one-half is outside the surface watershed).
Redefinition of critical areas resulted in an expansion of critical acreage needing treatment. The
critical area for ground water protection was defined as the areas classified as having very
high or high sensitivity in the Winona County Geologic Atlas to ground water pollution.
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used
General Scheme: Eight BMPs (BMP 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 15, 16) were considered important (see be-
low). Four BMPs (6, 10, 17, 18) were never used. This project increased its emphasis on
the fertilizer and pesticide BMPs (BMP 15, 16), including split nitrogen application, im-
proved manure storage, and improved calibration of manure and fertilizer spreading equip-
ment.
298
-------
Garvin Brook RCWP, Minnesota
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used (continued)
BMPs Utilized in the Project*:
Permanent vegetative cover (BMP 1)
Animal waste management system (BMP 2)
Stripcropping systems (BMP 3)
Terrace system (BMP 4)
Diversion system (BMP 5)
Grazing land protection system (BMP 6)
Waterway system (BMP 7)
Conservation tillage systems (BMP 9)
Stream protection system (BMP 10)
Permanent vegetative cover on critical areas (BMP 11)
Sediment retention, erosion, or water control structures (BMP 12)
Tree planting (BMP 14)
Fertilizer management (BMP 15)
Pesticide management (BMP 16)
Woodland access (BMP 17)
Water quality improvement through woodland improvement (BMP 18)
* Please refer to Appendix I for description/purpose of BMPs.
4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring & Tracking Program
4.3.6.5.1 Description
Land use and land treatment were monitored using several methodologies. Annual status
reviews were used by the SCS to monitor land use and land treatment trends. Other U. S.
Department of Agriculture (USD A) programs allowed monitoring of crop acreage, conser-
vation programs, and other activities.
Land treatment and land use monitoring was reported by cumulative acres on which BMPs
were implemented during any part of the RCWP project period. No land was summed
more than once for any given BMP. However, land treatment/use was not quantified on
an annual or subwatershed basis, making it difficult to track differences between years
and/or by subwatershed.
The project has not reported the location of BMP activities with respect to critical areas.
4.3.6.5.2 Data Management
No data management system was in place during the project.
299
-------
Garvin Brook RCWP, Minnesota
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results
There was no data analysis.
Effectiveness of BMPs: During the 1985-1987 growing season total early (fall or early
spring) applied nitrogen decreased 50% using split nitrogen applications. The total actual
nitrogen applied decreased by 20%.
Effectiveness of BMPs for controlling sediment, phosphorus, nitrogen, and COD reduc-
tion in the project area was evaluated by the Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution
Model (AGNPS). AGNPS was used to predict sediment and nutrient delivery to the
mouth of Garvin Brook resulting from storm events for the periods before (1981) and after
(1989) BMP implementation. AGNPS-predicted storm-event sediment delivery was found
to be reasonably close to monitoring results following storms in 1984 and 1989. The com-
puter model predicted a 17% reduction in total sediment and nutrients attached to sedi-
ment delivered to the Mississippi River from five- and one-year 24-hour storms as a result
of practices implemented through the Garvin Brook RCWP. Total nitrogen and total phos-
phorus reductions of 12 and 15% were predicted for total nitrogen and total phosphorus,
respectively, from the one year 24-hour storm (2.5-inch rainfall) (Wall et al., 1989).The
model was also being used to illustrate how livestock producers, many of whom grow
corn, would benefit by managing their manure as a fertilizer resource. It must be kept in
mind, however, that this was a modeling exercise which is for predictive purposes only.
Quantified Project Achievements:
Critical Area Treatment Goals
Pollutant
Source Unils lolal % Implemented lolaL % Implemented
Cropland acres 10,793 66% 8,095 89%
Sinkholes # 44 34% 33 46%
Split N acres 10,714 295% 8,036 394%
Pesticides acres 20,255 188% 15,169 251%
Contracts # 125 65% 94 86%
4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design
The original surface water quality monitoring strategy was to sample surface water and trout
abundance in the Garvin Brook watershed. Sampling and analysis was to be conducted by
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Department of Natural Resources. In-
itially, ground water sampling consisted of quarterly sampling of 15 wells and 3 springs and
was conducted by the MPCA. Later, the ground water monitoring network was expanded
with the sampling and analysis being conducted by the MPCA, Winona CES, and Minnesota
Department of Agriculture (MDA).
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals
Final Surface Water Monitoring Objectives:
Monitor baseflow water quality, stream runoff following storm events, and brown trout
populations in order to evaluate stream water quality changes occurring throughout the
BMP implementation period
300
-------
Garvin Brook RCWP, Minnesota
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals (continued)
Final Surface Water Monitoring Goals:
Conduct continuous monthly sampling for 18 variables at a site near the mouth of Lower
Garvin Brook in order to evaluate trends in baseflow water quality
Conduct brown trout surveys in the spring and fall each year at control sites on Upper
Garvin Brook
Conduct storm monitoring to verify the AGNPS model and then use this model to estimate
storm event sediment and nutrient loading reductions due to land treatment
Final Ground Water and Vadose Zone Goals:
Develop adequate baseline data regarding nitrate and pesticide concentrations and general
chemistry of the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer in Garvin Brook Watershed and Ground
Water Recharge Area in order to assess long-term changes resulting from the RCWP and
other programs
Determine nitrate and pesticide concentrations moving through the rooting zone in fields
under RCWP contract for two to four years
Evaluate nitrate and pesticide contributions from agricultural fields, sinkholes, grassland,
woodland, and ponds to better characterize the contamination
Evaluate well water nitrate concentrations between 1983 and 1990 from annual sampling
of numerous domestic wells
Develop a greater understanding of ground water residence times in order to more appro-
priately evaluate ground water quality trends
Initial Surface Water Monitoring Objective:
Conduct intensive baseflow and runoff event monitoring for three consecutive years at
three sites in order to adequately define baseline water quality
Initial Surface Water Monitoring Goals:
Evaluate which water quality variables were of greatest concern
Define the initial baseflow quality of streams at three sites in the watershed to allow for fu-
ture documentation of changes resulting from implementation of BMPs
Characterize pollutant loadings during rainfall-runoff events
Continue trout population assessments each spring and fall to establish time trends
Initial Ground Water Monitoring Objectives:
Determine baseline ground water quality within Garvin Brook Watershed so that changes
in quality due to human activities can be detected over time by sampling 15 wells and
three springs
Heighten awareness of the farming community about ground water quality problems in the
project area by sampling numerous wells for nitrate
4.3.7.3 Time Frame
1981 - 1990
Emphasis shifted to ground water in 1985
301
-------
Garvin Brook RCWP, Minnesota
4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme
In FY 1986, the emphasis of the monitoring program was shifted from surface water to ground
water. Available funding was used for monitoring private farm wells, farm fields, and sink-
holes; monthly sampling of one site on Garvin Brook; and limited storm event sampling of
Garvin Brook. The expanded ground water monitoring effort conducted by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) was intended to track long-term effects of BMPs 15 and
16 as well as further define sources and pathways of nitrate and pesticides in ground water.
Surface Water Monitoring: Garvin Brook is sampled for twelve variables and flow rate at one
site on a monthly basis. During FY89, runoff event sampling was conducted at two sites on
Garvin Brook.
Ground Water Monitoring: The ground water related monitoring was conducted primarily by the
MPCA, Winona CES, and the MDA. A total of 160 wells were sampled at least once annu-
ally for nitrate. Twelve of these wells were sampled for nitrate every five weeks. These
same 12 wells are sampled quarterly for pesticides and 15 other variables. An additional 10
wells were sampled quarterly only nitrates and pesticides only. Thirty-three sites for sam-
pling soil moisture in farm fields and sinkholes were established and were sampled for ni-
trate, pesticides, and several other variables on a quarterly basis.
4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations
Surface Water:
In 1981-1982, a total of 14 stream sampling stations located on Rollingstone Creek,
Garvin Brook, Peterson Creek, and Stockton Valley Creek were monitored once per
year. Four of these stations were sampled four to 12 times during 1982 and 1983. From
1981-1991 one site on Garvin Brook was monitored monthly for 18 variables.
Storm event monitoring was performed at two sites in 1984 and 1989. In 1988, one site
on Garvin Brook and one on Stockton Valley Creek were monitored.
On upper Garvin Brook, two sites were monitored for trout every year from 1979 to
1991.
Ground Water:
Fifteen wells and three springs in Garvin Brook Watershed were monitored quarterly in
1982 and once in 1983, 1984, and 1987.
Eighty wells were sampled annually for nitrate in 1983. In 1985 an additional 83 wells
were included in the sampling program. From 1986 to 1991, 161 wells were monitored
annually.
Twelve wells in the ground water recharge area were sampled quarterly for general chem-
istry parameters and every five weeks for nitrate since 1958.
Thirty-three soil moisture sampling sites scattered around the watershed were sampled
two to eight times during a two-year period.
Twenty-two wells were sampled quarterly for pesticides for a one to three year period be-
tween 1986 and 1989.
Residence time analysis was conducted on 31 wells between 1990 and 1991.
4.3.7.4.2 Sample Type
Surface Water: Grab and automatic / electroshocking for fish
Ground Water: Grab
Soil-moisture Sites: Instantaneous with lysimeters and BAT samplers
302
-------
Garvin Brook RCWP, Minnesota
4.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency
Surface Water:
Monthly and selected storm events at Garvin Brook
Storm event only at Stockton Valley Creek
Spring adult trout and fall fingerlings sampled each year
Ground Water:
All 161 wells: annually for nitrate
Twelve wells out of the 161: quarterly for pesticides, 15 other variables and every five
weeks for nitrate
Additional 10 wells: quarterly for nitrate and pesticides
Soil Water:
Thirty-three soil-moisture and sinkhole sites: 2-8 samples analyzed for nitrate, pesti-
cides, and other variables during 1988 and 1989
4.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed
Surface Water: 1981-82: full spectrum of variables including pesticides
1986-88: temperature, pH, turbidity, conductivity, biological oxygen demand (BOD),
chemical oxygen demand (COD), solids, nitrogen, phosphorus, organic carbon, chloride,
sulfate, fecal coliform bacteria, trout abundance and weight
Ground Water: Nitrate-nitrogen, selected pesticides
Soil Water: Nitrate-nitrogen, selected pesticides, general water chemistry
4.3.7.4.5 Row Measurement
Surface Water: Continuous stage measurements were obtained between 1984 and 1991
only at the Garvin Brook station near Minnesota City.
Ground Water: Potentiometric surface measurements were made at numerous wells during
1983 and 1990 and broad scale ground water flow directions were determined.
4.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements
Temperature and precipitation data were recorded by volunteer observers in and around
the project area.
Precipitation (1982): 3 non-recording rain gauges in Garvin Brook watershed were read
daily. Daily snowfall amounts were recorded in winter.
Data were computerized by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Climatology
Department.
4.3.7.4.7 Other Important Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information
The 1989 farm survey indicated that 89 and 92 percent of survey respondents believed that
the Garvin Brook RCWP was effectively improving stream and ground water quality re-
spectively.
303
-------
Can/in Brook RCWP, Minnesota
4.3.7.5 Data Management
The data are in STORET.
STORE!
AGENCY CODE
STORET
STATION NO.
Surface Water Stations:
21MINN
DESCRIPTION
GB-4.5 (6/81-1/90) ongoing Garvin Brook
GB-11.3 (6/81-3/83 data in STORET) ongoing Garvin Brook
SVC-1 (6/81-present) ongoing Stockton Valley Creek
Additional stations with limited monitoring period:
GB-2.5
GB-6.5
GB-8.3
GB-9.4
GBT-0.2
GB-13.8
SCH-0.1
SVC-2.7
SVC-4.7
Ground Water Wells and Springs:
(6/81-6/82)
(6/81-5/89) selected variables
(6/81- 6/82) 2 samples
(6/81-6/82)
(6/81-6/82)
(6/81- 6/82)
(6/81-6/82)
(6/81-6/82)
(6/81-6/82)
21MINNG
II
4"
GWQ0131
GWQ0282-291
GWQ0295
GWQ0296
GWQ0298
GWQ0299
GWQ0318
GWQ0319
GWQ0320
(1/76-6/87) domestic well
(1/76-6/87) 10 domestic wells
(1/76- 6/87) domestic well
(1/76-6/87) domestic well
(1/76-6/87) domestic well
(1/76-6/87) domestic well
(1/76-6/87) well spring
(1/76-6/87) well spring
(1/76-6/87) well spring
Domestic wells post-RCWP BMP implementation
21MINNG NPWLVD381- 393
(2/88-5/89) 12 samples @ 13 wells
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results
Surface Water Analysis:
Median concentrations and loadings of 18 variables were calculated and plotted with median
flow for three periods: the whole year, the spring months, and the summer-fall months for
each year 1982-1990.
Ground Water Analysis:
Variations in time and space of nitrate, bacteria (total coliform), and pesticides (atrazine
mostly) were compiled and plotted. Correlations of nitrate, bacteria, and pesticides with
other water quality variables were also calculated.
304
-------
Garvin Brook RCWP, Minnesota
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results (continued)
Surface Water Results:
Adult trout and fingerling abundance and total weight have increased at two Garvin Brook
stations. However fingerling numbers declined during the last sampling year, suggesting
that adult numbers will also drop in the proceeding years.
AGNPS modeling of storm event delivery to the mouth of Garvin Brook predicted 17% re-
ductions in TSS and 10 to 20% reductions in nutrient delivery resulting from implementa-
tion of BMPs.
Ground Water Results:
The number of wells with nitrate concentrations greater than 10 mg/1 decreased for the
third year in a row during 1990. Well nitrate concentrations may be linked to the geology
of the area around the well and precipitation.
Monitoring of vadose zone soil and water indicated that nitrate contamination of ground
water originates largely from leaching of nitrate from agricultural fields and very little ni-
trate appears to originate from grassland or woodland, with the exception of fertilized pas-
ture land. Nitrate originating from septic tanks as a contributing factor to ground water
contamination was not studied. Nitrate concentrations of 20 - 50 mg/1 were still leaching
below RCWP-contracted fields after three to four years of nutrient management.
While certain sinkholes are thought to contribute significantly to nitrate concentrations in
localized areas, the number of sinkholes located in potential problem areas and the limited
acreage draining into them suggests that sinkholes are not the major pathway for nitrate to
enter ground water throughout the project area.
Of 21 wells in the project area sampled for pesticides in 1988 and 1989, 16 had at least
one detection of the herbicide atrazine. Two wells nearly always had atrazine concentra-
tions above the recommended allowable limit for drinking water (3 ppb). These two wells
were also found to contain other pesticides (dicamba, alachlor, and metribuzin). Point
sources from pesticide application and distribution facilities are thought to be the reason
for the high pesticide concentrations in these wells.
20% of 143 wells in the project area sampled in June, 1989, for total coliform bacteria
had detectable bacteria (at least 2.2 MPN/100 ml).
Denitrification is likely to be causing a reduction in nitrate in parts of the Prairie du Chien-
Jordan aquifer. Due to the likelihood of denitrification in the deeper part of the Jordan
Formation, and the relatively low residence time (37 years) of water in the Prairie du
Chien and much of the upper Jordan, the nitrate situation should significantly improve in
the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer (Winona Co.) within one generation following reduc-
tions in nitrate loading into the aquifer.
4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
The only monitoring activity that specifically tied land use to water quality was the vadose zone sam-
pling. Thirty-three lysimeters of various types were installed in different ecological niches (grass-
land, woodland/pasture/, corn cropland, ponded runoff, and sinkholes) to determine the effects of
RCWP BMPs.
305
-------
Garvin Brook RCWP, Minnesota
4.3.9 Impact of Other Federal and State Programs on the Project
In some years, the federal Payment-In-Kind (PIK) program encouraged the production of more acres
of cora The Dairy Refund Program (DRP) and the Dairy Termination Program (DRP) affected
RCWP participants more than the PIK program. Approximately one-third of the RCWP participants
were involved in the DRP and three were accepted into the DTP. Those accepted into DTP found it
difficult to keep enough hay in their rotation to satisfy their conservation plan for RCWP.
County tax dollars were used to increase the cost share rate from 75% to 90% for some of the more
expensive BMPs for a limited period of time.
4.3.10 Other Pertinent Information
None
4.3.11 References
A complete list of all project documents and other relevant publications may be found in Appendix IV.
Garvin Brook RCWP Project. 1988. Annual Report.
Garvin Brook RCWP Project. 1991. Ten-Year Report.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, J. Spooner, A. Larder, K.J. Adler, S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and
F. J. Humenik. 1989. NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pro-
jects. U.S. EPA Office of Water, Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC. EPA 506/9-
89/002. 167 p.
Wall, D.B., S. A. McGuire, and J. A. Magner. 1989. Water quality monitoring and assessment in the
Garvin Brook Rural Clean Water Project area: Stream and Ground Water Monitoring and Best
Management Practice Implementation Assessment (1981-1989). Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Div. of Water Quality, St. Paul, Minnesota.
4.3.12 Project Contacts
Administration
Wes Bonow
Winona County ASCS
Lewiston, MN 55957
(507) 523-2173
Water Quality
David Wall
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612) 297-3847
Land Treatment
MarkKunz
USDA - SCS
Box 38
Lewiston, Minnesota 55952
(507) 523-2171
306
-------
Gar/in Brook RCWP, Minnesota
4.3.12 Project Contacts (continued)
Information and Education
Charles Raditz or Neil Broadwater
Winona County CES
202 W. Third St.
Lewiston, Minnesota 55952
(507) 457-6440
307
-------
LEGEND
* sewage treatment plant
A solid waste landfll (2)
A wasteway (5)
• feedlot (cattle)
A hoglot
• surface water sampling site
— — — project boundary
ESJ 'own
SCALE
Miles
Figure 4.14: Long Pine Creek (Nebraska) RCWP project map, NE-1.
308
-------
Nebraska
Long Pine Creek
(RCWP17)
Brown & Rock Counties
MLRA: G-66
HUC: 101500-04
4.1 Project Synopsis
The Long Pine Creek RCWP project is located in north central Nebraska on the northeastern edge of the Nebraska
Sandhills, the largest grass-covered sand dune area in the world. The Sandhills rest upon the Ogallala Aquifer, part
of the High Plains Aquifer. The High Plains Aquifer is a 200- mile wide corridor of intermittently saturated sediment
and rocks that extends south through Kansas and Oklahoma into Texas. This aquifer supplies water for irrigation,
stock watering, and domestic and municipal water supply throughout the project area.
The watershed is drained by Long Pine Creek, the longest self-sustaining trout stream in Nebraska. Relic populations
of three species of fish threatened in Nebraska can be found in Long Pine Creek and its tributaries. The Long Pine
State Recreation Area, a state park within the project area, is used by over 8,500 people each season, primarily for
contact recreation and fishing.
Sediment, bacteria, and nutrients are the primary surface water pollutants impairing contact recreation and fishing
on Long Pine Creek. There is potential for degradation of ground water quality from nitrate and pesticide
contamination from commercial fertilizers and pesticides.
The primary sources of sediment are from intensive grazing in riparian areas, streambank erosion, and irrigation
return flows. Specifically, excessive erosion occurs in the headwaters of Long Pine Creek due to intensive grazing
in riparian areas, streambank erosion, and head cutting at the stream's source. Sand Draw and Bone Creek deliver
excessive sediment load, warmer water, high fecal coliform, and fluctuating flow to lower Long Pine Creek. The
sediment from Sand Draw is primarily from irrigation wasteway discharges and return flows. Excessive erosion
occurs along unprotected streambanks and adjacent gullies at the mid-reaches of Bone Creek. Point source feedlots
and the Ainsworth sewage treatment plant contribute to high bacteria and nutrient loadings in these tributaries. The
water quality monitoring identified the priority subwatersheds of Sand Draw and Bone Creek for best management
practice (BMP) emphasis.
The primary water quality goal was to improve the beneficial use of ground and surface waters. Critical area (60,242
acres) criteria were based on high erosion rates and proximity to waterways. RCWP contracts were written on 71%
of the critical area. Not all BMP implementation is complete.
The project, which will continue until 1995, is currently emphasizing a system of erosion control and stream protection
BMPs. Irrigation water management is used to minimize the total water usage, thereby reducing pollutants entering
the streams and ground water. The major components used for irrigation water management were the installation
of irrigation tailwater recovery (re-use) systems and the construction of a secondary storage reservoir. This reservoir
was completed in September of 1987 using pooled funds from 10 RCWP cooperators. The reservoir reduces the
volume of irrigation water use by 2,000 acre-feet annually and, therefore, reduces the amount of irrigation waste
water and associated sediment delivered to the creeks by as much as 28,000 tons of sediment per year.
309
-------
Long Pine Creek RCWP, Nebraska
4.1 Project Synopsis (continued)
Stream protection using cedar revetments was one of the most innovative and successful practices implemented under
the RCWP. As of April, 1991, 19,000 feet of revetments had been constructed. Combined with glazing land
protection and fencing, the revetments successfully decreased streambank erosion and provided habitat for trout and
other wildlife.
The strong information and education (I&E) component of the project resulted in reduced fertilizer and pesticide
use, addressing both ground and surface water pollution simultaneously.
Surface water quality of Long Pine Creek has visually improved. Biological, habitat, chemical, and physical
monitoring are being used to monitor fish habitat in streams and demonstrate improvements in recreational fishing
in Long Pine Creek. Installation of stream protection measures have improved the instream trout habitat. Nebraska
Game and Parks Commission (NGPC) and Soil Conservation Service (SCS) staff estimate that the mean carrying
capacity of Long Pine Creek has increased from about 75 pounds per acre to about 119 Ib/acre, a 58% increase.
Ground water was monitored annually from 1982 and will continue until 1994. The presence of high nitrate
concentrations in both irrigation and domestic wells has been documented. About 5-10% of the samples were above
the drinking water standard of 10 mg/1. Low levels of atrazine were found in one to two wells per year.
Both surface and ground water were monitored before and after BMP implementatioa Pre-BMP surface water
quality monitoring was performed from 1979 through 1985 to provide baseline data. A three-year post-BMP
monitoring phase began in the fall of 1992 for the surface water. Dedicated monitoring wells will be installed in
1993 to sample ground water. Data will be compared with the pre-implementation data in order to evaluate BMP
effectiveness on subwatershed and project level scales.
4.2 Project Findings, Recommendations, and Successes
4.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals
4.2.1.1 Findings and Successes
The water quality and land treatment objectives and goals were directed toward on-site erosion
control and streambank stabilization.
The project suffered at the beginning because agreement on land treatment and water quality
goals could not be reached at the local or the state levels. Some project-level personnel
wanted to build large water retention structures, while others wanted to emphasize on-site
erosion control BMPs. The latter was more in line with the objectives of the RCWP and was
established as the primary project goal in the mid-1980's.
4.2.1.2 Recommendations
Water quality and land treatment objectives and goals should be established based on the water
quality impairment and in conjunction with the national objectives of the nonpoint source
(NFS) control program.
Pre-implementation water quality data should be utilized to establish critical areas contributing to
the water quality problems.
Well-defined quantitative goals need to be established for water quality and land treatment.
Land treatment goals should be directly linked to the water quality goals. These goals should in-
clude the identification of priority areas for land treatment.
Water quality monitoring objectives should be quantitative and realistic. The amount of change
expected to measure in each primary water quality variable should be stated as part of the
monitoring objective. The monitored water quality variables should be directly related to the
water quality use impairment. The project team should keep in mind that there may be a lag
time between BMP implementation and observed water quality improvements, especially in
ground water.
310
-------
Long Pine Creek RCWP, Nebraska
4.2.2 Project Management and Administration
4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes
The RCWP project encouraged inter-agency cooperation between Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (ASCS), Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Cooperative Extension Serv-
ice (CES), Nebraska Department of Environmental Control (NDEC), Nebraska Game and
Parks Commission (NGPC), Middle Niobrara Natural Resource District (MNNRD), Na-
tional Forest Service (NFS), Ainsworth Irrigation District (AID), and Long Pine Landowners
Association.
The LCC formed three subcommittees which contributed to project success. The Executive com-
mittee provided administrative support and coordinated BMP development. The Technical
Action Committee (TAG) developed the technical assistance, monitoring and evaluation, and
project strategy portions of the Annual Plan of Work. The TAG also helped develop BMPs
and a technical assistance priority system for treating water quality problem areas. The Infor-
mation and Education (I&E) subcommittee developed the I&E portion of the Annual Work
Plan and conducted I&E activities, including field tours and demonstration projects and me-
dia coverage.
This project suffered at times from inadequate communication between the Local Coordinating
Committee (LCC) and the State Coordinating Committee (SCC). The goals of the RCWP
were initially misinterpreted by some of the local project personnel.
The local project personnel finally established realistic land treatment goals and formulated and
implemented a successful project.
The project would have been strengthened by early dedication of ASCS and SCS personnel to the
RCWP project and by a designated full-time local project coordinator.
4.2.2.2 Recommendations
A project coordinator can be critical to project success. The coordinator should have excellent
communication and organizational skills and the ability to cultivate an atmosphere of collabo-
ration and teamwork within the LCC. The project coordinator must be able to take initiative,
develop good public relations, write proposals, adjust priorities and goals as the project devel-
ops, and keep the LCC focused on the water quality and land treatment goals.
Clear, pre-project agreements must be established regarding agency roles, the water quality prob-
lem, critical area delineation, water quality and land treatment goals, and land treatment strat-
egy in order for the LCC and the project participants to achieve project objectives and goals.
Priorities based on water quality objectives should be established for specific BMPs and Subbas-
ins.
The SCC should create a Technical Committee who could evaluate the technical aspects of inno-
vative and new practices recommended by the LCC.
To improve communication between the SCC and the LCC, at least one member of the SCC
should attend the LCC meetings.
Funds should be available to encourage continued maintenance of BMPs.
4.2.3 Information and Education
4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes
The strong I&E component of this project contributed to its high level of participation.
A strong I&E program resulted in reduced fertilizer and pesticide use, addressing both ground
and surface water pollution simultaneously.
Fertilizer management, demonstrated through CES workshops and a 50-acre demonstration farm,
was widely adopted as producers realized they could save $10 to $40 per acre by reducing ap-
plication rates from 220 pounds/acre to 170-180 pounds/acre without sacrificing yields.
311
-------
Long Pine Creek RCWP, Nebraska
4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
In Nebraska, an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) association was formed by farmers to pro-
vide weekly pest scouting for all members. The association published a newsletter through
the CES and broadcast a radio program on insect activity. These efforts supported the pesti-
cide management component of the project's I&E program.
The Cooperative Extension Service was a valuable resource for this project.
4.2.3.2 Recommendations
Emphasizing the economic advantages of the BMPs in discussions with producers can generally
result in increased adoption of practices.
Field demonstrations can be a powerful tool for communicating the effectiveness of BMPs with
producers.
Technical funds need to be allocated for I&E activities.
4.2.4 Producer Participation
4.2.4.1 Findings and Successes
Field demonstrations were very effective in communicating with producers.
Lack of a feeling of ownership of the off-site water quality problem by producers and lack of
clear land treatment strategies hindered participation during the first four years of the project.
The most important reason farmers decided to participate was availability of cost share funds. In-
creased farm production was given as the second most important reason.
RCWP cost share improvements to feedlots were not approved because they are considered point
sources under state regulation.
The most important reasons farmers decided not to participate were economic conditions and
costs. Not wanting to be told how to farm was given as the second most important reason.
4.2.4.2 Recommendations
Potential participants should be encouraged to take an active role in defining the land treatment
strategy. The strategy must be consistent with the project's water quality goals, not just the
economic goals of individual farmer.
4.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes
The project achieved a high level of farmer participation in RCWP. Contracts were written on
71% of the critical area.
The ground and surface water monitoring program used in this project aided in prioritizing the
critical area portions of the watershed.
Land treatment implementation was slow due to unclear water quality and land treatment goals,
problem definition, critical area definition, and implementation strategies. Implementation
was initiated in 1984.
Emphasis on fertilizer and pesticide management is a key factor in dealing with ground and sur-
face water problems simultaneously.
Cedar revetments utilized for streambank stabilization were one of the most innovative and suc-
cessful practices implemented under the RCWP. As of April, 1991, 19,000 feet of revet-
ments had been constructed for streambank erosion. These revetments also provide a variety
of habitat benefits for trout and other aquatic life. The trout carrying capacity of Long Pine
Creek has increased as a result of the revetments and associated habitat improvements.
312
-------
Long Pine Creek RCWP, Nebraska
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
Approximately 68% of all cost share funds were spent on irrigation and water management. For
example, almost 22% of the funds were used for the Ainsworth Irrigation District secondary
storage structure. The rest centered on tailwater recovery and water control structures. By
collecting irrigation runoff, sediment and chemicals were prevented from entering surface wa-
ters. The water collected was then reused. This recycling of runoff saved energy and dol-
lars in addition to reducing the amount of sediment entering streams.
Grazing land protection received approximately 12% of the cost share funds. Fencing to exclude
cattle from streambanks, in combination with providing alternative water supplies, became
more acceptable to the farmers after they recognized that the fencing would limit, but not pre-
clude, stream access and that the effective grazing acreage would increase because animals
would be using the entire pasture, not just the riparian areas. To increase the atrractiveness
of grazing land protection strategies, the windmills and pumps used to provide alternative
water sources were cost shared.
Although streambank stabilization was addressed, the high priority areas of Sand Draw and Bone
Creek did not receive sufficient revetments and other stabilization practices to completely ad-
dress the major water quality problems.
Through the use of deep soil sampling to enhance fertilizer recommendations and irrigation sched-
uling, fertilizer use was greatly reduced throughout the watershed.
Fertilizer and pesticide management were widely adopted outside the critical area.
An Integrated Pest Management (EPM) Association was formed to provide field scouting, with the
result that pesticide use was significantly reduced.
Improvements to both the Ainsworth and Long Pine sewage treatment plants have occurred so
that the plants now comply with USEPA and state standards.
Feedlots continue to contribute pollutants to Long Pine Creek. Opportunities exist to reduce fer-
tilizer use by transferring manure from large feedlots to RCWP-participating farms. RCWP
cost share was not available for feedlot improvement due to the classification of feedlots with
greater than 1,000 units as point sources under Nebraska law.
4.2.5.2 Recommendations
Water quality monitoring data should be used as fully as possible by resource managers to iden-
tify critical areas and select and prioritize BMPs.
Procedures for documenting land treatment / land use and cost share information need to be
clearly defined at the beginning of the project. The data bases created should be on a sub-
watershed drainage scale such that they can be linked with the water quality data base. A
data log with RCWP contract subbasin number, BMP, practice code, critical acres served,
units applied, date BMP effective, crop, soil loss savings, water saved, installation costs, and
cost share should be recorded as cost-share payments are made. This will facilitate the an-
nual summary of land treatment and land use.
The reporting of "acres served" and "units" applied need to be consistent over time.
4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes
Surface water quality of Long Pine Creek has visually improved, especially below the confluence
with Bone Creek. Recreational use in the project area has been steady since 1976. Fishing
in the project area continues to be impaired by high sediment levels.
313
-------
Long Pine Creek RCWP, Nebraska
4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
The surface and ground water samples reported for 1979 to 1985 were considered pre-implemen-
tation or baseline data. Analysis of baseline data identified impaired beneficial uses and
helped in targeting location and type of needed BMPs. The pre-BMP water quality monitor-
ing identified the priority subwatersheds of Sand Draw and Bone Creek for BMP emphasis.
Based on the water quality results, it was recommended that emphasis be placed on installa-
tion of streambank protection and habitat improvement structures in the upper reaches of
Long Pine Creek. Emphasis of BMPs which reduce the delivery of runoff into streams was
also recommended.
This project has an extensive biological and habitat monitoring design which helped document use
impairments.
Baseline data will serve as a comparison when the post- BMP implementation water quality analy-
sis is performed.
The presence of high nitrate concentrations in both irrigation and domestic wells has been docu-
mented. About 5 to 10% of the samples were above the drinking water standard of 10 mg/1.
A trend of increasing nitrate concentrations has been identified in some irrigation wells. No
significant trend was observed in the domestic wells. The irrigation wells are a better source
of regional aquifer water quality information compared to domestic wells; however, local
contamination may still be a concern. Chemical accidents may have caused high levels of ni-
trate-N in some wells.
Low levels of atrazine (about 0.1-0.2 part per billion, ppb) were found in one to two wells per
year. Trifluralin, alachlor, cyanide, and metolachlor have also been detected in a few sam-
ples.
Ground water trend analysis was difficult in most cases because different wells were sampled in
different years. Most wells were sampled in two to five years. Only 5 wells were sampled 8
years. Attempts to sample each irrigation well annually were hampered by wells taken out of
use by land enrolled in the CRP or set-aside programs, rainy weather, and irrigation rotation
timing.
Surface water sampling was discontinued in 1985 at most stations, but was reinstated for 1992-
1994. This break in the time series record decreases the potential to clearly demonstrate
water quality improvements.
4.2.6.2 Recommendations
As used in the Nebraska RCWP project, direct measures of beneficial use support (e.g., fishery,
macroinvertebiate, habitat assessment, aquatic biota occurrence, embryo survival, etc.)
should be used whenever possible.
Weekly or biweekly sampling may be better than monthly sampling to increase the number of ob-
servations and account for a greater amount of natural variability, thereby increasing the abil-
ity to detect changes in water quality.
Use of dedicated monitoring wells is preferable to use of domestic and irrigation wells for moni-
toring ground water. Use of newly constructed dedicated wells minimizes the potential for lo-
cal contamination and increases the chances that the wells will be available for monitoring
throughout the project period. There is a need for sufficient information about the sampled
wells and site-specific information to determine if the nitrate- or atrazine- contaminated wells
are responding to local sources of contamination or represent general aquifer conditions.
314
-------
Long Pine Creek RCWP, Nebraska
4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
4.2.1.1 Findings and Successes
The project has estimated significant reductions in sediment delivery to Long Pine Creek. They
estimate that streambank stabilization and tailwater recover systems have reduced sediment
loadings. Six roadside Critical Area Treatments (CATs) are estimated to have reduced sedi-
ment loadings by 19,000 tons annually. The Ainsworth Irrigation District secondary storage
reservoir has the potential to reduce sediment delivery by 28,000 tons per year. In addition,
the MNNRD's drop structure addressing the headcutting in Long Pine Creek could prevent
an additional 1,500 to 2,000 tons of sediment delivery.
Installation of stream protection measures has improved the instream trout habitat and may have
increased the trout carrying capacity of Long Pine Creek. Using site-specific evaluations,
the project NGPC and SCS staff estimate that the mean carrying capacity of Long Pine Creek
has increased from about 75 Ib/acre to about 119 Ib/acre, a 58% increase (Hermsmeyer et
al., 1991). Installing cedar revetments in combination with broadcasting or sodding reed ca-
nary grass decreased streambank erosion and flushing out of deposited sand. This resulted in
re-exposure of the gravel bed, increased stream velocity, increased stream depth, decreased
channel width, and increased spawning habitat.
The project has estimated significant reductions in pesticide and fertilizer use, but does not have
an estimate on the corresponding impact on ground water quality. There may be a lag of sev-
eral years before a measurable impact on ground water quality is observed.
The project has not completed its post-BMP monitoring. Analysis of the water quality and land
treatment data will occur in 1995.
The project has a long pre-BMP monitoring record (five years) with both chemical and biological
data. Three years of post-BMP monitoring data is planned. Some upstream-downstream site
pairs are located in the tributaries. The length of the monitoring record and a high level of
land treatment in the critical area provide the potential for documenting the effectiveness of
irrigation water management, nutrient management, and streambank stabilization (cedar revet-
ments and reduced riparian grazing) over a 10-year time frame. However, the influx of sedi-
ment from headcut erosion may reduce the ability to document BMP effectiveness.
The important explanatory variables of stream flow and rainfall were measured concurrently with
water quality sampling. This should increase the project's ability to isolate water quality
changes due to BMPs and climatic variability.
The project has documented annual land treatment and some of the land use changes on a sub-
watershed scale, which should facilitate the analysis. The Nebraska project took the initia-
tive to revise their land treatment data base near the end of the project period in order to
more effectively link their land treatment and water quality data bases (Hermsmeyer et al.,
1991).
Creation of the land treatment data base after BMP implementation required a lot of effort and
some useful information has been lost. Until 1992, there were no detailed procedures estab-
lished for the collection of land treatment data on a subbasin basis. Delineation of subbasins,
as defined by the land drained to the water quality monitoring stations at the tributary outlets,
were not utilized to identify land treatment subbasins during the implementation period. In
addition, consistent reporting procedures were not utilized for identifying critical acres and
acres served. Reconstruction of the ASCS and SCS files that quantified BMP implementa-
tion in the critical acres on a subbasin and annual basis was required by the project.
315
-------
Long Pine Creek RCWP, Nebraska
4.2.1.2 Recommendations
Monitoring programs should be holistic. Monitoring should include chemical and physical vari-
ables, habitat quality, biotic integrity, land treatment, and land use.
Variations due to seasons and changes in flow need to be measured and incorporated into analyses
to allow for valid interpretations on water quality trends. Additional hydrologic and me-
teorologic variables such as precipitation, storm intensity and frequency, stream flow, and
ground water table depth should be measured if related to water quality in the project.
Land treatment and land use information should be tracked by hydrologic (drainage) units to fa-
cilitate evaluation of BMP effectiveness. Procedures for documenting critical areas, subbasin
delineations, land use, and land treatment data must be established at the projects' beginning.
Consistent reporting and a data base should be maintained seasonally or at least annually.
Land use and land treatment within the project area for both participants and non-participants
should be tracked in the land treatment data base. Land treatment data tracking should not
end with contract expiration if the practice is still being maintained.
Significant changes in annual land use should be incorporated into the analysis to allow valid inter-
pretations to be made regarding water quality changes due to the BMPs and other land use
changes. Land use activities that are important to track include cropping patterns, tillage
methods, irrigation frequencies, rate and timing of chemical applications, and acres in set-
aside programs.
4.3 Project Description
4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame
General RCWP
1981 - 1995
4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions
4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality
4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size
Surface streams and ground water.
Surface water: Long Pine Creek (drainage = 293,100 acres, average aggregate flow =
150 cubic feet per second (cfs) at mouth); major tributaries are Bone Creek, Sand Draw,
and Willow Creek.
The project area rests upon the High Plains Aquifer that extends south through Kansas and
Oklahoma into Texas.
4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments
Surface water: The watershed is drained by Long Pine Creek, the longest self-sustaining
trout stream in Nebraska. Relic populations of three species of fish threatened in Nebraska
can be found in Long Pine Creek and its tributaries. The Long Pine State Recreation
Area, a state park within the project area, is used by over 8,500 people each season, pri-
marily for contact recreation and fishing. The primary water use impairments are to rec-
reation and fishing.
Ground water: Ground water is used for irrigation, stock watering, and domestic and mu-
nicipal water supply throughout the project area. The source of ground water is the Great
Plains Aquifer. There is potential for degradation of the drinking water supply from ni-
trate and pesticide contamination.
316
-------
Long Pine Creek RCWP, Nebraska
4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement
Surface Water:
Sediment, bacteria, and nutrients are the primary surface water pollutants impairing con-
tact recreation and fishing on Long Pine Creek. The primary sources of sediment are
from intensive grazing in riparian areas, streambank erosion and irrigation return flows.
Specifically, excessive erosion occurs in the headwaters of Long Pine Creek due to inten-
sive grazing in riparian areas, streambank erosion, and head cutting at the stream's
source. Sand Draw and Bone Creek deliver excessive sediment load, wanner water, high
fecal coliform, and fluctuating flow to lower Long Pine Creek. The sediment from Sand
Draw is primarily from irrigation wasteway discharges and return flows. Excessive ero-
sion occurs along unprotected streambanks and adjacent gullies at the mid-reaches of
Bone Creek. Point source feedlots and the Ainsworth sewage treatment plant on Bone
Creek contribute to high bacteria and nutrient loadings in these tributaries.
Ground water:
There is potential for degradation of the drinking water supply from high nitrate and pesti-
cide contamination from commercial fertilizers and pesticides.
4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals
Develop new and innovative solutions to water quality problems
Improve the beneficial uses of ground and surface waters in the project area, including do-
mestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, and cold-water fisheries
Plan, implement, and evaluate BMPs that have been selected to improve water quality and
beneficial uses of water in the project area
Demonstrate the water quality effects of nutrient and pesticide management, irrigation
water management, and streambank stabilization as BMPs for surface and ground water
protection
Educate the general public about the importance of water quality
Develop positive community attitudes toward the importance of water quality
4.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics
4.3.2.2.1 Watershed Area: 325,100 acres
Project Area: 197,000 acres
Critical Area: 60,242 acres
4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors
Mean Annual Precipitation: 21.5 inches; about 14.5 inches of irrigation water is needed to
grow corn.
Geologic Factors: The watershed is underlain by shale and sand stone. Topography is di-
verse, ranging from nearly level to steep. Most of the watershed is covered by a blanket
of eolian sand material. Soils are predominantly silts and sands.
4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture
The primary agricultural activities are ranching and irrigated com production, with some
production of popcorn, soybeans, and alfalfa.
317
-------
Long Pine Creek RCWP, Nebraska
4.3.2.2.4 Land Use
Use
Cropland (corn and alfalfa):
Pasture/range:
Woodland:
Urban/roads:
% of Project Area % of Critical Area
NA
NA
NA
NA
18
81
1
4.3.2.2.5 Animal Operations
Operation # Farms
Dairy
Beef
Hogs
us
3
12
5
Total #
Animals
140
25,500
1800
Total Animal
Units
196
25,500
720
Federal
857,540
230,605
422,659
300,000
1,810,804
State
0
0
0
297,850
297,850
Fanner
265,069
0
0
0
265,069
Other
0
0
0
0
0
SUM
1,122,609
230,605
422,659
597,850
2,373,723
4.3.3 Total Project Budget (as of 4/91)
SOURCES
ACTIVITY
Cost Share
Info, and Ed.
Tech. Asst.
Water Quality
Monitoring
SUM
Source: Hermsmeyer etal., 1991
4.3.4 Information and Education
4.3.4.1 Strategy
The I&E program was directed at informing the eligible landowners of the available RCWP
BMPs and the landowners' responsibilities under their RCWP contracts. Particular emphasis
was given to irrigation scheduling, fertilizer management involving deep soil testing, and pes-
ticide management using Integrated Pesticide Management (IPM) techniques. The I&E ef-
forts were directed towards landowners and farm operators in the critical area, fertilizer and
chemical dealers, the general public, and schools and youth groups.
The CES took the lead role in developing and implementing the I&E components of this project.
SCS assisted with the development water quality plans and by providing technical assistance.
318
-------
Long Pine Creek RCWP, Nebraska
4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals
Increase public awareness of water quality concerns
Educate the general public about the importance of water quality
Coordinate project-related information flow between federal, state, and local agencies
Support and encourage implementation of appropriate BMPs outside the project area
Promote a good working relationship between the local agricultural community and state and fed-
eral agencies involved in the RCWP
4.3.4.3 Program Components
Workshops
RCWP quarterly newsletter entitled "Long Pine Rural Clean Water Program Newsletter"
Field tours and demonstrations to study the effectiveness of fertilizer, pesticide, liming, and water
management. The CES used a 50-acre demonstration farm to display and test and demon-
strate these BMPs.
Survey of land users' attitudes about the effectiveness of the I&E program and the RCWP
Secure adequate media coverage, including the production and viewing of three videotapes, two
of which appeared on Nebraska Public Television.
An Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Association was formed in 1983 and provided field scout-
ing, a IPM newsletter, IPM training sessions in identification of pests, weather and soil tem-
perature reports, alerts to potential insect problems, and recommended application methods
and rates of herbicides and pesticides.
4.3.5 Producer Participation
4.3.5.1 Level of Participation
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation
Cost Share Rates: 75%
Payment Limitations: $50,000 per farmer
Availability of cost share funds
Perception that increased farm production would result from implementation of RCWP BMPs
Fertilizer management, demonstrated through CES workshops and demonstrations, was widely
adopted as producers realized they could save $10 to $40 per acre without sacrificing yields.
4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation
The most important reasons farmers decided not to participate were economic conditions and
costs. Not wanting to be told how to farm was given as the second most important reason.
4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs
About 70 to 100% of the critical area BMPs were maintained after the RCWP contracts expired.
Maintenance could have been improved if additional funds were available for this purpose.
The BMPs most often not maintained were fertilizer and pesticide management, cedar revet-
ments, rotational grazing, and streamside fencing. Fertilizer and pesticide management had
the widest adoption rate for non-RCWP participants.
319
-------
Long Pine Creek RCWP, Nebraska
4.3.6 Land Treatment
4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design
The project emphasized a system of erosion control and stream protection BMPs. Land treatment
emphasis was placed on irrigation water management, grazing land protection, diversion sys-
tems, streambank stabilization, and fertilizer and pesticide management. Irrigation water
management was used to minimize the total water usage, thereby reducing pollutants entering
the streams and ground water. The major components used for irrigation water management
were the installation of irrigation tailwater recovery (re-use) systems and the construction of
a secondary storage reservoir. Cedar revetments were constructed to stabilize streambanks.
The revetments consisted of dried cedar trees that were secured by cable and steel fence
posts to the streambanks. Reed canarygrass seed on top of sediment trapped by the revet-
ments was used to further stabilize the streambank. Fencing, in combination with providing
alternative water supplies, was used to exclude cattle from the riparian areas. Emphasis on
fertilizer and pesticide management is a key factor in dealing with ground and surface water
problems simultaneously.
The project had applied to have a one million dollar sediment structure built on Sand Draw. The
structure was never funded because the project could not demonstrate the on-farm water qual-
ity benefits and justify expenditure of RCWP funds. After denial of the structure was final,
the project concentrated on irrigation water management and streambank stabilization.
Roadside Critical Area Treatments (CAT) were installed to reduce roadside erosion in the project
area. These were not funded under RCWP, but by the North Central Nebraska Resource
Conservation and Development USDA program through SCS, MNNRD, and Brown County.
4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals
Reduce streambank erosion
Reduce the delivery of sediment from agricultural lands
Reduce the deep percolation of irrigation water contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides
Reduce excess irrigation water runoff
Reduce agricultural NPS pollution from feedlots
Quantified Implementation Goals: 75% of the critical areas
4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application
Criteria: High erosion rates and proximity to waterways, specifically:
Streambanks or gullies with active erosion
Center pivot irrigated cropland with greater than 5T/acre/year soil loss
Rangeland in poor or fair condition
Application of Criteria: Contracts were primarily being applied to the critical areas; however, lit-
tle priority was given to the order or selection of BMPs.
320
-------
Long Pine Creek RCWP, Nebraska
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used
BMPs Utilized in the Project*:
Permanent vegetative cover (BMP 1)
Animal waste management system (BMP 2)
Diversion system (BMP 5)
Grazing Land Protection (BMP 6)
Waterway system (BMP 7)
Cropland protection system (BMP 8)
Conservation tillage system (BMP 9)
Stream protection system (BMP 10)
Permanent vegetative cover on critical areas (BMP 11)
Sediment retention, erosion, or water control structures (BMP 12)
Improving irrigation system and / or water management system (BMP 13)
Tree Planting (BMP 14)
Fertilizer Management (BMP 15)
Pesticide Management (BMP 16)
*Please refer to Appendix I for description/purpose of BMPs
4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring & Tracking Program
4.3.6.5.1 Description
Cost shared and non-cost shared land BMPs were compiled to reflect units installed and
acres served on a subwatershed and annual basis (Hermsmeyer et al., 1991).
4.3.6.5.2 Data Management
Data are collected by SCS, CES, and ASCS. ASCS maintains the land treatment records
and prepares reports.
Procedures for consistent documentation of land treatment / land use and cost share infor-
mation were not clearly defined at the project beginning. These data bases should be
maintained on a subwatershed drainage scale so that they can be linked with the water
quality data base. Consistent definitions for critical acres and acres served were not estab-
lished at the project initiation, making compilation of acres served in each subbasin by
year difficult.
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results
The ground and surface water monitoring program used in this project aided in prioritiz-
ing portions of the watershed for critical area definition. Originally, the streambank ero-
sion in the headwaters of Long Pine Creek was the primary source of sediment.
Monitoring and geologic investigations revealed that streambank erosion in both Sand
Draw and Bone Creeks was the major contributor.
321
-------
Long Pine Creek RCWP, Nebraska
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results (continued)
The Ainsworth irrigation district secondary storage reservoir, upstream of 33,000 acres of
irrigated cropland, was completed in September of 1987 using pooled funds from 10
RCWP cooperators. The reservoir reduces the volume of irrigation water applied by an
estimated 2,000 acre-feet annually for gravity-irrigated cropland in the critical area, and
therefore, reduces the amount of irrigation waste water and associated sediment delivered
to the creeks by as much as 28,000 tons of sediment per year.
Stream protection using cedar revetments was one of the most innovative and successful
practices implemented under the RCWP. As of April, 1991, 19,000 feet of revetments
had been constructed. Combined with grazing land protection and fencing, the revetments
successfully decreased streambank erosion and provided habitat for trout and other wild-
life. Project personnel developed several innovations to overcome difficulties in imple-
menting cedar revetments. To prevent beaver damage, the cedar trees had to be cut and
dried up to a year before use. Reed canarygrass seed was broadcast or placed as sod on
top of sediments trapped by the revetments to prevent damage by heavy rains and runoff.
Over half of all cost share funds were spent on irrigation and water management; 21.8%
was for the Ainsworth Irrigation District secondary storage structure. The rest centered
on tailwater recovery. Sediment and chemicals were prevented from entering surface wa-
ters when the irrigation runoff was collected and then reused. This recycling of runoff
saved energy and dollars in addition to reducing the amount of sediment entering streams.
The small sediment control dams constructed under BMPs were more cost-effective than
the cost of the large structure that was not approved for Sand Draw.
The MNNRD's drop structure is attempting to address the headcutting in Long Pine
Creek.
Fertilizer and pesticide management were widely adopted outside the critical area. As a re-
sult of deep soil sampling and irrigation scheduling, fertilizer use was greatly reduced
throughout the watershed.
An Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Association involving field scouting resulted in a
large reduction in pesticide use.
Improvements to both the Ainsworth and Long Pine sewage treatment plants have oc-
curred so that the plants now comply with USEPA and state standards.
Feedlots continue to contribute pollutants to Long Pine Creek. Opportunities exist to re-
duce fertilizer use by transferring manure from large feedlots (defined by the state as point
sources) to RCWP-participating farms. RCWP cost share was not available for feed lot
improvement due to the classification of feedlots with greater than 1,000 units as point
sources under Nebraska law.
Streambank erosion continues to be a problem in Sand Draw and Bone Creek.
Quantified Project Achievements:
Critical Area
Pollutant
Source Units laial % Implemented
Cropland acres 11,000 71%*
Pasture acres 49,242 71%
Dairies #farms 2 100%
Feedlots # 2 100%
Contracts # 86 98%
Contracts were written on 71% of critical area.
322
-------
Long Pine Creek RCWP, Nebraska
4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design
The basic strategy is to monitor surface and ground water before and after BMP implementation.
Upstream - downstream monitoring stations were utilized in the tributaries and on Long Pine
Creek to account for changes upstream of BMP implementatioa The Nebraska Department
of Environmental Control (NDEC) performed pre-BMP water quality monitoring from 1979
through 1985 to provide the baseline data and identify priority tributaries for BMP emphasis.
A three-year post-implementation phase began in the fall of 1992. These data will be com-
pared with the pre-implementation data in order to evaluate BMP effectiveness on subwater-
shed and project level scales. Biological, habitat, chemical, and physical monitoring are
being used to directly monitor fish habitat in streams and demonstrate improvements in rec-
reational fishing in Long Pine Creek.
Water quality monitoring was performed by the NDEC with the assistance of SCS, NGPC, CES,
MNNRD.
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals
Objectives:
Document the magnitude of surface and ground water quality problems
Demonstrate the water quality effects of nutrient and pesticide management, irrigation
water management, and streambank stabilization as BMPs for surface and ground water
protection
Pre-BMP Implementation Monitoring Goals:
Document pre-BMP water quality conditions
Identify existing water quality problems, including any areas where surface-water-quality-
dependent beneficial uses are impaired by land use activities
Identify and prioritize areas where BMP installation will have the greatest effect
Provide baseline data for evaluation of site-specific BMPs and changes in water quality
Post-BMP Implementation Monitoring Goals:
Determine if there is any change in ambient surface water quality from pre-implementa-
tion conditions in Long Pine Creek, Bone Creek, Sand Draw, and Willow Creek
Determine if a primary contact recreation use is attainable on the lower reaches of Bone
Creek based on the physical conditions and current public utilization of the stream
Determine the frequency of water quality criteria violations and the level at which the ap-
propriate beneficial uses are supported in streams within the project area
Determine at what level salmonid spawning is currently supported in Long Pine and lower
Bone Creeks based on embryo survival in artificial redds
Determine if the macroinvertebrate population (i.e., taxa present, frequency of occur-
rence, number of individuals, diversity, and pollution tolerance) in Long Pine and Bone
Creeks has significantly changed from pre-implementation conditions due to the implemen-
tation of BMPs
Determine if the fishery population (i.e., taxa present, frequency of occurrence, diversity,
and pollution tolerance) in Long Pine Creek, Bone Creek, and Sand Draw has signifi-
cantly changed from pre- implementation conditions due to the implementation of BMPs
Determine if the salmonid population (i.e., standing crop, size class composition, and con-
dition factors) in Long Pine Creek has improved from pre-implementation levels due to
the implementation of BMPs
323
-------
Long Pine Creek RCWP, Nebraska
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals (continued)
Determine if the project implemented by the MNNRD to control headcutting in the upper
reaches of Long Pine Creek is effective in reducing sediment delivery from this source
Determine the combined effect of implementing BMPs (cedar revetments, other stream-
bank stabilization measures, and control of headcutting) on fishery habitat and sediment
delivery in upper Long Pine Creek
Determine the change in trends in the suspended solids, substrate composition, and bacte-
rial levels in Long Pine Creek due to the implementation of BMPs and feedlot controls
Determine if summer water temperature and instream habitat still restrict the potential for
cold water fisheries in the lower reaches of Long Pine Creek
Determine the change in trends in suspended solids, substrate composition, bacteria, nutri-
ents, organic waste, and water temperature in Bone Creek due to the implementation of
BMPs and feedlot controls
Determine the change in trends in suspended solids, substrate composition, and water tem-
perature in Sand Draw due to the implementation of BMPs
4.3.7.3 Time Frame
Surface Water:
All sites (except LP8): July 1979 -1985 and 1992 -1994
United States Geological Survey (USGS) gauge site near project outlet on Long Pine
Creek (LP8): July 1979 - October 1989 and January 1991 -1994
Ground Water: 1982 -1994
4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme
4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations
Surface Water: 11 sites on Long Pine Creek, Bone Creek, Willow Creek, and Sand Draw
(see project map) / runoff event data are collected at 6 surface sites (LP1, LP7,, LP8,
BN1, BN3, SD2)
Ground Water: Varying numbers and locations of irrigation and domestic wells were sam-
pled each year (approximately 4-20 of each well type) from a total of 67 different wells.
Streambank erosion: 4 sites to evaluate the magnitude of erosion reduction effectiveness of
cedar revetments and upstream movement of the headcut
4.3.7.4.2 Sample Type
Grab
Flow actuated automatic samplers for runoff sampling
4.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency
Surface Water: monthly (bimonthly during winter) for baseline samples, composite sam-
ples during runoff events, fish and macroinvertebrate samples were collected 2-3
times/year
Ground Water: annually in July or August when the aquifer is used for irrigation / Each
well was sampled 1 to 8 times over the project period.
Streambank erosion sites: annually
324
-------
Long Pine Creek RCWP, Nebraska
4.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed
Surface Water:
Total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform (FC) bacteria, fecal Streptococcus bacteria,
dissolved oxygen (DO), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand
(COD), suspended solids (SS), total dissolved solids (IDS), total organic carbon (TOC),
conductivity, nitrate-nitrite- nitrogen (NOa+ NO2-N), ammonia-N (NHs- N), total phos-
phorus (TP), chloride, dissolved calcium, dissolved sodium, magnesium, total organic
carbon, pH, and water temperature
Biological monitoring (fish, macroinvertebrate, and periphyton, and bacteria) sampling,
aquatic habitat (flow, substrate composition, cover), and riparian conditions along stream
at 7 sites
Addition Surface Water Variables During Post-BMP Monitoring:
Artificial redds to assess spawning success in Long Pine and Bone Creeks. A site on the
Snake River will be used as a reference cite.
Stream morphology characteristics of width, depth, velocity, and gradient measured annu-
ally
Ground Water:
NOs-N, 14 pesticides including atrazine, conductivity, pH, TP, total organic carbon, so-
dium, chloride, calcium, magnesium
4.3.7.4.5 Flow Measurement
Stream discharge is recorded with all grab samples / runoff event data are collected at 6
surface sites (LP1, LP7,, LP8, BN1, BN3, SD2)
4.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements
Precipitation is measured at 4 sites (LP1, LP8, SD1, and Ainsworth Airport).
4.3.7.4.7 Other Important Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information
There is interest in assessing the contact recreational potential at Keller Park State Recrea-
tion Area on Bone Creek. Bacterial levels and ambient water quality in Bone Creek was
investigated in a special interim project study. Monthly samples were collected from No-
vember, 1989 through March, 1990; weekly samples were collected from April through
October, 1990. The objective was to evaluate the impact of feedlots near the stream. Sev-
eral feedlots upgraded their livestock waste systems in the 1980's, which is hoped to have
reduced pollution from these sources. However, the City of Ainsworth is not currently re-
quired to disinfect their effluent which discharges into Bone Creek.
During the post-BMP monitoring period, a recreational use attainability study on lower
Bone Creek near the State Recreational Area will be conducted.
325
-------
Long Pine Creek RCWP, Nebraska
4.3.7.5 Data Management
All surface and ground water chemical and biological data are stored locally at the Nebraska De-
partment of Environmental Control, Lincoln, ME. All data collected prior to 1986 were re-
ported by Maret (1985). Ground water data for all years and wells are tabulated in the
10-Year Report (Hermsmeyer et al., 1991)
Both surface and ground water monitoring data are stored in STORET. The biological data have
been entered into BIOS, a companion data base to STORET. The BIOS agency and station
codes are the same as those used for STORET. For a description of the biological variables
measured at each station, see Maret (1985).
STORET STORET PROFILE / STATION
AGENCY COPE STATION NO. MAP/ NO.
Surface Water Monitoring Stations
21NEB001 LP0001 NE-1 / LP1
LP0005 NE-1 / LP5
LP0007 NE-1 / LP7
LP0008 NE-1 / LP8
BNOOOO NE-1 / BN
BN0001 NE-1 / BN1
BN0002 NE-1 / BN2
BN0003 NE-1 / BN3
SD0001 NE-1 / SD1
SD0002 NE-1 / SD2
21NEB001 W0001 NE-1 / Wl
LPR001 NE-1 / Rainfall collected near LP1
LPR007 NE-1 / Rainfall collected near LP7
LPR008 NE-1 / Rainfall collected near LP8
BNR001 NE-1 / Rainfall collected near BN1
BNR003 NE-1 / Rainfall collected near BN3
SDR02B NE-1 / Rainfall collected near SD2
The STORET agency code is 21NEAGO1. The STORET station code is of the form "LPGWnn"
where 'nn' is the well number. The RCWP project has wells 1 through 64 with this naming conven-
tion. There are 3 Health Department wells that are used in the RCWP reports, but these wells are
not in STORET.
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results
Analysis:
Exploratory data analysis includes tabular presentation of the data, time plots, and calcula-
tion of minimum, means, medians, maximums, and standard deviations for water quality
concentrations at each site over the pre- implementation period.
Water quality index values are calculated using weighted values of DO, pH, NOa-N,
N, suspended solids, and conductivity. Species diversity and biotic indices were calculated
with macroinvertebrate data.
Surface water quality data are compared to the Nebraska Surface Water Quality Standards.
326
-------
Long Pine Creek RCWP, Nebraska
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results (continued)
After the post-BMP monitoring is complete, the project plans additional analyses includ-
ing:
Comparing mean values, frequency distributions, and probability of standard violations
between the pre- and post-BMP periods
Analyzing for significant linear and monotonic trends
Evaluating changes in flow/water quality relationships following BMP implementation
Comparing the pre- and post-BMP values after correcting for flow and rainfall using the
analysis of covariance technique
Examining the relationship among several quantitative variables using principal compo-
nent analysis
Trend analysis for changes in NOs-N in ground water was performed using data from a se-
lected group of ground water wells that had at least 3 years of data and where monitoring
started prior to 1984. Trend analysis was difficult in most cases because different wells
were sampled in different years.
Results:
Surface water quality of Long Pine Creek has visually improved, especially below the con-
fluence with Bone Creek.
The surface and ground water samples reported for 1979 to 1985 were considered pre-im-
plementation or baseline data. Analysis of baseline data identified impaired beneficial uses
and helped in targeting the locations and types of needed BMPs.
The pre-BMP water quality monitoring identified the priority subwatersheds of Sand Draw
and Bone Creek for BMP emphasis. Based on the water quality results, it was recom-
mended that emphasize be placed on installation of streambank protection and habitat im-
provement structures in the upper reaches of Long Pine Creek. Emphasis of BMPs which
reduce the delivery of runoff into streams was also recommended.
Baseline water quality data will serve as a comparison when the post-BMP implementation
water quality analysis is performed (Maret, 1985).
Recreational use in the project area has been steady since 1976. Fishing in the project
area continues to be impaired by high sediment levels.
The presence of high nitrate concentrations in both irrigation and domestic wells has been
documented. About 10% of the samples were above the drinking water standard of 10
mg/1. A trend of increasing nitrate concentrations has been identified in some irrigation
wells. No significant trend was observed in the domestic wells. The irrigation wells are a
better source of regional water quality information compared to domestic wells; however,
local contamination may still be a concern. Chemical accidents may have caused high lev-
els of nitrate-N in some wells.
Low levels of atrazine (about 0.1-0.2 ppb) were found in one to two wells per year. Tri-
fluralin, alachlor, cyanide, and metolachlor have also been detected in a few samples.
327
-------
Long Pine Creek RCWP, Nebraska
4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
The project has estimated significant reductions in sediment delivery to Long Pine Creek. They esti-
mate that streambank stabilization and tailwater recover systems have reduced sediment load. Six
roadside Critical Area Treatments (CATs) are estimated to have reduced sediment loadings by
19,000 tons annually. The Ainsworth Irrigation District secondary storage reservoir has the potential
to reduce sediment delivery by 28,000 tons per year. In addition, the MNNRD's drop structure ad-
dressing the headcutting in Long Pine Creek could prevent an additional 1,500 to 2,000 tons of sedi-
ment delivery.
Installation of stream protection measures has improved the instream trout habitat and may have in-
creased the trout carrying capacity of Long Pine Creek. Using site-specific evaluations, the project
NGPC and SCS staff estimate that the mean carrying capacity of Long Pine Creek has increased
from about 75 Ib/acre to about 119 Ib/acre, a 58% increase (Hermsmeyer et al., 1991).
The project has estimated significant reductions in pesticide and fertilizer use, but does not have an
estimate on the corresponding impact on ground water quality. The lag time for a measurable re-
sponse in the ground water may be years.
The project has not completed its post-BMP monitoring. Analysis of the water quality and land treat-
ment data will occur in 1995.
Changes in annual land use were significant and need to be incorporated into the final analysis to al-
low valid interpretations to be made.
The project has documented land treatment changes on a subwatershed scale which should facilitate
the analysis. The Nebraska project took the initiative to revise their land treatment data base near the
end of the projects in order to more effectively link their land treatment and water quality data bases.
This after-the-fact data base creation required a lot of effort and some useful information was lost.
The project had no consistent procedure established for the collection of land treatment data on a sub-
basin basis that would allow the land treatment information to be directly linked to the water quality
monitoring. Delineation of subbasins, as defined by the land drained to the water quality monitoring
stations at the tributary outlets, were not utilized during the implementation period for recording land
treatment progress. In addition, consistent reporting procedures were not utilized for identifying criti-
cal acres and acres served. Reconstruction of the ASCS and SCS files that quantified BMP imple-
mentation in the critical acres on a subbasin and annual basis was required.
Documentation of non-RCWP land use changes and activities is sketchy.
4.3.9 Impact of Other Federal and State Programs on the Project
The project felt that the 1985 Farm Bill had a positive effect on the implementation of conservation
practices by alleviating economic stress using subsidy payments with the constraint of having a con-
servation plan.
However, the 1985 Farm Bill competed with the SCS personnel time available to implement the
RCWP. The CRP program, Highly Erodible Land (HEL) identifications for each cropland field,
conservation plan preparation, and the RCWP all competed with a limited amount of SCS staff time
available.
Federal farm programs had a large effect on changes in annual land use. These federal programs are
adjusted annually, based on grain stocks on hand. These programs changed annual acres in grain,
the amount of chemicals applied to land, and the amount of water needed to irrigate cropland.
Nebraska law defines feedlots with over 1000 animal units as permitted point sources. Feedlots were
not eligible for RCWP cost share.
4.3.10 Other Pertinent Information
None
328
-------
Long Pine Creek RCWP, Nebraska
4.3.11 References
A complete list of all project documents and other relevant publications may be found in Appendix IV.
Hermsmeyer, B., D. Jensen, and M. Link. 1991. Nebraska Long Pine Creek Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram Ten Year Report 1981-1991. Brown County Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service (ASCS), Ainsworth, NE. 275p.
Maret, T. 1985. Water Quality in the Long Pine Rural Clean Water Project 1979-1985. Nebraska De-
partment of Environmental Control, P.O. Box 94877 - Statehouse Station, Lincoln, NE. 194p.
4.3.12 Project Contacts
Administration
Betty Hermsmeyer
USDA-ASCS
Ainsworth Field Office
R.R.2
Ainsworth, NE 69210
(402) 387-2242
Water Quality
Dave Jensen (surface water)
Marty Link (ground water)
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control
301 Centennial Mall South
P.O. Box 94877
State House Station
Lincoln, NE 68509-4877
(402) 471-4700 (Jensen)
(402) 471-4230 (Link)
Land Treatment
Jerry Hardy or Diego Ayala
Soil Conservationist
USDA - SCS
Ainsworth Field Office
RR2
Ainsworth, Nebraska 69210
(402) 387-2242
Information and Education
Dennis Bauer
Extension Agent
Long Pine Creek RCWP
BKR Cooperative Extension Service
Brown County Courthouse
Ainsworth, NE 69210
(402) 387-2213
329
-------
Pro|KtAiM
LEGEND
• bay sampling sites*
(*in addition, there are
tributary monitoring
sites not shown)
N
0 feet 10,000
SCALE
Figure 4.15: Tillamook Bay (Oregon) RCWP project map, OR-1.
330
-------
Oregon
Tillamook Bay
(RCWP18)
Tillamook County
MLRA: A-1
HUC: 171002-03
4.1 Project Synopsis
Located in northwest Oregon, Tillamook Bay is bounded on the east by the Coast Mountain Range and on the west
by the Pacific Ocean. Five watersheds consisting of 363,520 acres drain to Tillamook Bay. This high rainfall area
receives 90 to 150 inches of rain per year. Agricultural lands comprise 23,540 acres of the watershed. The land is
used for pasture, hay, and silage production for the dairy herds that occupy the lowlands adjacent to the bay and its
tributaries.
Water quality impairment is due to high fecal coliform levels caused primarily by manure in runoff from the dairy
farms, which occupy 7% of the drainage basin and produce about 322,500 tons of manure annually. High fecal
coliform levels were causing potential health hazards, and negatively affecting the commercial oyster industry,
recreational clam digging, fishing, boating, and other tourist activities. Many of the oyster beds were closed
periodically due to excessive coliform levels. The primary objective of the project was to reduce fecal coliform
levels by 70% in order to reduce the deleterious effects being caused to the oyster and tourism industries.
Of the 122 dairy farms, implementation of best management practices (BMPs) on 109 farms was considered critical
for the project's success. This included 8,723 acres (37%) of agricultural lands. Throughout the project period,
there was a continued upward revision in the number of dairies needing treatment until 102 dairies were contracted.
As a consequence, land treatment installation will continue to the end of the project, 1996. As of December 31,
1990, BMPs had been implemented on only 48% of the contracted critical acres.
All installed BMPs were targeted toward manure storage and management. Many of the practices utilized by this
project were added to address the specific manure management needs imposed by the unusual climatic conditions
and are unique to this project.
The general water quality monitoring strategy was to gather data that would describe the condition of Tillamook Bay
and its tributaries relevant to water quality standards and beneficial use. The number of tributaries sampled and the
sampling frequency changed over the course of the project from quarterly sampling to monthly sampling. These
changes hindered the project team's ability to detect trends in the measured parameters.
Although the number of oyster bed sites restricted under Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classification criteria
has been cut in half, from 12 to 6, it is still too early to make a final assessment of Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP) project results. Continued water quality improvements are expected to occur for a number of years as all
BMPS are installed and as operators develop management techniques to utilize implemented and installed BMPs.
The strategy of this project was very clear to everyone: keep the water off the manure and keep the manure from
entering the waterways. However, agency officials were unaware at the beginning of the project that this would
mean treating the majority of the farms in the project area. There was excellent coordination among governmental
and private agencies as evidenced by the high rate of participatioa At the beginning of the project, farmers were
aware that if they did not solve the problem, they could very well be regulated by the state. Since all BMPs are not
yet installed and because water quality sampling frequency changed during the course of the project, water quality
monitoring will have to continue for many more years in order to determine how successful the project has been.
331
-------
Tillamook Bay RCWP, Oregon
4.2 Project Rndings, Recommendations, and Successes
4.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals
4.2.1.1 Findings and Successes
The overall goal of reducing fecal coliform by 70% during the original project period (1980-
1990) was too optimistic because neither the magnitude or the complexity of the problem was
understood at the beginning of the project.
The overall goal of measuring changes in water quality was appropriate. However, the water
quality monitoring frequency changed during the course of the project. It was not possible to
demonstrate long-term trends in the bacteria data. This may be due, in part, to the reduced
sampling frequency.
Objectives and goals in the information and education (I&E) as well as land treatment aspects of
the project were appropriate and attainable.
4.2.1.2 Recommendations
Before project initiation, critical areas must be defined accurately, even if this means visiting all
farms during the wet season.
Statistical or modeling tools should be used to help establish realistic and achievable goals.
Water quality monitoring should be extended past the life of the project in order to document
water quality changes.
Monitoring goals and objectives should be clearly defined prior to the project start-up and should
be consistent with available, stable, funding levels.
4.2.2 Project Management and Administration
4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes
Organizationally, the Local Coordinating Committee (LCC) was comprised of 13 diverse agen-
cies or groups. The LCC developed criteria for prioritizing producer water quality plans and
assisted in monitoring project plans (Tillamook Bay RCWP Project, 1991). Local program
administration was exemplary.
Computerization of project activities was found to be extremely useful in planning, implementa-
tion, administration and workload analysis functions.
The State Coordinating Committee (SCC) provided assistance to the LCC when needed. The
SCC was instrumental in obtaining support from the NCC for both modifying particular
BMPs and adding new BMPs. Cooperation among the federal, state, and local agencies was
excellent and was critical to successful project implementation.
National RCWP project application guidelines were not well defined when the program was first
announced.
4.2.2.2 Recommendations
Future programs should be announced in advance with clear project application guidelines so that
agencies preparing applications will know exactly what information is required.
At the national level, a procedure for transferring project funds to cooperating agencies is needed
in order to insure smooth and efficient program administration at the state level.
For future projects, agencies responsible for administration, planning, implementation, and water
quality data should have computer networking capabilities. This would enhance overall pro-
ject management, reports, program redirection, and project evaluation.
Local leadership and cooperation is critical to any project's success.
332
-------
Tillamook Bay RCWP, Oregon
4.2.3 Information and Education
4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes
A continuous and coordinated information and education (I&E) effort was difficult to conduct be-
cause of budgetary problems within the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) at the county
level. Many of the I & E activities were assumed by the other agencies including the CES at
Oregon State University. Once the county budget was restored, the county CES again took re-
sponsibility for I & E activities.
Manure management practices required more I&E than did structural changes or additions; ma-
nure management education is still continuing.
The Tillamook County Creamery Association (TCCA), a private creamery, supported the project
from the beginning and made major contributions. Information about the RCWP project fre-
quently appeared in TCCA newsletters sent to all farmers. The TCCA field representative
explained the program to many of the farmers in an attempt to involve them in the project
In addition, the TCCA had the ability to discount milk prices paid to producers who did not
correct pollution problems.
Other I&E activities for farmers included newsletters, brochures, TV and radio spots, and news-
paper and other publications. The newsletter was not as effective an I&E tool as personal
contacts, but it appeared to be more effective than radio and TV spots. Tours were con-
ducted for financial lending agencies in order to educate them about the project and help par-
ticipants obtain their share of the BMP installation expense. Slide shows and displays were
effective in informing the general public about the project. A workshop was held to discuss
RCWP with potential BMP contractors.
In this area, where fanners live within a twenty-mile radius of each other, peer pressure worked
as an incentive.
Structures implemented during the initial phases of the project have served as important educa-
tional tools for other area farmers, enabling them to see implemented and functioning BMPs.
One of the most effective I&E approaches was for farmers to show the manure runoff problem
during wet weather to other farmers.
4.2.3.2 Recommendations
Regional financial institutions must be educated about RCWP and similar programs.
Private business, in this case the Tillamook County Creamery Association, can play a pivotal role
in farmer education and compliance.
State and county governments must be required to continue funding for each project element
(such as I&E) if it is still needed and the project is worthwhile.
I&E for many management practices should be extended past the end of the project if full benefits
of the BMPs are to be derived.
There is no substitute for one-to-one contacts to gain participation and complete contracts.
Agricultural and water quality agency personnel should work together closely on designing, pub-
licizing, and implementing the nonpoint source (NFS) pollution control program to ensure a
high level of farmer participation.
333
-------
Tillamook Bay RCWP, Oregon
4.2.4 Producer Participation
4.2.4.1 Findings and Successes
Producer participation was greater than expected. At the end of the project, of the 109 dairy
farms designated as needing BMPs, 102 (94%) of the farms were under contract with RCWP
and an additional three farms were under Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) con-
tracts, thus bringing the contracted farm total to 96%. Because contracting has been ongo-
ing, only 43% of the critical dairy operations, representing 48% of the critical acres, have
been treated to date. This represents 193,595 tons (60%) of the manure produced within the
Tillamook Bay Drainage Basin (Tillamook RCWP 10 Year Report, 1991).
Implementation of some BMPs were delayed because of high interest rates during the 1980's and
the 1982 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, both which limited cash flow and participants'
ability to pay for their portion of the BMPs.
4.2.4.2 Recommendations
A U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) program is needed to assist participants in financing
their portion of the BMP installation costs. A low interest loan program would reduce the
contracting time frame for BMP installation and maintain agricultural producers' cash flow
requirements.
The combination of financial incentive and environmental regulation can used effectively to
achieve high rates of participation.
4.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes
Although eight BMPs were utilized on area farms, the majority of money and most of the project
efforts were directed toward animal waste management systems (BMP 2). Traditional BMPs
were not adequate to solve manure runoff problems. The project and state technical staff de-
veloped special methods for manure storage. Additional practices that diverted water from
the manure (such as curbing, conduits, down spouts, roofs, etc.) were added to the list of
BMPs approved for cost share and used by area farmers.
For dry storage, a roofed area with paving was built onto the barn. Paving allowed for daily
scraping which was essential. Wet storage systems consisted of a below-ground storage tank
in the barn. The effluent was pumped to above-ground storage areas located outside. Be-
cause of the high water table in the area, a special design was needed for these storage tanks.
The SCS, the farmers, and the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS)
had to work closely together to design a system that fit farm operations, that was structurally
sound, and that was affordable.
Diverting the water from accumulation areas was found to be more cost-effective than collecting
and storing contaminated rainwater. Implementation of some components of BMP 2 were de-
layed while SCS designed large-volume liquid and solid manure storage facilities.
A manure management system that included both storage and utilization of manure was found to
be necessary. Each component of the manure management system was based on site specific
requirements and participants' preferences.
The high rate of land treatment implementation is credited to the SCS technicians' willingness to
communicate with farmers.
Although critical land area remained the same during the project, the number of farm units consid-
ered critical almost doubled. Prioritizing of RCWP applications was facilitated by the use of
a rating system based on twelve different factors. This increase in the number of farms con-
sidered critical has caused a lag in implementation.
A computer shared by the various agencies, originally purchased to accelerate project activities,
tended to hinder activities because there were too many users. The problem was resolved
with the installation of computers by all agencies during the last few years of the project.
334
-------
Tillamook Bay RCWP, Oregon
4.2.5.1 Rndings and Successes (continued)
Changes in local and/or state regulations during project implementation affected the implementa-
tion process. Tillamook County began requiring agricultural building permits eight years af-
ter the project started. The State of Oregon also required confined animal feeding permits
starting in 1990. These changes resulted in additional reviews prior to BMP implementatioa
Annual status reviews by the SCS were the primary method for BMP tracking. During the first
five years of the project, some reviews were not completed due to the heavy workload.
ASCS spot checked BMPs to ensure adequate maintenance and management.
4.2.5.2 Recommendations
BMP systems must be modified at the local level. The agricultural industry and potential partici-
pants must be involved in BMP selection.
Local decision makers must have flexibility in choosing BMPs for cost share. Traditional prac-
tices may not be technically adequate to solve all water quality problems.
Rather than pricing the whole BMP, components of the BMP should be priced. This allows for
better accounting and identification of inflated pricing.
An adequate technical staff must be available. The Tillamook Project, with 102 farms under con-
tract, could not be efficient with less than a soil conservationist, a soil conservation techni-
cian, and a civil engineer in addition to the district conservationist. Agency personnel must
be trusted by the farmers and must be viewed as "advocates" rather than "enforcers".
Local decisions about handling contract violations must be supported at the state and national lev-
els for consistency of enforcement. Otherwise, area farmers who are in compliance can be-
come resentful toward those farmers who have not complied with contractual guidelines.
As individual farmers increase herd sizes, BMPs may become obsolete. For this reason, BMPs
must be regularly re-evaluated and updated.
For future projects, it is recommended that agencies responsible for administration, planning, im-
plementation, and water quality data have computer networking capabilities. This would en-
hance project management, reporting, program redirection, and project evaluation.
For future projects requiring a large planning workload, consideration should be given to allow-
ing annual status reviews for ten-year contracts to start three years following plan develop-
ment, except where substantial contract completion has occurred. This would allow for a
more efficient use of project personnel.
Lessons learned from the RCWP projects need to be transmitted to the local Agricultural Conser-
vation Programs (ACP).
Once animal manure systems are installed, different management is required. BMP installation
can be accomplished within a short period of time, but proper management and maintenance
of the systems are long-term commitments. Education is a continual process.
4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.2.6.1 Rndings and Successes
Bacteria concentrations continue to exceed water quality standards at both bay and tributary
sites. Concentrations remain significantly higher downstream of farm operations than up-
stream. Water quality improvements have likely occurred in Tillamook Bay and its tributa-
ries, although statistically valid trends have not yet been successfully established using the
current data sets. Comparison of worst case (wet weather) events indicate that maximum bac-
teria concentrations may have been reduced, although this observation is limited by the pro-
ject's ability to compare only two events. Since over 50% of the BMPs contracted for have
yet to be completed, the possibility exists that water quality improvements will be docu-
mented in the future.
335
-------
Tillamook Bay RCWP, Oregon
4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
It was difficult to demonstrate trends in this data because sampling frequencies changed during
the course of the project and since bacteria data is inherently variable.
The minimum parameter set for which monitoring is needed includes fecal coliform bacteria, bay
salinity, river flow, and rainfall. This allows for covariate analysis which is important in
identifying other factors affecting bacteria concentrations.
The water quality monitoring program would have been strengthened by additional data on river
levels and flood stage conditions in the basin which play an important role in determining fe-
cal coliform levels.
4.2.6.2 Recommendations
Some measurable indicator of hydrologic state such as precipitation, stream flow, or salinity
should be included in water quality monitoring programs attempting to identify water quality
trends.
A pre-BMP water quality data base of at least two years duration greatly facilitates documenting
water quality effects of BMPs.
Water quality monitoring activities must be adequately funded throughout the project period.
In order to be completely successful, the monitoring effort must receive adequate and stable staff-
ing throughout the life of the project.
For trend detection, a minimum monitoring strategy should be established early in project plan-
ning and should then be adhered to throughout the project.
A monitoring strategy should include regularly spaced sampling on a predetermined schedule, at
least a sub-set of trend detection sampling sites (i. e. monthly or even more frequent sam-
pling).
Methods of data analysis should be chosen early in project planning in order to ensure that data
sufficient for the anticipated analysis are collected.
Other sampling should be done in addition to, not instead of, the predetermined and scheduled
trend sampling. Additional sampling might include intensive wet weather sampling, effective-
ness monitoring, or up-stream/down-stream sampling.
Additional intensive monitoring studies, particularly during summer/fall runoff events, would be
useful both for evaluating the effectiveness of installed practices and for identifying "hot
spots" that need further monitoring.
Regular monthly sampling should continue beyond the contracting and BMP implementation
phase of the project to allow for more complete long-term evaluation of the effects of the pro-
ject. Improvements resulting from installation of manure management practices would be ex-
pected to continue for some period of time.
For the Oregon RCWP project, funding should be secured to perform additional data analysis
(both of existing data and future data) after three to five more years of data are collected.
4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
4.2.7.1 Rndings and Successes
The influence of BMPs on the water quality of Tillamook Bay is still inconclusive even though
water quality improvements have likely occurred.
336
-------
Tillamook Bay RCWP, Oregon
4.2.7.2 Recommendations
Increase sample frequency and regularity to improve the project's ability to correlate water qual-
ity changes with BMPs.
Thorough records of land treatment accomplishments are essential if water quality trends are to
be linked to BMP implementation.
4.3 Project Description
4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame
General RCWP
1981 -1996
4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions
4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality
4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size
Tillamook Bay, estuaries, streams, and tributaries
4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments
Water resources in the project area are used primarily for domestic consumption, recrea-
tion, and commercial shellfishing. Sport fishing throughout the watershed is a popular ac-
tivity. Recreational clamming and angling in Tillamook Bay account for approximately
70,000 user-days per year. Commercial shellfishing in the bay is a $1.5 million industry
(annual gross sales).
The shellfish industry is impaired by excessive fecal coliform (FC) levels in the bay. Shell-
fish harvesting has been closed down frequently during periods of high FC contamination
and health hazards exist in tributaries where water contact recreation is popular.
4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement
Excessive FC bacteria in storm runoff from agricultural operations combined with sewage
treatment plant discharges were contaminating shellfish and impairing contact recreation
in Tillamook Bay. Site factors include very high rainfall and abundant dairy herds very
close to a large commercial shellfishing area. Identified point sources of pollution, includ-
ing a waste treatment plant and septic systems, were remedied during the project period.
4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals
Original Project Goals (Tillamook Bay RCWP Project, 1982):
30% reduction in sediment delivery from agricultural land in the critical area
70% reduction in fecal coliform bacteria entering the water courses
Revision of Goals (Tillamook Bay RCWP Project, 1983):
A national inter-agency team reviewed the project in 1983 and reported that 87% of the
sediment reaching the bay originated from forest land. Since the vast majority of sedi-
ment was originating from non-agricultural land, the project goal of a 30% reduction
goal in sediment delivery from agricultural land was dropped.
337
-------
Tillamook Bay RCWP, Oregon
4.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics
4.3.2.2.1 Watershed Area: 363,520 acres
Project Area: 23,540 acres
Critical Area: 8,723 acres
4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors
Mean Annual Precipitation: 90 - 150 inches
Geologic Factors: The watershed topography is extremely diverse. Moving west from the
Coast Range, there are gently to steeply sloping rocky uplands, deeply incised canyons to
flat and gently rolling flood plains. The coastline is largely sand dunes, beaches and sedi-
mentary rock outcrops alternating with occasional rugged headlands of volcanic rock.
Slopes range from 0 to 90%. Soils are varied, ranging from deep, well-drained coarse-tex-
tured bottomland soils with high permeability and slow runoff to well-drained, fine-tex-
tured upland soils with moderate permeability and medium to rapid runoff.
4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture
All agriculture in the project area consists of dairies. There are 122 dairy farms on 23,540
acres with approximately 22,000 head of cattle. Cropland production consists of pastures,
and hay and silage fields. Feed grains are trucked in from outside the area. All milk is
sold for cheese production to the locally-owned creamery cooperative, Tillamook County
Creamery Association (TCCA).
4.3.2.2.4 Land Use
IlSfi % of Project Area % of Critical Area
Cropland
Pasture/range 100 100
Woodland
Urban/roads
Other
4.3.2.2.5 Animal Operations
Operation # Farms Total # Total Animal
Animals
Dairy 122 22,000 30,800
The number of animals rose from approximately 19,000 dairy cows in 1982 to 22,000
dairy cows by the end of the project.
338
-------
Tillamook Bay RCWP, Oregon
4.3.3 Total Project Budget
SOURCES
ACTIVITY
Cost Share
Info. & Ed.
Tech. Asst.
Water Quality
Monitoring
SUM
Federal
State
5,262,292
41,158
812,415
9,821
6,125,686
0
0
0
83,090
83,090
Fanner
2,484,304
Other
0
0 2,806
0 122,375
SUM
7,746,596
43,964
934,790
0 51,625 144,536
2,484,304 176,806 $8,869,886
Source: Tillamook Bay RCWP Project, 1990
4.3.4 Information and Education
4.3.4.1 Strategy
There were two specific information and education (I&E) strategies: 1) to create an awareness
and understanding of the RCWP among participants and 2) to inform the general public about
RCWP by stressing positive aspects of the project, including financial investments required
of participants.
4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals
Initial objectives were aimed at increasing public and producers' understanding of the RCWP pro-
gram.
Final project objectives:
Focus producers' attention on the importance of proper management and maintenance of
BMPs so water quality improvement will continue
Provide localized crop nutrient uptake data to producers so they will know when and how
much manure to apply to their fields
Work to improve waste utilization by producers
Monitor reduction of agricultural pollution of Tillamook Bay and keep the public informed
of progress
In order for the final I&E objectives to be met, there will have to be as much committed one-to-
one contact between farmers and project personnel as there was during the project
339
-------
Tillamook Bay RCWP, Oregon
4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals (continued)
Project I&E activities, goals, and achievements are listed in the table below.
I & E Activity Project Goal Achievements % Completed
Major tours of 40 39 98
project for news
media, agency heads,
political leaders, etc.
Project slide series 9 8 89
Project display booth 15 13 87
Meetings with participants 3 1 33
Talks to civic groups 48 37 77
Inter-agency meetings to 20 19 95
evaluate progress and
coordinate BMP
implementation with
water quality monitoring
4.3.4.3 Program Components
One-to-one contacts with producers
Newsletters
News media spots (radio, news articles and TV spots)
Slide series
Display booth
Tours
Talks to civic groups
Some of the I & E components were aimed specifically at the participants, whereas other I&E
components were aimed at the general public.
4.3.5 Producer Participation
4.3.5.1 Level of Participation
Producer participation was extremely high. One hundred and five dairy farms out of 109 desig-
nated critical farms (96% of all dairy farms) were participating in manure abatement pro-
grams either through the RCWP or the ACP.
340
-------
Tillamook Bay RCWP, Oregon
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation
Cost share rate of 75% on BMP-2
Payment limitation of $50,000 per landowner. Although many animal waste management systems
cost more than $66,670 (which made the farmers' share exceed 33%), this did not seem to be
a barrier to participation.
ACP cost sharing has also been used to treat some problems. ACP has a limit of $3,500/yr for
animal waste management systems.
Oregon allows a 50% tax credit for conservation measures which can be spread over 10 years.
Oregon also has regulations allowing the state to fine agricultural operations that are obvious
pollution sources.
There was initial local support for this project from the government and business community.
The field representative of the TCCA was pivotal in marketing the project to the farmers.
SCS field representatives were advocates of the farmers rather than adversaries.
Farmers understood that if the NPS pollution problems weren't solved through voluntary meas-
ures, remedial measures could be legislated.
Tillamook is a close knit community where the participants either know each other or are related;
thus a lot of peer pressure to comply with the RCWP goals was brought to bear on farmers.
4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation
High interest rates during the 1980's and the 1982 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act caused a
reduction in the farmers' cash flow. Some participants could not afford their share of the
cost of installing BMPs.
The number of farms considered critical for project success was continuously revised upward, ex-
tending the contracting period and delaying project completion.
4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs
Chances of continued maintenance and adoption of BMPs in this area are excellent. The I&E
component changed farmers' attitudes dramatically. The farmers now see themselves as part
of both the problem and the solutioa Additionally, several other vested interests (the TCCA
and the shellfish industry) whose goals converge, as well as the threat of regulation, will con-
tinue pressuring the dairy fanners to implement and manage BMPs.
4.3.6 Land Treatment
4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design
The strategy was simple: keep rainwater off manure and manure storage areas. When this was
not possible, the strategy was to keep contaminated surface waters from reaching the streams
and Tillamook Bay.
4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals
Objective: Reduce fecal coliform bacteria entering project area water courses by 70%
Goal: Establish appropriate BMPs on 106 dairy farms
341
-------
Tillamook Bay RCWP, Oregon
4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application
Criteria: Distance to watercourse, poorly drained soils on which manure is spread, animals per
acre, location in flood plain or tidewater-influenced area, Department of Environmental Qual-
ity (DEQ) water quality complaint, DEQ-designated polluted stream, designated sub-basins
Application of Criteria: If the rating of several dairy farms was similar then a team consisting of
a Tillamook County ASC Committee member (COC), a SWCD (Soil and Water Conserva-
tion District) member, and a TCCA member would prioritize farms for cost sharing.
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used
General Scheme: The vast majority of cost share funds were focused on BMP 2, Animal Waste
Management. The BMP was subdivided into five systems with from one to five components
per system. Many components used were added by this project to address specific manure
management needs imposed by extremely high rainfall and are unique to the project: roofing
and guttering of manure storage areas, and pasture drainage systems to prevent water from
standing in pastures where manure is applied.
BMPs Utilized in the Project* Units Goals Achievements
Total %
Permanent vegetative cover (BMP 1)
Pasture and hay land management acres 388 284 73
Pasture and hayland planting acres 30 30 100
Animal waste management systems (BMP 2)
Waste storage structure ft3 1,417,697 1,214,365 75
Guttering ft 51,411 39,103 76
Roofing ft2 479,309 405,824 85
Buried mainline ft 32,615 27,715 85
Waste treatment lagoon acre-ft 21 21 100
Conduit ft 60 20 33
Curbing ft 7,969 5,569 70
Dike ft 45 00
Grassed waterway or outlet ft 6,049 3,440 57
Subsurface drain ft 96,300 84,420 88
Surface drain, main, or lateral ft 8,090 8,050 99
Waste management systems # 98 45 46
Grazing land protection system (BMP 6)
Pipeline ft 4,650 2,150 46
Trough or tank # 11 2 27
Stock trails or walkways ft 259 104 40
Stream protection system (BMP 10)
Streambank protection (not used)
Fencing ft 7,693 5,873 76
Permanent vegetative cover on critical areas (BMP 11)
Critical Area Planting (not used)
Sediment retention, erosion or water control structure (BMP 12)
Structure for water control # 4 2 50
Pumping plant for water control (not used)
Improving an irrigation and or water management system (BMP 13)
Irrigation water management (not used)
Fertilizer management (BMP 15)
Waste utilization acres 8,700 5,849 67
* Please refer to Appendix I for description/purpose of BMPs.
342
-------
Tillamook Bay RCWP, Oregon
4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring & Tracking Program
4.3.6.5.1 Description
Units of planned and applied BMPs per subwatershed were reported annually by SCS and
ASCS. Land treatment was tracked by the SCS using contracts. By late 1986, the BMP
tracking system was in place. All RCWP BMPs were entered in a computer. Annual
status reviews were part of the tracking program. However, during the first five years,
when planning activities were greatest, some annual status reviews were not performed
due to inadequate staffing.
4.3.6.5.2 Data Management
No data management system was in place during the project.
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results
Quantified Project Achievements (as of 12/31/90):
Critical Area Treatment Goals
Pollutant
Sflurce. Ilnils lalal % Implemented
Pasture acres
Dairies #
Contracts #
Source: Tillamook Bay RCWP Project, 1991
Total % Implemented
8,723
109
109
47%
41%
41%
8,582
105
105
48%
43%
43%
Approximately half of the critical area has been treated with permanent vegetative cover and ani-
mal waste and grazing land management. Animal waste storage facilities are about 80% com-
plete and roofing is approximately 85% installed. Manure control and conveyance devices
are over 70% installed and fencing is 76% complete.
4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design
The general strategy was to sample ambient water quality in the tributaries and Tillamook Bay.
Sampling in the bay was conducted at low tide to ensure the highest fecal coliform readings.
The monitoring program was conducted by DEQ and the SCS/SWCD.
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals
Objective: Classify and/or monitor commercial shellfish growing areas
Goal: Measure changes in water quality
4.3.7.3 Time Frame
1975-1990
343
-------
Tillamook Bay RCWP, Oregon
4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme
4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations
14 bay stations (1979-1987)
16 bay stations (1988-1990)
71 tributary stations (1979-1980)
9 tributary stations (1981-1982)
12 tributary stations (1983-1990)
4.3.7.4.2 Sample Type
Grab samples taken 40 inches below the surface in the bay
Grab samples taken from the shoreline or bridge over tributaries
4.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency
The bay stations have been monitored regularly from 1979 to the present for fecal coli-
form counts. The number of samples taken per year varies per station and per sampling
year. Implementation started in 1981. Intensive wet weather sampling occurred during
December of 1979, March and October of 1980, and March of 1985. From 1981 through
September 1986, samples were collected once per calendar quarter. Starting in October of
1987, sampling was conducted on a regular monthly basis.
4.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed
Fecal coliform, salinity, water temperature, rainfall
Discharge at a major tributary has been monitored from 1979 to the present.
A dye study of bay circulation was conducted in 1980.
4.3.7.4.5 Row Measurement
Wilson River discharge was measured using the recording gauge operated by the U.S.
Geological Survey. Trask River stage was observed using a staff gauge located in tidewa-
ter. Tillamook, Kilchis, and Miami River stages were measured using Oregon Water Re-
sources Department staff gauges located just above tide water. Gauges were installed in
1983.
4.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements
Precipitation data were obtained from the official weather service reporting station, radio
station KTIL, located near the southern tip of the bay.
4.3.7.4.7 Other Important Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information
None
344
-------
Tillamook Bay RCWP, Oregon
4.3.7.5 Data Management
The data are in STORET. STORET agency codes for water quality monitoring stations are
21ORMISC & 21ORECST
STORET PROFILE / STATION
STATION NO. MAP / NO.
Tillamook Bay Sites
412006
412007
412008
412009
412178
412011
412012
412013
412014
412015
412016
412153
412234
412176
412520
412521
OR-1 / 1 (North Dolphin)
OR-1/ 2 (Middle Dolphin)
OR-1 / 3 (South Dolphin)
OR-1/ 4 (North end of dike)
OR-1/ 5a (Garibaldi)
OR-1 / 6 (Southern Middle Bay)
OR-1/ 7 (Southwest Bay)
OR-1 / 8 (Northwest Bay)
OR-1/ 9 (marker #9)
OR-l/10(HobsonvillePt.)
OR-1/ 11 (Northeast Bay)
OR-1 / 12 (break in dike)
OR-1 / 13 (northern mid bay)
OR-1 / 14 (southeast bay)
OR-1 / 15 (west entrance)
OR-1 / 16 (east entrance)
Tributary Sites (not shown on profile map, OR-1)
412120 MM4 (Miami River)
412125 K4 (Kilchis River)
412250 K3A (Murphy Creek)
412130 W13 (Wilson River)
412142 Tr8 (Trask River)
412149 T4a (Tillamook River)
TIL-B2 B2 (Bewley Creek)
TIL-B1A B1A (Bewley Creek)
TI- Mil Mil (Mills Creek culvert)
TI-M12 MI2 (Mills Creek)
412214 S2 (Simmons Creek)
New Stations (STORET status not known) (not shown on profile map, OR-1)
II (Illingsworth Creek)
12 (Illingsworth Creek)
HI (Hughey Creek)
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results
Data analysis was conducted by project personnel using spreadsheet software and a statistical soft-
ware package for non-parametric trend analysis. Trend analysis of geometric mean fecal coli-
form bacteria counts by water year has been conducted. Preliminary analysis of the bay
water quality samples conducted by NWQEP used covariance analysis to identify linear time
trends and before and after change. This analysis used salinity as a covariate (Smolen et al.,
1985).
There were some oyster bed sites that re-opened which may indicate an improvement in the com-
mercial shell fishing beneficial use. The number of oyster bed sites classified as approved in-
creased and then decreased over the life of the project.
345
-------
Tillamook Bay RCWP, Oregon
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results (continued)
Throughout the project period, there was a continued upward revision of the number of dairy
farms that would need BMPs installed if project goals were to be met. Many BMPs were not
complete by project end. Water quality may continue to improve as the BMPs are installed
and manure management practices become fully integrated in farm routines.
A dye study of bay circulation completed in 1980 showed that bacteria laden freshwater can, and
does, influence bacteria concentrations at the shellfish growing areas. Most freshwater, how-
ever, probably travels down the eastern side of the channel.
4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
This project was unable to show any trends in water quality improvement, probably due to changes
in water quality monitoring as well as the fact that many BMPs remain to be installed. If a linkage
between land treatment and water quality is to be demonstrated, water quality monitoring and analy-
sis will have to continue for some time after the formal end of the project.
4.3.9 Impact of Other Federal and State Programs on the Project
Other ASCS cost share programs are being utilized to install tile drains, gutters, and outlets. Also
three long-term ACP agreements have been signed for farms not approved for RCWP contracts.
4.3.10 Other Pertinent Information
None
4.3.11 References
A complete list of all project documents and other relevant publications may be found in Appendix IV.
Smolen, M.D., R.P. Maas, J. Spooner, C.A. Jamieson, S.A. Dressing, andF.J. Humenik. 1985.
NWQEP 1985 Annual Report, Appendix: Technical Analysis of Four Agricultural Water Quality
Projects. Biological and Agricultural Engineering Dept., North Carolina State University. 90p.
Tillamook Bay RCWP Project. 1982. Plan of Work.
Tillamook Bay RCWP Project. 1983. Annual Report.
Tillamook Bay RCWP Project. 1991. Ten-Year Report.
346
-------
Tillamook Bay RCWP, Oregon
4.3.12 Project Contacts
Administration
Jim Worledge
USDA-ASCS
2204 4th Street. Suite B
Tillamook, OR 97141
(503) 842-7672
Elizabeth Lissman
760 SW Mohawk
P.O. Box 1300
Tualatin, OR 97062
(503) 692-6830
Water Quality
D. Mitch Wolgamott/ Andy Schaedel
Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality
811SW 6th Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 229-6691
Land Treatment
Bob Pedersen
USDA-SCS
2204 4th Street, Suite B
Tillamook, OR 97141
(503) 842-2848
Information and Education
James A. Moore
Oregon State University
Bioresource Eng. Dept.
125A Gilmore Hall
Corvallis, OR 97331-3906
(503) 737-3906
347
-------
Figure 4.16: Conestoga Headwaters (Pennsylvania) RCWP project map, PA-1.
348
-------
Pennsylvania
Conestoga Headwaters
(RCWP19)
Lancaster County
MLRA:S-148
HUC: 020503-06
4.1 Project Synopsis
The Conestoga Headwaters area, located in southeastern Pennsylvania, is one of the most intensively farmed and
productive areas in the world. The project area covers 110,000 acres of piedmont terrain characterized by small
hills and valleys cut by streams. There are 1,250 small (52 acres average) farms in the area, including 1,009 beef
and 445 dairy operations.
The surface and ground waters of the area provide water supplies for 175,000 people. Serious impairment of these
water supplies has occurred due to excessive levels of agricultural sediment, nitrates, and phosphorus. The project
goal was to reduce pollutants in surface and ground water to meet state water quality standards.
The project critical area, covering 16,000 acres, was defined as those farms adjacent to major or small streams with
high animal densities, high fertilizer usage, or excessive erosion. Early monitoring showed excessive nitrate
concentrations in areas with carbonate soils; therefore, those areas in the original critical area with carbonate soils
received major attention and funding. Revised land treatment goals of 90 contracts and estimated reductions of
750,000 pounds of nitrogen and 375,000 pounds of phosphorus were met or exceeded.
Best management practices (BMPs) used were fertilizer management, animal waste management, terraces, and
stabilized waterways. The project assisted in implementing a large number of BMPs that were not cost shared (a
large number of producers would not accept cost share funds) and performed nutrient management planning for farms
on a voluntary basis without RCWP contracts.
Water quality monitoring was performed at three levels: on a regional scale of the entire RCWP project area, on a
small watershed contained within the project area, and on a field scale at two test fields. Regional monitoring was
terminated early in the project due to low BMP implementation. The small watershed and field sites were intensively
monitored for the duration of the project.
Monitoring results were mixed. Implementation of the BMPs appeared to alter the levels of some nitrogen and
phosphorus compounds, but failed to show overall reductions in surface water and stream base flows. The use of
terraces at one field site resulted in a reduction in suspended sediment in runoff with no change in the total nitrogen
or phosphorus concentrations, and a significant increase in the nitrate concentrations in both surface runoff and
ground water. Fertilizer management at the previously terraced ground water monitoring field site resulted in a
significant reduction in nitrates in ground water.
The Pennsylvania project was characterized by excellent project management, strong lines of communication, and
excellent inter-agency cooperation. Strong leadership at the state level was a key element in the success of the project.
Significant involvement by Pennsylvania State University personnel enabled the development of deep-soil nutrient
analysis and the "quick" nitrogen test. The project faced difficult social (the refusal of very conservative farmers to
accept cost share funding) and logistical (large numbers of small farms) barriers to BMP implementation, but
developed alternate methods to meet project goals. Consistent and intense monitoring, sampling, and analysis were
major strengths of this project. The educational gains associated with nutrient practices have enhanced the work of
the Chesapeake Bay and other regional water quality programs and this may, in the long run, be the greatest benefit
of this project.
349
-------
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP, Pennsylvania
4.2 Project Findings, Recommendations, and Successes
4.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals
4.2.1.1 Findings and Successes
Project objectives and goals were initially unrealistic because of a lack of clearly defined water
quality problems, the large size of the watershed, and the large number of farms located in
the project area, which made project logistics and administration difficult.
Initial contracting goals were unrealistic given the social and economic factors at work in this pro-
ject area. The Local Coordinating Committee (LCC) and project personnel, in the early
phases of the project, overestimated the acceptance by farmers of RCWP contracting and the
success of cost sharing as a means to encourage implementation of nonpoint source (NFS)
controls.
4.2.1.2 Recommendations
Water quality goals and objectives should be based on: analytical data on surface and ground
water, restoration of beneficial uses of the water, the cause of the water quality problem, the
social structure of the community, the willingness of farmers to accept needed land use or
management changes, and the economic factors involved in implementing NPS control prac-
tices. Additional factors to be considered include changes in land use, public cost sharing,
improved commodity income, and a combination of economic factors.
Detailed assessments of water quality problems, causes, and solutions should be made prior to set-
ting program objectives and goals. Social and economic factors must be considered, and the
target population (fanners) must be involved in the project selection and planning process.
Program authority at the national and state levels should permit changes in objectives and goals
by the local project to better fit local conditions and improve the chances of project success.
4.2.2 Project Management and Administration
4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes
The National Coordinating Committee (NCC) provided adequate guidelines for agencies (includ-
ing U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) agencies, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), and state agencies) to organize a functional RCWP project. Agency mis-
sions and expertise, when properly coordinated, met the program needs.
The RCWP administrative structure provided adequate project guidance, technical expertise, fund-
ing, and control to successfully implement a project.
Local level authority and flexibility fostered initiative and enabled innovation to tailor the project
to fit local needs. The LCC was encouraged and supported by the State Coordinating Com-
mittee (SCC) to take initiative to surmount the lack of acceptance of RCWP contracts by
farmers in the project area. The SCC acted as an advocate for the LCC in obtaining ap-
proval from the NCC for several innovative programs that were found to function better in
this project.
4.2.2.2 Recommendations
Pre-project planning and assessment should include identification of water quality problems, the
root causes of the problems, and their projected impacts in the future. Factors such as social
and economic conditions as well as agricultural practices may need to be considered in pro-
ject selection and planning.
Land treatment teams should coordinate with water quality monitoring and regulatory agencies to
best meet the environmental, social, and economic goals of the project.
350
-------
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP, Pennsylvania
4.2.2.2 Recommendations (continued)
Project teams should consider the impacts of institutional arrangements involving agri-businesses,
banking, feed producers, equipment producers, and marketing when planning approaches to
control NPS source pollution. Current institutional production and marketing practices result
in intense cropping and high densities of animals which can seriously degrade water quality.
Project administration must be sensitive to difficulties encountered in attaining project goals and
permit flexibility in technical, social, and economic approaches to implementing NPS con-
trols. In this project, lack of participation by farmers motivated the LCC to try different ap-
proaches to reach project goals. These ideas were brought to the SCC and NCC and
approved. Through this process, the nutrient management program was established.
4.2.3 Information and Education
4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes
Information and education (I&E) efforts, including technical assistance, appeared to produce
higher BMP implementation than cost sharing. The combination of cost sharing, educational
activities, and technical assistance offers choices that may satisfy social as well as economic
needs.
Individual contact and good inter-agency cooperation worked well to influence farmers to imple-
ment BMPs.
4.2.3.2 Recommendations
Individual contacts are necessary, especially where the local population (such as Mennonite farm-
ers) have little contact with mass media.
Educational programs should be implemented by people and organizations that are known and
trusted by producers.
Educators must understand and respect the cultural, religious, and social customs of their clien-
tele. For instance, in hiring nutrient management specialists, familiarity and experience with
the local culture were important criteria in selecting applicants. These qualities enhanced the
specialist's credibility with the Lancaster County farmers.
Programs should make use of all information delivery systems available. Mass media, work-
shops, demonstrations, individual contacts, educational meetings, and evening programs are
all effective means of promoting water quality improvement programs.
4.2.4 Producer Participation
4.2.4.1 Findings and Successes
Long-term contracts associated with cost sharing were not well accepted by producers.
Technical assistance and educational efforts were well accepted by producers and the public.
Design of BMPs and implementation schedules hindered acceptance by producers due to conflicts
with the producers' finances, equipment constraints, and social attitudes. RCWP contracts
were viewed by producers as restrictive and interfering with their finances. Modified de-
signs of BMPs gained the participation of some fanners where the new design was a better fit
to the farmer's needs. One example was an animal waste storage facility that functioned by
gravity designed for a local farmer who did not want to use electrical devices but was very in-
terested in protecting water quality through better animal waste management.
Cost sharing was not effective in gaining farmer participation when manure nutrients exceeded
crop needs and manure had no value to the farmer.
Targeting of critical areas was not effective in this project where farmer participation and interest
were low.
351
-------
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP, Pennsylvania
4.2.4.2 Recommendations
Recognition should be extended to all who participate in a project, including those fanners who
implement BMPs with technical assistance but do not use cost share money.
Technical assistance should be available to all operators to optimize water quality improvements.
Agencies should cooperatively deliver technical assistance by sharing personnel who have the
needed technical expertise.
Projects should make provision for BMP design and implementation schedule changes to accom-
modate the unique needs of the producers in the area. Modified designs and implementation
schedules can better fit producer's finances and needs which can increase participation.
4.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation
4.2.5.1 Rndings and Successes
There may be trade-offs between BMPs designed to improve surface water and those designed to
address ground water quality, complicating treatment if both surface water and ground water
are impaired. For example, water quality monitoring indicates that terraces may result in
ponding of water and increased nitrate infiltration. Thus, although terraces may reduce sedi-
ment loadings to surface water, in permeable soils with excess manure, terraces may increase
nitrate transport to ground water.
Conservation tillage systems, fertilizer management, and contour stripcropping systems were
found to be the lowest cost alternatives for this project area. Extensive implementation of
these BMPs over other practices is expected to produce the greatest water quality improve-
ment at the lowest cost.
Implementation goals were met through personal, individual contacts with producers by agency
personnel. These meetings provided project personnel a means to discuss water quality prob-
lems and the importance of implementing management practices to improve water quality.
Such contacts enabled the project team to reach implementation goals with non-contracted
BMP (no cost sharing) implementation. In this project, non-cost shared BMP implementation
exceeded contracted (cost shared) land treatment.
The main project results come from two intensively monitored field sites and one stream site. Re-
sults are summarized below:
In this project, the amount of nitrogen from animal wastes sometimes exceeds crop needs (about
10-15% of the farms). Water quality benefits from animal waste storage BMPs are partially
offset because nitrogen that could have been volatilized during immediate spreading was con-
served in the storage facility and applied as a solid to the soil.
Nutrient management BMPs (soil and manure testing, proper matching of application rates, and
timing to match plant needs) can reduce both ground and surface water nitrogen loading.
Nutrient management is readily accepted by producers who see benefits in reduced water pollu-
tion, labor, and costs.
Manure applications must be considered when determining the total amount of nutrients applied
to farmland.
Although stream protection systems (BMP 10) were not widely utilized in the project, fencing
might have had a significant and rapid impact on overall water quality had it been employed
more widely.
352
-------
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP, Pennsylvania
4.2.5.2 Recommendations
The most effective means of obtaining land treatment implementation is through personal, individ-
ual contacts with producers by known, knowledgeable, and credible agency personnel.
Where manure nutrients exceed crop requirements, waste management systems must be designed
to reduce the burden on surface and ground waters. Volatilization of nitrogen may be desir-
able.
When on-farm manure nutrients exceed crop needs, manure is a waste product, not a resource.
High cost share rates, regulations, and export markets for manure should be considered.
4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.2.6.1 Rndings and Successes
Excessive agricultural nutrients applied to farmland were found to be the major pollutants of pro-
ject area surface and ground water.
Delivery of pollutants to surface and ground water is affected by erosion, which, in turn, is due to
intense crop production, land topography, soil characteristics, and climatic conditions.
In areas underlain with carbonate rock (karst geology), ground water can play a major role in the
overall volume of water (base flow and storm flows) discharged from a site and its quality.
Only one BMP should be evaluated at a site. Combinations of BMPs reduce the possibility of
evaluating effectiveness of a specific BMP, rendering the information less widely applicable.
Observing similar water quality responses to a specific BMP at different sites helps determine ef-
fectiveness of the practice.
To properly study the effectiveness of a specific BMP, the area should be no more than a single
farm to avoid problems with monitoring and accounting for changes in agricultural practice.
Controlled study designs facilitate the evaluation of data. Controlled design studies of BMPs in-
clude upstream and downstream monitoring and paired or nested watersheds for surface
water, and up-gradient and down- gradient monitoring for ground water. Paired watersheds
are a preferred design for surface water monitoring, but site selection is difficult because ge-
ology, hydrology, land use, and agricultural practices must be very similar. This project had
marginal success with a paired subbasin design to study the effects of nutrient management.
Extreme hydrological events confound data interpretation because many transport processes are
controlled by precipitation events and many BMPs may have widely varying effectiveness un-
der extreme conditions.
Process studies lead to improved understanding of transport mechanisms and to the development
of more effective BMPs.
The regional study produced no results because the level of BMP implementation in the project
area was too low and there were too many other uncontrolled variables to result in any meas-
urable water quality effect. For instance, fertilizer rates were reduced about 50% throughout
the watershed between 1980 and 1987. However, land development and other activities over-
whelmed the impact of the nutrient reductioa Monitoring was discontinued to conserve re-
sources.
Results of the small watershed study indicate a possible decline in base flow nitrate-nitrogen con-
centrations that may be attributable to nutrient management in a portion of the watershed.
Monitoring has not continued long enough to confirm this.
The field monitoring sites have shown that ground water levels respond rapidly to rainfall and
ground water quality responds to watershed management At Field Site 1, nitrate concentra-
tions in ground water at four wells increased after terraces were installed. Monitoring at
Field Site 2 showed a substantial decline in ground water nitrate-nitrogen concentration as the
result of reductions in manure applications recommended by a nutrient management plan and
by manure export from the farm.
353
-------
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP, Pennsylvania
4.2.6.2 Recommendations
Projects should invest heavily in the planning and design of the water quality monitoring and
evaluation program. Consultation with experienced personnel will greatly help project staff to
avoid collecting useless data. The plan should include adequate baseline monitoring, before
implementation, and enough monitoring after implementation to thoroughly document the ef-
fects of the NFS controls.
Controlled design studies; implementation of only one BMP at a site; use of small, homogeneous
sites; and the use of multiple sites with similar land treatment will aid in water quality moni-
toring and evaluation.
4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
4.2.7.1 Rndings and Successes
Ground water and, consequently, base flow of streams are highly susceptible to agricultural pollu-
tion in areas with karst geology.
Suspended sediment and phosphorus were predominately transported in surface runoff.
Surface runoff quality is seriously degraded when nutrients are applied to frozen ground.
Terracing reduced sediment losses to surface runoff, but had little effect in reducing nutrient
losses to surface and ground water.
Water quality improvements due to fertilizer management were not able to be clearly docu-
mented. At the small watershed level, analysis of pre- and post-BMP implementation moni-
toring data shows no statistically significant reduction in nitrate, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, or
phosphorus in base flow. Nitrate concentrations in wells at Field Site 2 showed some de-
crease due to an overall 30% reduction in applied nitrogen as a result of improved fertilizer
management.
4.2.7.2 Recommendations
BMPs chosen for use in areas with karst geology should address the transport of contaminants to
ground water as well as to surface water.
BMPs available for use in a NFS pollution control program should include a reduction of applica-
tion rates or a reformulation of triazine herbicides to reduce leaching to ground water.
Project teams should consider the effects on both surface and ground water when selecting NFS
controls.
Practices to control surface runoff should be selected if sediment and phosphorus are significant
pollutants.
Fertilizer management practices must eliminate application of manure on frozen ground.
Practices to control erosion and sediment-borne pollutants must be implemented as complete sys-
tems, which should include secondary sediment removal to control fine sediments in surface
runoff and fertilizer management to reduce ground water contamination.
Fertilizer management has the potential to be the most effective approach to improve ground
water quality where nutrients are causing impairment of waters. If crop nutrient require-
ments can be met, substantial reductions in manure and commercial fertilizer application
should be implemented.
Projects in areas with high animal densities should consider means for encouraging reductions in
animal densities, exporting manure out of the watershed, and changing land use to activities
which reduce water pollution.
354
-------
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP, Pennsylvania
4.3 Project Description
4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame
Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation (CM&E) RCWP Project
1981 -1991
4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions
4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality
4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size
Streams, ground water
4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments
Public water supplies for approximately 175,000 people plus 2,000 commercial industries
originate within and downstream from the Conestoga Headwaters (Conestoga Headwaters
RCWP, 1981). Water resources also support private water supplies, livestock watering,
fisheries and contact recreatioa Streams used for these activities are impaired by bacteria,
nutrients, pesticides and sediment. Nitrates and pesticides impair potable ground water
supplies.
4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement
Water resources in the area are designated to support use as public water supply, indus-
trial water supply, fishery, and contact recreation. Bacteria, nutrients, pesticides and sedi-
ment impair streams. Nitrates and pesticides impair sources of potable ground water.
In one summer sampling period during the initial phase of the project, 67% (22 of 33) of
wells in carbonate geology and 20% (2 of 10) of wells in non-carbonate geology had ni-
trate concentrations above the drinking water standard (10 mg/L as nitrogen).
4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals
Objective:
Reduce pollutants to levels consistent with the water quality standards of the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania (Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Project, 1982).
Specific goals:
Reduce the amount of animal waste entering receiving streams and lakes by applying
waste management systems on 80 livestock operations
Reduce amounts of nitrates, phosphates, and pesticides entering receiving streams and
lakes by applying fertilizer management and integrated pest management on 3600 acres
Reduce the amount of sediment and sediment-related pollutants entering receiving
streams by applying BMPs on 12,000 acres (300 RCWP contracts) to bring the annual
erosion rate to an acceptable rate. (This goal has been revised twice by the project as fol-
lows: 1984 — 80 contracts on 6,000 acres; 1989 ~ 90 contracts on 7,000 acres (Con-
estoga Headwaters RCWP Project, 1989))
355
-------
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP, Pennsylvania
4.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics
4.3.2.2.1 Watershed Area: 110,000 acres
Project Area: 110,000 acres
Critical Area: 16,000 acres
4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors
Mean annual precipitation: 42 inches
Geologic Factors: The northeastern two-thirds of the project area lie in the Triassic Low-
lands underlain by conglomerate, shale, sandstone, and diabase. Average depth to the
water table is 15 to 35 feet. The southwestern one-third of the project area is in the Con-
estoga Valley underlain by carbonate and shale rocks, where average depth to the water ta-
ble is 20 to 50 feet. Throughout the project area, soils are mainly well drained, deep, or
moderately deep silty loams that provide ample infiltration of precipitation to ground
water.
4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture
Agriculture in the project area is characterized by intense use of the land for crops and ani-
mal operations. The farms are small (52 acres average) and numerous (1,250 in the pro-
ject area). Cropland covers 57% of the land and crops grown are: corn, hay, wheat,
tobacco, and vegetables. Animal operations include dairies, beef cattle, hogs, and poul-
try. Animals generate 1.2 million tons of waste per year, and cropland receives in excess
of 24 tons per acre per year of animal waste.
4.3.2.2.4 Land Use
Use % of Project Area % of Critical Area
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.3.2.2.5 Animal Operations
Operation # Farms Total # Total Animal
Animals Units
Dairy 445 39,542 30,820
Beef 1,009 53,945 45,853
Hogs NA 33,914 7,461
Poultry NA 3,462,425 15,314
Cropland
Pasture/range
Woodland
Urban/roads
Other
57
6
20
-
15
356
-------
1,100,542
10,000
1,268,417
1,123,686
3,502,645
0
0
0
1,183,865
1,183,865
NA*
0
0
0
NA
SUM
0 1,100,542
78,468** 88,468
0 1,268,417
0 2,307,551
78,468 $4,764,978***
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP, Pennsylvania
4.3.3 Total Project Budget
SOURCES Federal State Fanner Other
ACTIVITY
Cost Share
Info. & Ed.
Tech. Asst.
Water Quality
onitoring
SUM
Farmer participation is difficult to estimate because many farmers implemented BMPs
with no contracts and no cost share funding.
** Pennsylvania State University Cooperative Extension Service (for nutrient management planning)
*** Total does not include producer portion of BMP implementation costs
Source: Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Project, 1991
4.3.4 Information and Education
4.3.4.1 Strategy
The primary information and education strategy was to provide producers with individual nutrient
management plans. Technical assistance provided an analysis of current farm management, a
nutrient plan to fit crop needs, and soil and manure testing. Two nutrient management
agents were hired by the Penn State Cooperative Extension Service to carry out the nutrient
management efforts.
4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals
Reduce nitrogen applications by 750,000 Ibs. on 20,000 acres through nutrient management plans
Reduce phosphorus applications by 375,000 Ibs. on 20,000 acres through nutrient management
plans
Encourage the adoption of other BMPs
Encourage the development of a crop management association to continue nutrient management
and integrated pest management after the project is completed
4.3.4.3 Program Components
Individual contacts by nutrient management agents and other project personnel, and individual nu-
trient management plans for each farm to encourage the voluntary adoption of BMPs, many
without cost sharing
Test plots established on working farms to demonstrate to producers that nutrients from the ma-
nure may meet crop needs
Soil testing and computer modeling conducted to determine long-term nitrogen release from ma-
nure and crop needs
A quick soil nitrogen test developed so producers could determine crop needs in a 24-hour time
period
Meetings for area fertilizer dealers and tours of test plots and farms implementing BMPs to edu-
cate the community about nutrient management
357
-------
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP, Pennsylvania
4.3.4.3 Program Components (continued)
A newsletter linking producers willing to sell/give manure with those wishing to obtain manure to
more effectively use fertilizer in the area
Numerous educational meetings, published articles in newspapers, local radio spots, and educa-
tional materials to inform producers and the public about nutrient management
4.3.5 Producer Participation
4.3.5.1 Level of Participation
The level of participation is a low percentage of the number of farmers, but given the very conser-
vative nature of the local residents participation is good. Also, there were more BMPs in-
stalled without cost sharing than were installed with cost share.
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation
Cost share rate of 50% on animal waste management; free soil and manure testing; free fertilizer
recommendations
Payment limit of $50,000
Technical assistance from two nutrient management specialists and other project personnel
4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation
The large number of small farms simply made project logistics difficult.
The majority of the area producers are of the plain religious sects (Mennonite and Amish) or are
simply very conservative, in general, by nature. These factors limited the number of farmers
who would accept government aid; thus, cost sharing did not function well as an incentive.
Many producers with manure in excess of that needed for crops had little incentive to invest heav-
ily in storage facilities or manure application reduction strategies.
4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs
The nutrient management plans and pest scouting have been well received and will be continued
in the future. The soil conservation BMPs installed will be maintained, as will modified con-
servation tillage practices.
4.3.6 Land Treatment
4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design
The original land treatment strategy was to put structural controls on about 75% of the critical
area so that the effects of the BMPs on the water quality could be determined. The strategy
was revised when the reluctance of farmers to enter into government contracts became appar-
ent and BMP implementation was low. The new strategy shifted to education and providing
technical assistance for all farmers in the area. The land treatment team wrote quality plans
and helped design BMPs to fit specific farms.
358
-------
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP, Pennsylvania
4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals
Reduce the amount of animal waste entering water resources by implementing waste management
systems on 80 livestock operations
Reduce amounts of crop nutrients entering water resources by applying fertilizer management and
Integrated Pest Management on 3,600 acres
Reduce amounts of sediment and sediment-related pollutants entering water resources by applying
appropriate BMPs on 12,000 acres (in 300 contracts) to lower the annual erosion rate to an
acceptable level (revised: 1984 - 80 contracts on 6,000 ac.; 1988 - 90 contracts on 7,000 ac.).
4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application
Criteria: Originally, the critical area included all farms bordering a stream that had high animal
densities (1.5 animal units /acre), high application of fertilizers, or high erosion rates. Early
monitoring showed excessive nitrates in areas underlain by carbonate soils; therefore, the
LCC defined priority one and two areas as areas with carbonate soils located in the original
critical area. The priority one area contained a small watershed to be used in a controlled
monitoring experiment. Priority three areas were areas with non-carbonate soil located in
the original critical area.
Application of Criteria: Adherence to the criteria has been undermined by the lack of farmer par-
ticipation; however, I&E efforts have focused on the identified critical areas.
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used
General Scheme: Revised implementation goals included securing 90 contracts to treat about
7,000 acres. Emphasis was redirected to educational programs and nutrient management
plans to encourage better nutrient management instead of contracts with cost sharing.
BMPs Utilized in the Project* Project Accomplishments
Permanent vegetative cover (BMP 1) 178 acres
Animal waste management system (BMP 2) 69 systems
Stripcropping systems (BMP 3) 2,913 acres
Terrace system (BMP 4) 62 miles
Diversion system (BMP 5) 8 miles
Grazing land protection system (BMP 6) 4 systems
Waterway system (BMP 7) 27 miles
Cropland protection system (BMP 8) 3,346 acres
Conservation tillage system (BMP 9) 12515 acres
Stream protection system (BMP 10) 5 systems
Permanent vegetative cover on critical 1 acre
areas (BMP 11)
Sediment retention, erosion, or water 3 units
control structures (BMP 12)
Tree planting (BMP 14) 3 acres
Fertilizer management (BMP 15) 24,500 acres
Pesticide management (BMP 16) 6,900 acres
*Please refer to Appendix I for descriptions/purpose of BMPs
359
-------
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP, Pennsylvania
4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring and Tracking Program
4.3.6.5.1 Description
Participating farmers in monitored subbasins and field sites were asked to submit quarterly
reports, giving information on plowing, planting, harvesting, field conditions, fertilizing,
manure spreading, and pesticide applicatioa
4.3.6.5.2 Data Management
Land treatment and use monitoring and tracking were done manually by the ASCS and
SCS through periodic reviews of visitation records and contracts.
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results
Ninety farmers participated in RCWP contracts with complete water quality plans.
In total, 365 farms implemented nutrient management plans, most with no RCWP con-
tract. Follow-up surveys found that farmers implemented about 75% and 50% of the rec-
ommended reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus, respectively, in the plans.
Quantified Project Achievements!
Pollutant
Source
Cropland
Dairies
Feedlots
Poultry
Hog
Contracts
Critical Area
Ilnils
Acres
#
#
#
#
#
Ifllal
16,000
110
100
130
60
400
% Implemented
23%
38%
10%
15%
23%
21%
Treatment Goals
lolal
7,000
45
20
8
7
80
% Implemented
68%*
93%
50%
240%
200%
106%
"Estimated as conservation tillage practices applied
Source:Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Project, 1989
4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design
Monitoring was conducted by the U.S.Geological Survey and the Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Environmental Resources
The original monitoring strategy had the following three components with specific goals:
Regional network of wells and surface water sites designed to determine the effects of the
RCWP on a regional scale by comparing concentrations and discharges of suspended sedi-
ment, nutrients, and pesticides before and after implementation of BMPs (The network as
such was discontinued after baseline sampling due to lack of farmer participation in the
program. Some sampling sites were maintained, however, for possible future use.)
Small watershed site designed to determine the effects of nutrient management on surface
water quality by comparing concentrations and discharges of suspended sediment, nutri-
ents, and pesticides before and after implementation of nutrient management using paired-
watersheds and upstream- downstream approaches.
360
-------
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP, Pennsylvania
4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design (continued)
Field sites designed to determine the effects of animal waste storage, terracing, and nutri-
ent management on surface and ground water quality with the parameters of concern be-
ing suspended sediment, nutrients, and pesticides (Field Site 1) and compare the
concentrations and discharges of nutrients before and after the implementation of nutrient
management (Field Site 2).
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals
Overall Initial CM&E Objective:
Determine the effects of agricultural BMPs on surface and ground water quality
Final Goals:
Quantify the transport of sediments, nutrients, and pesticides in surface waters
Quantify the movement of nitrate to ground water aquifers
Investigate the transport of water-soluble pesticides to ground water
Measure the effectiveness of BMPs in reducing nutrient pollution to surface water and
ground water
4.3.7.3 Time Frame
Regional network: 1982 - 1983 (discontinued)
Small watershed site: 1984 - 1991 (with continuation as part of the Chesapeake Bay Program)
Field site 1: 1983 - 1989
Field site 2: 1984 -1990 (with continuation as part of the Chesapeake Bay Program)
4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme
4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations
Regional network: 4 surface water sites and 43 wells (discontinued)
Small watershed (5.8 mi2): 2 stream gauged sites, 3 additional base flow surface sites, 6
wells, and 2 springs / includes fertilizer management subwatershed and control subwater-
shed
Field site 1 (23.1 ac): 1 surface outlet gauged site, 5 wells, and 1 spring / area treated
with terraces and nutrient management
Field site 2 (47.5 ac): 1 surface outlet gauged site, 7 wells, and 1 spring / previously ter-
raced area treated with nutrient management
4.3.7.4.2 Sample Type
Grab and automatic
4.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency
Gauged sites: Automatic sampling of all major storms
Base flow sites: Every 4 weeks
Ground water sites: Monthly (field sites)
361
-------
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP, Pennsylvania
4.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed
Total and dissolved nutrients: ammonia-nitrogen (NHs-N), nitrite-nitrogen (NO2-N) and
nitrate-nitrogen (NOs-N), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), phosphorus (P)
Pesticides: atrazine, propazine, simazine, cyanazine, metolachlor, toxaphene, alachlor
Other variables: suspended solids (SS), specific conductance, temperature
4.3.7.4.5 How Measurement
At all gauged sites (streams, terrace drains, and intermittent runoff sites)
4.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements
Precipitation: 1 recording precipitation gauge at small watershed and each field site
4.3.7.4.7 Other Important Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information
Monitoring and sampling, laboratory analysis, and statistical analysis have been consistent
and thorough.
Soil profiles were analyzed for nutrient content.
Resources were concentrated on the periods of interest for each variable, such as growing
season for pesticides, spring and fall for soil tests, and surface flows keyed to major storm
events.
The monitoring program had built-in flexibility to accommodate unplanned changes in the
project work plaa When contract sign-ups failed to meet expectations, the monitoring
program was scaled back to conserve resources.
The study area is underlain by both carbonate and non-carbonate rocks. The project docu-
mented differences in runoff, subsurface drainage, and pollutant transport between the two
rock types. Sink holes are present in Field Site 1.
Subbasins within the small watershed site were paired and calibrated to provide real-time
data on nutrient management. Farmers were asked to submit regular land use reports with
information on field conditions and agricultural operations.
Farmer participation and BMP implementation have not been sufficient to demonstrate ba-
sin-wide water quality changes on the scale of the original plans.
362
-------
4.3.7.5 Data Management
All water data are in STORET.
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP, Pennsylvania
STORET
AGENCY CODE
STORET
STATION NO.
PROFILE / STATION
MAP / NO.
Small Watershed
112WRD
015760831
0157608325
0157608335
015760839
01576085
Field Site 1 (Ground Water)
112WRD 400741075584301
400746075584301
400744075584701
400741075585101
400739075585101
400744075583901
GWNS07J047*
Reid Site 1 (Surface Runoff)
112WRD 01576083
Field Site 2 (Ground Water)
112WRD 401152076105501
401149076105501
401156076105701
401148076110301
401152076110101
401156076110501
401152076105701
401152076105301
GWNS07J008*
PA-2 / Station 1
Station 2
Station 3
Station 4
Station 5
PA-3 / LN 1643
LN 1645
LN 1646
LN 1650
LN 1651
LN SP58
LN SP58
PA-3
PA-3 / LN 1667
LN 1669
LN 1670
LN 1673
LN 1676
LN 1677
LN 1679
LN SP61
LN 1667
Field Site 2 (Surface Runoff)
112WRD 1576335
PA-3
* Part of PA Department, of Environmental Resource's Ground water Fixed Station Monitoring
Network
363
-------
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP, Pennsylvania
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results
Analysis:
The modified Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) seasonal rank-sum test (95% confidence level)
was applied to determine the presence of statistically significant trends in flow data and
pollutant concentrations and loads at the small watershed and field sites.
Regression and covariate analyses were applied using data from the nutrient management
and control sub-basins to determine the efficacy of nutrient management techniques and
the presence of long-term trends in nutrient levels.
Trend analyses were supported by tables and plots of means, medians, maximums, and
minimums of pollutant concentrations and loadings, flow measurements, and other data.
Results:
Some project personnel believe the period of record in this project was too short to
achieve a strong indication of long-term water quality effects of BMP implementation.
The regional study produced no results because BMP implementation level in the project
area was too low to expect any measurable water quality effect. Monitoring was discon-
tinued to conserve resources.
Results of the small watershed study indicate a possible decline in base flow nitrate-nitro-
gen concentrations that may be attributable to nutrient management in a portion of the wa-
tershed. Monitoring has not continued long enough to confirm this.
The field monitoring sites have shown that ground water levels respond rapidly to rainfall
and ground water quality responded to watershed management. At Field Site 1, nitrate
concentrations in ground water increased after terracing. Monitoring at Field Site 2
showed a substantial decline in ground water nitrate-nitrogen concentration in 4 wells as
the result of reductions on manure applications which were part of the implementation of
nutrient management plans.
4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
Nutrient management plans which reduce the application of manure and commercial fertilizer to
cropped land have the potential to be the most cost-effective BMP in reducing nutrients in
ground water. Substantial reductions in manure and/or fertilizer application should improve
ground water quality.
Animal waste management, as practiced in the RCWP, could not be documented as resulting in
reductions in nutrient levels and was relatively expensive to producers (the reduction of ma-
nure application to Field Site 2 resulted in reduced ground water concentrations of nitrates).
However, eliminating manure spreading on frozen ground will significantly reduce nutrients
in surface runoff and manure storage facilities may allow reductions in commercial fertilizer
application which will reduce surface and ground water contamination. Animal waste man-
agement and fertilizer management must be coupled to provide a complete management plan
for each individual farm.
Results of the field site study (Field Site 1) indicated that terracing reduced sediment losses to sur-
face runoff, but had little effect in reducing nutrient losses to surface and ground water. This
BMP was viewed as possibly being effective in reducing nutrients in waters when it is cou-
pled with secondary sediment retention, erosion, or water control structures (BMP 12), to re-
tain fine soil particles that bind to phosphorus.
Erosion control and surface runoff control practices reduced sediment and phosphorus in surface
runoff.
Only minor changes in water quality are anticipated since the number of BMPs installed is small
relative to the large area affected by NFS pollution. Localized improvements in individual
drinking water wells may occur; however, these improvements will be isolated. Significant
improvement in water quality may require the export of manure out of the watershed.
364
-------
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP, Pennsylvania
4.3.9 Impact of Other Federal and State Programs on the Project
The state Wetlands Protection Act affected the project in that two springs could not be developed
under grazing land protection systems (BMP 6) due to provisions in the law.
4.3.10 Other Pertinent Information
The educational gains associated with nutrient practices have enhanced the work of the USEPA
Chesapeake Bay and other regional water quality programs. In the long run, this may be the
greatest benefit of the RCWP project. Modest on- and off- site water quality improvements
were associated with practices that reduce runoff and conserve nutrients.
4.3.11 References
A complete list of all project documents an other relevant publications may be found in Appendix IV.
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Project. 1981. Project Application. Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Project. 1989. Progress Report. USDA-ASCS, PA State ASCS Office,
Harrisburg, PA. 169p.
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Project, 1991. Draft Ten-Year Report.
4.3.12 Project Contacts
Administration
Ray Brubaker, County Executive Director
Lancaster County ASCS Office
Room 3, Farm & Home Center
Lancaster, PA 17601
(717) 397- 6235
Water Quality
Patricia Lietman
U.S. Geological Survey
Water Resources Division
P.O. Box 1107
Harrisburg, PA 17108
(717) 730-6960
Land Treatment
Warren Archibald, District Conservationist
Lancaster Soil Conservation Service
Room 4, Farm & Home Center
1383 Arcadia Road
Lancaster, PA 17601
(717) 299-1563
Information and Education
Leon Ressler / Jeff Stolzfuss
Lancaster County Extension Service, Room 1 1383
Arcadia Road,
Lancaster, PA 17602
(717) 394-6851
365
-------
eg
-------
LEGEND
Field Monitoring Sita 1
• monitoring well
O clidraclutualion well
• fyslmcter
A piecipitailon gauge
• runoff gauge
• spring
~- — fiefcj boundary
LN16T7 ___ _
0 100 200
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
Field Monitoring Sile 2
0 sampling well or spring
O characlenzanon well
A runolf gauge
-> terrace ((low direction mdica(ed)
• terrace drain pipe
juS*"* grassed waterway
— «oo— contour line
C 1 (arm structures
field boundary
Figure 4.18: Conestoga Headwaters (Pennsylvania) RCWP project map, PA-3.
367
-------
Lake St. John
LEGEND
• ground water monitoring field site
r 1 town
project boundary
Figure 4.19: Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett (South Dakota) RCWP project map, SD-1.
368
-------
South Dakota
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett
(RCWP 20)
Brookings, Kingsbury, & Hamlin Counties
MLRA: 102-A
HUC: 101702-01,02
4.1 Project Synopsis
The Oakwood Lakes-Poinsett area is located in east-central South Dakota. This area is characterized by a rolling
topography with deep, rich soils and a continental climate with an average rainfall of 22 inches per year. Agriculture
forms the economic basis for the area; major crops include corn, soybeans, and small grains. Small livestock feeding
units are scattered throughout the regioa The project area is underlain by the shallow Big Sioux water table aquifer
which provides drinking water for small towns and farms.
Oakwood Lakes, Dry Lake, Lake Albert, and Lake Poinsett provide a major recreational resource for the residents
in the eastern part of the state. The lakes, of glacial origin, are shallow, hyper-eutrophic, and hydraulically connected
to the underlying aquifer. Fish kills, algae blooms, and excessive algae growth greatly restricted the recreational use
of the lakes and excessive nitrate levels violated drinking water standards in water from the Big Sioux aquifer.
Monitoring showed elevated levels of nutrients being transported into the lakes via intermittent tributaries. All
pollutants were believed to be related to the agriculture in the area.
The water quality objectives of the project were to reduce nonpoint sources of nutrients, pesticides, water- and
sediment-borne pollutants, and animal wastes. To meet the water quality objectives, project land treatment goals
were to implement conservation tillage and pesticide management on 52,000 acres and fertilizer management on
56,000 acres, and to install eight animal waste management systems. Originally, the project designated 79,450 acres
as critical. Later 59,500 acres (of the original 79,540) draining directly to the lakes and having a shallow water table
were designated as "Priority Area 1," the highest priority for best management practice (BMP) implementatioa
Final tallies indicate that the project obtained contracts on 81% of the Priority Area 1 (60% of the original critical
area) with most farmers maintaining the best management practices (BMPs) after the project ended. Implementation
of the BMPs reduced the sediment entering the lake system but had little effect on the quality of the surface and
ground water.
The monitoring efforts in this project added greatly to our understanding of nonpoint source (NPS) pollution. This
Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation project instituted three major monitoring efforts: ground water monitoring
of field sites to determine inputs to ground water from fields, the Oakwood Lakes System Study to evaluate inputs
of nutrients to the lakes from surface and ground water, and the Agricultural Chemical Leaching Study to evaluate
the transient movement of agricultural leachates in the vadose zone. Innovative techniques to monitor in the vadose
zone and in the lakes were developed as part of these intensive studies.
The project has been an outstanding success in developing monitoring techniques for NPS controls. It received
excellent interagency cooperation throughout its duration. Comprehensive planning and an intensive monitoring
program resulted in gathering valuable information concerning NPS control. The hiring of a temporary full-time
technical planner greatly increased producer participation and contributed significantly to the overall success of the
project.
369
-------
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP, South Dakota
4.2 Project Findings, Recommendations, and Successes
4.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals
4.2.1.1 Findings and Successes
Overall project goals did not change during the project. Reductions in nutrients, pesticides,
water and sediment-borne pollutants, and animal wastes entering the surface and ground
water systems remained the overall goals throughout.
Emphasis on BMPs did change in response to water quality monitoring data, which indicated that
certain BMPs would be more effective in achieving project goals. Monitoring data showed
that animal waste management could significantly reduce nutrient inputs to the surface water.
As the project progressed, information and education goals changed to include information trans-
fer of project findings and accomplishments to audiences outside the project area.
Water quality monitoring goals and objectives did not change throughout the project but strategies
and methods were refined. Additional emphasis was placed on surface water and vadose
zone monitoring.
4.2.1.2 Recommendations
Water quality problems should be accurately defined and clearly stated to enable the develop-
ment of achievable goals and objectives. Water quality problem statements should be based
on pre-implementation data collected from the project area.
Sources of water quality problems and their respective significance should be determined to allow
effective targeting of BMP implementation, cost share funds, and Information and Education
efforts.
4.2.2 Project Management and Administration
4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes
Two positions created to assist the project were vital to its success. A part-time coordinator at
the local level enhanced program administration and interagency cooperatioa The second po-
sition, a temporary full-time technical planner hired by the Conservation District, greatly
aided the acceptance of the program by producers and implementation of the BMPs. Since
both positions were fully devoted to Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP), they were able to
make much better progress for the program than if program duties had been simply added to
already full schedules of permanent employees,
Delays on National Coordinating Committee (NCC) decisions, report reviews, and program
changes impaired the ability of the project to respond and make appropriate adjustments to
project-level conditions. This was evident in joint participation teams where the Cooperative
Extension Service (CES) and the Economic Research Service (ERS), who received their di-
rections from the national level offices rather than the state or local offices, had problems co-
ordinating with the other agencies.
Interagency cooperation and adequate resources at all levels are necessary for a successful pro-
ject. The State Coordinating Committee (SCC) was very successful in ensuring that adequate
resources were dedicated to meet project objectives.
State-level mechanisms, such as contracts, memoranda of understanding (MOUs), and memo-
randa of agreement (MO As), can provide formal and legal arrangements that keep duties and
tasks clear and allow for proper planning and funding of each agency's project activities.
Coordination of land treatment efforts between the SCC and the Local Coordinating Committee
(LCC) was very smooth and a major reason for the success of the project.
370
-------
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP, South Dakota
4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
Active participation of the USEPA Region VIII nonpoint source coordinator (as a member of the
SCC) was very important. This participation made travel funding available for project par-
ticipants to attend RCWP workshops and brought national attention to the local project
The availability of technical experts, such as geologists and hydrogeologists from the federal agen-
cies involved, was very important in the development of the program.
Contracting with the state water quality agency to perform the water quality monitoring was very
effective.
At the local level, the LCC was active during implementation of land treatment but not as active
as it could have been during the monitoring and evaluation phases of the project.
Informal contacts and exchange of annual reports among RWCP projects provided new ideas for
the project and stimulated self evaluation.
4.2.2.2 Recommendations
Project work plans should specify responsibilities for a project coordinator and a technical plan-
ner at the local level and an active SCC and LCC.
A data base should be established early to provide a cumulative summary of project accomplish-
ments for the project's duration. This is essential for reporting purposes and for information
exchange between the project's land treatment and water quality teams.
Responsibility for key project activities should be shared by several team members to ensure con-
tinuity despite staff turnovers.
Regional workshops for two to four projects addressing similar water quality or other regional
problems should be planned at the national level to facilitate exchange of ideas among pro-
jects.
Economic analysis should be incorporated into the state and local work plans at the beginning of
the project to allow for use of economic data and possible adjustments to the project strategy.
Economic analysts should work in close coordination with the other project participants to
provide a meaningful analysis of project impacts.
4.2.3 Information and Education
4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes
Direct one-to-one contact with producers resulted in good producer participation. Public meet-
ings and mass media were used to create an awareness of the project goals.
Other audiences besides the producers, mainly recreational interests, were concerned primarily
with water quality improvements and had little interest in practices adopted by the farmers.
Project findings, as well as national and regional information programs, were immediately incor-
porated into the information and education (I&E) program.
Fertilizer and pesticide management programs were well received by producers. The acceptance
of these efforts may be due to positive effects of these programs on both profitability and
water quality.
371
-------
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP, South Dakota
4.2.3.2 Recommendations
An active I&E program is essential for a successful NFS control project.
An I&E committee consisting of representatives of cooperating agencies should develop a strat-
egy, provide guidance, and prepare a program to last throughout the project. The I&E pro-
gram should be approved by the project management team.
An annual I&E plan should be developed to identify specific activities, needed materials, responsi-
ble agencies and individuals, and timetables for completion of activities. Such a plan would
allow the I&E activities to evolve with the program.
The I&E program should be evaluated annually to ensure that needed activities are being carried
out. All I&E materials developed should be recorded and maintained in an appropriate file.
4.2.4 Producer Participation
4.2.4.1 Findings and Successes
The project was well received. Participation by landowners was 81% for the Priority 1 Area
(Priority 1 Area is equivalent to critical area).
Producers were influenced primarily by the effect of the pollution control practices on profits, al-
though many were concerned about water pollution.
The main incentive for producers was cost sharing. Some farmers used cost share money to pur-
chase new equipment and try alternative farming methods.
One-to-one contacts with producers and follow-up contacts ensured the success of the project
4.2.4.2 Recommendations
Future projects should include monetary incentives and personal contacts to obtain participation.
4.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes
Conservation tillage was the BMP most used by the participants. This BMP was effective in re-
ducing sedimentation of the Oakwood Lakes-Poinsett waters and transport of sediment-bound
phosphorus to the lakes. Reducing sedimentation is important because these shallow lakes are
very susceptible to being filled in with sediment. Reducing phosphorus inputs will limit the
rate of eutrophication because phosphorus is the limiting nutrient in the lakes.
Most producers have continued to use conservation tillage after expiration of their contracts.
Animal waste management systems were not well received due to the high cost of such systems
and the economic stresses of the early '80s.
Scouting for pests was well received and continues to be used by producers.
Critical area mapping was hampered until sufficient hydrogeological data were collected to out-
line the Big Sioux aquifer and identify those areas where the ground water was most suscepti-
ble to agricultural or other activities on the land surface.
Designation of the "Priority Area 1" (equivalent to critical area in other projects) allowed more ef-
fective use of cost share funds to attain desired goals.
Economic modeling results indicated that fertilizer management was the most cost-effective strat-
egy to reduce nutrient loading.
The federal Payment-in-Kind (PQC) Program reduced the number of acres which qualified for the
conservation tillage systems under the RCWP due to the one year set-aside for PIK.
The federal Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) positively affected water quality in the project
area by converting 7,000 acres of cropland to permanent vegetative cover for ten years.
372
-------
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP, South Dakota
4.2.5.2 Recommendations
Land use and agricultural management data should be obtained before BMP implementation.
To control sediment and nutrient loading (especially sediment-bound nutrients), contracts should
include conservation tillage, fertilizer management, pesticide management, and animal waste
management as minimum requirements.
4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes
Monitoring results showed that measurable water quality improvements may not occur through
the use of land treatment as practiced in the RCWP. Sediment reduction may extend the life
of the lakes, but phosphorus from surface and ground water is efficiently trapped and stored
in lake sediments, providing a large reservoir to promote hyper-eutrophic conditions.
Site-specific monitoring was chosen to assess the impacts of actual fanning practices on water
quality and evaluate the effectiveness of the project. This approach was taken for several rea-
sons: 1) land treatment had already been implemented before monitoring commenced, allow-
ing only trend analysis to be used to determine water quality improvements; 2) the BMPs set
up for RCWP had been designed to reduce surface water pollution and little was known of
their effect on ground water, and 3) although the hydrology of the area was not fully under-
stood, ground water inputs to the lakes were thought to be very important. However, the site-
specific approach encountered difficulties because variations in farming techniques
introduced by individual operators tended to compromise portions of the monitoring design.
In situ geologic monitoring allowed the development of "geozone" classifications which aggregate
hydrogeologic environments, thereby reducing the numbers of samples needed for statistical
analysis. The project characterized each monitoring well by the site-specific geologic stra-
tum, or geozone, in which it was screened and the depth of the well screen. This method of
characterization is transferable to other ground water monitoring projects.
Monitoring site selection and easements for egress/ingress were limited by the willingness of
landowners to cooperate. This affected the monitoring design and the ability of the project
team to adjust the monitoring strategy to better compare practices and impacts.
Nested wells allowed sampling of stratification, vertical gradients, and water quality differences
in varying geologic strata. Horizontal sampling of the vadose zone, tracer studies, and elec-
tronic tensiometers were used to monitor infiltration and ground water flow pathways. Auto-
matic sampling of the vadose zone allowed collection of macropore water from storm events.
Seepage meters defined ground water movement through lake beds, but on-land wells and in-lake
wells provided better data to estimate water quality and nutrients entering the lake system.
Individual storm events and seasonal pollutant loadings could be described using event-based auto-
matic sampling data from the master (research) site.
The Oakwood Lakes System Study is a good example of development of a materials (nutrient,
sediment, water) budget to understand the processes that affect NFS pollution of shallow prai-
rie lakes.
Given the difficulties of monitoring land use impacts on ground water quality on a watershed
scale, the project's field studies offer a good approach to documenting the effect of conserva-
tion tillage. However, the ground water field sites experiment had only one site with conven-
tional tillage to serve as a comparison with the conservation tillage field sites; thus there were
no replications.
Monitoring of the field sites was hampered by the cooperators who modified or implemented the
BMPs in their own unique styles which affected the monitoring results and introduced much
variability and uncertainty.
Constraints affecting access to private land to conduct monitoring activities can sometimes limit
the application of the monitoring program; therefore, the need to work closely with land-
owners while developing the monitoring network is very important
373
-------
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP, South Dakota
4.2.6.2 Recommendations
Monitoring methods and strategies should be designed to meet the monitoring objectives.
Funds for purchase of easements should be provided to enable optimal monitoring system design
and capability for changes in the design. Also, funds should be available to enable farmers to
radically change land use practices to obtain comparisons of different practices on the same
site.
Event-based monitoring is necessary to determine ground water transport mechanisms and fre-
quent sampling is necessary to follow pesticide and nutrient movement.
Pesticides used previously on field sites should be included in pesticide scans because of pesticide
persistence in the unsaturated soil horizon.
A thorough understanding of project area geology is essential for accurate interpretation of
ground water monitoring results. Future projects should perform geologic investigations, es-
pecially in a project with complex hydrogeology, even though such studies can be time-con-
suming and expensive.
4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
4.2.7.1 Rndings and Successes
Correlation of BMP implementation with tributary water quality was not possible because record
keeping of BMP implementation was by farm unit rather than by watershed.
There is no observable difference in water quality in the lakes attributable to BMP implementa-
tioa BMPs used may extend the life of the lakes by reducing sedimentation but may not re-
sult in measurable water quality improvements. The lakes trap nutrients in inflowing waters
very effectively and the lake sediments act as a reservoir of nutrients; hence, it is likely that
eutrophic conditions will continue in the lakes.
No significant differences in ground water quality were found as a result of different tillage prac-
tices.
Water movement through the vadose zone was more rapid with no-till than with conventional
moldboard plowing. Water from the no-till plots delivered higher quantities of nitrates to the
6-foot depth; however, overall nitrate concentrations in the deeper ground water were lower
under no-till plots. This is perhaps due to enhanced denitrification that could occur as a re-
sult of enhanced transport of carbon substrates to deeper soil depths under no-till tillage.
The ground water monitoring program showed that under the site conditions in the project area
agricultural pesticides had a negligible impact on ground water quality.
4.2.7.2 Recommendations
A record of BMP implementation should be kept by watershed unit in order to make possible a
proper evaluation of program effectiveness.
Water quality and land treatment teams should work together to identify appropriate BMPs to pro-
tect the water resource.
Agricultural waste management should be considered in watershed protection plans where agricul-
tural wastes have been identified as a problem. Agricultural waste management designs
should include ground water protection.
Protection strategies for vulnerable groundwater aquifers should employ fertilizer and pesticide
management, crop rotations requiring little or no nitrogen, and conservation tillage practices.
374
-------
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP, South Dakota
4.3 Project Description
4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame
Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation RCWP Project (CM&E)
1981 - 1991
4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions
4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality
4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size
Lake Poinsett, Lake Albert, Oakwood Lakes, ground water (portions of the Big Sioux
aquifer)
4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments
The project area has several lakes, sloughs, and shallow ground water aquifers. The lakes
are heavily used for recreation (fishing, boating, swimming, water-skiing) and stock water-
ing. Recreational visitations to the lakes number about 300,000 annually. Ground water
is relied upon for drinking water and stock watering. Approximately 174,000 people live
within fifty miles of the lakes.
Recreational activities are impaired by hyper-eutrophic conditions in the lakes. Algal
blooms, excessive aquatic weed growth, and dissolved oxygen (DO) depletion are com-
mon. Pesticides and excessive nitrates in ground water are also of primary concern.
4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement
The quality of shallow ground water used for drinking water and watering livestock is
threatened by high levels of nitrate-nitrogen associated with commercial fertilizers applied
to cropland. Recreational activities at several shallow prairie lakes in the project area are
threatened and impaired by hyper-eutrophic conditions aggravated by sediment and exces-
sive nutrients in runoff from agricultural activities.
4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals
Objective: Improve and protect surface and ground water quality of the area
Goals: Reduce the amount of total nitrogen, pesticides, animal waste, and other pollutants
entering ground and surface waters
4.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics
4.3.2.2.1 Watershed Area: NA
Project Area: 106,163 acres
Critical Area: 79,450 acres
Priority 1 Area: 59,500 acres
375
-------
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP, South Dakota
4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors
Mean Annual Precipitation: 22 inches
Geologic Factors: The project area has typical glacial Pleistocene morphology with many
glacial outwash deposits, lakes, potholes, and shallow ground water resources. Soils are
deep, silty, loamy and well- drained on rolling slopes. Generally, the water table is about
10 feet below ground level. Ground water flow is active and a large aquifer, the Big
Sioux, underlies a portion of the project area and is hydraulically connected to the lake
system.
The lakes serve as either discharge or recharge areas for the aquifer.
4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture
The area's economic base is production agriculture characterized by family farms averag-
ing 600-700 acres in size. Major crops include corn, oats, soybeans, and wheat while bar-
ley, sunflowers, flax, rye, and alfalfa-brome also are grown. Small livestock operations
raising cattle and hogs are scattered throughout the area.
4.3.2.2.4 Land Use
Use % of Project Area % of Critical Area
Cropland 61 61
Pasture/range 13 40
Water 11
Other 15
4.3.2.2.5 Animal Operations
Operation # Farms IfllaLft Total Animal
Animals
Dairy 8 830 1,162
Beef 20 2,550 2,550
Hogs 8 4,500 1,800
Sheep 3 375 38
Source: Oakwood Lakes-Poinsett RCWP Project Annual Report, 1986
4.3.3 Total Project Budget
SOURCES Federal State Farmer Other
ACTIVITY
Cost Share
Info. & Ed.
Tech. Asst.
Water Quality
Monitoring
SUM
Source: Goodman etal, 1991
744,729
109,268
939,258
1,666,927
3,460,182
0
0
0
200,000
200,000
271,613
0
0
0
271,613
0
54,634
40,000
350,000
444,634
SUM
1,016,342
163,902
979,258
2,216,92
$4,376,429
376
-------
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP, South Dakota
4.3.4 Information and Education
4.3.4.1 Strategy
The information and education strategy was to utilize the strengths of the various agencies in-
volved and have them concentrate on their specialty areas (see section 4.3.4.3 below)
4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals
Objectives:
Inform and instruct the general public and producers about the RCWP and how to partici-
pate in it
Report the accomplishments of the program
Goals:
Obtain 75% participation in RCWP
Use the information learned from RCWP to maintain or improve agricultural productivity
while minimizing impacts on the environment
4.3.4.3 Program Components
Each agency involved concentrated on a specialty area to provide information or instruction for
the general public or producers.
The CES provided general information to the public and participants about the program. During
the middle years of the program, CES provided detailed support and individual contact for
producers in fertilizer and pesticide management and general BMP implementation. During
the latter half of the project, the emphasis changed to providing information about accom-
plishments of the project.
The SCS concentrated on one-to-one contact with producers about project participation and BMP
implementatioa
The ASCS provided producers with information on project information and cost sharing.
The South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Water Resources
Institute of South Dakota State University prepared reports and disseminated information as
quickly as possible to project personnel and the public.
4.3.5 Producer Participation
4.3.5.1 Level of Participation
Producer participation was high. Contracts were implemented in 80% of the Priority 1 Area
(equivalent to critical area), obtaining the participation of 157 producers.
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation
Cost share rate of 75%
Payment limit of $50,000 per farm
Cost sharing was the most important incentive. The cost share funds enabled some producers to
try alternatives with which they would not otherwise have experimented.
I & E program to support fertilizer and pesticide management BMPs offered assistance with inter-
preting soil test results and pest scouting service.
Conservation tillage was well received by the producers and continues to be utilized.
377
-------
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP, South Dakota
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation (continued)
Pest scouting was well received and is continuing.
Individual contacts and continuous follow-up ensured the project's success.
4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation
Animal waste management systems were not well accepted due to their high costs and general
economic stresses which occurred during the project period.
Some producers were not eligible for RCWP cost sharing because they were already using con-
servation tillage systems.
Economic conditions and changes in land ownership prevented some BMPs from being imple-
mented.
Other federal programs hampered the RCWP by removing land from eligibility. The Payment-in-
Kind (PIK) Program reduced the number of acres which qualified for the conservation tillage
systems under the RCWP due to the one year set-aside for PIK. The Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) positively affected water quality in the project area by converting 7,000
acres of cropland to permanent vegetative cover for ten years.
4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs
BMPs such as conservation tillage systems, fertilizer and pesticide management, and pest scout-
ing have been well received and are expected to be continued.
Animal waste management systems were not well received and have lower chances for further
adoption, although those installed will be maintained.
4.3.6 Land Treatment
4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design
The program emphasized four BMPs: conservation tillage systems, fertilizer management, pesti-
cide management, and animal waste systems. These BMPs were viewed as having the great-
est potential impact and the best chances for acceptance.
4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals
Implement fertilizer and pesticide management, conservation tillage, and animal waste manage-
ment to improve and protect surface and ground water
Quantified Implementation Goals:
Fertilizer management on 56,000 acres (66% of project area)
Pesticide management on 52,000 acres (61% of project area)
Conservation tillage for erosion control on 56,000 acres
Waste management systems on 8 livestock operations
4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application
Criteria: All cropland and grassland (79,450 acres). The project area was divided into three prior-
ity areas based on sediment delivery and the impact on ground water (regional ground water
movement, distance from lakes or streams, drainage characteristics, and thickness of overbur-
den). First priority (59,500 acres) included most of the livestock operations and encircled
the lakes.
378
-------
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP, South Dakota
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used
General Scheme:
Reduce nutrients and pesticides entering ground water using fertilizer and pesticide man-
agement (BMP 15 & 16)
Reduce sediment related pollutants entering waterways and lakes using conservation till-
age (BMP 9)
Reduce amount of animal waste entering waterways, lakes and ground water by applying
animal waste management systems (BMP 2)
BMPs Utilized in the Project* Project Accomplishments
Permanent vegetative cover (BMP 1) 1365 acres
Animal waste system (BMP 2) 3 systems
Stripcropping systems (BMP 3) 132 acres
Terrace system (BMP 4) 10,101 feet
Grazing land protection system (BMP 6) 6 systems
Waterway system (BMP 7) 4.2 acres
Cropland protection system (BMP 8) 2321 rod rows
Conservation tillage system (BMP 9) 81,820 acres
Fertilizer management (BMP 15) 45,571 acres
Pesticide management (BMP 16) 16,011 acres
Please refer to Appendix I for description/purpose of BMPs.
Source: Goodman etal., 1991
4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring & Tracking Program
4.3.6.5.1 Description
The project tracks land use, cropping patterns, and yields on an annual basis. These data
include acreage enrolled in programs such as Payment-in-Kind (PIK) and Conservation Re-
serve (CRP). BMP implementation data are reported in units applied (acres, systems,
feet), cost share earned (dollars), and calculated soil loss prevented (tons). Records are
maintained by SCS, ASCS, and CES.
4.3.6.5.2 Data Management
Land use records were updated yearly through personal interviews with landowners.
Crops, fertilizer application, pesticide application, and tillage methods were obtained for
each field for each year.
379
-------
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP, South Dakota
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results
Land treatment data were managed by the SCS, CES, and ASCS to target landowners in
the Priority Area 1, and to direct the monitoring efforts.
Quantified Project Achievements:
Critical Area
Pollutant
Source Unils lolal % Implemented
Cropland acres 79,450 54%
Dairies units 0 0%
Feedlots units 16 57%
Contracts # 157 100%
Source: Goodman et al., 1991
Treatment Goals
lolaL
59,590
0
8
186
% Implemented
81%
0%
37%
84%
4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design
The approach was to study the soil profile and ground water in small field areas and the surface
water in one lake system. The knowledge gained would then be used to extrapolate to other
areas using hydrologic models.
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals
The overall CM&E Objective: Describe the cause and effect relationship between the application
of agricultural BMPs and changes in the quality of the ground and surface water. Interpreta-
tion of site-specific data will provide the basis for estimating BMP effectiveness on a project-
wide level.
Ground Water: Study the effects of conservation tillage, fertilizer management, and pesticide man-
agement on the quality of shallow ground water
Vadose Zone and Agricultural Chemical Leaching Study: Differentiate the effects of tillage sys-
tems and crops on soil water fluxes and ground water quality.
Since 1986, specific goals for extended monitoring at the master site have been:
Determine the differences in vertical fluxes of nitrates, organics, tracers, and water to spe-
cific depths between moldboard plow and no- till tillage systems for a corn-oats rotation
Develop an event-actuated monitoring/control system for collecting low tension unsatu-
rated soil water (characteristic of soil water held in macropores), during or after precipita-
tion/leaching events
Determine the differences in response time to a given precipitation event for changes in
matric potential at specific depths between no-till and moldboard plow tillage systems on
oats and corn.
Oakwood Lakes System: Determine if BMP application in an agricultural watershed will affect
the water quality of shallow, hyper-eutrophic prairie lakes. The strategy incorporates moni-
toring of water quality and quantity, biological surveys, land use modeling, and lake model-
ing.
380
-------
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP, South Dakota
4.3.7.3 Time Frame
Ground Water: 1984-1990
Vadose Zone: Originally 1982-1986; extended 1987-1989
Oakwood Lakes System Study: 1987-1989
4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme
4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations
Ground Water:
7 field sites (10 - 80 acres)
6 farmed (5 with BMP treatment - conservation tillage)
1 control site (not farmed)
114 monitoring wells at 60 locations
Vadose Zone Monitoring:
1 field site (the master site) with 15 test plots: (approx. 105' by 55')
Test plots: corn-oats rotation on 2 tillage systems (moldboard & no-till) with 3 replica-
tions of each crop/tillage management system (12 plots); and 3 replications of an alfalfa
treatment (3 plots)
Fertilizer and pesticide application on test plots: 200 Ibs. of actual N for corn; 100 Ibs. of
actual N for oats; no fertilizer for alfalfa; pesticides applied at label rates for each tillage
system (alachlor, dicamba, metolachlor, terbufos, 2-4 D ester, MCPA, carbofuran,
glyphosate)
Oakwood Lakes System Study
Surface Water:
7 stations at all tributaries to the lakes system
7 in-lake stations
3 inter-lake stations
Ground Water: 29 terrestrial wells
nested wells at some sites
37 seepage meters
20 in-lake wells
4.3.7.4.2 Sample Type
Oakwood Lakes System Study:
Tributary and Interlake:
Grab samples for base flow and snowmelt
Automatic samplers at all tributaries to collect runoff when it occurs
In-lake:
Integrated sampler at lake surface and within 1 foot of lake bottom
381
-------
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP, South Dakota
4.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency
Ground Water: All wells sampled quarterly from 1984 through August 1989; All wells
sampled every 2 weeks from August 1989 through December 1990; Pesticide wells sam-
pled monthly from 1984 through December 1990; Pesticide wells sampled every 2 weeks
during June/July of 1989 and June/July of 1990.
Vadose Zone: Hourly automatic soil matric potential monitoring which triggers soil water
sampling during leaching events (a significant increase in soil water content sensed at 2 ft
below the surface)
Oakwood Lakes System Study
Tributary and Interlake: Determined by hydrologic activity
Base flow: Weekly for all inlet tributaries; 3 times per week for interlake sites and outlet
Snow melt: Once to twice daily;
In-lake stations: Every two weeks from May - October; monthly from November - April
Terrestrial wells: Every 2 months; water levels recorded weekly through 1988;
Seepage meters: Determined by seepage rate;
In-lake wells: All months except winter
4.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed
Ground Water:
Nitrite-nitrogen (NOa-N) and nitrate-nitrogen (NOs-N), ammonia nitrogen (NHa- N), or-
ganic nitrogen, total dissolved phosphorus (TDP), chloride, sulfate, total dissolved iron,
potassium, total hardness (occasionally), total alkalinity (occasionally), pesticide scan (21
compounds), pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen (DO)
Vadose Zone: NOs-N, pesticide scan (11 compounds)
Oakwood Lakes System Study:
Tributary and interlake stations: Total phosphorus (TP), orthophosphorus (OP), NOj-N,
NOa-N, NH3-N, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), suspended solids (SS)
In-lake Stations: TP, OP, NOj-N, NOa-N, NHa-N, TKN, pH, chlorophyll a, algal den-
sity, suspended solids (SS), total solids (TS), alkalinity, Secchi transparency
Terrestrial and In- lake wells: TDP, OP, NCh-N, NOs-N, NHa-N, TKN, total dissolved
solids (TDS), chloride, sulfate, water levels
4.3.7.4.5 Row Measurement
None
4.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements
Agricultural Chemical Leaching Study
Amount and intensity of precipitation, solar radiation, soil and air temperature, wind
speed and direction, and chemical quality of precipitation
Ground Water Study
Atmospheric Deposition: 2 rain gauges / combined wetfall and dryfall samples collected
following rainfall events to measure bulk deposition and rain water (supplemental rain
data collected by volunteers) / atmospheric samples analyzed for TP, NOj+ NOa-N,
NH3-N, TKN, pH, TDS
382
-------
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP, South Dakota
4.3.7.4.7 Other Important Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information
The Ground Water Study included collection of land use, soil profile, surface runoff, and
climatic data.
Oakwood Lakes System Study also included phytoplankton and zooplankton dynamics, a
fisheries study, land use histories for ground water field monitoring sites, and a denitrifica-
tion study of soil cores collected from the field.
4.3.7.5 Data Management
The data are managed locally and by the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural
Resources and the Water Resources Institute.
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results
Analysis:
Ground Water Field Site Monitoring: Well data were tested for normality using the
Shapiro-Wilk or Kolmogorov-Smirnov test as appropriate. Non-normal distributions typi-
cal of ground water data required the use of nonparametric statistics such as the Mann
Whitney U or equivalent Wilcoxan 2 Sample Test. Median values were selected for analy-
sis since these are less responsive to outliers. Plots were made of NOs- N medians versus
time and depth below water table, and for each hydrogeologic setting, or geozone. Pesti-
cide detections were plotted by year, month, and geozone.
Vadose Zone Monitoring: Preliminary analysis has been performed to determine if there
is a relationship between the amount of nitrogen applied at the soil surface and the amount
detected in water from the saturated zone. Linear regression was used for all tillage treat-
ments, no-till treatments alone, and moldboard plow treatments alone. Pesticide detec-
tions were plotted by depth and cropping treatment. Concentrations of the most often
detected compound, Banvel, were plotted versus cropping treatment.
Oakwood Lakes System Study: The project is developing nutrient, sediment, and hydro-
logic budgets for comparison with reductions in loadings estimated by watershed models
following verification of the AGNPS model.
Please refer to the Oakwood Lakes- Poinsett, South Dakota Rural Clean Water Program
Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Technical Report, 1988, May, 1989, and the
Oakwood Lakes-Poinsett Rural Clean Water Program Ten-year Report, December 1991
(Goodman, et al., 1991), for a comprehensive description of data analysis and results.
Results:
Ground Water Monitoring
Nitrate was the predominate form of nitrogen and was found at all sites. All sites had at
least one well with nitrates exceeding 10 mg/1; however, nitrate concentrations rarely ex-
ceeded 5 mg/1 at depths of more than 20 feet below the water table. Certain geologic pro-
files showed higher concentrations of nitrates than other profiles in similar conditions.
Monitoring confirmed that nitrate concentrations are controlled by the amount of nitrogen
applied to the land surface (dependent on crop), the amount and rate of infiltration (nitrate
concentrations declined during and after rainfall due to dilution), and the amount and rate
of denitrification occurring in the soil zones.
Pesticides were detected in 11.3% of the ground water samples. Evidence indicates that
pesticide residues bind to the soil particles remaining in the soil profile for long periods un-
til being released to the ground water during infiltration events.
383
-------
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP, South Dakota
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results (continued)
Vadose Zone Monitoring
Rainwater movement to the water table is faster for no-till tillage than for the conventional
moldboard plow tillage. Tillage was not important in pesticide detections but no-till plots
showed a higher flux of nitrate into the ground water than moldboard plowing plots.
The most significant flow path in the vadose zone is macropores, or pores with diameters
greater than 0.04 inches.
Oakwood Lakes Monitoring
The lakes system is hyper-eutrophic and will remain so due to the following factors: all
tributaries carry excessive nutrients; the lakes efficiently trap the majority of phosphorus
entering the lakes; and even if the nutrients in surface runoff were reduced, the lakes' sedi-
ments will contribute an amount of phosphorus equal to the amount brought in by tributar-
ies. BMP implementation may extend the lifetime of the lakes through reductions in
sedimentation, but will not reduce the hyper-eutrophic conditions.
Concentrated animal feeding operations contribute significantly to degradation of water
quality as compared to allowing the animals to graze on pastures.
Correlation of water quality with BMP implementation was not possible because BMP im-
plementation was recorded by farm unit rather than by watersheds.
4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
This project utilized a comprehensive multi-pronged effort to study the effects of land treatment on
surface and ground water quality. Monitoring was done on farms, research sites, and in the lakes
with the idea that site-specific results could be used to estimate, by modeling, the effectiveness of
BMP implementation on the overall project area. The site-specific monitoring yielded much informa-
tion on transport processes and pathways by which pollutants enter surface or ground water and on
techniques for measuring pollutants in surface and ground water and lakes.
However, the lack of measurements of the actual tributary surface and ground water resources before
BMP implementation, and the dispersed locations of the BMPs in the critical area (Priority Area 1)
prevented the project team from reaching a definitive conclusion as to the effect of land treatment on
the water quality. Future projects should concentrate efforts on obtaining actual water quality im-
provements through paired watershed or pre/post BMP implementation studies where a high percent-
age of BMP implementation can be obtained in the selected project area.
Several additional studies that became part of the overall monitoring for this project were conducted.
Those studies included the Land Surface Nutrient Budget Study (to contribute data on mineralization
and denitrification of nitrates), the Agricultural Chemical Leaching Study (to provide information to
enable more precise predictions of water quality and movement in the soil zone), and the Oakwood
Lakes System Study (to evaluate the water quality impacts of BMP implementation by determining
hydrologic and nutrient budgets for the Oakwood Lakes).
Much analysis was done to determine the effects of alternate tillage systems, crops, and BMPs on sur-
face and ground water. Records were kept of the crops planted and fertilizer and pesticides used and
were correlated to water quality measurements. Mathematical modeling was used to predict nutrient
loading and help in making a nutrient budget for the lakes system.
384
-------
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP, South Dakota
4.3.9 Impact of Other Federal and State Programs on the Project
Programs that affected the RCWP were the Payment in Kind (PIK) Program and the Conservation Re-
serve Program (CRP). These programs took significant amounts of land out of production and
changed cropping patterns. These changes affected the modeling of the water quality improvements
because the erosion rates and fertilizer inputs were changed from the usual crop uses.
The Dairy Termination Program eliminated only three operators in the area during the project pe-
riod.
No programs affected water resources management during the RCWP project.
4.3.10 Other Pertinent Information
The Oakwood Lakes study is a good example of development of a materials (nutrient, sediment,
water) budget to understand the processes that affect NPS pollution of shallow prairie lakes.
Given the difficulties of monitoring land use impacts on ground water quality on a watershed scale,
the project's field studies offer a good approach to documenting the effect of conservation tillage.
However, the ground water field sites experiment had only one site with conventional tillage to serve
as a comparison with the conservation tillage field sites; thus there were no replications.
Constraints affecting access to private land to conduct monitoring activities can sometimes limit the
application of the monitoring program; therefore, the need to work closely with landowners while de-
veloping the monitoring network is very important.
4.3.11 References
A complete list of all project documents and other relevant publications may be found in Appendix IV.
Goodman, J., M. Kuck, R Larson, D. Clayton, K. Cameron-Howell, A. Bender, L. Holtsclaw, D.
German, J. Bischoff, J. Davis, C.G. Kimball, T. Lemme, C. Berry, C. Ullery, G. Carlson.
1991. Ten-Year Report: Oakwood Lakes-Poinsett Rural Clean Water Program 1981-1991. South
Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, South Dakota State University, Water
Resources Institute, Pierre, SD.
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett, South Dakota. 1986. Annual RCWP Progress Report - Project 20.
38S
-------
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP, South Dakota
4.3.12 Project Contacts
Administration
Mike Kuck
South Dakota State SCS Office
200 Fourth Street S.W., Room 208
Huron, SD 57350
(605) 353- 1783
Water Quality
Ground Water Field Site Monitoring
Jeanne Goodman
Office of Water Quality
S. Dakota Department of Environment & Nat. Resources
Foss Building,
523 East Capital
Pierre, SD 57501- 3181
(605) 773-3296
Vadose Zone and Chemical Leaching Study
John Bischoff
Box 2120
South Dakota State University
Water Resources Institute
Brookings, SD 57007
(605) 688-4910
Oakwood Lakes System Study
David German
Box 2120
South Dakota State University
Water Resources Institute
Brookings, SD 57007
(605) 688-4910
Land Treatment
Leroy Holtsclaw
USDA - SCS
Huron, SD
(605) 353-1783
386
-------
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP, South Dakota
4.3.12 Project Contacts (continued)
Information and Education
Charles H. Ullery
Water & Natural Res. Specialist
Cooperative Extension Service
229 Agricultural Engineering
South Dakota State University
Box 2120
Brookings, SD 57007
(605) 688-5141
387
-------
Figure 4.20: Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett (South Dakota) RCWP project map, SD-2.
388
-------
Q
2
UJ
UJ
Figure 4.21: Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett (South Dakota) RCWP project map, SD-3.
389
-------
LEGEND
lake monitoring station
USGS tributary gauging station
project boundary
Figure 4.22: ReelfootLake (Tennessee/Kentucky) RCWP project map, TN/KY-1.
390
-------
Tennessee/Kentucky
Reelfoot Lake
(RCWP10)
Obion & Lake Cos. (TN) & Fulton Co. (KY)
MLRA:0-131 andP-134
HUC: 080102-02
4.1 Project Synopsis
Reelfoot Lake, the only natural lake in Tennessee, was formed from the Mississippi River through earthquake activity.
Its drainage area encompasses land in Kentucky and Tennessee and covers atotal of 153,600 acres. The lake attracts
large, migratory waterfowl and wintering bald eagles. The lake is famous for its sport and commercial fisheries.
The land bordering the western side of the lake is characterized by steeply rising, loess-covered hills, 300 to 450
feet high. These hills are cropped with corn, wheat, and soybeans planted in rotation. Because of the topography,
the land cannot be terraced and erosion from cropland is significant.
The water quality problem in Reelfoot Lake is caused by excess sediment and nutrients. If sedimentation is not
reduced, Reelfoot Lake will fill in within the next 60 to 200 years. Cropland and gullies are the major sources of
sediment. Large gullies are found on the eastern shore where runoff erodes the steep hillsides. These gullies, which
form not only in cropped areas but also in forested and grassland areas, deposit a significant amount of sediment into
Reelfoot Lake. The rate of sedimentation is amplified by man-made stream channelization (Denton, 1986). Lake
eutrophication from nutrient runoff and alleged contamination of aquatic life by pesticides is also occurring.
Based on topography, credibility, and closeness to Reelfoot Lake and streams, about one-third of the watershed
(45,118 acres) was deemed critical. Approximately 60% (26,431 acres) of all critical acres were treated as part of
the RCWP project.
The emphasis of the land treatment program was to retard erosion and to limit nutrient and pesticide influx into
Reelfoot Lake. Six best management practices (BMPs) were used extensively to address water quality problems:
permanent vegetative cover, conservation tillage, stream protection, permanent vegetative cover on critical areas,
fertilizer management, and pesticide management.
Project coordination and cooperation between the two states was good. There was also an excellent cooperative
effort among several agencies (local, state, and federal), providing a good model for how multiple agencies can
coordinate to address a common water quality goal.
Four separate monitoring studies were conducted during the project. The monitoring design did not allow trend or
statistical analysis. There has been no documented change in water quality during the project. Lack of water quality
improvement was due to: 1) the lack of local ownership in the project and only fair farmer participation; 2) the need
for the majority of the cropland on the eastern portion of the lake to be converted to pasture or hay crops or needing
winter cover crops on all cropland; 3) the need for gully stabilization; and 4) the need for dechannelization of
channels.
391
-------
Reelfoot Lake RCWP, Tennessee/Kentucky
4.2 Project Rndings, Recommendations, and Successes
4.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals
4.2.1.1 Rndings and Successes
One of the land treatment objectives, reducing erosion, was met. However, the other land treat-
ment objective of improving water quality was not met.
Land treatment goals were overly ambitious and none of the six goals were met Some of the
goals were never even attempted, such as treating gullies.
The water quality objectives were diverse but the underlying theme of the objectives was to under-
stand the entire lake as a system. Several of the objectives and their goals were met through
appropriate water quality studies. The objective of determining short- and long-term benefits
from implemented BMPs was not met due to the lack of a long-term water quality monitoring
effort and an inadequate number of samples for trend detection. Additionally, if the informa-
tion from some of the water quality studies conducted as part of the RCWP project had been
available at the beginning of the project, it is possible that the water quality problem would
have been addressed with different BMPs and different critical areas would have been de-
fined.
4.2.1.2 Recommendations
The magnitude of the pollution problem must be adequately documented. Otherwise, realistic
and attainable goals cannot be established.
Set realistic land treatment and water quality goals in order to ensure project success.
4.2.2 Project Management and Administration
4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes
Some members of the LCC believed that the local farmers should have had more of a role in pro-
ject planning and that agency responsibility should have been primarily project administra-
tion. According to some individuals, the SCS was sometimes asked by the LCC to make
decisions that should have been made by the LCC. The LCC stopped meeting quarterly in
1986, which decreased project communication.
The communication between the LCC and the SCC was quite good. These groups met on a regu-
larly scheduled basis during the first two years of the contracting period. The SCC also gave
assistance to the LCC upon request, but generally allowed the LCC to make the majority of
the decisions.
Because this project encompassed two states and three counties, the logistics of project administra-
tion were often complicated. Simple procedures, such as permission for travel, often delayed
inter-agency communication. Also, personnel in the same agency, but working in different
states, often advocated different solutions to the same problem. In spite of these problems,
there was excellent coordination and cooperation among the many different groups.
The project could have been strengthened by improved communication between land treatment
and water quality personnel. BMP installation and water quality monitoring results were not
effectively shared between the two groups.
4.2.2.2 Recommendations
The LCC needs to meet throughout the life of the project.
It is essential that water quality and land treatment personnel inform each other about the status of
project activities and monitoring results.
An effective water quality project can span two states if both states and the agencies involved are
willing to cooperate and communicate.
392
-------
Reetfoot Lake RCWP, Tennessee/Kentucky
4.2.3 Information and Education
4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes
Initially, the local CESs had the lead role in information and education (I&E) activities with help
from all other agencies. The CES made mostly group presentations while the SCS and
ASCS made the one-to-one contacts with producers. Later, the University of Tennessee Ex-
tension Service took the I&E leadership role. Extension specialists provided help with fertil-
izer and pesticide management BMPs, offering soil testing and technical assistance with
Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Responsibility for the conservation tillage BMP was
shared by CES and SCS.
Through the I&E effort, every farmer was contacted individually, one to three times, early in the
project. Fewer contacts were made later in the project.
The I&E activities were well coordinated and extensive and involved all agencies. I&E was effec-
tive. Moderate producer participation was not a reflection of I&E effectiveness but was
rather a reflection of the farmers' attitudes toward changing their farming practices and gov-
ernment programs.
4.2.3.2 Recommendations
Increase the use of public meetings to encourage participation, to explain contracting procedures,
and to make implementation of BMPS more understandable for land users.
There should be continued enhancement of education and technical services offered in the water-
shed in order to foster continued adoption and maintenance of BMPs.
4.2.4 Producer Participation
4.2.4.1 Findings and Successes
Producer participation was fair. Only 59% of the critical acres was contracted. Some of the rea-
sons cited by project personnel for the lack of participation were cost, the trouble involved in
changing practices, and farmers not wanting to be told how to farm. There was also a prob-
lem in changing farmers' attitudes and awareness of the sources of the water quality prob-
lems. Even with all the I&E, many farmers still did not believe that they were contributing
to the water quality problem.
There were problems contacting absentee landlords. It was difficult to convince absentee land-
lords as well as area farmers to seed cropland to pasture because they would experience a
loss of income. When the project started paying 75% of the cost share for seeding, as well
as an additional one-time $70 payment for converting cropland to pasture for ten years, par-
ticipation increased.
Another way participation was increased was by allowing portions of a farm to be treated rather
than requiring that all water quality problems on a farm be addressed.
4.2.4.2 Recommendations
Special monetary incentives should be made available in projects where large areas need to be
converted from cropland to pasture.
393
-------
Reelfoot Lake RCWP, Tennessee/Kentucky
4.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes
The project made all 16 approved RCWP BMPs available, although the implementation of only
six BMPS met or exceeded project estimated needs. The six BMPs were stripcropping, con-
servation tillage, stream protection system, vegetation of critically eroding areas, fertilizer
management, and pesticide management
Only two BMPs (permanent vegetative cover and permanent vegetative cover on critical area)
could reduce soil losses to acceptable levels on the more erosive soils. In spite of being the
most cost effective BMP, permanent vegetative cover was not the most attractive BMP op-
tion to the farmers. This switch from row crops to pasture or hayland systems was too costly
for many farmers and many farmers were not skillful grass managers.
Using the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), calculated reduction in soil erosion was 800,000
tons from the RCWP project and another 325,000 tons from non-RCWP area projects.
Although area technicians estimated that 50% of the sediment was from the cropland and 50%
from the gullies or "bully holes" (as they are called locally), the problem with the large gul-
lies was never addressed. No accounting was kept of how much sediment the gullies were
contributing to Reelfoot Lake. Despite the fact that large sums of money were spent on pilot
projects to stabilize these structures, all stabilization techniques failed.
Land treatment was tracked manually by SCS technicians while the contracts were being carried
out. Annual follow-up spot checks were made by SCS.
4.2.5.2 Recommendations
All sources contributing sediment must be identified. If there is more than one sediment source,
a sediment budget should be completed prior to project implementation.
The amount and timing of sediment loaded into the water body must be documented in order to
identify the correct BMPs.
If cropland is to be converted to pasture, a one-time payment should be made in conjunction with
the installation cost share in order to subsidize farmers for loss of income during the period
of pasture establishment.
Higher cost share incentives should be available for much needed streambank protection or ripar-
ian zone stabilization as a part of water quality projects.
Higher cost share incentives should be made available to encourage long-term cover crop imple-
mentation and maintenance.
Each Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Plan or RCWP-like project in this area should in-
clude a sizable portion of wetland habitat since wetlands were so effective in trapping sedi-
ment from Reelfoot Lake (Reelfoot Lake RCWP Project, 1991).
Because the majority of the erosion occurs during the winter, a measure should be developed and
implemented that would require winter cover crops.
Streams should be dechannelized to reduce their velocity and decrease their sediment loads.
Small watersheds that were not originally included under the Reelfoot Lake RCWP project, but
which have been found to contribute significant amounts of localized sediment, should be tar-
geted for BMP implementatioa
4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes
Water quality in the streams and lake was monitored for status only. No change in water quality
chemistry was documented during the life of the project.
394
-------
Reelfoot Lake RCWP, Tennessee/Kentucky
4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
The RCWP assessment omitted over a dozen small watersheds on the eastern side of the lake, be-
cause they were considered insignificant contributors of sediment. However, a Cesium sedi-
mentation study indicated that these watersheds may have very significant effects in localized
areas of the lake where it is forming a stable soil structure (Denton, 1986).
Although 85% of ah* sediment deposited into Reelfoot Lake comes from Reelfoot Creek, much of
this sediment is being deposited in Grassy Island Wetland (Denton, 1986). This clearly dem-
onstrates the effectiveness of wetlands in filtering sediment. However, the large amount of
sediment that has been trapped is beginning to affect the wetland system and some of the
trees are starting to die.
The rapid increase in the rate of sediment deposition in Lake Reelfoot corresponds to the man-
made channelization of streams that flow into the lake (Denton, 1987).
The following findings are from a two-year USGS study (Lewis et al., 1992) of three Reelfoot
Lake tributaries. A summarization of the study can be found in the project's Ten-Year Re-
port (Reelfoot Lake RCWP Project, 1991).
Storm runoff contributed 87% of the total sediment loadings to the lake and ranged from
82% to 95% for various streams.
Significantly different seasonal loadings were observed for many variables surveyed and
these differences were associated with row-crop agriculture.
Approximately 80% of the annual stream flow, 75% of the total nitrogen load, and 80% of
the total phosphorus load occur during the months of October through March, when cropland
is exposed.
Sedimentation of the lake continues at an alarming rate. Approximately 80% of the sediment
loading occurred during the October to March time period.
Although pesticide sampling during many previous studies resulted in no detectable concentra-
tions (with the exception of sediment samples), 32% of the samples collected showed high
levels of atrazine or alachlor. Alachlor was present in 90% of the samples collected during
the growing seasoa
Water quality continues to decline within the associated lake subbasins.
4.2.6.2 Recommendations
Water quality monitoring for trend detection must be properly designed and executed if project
achievements are to be documented.
Studies that document water quality problems associated with sedimentation, sediment sources,
rates of sedimentation, and seasonal sediment loading trends should be conducted prior to pro-
ject selection, planning, and implementation.
Water quality investigations throughout the watershed and especially in the lake should be contin-
ued in order to document water quality changes (Lake Reelfoot RCWP Project, 1991).
Water quality sampling should be conducted at regular, pre-defined intervals in order to make
possible detection of trends possible.
395
-------
Reelfoot Lake RCWP, Tennessee/Kentucky
4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
4.2.7.1 Findings and Successes
Since water quality monitoring and land treatment tracking were not designed to determine the re-
lationship between the two, there is no way to document the water quality effects of land
treatment implemented through this RCWP project. However, water quality studies con-
ducted during the middle and later part of the project suggest that 1) the critical area was not
defined correctly, 2) the emphasis in BMP strategy should have been changed, 3) artificial
wetlands should have been developed, and 4) an attempt to dechannelize the streams should
have been made (Denton, 1986; Reelfoot Lake RCWP Project, 1991).
4.2.7.2 Recommendations
Water quality monitoring and land treatment monitoring must be designed correctly if linkage be-
tween the two are to be documented.
4.3 Project Description
4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame
General RCWP
1980 -1990
4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions
4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality
4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size
Reelfoot Lake (18,400 acres) and tributary streams
4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments
Reelfoot Lake is located in a popular state park in Tennessee. The lake is used primarily
for fishing, boating, and waterfowl hunting. Other water uses within the project area are
irrigation and livestock watering.
Impairments of Reelfoot Lake are: decreased lake volume, degraded fishery and wildlife
habitat, and impaired recreational use caused mainly by sediment loading and high nutri-
ent concentrations. The lake is severely eutrophic. Pesticides are reported to be a cause of
impairment to aquatic life, but data, from a project study, do not support this claim (Reel-
foot Lake RCWP Project, 1986).
4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement
Sedimentation decreases lake storage capacity and, along with excessive nutrients from ag-
ricultural fertilizers, promotes excessive aquatic weed growth in the lake. The eutrophica-
tion of Reelfoot Lake has also damaged wildlife habitat, fisheries, and impaired contact
and non-contact recreational uses. There is also concern about pesticide contamination of
aquatic life.
4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals
Reduce sediment delivery to the lake and attain a desirable level of water quality
396
-------
Reelfoot Lake RCWP, Tennessee/Kentucky
4.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics
4.3.2.2.1 Watershed Area: 153,600 acres
Project Area: 153,600 acres
Critical Area: 45,118 acres
4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors
Mean Annual Precipitation: ~ 48 inches
Geologic Factors: The project area lies within the Mississippi embayment section of the
Gulf Coastal Plain. Uplands and bottomlands are divided by a distinct bluff running north-
south through the area. Substrate consists primarily of compact silt and clay mixtures. Bot-
tomlands are covered by deep alluvial deposits of silt, clay, sand and gravel. Uplands are
covered by fluvial gravels topped with silty loess. Predominant soils are moderately well-
drained to somewhat poorly-drained loams. All soils in the area are highly susceptible to
gully and sheet erosion. The calculated annual soil loss is 1.4 million tons. Topography
is nearly level on uplands to steeply sloped along bluffs adjacent to the lake.
4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture
There are 562 farms in the project area, of which 95% are owner-operated. The average
size of a farm is 225 acres. The primary commodities grown in this area are corn, soy-
beans, and wheat. There is some hog and cattle production.
4.3.2.2.4 Land Use
Use % of Project Area % of Critical Area
Cropland 41 NA
Pasture/range 19 NA
Woodland 20 NA
Urban/roads 1 NA
Other NA
Water and wetlands 12
Park/wildlife refuge 7
4.3.2.2.5 Animal Operations
Operation Total # Total Animal
Animals Units
Beef cattle 6,325 6,325
Hogs 35,800 14,320
There was no indication that animal numbers changed significantly during the project
4.3.3 Total Project Budget
The total project budget was approximately $ 4,500,000, of which $ 900,000 was expended for tech-
nical services and $ 3,394,485 was spent on cost share (Reelfoot Lake RCWP Project, 1991).
397
-------
Reelfoot Lake RCWP, Tennessee/Kentucky
4.3.4 Information and Education
4.3.4.1 Strategy
There was a three-pronged information and education (I&E) strategy: broad spectrum education
of the general public, education of landowners and operators, and information to educational
groups.
4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals
The I&E objective was to provide information that would promote participation in the project.
The I&E goals were to inform producers about RCWP, the need for progress in water quality,
and how and where to obtain project information about the project.
4.3.4.3 Program Components
Newsletters
News media (radio, TV, and news articles)
Educational meetings
Demonstrations (alfalfa production, herbicides and insecticides)
Alfalfa exhibit
One-to-one contacts
4.3.5 Producer Participation
4.3.5.1 Level of Participation
Two hundred and sixty-five contracts were signed on 26,431 acres or 59% of the critical area.
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation
Cost share rate of 75%
Payment limitation of $50,000 per landowner
The state of Tennessee paid 25% of the cost share to establish alfalfa on designated steep,
erodible lands within the project area. When this 25% payment was combined with the 75%
RCWP cost share, the cost share rate for establishing alfalfa was 100%.
A one-time $70 payment for converting cropland to pasture for 10 years
Additional incentives provided by the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to farmers to convert
highly erodible lands to more permanent vegetation
Perception that practices, such as fertilizer and pesticide management, would increase profits
398
-------
Reelfoot Lake RCWP, Tennessee/Kentucky
4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation
Lack of acceptance by farmers that they were contributing to the water quality problem
Reluctance to deal with government programs
Unwillingness to be told how to farm by the government
Poor farm economic conditions
Unwillingness by farmers to place their entire farm under RCWP contract (before a decision was
made not to require that all land on a farm had to be contracted and treated if necessary)
Unwillingness of absentee landlords and renters to invest in the land
Lack of technical solutions/cost shared BMPs to address the problem of gullies
4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs
The prospects for continued maintenance appear to be mixed. Fertilizer and pesticide manage-
ment, stripcropping, and some conservation tillage are being discontinued. Pastures which
had to be maintained for ten years are, for the most part, being maintained as pastures. It is
too early to know whether the fanners will keep this land in pasture or return it to cropland
when the ten years are over. Since BMPs are being discontinued, it seems unlikely that any
BMPs would be adopted.
4.3.6 Land Treatment
4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design
Keep the soil on the land.
4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals
The objectives were to:
Reduce erosion
Improve water quality
The goals were to:
Meet soil loss tolerance on at least 80% of the drainage area
Reduce sediment delivered to the lake by 75% (equivalent to sediment reduction of
638,019 tons/year)
Meet state water quality criteria for the designated uses of Reelfoot Lake
Convert land use on soils classified as land capability class Vie and Vile from cropland to
permanent cover of grass, trees, or wildlife plantings
Treat all gully areas and other critical areas
Increase long-term farm income potential through improved conservation management sys-
tems
399
-------
Reelfoot Lake RCWP, Tennessee/Kentucky
4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application
83% of the cropland in the project area was designated as critical and was prioritized into three
classifications based on cropping intensity, erosion rate, and proximity to the lake and
streams:
Area I: Close proximity of lake or streams, Class IV, VI or VII land (Soil Management
Support System, 1990), soil loss of 50 tons/acre/year (T/A/yr), and continuous row crops
Area II: Class n & III land, continuous row crops, and soil erosion rates of 5 T/A/yr
Area III: Mississippi River Flood plain, and erosion rates of 10 T/A/yr
The critical area in Lake County was reduced in 1985 from 12,000 acres to 6,900 acres because
many of the farmers were already applying BMPs.
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used
Land treatment emphasized by this project includes erosion controls
(such as conservation tillage), stream protection, and fertilizer and pesticide management.
BMPs terrace systems, diversion system, grazing land protection system, and waterway system
were discontinued because the undulating topography was not compatible with their use.
BMPs Utilized in the Project
Permanent vegetative cover (BMP 1)
Animal waste management system (BMP 2)
Stripcropping systems (BMP 3)
Terrace systems (BMP 4)
Diversion system (BMP 5)
Grazing land protection system (BMP 6)
Waterway system (BMP 7)
Cropland protection system (BMP 8)
Conservation tillage systems (BMP 9)
Stream protection system (BMP 10)
Permanent vegetative cover on critical
areas (BMP 11)
Sediment retention, erosion, or water control
structures (BMP 12)
Improving an irrigation and or water
management system (BMP 13)
Tree planting (BMP 14)
Fertilizer management (BMP 15)
Pesticide management (BMP 16)
Units
Goals
Achievements
acres
#
acres
acres
feet
#
acres
acres
acres
feet
8,840
50
100
2,000
11,925
26
200
9,000
15,758
—
lolal
9,526
30
359
111
57
92
59
44
4,051
39,202
%
108
60
359
6
5
354
30
-
26
—
acres
#
160
349
332
152
(available but not utilized)
acres 1,539 17
acres 7,760 14,064
acres 7,760 13,230
201
44
1
181
170
*Please refer to Appendix I for description/purpose of BMPs.
400
-------
Reelfoot Lake RCWP, Tennessee/Kentucky
4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring & Tracking Program
4.3.6.5.1 Description
Regular record keeping was conducted by project personnel and reported in RCWP annual
reports. Contracts were tracked by the SCS by hand using a list of RCWP practices that
had been installed on each farm. It was a very cumbersome tracking procedure. ASCS
conducted random checks.
4.3.6.5.2 Data Management
No data management system was in place during the project.
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results
Quantified Project Achievements:
Pollutant Critical Area Treatment Goals
SflJUXfi Units lolal % Implemented Total % Implemented
Cropland acres 45,118 59% 33,839 79%
Contracts # 425 56% 240 75%
4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design
The majority of the water quality studies conducted during the RCWP project were studies in-
tended to delineate the sedimentation problems of Reelfoot Lake. These studies were not de-
signed to track changes in the lake associated with BMP implementation.
There were four distinct water quality monitoring studies. They are listed below:
1980-1982 Reelfoot Lake Summary Report
1982-1983 EPA Clean Lakes Study
1984-1986 Sedimentation Study with expanded water quality monitoring
1987-1989 USGS storm event monitoring through the 1988 Clean Water Act.
Since no funds were available for in-lake monitoring during the project, it was determined that
monitoring would continue during the RCWP project as it had before: water, sediment and
fish tissue analysis in the spring and fall.
The monitoring and analysis were conducted by the Tennessee Department of Health and Environ-
ment (Term. DHE), University of Tennessee at Martin, U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), and
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Water Quality and Watershed Research Laboratory
(USDA-ARS).
401
-------
Reelfoot Lake RCWP, Tennessee/Kentucky
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals
Objectives were to:
1) Describe the historical relationship of lake environment problems to causative factors,
such as land use patterns, in order to predict the potential for alleviating existing and fu-
ture problems
2) Determine the levels of toxic substances present in tissue of Reelfoot Lake fish, thus
protecting public health and the use of the lake for fish and wildlife
3) Define the impact of tributary inflows on the lake by quantifying the current pollutant
load from sediment and by determining the lake's trophic status
4) Determine the short- and long-term benefits of the Rural Clean Water Program to the
impaired uses of the lake for fish, wildlife, and recreation
Goals corresponding to the objectives were to:
la) Document the changes in the physical and ecological aspects of the lake environment
from 1930-1980
Ib) Summarize the influence of human activities in developing the watershed and lake
shore
Ic) Establish the relationship between significant changes in the lake environment through
the past 50 year period to human uses of the lake and watershed
2a) Determine the extent to which the fisheries resource was used by the general public
and by commercial fishermen
2b) Document levels and types of toxic substances in the lake
3c) Establish severity of toxics contamination of the lake
3a) Determine current sediment loading based on development of sediment rating curves
3b) Determine current nutrient loading and lake retention rate
3c) Define a water budget for the lake
4a) Define the fishery community structure which has adapted to current conditions
4b) Relate current pollutant loadings to land use hi the watershed with specific location of
row crops
4c) Quantify short-term project benefits in terms of reduced sediment loading
4d) Relate project activities to long-term changes in nutrient loading and basic productivity
4e) Relate project activities to long-term changes in sediment loading
4.3.7.3 Time Frame
1977 - 1986, 1987 - 1989
4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme
Storm runoff, sedimentation, and ambient monitoring was conducted. None of these sampling
schemes were in effect during the entire project.
402
-------
Reelfoot Lake RCWP, Tennessee/Kentucky
4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations
6 in-lake
4 in tributaries (Tenn. DHE)
7 in Buck Basin segment of lake (Clean Lakes study)
5 in tributaries (USGS)
4.3.7.4.2 Sample Type
Grab and flow-activated automatic, depending on the study
4.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency
Tenn. DHE in-lake stations: once yearly 1977 -1979, twice yearly 1980 -1983, monthly
1984 - 1986.
Clean Lakes stations: monthly 1982 -1983.
Tributary stations: twice yearly 1980 -1984, quarterly 1984 -1986, storm event 1987 -
1989.
4.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed
Dissolved oxygen (DO), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), temperature, pH, suspended
solids (SS), dissolved solids (DS), total solids (TS), Secchi disk transparency (in-lake
only), nitrite-nitrogen (NOi-N), nitrate-nitrogen (NOs-N), ammonia-nitrogen (NHa-N), to-
tal Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), fecal coliform (FC) bacteria, phosphates, selected heavy met-
als, selected pesticides
4.3.7.4.5 Row Measurement
Tributary stations: continuous at gauged sites and instantaneous at ungaged sites
4.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements
Daily precipitation was collected during the runoff study at a field station located at the
Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge.
4.3.7.4.7 Other Important Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information
Funding for and coordination of the project's monitoring activities expired early in the pro-
ject. The Tennessee Office of Water Management of the Department of Health and Envi-
ronment and the USGS conducted extensive lake and tributary monitoring through 1986.
Fish tissue samples were analyzed for "toxic materials" at unreported intervals.
Since there was never any long-term plan or long-term study, trend analysis is impossible.
403
-------
Reelfoot Lake RCWP, Tennessee/Kentucky
4.3.7.5 Data Management
The data are in STORET.
STORET STORET PROFILE / STATION
AGENCY CODE STATION NO. MAP/NO.
21TNWQ REELFOOTLKIS01 TKY-1 / 1 (Reelfoot Lake)
REELFOOTLKIS02 TKY-1 / 2 (Reelfoot Lake)
REELFOOTLKIS03 TKY-1 / 3 (Reelfoot Lake)
REELFOOTLKIS04 TKY-1 / 4 (Reelfoot Lake)
REELFOOTLKIS05 TKY-1 / 5 (Reelfoot Lake)
REELFOOTLKIS06 TKY-1 / 6 (Reelfoot Lake)
REELFOOTLKIS07 TKY-1 / 7 (tributary)
REELFOOTLKIS08 TKY-1 / 8 (tributary)
REELFOOTLKIS09 TKY-1 / 9 (tributary)
REELFOOTLKIS10 TKY-1 / 10 (tributary)
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results
Water quality data were plotted and least square regression lines were drawa In-lake trend analy-
sis was attempted, but was hampered by the lack of consistent and long-term data.
Fish tissue samples indicated no toxicity from pesticides. A later study detected alachlor and
atrazine in the water, although these two herbicides would not directly affect the fish.
Sediment analysis of the lake, using Cesium-137 as an indicator, demonstrated that sediment depo-
sition began in the 1940's when pasture land was converted to cropland (Mclntyre and
Naney, 1990). Excessive deposition is due to both cropland erosion and stream channeliza-
tion Average deposition ranged from 0.35 in/yr in the Blue Basin to 0.67 in/yr in the Upper
Blue Basin. Subwatersheds that had been deemed unimportant during critical area determina-
tion were in some cases significant sources of localized sediment depositioa Some subbasins
in Reelfoot Lake will become too shallow for most recreational purposes in 60 to 200 years.
Sediment analysis of a forest wetland adjacent to Reelfoot Lake showed that although it can filter
some sediment, the wetland is losing its ability to trap sediment (Mclntyre and Naney, 1991).
Average deposition rates ranged from 0.4 to 0.2 in/yr; this constitutes about 21% of the sedi-
ment eroding from cropland. Tree mortality OCCUTS+ due to these high rates of sedimentation.
A storm event study conducted by USGS revealed that most of the sediment, nitrogen, and phos-
phorus is deposited during winter months (October - March) and water quality is declining.
4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
No long-term monitoring objectives have been established for collecting data to relate land treatment
to water quality improvements. Thus there was no linkage between land treatment and water quality
in this project.
4.3.9 Impact of Other Federal and State Programs on the Project
Farmers used the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) extensively during the project. A total of al-
most 9,000 acres were enrolled in this program.
There was a PL-S66 program to control flooding which may have also influenced project results. Six
flood water structures were completed with six more planned. An additional 2,130 acres of gullied
land and six miles of road were to be treated with PL-566 and private funds.
The state of Tennessee provided additional money for alfalfa establishment cost share ($60,000) and
the establishment of an alfalfa cooperative ($140,000). Used pelleting machinery was purchased with
the $140,000. Another $440,000 was appropriated by the Tennessee legislature for the alfalfa coop-
erative. The cooperative received a $36,000 grant from the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to
purchase haying machines.
404
-------
Reelfoot Lake RCWP, Tennessee/Kentucky
4.3.10 Other Pertinent Information
During the project time frame there was a decrease in total acres cropped due to the project, CRP,
and low commodity prices. There was also a switch to more corn and less soybeans. These changes
should, in theory, have reduced erosion; however, the data were not good enough to document this.
Many of the older pesticides that are bioaccumulators were replaced during the project period with
newer, less persistent chemicals. Although phosphorus and potassium use were probably reduced
over the life of the project, nitrogen use probably increased due to an increase in corn acreage. No
data to support these assumptions exist.
4.3.11 References
A complete list of all project documents and other relevant publications may be found in Appendix IV.
Denton, G.M. 1986. Summary of the Sedimentation Studies of Reelfoot Lake, 1982 -1986. Tennessee
Department of Health and Environment, Office of Water Management.
Denton, G.M. 1987. Water Quality at Reelfoot Lake, 1976-1986. Tennessee Department of Health
and Environment, Office of Water Management.
Lewis, M.E., J.W. Garrett, and A.B. Hoos. 1992. Nonpoint-Source Pollutant Discharges of the Three
Major Tributaries to Reelfoot Lake, West Tennessee, October 1987 through September 1989.
U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4031.
Mclntyre, S.C. and J.W. Naney. 1990. Reelfoot Lake Sedimentation Rates and Sources. Water Res.
Bull. 26(2):22-232.
Mclntryre, S. and J.W. Naney. 1991. Sediment Deposition in a Forested Inland Wetland with a Steep-
Farmed Watershed. J. Soil and Water Conservation, 46(l):64-66.
Reelfoot Lake RCWP Project. 1986. Annual Progress Report.
Reelfoot Lake RCWP Project. 1991. Ten-Year Report.
Soil Management Support System. 1990. Soil Taxonomy, 4th Ed. VA Polytechnic Inst,Blacksburg, VA.
4.3.12 Project Contacts
Administration
William Hancock, USDA-ASCS
579 Federal Building
801 Broadway
Nashville, TN 37203
(615) 736-5551
Water Quality
Andrew Barrass, Tennessee Department of Natural Resources
150 9th Ave. N., TERRA Bldg.
Nashville, TN 37219- 5404
(615)741-0638
Land Treatment
Louis Godbey, Soil Conservation Service
801 Broadway
675 Kefauver Federal Building
Nashville, TN 37203
(615) 736-7112
Information and Education (none)
405
-------
LEGEND
• sampling station
A animal concentration
town
-project bounoary
(project area « 700 acres)
N
Figure 4.23: Snake Creek (Utah) RCWP project map, UT-1.
406
-------
Utah
Snake Creek
(RCWP11)
Wasatch County
MLRA: E-47
HUC: 160202-03
4.1 Project Synopsis
Snake Creek lies in Wasatch County, Utah in a high valley surrounded by mountains. Water from the creek flows
into the Provo River which empties into Deer Creek Reservoir. The reservoir is used for municipal and industrial
supplies and irrigation in Utah and Salt Lake Valleys, and is an important recreational resource for the region.
Studies indicated that Deer Creek Reservoir was eutrophic due to excessive amounts of nutrients, primarily
phosphorus. The lower Snake Creek drainage basin covers 1.4% of the Deer Creek drainage basin, but was
contributing almost 13% of the phosphorus to the reservoir.
Agriculture in the valley consists mainly of livestock operations with crops of alfalfa, small grains (barley, wheat,
and oats), and pasture to support the livestock. Eight animal operations along Snake Creek were identified as
contributing phosphorus and high levels of coliform bacteria to the creek. The RCWP project assisted farmers in
implementing best management practices (BMPs) to control animal wastes entering the stream and reduce streambank
erosion. Eight water quality plans were written, six of which were funded through the RCWP, providing 100%
producer participation and 95% coverage of the 700-acre project area and the 489-acre critical area.
The water quality goal was to reduce phosphorus loading from the project area by 1000 kilograms/year through the
use of animal waste management systems, grazing land protection systems, stream protection systems, and
improvements to water management systems. Because all producers participated, the water quality goal was achieved
by 1987. Monitoring was begun in 1979 to collect pre-implementation data, and was continued through 1989.
Samples were collected monthly, and more frequently during periods of higher precipitation, at as many as 20 stations.
Monitoring data showed unmistakable declines in phosphorus and coliform levels in Snake Creek.
The project was successful in meeting or exceeding its goals and establishing a model for other pollution reduction
programs now in progress in the area. Cooperation among participants, a dramatic reduction of pollution in Snake
Creek, a reduction in eutrophic conditions in Deer Creek Reservoir, and increased public awareness of water quality
issues highlighted the project.
4.2 Project Findings, Recommendations, and Successes
4.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals
4.2.1.1 Findings and Successes
The main goals of the project were to reduce nonpoint source phosphorus by 1000 kilograms/year
in Snake Creek and to determine the effectiveness of selected BMPs in achieving water qual-
ity improvement. The small area and small number of producers involved made the project
work quite well.
407
-------
Snake Creek RCWP, Utah
4.2.1.2 Recommendations
The size of the project, in both area and number of farmers, greatly affects the logistics involved
in administration, management, tracking of practice implementation, and linking water qual-
ity improvements to land treatment. Smaller project areas and smaller numbers of farmers
are two important factors that can contribute to a successful project in terms of tracking BMP
implementation, obtaining measurable water quality improvements, and establishing links be-
tween land treatment and water quality monitoring.
4.2.2 Project Management and Administration
4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes
One-to-one contact between producers and project personnel made the project and implementation
of management systems run smoothly. Without this individual contact, the project would not
have been as successful.
Intense peer pressure at the initiation of the project resulted in 100% participation, a key factor in
the project's success.
Inter-agency cooperation and public support were high for the RCWP project due to larger re-
gional management plans being instituted to protect Deer Creek Reservoir and the proposed
Jordanelle Reservoir during the RCWP project duration. The regional plans incorporated the
RCWP project as part of the regional effort.
Although there was continuing support for RCWP, the State Coordinating Committee (SCC), Lo-
cal Coordinating Committee (LCC), and participating agencies had little contact after the in-
itial phase. The LCC met only three or four times and the SCC was even less active.
4.2.2.2 Recommendations
The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS), Soil Conservation Service
(SCS), and Cooperative Extension Service, at both the state and local level, should partici-
pate fully throughout the duration of the project.
4.2.3 Information and Education
4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes
The small number of producers in the project area made personal visits the best method of getting
information to the project participants.
More information and education activities throughout the project and especially at the beginning
would have been useful. Participation of all producers in the project area (and critical area)
was obtained in early meetings held to plan the project. Little effort was put into public
awareness programs or to inform and educate other fanners.
4.2.3.2 Recommendations
Some form of weekly newsletter or other information and education (I&E) program should be
used to keep the public and area farmers informed, even when producer participation is very
high.
4.2.4 Producer Participation
4.2.4.1 Findings and Successes
Intense peer pressure from neighboring producers in a small watershed resulted in 100% participa-
tion, which was key to the project's success.
408
-------
Snake Creek RCWP, Utah
4.2.4.2 Recommendations
One of the criteria that should be used in selecting nonpoint source projects is high probability of
good producer participation in the project. Obtaining information from prominent local pro-
ducers can help nonpoint source program managers locate areas where cooperative farmers
and peer pressure can ensure high farmer participation.
4.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes
The small area of the project made it easy for nearly complete implementation and ease of track-
ing. Since there were only eight farms, tracking of the animal waste management systems
was not difficult. Regular site visits were easy and provided a means to educate and encour-
age proper application of wastes to minimize water quality impairments.
4.2.5.2 Recommendations
Smaller watersheds and smaller numbers of participants can ease the problems of tracking BMP
implementation, ensuring proper management of the BMPs, and obtaining practice informa-
tion from producers.
4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes
Monitoring along Snake Creek and its tributaries occurred at as many as 20 stations, both up-
stream and downstream of the project, and before, during, and after BMP implementation
over a period of 10 years. Analysis of the samples show a pronounced decline in phosphorus
and bacteria in Snake Creek downstream of the project area.
The impact of the project alone on Deer Creek Reservoir would have been minimal because the
project area contributes only 12% of the phosphorus entering the reservoir. However, the
RCWP project and several regional nonpoint source (NFS) control efforts, in combination,
have contributed significantly to documented improvements in the water quality of Deer
Creek Reservoir.
The reservoir is used as a primary water supply for several nearby towns, including Salt Lake
City, and is considered to be of good quality.
Data on the effectiveness of a single best management practice (BMP) implementation could have
been gathered if installation of BMPs had been done in stages. This strategy would involve in-
stallation of only one BMP throughout the project at each stage in order to allow enough time
to adequately monitor the water quality impact of the BMP before another practice is intro-
duced.
4.2.6.2 Recommendations
A small watershed with participation of all producers can show marked and rapid water quality
improvements, thus simplifying water quality monitoring and evaluation.
If a project can obtain a small watershed with total participation, i.e., highly controlled, then the
project should consider staging specific BMP implementation to determine the effects of each
practice. This could provide much information about the cost-effectiveness of a BMP. Other
variations on BMP implementation and monitoring should also be considered.
Funding of water quality monitoring, from the national level, would enhance monitoring efforts.
409
-------
Snake Creek RCWP, Utah
4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
4.2.7.1 Rndings and Successes
Results of the monitoring show definite water quality improvements linked to BMP implementa-
tion. Reported monitoring results from Snake Creek indicate a 90% reduction in average
phosphorus concentration and a 99% decrease in fecal coliform numbers after BMP installa-
tion. Results from Huffaker Ditch indicate about 83% reduction in average phosphorus con-
centrations and fecal coliform numbers have decreased by 94%. Other non-RCWP BMP
implementation in the watershed is due to the success of this project.
This project has not only been successful in reducing nutrient and bacterial concentrations, but is
also exemplary for its region. Other dairies in the area are installing similar practices after
seeing the success of the Snake Creek RCWP.
The small area of this project made it ideal for nearly complete implementation and ease of track-
ing.
Water quality data analyses conducted by the National Water Quality Evaluation Project identi-
fied two critical areas: one small reach of the Snake Creek and Huffaker Ditch. These analy-
ses indicated that it may not have been necessary to install practices outside of these two
critical areas.
4.2.7.2 Recommendations
Projects can benefit from thorough analysis, including modeling, to identify critical areas and ap-
propriate BMPs to attain water quality improvements. Although this project showed pro-
nounced improvements in water quality, similar improvements may have been possible at
lower cost through identification of smaller critical areas for BMP implementation.
4.3 Project Description
4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame
General RCWP
1980 - 1990
4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions
4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality
4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size
Irrigation canals draining into Snake Creek which flows into the Provo River slightly up-
stream from the river's discharge into Deer Creek Reservoir.
4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments
Water is stored in Deer Creek Reservoir, located just outside the project area, primarily
for municipal, industrial, and irrigation use in neighboring valleys. About 500,000 people
in the Salt Lake Valley received potable water from the reservoir when the project began
in 1980. Recreational use of the reservoir is also important.
The reservoir is eutrophic which impairs its use for water supply and recreation. High con-
centrations of fecal coliform bacteria and phosphorus occur frequently in Snake Creek;
however, Snake Creek is a relatively minor source of the total pollutants entering Deer
Creek Reservoir (Snake Creek Local Coordinating Committee, 1987).
410
-------
Snake Creek RCWP, Utah
4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement
Deer Creek Reservoir is eutrophic, impairing the use of the reservoir for water supply and
recreation. High concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria and phosphorus occur fre-
quently in Snake Creek; however, from a basin-wide perspective Snake Creek is a minor
source of the total pollutants entering Deer Creek Reservoir.
4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals
Reduce the total phosphorus in Snake Creek by 50%, in Huffaker Ditch by 75%, and in
Bunnel Ditch by 75%, which will reduce phosphorus entering Deer Creek Reservoir by
1000kg each year.
4.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics
4.3.2.2.1 Watershed Area: 523,403 acres
Project Area: 700 acres
Critical Area: 489 acres
4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors
Mean Annual Precipitation: 16.4 inches
Geologic Factors: The project area is in a valley which has a floor underlain by beds of
unconsolidated material from 40 to over 1,000 feet deep. Soils range from well drained
deep soils formed in alluvium and residuum from sedimentary rocks on foothills and allu-
vial fans to moderately well drained and poorly drained deep soils formed in mixed allu-
vium on flood plains, low stream terraces and valley bottoms. Surface drainage patterns
indicate that all surface water entering the valley runs in a direct manner toward the reser-
voir adjacent to the project area.
Meteorologic Factors: The area has a short growing season, and very cold winter tempera-
tures.
4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture
The main agricultural effort is livestock production, including dairies, beef feedlots, and
horses. Crops grown include alfalfa, small grains (wheat, barley, and oats), and pastures
to support the animals.
4.3.2.2.4 Land Use
Use % of Project Area % of Critical Area
Cropland 90 91
Pasture/range 4 9
Urban/roads 6 0
Other
411
-------
Snake Creek RCWP, Utah
4.3.2.2.5 Animal Operations
Operation # Farms
Dairy 4
Beef 3
Horse 1
lotalJ
Animals
409
37
18
Total Animal
Units
302
196
22
4.3.3 Total Project Budget
SOURCES Federal
ACTIVITY
Cost Share 143,684
Info. & Ed. 3,000
Tech. Asst. 76,800
Water Quality
onitoring 143,422
SUM 366,906
State
Fanner
0
0
0
0
0
66,824
0
1,600
0
68,424
Other
SUM
0 210,508
0 3,000
0 78,400
47,808 191,230
47,808 $483,138
Source: Smolenet al., 1989; Snake Creek Local Coordinating Committee, 1991
4.3.4 Information and Education
4.3.4.1 Strategy
Early meetings enlisted the cooperation of all producers in the critical area. Individual contacts
with the participants were used after the initial meetings since the number of people was
small.
Information to the public was provided through a number of newspaper and newsletter articles
published during the project.
4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals
The main effort was to assist participants in remaining with the program and in solving problems
involved with the BMP implementation.
4.3.4.3 Program Components
Individual contact to assist producers in implementation of BMPs
Local publicity released in newspapers
Letters and newsletters sent to participants
State-wide publicity released after project was successfully completed
4.3.5 Producer Participation
4.3.5.1 Level of Participation
The participation level in this project was 100%. All farms within the project critical area were
under RCWP contract.
412
-------
Snake Creek RCWP, Utah
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation
Cost share rate of 75%
Payment limit of $50,000 per landowner
4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation
None
4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs
Chances for continued maintenance and adoption appear to be good. Producers have seen the
benefits associated with the use of BMPs and are likely to continue using them.
4.3.6 Land Treatment
4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design
General Scheme: The land treatment strategy emphasized installation of animal waste manage-
ment systems (BMP 2) on all farms in the project area to prevent direct entry of waste into
streams and to better utilize nutrients in waste through managed land applicatioa
Another art of the strategy was to deny cattle access to Snake Creek and irrigation streams
through the use of stream protection systems and grazing land protection systems. Irrigation
systems were modified to prevent mixing of irrigation water with animal wastes and to re-
duce irrigation return water.
4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals
Reduce the pollution entering Deer Creek Reservoir from agricultural NPS and determine the ef-
fectiveness of selected BMPs for achieving water quality improvement
Implement animal waste control and stream protection at all major animal operations in the pro-
ject area
Quantified Implementation Goals: Contracts were planned for all four dairies and two of the beef
operations in the project area; the other two beef operations agreed to use conservation meth-
ods without the aid of the RCWP project. The two horse operations were not considered criti-
cal and were not included in the contracting plans.
4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application
Criteria: All major animal operations
Application of Treatment According to Criteria: Adequate
413
-------
Snake Creek RCWP, Utah
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used
BMPs Utilized in the Project *
Animal waste management system (BMP 2)
Grazing land protection system (BMP 6)
Stream protection system (BMP 10)
Improving an irrigation and/or water management system (BMP 13)
* Please refer to Appendix I for description/purpose of BMPs.
Quantified Project Achievements:
Critical Area Treatment Goals
Pollutant
Source Units Jolal % Implemented Total % Implemented
Cropland acres
Dairies #
Feedlots #
Contracts #
* As of 1987, 1 dairy changed operation to beef feedlot. BMP management deemed suffi-
cient for the new operation needs.
Two feedlot owners decided to solve their water quality problems without cost share as-
sistance.
4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring and Tracking Program
4.3.6.5.1 Description
The small area of the project made it ideal for nearly complete implementation of land
treatment in the project area and for ease of tracking. Since the project proposed to install
animal waste management systems on all farms in the project area, and since there were
only eight animal farms, tracking implementation and land use was done manually. Fre-
quent visits by project staff were enough to keep the project team well informed about ac-
tivities on the eight farms in the critical area. There was no recorded or automated system
of tracking land use and land treatment.
4.3.6.5.2 Data Management
No data management system was in place during the project.
489
4a
4b
8
93%
100%
50%
75%
456
4
2
6
93%
100%
100%
100%'
414
-------
Snake Creek RCWP, Utah
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results
Analysis:
No statistical or otherwise formal data analysis was done. The small size of the project
made it possible for the project staff to be informed of the producers' activities through
regular visits.
Results:
Eight water quality plans were written, six of which were funded through the RCWP,
providing 100% producer participation and 100% coverage of the 700-acre project area
and the 489-acre critical area.
4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design
Water quality analysis was conducted by the Mountainland Association of Governments. The ba-
sic design was to perform pre-implementation / post-implementation and upstream / down-
stream analysis to observe improvements in the water quality as the project progressed.
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals
Objectives:
Reduce the pollution entering Deer Creek Reservoir from agricultural nonpoint sources
Determine the effectiveness of animal waste management systems in reducing phosphorus
Goal: Reduce the total phosphorus in Snake Creek by 50%, in Huffaker Ditch by 75%, and in
Bunnel Ditch by 75%.
4.3.7.3 Time Frame
November 1979 - 1990
4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme
4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations
Initially, the project monitored water quality at 20 stations along Snake Creek, Provo
River, and several irrigation ditches. In 1986, monitoring was reduced to sampling at
seven stations.
4.3.7.4.2 Sample Type
Grab
4.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency
Monthly, with weekly samples taken during spring runoff
4.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed
Total phosphorus (TP), orthophosphorus (OP), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrite-nitro-
gen (NO2-N), nitrate-nitrogen (NOs-N), ammonia- nitrogen (NHa-N), biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS), fecal coliform
(FC), conductivity, temperature, pH
415
-------
Snake Creek RCWP, Utah
4.3.7.4.5 Row Measurement
Instantaneous at time of sampling
4.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements
None
4.3.7.4.7 Other Important Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information
Adjusting concentration data for meteorologic and hydrologic variability would have
strengthened the comparison of pre- and post- BMP data.
4.3.7.5 Data Management
The data are in STORET.
STORET
AGENCY CODE
21UTAH
STORET
STATION NO.
591005
591006
591007
591008
591010
591012
591013
591014
591015
591016
591032
591034
591040
591045
591046
591058
PROFILE / STATION
MAP /NO.
UT-1 / 5
UT-1 / 6 (Huffaker Ditch below Vincent dairy)
UT-1 / 7 (Huffaker Ditch above Vincent dairy)
UT-1 / 8
UT-1 / 10 (below Epperson diversion)
UT-1 / 12
UT- / 13 (above Pride Lane daiiy)
UT- / 14 (below Pride Lane dairy)
UT- / 15
UT- / 16
UT- /32
UT- /34
UT-1 / 40
UT-1 / 45 (Snake Creek above Wasatch Mt. state park)
UT-1 / 46
UT-1 / 58
Project data analysis focused on stations 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 45.
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results
Analysis:
Annual average concentrations and loads were reported. The project compared average
phosphorus concentrations above and below critical livestock operations. The project also
looked at pre-implementation versus post-implementation results.
Results were manually compared and displayed, no statistical analysis was done.
Results:
Significant water quality improvements attributable to BMP implementation have been re-
ported. On the main reach of Snake Creek, analysis showed 43 to 90% reduction in TP,
OP, TKN and FC concentrations. Analysis of Huffaker Ditch showed a 48 to 66% reduc-
tion in TP, OP, TKN, and FC concentrations attributable to BMP implementatioa No sig-
nificant water quality impact on Deer Creek Reservoir is expected from this project,
however, because the project area constitutes less than 1% of the reservoir drainage.
(Sowby and Berg Consultants, 1984)
416
-------
Snake Creek RCWP, Utah
4.3.8 IJnkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
The project was able to reduce phosphorous and fecal coliform concentrations as a result of imple-
mentation of BMPs on the eight farms in the critical area. No statistical analysis was performed, but
the water quality monitoring results showed obvious and pronounced reductions in phosphorus and
bacteria
4.3.9 Impact of Other Federal and State Programs on the Project
The federal Dairy Buy-Out Program conflicted with RCWP objectives in this project. Considerable
time and money were spent to treat a problem dairy but this effort was nullified when the dairy en-
tered the buy-out program. This single dairy was the only one to change its operations as a result of
the buy-out program.
4.3.10 Other Pertinent Information
None
4.3.11 References
A complete list of project documents and relevant publications may be found in Appendix IV.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, J. Spooner, A. Lanier, T.B. Bennett, S.W. Coffey, andKJ. Adler.
1989. NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural Nonpoint Source Projects. EPA 506/9-
89/002.
Snake Creek Local Coordinating Committee. 1987. Annual Progress Report on the Snake Creek Rural
Clean Water Program. Wasatch County, Utah.
Snake Creek Local Coordinating Committee, 1991. Ten-Year Report.
Sowby and Berg Consultants. 1984. Deer Creek Reservoir and Proposed Jordanelle Reservoir Water
Quality Management Plan. Prepared for Wasatch and Summit Counties, Provo, Utah.
4.3.12 Project Contacts
Administration
Kevin Stanley, Wasatch County ASCS Office
P.O. Box 6, Heber City, UT 84032
(801) 377-5296 or 654-0232
Water Quality
Ray Loveless, Utah Mountain Land Association of Governments
2545 N. CanyounRd., Provo, UT 84604
(801) 377-2262
Land Treatment
Jack Young, Wasatch Soil Conservation District,
P.O. Box 87, Heber City, UT 84032
(801) 654-0242
Todd C. Nielson, USDA-SCS
88 West 100 North, Provo, UT 84032
(801) 377-5580
Information and Education
None
417
-------
\
LEGEND
• level 1
A level 2
A level 3
A level 4
@ precipitation
project boundary
2 miles
SCALE
Figure 4.24: St. Albans Bay (Vermont) RCWP project map, VT-1.
418
-------
Vermont
St. Albans Bay
(RCWP12)
Franklin County
MLRA: R-142
HUC: 020100-05,07
4.1 Project Synopsis
St. Albans Bay of Lake Champlain is located in northwestern Vermont. The project area watershed encompasses
32,162 acres of mostly agricultural land used primarily for dairy production. Bacteria, sediment, and nutrients from
dairy farms were enriching the bay causing high bacteria counts, large algal blooms, and prolific macrophyte growth.
These impairments resulted in beach closings, decreased shoreline property values, and overall declining recreational
use of the bay.
The objective of the project was to reduce excessive agricultural nonpoint source (NFS) pollution by implementing
best management practices (BMPs) on the 15,431 critical acres. Critical acres were designated as those areas or
sources of NPS pollutants having the most significant impact on the impaired use of receiving waters. The project
succeeded in treating 74% of the critical acres and 76% of the mass of manure, primarily with animal waste
management system (BMP 2) and cropland protection system (BMP 8) BMPs. BMP implementation and land use
were tracked using land treatment data organized in a geographical information system (CIS).
An extensive effort was made to track pertinent farm data such as the quantity and timing of manure application and
the number of cows under BMP manure management. These data were then used to correlate land treatment/use to
water quality on a subwatershed scale. The strongest correlation was between an increasing proportion of animals
under BMP manure management and decreasing bacteria counts in associated streams.
The project successfully employed a paired watershed study to document the pollutant export reduction associated
with changing from the common practice of winter manure spreading to applying manure during the growing seasoa
The water quality monitoring program consisted of weekly and monthly grab sampling of the bay and continuous
automated monitoring of major subbasin tributaries and the St Albans wastewater treatment plant. Monitoring data
showed that sediment export and indicator bacteria counts decreased in most of the monitored streams feeding the
bay. Also, bacteria counts near the public beach along the northern shore of the bay decreased to below state standards
for swimming during the last three years of the project.
4.2 Project Findings, Recommendations, and Successes
4.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals
4.2.1.1 Findings and Successes
Accomplishing the objective of improving the water quality and restoring the beneficial uses of
St. Albans Bay was complicated by internal sources of stored nutrients within the bay, un-
monitored runoff from the town of St. Albans, and the lag time between the implementation
of BMPs and water quality improvement.
419
-------
St. Albans Bay RCWP, Vermont
4.2.1.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
The goal of documenting changes in water quality resulting from land treatment requires more de-
tailed land treatment/use data than are normally collected for a Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP) project. Also, this goal probably cannot be attained without greater control over
when and where land treatment occurs. In other words, land treatment should be imple-
mented to change water quality as opposed to implementing land treatment and then monitor-
ing to see if the water quality changes.
4.2.1.2 Recommendations
Projects should have quantitative water quality objectives and goals even if they are somewhat ar-
bitrary, because they provide a clearly defined way to measure whether the objective was
reached.
To obtain maximum benefit from available resources, goals should include targeting of land treat-
ment based on estimated pollutant export and not simply on a given level of critical area treat-
ment (Croft and Mahood, 1992).
Water quality objectives and goals should be set with the understanding that significant changes in
water quality occur gradually, especially for waters that have a relatively long history of pol-
lution. For this reason, some monitoring programs should continue for more than 10 years.
4.2.2 Project Management and Administration
4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes
The Project Advisory Council (PAC), which consisted of project-level representatives from all
agencies involved in the project, was a highly effective vehicle for insuring good cooperation
among agencies and for keeping the project activities on schedule.
Many factors contributed to the success of this project, including the close proximity of state and
local agencies, good working relationships between agencies, and strong support from both
farmers and the general public.
4.2.2.2 Recommendations
Each project should develop an advisory committee to coordinate activities and discuss prob-
lems. The committee should consist of selected members of the state coordinating committee
(SCC) and the local coordinating committee (LCC) who are actually working on the project,
or have close contact with the project.
4.2.3 Information and Education
4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes
Information and education (I&E) efforts were essential in informing farmers about the RCWP
and convincing them to become cooperators. These I&E efforts have also contributed to in-
creased adoption of conservation practices in other areas of the state.
I&E efforts have also educated the general public so that many can now identify agricultural prac-
tices that cause excessive pollution.
4.2.3.2 Recommendations
The role of I&E should be expanded beyond the initial sign-up period to encourage long-term op-
timal management of installed BMPs even after contracts have expired.
On-farm one-to-one visits are the most effective I&E tools and, therefore, should be emphasized
in future projects.
A continuing I&E effort on management-related issues of BMPs should be emphasized by all
agencies.
420
-------
St. Albans Bay RCWP, Vermont
4.2.4 Producer Participation
4.2.4.1 Findings and Successes
The benefits of reducing both equipment wear and labor needs associated with daily manure
spreading were important incentives to implementation of animal waste management BMPs.
Providing producers with a variety of land treatment alternatives enhanced contract acceptance.
In most cases, cost share rates and limits did not hinder producer participation. Only three farms
were affected by the $50,000 cost share payment limit.
4.2.4.2 Recommendations
An increased level of compliance monitoring should be maintained to verify adherence to con-
tracted management practices both during and after the contract period.
4.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes
The project achieved 98% of its BMP implementation goal, with animal waste management, fer-
tilizer management, and cropland protection being the most widely used BMPs. After imple-
mentation was complete, 79 % of watershed animal units were under BMPs representing 133
tons of manure phosphorus and 664 tons of manure nitrogen under waste management
Constant contact between program participants and agency representatives helped avoid potential
misunderstandings and contract disputes so that no contract maintenance violations occurred.
The combination of the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) computerized data base and the Univer-
sity of Vermont's CIS proved invaluable for tracking BMP implementation in the watershed.
Farm conservation programs in other parts of the state are benefiting from this project both be-
cause of the experience gained by the agencies and the positive publicity among fanners.
The voluntary land use monitoring program based on reporting by producers was more successful
than anticipated, but the accuracy of some of the data was thought to be suspect because farm-
ers didn't keep comprehensive records and, therefore, often had to rely on memory.
Water quality modeling results indicated that implementation of BMPs will cause total phospho-
rus (TP) loading to decline 47% overall (a 73% reduction in critical TP load) and sediment
loading to decrease 12% (an 86% reduction in critical sediment load).
4.2.5.2 Recommendations
Many BMPs, the waste management system BMP in particular, should include more emphasis
on management such as waste application timing, rate, location, and incorporation. Manage-
ment and maintenance of certain BMPs should be included in the tracking and evaluation
process to insure continued compliance.
Additional and/or modified BMPs should be implemented, where applicable, to address specific
on-farm situations such as animal stream crossings and watering points.
A mechanism to track the continued adherence to BMPs after contracts expire is very important.
This could be a separate longer-term operations and maintenance agreement.
The progress of BMP implementation should be tracked more closely with reporting not only of
the number of systems constructed, but also where and when such systems are completed.
This might be accomplished by aerial photography.
All participating agencies should make a commitment to adequately analyze and report project
data.
The contracting process should include adequate time for review by all concerned and an explana-
tion of the operator's role in the management and maintenance of BMPs.
421
-------
St. Albans Bay RCWP, Vermont
4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes
Long-term monitoring in a northern climate is demanding on personnel and equipment. Monitor-
ing equipment requires frequent maintenance due to the effects of freezing temperatures.
Significant improvement in the water quality of a relatively large water body, such as a lake bay,
may take more than 10 years to become evident due to the lag time between treatment and
water quality improvement.
The start-up date of monitoring should coincide with the beginning of some reasonable annual pe-
riod to avoid the collection of partial years of data which often cannot be used in later analy-
sis. However, trial monitoring to establish sampling procedures, quality control, and sample
management can occur during this period.
4.2.6.2 Recommendations
Water quality monitoring should include a control watershed, in which no BMPs are implemented
and the agricultural activity is relatively stable and similar to that of the project or treated wa-
tershed.
Monitoring in watersheds with a significant point source should be avoided because changes in
the pollutant contribution of the point source often easily mask changes in NFS pollution.
Monitoring should include consideration of pollutant movement to and with ground water, be-
cause ground and surface water quality are often closely linked.
Considerable emphasis must be placed on data management and quality assurance at the begin-
ning of the project to ensure that the data collected are worthwhile.
All participating agencies should allocate sufficient resources for analysis of, Interpretation of,
and access to project data.
Short-term intensive monitoring studies of individual BMPs should be included to provide infor-
mation on physical processes and a basis for assessing the longer-term, overall effectiveness
of the project.
Because it is often easy to focus on data collection and neglect analysis, frequent analysis of moni-
toring data should be included in the work plan. Such analyses can reveal problems early,
improve monitoring efficiency, and, most importantly, regularly test the effectiveness of the
project against monitoring results.
Long-term NFS monitoring should collect enough data to quantify variability in water quality and
quantity variables, so that the effects of background noise can be removed from the data
analysis.
4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
4.2.7.1 Findings and Successes
No significant relationships were observed between stream nutrient levels and either manure stor-
age, manured area, manure quantity, or percentage of animals under waste management
BMPs. However, increased manure storage did appear to significantly lower stream bacteria
counts, possibly due to rapid mortality of bacteria in stored manure. Stream bacteria counts
declined with the increasing proportion of watershed animals under waste management
BMPs.
Manure management on land within 50 meters of Jewett Brook seemed to have a significant influ-
ence on stream water quality. Stream nitrogen levels were lower when more adjacent land
was in pasture and higher when more was in corn. However, more corn acreage adjacent to
the brook seemed to yield lower stream bacteria counts, perhaps due to greater use of stored
manure, or because direct manure deposition by grazing cattle was less likely.
422
-------
St. Albans Bay RCWP, Vermont
4.2.7.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
A paired watershed study confirmed that winter spreading of manure on corn land resulted in sig-
nificantly higher nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and loads in edge-of-field runoff
compared to applying manure only during the growing season.
The confounding effects of weather and the relatively low precision of agricultural activity infor-
mation (such as inability to determine exactly when and how much manure was spread) are
two factors that must be addressed when investigating the effect of land treatment on water
quality.
Linking water quality changes to land treatment often requires intensive monitoring of agricul-
tural activities such as manure application and cropping practices of all producers (coopera-
tors and non-cooperators) in the area corresponding to the water quality monitoring.
4.2.7.2 Recommendations
Information on management and changing land use patterns in addition to BMP implementation
data should be collected in order to establish strong and valid linkages between land treat-
ment and water quality.
Greater control of bnd treatment and management in the study area is needed to establish statisti-
cally significant relationships between land treatment and water quality.
Because agricultural activities, such as changes in the types and numbers of livestock and the dis-
tribution of animals between contract to non-contract farmers, may have a significant impact
on the effective level of treatment within a watershed, they should be tracked throughout the
monitoring period, not just during the active BMP implementation phase.
4.3 Project Description
4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame
Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation (CM&E)
1980 -1991
4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions
4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality
4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size
St. Albans Bay of Lake Champlain and project area streams
4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments
St. Albans Bay has been used heavily for recreation in the past. Boating, swimming, and
aesthetic enjoyment of the bay were impaired by eutrophic conditions, high bacteria
counts, and excessive macrophyte and algal growth.
4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement
The water supply and recreational uses of St. Albans Bay are being impaired by excessive
tributary and nonpoint source loadings of phosphorus and bacteria from animal waste and
sediment from cropland. Two sewage treatment plants currently contribute 8-14% of the
phosphorus load, but have discharged 38-42% during past decade.
423
-------
St. Albans Bay RCWP, Vermont
4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals
Improve the water quality in St. Albans Bay and restore beneficial uses by reducing the
amount of bacteria, sediment, phosphorus, and nitrogen entering the bay.
Document changes in the water quality of tributaries resulting from the implementation of
agricultural BMPs within the watershed.
4.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics
4.3.2.2.1 Watershed Area: 32,162 acres
Project Area: 32,162 acres
Critical Area: 15,257 acres (Revised to 15,355 ac)
4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors
Mean Annual Precipitation: 34 inches
Geologic Factors: Topography ranges from steep slopes in the eastern region of the pro-
ject area to fairly level terrain in the western region near Lake Champlain. Soils of the
eastern region are largely glacial tills.
4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture
Dairy farming is the primary agricultural activity within the watershed. Farms average
330 acres with an average dairy herd of 110 animal units, up from 95 in 1980. Corn for
silage, the principal cultivated crop, is grown on about 10-15% of the total land in the wa-
tershed. Cropland is generally fall-plowed due to the high clay content of the soil and
lack of corn residue from silage harvesting.
4.3.2.2.4 Land Use
Use % of Project Area % of Critical Area
Cropland
Corn 12 NA
Hay land 31 NA
Pasture 17 NA
Woodland 22 NA
Urban/roads 18 NA
Other NA
4.3.2.2.5 Animal Operations
Operation # Farms Total # Total Animal
Animals Units
Dairy 98 6,500 9,100
424
-------
1,686,349
18,670
1,011,052
2,362,473
5,078,544
0
43,224
0
657,704
700,928
562,116
0
0
0
562,116
0
0
0
0
0
SUM
2,248,465
61,894
1,011,052
3,020,177
$6,341,588
St. Albans Bay RCWP, Vermont
4.3.3 Total Project Budget
SOURCES Federal State Farmer Other
ACTIVITY
Cost Share
Info. & Ed.
Tech. Asst.
Water Quality
Monitoring
SUM
Source: St. Albans Bay RCWP Project, 1991
4.3.4 Information and Education
4.3.4.1 Strategy
The information and education (I&E) effort, under the direction of the county extension agent,
was concentrated into the first three years of the project to quickly publicize the project and
garner farmer cooperatioa To this end, a water quality advisor was hired early in the pro-
ject and given the day-to-day responsibility of administering the I&E program.
4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals
Create an appreciation and understanding of the RCWP project
Develop awareness among farmers of the importance of preventing excessive water pollution
Provide necessary technical assistance and education to producers so that they can make sound de-
cisions concerning alternative waste management and pesticide and fertilizer use
4.3.4.3 Program Components
Mass media presentations such as a monthly newspaper feature, a television show, and a radio
program to inform the general public
Slide shows, poster contests, and personal visits to inform and educate school children
Monthly newsletters on the project's progress and many informational meetings to update produc-
ers
Numerous farm visits to assist cooperators in their decision-making process
Demonstrations of applied research on reduced tillage techniques, pasture management, and re-
duced fertilizer and pesticide application
4.3.5 Producer Participation
4.3.5.1 Level of Participation
Producer participation was good with 61 of 102 watershed farms under contract. BMP implemen-
tation on contracted farms achieved 98% of the goals for critical area treatment.
425
-------
St. Albans Bay RCWP, Vermont
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation
The 75% cost share rates for animal waste management systems and additional Agricultural Con-
servation Program (ACP) assistance funds
Peer pressure from neighboring participators and public pressure from concerned citizens
4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation
Economic uncertainties related to their farming operations made a few producers unwilling to
sign long-term RCWP contracts.
Distrust of federal programs/agencies
4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs
Chances of continued maintenance of manure handling facilities appears to be good primarily be-
cause of the flexibility they provide to farmers.
Several project cooperators stated that the chances of continued adherence to implemented BMPs
was pretty good, but the chances of adoption of new or additional BMPs was not very good.
4.3.6 Land Treatment
4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design
The project focused on implementing manure management and cropland protection BMPs on the
areas and/or sources of agricultural nonpoint source (NFS) pollution identified as having the
greatest impact on receiving waters. Only the portions of farms or pollution sources needing
treatment were considered critical.
4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals
Reduce nutrients, bacteria, and sediment entering tributary streams through use of animal waste
management and cropland protection practices
Treat 11,443 acres (75% of critical area) of the watershed and 64 farms considered to be sources
of NFS pollution
Manage at least 76% of the manure by weight
4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application
The criteria were based on amount of manure, distance from watercourse, present manure man-
agement practices, and manure spreading rates.
The criteria were rigorously applied in order to prioritize cost share applications.
426
-------
St. Albans Bay RCWP, Vermont
Units Installed % of Goal
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used
BMPs Utilized in the Project*
Permanent vegetative cover (BMP 1)
Animal waste management system (BMP 2)
Stripcropping system (BMP 3)
Diversion system (BMP 5)
Grazing land protection system (BMP 6)
Waterway system (BMP 7)
Cropland protective system (BMP 8)
Conservation tillage system (BMP 9)
Stream protection system (BMP 10)
Permanent vegetative cover on critical
areas (BMP 11)
Sediment retention, erosion, or water
control structures (BMP 12)
Fertilizer management (BMP 15)
Please refer to Appendix I for description/purpose of BMPs.
4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring & Tracking Program
4.3.6.5.1 Description
A computerized data base was used to track BMP implementation in the watershed. The
project developed a cooperative program of land use tracking which was designed to col-
lect detailed agricultural activity data such as the amount, date, and location of manure
and commercial fertilizer application, other cropping activities, and animal management
changes. These data were kept by farmers in a checkbook style log and collected by pro-
ject personnel on either an annual or biannual basis. Personal interviews with farmers
were used to fill in missing or incomplete data.
4.3.6.5.2 Data Management
The land treatment/use data were managed in a CIS located at the University of Vermont
Farm data were combined to a subwatershed scale to correspond to water quality data.
acres
number
acres
ac. served
number •*
ac. served
acres
acres
ac. served
acres
number
acres
4,021
66
9,397
25
6
132
7,074
10
483
63
55
7,610
89
94
100
100
100
88
110
100
97
84
110
109
427
-------
St. Albans Bay RCWP, Vermont
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results
Analysis of land treatment/use data consisted primarily of combining records from individ-
ual farms within a watershed to relate the treatment of the whole watershed to its water
quality.
Quantified Project Achievements:
Pollutant
Source
Cropland
Dairies
Truck Farms
Critical Area
Unils
acres
# farms
# farms
lolal
15,355
84
1
% Implemented
74%
73%
100%
Treatment
JlQlaL %.
11,443
63
1
Goals
Implemented
99%
97%
100%
4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design
Water quality monitoring was divided into four levels based on the resource, level of detail de-
sired, and specific monitoring objectives.
Level 1 consisted of about 21 grab samples per year, at different depths and locations, from St
Albans Bay. The next level consisted of long-term continuous monitoring of the four major
tributaries to the bay and the city wastewater treatment plant. Level 3 involved field monitor-
ing to assess the effect of manure management practices on individual fields using a paired
watershed approach. Level 4 monitoring, which was discontinued in 1985, was designed to
supplement level 2 monitoring by collecting grab samples on additional bay tributaries and at
upstream sites on the four major tributaries.
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals
Document changes in the water quality of specific tributaries within the watershed resulting from
land treatment
Measure the changes in the amount of suspended sediment and nutrients entering St. Albans Bay
as a result of the implementation of water quality management programs within the watershed
Document trends in the water quality of St. Albans Bay during the project period
4.3.7.3 Time Frame
1981-1990
4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme
4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations
Level 1:
Bay monitoring at four stations (at the beach, near the wetland, and an inner and outer bay
station) to detect long-term trends in St. Albans Bay over the life of the project
Level 2:
Monitoring at five major subbasin tributaries and the St. Albans City wastewater treatment
plant
428
-------
St. Albans Bay RCWP, Vermont
4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations (continued)
Level 3:
Monitoring at two field drainage ditches, one below conventional practices and the other
below BMPs for manure management
Level 4:
Station 41: Jewett Brook station is the tributary station closest to the bay and furthest up-
stream location affected by the backwater from St. Albans Bay
Station 42: Stevens Brook is sampled to determine the effects of urban development on
downstream agricultural use
Station 43: Guayland Brook is not monitored with the level 2 monitoring network. This
subwatershed is about 8% of the total watershed area and land use is 50% agricultural,
25% urban and 25% forest
Station 44: Mill River is upstream from the confluence of Mill River and Rugg Brook
and is being monitored to separate the impact of Rugg Brook from the level 2 station at
Mill River
3.3.7.4.2 Sample Type
Level 1: Grab samples (1.5 meters above the bottom and 1.5 meters below the surface)
Level 2: Grab, in situ, composite, and continuous depending on variable
Level 3: Composite or grab
Level 4: Random grab sampling
3.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency
Level 1: October - April: monthly / May - July: biweekly / August - September: weekly
Level 2: Weekly, biweekly, and continuous depending on variable
Level 3: 4-hr, intervals during runoff events, or 1 sample per event
Level 4: Smaller subbasins average every 20 days May- February and weekly March-
April
3.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed
Level 1:
Temperature, Secchi depth, dissolved oxygen (DO), acidity (pH), conductivity, total sus-
pended solids (TSS), volatile suspended solids (VSS), total phosphorus (TP), orthophos-
phate (OP), turbidity, chlorophyll a, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonia-nitrogen
(NHs-N), nitrite- and nitrate-nitrogen (NO2+ NOa-N), fecal coliform (FC), and fecal
streptococci (FS)
Level 2:
FC and FS - weekly grab samples
Temperature, turbidity, pH, DO - biweekly in situ
TSS, VSS, all nutrients, composite samples - 2-48 hr. and 1-72 hr. and weekly based on
subsamples every 8 hours
Level 3:
TSS, VSS, TP, all nutrients
Level 4:
Turbidity, TSS, VSS, nutrients, FC, FS, temperature, DO, pH, conductivity, and flow
429
-------
St. Albans Bay RCWP, Vermont
3.3.7.4.5 Flow Measurement
Level 2: Continuous recording with a bubble-type flow meter
Level 3: Recording device tripped by event
3.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements
Precipitation data were collected at several (3-4) locations in the watershed throughout the
monitoring period.
Continuous record of wind speed and direction was also made during the first three years
of the project.
3.3.7.4.7 Other Important Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information
Monitoring of macrophyte species and extent of growth in the bay occurred annually dur-
ing the peak of the growing season. Both visual and aerial surveys provided data to docu-
ment impact and map trends in macrophytes.
Benthic macroinvertebrates, periphyton, and fish were monitored at Mill River near the
discharge to the bay, at the confluence of Rugg Brook and Mill River, and on Jewett
Brook during 1982-83, 1986, and 1989-90.
3.3.7.5 Data Management
The data are managed locally by project personnel.
3.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results
For bay and tributary monitoring data other than temperature, DO, and pH, all values were log
transformed to approximate a normal distribution and to calculate summary statistics. The
standard deviation was calculated with antilog values.
Techniques for trend analysis included time regression, analysis of variance, flow/concentration
regression, analysis of covariance, paired regression, and nonparametric techniques. For bay
parameters, mean annual values for each station were compared and plotted. Bay data were
also grouped into two periods: 1) before tertiary treatment upgrade at the city of St Albans
treatment plant (project years 1982-86) and 2) after treatment and complete BMP implementa-
tion (project years 1987-88).
No significant trends in Secchi depth, chlorophyll a, TKN, TSS, or VSS have been measured at
bay sampling stations. Bacteria counts at the beach station have decreased since 1987.
TP and OP concentrations have decreased at the treatment plant and at the outlet of the wetland.
Nitrogen constituent concentrations have not varied significantly except for the decline in
TKN and NHa and an increase in NO2+ NOs-N resulting from the upgrade to tertiary sew-
age treatment. Fecal coliform bacteria counts have decreased in Jewett and Stevens Brooks
and at the treatment plant. Turbidity has decreased in Stevens Brook, Mill River, and at the
treatment plant discharge. At Stevens Brook and at the treatment plant, TSS and VSS con-
centrations have declined. Monthly TSS loads have significantly decreased at Stevens
Brook, Rugg Brook, and Mill River; however, decreases have not been documented at Jewett
Brook or at the outlet to the Stevens wetland. Annual mean bacteria were correlated with an-
nual animal density in the Rugg Brook and Mill River watersheds.
430
-------
St. Albans Bay RCWP, Vermont
3.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
The relationship between land use and water quality was assessed using annual data summaries. Cor-
relation and regression were used to evaluate the relationships between annual tributary TSS, VSS,
nutrients, and bacteria and farm data including annual animal units; animal units under BMPs; animal
density; acres manured; quantity of manure stored, applied, and incorporated; acres in com and in
pasture; and acres with erosion control practices. The only consistent and significant relationship
documented was that stream bacteria counts declined with an increasing proportion of watershed ani-
mals under waste management BMPs.
3.3.9 Impact of Other Federal Programs on the Project
A few potential participants felt the recommended practices were inexpensive enough to be handled
by Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) annual agreements and, therefore, chose to not partici-
pate in RCWP.
The Dairy Termination Program necessitated the elimination of several practices that were no longer
needed on affected farms because they no longer had cows.
3.3.10 Other Pertinent Information
None
3.3.11 References
A complete list of all project documents and other relevant publications may be found in Appendix IV.
Croft, R. and J. Mahood. 1992. A method for tracking land treatment progress in the St. Albans Bay
watershed RCWP project, Vermont. In:Proceedings of the National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium, (accepted for publication)
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project. 1991. St. Albans Bay Rural Clean Water Program: Final Report 1991.
3.3.12 Project Contacts
Administration
Jan Jamrog, USDA-ASCS
346 Shelbourne Road
Burlington, VT 05401
(802) 951-6715
Water Quality
Don Meals, University of Vermont
Aiken Center, Burlington, VT 05405
(802) 656-4057
Land Treatment
Richard Croft, USDA - Soil Conservation Service
69 Union Street
Winooski, VT 05404
(802) 655-9430
Information and Education
Bill Jokela, Cooperative Extension Service
University of Vermont, Aiken Center
Burlington, VT 05405
(802) 656-4057
431
-------
James River
LEGEND
monitoring station
interstate highway
city
project boundary
3 miles
Figure 4.25: Nansemond - Chuckatuck (Virginia) RCWP project map, VA-1.
432
-------
Virginia
Nansemond-Chuckatuck
(RCWP21)
City of Suffolk & Isle of Wight County
MLRA: T-153A
HUC: 020802-08
4.1 Project Synopsis
Located in the coastal plain of southeastern Virginia, the project area watershed contains two estuaries, the Nansemond
and Chuckatuck Rivers, which drain into the James River, and seven reservoirs used for water supplies to the cities
of Norfolk, Chesapeake, Portsmouth, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach, Virginia. The water quality of the reservoirs is
degraded due to excessive nutrients, phytoplankton, and fecal coliform as a result of storm water runoff. Extensive
shellfish areas in the estuaries have been closed to direct market harvesting due to fecal coliform levels. The project
goal was to reduce the level of nutrients, sediments, pesticides, and fecal coliform entering the reservoirs, streams,
and estuaries in order to upgrade water quality.
This large watershed covers 161,365 acres. Originally, the critical area (about 66,000 acres) was defined as any
farm within a one-mile radius of the tidal shellfish area, the reservoirs, or their principal tributaries. In 1985, the
critical area was expanded to include 116,710 acres, of which 23,908 acres were cropped.
Participation by area farmers in the project was excellent. There was only enough money to fund 107 of the 132
applications filed. Farms were prioritized for contracting purposes. One hundred and ninety farms were represented
by the 107 signed contracts. This represented approximately 78% of the 245 farms (15,034 acres) needing
conservation treatments. An estimated 56,546 tons per year or 65% of the manure was treated.
Twelve categories of best management practices (BMPs) were utilized for control of sediment, nutrient, and pesticide
losses or for manure storage and utilization. Pesticide and nitrogen management were two of the most widely used
BMPs.
An initial baseline for water quality was established, followed by monthly and quarterly samples to detect water
quality trends. Lack of funds caused the cancellation of the proposed final monitoring effort. There was no direct
monitoring of land treatment to determine the effects of BMPs on water quality.
In spite of the high level of farmer participation and the number of acres treated, there was no improvement in water
quality for the variables measured.
This project was characterized by an extremely high level of coordination and cooperation among the different
agencies and a high level of participation among area farmers. The BMPs were selected properly. The inability of
the project team to document water quality improvements attributable to land treatment is at least partially due to
lack of funding for intense end-of-project monitoring. In addition, the size of the critical area was large and the
number of applied BMPs was limited by funding which, most probably, decreased the overall effectiveness of BMPs
on basin- wide water quality .
433
-------
Nansemond - Chuckatck RCWP, Virginia
4.2 Project Findings, Recommendations, and Successes
4.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals
4.2.1.1 Findings and Successes
It was impossible to document achievement of some of the water quality goals because the vari-
able involved was not measured, such as pesticide levels, soil loss, or sediment loads. Other
water quality goals did not specify quantitative targets for reducing water contaminants.
Water quality monitoring goals outlined the steps necessary for a coherent water quality monitor-
ing plan.
4.2.1.2 Recommendations
Water quality goals need to be based on quantitative guidelines so that monitoring can be used to
document water quality changes.
Specific water quality variables utilized in goal setting must be monitored; otherwise, the goal is
useless.
4.2.2 Project Management and Administration
4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes
This project was extremely well coordinated at all levels which is especially notable since the wa-
tershed spanned two counties. As a result, two Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service (ASCS) offices and six water quality monitoring groups were involved in the project.
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was credited with serving as the bridge between all the
various agencies.
The Local Coordinating Committee (LCC) formed a very cohesive working group with no turf
battles. There were four subcommittees: Administration, Information and Education (I&E),
Technical Assistance, and Monitoring. There was a high degree of coordination among sev-
eral agencies concerned with water quality monitoring. These included the utilities depart-
ments of the cities of Portsmouth and Norfolk, the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, the
State Water Control Board, the State Department of Health, and the Hampton Roads Water
Quality Agency, which was responsible for coordinating the monitoring program from 1981
through 1989. Beginning in 1990, the monitoring was coordinated by the Hampton Roads
Planning District Commission (formerly the Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commis-
sion) (Spooner, 1991).
Several years before the project ended a number of agency personnel retired. The LCC and the
State Coordinating Committee (SCC) discontinued their meetings. As a consequence of per-
sonnel changes and lack of meetings, communication broke down toward the end of the pro-
ject.
4.2.2.2 Recommendations
Due to the long-term nature of water quality projects, a good transference of project history and
details to new staff members is essential.
Meetings must be continued through the life of the project in order to keep people informed, in-
volved, and enthusiastic about the project.
Good coordination and communication among participating agencies is a necessary condition for
a successful project. Other factors such as critical area or BMP selection are equally impor-
tant in determining success.
434
-------
Nansemond - Chuckatck RCWP, Virginia
4.2.3 Information and Education
4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes
The Cooperative Extension Service (CES) had the lead role for I&E. Initially there was good co-
ordination within the I&E committee, but meetings stopped, communication broke down, and
the I&E effort became less effective.
The most effective tool the I&E committee had for communicating information to area farmers
was one-to-one contact. The least effective tool was mailings.
CES was responsible for educating the farmers on fertilizer, animal waste, and pesticide manage-
ment BMPs. Of the three, animal waste management was the most demanding because of
the necessity for determining manure nutrient content, appropriate application rates, and type
of application.
4.2.3.2 Recommendations
If project activities are to continue, it is essential that I&E Committee meetings continue over the
life of the project.
There is no substitute for one-to-one contacts to transfer technical information to the farmers.
Through such contacts, staff can communicate the projects' goals and objectives directly to
the farmer.
4.2.4 Producer Participation
4.2.4.1 Findings and Successes
There was a high level of participation in this project. One hundred and thirty-two contracts
were received; however, only 107 contracts were signed due to budgetary constraints. Priori-
tizing of farm attributes allowed the contracting of those farms most in need of BMPs. A
combination of several factors led to the high number of participants: the threat of mandatory
controls, a positive attitude by the SCS and ASCS, and the availability of cost share dollars.
4.2.4.2 Recommendations
The combination of financial incentive and threat of environmental regulation is effective in
achieving farmer participation in water quality programs.
4.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes
Of the 13 BMPs tailored to address water quality problems, 12 were actually implemented. Both
the fertilizer and pesticide management BMPs as well as the permanent vegetative cover and
the sediment retention BMPs exceeded their contracting goals. All other BMPs were imple-
mented at 50% of their target goals or higher. Within the expanded critical area, 15,084
acres were treated (63% of the acreage).
Some project personnel believed that in order for BMPs to have been effective in reducing non-
point source (NPS) pollution, the entire watershed should have been designated as the critical
area.
Several participants believed that Integrated Crop Management (ICM) would have been an ex-
tremely valuable BMP in that it would have dealt with the water quality problem within the
context of a complete system rather than in separate parts.
Land treatment implementation practices were tracked through the use of color-coded SCS con-
tracts. Annual status reviews were conducted by the SCS.
435
-------
Nansemond - Chuckatck RCWP, Virginia
4.2.5.2 Recommendations
Flexibility in choosing and designing BMPs tailored to specific farm operators or sites was impor-
tant in determining their successful implementation.
Farming practices that save the fanners money and are easily maintained will be continued be-
yond the formal end of the project.
4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes
Monthly water quality monitoring efforts were conducted for trend analysis. Detailed data from
water quality monitoring exist but the project lacked the funds for final data analysis and
trend support.
Regression equations for the 1983-1988 water quality data were calculated using a program in
STORET, but the equations have not been tested for significance. Improving trends in total
suspended solids (TSS) and orthophosphorus (OP) was observed for Nansemond River as
compared with reports from the 1960s. An improving trend in nitrate nitrogen (NOs-N) was
observed for Chuckatuck Creek. However, these trends may not be attributable to the Rural
Clean Water Program (RCWP) project because they emerged in the late 1960s after point
sources were removed from the project area Thus an improving trend in water quality was
already in effect in the estuaries when the RCWP project begaa
Analysis of water supply lakes in the project area indicates high variability in water quality data
and little evidence of trends. Manipulation of the water supply lakes for water withdrawal
and storage of pumped ground water substantially confounds results. Ground water with
high OP contents was pumped into the reservoirs when the reservoirs drop below a specified
height. No allowance was made for climatological variation, for events outside the project
area such as a lack of homogeneity and changes in land use such as urbanization and popula-
tion growth at the expense of farms and wetlands. No pesticide monitoring, flow measure-
ments, or storm sampling was conducted.
Intense end of project water quality monitoring and statistical analysis had been planned. How-
ever, due to a shortage of funds, this monitoring and analysis was not completed.
4.2.6.2 Recommendations
In order to ensure water quality monitoring over the life of the project, adequate funds must be
made available.
Trend detection in reservoirs is difficult even under good conditions. When water quality meas-
ures are confounded by pumping ground water into a reservoir or drawing a reservoir down,
trend detection is almost impossible. In order to determine the effectiveness of BMPs on
water quality, tributaries should have been monitored using paired watershed or down-
stream/upstream monitoring.
4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
4.2.7.1 Findings and Successes
The project was unable to demonstrate any linkage between land treatment and water quality.
4.2.7.2 Recommendations
Water quality and land treatment monitoring must be designed correctly if linkage between the
two are to be documented.
436
-------
Nansemond - Chuckatck RCWP, Virginia
4.3 Project Description
4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame
General RCWP
1981 - 1991
4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions
4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality
4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size
7 water supply reservoirs: 4,850 acres
Streams: 195 miles
2 estuaries: size not reported
4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments
Reservoirs in the project area are sources of public water supply for the cities of Norfolk,
Chesapeake, Portsmouth, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach, Virginia. Chuckatuck Creek is a
productive shellfish growing area and a tidal tributary to the James River. Commercial
and recreational fishing and shellfishing are important water uses. The reservoirs are be-
coming eutrophic due to sediment and nutrients. Tidal waters are impaired by high fecal
coliform levels.
4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement
Tidal waters are impaired by high fecal coliform levels that increase during and after run-
off events. Reservoirs in the project area are becoming eutrophic due to excess nutrients
and sediment.
4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals
Reduce the fecal coliform organisms in the water supply reservoirs, Nansemond River,
and Chuckatuck Creek to within tolerable limits
Reduce the total soil loss by 87,000 tons per year
Reduce the turbidity and sediment loading of the 195 miles of streams and 4,850 acres of
water supply reservoirs
Reduce the amount of plant nutrients and pesticides being discharged into local streams
and reservoirs
4.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics
4.3.2.2.1 Watershed Area: 161,365 acres
Project Area: 161,365 acres
Critical Area: 23,908 acres
437
-------
Nansemond - Chuckatck RCWP, Virginia
4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors
Mean Annual Precipitation: 48 inches
Geologic Factors: The project area is characterized by nearly level to gently rolling topog-
raphy with steep slopes adjacent to small tributary streams. Most soils have moderately
low credibility factors. Depth to ground water is generally 25 feet or more.
4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture
In the project area there are 825 farms, averaging 177 acres, which produce peanuts,
corn, soybeans, small grains, hogs, beef, poultry, and dairy livestock. There are 162 ani-
mal operations. The majority of the 65,000 tons (T) of manure produced annually in the
critical area is either from hog or beef operations. Before the project started, many of the
hog production facilities were located on dirt lots.
4.3.2.2.4 Land Use
Use % of Project Area % of Critical Area
32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.3.2.2.5 Animal Operations
Operation tf Farms Total # Total Animal
Animals Units
Dairy 1 125 175
Beef 24 2,724 2,724
Hog 40 24,000 9,600
Poultry 8 448,000 1,478
Animal numbers and annual production of manure decreased during the life of the project.
From 1982 to 1984, dairy cow numbers declined by 275; hog numbers declined by 6,365.
Poultry declined by 18,000 birds. This translates into a reduction of 13,381 tons or 13%
of wet manure generated per year. Figures given above are for 1984.
Cropland
Pasture-range
Woodland
Urban/roads
Other
Wetland
Unspecified
27
3
63
1
4
2
438
-------
1,721,000
63,900
448,595
72,000
2,305,495
0
0
0
23,400
23,400
4,242,000
0
0
0
4,242,000
0
2,000
48,000
25,000*
75,000
SUM
5,963,000
65,900
496,595
120,400
$6,645,895**
Nansemond - Chuckatck RCWP, Virginia
4.3.3 Total Project Budget
SOURCES Federal State Farmer Other
ACTIVITY
Cost Share
Info. & Ed.
Tech. Asst.
Water Quality
Monitoring
SUM
* Additional funding for water quality monitoring (exact amounts unknown) was contributed by the
following state and local agencies:
Commonwealth of Virginia Water Control Board
State Health Department
Cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth
Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency
Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
** Total does not include all water quality monitoring costs
Source: Smolenetal., 1989
4.3.4 Information and Education
4.3.4.1 Strategy
No information available
4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals
Introduce farmers to the project
Teach farmers about nutrient management
4.3.4.3 Program Components
Newsletters
Personal visits
Media coverage (newspapers, radio spots)
Meetings
Tours
Education materials
Diagnostic clinic
Farm demonstrations on the use of swine and broiler waste as a source of nitrogen
Soil and animal waste testing
439
-------
Nansemond - Chuckatck RCWP, Virginia
4.3.5 Producer Participation
4.3.5.1 Level of Participation
Between 50 and 70 producers were waiting to sign contracts when the contractual period started.
More applications for contracts (132 contracts) were received than could be funded (107 con-
tracts). Signed contracts covered 15,034 critical acres (84% of the critical area originally
proposed). Although contracts were selected through a prioritization process based on loca-
tion, type of animal operations, and other factors, the critical area ended up being defined
based on funding availability.
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation
Cost share rate of 75% for most practices, except cover crops and some waste application equip-
ment cost shared at 50%. Fertilizer and pesticide management were not cost shared.
Payment limit of $50,000 per contract (some contracts cover multiple tracts)
Excellent coordination among all the agencies involved, resulting in a well designed program that
interested the farmers
Concern among area farmers that they would be regulated if they didn't participate
4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation
Lack of availability of cost share funds
Lack of interest on the part of absentee landowners
4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs
Chances for continued maintenance for most BMPs is considered excellent. Two of the four
BMPs with the highest rate of implementation, fertilizer and pesticide management, were not
cost shared, yet the farmers used them. The farmers are aware of the threat of regulation if
they do not deal with the water quality problem through voluntary adoption of BMPs. Fur-
ther, continued BMP maintenance will facilitate compliance with the Chesapeake Bay Preser-
vation Act.
Most structural BMPs and stabilizing structures at field edges will probably be maintained. Wa-
terways will be harder to maintain due to the sandy soils and the necessity for reseeding.
4.3.6 Land Treatment
4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design
Application and maintenance of BMPs on the part of the farm contributing to water quality prob-
lems.
4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals
No information available
440
-------
Nansemond - Chuckatck RCWP, Virginia
4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application
Criteria: Originally - the area one mile from the Nansemond River or its impoundments and one
mile from Chuckatuck Creek
Due to concerns about accelerated soil erosion in the in the Nansemond, an erosion and sediment
evaluation was conducted in 1985. As a consequence of the evaluation findings, RCWP criti-
cal areas were expanded to include areas of high erosion (the new boundary included a one-
mile radius from all tributaries).
In treating the expanded critical area, the project established a priority checklist for ranking.
Weights were based primarily on distance to live streams and less than optimal soil or animal
waste management. Animal waste operations were given twice the priority of croplands, and
Unfortunately, the project was not able to secure the additional funds necessary to treat all farms
needing and wanting BMPs in the expanded critical areas.
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used
General Scheme: The project has concentrated primarily on animal waste management, for hog
and dairy operations, and conservation tillage with fertilizer and pesticide management.
BMPs Utilized in the Project*
Permanent vegetative cover (BMP 1)
Animal waste management system (BMP 2)
Diversion system (BMP 5)
Grazing land protection system (BMP 6)
Waterway system (BMP 7)
Cropland protection system (BMP 8)
Conservation tillage system (BMP 9)
Stream protection system (BMP 10)
Permanent vegetative cover on critical areas
(BMP 11)
Sediment retention, erosion or water control
structures (BMP 12)
Tree planting (BMP 14)
Fertilizer management (BMP 15)
Pesticide management (BMP 16)
Units
acres
#
feet
#
acres
acres
acres
feet
Goals
200
41
15,000
30
20
14,000
9,500
12,000
Achievements
Total
282
22
7,750
21
11
9,452
7,870
8,000
%.
141
54
52
70
55
68
83
67
acres
100
66
66
#
acres
acres
acres
100
100
14,000
14,000
109
0
14,536
14,530
109
0
104
104
*Please refer to Appendix I for description/purpose of BMPs.
441
-------
Nansemond - Chuckatck RCWP, Virginia
4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring & Tracking Program
4.3.6.5.1 Description
The land treatment program was implemented by the SCS, which kept records to identify
each contract with respect to the water resource affected. The watershed was divided into
four subwatersheds for ease of tracking.
4.3.6.5.2 Data Management
No data management system was in place during this project.
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results
Quantified Project Achievements:
Pollutant Critical Area Goals
Source. Units lolal % Implemented Total % Implemented
Cropland acres 23,908 63% 16,665 90%
Dairies # 1 100% 1 100%
Feedlots # 50 74% 38 97%
Poultry # 8 38% 6 50%
Contracts # 184 58% 107 81%
4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design
A monitoring program was developed by the Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency (HRWQA)
based on ongoing monitoring efforts of public utilities in Portsmouth and Norfolk and the Vir-
ginia State Water Control Board and the Virginia Department of Health. HRWQA also
funded and managed a major pre-project water quality assessment and evaluation conducted
by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Beginning in 1990, monitoring was coordinated
by the Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission (now called the Hampton Roads
Planning District Commission).
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals
The general objective was to determine whether or not large- scale implementation of agricultural
BMPs would result in improved water quality in the principal project area water bodies.
Specific goals for each phase in the work plan included:
Setting pre-RCWP baseline as a basis for comparison
Collecting water quality data during the project so that annual changes could be observed
Conducting an intensive water quality survey at the end of the program
442
-------
Nansemond - Chuckatck RCWP, Virginia
4.3.7.3 Time Frame
Reservoir Monitoring: 1982-1991
Estuarine Monitoring: 1983 - 1991
4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme
4.3.7.4.1 M onrt oring Stations
Reservoir Monitoring: 12 stations in Nansemond River water supply reservoirs
Estuarine Monitoring: 4 stations in Nansemond River estuary and 3 stations in
Chuckatuck Creek estuary
4.3.7.4.2 Sample Type
Grab
4.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency
Monthly
4.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed
Reservoir Monitoring: Total solids (TS), total suspended solids (TSS), total phosphorus
(Tp), pH, temperature, fecal coliform (FC), dissolved oxygen (DO), biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD), algal species
Estuarine Monitoring: DO, salinity, TSS, nitrate nitrogen (NOa-N), dissolved orthophos-
phate (OP), FC, BOD
4.3.7.4.5 Flow Measurement
None
4.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements
Monthly rainfall: 1982-1988
4.3.7.4.7 Other Important Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information
None
4.3.7.5 Data Management
Monitoring data for Chuckatuck Creek and Nansemond River stations are in STORET. Reser-
voir data are maintained as follows:
Norfolk Utilities: 6 stations in Lake Prince, Lake Burnt Mills, and Western Branch
Portsmouth Utilities: 8 stations in Lake Meade, Lake Cahoon, Lake Kilby, and Lake
Speights Run
443
-------
Nansemond - Chuckatck RCWP, Virginia
4.3.7.5 Data Management (continued)
STORET STORET
AGENCY CODES STATION NO.
Chuckatuck Creek
21VASWCB 2-CKT000.19
2-CKT001.63
2-CKT003.05
Nansemond River
21VASWCB 2-NAN000.20
2-NAN005.82
2-NAN007.89
2-NAN012.53
2-NAN019.14
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results
Visual comparison of monitoring data (tabular and graphic) with baseline information from a sur-
vey by Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency (1982) was done in order to detect trends. Re-
gression analysis was also conducted. A more detailed statistical analysis was planned for the
end of the project but was not completed due to funding limitations.
The project did not unequivocally meet its objectives for reducing fecal coliform, total soil loss,
turbidity and sediment loading, plant nutrients, and pesticides. Some of the measurements
needed for determination of goal achievement were never made, such as pesticide concentra-
tions and total soil loss. Analysis of the water supply lakes in the project area indicated high
variability in water quality data and little evidence of trends. For the other variables, initial
trend analysis in the Nansemond River estuary indicated that TSS and NOs-N appear to be
declining, but OP is increasing. NO3-N and OP are declining in the Chuckatuck Creek estu-
ary. These trends may be attributable to changes in point source discharges on Nansemond
River and closure of a large swine operation on Chuckatuck Creek rather than BMPs in-
stalled through the RCWP project.
4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
The project was unable to demonstrate any linkage between land treatment and water quality.
4.3.9 Impact of Other Federal and State Programs on the Project
Under the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP), 3,000 acres of cover crops and conservation
have been implemented with $12,000 in cost share money, thus increasing the total number of acres
under conservation practices.
4.3.10 Other Pertinent Information
None
444
-------
Nansemond - Chuckatck RCWP, Virginia
4.3.11 References
A complete list of all project documents and other relevant publications may be found in Appendix IV.
Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP Project. 1992. Ten-Year Report.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, J. Spooner, A. Lanier, T.B. Bennett, S.W. Coffey, andK.J. Adler.
1989. NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural Nonpoint Source Projects. EPA 506/9-
89/002.
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L. Lanier, M.D. Smolen, andF.J. Humenik.
1991. NWQEP Report: Water Quality Monitoring Report for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pro-
jects - Methods and Findings from the Rural Clean Water Program. National Water Quality Evalu-
ation Project, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
4.3.12 Project Contacts
Administration
Wilson Leggett
USDA-ASCS
400 North 8th Street
Richmond, VA 23240
(804) 771-2591
Water Quality
JohnM. Carlock
Director of Physical and Environmental Planning
Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
723 Woodlake Drive
Chesapeake, VA 23320
(804) 420- 8300
Land Treatment
James Wright
USDA-SCS
1548 Holland Rd.
Suffolk, VA 23434
(804) 539-9270
Information and Education
Virginia Cooperative Extension Service
P.O. Box 364
Windsor, VA 23487
(804) 242-6195
445
-------
4
\
BROWN COUNTY
LEGEND
• monitoring station
[H city
project boundary
Manitowoc
Figure 4.26: Lower Manitowoc River (Wisconsin) RCWP project map, WI-1.
446
-------
Wisconsin
Lower Manitowoc River
(RCWP13)
Manitowoc, Brown, & Calumet Counties
MLRA: L-95 A& B
HUC: 040301-01
4.1 Project Synopsis
The Manitowoc River, located in east central Wisconsin, discharges into Lake Michigan. The entire river basin
covers 352,000 acres. The project area borders the lake and is 102,000 acres in size. Topography is rolling and
eastern areas have some steep slopes. Rainfall averages 29 inches per year and snowfall averages 40 inches per year.
Dairy fanning is the primary agricultural activity and the project area contains approximately 13,000 dairy cows.
Crops include corn, barley, wheat, alfalfa hay, and canning crops.
Recreation, shipping, and public water supply for the City of Manitowoc are the primary uses of the nearshore waters
of Lake Michigan. Streams and lakes in the project area are used for recreation. Phosphorus, sediment, and coliform
bacteria loadings from cropland and dairy waste runoff and point sources have impaired uses in the watershed and
nearshore waters.
The objective of land treatment was the effective control of nutrients and sediment. Land treatment emphasized
animal waste storage systems and best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion such as permanent vegetative
cover, stripcropping, grassed waterways, and conservation tillage. The project critical area included all lands less
than 1\8 mile from a water course and lands with slopes greater than 6%. Critical area livestock operations were
determined by a rating system based on the need for barnyard runoff controls and manure storage.
The overall water quality objective was to restore the nearshore and watershed designated uses. Water quality
monitoring consisted of macroinvertebrate sampling at 13 locations. Monitoring results were inconclusive.
The Lower Manitowoc RCWP project has demonstrated that a local project staff can work together effectively toward
a common goal despite limited administrative and technical support from the State Coordinating Committee (SCC).
The project achieved 92% of its contracting goal; slightly over half of the acres and dairies needing BMPs have been
treated. Nutrient management was not approved by the SCC as a cost shared BMP. Because nutrient management
was a fundamental practice for water quality in this project, the lack of cost share for the practice reduced the
effectiveness of this project substantially. Due to the lack of cost share, farmers had little incentive to change the
way they farmed to protect water quality. Monitoring was insufficient in design to clearly document a water quality
problem or to show measurable change toward goals. The result was uncertainty about the impacts and location of
pollutant source areas, making the selection of critical areas and BMPs less effective than if monitoring data had
been available. Local staff, farmers, and citizens lacked feedback on water quality progress to reinforce or refine
efforts.
447
-------
Lower Manitowoc River Watershed RCWP, Wisconsin
4.2 Project Rndings, Recommendations, and Successes
4.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals
4.2.1.1 Rndings and Successes
From the onset, the project had numerous water quality problems to address in Bullhead Lake,
tributaries, the Lower Manitowoc River, and nearshore areas. Limited biological and chemi-
cal data were available and the usefulness of the data was not clear. A large project area,
several impaired resources, and poor problem definition made formulation of effective objec-
tives and goals difficult.
The project would have benefited from outside help to calculate phosphorus loadings to the
stream and priority water resources, to estimate the effectiveness of control measures, and to
develop goals.
4.2.1.2 Recommendations
Goals must be specific, attainable, and measurable (Lower Manitowoc River RCWP, 1991).
Goals not only determine what the project is striving to accomplish but also serve to identify
the methods and BMPs to be used to accomplish the goals. The project would have benefited
from more technical assistance to help with problem definition, definition of critical areas, se-
lection of BMPs, and setting goals to achieve water quality improvement
4.2.2 Project Management and Administration
4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes
Prior to its selection as a RCWP project, the Lower Manitowoc River watershed was designated
as a nonpoint source (NPS) pollution control project in the state's Priority Watershed Pro-
gram, administered by the Department of Natural Resources (WTDNR). During the transi-
tion from one program to the other, identification of the lead agency responsible for
coordination of the project at the state level was not made. The Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (ASCS) reluctantly took over the lead when the project was converted
to RCWP. ASCS staff were not particularly interested in the project because they had not
been involved in choosing the project. They felt the project had little chance of documenting
a water quality improvement because of limited background monitoring data. Also the
RCWP project area was in the lower third of a large 352,000-acre watershed. ASCS person-
nel felt it would be difficult to measure water quality improvement when there was little con-
trol of land use activities in the drainage area above the project and there was little chance of
monitoring a change due to BMPs.
The local agency administering the cost share funds for the state's Priority Watershed program
was the Land Conservation Committee and there were some minor changes to make the tran-
sition to administration under ASCS. The RCWP project staff needed guidance with local co-
ordination and administration for running the federal program at the local level. Local
administration and communication would have been facilitated if ASCS and Soil Conserva-
tion Service (SCS) had been located in the same building.
The SCC provided administrative support but very little leadership to the project. SCC members
visited the project only during startup. The SCC did not meet after the initial project setup.
Most of the remaining communication within the SCC and with the project was done through
telephone or mail correspondence. The SCC should have met more often and on a regular ba-
sis to provide continuity, report on progress and project expenditures, and provide direction.
The SCC provided assistance to the local project by instituting cost control measures for expen-
sive practices and setting priorities. The SCC also sought to make the RCWP project consis-
tent with the state Nonpoint Source program and the Agricultural Conservation Program
(ACP), thereby preventing the project from developing an independent approach using inno-
vative BMPs.
448
-------
Lower Manitowoc River Watershed RCWP, Wisconsin
4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
The SCC was slow to review requests from the Local Coordinating Committee (LCC) and some-
times denied requests to approve cost share for very important practices (e.g. nutrient man-
agement). Lack of interest by the SCC provided negative feedback to the project. The lack of
technical support for land treatment was acknowledged by both the SCC and the LCC.
The project staff seemed to be very capable and interested in the project. Cooperation and shar-
ing of workload at the local level was excellent between the SCS, the Soil and Water Conser-
vation District staff, and the ASCS. The project did a good job of setting priorities,
installing practices, and following the project work plan. Many of the project activities were
coordinated at annual meetings.
Understaffing due to a high rate of project staff turnover resulted in a delay in BMP installatioa
The project team lacked the technical and administrative support they needed to adequately treat
the water quality problem. The LCC made a request to the SCC for authorization of cost
sharing for the following BMPs, which were not approved: 1) control of roadside erosion
due to construction, 2) treatment of milkhouse waste water, 3) nutrient management, 4) soil
and manure testing, 5) long-term rotations on hay to control erosion.
The local project personnel had very little knowledge about the management of phosphorus; they
relied on the technical agencies to provide information, but received little support The pro-
ject would have benefited from technical assistance from other watershed programs. The
SCC could have provided leadership and innovative techniques for NFS management, but the
local project felt as though they were not being lead.
4.2.2.2 Recommendations
A shared commitment to the program objectives by the NCC, the SCC, and the LCC is a critical
element in individual project success.
Because the SCC is so instrumental to project success, projects should be terminated if the local
project does not receive adequate technical and administrative support from the SCC. Admin-
istrative and technical support and commitment for an experimental program beyond that re-
quired for established programs must be provided. Where this is not demonstrated, projects
should be terminated after two years.
Projects that document water quality problems due to animal waste pollution sources must have
nutrient management available as a cost shared BMP.
4.2.3 Information and Education
4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes
SCS and the conservation district played the lead role in encouraging farmer participation. In-
itially, the project had difficulty getting fanners to sign up for the program. It was unclear if
the project had evidence of a water quality problem linked to individual pollutant sources. It
was also unclear if farmers knew about the water quality problem. Agencies doing I&E work
also did not agree on the nature of the water quality problem.
Most critical area dairy farms needed expensive manure storage facilities. In the early years of
the project, economic conditions prevented fanners from making the financial investment in
manure storage facilities necessary for participation in the RCWP project.
A retired district conservationist (DC) was hired to contact former clients and encourage participa-
tion in the project. Because of the former DC's good working relationship with farmers, par-
ticipation increased.
The information and education (I&E) program was only somewhat effective in helping farmers be-
come aware that each of them could be part of the water quality problem.
The I&E program was also only somewhat effective in helping farmers change their attitudes and
develop knowledge and skills necessary to implement structural and management BMPs.
449
-------
Lower Manitowoc River Watershed RCWP, Wisconsin
4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes (continued)
Animal waste management systems required the most I&E. An important consideration for install-
ing animal waste systems was the payback potential of the system based on herd size.
Farmers' decisions to install practices were influenced by their perceptions about the potential for
increased income or reduced labor.
Overall, farmers installed traditional practices that were perceived by some to improve water qual-
ity.
There was no clear indication whether farmers perceived changes in water quality over the life of
the project.
4.2.3.2. Recommendations
Effective problem identification monitoring and trend monitoring on one or more tributaries is
needed where farmers are reluctant to participate and where evidence of project effectiveness
is needed to encourage farmers to adopt practices for an extended period.
For projects with water quality problems from dairy manure, I&E activities should receive inten-
sive and long-term support from the Extension Service at the state and local levels. Develop-
ing a BMP system for animal waste requires several years of educational and technical
assistance to help each farmer adopt not only new farm management but a new way of con-
ducting daily farm operation.
Farmers must be shown what the water quality problem and its sources are. Recommended solu-
tions must be practical and make sense for each farm.
4.2.4 Producer Participation
4.2.4.1 Findings and Successes
Overall producer participation was average to good.
Economic conditions and the stage of a fanner's career were big factors affecting participation.
Older farmers often did not participate. Many of the older farmers rented their land and did
not push hard for renters to participate.
Cross-compliance for cropland practices reduced participation in the RCWP project. If farmers
wanted to stay in commodity programs, they were required to maintain a minimum or base
acreage in corn. In order to comply with this requirement, if they did not have enough land
to maintain the base acreage on land with low credibility, they planted some corn on land
with high credibility. Although farmers wanted to convert com acres to permanent vegetative
cover on highly credible land, they could not always do so without going below the base re-
quirement for corn acreage.
One highly vocal producer was opposed to the project. The publicity of this producer's opinion
was perceived by project staff to be a negative factor which may have reduced participation.
Cost share for manure transfer equipment was only 40%. Such equipment was instrumental for ef-
ficient transfer of manure from the barn to the storage facility. The low cost share for this im-
portant component of the total manure management system sent a negative message to
farmers.
Lack of cost share for nutrient management reduced the credibility and effectiveness of the over-
all project. Spreading manure on frozen ground in the winter was a common practice; the
RCWP project provided no financial incentive for cessation of this practice.
450
-------
Lower Manitowoc River Watershed RCWP, Wisconsin
4.2.4.2 Recommendations
Projects must have a well-organized technical staff to assist leaders in the farm community in us-
ing animal waste storage and nutrient management as a system. In turn, when fanners show
their colleagues the problem and demonstrate the use of the technology, participation grows.
Farmers can have a positive influence on their peers, resulting in a high level of participa-
tion, especially if they perceive local project staff can provide technical and administrative
leadership.
The SCC and NCC should be particularly careful to provide enough financial incentives and tech-
nical assistance to animal waste control projects because they require extra assistance, com-
pared to cropland projects, to both farmers and project staff to be successful.
4.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation
4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes
The project team did a good job defining the critical area based on animal waste storage needs,
but they would have benefited from the use of a computer model to identify critical cropland
acres.
Proper management of manure and mineral fertilizers was a major problem. Many of the farmers
viewed their waste storage facilities as a convenience and failed to practice farming to im-
prove water quality. Many farmers did not credit the nitrogen stored in soil after a long rota-
tion of alfalfa, nor did they credit manure nitrogen when they applied fertilizer to plant com
It was difficult to get the farmers to apply manure to the correct field based on total farm nu-
trient management principles.
The project worked with 20 participants on nutrient management on a single field per farm. This
demonstration was used for educational purposes with the goal of transferring the technology
to more farms in the area.
Proper manure storage and nutrient management constitute a BMP system; both are needed for
effective NPS pollution control. Project personnel suggested an alternative management plan
using the same BMPs, but restricting the spread of manure to non-critical areas. However,
this may not always be feasible; because of the volume of manure and farm size, there may
not be enough non-critical land left on which to spread manure.
The physical setting of the project area makes effective control of manure difficult. Many barn-
yards are located on streams. The soils have a high clay content and a high runoff rate. Also
a large amount of the total annual runoff occurs during snow melt, making the application of
manure to snow-covered fields especially damaging to surface waters.
The project staff used a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map to track the installation
of BMPs in the project area. They did not develop a method for tracking land use.
Four farmer's cooperatives assisted the project by sampling manure and paying for lab nutrient
analysis. Cooperatives have been providing this service to farmers to help them reduce fertil-
izer costs.
Implement dealers have been participating in conservation tillage field days. By providing the
equipment free of charge for demonstrations, they are helping to promote erosion control as
well as marketing their tillage equipment.
Innovative BMPs developed by the project include a filter wall at the end of the improved barn-
yard to trap solids while allowing liquid waste to flow through holes drilled in the wall. A
gravel level spreader was then used to further trap solids and let the waste drain through the
gravel before liquid manure was treated in a grassed filter.
Conservation tillage and manure management were the BMPs most often completely discontinued
after contracts expired.
Avoidance of winter manure spreading, crop rotations, and filter strips below barnyards were the
BMPs most often not adequately maintained after contracts ran out.
451
-------
Lower Manrtowoc River Watershed RCWP, Wisconsin
4.2.5.2 Recommendations
A distributed parameter computer model (such as AGNPS) should be used to determine critical
cropland acres and dairies based on source type, magnitude and distance to streams.
Nutrient management should be used as a basic component for any water quality project with sig-
nificant animal waste problems. Soil testing and use of spreadsheet software for nutrient man-
agement should be encouraged for every farm in the critical area.
Water quality and commodity programs should be better integrated so that base acreages can be
reduced without penalty to facilitate application of BMPs to critical acres.
There is a high probability a good water quality monitoring program would have resulted in
greater participation and the installation of more practices. Farmers need verification of a
water quality problem and a method to track program success before investing in expensive
structural BMPs.
A geographic information system (CIS) is needed to track land use and BMP installation at the
field and farm level for RCWP and other programs. Suggested land treatment variables
would be waste storage systems, complete waste management systems, nutrient management
based on soil tests, acres treated with improved rotations, conservation tillage, or other ero-
sion control measures.
Achievement of the water quality goals for this project through promotion of adoption, continuing
use, and maintenance of BMPs will require on-going and intensive technical assistance to
farmers.
4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.2.6.1 Rndings and Successes
Water quality monitoring and evaluation suffered from the lack of a good experimental design.
The project area does not include the headwaters of the river, which receives significant pol-
lutant loadings. Tributaries and subwatersheds contain point sources of pollution or wetlands,
which confound the detection of trends.
The LCC tried to meet monitoring goals, but with little success. The project would have bene-
fited from greater cooperation from the state water quality agency (Lower Manitowoc River
RCWP, 1991).
Macroinvertebrate monitoring was intermittent. The scale for the biotic index was changed twice
during die project, making numerical comparisons among scales meaningless. Macroinverte-
brate monitoring showed no clear trends in the biotic index for any station.
Chemical monitoring was intermittent and did not provide information on trends in phosphorus
concentrations or loadings.
4.2.6.2 Recommendations
Water quality projects should not be funded without a firm commitment from the water quality
agency to design and carry out an effective water quality monitoring program.
Water quality monitoring protocols and sampling frequency for trend detection should be consis-
tent throughout the length of the project.
4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
4.2.7.1 Findings and Successes
The project staff were unable to document linkage between land treatment and water quality due
to the absence of meaningful water quality monitoring and land treatment tracking.
452
-------
Lower Manftowoc River Watershed RCWP, Wisconsin
4.2.7.2 Recommendations
Nonpoint source pollution control programs will not produce meaningful results until land treat-
ment and water quality data can be linked and analyzed.
4.3 Project Description
4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame
General RCWP
1980 - 1990
4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions
4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality
4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size
Bullhead Lake, Lower Manitowoc River, wetlands and streams, all draining through the
City of Manitowoc to Lake Michigan
4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments
The nearshore waters of Lake Michigan are used for recreation (swimming, fishing and
boating), shipping, and public water supply for the city of Manitowoc. These waters are
impaired by algal growth due to excessive quantities of phosphorus and by high bacteria
levels. The harbor capacity is reduced by sedimentation which necessitates dredging to
maintain shipping channels.
The river, streams, and lakes within the project area are used primarily for fishing and
other recreational activities. Bullhead Lake is eutrophic as a result of excess phosphorus,
impairing the fishery. The fishery in the river is impaired by high phosphorus levels and
high fecal coliform levels. Sedimentation of the riverbed is also a problem.
Project area water resources are used by about 40,000 people in and near the watershed.
This number does not include recreational visitors to the watershed.
4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement
Phosphorus, sediment, and coliform bacteria loadings from cropland and dairy waste run-
off impair designated uses (swimming, fisheries, shipping channels, drinking water sup-
plies) in the Lower Manitowoc River watershed and nearshore waters of Lake Michigan.
4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals
Reduce agricultural nonpoint source phosphorus loads by 48%
Minimize further degradation to Bullhead Lake by reducing phosphorus loads
Improve the overall water quality in the Lower Manitowoc and Little Manitowoc Rivers
to a "good rating" as indicated by the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (a measure of macroinverte-
brate community)
Reduce fecal coliform counts to or below 200 per 100 milliliters (ml) in the watershed
453
-------
Lower Manitowoc River Watershed RCWP, Wisconsin
4.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics
4.3.2.2.1 Watershed Area: 352,000 acres
Project Area: 102,000 acres
Critical Area: 23,598 acres
4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors
The climate is modified continental because the watershed borders Lake Michigan. Rain-
fall averages 29 inches and snowfall averages 40 inches. A large portion of the runoff dur-
ing the year is due to snow melt.
Topography is rolling to moderately rolling to some steep slopes in the eastern part of the
watershed.
Soils have a high runoff potential because they are generally predominantly fine-textured
clay loams (Lower Manitowoc River RCWP, 1991).
4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture
Dairy farming is the primary agricultural activity. Crops (percent area in parentheses) in-
clude corn (34%), oats (15%), barley and wheat (7%), alfalfa hay (38%), other hay (2%),
and canning crops (4%). Ninety-six percent of the cropland acreage is tilled convention-
ally with the remainder in conservation tillage. All cropland is fall tilled due to the high
clay content of the soils.
4.3.2.2.4 Land Use
Use % of Project Area % of Critical Area
Cropland 67 NA
Pasture/range - NA
Woodland 28 NA
Urban/roads 5 NA
Other - NA
4.3.2 2.5 Animal Operations
Operation # Farms Total # Total Animal
Animals Hails
Dairy 333 13,000 18,200
There are 333 operations with an average of 39 cows per operation: 83 small herds of less
than 20 milk cows and 250 larger herds of more than 20 milk cows.
454
-------
Lower Manitowoc River Watershed RCWP, Wisconsin
4.3.3 Total Project Budget
SOURCES
ACTIVITY
Cost Share
Info. & Ed.
Tech. Asst.
Water Quality
Monitoring
SUM
Federal
State
Farmer
817,100
1,000
104,479
0
922,579
0
900
0
5,000
5,900
591,900
0
0
0
591,900
Other
SUM
0 1,409,000
0 1,900
20,557* 125,036
0 5,00
20,557 $1,540,936
* Performed by Land Conservation Department staff and reimbursed with RCWP funds
Source: Lower Manitowoc River RCWP Project, 1991
4.3.4 Information and Education
4.3.4.1 Strategy
The strategy was to generate landowner and operator acceptance of BMPs.
4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals
The overall objective was the same as the strategy. I&E goals were based on performance for the
following 11 activities to promote the acceptance of BMPs.
Activity
Watershed demonstrations
Farm and watershed signs
Watershed meetings
Newsletter
BMP tours
Workshops
Brochures
Contacts with owners/operators
Radio and news releases
Slide presentations
Awards and recognition programs
Goal
Inform landowners and general public
Promote community spirit
Information and updates- I/year
Information and progress - 4/year
Information -1 or 2/yr
I/year
1 on RCWP, 1 on minimum tillage, 1 on BMPs
130/year
12/year
Unknown number of presentations
Conservation banquet/year
4.3.4.3 Program Components
Please refer to section 4.3.4.2 above
455
-------
Lower Manitowoc River Watershed RCWP, Wisconsin
4.3.5 Producer Participation
4.3.5.1 Level of Participation
The project achieved 133 approved projects out of the goal of 144. Participation was average to
good.
4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation
The availability of cost share funds and the assistance and encouragement from the government
were the most important incentives for participation. Demonstrations or meetings sponsored
by RCWP and the assistance and encouragement from other farm operators were also impor-
tant incentives. Least important incentives were the concern for the environment, conserva-
tion ethic and increased farm production.
The convenience of storing manure to avoid daily hauling was an incentive for many farmers.
Providing a clean, paved barnyard reduced animal cleaning and was beneficial to animal
health.
Peer pressure was somewhat effective in gaining project participation. Agency personnel were
also successful in encouraging participation.
Cost Share Rates: Permanent vegetative cover was cost shared at 50% and stripcropping systems
were cost shared at 70%; animal waste transfer components were cost shared at 40%; all
other animal waste storage components had a 70% rate.
Payment limit of $50,000 per landowner
Within the project area a state cost share program was being used in
conjunction with the RCWP project.
4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation
Economic conditions presented a significant barrier to participation.
Farmers did not want to install BMPs on rented land.
Low cost share rates, the lack of a defined water quality problem, and the dislike for government
programs were also barriers to participation.
Many older farmers often did not want to participate.
4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs
Project personnel estimated that they expect about 90% of critical area BMPs are expected to be
maintained or continued. Fanners are getting used to the idea of storing manure for the sake
of convenience and water quality. Interest in animal waste management is growing along
with technology transfer to other areas.
The extent of continued maintenance and adoption depends on the BMP. Conservation tillage and
nutrient management are the practices most likely to be discontinued after contracts expire.
Waste utilization to avoid winter spreading, nutrient management, crop rotations, and filter
strips to treat barnyard runoff are all BMPs that may have a lower rate of maintenance.
4.3.6 Land Treatment
4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design
Land treatment practices focus on nutrient and animal waste management and erosion control.
456
-------
Lower Manitowoc River Watershed RCWP, Wisconsin
4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals
The goal of the land treatment was to treat 75% of the critical area, including dairies and erosion
sources other than livestock farms.
4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application
Criteria:
All lands within 1/8 mile of a water course
Lands with slopes 6% or greater that are 1/4 mile from a water course
Livestock operations categorized as: 1) in need of barnyard runoff controls and manure
storage, 2) in need of manure storage, 3) small water quality impact, 4) no impact on
water quality
Application of Criteria: Procedures well established and consistent
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used
Land treatment practices that deal with animal waste management and erosion control
have been emphasized by the project. BMPs approved for the project include RCWP
BMPs Utilized in the Project*:
Permanent vegetative cover (BMP 1)
Animal waste management (BMP 2)
Semi-solid storage
Solid storage
Liquid storage
Runoff measures
Stripcropping systems (BMP 3)
Terrace system (BMP 4)
Diversion system (BMP 5)
Waterway system (BMP 6)
Conservation tillage (BMP 9)
Contour farming
Stream protection system (BMP 10)
Permanent vegetative cover on critical areas (BMP 11)
Sediment retention, erosion, or water control system (BMP 12)
*Please refer to Appendix I for description/purpose of BMPs.
457
-------
Lower Manitowoc River Watershed RCWP, Wisconsin
4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used (continued)
Quantified Project Achievements (as of May 1991)
Pollutant UnilS Critical Area Treatment Goals
Source Total % Implemented Total % Implemented
Cropland acres 23,598 35% 1,593 52%
Dairies # 153 39% 115 51%
Contracts # 192 70% 114 92%
Source: Lower Manitowoc River Watershed RCWP, 1990
4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring & Tracking Program
4.3.6.5.1 Description
Phosphorus delivery was estimated based on manure spreading for animal operations, and
barnyard runoff and slope for cropland. Reductions in phosphorus delivery for operations
with fewer than 20 cows, more than 20 cows, and cropland source categories were pro-
vided (Lower Manitowoc RCWP, 1991).
4.3.6.5.2 Data Management
No data management system was in place during the project.
4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results
Analysis:
No data analysis plans have been implemented.
Results:
More than half of the goal for treating critical area cropland with waste management prac-
tices has been achieved.
Over half of the dairies have been treated with structural practices to control animal
waste.
4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation
4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design
The project used an impact assessment design (pre- and post- BMP implementation) with almost
no sampling during implementatioa
Conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals
The overall water quality objective was to restore the nearshore and watershed designated uses.
No specific water quality monitoring goals were identified.
458
-------
Lower Manitowoc River Watershed RCWP, Wisconsin
4.3.7.3 Time Frame
1979 - 1991
4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme
4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations
13 stations on the Lower Manitowoc River and tributaries
4.3.7.4.2 Sample Type
Benthic Surber sample
4.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency
Spring and fall 1979, 1982, fall 1987, and fall 1990
4.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed
Macroinvertebrate taxa and habitat evaluation
4.3.7.4.5 Flow Measurement
None
4.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements
Mean Annual Precipitation: ~ 29 inches
4.3.7.4.7 Other Important Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information
None
4.3.7.5 Data Management
Data from one station near the mouth of the Manitowoc River for 1980-82 are in STORET.
Other data are managed locally.
STORET STORET PROFILE / STATION
AGENCY CODE STATION NO. MAP/ NO. (COMMENTS)
21WIS 363219 WI-1 / (short distance upstream from mouth
of Manitowoc River)
459
-------
Lower Man'rtowoc River Watershed RCWP, Wisconsin
4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results
Analysis:
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index values have been calculated and ratings determined for macroin-
vertebrate data sets. While other metrics and statistical tests are potentially applicable, no
other data analysis has been conducted.
Site factors, experimental design deficiencies, and lack of funding and interest in monitor-
ing have prevented the detection of water quality impacts. Substantial phosphorus loads
originate from outside the project area.
Point sources, wetlands, and sources outside the project influence the main stem of the
Lower Manitowoc River and reduce the chances of isolating the effect of agricultural NFS
controls. As a result of limited funding and the low probability of detecting treatment ef-
fect, monitoring of chemical parameters and flow at the base of the watershed was aban-
doned early in the project.
Results:
Macroinvertebrate monitoring in selected tributaries may detect an impact if upstream
land use and land treatment can be documented. The pre- implementation macroinverte-
brate data set (1979 and 1982, spring and fall) may be an adequate baseline for compari-
son with post-implementation data. While macroinvertebrates may not respond to changes
in nutrient loads it is expected they will respond to reductions in nutrient concentrations.
4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality
The project has not linked land treatment and water quality.
4.3.9 Impact of Other Federal and State Programs on the Project
The project had significant loss of manpower because technical staff were required to complete a con-
servation plan for every farm in the county in addition to completing other duties. This extra work
was mandated by the Food Security Act, but the complete impact on the project has not been deter-
mined.
4.3.10 Other Pertinent Information
None
4.3.11 References
A complete list of project documents and other relevant publications may be found in Appendix IV.
Lower Manitowoc River RCWP Project. 1990. Annual Report.
Lower Manitowoc River RCWP Project. 1991. Annual Report.
460
-------
Lower Manrtowoc River Watershed RCWP, Wisconsin
4.3.12 Project Contacts
Administration
Joe Janowski
USDA-ASCS
3705 Kadow St.
Manitowoc, WI 53220
(414) 684-3883
Water Quality
JimBaumann
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
(608)266-9278
Land Treatment
George Cottier
USDA-SCS
1701 Michigan Ave.
Manitowoc, WI 53220
(414) 683-4183
Tom Ward
Manitowoc Soil and Water Conservation District
1701 Michigan Ave.
Manitowoc, WI 53220
(414) 683-4183
Robert L. Wenzel
Manitowoc Land Conservation Committee
Route 2
Brillion, WI 54110
(414)772-4117
Information and Education
Scott Hendrickson
University of Wisconsin Extension Service
1701 Michigan Ave.
Manitowoc, WI 53220
(414) 683-4168
461
-------
APPENDICES
463
-------
Appendix I
RCWP BEST
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES
This appendix lists the BMPs approved by the U. S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency for cost sharing in
Rural Clean Water Program projects. Information
included for each BMP includes its official RCWP
number and title, a brief description of the intended
purpose of the BMP, the minimum life span, and a list
of applicable BMP components. The number in paren-
theses following each BMP component indicates the
respective USDA - Soil Conservation Service conser-
vation practice specification code.
BM P 1 Permanent Vegetative Cover
Purpose: To improve water quality by establishing
permanent vegetative cover on farms or ranch land
to prevent excessive runoff of water or soil loss con-
tributing to water pollution.
Lifespan: minimum of 5 years
Components:
• Fencing (382)
• Grasses and legumes in rotation (411)
• Pasture and hay land management (510)
• Pasture and hayland planting (512)
• Proper grazing use (528)
• Range seeding (550)
• Planned grazing systems (556)
BMP 2 Animal Waste Management
System
Purpose: To improve water quality by providing fa-
cilities for the storage and handling of livestock and
poultry waste to abate pollution that may otherwise
result from livestock or poultry operations.
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
• Waste management system (312)
• Waste storage structure (313)
• Critical area planting (342)
• Dike (356)
• Waste treatment lagoon (359)
• Diversion (362)
• Fencing (382)
• Filter Strips (393)
• Grassed waterway or outlet (412)
• Waste storage pond (425)
• Irrigation system, sprinkler (442)
• Irrigation system, surface, and subsurface (443)
• Subsurface drain (606)
• Subsurface drain, field ditch (607)
• Surface drain, main or lateral (608)
• Waste utilization (633)
BM P 3 Stripcropping Systems
Purpose: To improve water quality by providing en-
during protection to cropland causing pollution by
establishment of contour or field Stripcropping sys-
tems.
Lifespan: minimum of 5 years
Components:
• Obstruction removal (500)
• Stripcropping, contour (585)
• Stripcropping, field (586)
• Stripcropping, wind (589)
465
-------
Appendix I: RCWP Best Management Practices
BM P 4 Terrace System
Purpose: To improve water quality through the in-
stallation of terrace systems on farmland to prevent
excessive runoff of water or soil loss contributing to
water pollution.
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
• Obstruction removal (500)
• Terrace (600)
• Subsurface drain (606)
• Underground outlet (620)
BM P 5 Diversion System
Purpose: To improve water quality by installing di-
version on farm or ranchland where excess surface
or subsurface water runoff contributes to a water
pollution problem.
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
• Dike (356)
• Diversion (362)
• Obstruction removal (500)
• Subsurface drain (606)
• Underground outlet (620)
BM P 6 Grazing Land Protection
System
Purpose: To improve water quality through better
grazing distribution and better grassland manage-
ment by developing springs, seeps, wells, ponds, or
dugouts and installing pipelines and storage facili-
ties. This practice is applicable only when needed
to correct an existing problem causing water pollu-
tion due to over concentration of livestock.
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
• Pond (378)
• Fencing (382)
• Pipeline (516)
• Pond sealing or lining (521)
• Spring trails and waterways (574)
• Stock trails and waterways (575)
• Trough or tank (614)
• Well (642)
BMP 7 Waterway System
Purpose: To improve water quality by installing a
waterway to safely convey excess surface runoff
water across fields at non-erosion velocities into wa-
tercourses or impoundments. The waterway is pro-
tected from erosion and reduces pollution through
filtering out silt with the establishment of sod cover
of perennial grasses or legumes, or both.
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
• Fencing (382)
• Grassed waterway or outlet (412)
• Lined waterway or outlet (468)
• Subsurface drain (606)
BM P 8 Cropland Protection System
Purpose: To improve water quality by providing
needed protection from severe erosion on cropland
between crops or pending establishment of enduring
protective vegetative cover.
Lifespan: recommended by COC and STC and ap-
proved by Administrator, ASCS, if less than 5 years
Components:
• Conservation cropping system (328)
• Cover and green manure crop (340)
• Field windbreaks (392)
BM P 9 Conservation Tillage Systems
Purpose: Improving water quality by use of reduced
tillage operations in producing a crop. The reduced
tillage operations and crop residue management
need to be performed annually.
Lifespan: recommended by COC and STC and ap-
proved by Administrator, ASCS, if less than 5 years
Components:
• Conservation cropping system (328)
• Conservation tillage system (329)
• Contour farming (330)
• Crop residue use (344)
• Land smoothing (466)
• Stubble mulching (588)
466
-------
Appendix I: RCWP Best Management Practices
BM P 10 Stream Protection System
Purpose: To improve water quality by protecting
streams from sediment or chemicals through the in-
stallation of vegetative filter strips, protective fenc-
ing, livestock crossings, livestock water facilities,
or other similar measures.
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
• Channel vegetation (322)
• Fencing (382)
• Filter strip (393)
• Streambank protection (580)
• Tree planting (612)
BM P 11 Permanent Vegetative Cover
On Critical Areas
Purpose: To improve water quality by installing
measures to stabilize source of sediment such as gul-
lies, banks, privately owned roadsides, field bor-
ders, or similar problem areas contributing to water
pollution.
Lifespan: minimum of 5 years
Components:
• Critical area planting (342)
• Fencing (382)
• Field borders (389)
• Filter strip (393)
• Livestock exclusion (472)
• Mulching (484)
• Sinkhole treatment (571)
• Spoilbank spreading (572)
• Tree planting (612)
• Well plugging (643)
BMP 12 Sediment Retention,
Erosion, or Water Control
Structures
Purpose: To improve water quality through the con-
trol or erosion, including sediment and chemical
runoff from a specific problem area
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
• Sediment basin (350)
• Dike (356)
• Fencing (382)
• Grade stabilization structure (410)
• Structure for water control (587)
• Water and sediment control basin (638)
BM P 13 Improving An Irrigation And
Or Water Management System
Purpose: To improve water quality on farmland that
is currently under irrigation for which an adequate
supply of suitable water is available, on which irri-
gation will be continued, and on farmland with a
critical area or source that significantly contributes
to the water quality problem by: a) installation of
tailwater return systems, b) conversion to a differ-
ent system to reduce pollutants, or c) reorganization
of an existing system to reduce pollutants.
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
• Irrigation water conveyance (428)
• Pipeline (430)
• Irrigation system, drip (441)
• Irrigation system, sprinkler (442)
• Irrigation system, surface and subsurface (443)
• Irrigation system, tailwater recovery (447)
• Irrigation water management (449)
• Irrigation land leveling (464)
• Structure for water control (587)
467
-------
Appendix I: RCWP Best Management Practices
BM P 14 Tree Planting
Purpose: To improve water quality by planting
trees to treat critical areas or sources contributing to
water pollution.
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
• Cover and green manure crop (340)
• Fencing (382)
• Proper woodland grazing (530)
• Tree planting (612)
BM P 15 Fertilizer M anagement
Purpose: To improve water quality through needed
changes in the fertilizer rate, time, or method of ap-
plication to achieve the desired degree of control of
nutrient movement in critical areas contributing to
water pollution.
Lifespan: recommended by COC and STC and ap-
proved by the Administrator, ASCS, if less than 5
years.
Components:
• Fertilizer management (384)
• Waste utilization (633)
BM P 16 Pesticide M anagement
Purpose: To improve water quality by reducing pes-
ticides use to a minimum and manage pests in criti-
cal areas to achieve the desired level of chemicals
contributing to water pollution.
Lifespan: recommended by COC and STC and ap-
proved by the Administrator, ASCS, if less than 5
years.
Components:
• Pesticide management (514)
468
-------
Appendix II
ABBREVIATIONS
(Terms, Agencies, Programs)
ACP Agricultural Conservation Program
(also USDA-ACP)
ACR Acres Conservation Reserve (Federal
Commodity Program)
AGNPS Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Pollution Model
ANSWERS .... Area! Nonpoint Source Watershed
Environment Response Simulation
(Model)
ARS Agricultural Research Service, USDA
ASC Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation
ASCS Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service, USDA
A.U. (a.u.) Animal Unit
BMP(s) Best Management Practice(s)
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CAT Critical Area Treatment for Roadside
Erosion
CES Cooperative Extension Service,
USDA
Chi a Chlorophyll a
cfs Cubic Feet Per Second
Cl Chloride
CLP Clean Lakes Program, Section 314 of
PL92-500
CM&E Comprehensive Monitoring and
Evaluation
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
CRP Conservation Reserve Program
CREAMS Chemical Runoff and Erosion
from Agricultural Management
Systems (Model)
DEQ Division of Environmental Quality
DO Dissolved Oxygen
DP Dissolved Phosphorous
DS Dissolved Solids
DTP Daiiy Termination Program, USDA
ERS Economic Research Service, USDA
ES Extension Service, USDA
(see also CES)
FC Fecal Coliform
FDER Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation
FmHA Farmers Home Administration, USDA
FS Fecal Streptococci
FS Forest Service, USDA
FSA Food Security Act (of 1985)
CIS Geographic Information System
HEP Habitat Evaluation Procedures
HUC Hydrologic Unit Code (and
Cataloging Unit)
I&E Information and Education Programs
ICM Integrated Crop Management
IGDO Intragravel Dissolved Oxygen
IN Inorganic Nitrogen
IPM Integrated Pest Management
JTU Jackson Turbidity Unit
LCC Local Coordinating Committee
LTA Long-Term Agreement
(under USDA-ASCS ACP)
Mg/1 Milligrams Per Liter
MLRA Major Land Resource Areas
MP Moldboard Plow Treatment
MPN Most Probable Number/100 ml
N Nitrogen
NA Not Available
NCC National Coordinating Committee
469
-------
Appendix II: Abbreviations
NCSU ........... North Carolina State University
NDEC .......... Nebraska Department of
Environmental Control
Ammonia-Nitrogen
Nitrite-Nitrogen
NOs ............. Nitrate-Nitrogen
NPDES ........ National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
NFS ............. Nonpoint Source
NT ............... No Tillage Treatment
NTU ............ Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
NWQEP ........ National Water Quality Evaluation
Project
OP ............... Orthophosphate-Phosphorus
P ................ Phosphorus
PIK .............. Payment-in-Kind
PL-566 .......... Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act (PL83-566)
PLUARG ...... Pollution of the Great Lakes from
Land Use Activities, Reference
Group
ppb .............. Parts Per Billion
ppm ............. Parts Per Million
QA/QC ......... Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RCWP .......... Rural Clean Water Program
SCC ............. State Coordinating Committee
SCD ............. Soil Conservation District
SCS ............. Soil Conservation Service, USD A
Section 108a... Section 108a PL92-500; USEPA
Pollution Control Demonstration -
Great Lakes Basin
Section 208 .... Section 208 PL92-500; Planning for
Wastewater Management
Section 3 19 .... Section 3 19, Water Quality Act of 1987
SF WMD ....... South Florida Water Management
District
SS ............... Suspended Sediment
STORET EPA STOrage and RETrieval Data
Base for Water Quality
STP Sewage Treatment Plant
SWIM Surface Water Improvement and
Management Plan, State of Florida
TC Total Coliform
TCNS Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough Basin,
Florida
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TN Total Nitrogen
TP Total Phosphorus
TSS Total Suspended Solids
TVS Total Volatile Solids
USLE Universal Soil Loss Equation
USD A United States Department of
Agriculture
USEPA United States Environmental
Protection Agency
USGS United States Geologic Survey
USPH A United States Public Health Association
VSS Volatile Suspended Solids
WATSTORE.. USGS Water Data Storage System
470
-------
Appendix III
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
AGNPS - Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution
Model - an event-based, watershed-scale model de-
veloped to simulate runoff, sediment, chemical oxy-
gen demand, and nutrient transport in surface runoff
from ungaged agricultural watersheds.
Animal unit - A unit of measurement for any animals
in a feeding operation. Calculated in this report as
follows:
Dairy cattle - number animals x 1.4
Beef cattle - number animals x 1.0
Hogs - number animals x 0.4
Horses - number animals x 2.0
Sheep - number animals x 0.1
Poultry - number animals x 0.033
Mink - number animals x 0.001
Animal-waste management system - A BMP designed
to minimize pollution originating from livestock and
poultry operations by providing facilities for the
storage and handling of animal wastes.
BASIN - Basin-scale Nutrient Delivery Model - a
model that predicts the total annual nutrient load at
the outlet of an agricultural basin, based on estimated
delivery of average annual nutrient loads from indi-
vidual fields or cells.
Bedload - Sediment or other material that slides,
rolls, or bounces along a stream or channel bed of
flowing water.
Before-after - A term referring to monitoring designs
that require collection of data before and after BMP
implementation.
BMPs - Practices or structures designed to reduce
the quantities of pollutants - such as sediment,
nitrogen, phosphorus, and animal wastes — that are
washed by rain and snow melt from farms into
nearby surface waters, such as lakes, creeks,
streams, rivers, and estuaries. Agricultural BMPs
can include fairly simple changes in practices such
as fencing cows out of streams (to keep animal waste
out of streams), planting grass in gullies where water
flows off a planted field (to reduce the amount of
sediment that runoff water picks up as it flows to
rivers and lakes), reducing the amount of plowing
in fields where row crops are planted (in order to
reduce soil erosion and loss of nitrogen and phos-
phorus from fertilizers applied to the crop land).
BMPs can also involve building structures, such as
large animal waste storage tanks that allow farmers
to choose when to spread manure on their fields as
opposed to having to spread it based on the volume
accumulated.
Cost sharing - The practice of allocating project
funds to pay part of the cost of constructing or
implementing a BMP. The remainder of the costs
are paid by the producer.
Conservation tillage - A tillage practice or system
of practices that leaves plant residues on the soil
surface for erosion control and moisture conserva-
tion.
County ASC Committee • County Agricultural Sta-
bilization and Conservation Committee: a county-
level committee, consisting of three elected
members of the farming community in a particular
county, responsible for prioritizing and approving
practices to be cost shared and for overseeing dis-
semination of cost-share funds by the local USDA-
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
office.
Covariates - Explanatory variables, such as climatic,
hydrological, land use, or additional water quality
variables, that change over time and could affect the
water quality variables related to the primary pollut-
ant^) of concern or the use impairment being meas-
ured. Specific examples of explanatory variables
are season, precipitation, streamflow, ground water
table depth, salinity, pH, animal units, cropping
patterns, and impervious land surface.
CREAMS • Chemicals Runoff and Erosion from
Agricultural Management Systems Model - a physi-
cally-based, field-scale watershed model developed
for comparing pollutant loads from alternate man-
agement practices.
Critical area - Area or source of nonpoint source
pollutants identified in the project area as having the
most significant impact on the impaired use of the
receiving waters.
Demonstration project - A project designed to install
or implement pollution control practices primarily
for educational or promotional purposes. These
projects often involve no, or very limited, evalu-
ations of the effectiveness of the control practices.
Designated use - Uses specified in water quality
standards for each water body or segment, whether
or not they are being attained.
Erosion - wearing away of rock or soil by the gradual
detachment of soil or rock fragments by water, wind,
ice, and other mechanical or chemical forces.
Experimental NFS project - A scientific study de-
signed primarily to document the effectiveness of
specific and/or combinations of multiple NPS con-
trols (BMPs) at reducing NPS pollution. The study
may also include evaluating the policies and pro-
grams employed to implement the BMPs, effects of
the implemented BMPs on an impaired water re-
source, or economic considerations related to the
implementation of BMPs.
471
-------
Appendix III: Glossary of Terms
Fertilizer management - A BMP designed to mini-
mize the contamination of surface and ground water
by limiting the amount of nutrients (usually nitrogen)
applied to the soil to no more than the crop is
expected to use. This may involve changing fertil-
izer application techniques, placement, rate, and
timing. The term fertilizer includes both commercial
fertilizers and manure.
Geographic information systems (GIS) - computer
programs linking features commonly seen on maps
(such as roads, town boundaries, water bodies) with
related information not usually presented on maps,
such as type of road surface, population, type of
agriculture, type of vegetation, or water quality
informatioa A GIS is a unique information system
in which individual observations can be spatially
referenced to each other.
Goal - a narrowly-focused measurable or quantita-
tive milestone used to assess progress toward attain-
ment of an objective.
Land treatment • The whole range of BMPs imple-
mented to control or reduce NFS pollution.
Loading - The influx of pollutants to a selected water
body.
Management BMPs - BMPs that primarily involve a
change in management practices such as changing
the timing, method, and/or amount of the application
of a potential pollutant in order to reduce the chance
of its contaminating water resources.
Nitrogen - An element occurring in manure and
chemical fertilizer that is essential to the growth and
development of plants, but which, in excess, can
cause water to become polluted and threaten aquatic
animals.
Nonpoint source controls - General phrase used to
refer to all methods employed to control or reduce
nonpoint source pollution.
Nonpoint source pollution - Pollution originating
from diffuse areas (land surface or atmosphere)
having no well-defined source.
Nutrient management - see Fertilizer management
Objective - a focus and overall framework or pur-
pose for a project or other endeavor, which may be
further defined by one or more goals (see definition
above).
Paired watershed design - In this design, two water-
sheds with similar physical characteristics and, ide-
ally, land use, are monitored for one to two years to
establish pollutant-runoff response relationships for
each watershed. Following this initial calibration
period, one of the watersheds receives treatment
while the other (control) watershed does not. Moni-
toring of both watersheds continues for one to three
years. This experimental design accounts for many
factors that may affect the response to treatment; as
a result, the treatment effect alone can be isolated.
Parameter - Information used as input to a water
quality model or estimated by a water quality model.
Examples of parameters include: slope from a sta-
tistical relationship between two variables, mean
annual value or standard deviation of a variable, and
number of observations for a particular variable.
Pesticide management - A BMP designed to mini-
mize contamination of soil, water, air, andnontarget
organisms by controlling the amount, type, place-
ment, method, and timing of pesticide application
necessary for crop production.
Phosphorus - An element occurring in animal ma-
nure and chemical fertilizer that is essential to the
growth and development of plants, but which, in
excess, can cause water to become polluted and
threaten aquatic animals.
Post-BMP implementation - The period of use and/or
adherence to the BMP.
Pre-BMP implementation • The period prior to the
use of a BMP.
Revetment - Facing of stone or other material either
permanent or temporary, placed along the edge of a
body of water to stabilize the bank and/or protect it
from erosion.
Runoff - The portion of rainfall or snow melt that
drains off the land into ditches and streams.
Sediment - Particles and/or clumps of particles of
sand, clay, silt, and plant or animal matter carried
in water.
Sedimentation - Deposition of sediment.
Structural BMPs - BMPs that require the construc-
tion or use of a structure such as a terrace, lagoon,
or waste storage facility.
Subwatershed - A drainage area within the project
watershed. It can be as small as a single field or as
large as almost the whole project area.
Targeting - The process of prioritizing pollutant
sources for treatment with BMPs or a specific BMP
to maximize the water quality benefit from the
implemented BMPs.
472
-------
Appendix III: Glossary of Terms
Tracking - Documenting/recording the location and
timing of BMP implementation.
USLE - Universal Soil Loss Equation - an empirical
erosion model designed to compute long-term aver-
age soil losses from sheet and rill erosion under
specified conditions.
Variable - A water quality constituent (for example,
total phosphorus pollutant concentration) or other
measured factors (such as streamflow, rainfall).
Water management - The practice of limiting the
amount of water used in activities such as animal
waste flushing systems or milking operations in
order to reduce the amount of runoff and, therefore,
decrease the probability of polluting nearby surface
water.
Watershed - The area of land from which rainfall
(and/or snow melt) drains into a stream or other
water body. Watersheds are also sometimes referred
to as drainage basins. Ridges of higher ground
generally form the boundaries between watersheds.
At these boundaries, rain falling on one side flows
toward the low point of one watershed, while rain
falling on the other side of the boundary flows
toward the low point of a different watershed.
473
-------
Appendix IV
PROJECT DOCUMENTS
AND OTHER RELEVANT
PUBLICATIONS
This appendix contains references to
publications addressing the Rural Clean Water
Program as a whole, as well as a separate list of
project documents and other relevant publications
for each of the RCWP projects. Project document
lists appear in alphabetical order by state. All lists
are organized in chronological order.
General Rural Clean Water
Program Publications
Anonymous. 1979. Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP).
USEPA Water Planning Division, August 1979 (WH-
554).
Federal Register. 1980. 1980 Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP). March 4, 1980 (45 F.R. 14006) as reprinted
by USD A Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service. 21 p.
Dressing, S.A., R.P. Maas, F.A. Koehler, J.M. Kreglow,
C. Wilson, and L. Christensen. 1981. Guidelines for
Evaluation of Agriculture Nonpoint Source Water Qual-
ity Projects. National Water Quality Evaluation Project,
Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. 59 p.
Koehler, F.R., Dressing, S.A., J.M. Kreglow, R.P. Maas,
F.J. Humenik, L. Christensen, and W.K. Snyder. 1981.
Conceptual Framework for Assessing Agricultural Non-
point Source Projects. National Water Quality
Evaluation Project, NCSU Water Qualtiy Group, Bio-
logical and Agricultural Engineering Department, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. 60
P-
Dressing, S.A., R.P. Maas, J.M. Kreglow, and W.K.
Snyder. 1983. C,M, &E Cross Project Evaluation.
National Water Quality Evaluation Project, Biological
and Agricultural Engineering Department, North Caro-
lina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Dressing, S.A., R.P. Maas, J.M. Kreglow, and W.K.
Snyder. 1983. National Water Quality Evalation Project
1983 Annual Water Quality Report. National Water
Quality Evaluation Project, Biological and Agricultural
Engineering Department, North Carolina State Univer-
sity, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Dressing, S.A., R.P. Maas, M.D. Smolen, and F.J.
Humenik. 1984. Proceedings of the Rural Clean Water
Program C, M & E Workshop held April 2-5, 1984 in
Raleigh, NC. National Water Quality Evaluation Pro-
ject, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Dept.,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Caro-
lina. 241 p.
Dressing, S.A., R.P. Maas, M.D. Smolen, J. Spooner, and
F.J. Humenik. 1984. RCWP Cross Project Evaluation.
National Water Quality Evaluation Project, Biological
and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State Uni-
versity, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Erickson, M. and J. McMartin. 1984. Crop Budgets by
Alternative Tillage Systems and Crop Rotations for Se-
lected Soils, Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett Rural Clean
Water Project Area, South Dakota. Unpubl. Working
Mat. Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Ribaudo, M.O. and D. Epp. 1984. Importance of sample
discrimination in using the travel cost method to estimate
the benefits of improved water OjUality. Land Econ.
60(4): 397-403.
Smolen, M.D., S.A. Dressing, R.P. Maas, J. Spooner, and
F.J. Humenik. 1984. National Water Quality Evalu-
ation Project 1984 Annual Water Quality Report.
National Water Quality Evaluation Project, Biological
and Agricultural Engineering Dept, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina. 115 p.
Maas, R.P..M.D. Smolen, S.A. Dressing. 1985. Selecting
Critical Areas for Nonpoint-Source Pollution Control.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 40(1):68-71.
Maas, R.P. 1985. Practical guidelines for selecting critical
areas for controlling nonpoint source pesticide contami-
nation of aquatic systems, p. 363-67. In: Proc. Natl.
Conf. Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution. EPA
440/5-85-001.
Magleby, R. and C.E. Young. 1985. Controlling agricul-
tural runoff: government's perspective, p. 234-36. In:
Proc. Natl. Conf. Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pol-
lution. EPA 440/5-85-001. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Smolen, M.D., R.P. Maas, C.A. Jamieson, J. Spooner,
S.A. Dressing, F.J. Humenik. 1985. Rural Clean Water
Program, Cross Project Evaluation. National Water
Quality Evaluation Project, Biological and Agricultural
Engineering Dept., North Carolina State University. 17
p.
Smolen, M.D., R.P. Maas, J. Spooner, C.A. Jamieson,
S.A. Dressing, and F.J. Humenik. 1985. Rural Clean
Water Program, Status Report on the CM&E Projects.
National Water Quality Evaluation Project, Biological
and Agricultural Engineering Dept., North Carolina State
University. 122 p.
Smolen, M.D., R.P. Maas, J. Spooner, C.A. Jamieson,
S.A. Dressing, and F.J. Humenik. 1985. NWQEP1985
Annual Report, Status of Agricultural NPS Projects.
National Water Quality Evaluation Project, Biological
and Agricultural Engineering Dept., North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina. 66 p.
475
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
General Rural Clean Water
Program Publications (continued)
Smolen, M.D., R.P. Maas, J. Spooner, C.A. Jamieson,
S. A. Dressing, andF.J. Humenik. 1985. NWQEP 1985
Annual Report, Appendix: Technical Analysis of Four
Agricultural Water Quality Projects. National Water
Quality Evaluation Project, Biological and Agricultural
Engineering Dept., North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 90 p.
Spooner, J., R.P. Maas, S.A. Dressing, M.D. Smolen, and
F.K. Humenik. 1985. Appropriate designs for docu-
menting water quality improvements from agricultural
NFS control programs, p. 30-34. In: Perspectives on
Nonpoint Source Pollution. EPA 440/5-85-001.
Spooner, J, C.A. Jamieson, S.A. Dressing, R.P. Maas,
M.D. Smolen, F.J. Humenik 1985. Rural Clean Water
Program, Status Report on the CM&E Projects. Supple-
mental Report Analysis Methods. National Water
Quality Evaluation Project, Biological and Agricultural
Engineering Dept., North Carolina State University. 71p.
Ribaudo, M.O., C.E. Young, and J.S. Shortle. 1986.
Impacts of water quality improvement on site visitation:
a probabilistic modeling approach. Water Resour. Bull.
22(4):559-63.
Smolen, M.D., R.P. Maas, C.A. Jamieson, J. Spooner,
S.A. Dressing, L.C. Stanley, and F.J. Humenik. 1986.
NWQEP 1986 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural
NPS Projects. National Water Quality Evaluation Pro-
ject, Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
North Carolina. 168 p.
Smolen, M.D., C.A. Jamieson, R.P. Maas, J. Spooner,
S.A. Dressing, and F.J. Humenik. April 1986. Rural
Clean Water Program Cross-Project Evaluation. Na-
tional Water Quality Evaluation Project, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. 20 p.
Smolen, M.D., R.P. Maas, J. Spooner, C.A. Jamieson, and
S.A. Dressing. August 1986. Summary of the 1986
RCWP Data Analysis Workshop, July 21-23, 1986,
Chicago, Illinois. EPA Water Quality Branch, Washing-
ton, DC.
Smolen, M.D., C.A. Jamieson, R.P. Maas, J. Spooner,
S.A. Dressing, F.J. Humenik. 1986. Rural Clean Water
Program Cross-Project Evaluation. National Water
Quality Evaluation Project, Biological and Agricultural
Engineering Department, North Carolina State Univer-
sity. 20 p.
Smolen, M.D., R.P. Maas, C.A. Jamieson, J. Spooner,
S.A. Dressing, L.C. Stanley, F.J. Humenik. 1986.
NWQEP 1986 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural
NPS Projects. National Water Quality Evaluation Pro-
ject, Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Department, North Carolina State University. 168 p.
Smolen, M.D., R.P. Maas, J. Spooner, C.A. Jamieson,
S.A. Dressing. August 1986. Summary of the 1986
RCWP Data Analysis Workshop, July 21-23, 1986,
Chicago, Illinois. EPA Water Quality Branch, Washing-
ton, DC.
Crowder, B.M. and C.E. Young. 1987. Soil Conservation
Practices and Water Quality: Is Erosion Control the
Answer? Water Resources Bulletin, 23(5): 897-902.
Humenik, F.J., M.D. Smolen, S.A. Dressing. 1987. Pol-
lution from Nonpoint Sources: Where Are We and
Where Should We Go? Environmental Science and
Technology, 21(8): 737-742.
Spooner, J., R.P. Maas, M.D. Smolen, C.A. Jamieson.
1987. Increasing the Sensitivity of Nonpoint Source
Control Monitoring Programs. In: Symposium on Moni-
toring, Modeling, and Mediating Water Quality, Amer.
Water Resources Assn, Bethesda, MD, p. 243-257.
Young, C.E. and R.S. Magleby. 1987. Agricultural Pol-
lution Control: Implications from the Rural Clean Water
Program. Water Resources Bulletin, 23(4):701-707.
Brichford, S.L, J. Spooner, K.J. Adler, M.D. Smolen, A.L.
Larder, S.W. Coffey. 1988. Rural Clean Water Program
1988 Workshop Proc. USEPA, Washington, DC. 190 p.
Crowder, B.M. and C.E. Young. 1988. Managing Farm
Nutrients: Tradeoffs for Surface and Ground-Water
Quality. Agricultural Economic Report No. 583.
USDA-ERS, Washington, DC 20005. 22p.
Maas, R.P., S.L. Brichford, M.D. Smolen, J. Spooner.
1988. Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control: Experi-
ences from the Rural Clean Water Program. Lake and
Reservoir Management, 4(1): 51-56.
Magleby, R. 1988. Cost-effectiveness of BMP implementa-
tion, p. 143-45 In Rural Clean Water Program 1988
Workshop Proc. USEPA, Washington, DC.
Smolen, M.D., J. Spooner, S.L. Brichford, R.P. Maas,
D. W. Miller, A.L. Lanier, L. Wyatt, F.J. Humenik, R.S.
Magleby, S. Piper, and C.E. Young. 1988. NWQEP
1987 Annual Report Status of Agricultural NPS Pro-
jects. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 205 p.
Smolen, M.D., K.J. Adler, S.L. Brichford, J. Spooner,
A.L. Lanier, S.W. Coffey, and F.J. Humenik. 1988.
Rural Clean Water Program Evaluation. National Water
Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU Water Quality Group,
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Caro-
lina. 17 p.
Smolen, M.D., K.J. Adler, S.L. Brichford, J. Spooner,
A.L. Lanier, S.W. Coffey, F.J. Humenik. 1988. Rural
Clean Water Program Evaluation. National Water Qual-
ity Evaluation Project, Biological and Agricultural
Engineering Department, North Carolina State Univer-
sity. 17 p.
Smolen, M.D., J. Spooner, S.L. Brichford, R.P. Maas,
D.W. Miller, A.L. Lanier, L. Wyatt, F.J. Humenik, R.S.
Magleby, S. Piper, C.E. Young. 1988. NWQEP 1987
Annual Report: Status of Agricultural NPS Projects.
National Water Quality Evaluation Project, Biological
and Agricultural Engineering Department, North Caro-
lina State University. 205 p.
476
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
General Rural Clean Water
Program Publications (continued)
Blalock, L. 1989. Legislative History of the Rural Clean
Water Program (P.L. 95-217, 91 Stat 1579, 33U.S.C.
1288) - Part 1. NWQEP NOTES, 39:1-2.
Blalock, L. 1989. Legislative History of the Rural Clean
Water Program (P.L. 95-217, 91 Stat 1579, 33 U.S.C.
1288) - Part 2. NWQEP NOTES, 40:2-3.
Little, C.E. 1989. The Rural Clean Water Program: A
Report USDA, USEPA, 26p.
Magleby, R., S. Piper, and C.E. Young. 1989. Economic
insights on nonpoint pollution control from the Rural
Clean Water Program, p. 63-69. In: National Nonpoint
Source Conf. Proc., Natl. Assn. Conserv. Distr.,
League City, TX.
Piper, S., C.E. Young, R. Magleby. 1989. Benefit and
Cost Insights from the Rural Clean Water Program.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 44(3):203- 208.
Piper, S., R.S. Magleby, C.E. Young. 1989. Economic
Benefit Considerations in Selecting Water Quality Pro-
jects: Insights from the Rural Clean Water Program.
USDA Resources and Technology Division. May, 1989.
(AGES 89-18). USDA-ERS, Washington, DC. 28p.
Smith, Dan. 1989. Rural Clean Water Program, p. 257-
258. In: Agrichemicals and Groundwater Protection:
Resources and Strategies for State and Local Manage-
ment. Freshwater Foundation, Navarre, MN.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, J. Spooner, A.L. Lanier,
K.J. Adler, S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J.
Humenik. 1989. NWQEP 1988 Annual Report Status
of Agricultural NFS Projects. U.S. EPA Office of
Water, Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington,
DC. EPA 506/9-89/002. 167 p.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, J. Spooner, A.L. Lanier,
K.J. Adler, S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, F.J. Humenik.
1989. NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricul-
tural NPS Projects. U. S. EPA Office of Water, Nonpoint
Source Control Branch, Washington, DC. EPA 506/9-
89/002. 167p.
Smolen, M.D. and D. Smith. 1989. Overview of the Rural
Clean Water Program. ASAE Paper No. 89-2524,
ASAE, St Joseph, MO.
Young, C.E. and J.S. Shortle. 1989. Benefits and costs of
agricultural nonpoint source pollution controls: the case
of St AlbansBay. J. Soil Water Conserv. 44(1): 64-67.
Spooner, J., D.A. Dickey, and J.W. Gilliam. 1990. De-
termining and Increasing the Statistical Sensitivity of
Nonpoint Source Control Grab Sample Monitoring Pro-
grams, p. 119-135. In: Proceedings: Design of Water
Quality Information Systems. Information Series No.
61., Colorado Water Resources Research Institute, Fort
Collins, Colorado. 473p.
U.S. EPA. 1990. Rural Clean Water Program: Lessons
Learned from a Voluntary Nonpoint Source Control
Experiment EPA 440/4-90-012. U.S. EPA, Nonpoint
Source Branch, Office of Water (WH-553), Washington,
D.C. 29 p.
McCullough, S. and J. Taggart (eds.). 1991. Proceedings
of the 1990 Rural Clean Water Program National Work-
shop held September 17-20,1990, Brookings, SD. South
Dakota Department of Water and Natural Resources,
Pierre, South Dakota. 117 p.
Spooner, J., S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey (eds.). 1991.
Rural Clean Water Program 1989 Workshop Proceed-
ings. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department, North Carolina State University.
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale,Brichford, S.L., S.W. Coffey, A.L.
Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991.
NWQEP Report: Water Quality Monitoring Report for
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Projects
- Methods and Findings from the Rural Clean Water
Program. National Water Quality Evaluation Project,
NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural
Engineering Department, North Carolina State Univer-
sity, Raleigh, NC. 164p,
Coffey, S.W., J. Spooner, J.A. Gale, D.E. Line, J.A.
Arnold, D.L. Osmond, and F.J. Humenik. 1992. Ele-
ments of a model program for nonpoint source pollution
control, p. 361-374. In: The National RCWP Sympo-
sium Proc. U.S. EPA - Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/625/R- 92/006.
Coffey, S.W., J. Spooner, D.E. Line, J.A. Arnold, D.L.
Osmond, and F.J. Humenik. 1992. Building Nonpoint
Source Pollution Control Programs and Institutional
Frameworks. Paper Presented at the Soil and Water
Conservation Society 47th Annual Meeting, August 9-12,
1992. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North
Carolina
Dressing, S.A., J.C. Clausen, and J. Spooner. 1992. A
Tracking Index for Nonpoint Source Implementation
Projects, p. 77-87. In: The National RCWP Symposium
Proc. U.S. EPA - Office of Research and Development,
Center for Environmental Research, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA/625/R- 92/006.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J.
Spooner, and J.A. Arnold. 1992. Summary Report
Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 38p.
Hoban, T.J. and R.C. Wimberley. 1992. Farm operators'
attitudes about water quality and the RCWP. p. 247-53.
In: The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium
Proc. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/R-92/006.
Magleby, R. 1992. Economic evaluation of the Rural Clean
Water Program, p. 337-46. In: The National Rural Clean
Water Program Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency - Office of Research and Develop-
ment, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006.
477
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
General Rural Clean Water
Program Publications (continued)
Meek, J., C. Myers, G. Nebeker, W. Rittall, andF. Swader.
1992. RCWP - the federal perspective, p. 287-93. In:
The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium
Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/R-92/006.
Robillard, P. 1992. Extending the RCWP knowledge base
to future nonpoint source control projects, p. 375-83. In:
The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium
Proc. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/R-92/006.
Robillard, P., J.C. Clausen, E.G. Flaig, andD.M. Martin.
1992. Research needs and future vision for nonpoint
source projects, p. 385-92. In: The National Rural Clean
Water Program Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency - Office of Research and Develop-
ment, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006.
USEPA. 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Office of Research and Development, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
478
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Alabama
Lake Tholocco RCWP Project
Lake TholoccoRCWP Project. 1979. Application. Dale and
Coffee Counties, Alabama. Alabama Rural Clean Water
Coordinating Committee.
Lake Tholocco RCWP Project. 1981. Water Quality Moni-
toring Report. Alabama Water Improvement
Commission.
Lake Tholocco RCWP Project. 1982. Annual Progress
Report.
Lake Tholocco RCWP Project. 1982. Water Quality Moni-
toring Report. Alabama Department of Environmental
Management.
Lake Tholocco RCWP Project. 1983. Annual Progress
Report.
Lake Tholocco RCWP Project. 1984. Annual Progress
Report.
Lake Tholocco RCWP Project. 1984. Water Quality Moni-
toring Report. Alabama Department of Environmental
Management.
Lake Tholocco RCWP Project. 1985. Annual Progress
Report
Lake Tholocco RCWP Project. 1985. Water Quality Moni-
toring Report. Alabama Department of Environmental
Management.
Lake Tholocco RCWP Project. 1986. Annual Progress
Report.
Lake Tholocco RCWP Project. 1987. Annual Progress
Report
Lake Tholocco RCWP Project. 1988. Annual Progress
Report.
Lake Tholocco RCWP Project. 1989. Annual Progress
Report.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, S. Spooner, A. Lanier,
S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik. 1989.
NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of Water,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, IX!. EPA
506/9-89/002. 167 p.
Lake Tholocco RCWP Project. 1990. Annual Progress
Report.
Lake Tholocco RCWP Project. 1991. Ten-Year Report.
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L.
Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991.
NWQEP Annual Report: Water Quality Monitoring Re-
port for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Projects - Methods and Findings from the Rural Clearn
Water Program. National Water Quality Evaluation Pro-
ject, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J.
Spooner, and J.A. Arnold. 1992. Summary Report
Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 38p.
USEPA. 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Office of Research and Development, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
479
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Delaware
Appoquinimink River RCWP
Project
U.S. EPA. 1975. Report on Silver Lake, New Castle
County, Delaware. National Eutrophication Survey,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Working Paper
No. 239.
U.S. EPA. 1975. Report on Silver Lake, New Castle
County, Delaware. National Eutrophication Survey,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Working Paper
No. 240.
New Castle Conservation District and the Water Resources
Agency for New Castle County. 1979. Agricultural Non-
point Source Control Program for the Appoquinimink
River Basin. Rural Clean Water Program Proposal. Re-
vised July 1979.
Regional Nutrient Technical Advisory Committee. 1979.
Recommendations for Reducing Losses of Applied Nu-
trients in Region HI of the EPA.
State of Delaware. 1979. Water Quality Standards for
Streams. Department of Natural Resources and Environ-
mental Control. Amended March 25, 1979.
Water Resources Agency for New Castle County. 1980.
Rural Clean Water Program Monitoring and Evaluation
(DRAFT Plan). April 16, 1980.
Appoquinimink River RCWP Project. 1981. Monitoring
and Evaluation Report. New Castle County, Delaware.
Appoquinimink River RCWP Project. 1982. Annual Pro-
gress Report.
Appoquinimink River RCWP Project. 1982. Plan of Work
Update for 1982. New Castle County, Delaware.
Appoquinimink River RCWP Project. 1983. Annual Report.
Appoquinimink River RCWP Project. 1983. RCWP Pro-
gress Summary for Fiscal Year 1983. Plan of Work:
Update for 1984. New Castle County, Delaware.
Ritter, W.F., R.W. Lake, A.E.M. Chirnside, R.W. Scar-
borough. 1983. Water Quality in the Appoquinimink
Watershed. ASAE Paper No. 83-2545. ASAE, St.
Joseph, Michigan. 34p.
Appoquinimink River RCWP Project. 1984. RCWP Pro-
gress Summary for Fiscal Year 1984.
Ritter, W.F. andR.W. Lake. 1985. 1984 Summary ofWater
Quality Monitoring in the Appoquinimink Watershed.
Appendix D to RCWP Progress Report. Department of
Agricultural Engineering and Entomology and Applied
Ecology, University of Delaware, Neward, DE.
Appoquinimink River RCWP Project. 1985. RCWP Pro-
gress Summary for Fiscal Year 1985.
Appoquinimink River RCWP Project. 1986. RCWP Pro-
gress Summary for Fiscal Year 1986.
Water Resources Agency of New Castle County. 1986.
Appoquinimink River Basin Project - Rural Clean Water
Program - Final Report.
Appoquinimink River RCWP Project. 1987. Annual Report.
New Castle County, Delaware.
Appoquinimink River RCWP Project. 1987. RCWP Pro-
gress Summary for Fiscal Year 1987.
Ritter, W.F. and R.W. Lake. 1987. Water Quality Moni-
toring in the Appoquinimink Watershed. Final Report for
the Water Resources Agency for New Castle County.
Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of
Delaware, Neward, DE.
Appoquinimink River RCWP Project. 1988. RCWP Pro-
gress Summary for Fiscal Year 1988.
Ritter, W.F., A.E.M. Chirnside, and R.W. Lake. 1988.
Best management practices impacts on water quality in
the Appoquinimink watershed. ASAE Paper No. 88-
2034. ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan. 23p.
New Castle County ASC Committee. 1989. 1989 Progress
Summary for Fiscal Year 1989: Appoquinimink Project
3 P.
Ritter, W.F. 1989. Delaware's RCWP Project Results.
ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, Paper No. 89-2530, 26p.
Ritter, W.F., A.E.M. Chimside, and R.W. Lake. 1989.
Influence of Best Management Practices on Water Qual-
ity in the Appoquinimink Watershed. J. Environ. Sci.
Health, A24(8):897-924.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, S. Spooner, A. Lanier,
S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik. 1989.
NWQEP 1988 Annual Report Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of Water,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC. EPA
506/9-89/002. 167 p.
Carty, C., J.J. Lakatosh, L.R. Irelan, B.L. Dworsky, R.
Mulrooney, W. Ritter. 1991. Appoquinimink Rural
Clean Water Program Ten Year Report September
1991. Cooperators: ASCS, SCS, New Castle Conserva-
tion District, New Castle County-Water Resources
Agency, CES, and the University of Delaware. 56p. plus
appendixes.
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L.
Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991.
NWQEP Annual Report Water Quality Monitoring Re-
port for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Projects - Methods and Findings from the Rural Cleam
Water Program. National Water Quality Evaluation Pro-
ject, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J.
Spooner, and J.A. Arnold. 1992. Summary Report
Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 38p.
USEPA. 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Office of Research and Development, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
480
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Florida
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough
RCWP Project
Allen, L.H. Jr., E.H. Stewart, W.G. Knisel, Jr., andR.A.
Slack. 1976. Seasonal Variation in Runoff and Water
Quality from the Taylor Creek Watershed, Okeechobee
County, Florida. Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida
Proceedings, 35:126-138.
Stewart, E.H., L.H. Allen, Jr., and D.V. Calvert. 1978.
Water Quality of Streams on the Upper Taylor Creek
Watershed, Okeechobee County, Florida. Soil and Crop
Science Society of Florida Proceedings, 37:117-120.
Federico, A.C., K.G. Dickson, C.R. Kratzer, and F.E.
Davis. 1981. Lake Okeechobee Water Quality Studies
and Eutrophication Assessment. Technical Publication
81-2. South Florida Water Management District, West
Palm Beach, Florida. 270p.
Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough, Florida RCWP Local Coor-
dinating Committee. 1981. Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough
RCWP No. 14, November, 1981. ProjectPlan of Work.
Okeechobee County, FL.
Allen, L.H., Jr., W.G. Knisel, Jr., and P. Yates. 1982.
Evapotranspiration, Rainfall, and Water Yield in South
Florida Research Watersheds. Soil and Crop Science
Society of Florida Proceedings, 41:127-139.
Allen, L.H. Jr., J.M. Ruddell, G.J. Ritter, F.E. Davis, and
P. Yates. 1982. Land Use Effects on Taylor Creek Water
Quality, p. 67-77. IN: Proceedings of the Specialty
Conference on Environmentally Sound Water and Soil
Management. American Society of Civil Engineers, New
York, NY.
Ritter, G.J. and L.H. Allen, Jr. 1982. Taylor Creek Head-
waters Project Phase I Report-Water Quality. Tech. Pub.
82- 8, South Florida Water Management District, West
Palm Beach, FL. 140p.
Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough, Florida RCWP Local Coor-
dinating Committee. 1982. Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough
RCWP No. 14, November, 1982. Annual Progress Re-
port. Okeechobee County, FL.
Yates, P., L.H. Allen Jr., W.G. Knisel, M. ASCE, and J.M.
Sheridan. 1982. Channel Modification Effects on Taylor
Creek Watershed, p. 78- 86. IN: Proceedings of the
Specialty Conference on Environmentally Sound Water
and Soil Management. American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, New York, NY.
Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough, Florida RCWP Local Coor-
dinating Committee. 1983. Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough
RCWP No. 14, November, 1983. Annual Progress Re-
port. Okeechobee County, FL.
Kratzer, C.R. and P.L. Brezonik. 1984. Application of
Nutrient Loading Models to the Analysis of Trophic
Conditions in Lake Okeechobee, Florida. Environmental
Management, 8(2): 109- 120.
Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough, Florida RCWP Local Coor-
dinating Committee. 1984. Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough
RCWP No. 14, November, 1984. Annual Progress Re-
port. Okeechobee County, FL.
Knisel, W.G., Jr., P. Yates, J.M. Sheridan, T.K. Woody,
HI, L.H. Allen, Jr.,andL.E. Asmussen. 1985. Hydrol-
ogy and Hydrogeology of Upper Taylor Creek
Watershed, Okeechobee County, Florida: Data and
Analysis. USDA- Agricultural Research Service, ARS-
25. 159p. NTIS, Springfield, VA.
Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough, Florida RCWP Local Coor-
dinating Committee. 1985. Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough
RCWP No. 14, November, 1985. Annual Progress Re-
port. Okeechobee County, FL.
Bowers, A.R. and W.F. Brandes. 1986. Evaluation of
Treatment Alternatives for the Removal of Phosphorous
From Taylor Creek / Nubbin Slough. Chemical and
Environmental Services, Inc., 3200 West End Ave.,
Suite 405, Nashville, Tennessee 37203.
Lake Okeechobee Technical Advisory Committee (LO-
TAC). 1986. Overall Review of South Florida Water
Management District Lake Okeechobee Research, Final
Report to Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation.
Stanley, J., G. Ritter, V. Hoge, and L. Boggs. 1986.
Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough RCWP No. 14, November,
1986. Annual Progress Report. Okeechobee County, FL.
Allen, L.H., Jr. 1987. Dairy-Sitting Criteria and Other
Options for Wastewater Management on High Water-Ta-
ble Soils. Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida
Proceedings, 47:108-127.
Bell, F.W. 1987. Economic Impact and Valuation of the
Recreational and Commercial Fishing Industries of Lake
Okeechobee, Florida. Department of Economics, Florida
State University, Tallahassee, Florida.
Ritter, G.J. and E.G. Flaig. 1987. Taylor Creek- Nubbin
Slough Project Rural Clean Water Program Annual Pro-
gress Report: 1986 Water Quality monitoring and Water
Quality Trend Analysis. South Florida Water Manage-
ment District, Department of Resource Planning - Water
Quality Division.
Heatwole, C.D., A.B. Bottcher, andL.B. Baldwin. 1987.
Modeling Cost-Effectiveness of Agricultural Nonpoint
Pollution Abatement Programs on Two Florida Basins.
Water Resources Bulletin, 23(1): 127-131.
Heatwole, C.D., A.B. Bottcher, K.L. Campbell. 1987.
Basin Scale Water Quality Model for Coastal Plain
Flatwoods. Transactions of the ASAE, 30(4): 1023-1030.
Stanley, J., V. Hoge,L. Boggs, G. Ritter. November, 1987.
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough Project, Rural Clean
Water Program Annual Progress Report. Okeechobee
County, FL.
Canfield, D.E., Jr. andM.V. Hoyer. 1988. The Eutrophi-
cation of Lake Okeechobee. Lake and Reservoir
Management, 4(2): 91-99.
Little, C.E. 1988. Rural Clean Water: The Okeechobee
Story. J. Soil and Water Conservation, 43(5):386-390.
Ritter, G. 1988. Project Spotlight: Taylor Creek / Nubbin
Slough RCWP, Okeechobee and Martin Counties, Flor-
ida. NWQEP NOTES, 33:2-3.
Spooner, J., S.L. Brichford, D.A. Dickey, R.P. Maas,
M.D. Smolen, G. Ritter, and E. Flaig. 1988. Determin-
ing the Statistical Sensitivity of the Water Quality
Monitoring Program in the Taylor Creek - Nubbin
Slough, Florida Project Lake and Reservoir Manage-
ment, 4(2): 113-124.
481
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Florida
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough
RCWP Project (continued)
Stanley, J., V. Hoge, L. Boggs, G. Ritter. November 1988.
Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Project, Rural Clean Water
Program Annual Progress Report. Okeechobee Co., FL.
Conway, D., V. Hoge, L. Boggs, G. Ritter, and E. Flaig.
1989. Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough, Lower Kissimmee
River Rural Clean Water Program Project No. 14 Annual
Progress Report. Okeechobee County, FL.
Flaig, E. G., and G. Ritter. 1989. Water Quality Monitoring
of Agricultural Discharge to Lake Okeechobee. ASAE,
St. Joseph, MI. Paper No. 89-2525, 17p.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, S. Spooner, A. Lanier,
S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik. 1989.
NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of Water,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC. EPA
506/9-89/002. 167 p.
Conway, D., V. Hoge, S. Mozley, andB. Gunsalus. 1990.
Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough, Lower Kissimmee River
Rural Clean Water Program Project No. 14 Annual
Progress Report. Okeechobee County, FL. 38p.
Dinkier, H.D. and R.C.Fluck. 1990. Forage Crop Rank-
ing for Phosphorus Recycling on Lake Okeechobee Area
Dairies. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. Paper No. 90-2025,
19p.
Spooner, J., D.A. Dickey, and J.W. Gilliam. 1990. De-
termining and Increasing the Statistical Sensitivity of
Nonpoint Source Control Grab Sample Monitoring Pro-
grams, p. 119- 135. In: Proceedings International
Symposium on the Design of Water Quality Information
Systems. Information Series No. 61. Colorado Water
Resources Research Institute, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, Colorado. 473p.
Boggess, W.G., J. Holt, R.P. Smithwick. 1991. The
economic impact of the dairy rule on dairies in the Lake
Okeechobee Drainage Basin. Staff Paper SP 91-39.
Food and Resource Economics Department, Institute of
Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
39p.
Conway, D., V. Hoge, S. Mozley, andB. Gunsalus. 1991.
Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough, Lower Kissimmee River
Rural Clean Water Program Project No. 14 Annual
Progress Report. Okeechobee County, FL. 32p.
Ritter, G. and G. Shih. 1991. A Preliminary Data Analysis
to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Best Management Prac-
tices in Taylor Creek / Nubbin Slough. South Florida
Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida.
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L.
Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991.
NWQEP Annual Report: Water Quality Monitoring Re-
port for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Projects - Methods and Findings from the Rural Cleam
Water Program. National Water Quality Evaluation Pro-
ject, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC.
Stanley, J. W. and B. Gunsalus. 1991. Taylor Creek
Nubbin Slough Project, Rural Clean Water Program
Okeechobee, Florida Ten Year Report 1981 - 1990.
September, 1991. Cooperators: Okeechobee ASCS,
Okeechobee CES, Okeechobee SCS, and the South Flor-
ida Water Management District Taylor Creek-Nubbin
Slough, Florida RCWP Local Coordinating Committee,
Okeechobee, Florida. 231p.
Stanley, J.W. and B. Gunsalus. 1991. Project Spotlight
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough Florida RCWP Project -
Highlights of the Florida Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough
Florida RCWP Project 10-Year Report. NWQEP
NOTES, 51:2-4.
Dougherty, G. and J.T. Wilson. 1992. Technology applica-
tion in BMP planning, design, and application, p. 347-50.
In: The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium
Proc. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/R-92/006.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J.
Spooner, and J.A. Arnold. 1992. Summary Report
Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 38p.
Gunsalus, B., E.G. Flaig, andG. Ritter. 1992. Effectiveness
of agricultural best management practices implemented
in the Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough watershed and the
Lower Kissimmee River basin, p. 161-71. In: The Na-
tional Rural Clean Water Program Symposium Proc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Re-
search and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-
92/006.
Osking, K. and B. Gunsalus. 1992. The evolution of the
RCWP water quality monitoring networks in the Taylor
Creek/Nubbin Slough and Lower Kissimmee River ba-
sins, p. 1-13. In: The National Rural Clean Water
Program Symposium Proc. U. S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency - Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006.
Stanley, J.W. 1992. Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough RCWP
institutional arrangement and program administration, p.
239-45. In: The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Office of Research and Development, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006.
Stanley, J.W. 1992. The key to successful farmer participa-
tion in Florida's Rural Clean Water Program, p. 269-72.
In: The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium
Proc. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/R-92/006.
USEPA. 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Office of Research and Development, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
482
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Florida
Lower Kissimmee River RCWP
Project
Goldstein, A.L. 1986. Utilization of Wetlands as BMPs
for the Reduction of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Agri-
cultural Runoff from South Florida Watersheds. Lake
and Reservoir Management, 2:345-350.
Lake Okeechobee Technical Advisory Committee (LO-
TAC). 1986. The overall review of South Florida Water
Management District Lake Okeechobee research, Final
report to Florida Department of Environmental Regula-
tion.
Flaig, E.G. 1988. Water Quality Monitoring in the Lower
Kissimmee River RCWP, Okeechobee and Highlands
Counties, Florida NWQEP NOTES (Technical Supple-
ment):!^.
Stanley, J., V. Hoge, L. Boggs, G. Ritter, and E. Flaig.
January 1988. Lower Kissimmee River Project Rural
Clean Water Program Annual Progress Report.
Okeechobee, Florida. (Addition to Taylor Creek-Nubbin
Slough RCWP)
Conway, D., V. Hoge, L. Boggs, G. Ritter, and E. Flaig.
1989. Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough, Lower Kissimmee
River Rural Clean Water Program Project No. 14 Annual
Progress Report Okeechobee County, FL.
Flaig, E.G., and G. Ritter. 1989. Water Quality Monitor-
ing of Agricultural Discharge to Lake Okeechobee.
ASAE, St Joseph, MI. Paper No. 89-2525, 17p.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, S. Spooner, A. Lanier,
S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik. 1989.
NWQEP 1988 Annual Report Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of Water,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC. EPA
506/9-89/002. 167 p.
Conway, D., V. Hoge, S. Mozley, andB. Gunsalus. 1990.
Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough, Lower Kissimmee River
Rural Clean Water Program Project No. 14 Annual
Progress Report Okeechobee County, FL. 38p.
Conway, D., V. Hoge, S. Mozley, andB. Gunsalus. 1991.
Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough, Lower Kissimmee River
Rural Clean Water Program Project No. 14 Annual
Progress Report Okeechobee County, FL. 32p.
Boggess, W.G., J. Holt, R.P. Smithwick. 1991. The
Economic Impact of the Dairy Rule on Dairies in the Lake
Okeechobee Drainage Basin. Staff Paper SP 91-39.
Food and Resource Economics Department, Institute of
Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
39p.
Stanley, J. W. and B. Gunsalus. 1991. Taylor Creek
Nubbin Slough Project, Rural Clean Water Program
Okeechobee, Florida Ten Year Report 1981 - 1990.
Cooperators: Okeechobee ASCS, Okeechobee CES,
Okeechobee SCS, and the South Florida Water Manage-
ment District Okeechobee RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee, Okeechobee, Florida 23 Ip.
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L.
Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991.
NWQEP Annual Report Water Quality Monitoring Re-
port for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Projects - Methods and Findings from the Rural Clean
Water Program. National Water Quality Evaluation Pro-
ject, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J.
Spooner, and J.A. Arnold. 1992. Summary Report
Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 38p.
Osking, K. and B. Gunsalus. 1992. The evolution of the
RCWP water quality monitoring networks in the Taylor
Creek/Nubbin Slough and Lower Kissimmee River Ba-
sins, p. 1-13. In: The National Rural Clean Water
Program Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency - Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006.
Sawka, G. J., P. Ritter, B. Gunsalus, and T. Rompot. 1992.
Synoptic survey of dairy farms in the Lake Okeechobee
Basin: Post-BMP water quality sampling, p. 393-400. In:
The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium
Proc. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/R-92/006.
USEPA. 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Office of Research and Development, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
Wise, H. 1992. In Florida, Corps of Engineers'Kissimmee
River Restoration Aims to Return to Pre-Channelization
Environmental Conditions. EPA News-Notes, 18:10-
19.
483
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Idaho
Rock Creek RCWP Project
Idaho Department of Health. 1960. Report on Pollution in
Rock Creek: Cassia and Twin Falls Counties, Idaho
1959. Idaho Department of Health, Engineering and
Sanitation Section, Boise, ID. 30p.
U.S. EPA. 1973. Report on Effects of Waste Discharges on
Water Quality of the Snake River and Rock Creek Twin
Falls Area, Idaho. USEPA, Office of Enforcement,
National Field Investigations Center, Denver, Colorado.
54p.
Itami, B., W. Johnson, J. Miller, G. Hage, J. Sering, J.
Atkins, J. Bede, T. Iverson, J.J. Kuska, W.H. Snyder,
and R. Wells. 1974. Rock Creek Recreational Resource
Inventory and Analysis. 3p.
Clark, W.H. 1975. Water Quality Status Report Rock
Creek, Twin Falls County, Idaho 1970-1974. Division of
Environment, Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare, Boise,
Idaho. 69p.
Bauer, S.B. 1979. Water Quality Status Report: Upper Rock
Creek (Twin Falls and Cassia Counties). Department of
Health and Welfare, Division of Environment, Boise,
Idaho. 9p.
Idaho Soil Conservation Commission. 1979. Idaho Agri-
cultural Pollution Abatement Plan. 79p.
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, DEQ. 1979.
Application for Rural Clean Water Program Funds: Rock
Creek, Twin Falls County, Idaho. 1979. Submitted by
John V. Evans, Governor of Idaho. Prepared by Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environ-
ment. 53p.
Rock Creek, Idaho RCWP Local Coordinating Committee.
1980. Plan of Work: Rock Creek Rural Clean Water
Project, Twin Falls County, Idaho. 1980. 58p.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat Suitability
Index for Rainbow Trout Species, Narrative and Model.
Draft Report
Soil Conservation Service, Economic Statistical Service,
Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare, DEQ, and Science
Education Administration. 1980. Rural Clean Water Pro-
ject Monitoring Plan, Rock Creek, Twin Falls County,
Idaho. 1980. Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare, Divi-
sion of Environment, Boise, Idaho. 30p.
Brockway, C.E., F.J. Watts, and C.W. Robison. 1981.
Annual Report: Development of a Sediment Generation
and Routing Model for Irrigation Return Flow, Rock
Creek Intensive Monitoring Program. University of
Idaho: Dept of Agricultural Engineering and Dept of
Civil Engineering, and Idaho Water and Energy Resour-
ces Research Institute, Kimberly, Idaho. lOp.
Idaho Dept of Health and Welfare. 1981. Idaho Water
Quality Status Report 1980. 1981. Division of Environ-
ment (DEQ), Bureau of Water Quality, Boise, Idaho.
40p.
Rock Creek, Idaho RCWP Local Coordinating Committee.
1981. Annual Report: Rock Creek RCWP Intensive
Monitoring.
Rock Creek, Idaho RCWP Local Coordinating Committee.
1981. Intensive Monitoring Work Plan: Rock Creek
Rural Clean Water Project 1981.
GumR.L. 1982. Annual Report Socioeconomic Evaluation
of Rock Creek RCWP. Economic Research Service. 34p.
Rock Creek, Idaho RCWP. 1982. Socioeconomic Moni-
toring andEvaluationProgressReportforFY 1981, Rock
Creek RCWP Project - Idaho.
Rock Creek, Idaho RCWP Local Coordinating Committee.
1982. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Project Annual
Progress Report October 1, 1982. 12p.
Rock Creek, Idaho RCWP Local Coordinating Committee.
1982. Description of Project Area. lip.
Rock Creek, Idaho RCWP Local Coordinating Committee.
1982. Executive Report - Annual Report 1982: Compre-
hensive Monitoring and Evaluation of Rock Creek
RCWP. 5p.
Martin, D.M. andS. Bauer. 1982. Water Quality Monitor-
ing Assessment of the Rural Clean Water Program: First
Year Baseline Report, Rock Creek, Water Year 1981.
Idaho Dept of Health and Welfare, DEQ, Boise, Idaho.
51p.
Carter, D.L. and R.D. Berg. 1982. Rock Creek Intensive
Monitoring Project ARS Activities Report for 1982.
Brockway, C.E., F.J. Watts, C.E. Robison, and R.P.
Sterling. 1982. Annual Report: Development of a Sedi-
ment Generation and Routing Model for Irrigation Return
Flow. University of Idaho, Dept of Agricultural Engi-
neering and Dept of Civil Engineering, and Idaho Water
and Energy Resources Research Institute, Kimberly,
Idaho. 54p.
Everts, C. 1982. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Project
Report on Information and Education Activities. Univer-
sity of Idaho. 6p.
Walker, D.J., J. Hamilton, and P. Patterson. 1982. Annual
Report Fiscal Year 1982: Economic Evaluation of the
Rock Creek Idaho RCWP.
USDA and SCS. 1983. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water
Project Annual Progress Report Executive Summary.
USDA and SCS, Boise, Idaho. 21p.
Martin, D.M. 1983. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Annual
Report (Attachment I of 1983 Annual Progress Report).
Idaho Dept of Health and Welfare, DEQ, Boise, Idaho
83720. 85p.
Carter, D.L. 1983. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Project
Intensive Monitoring Project Report of ARS Activities
for 1983. Attachment II of the 1983 Annual Progress
Report 4p.
Brockway, C.E., F.J. Watts, C.W. Robison, R.P. Sterling,
and V.L. Watkins. 1983. Development of a Sediment
Generation and Routing Model For Irrigation Return
Flow. Attachment HI of the 1983 Annual Progress Re-
port. University of Idaho, Dept. of Agricultural
Engineering and Dept of Civil Engineering and Idaho
Water and Energy Resources Research Institute, Kimber-
ly, Idaho. 44p.
484
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Idaho
Rock Creek RCWP Project
(continued)
Brockway, C.E., F. J. Watts, C.W. Robison, R.P. Sterling,
V.L. Watkins. 1983. Development of a Sediment Gen-
eration and Routing Model For Irrigation Return Flow.
Attachment IV of the 1983 Annual Progress Report
Appendix I to attachment ffl. LQ Drain, An Experiment
in Irrigation Return Flow Water Quality Improvement
Attachment IV of the 1983 Annual Progress Report.
University of Idaho, Dept of Agricultural Engineering
and Dept of Civil Engineering, and Idaho Water and
Energy Resources Research Institute, Kimberly, Idaho,
69p.
Gum, R.L. 1983. Annual Report: Socioeconomic Evalua-
tion of Rock Creek RCWP. Attachment V of the 1983
Annual Progress Report Economic Research Service.
Sp.
Hamilton, J., P. Patterson, D.J. Walker. 1983. Economic
Evaluation of the Rock Creek Idaho RCWP project
Attachment VI of the 1983 Annual Progress Report
Dept of Agricultural Economics, University of Idaho.
46p.
Martin, D.M. 1983. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram - Idaho. ASAE paper No. 83-2449.
Sterling, R.P. 1983. Stream Channel Response to Reduced
Irrigation Return Flow Sediment Loads. M.S. Thesis,
University of Idaho, Moscow. 113p.
Brockway, C.E. and C.W. Robison. 1984. Development
of a Sediment Generation and Routing Model for Irriga-
tion Return Flow. Idaho Water Resources Research
Institute, University of Idaho, Kimberly, Idaho. 8p.
Gum, R. and S. Gar ifo. 1984. Recreation Impacts of Im-
proved Water Quality In Rock Creek. Unpublished
background paper. Economic Research Service/RTD,
USDA. 50p.
Kelly, S. and R. Gum. 1984. Income Distribution and the
Rural Clean Water Project. Unpublished background
paper. Economic Research Service/RTD, USDA. 9p.
LaPlant, D., D. Martin, L. Wear, and R. Gum. 1984.
Wildlife Habitat Impacts. Unpublished background pa-
per. Economic Research Service/RTD, USDA. 21p.
Martin, D.M. 1984. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Annual
Report Idaho Dept of Health and Welfare, DEQ, Boise,
Idaho. ISlp.
Neubeiser, M.J. 1985. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water
Program: The Experiment Continues, p. 391-396. In:
Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution. EPA 440/5-
85-001.
Rock Creek RCWP Project 1984. Rock Creek Rural Clean
Water Program Annual Progress Report: Executive Sum-
mary. 33p.
Bauer, S.B. 1985. Pilot Study of Quality Assurance Sample
Procedures for Division of Environment Water Quality
Surveys. Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare, DEQ,
Boise, Idaho. 41p.
Clark, W.H. 1985. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program
Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Annual Re-
port. Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare, DEQ, Boise,
Idaho 83720. 153p.
Kasal, J. and R. Magleby. 1985. Economic Evaluation
Progress Report for FY85, Rock Creek, Idaho RCWP
Project. Economic Research Service, USDA. 29p.
Rock Creek, Idaho RCWP Local Coordinating Committee.
1985. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program Annual
Progress Report Executive Summary. 32p.
Clark, W.H. 1986. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram: Comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring
Report, 1981- 1986. Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare,
Division of Environment, Boise, Idaho. 147p.
Walker, D., P. Paterson, and J. Hamilton. 1986. Costs and
Benefits to Improving Irrigation Return Flow Water
Quality in Rock Creek, Idaho, Rural Clean Water Pro-
ject. Research Bulletin no. 139. Agricultural Research
Station, University of Idaho. 30p.
Kasal, J., R. Magleby, D. Walker, and R. Gum. 1987.
Economic Evaluation of the Rock Creek, Idaho, Rural
Clean Water Project. Economic Research Service,
USDA.
Spooner, J., C.J. Jamieson, R.P. Maas, andM.D. Smolen.
1987. Determining Statistical Significant Changes in
Water Pollutant Concentrations. Lake and Reservoir
Management, 3:195-201.
USDA, M.J. Neubeiser, W.H. Clark, D.L. Carter, R.
Magleby, and ASCS. 1987. Rock Creek Rural Clean
Water Program 1986 Annual Progress Report 31p.
Young, C.I. andRS. Magleby. 1987. Agricultural Pollu-
tion Control: Implications from the Rural Clean Water
Program. Water Resources Bulletin 34(4): 701-707.
Walker, D.J. and D.T. Noble. 1987. Distribution of Social
Costs on the Rock Creek Idaho Rural Clean Water
Project. In: Western Agricultural Economics Association
Annual Meeting, Research Bulletin No. 259. Agricul-
tural Research Station, University of Idaho, Boise, ID.
13p.
Soil Conservation Service, Soil Conservation Districts,
Idaho Department of Health, Welfare-Division of Envi-
ronment, Agricultural Research Service, and
Agricultural Stabilization, and Conservation Service.
1988. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program Annual
Progress Report 1987. Idaho Department of Health,
Welfare-Division of Environment, Boise, Idaho. 84p.
Clark, W.H. 1988. 1988 Rock Creek Rural Clean Water
Program Comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring An-
nual Report. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare,
Division of Environment, Boise, Idaho. 226p.
Clark, W.H. 1988. Project Spotlight Rock Creek RCWP,
Idaho: An Example of Furrow Irrigated Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement. NWQEP
NOTES 34:1-3.
Clark, W.H. 1988. Rock Creek RCWP Video: Water
Quality Monitoring Program.
485
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Idaho
Rock Creek RCWP Project
(continued)
Clark, W.H. 1988. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram, Idaho, U.S.A.: An Example of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement, p. 290-298. In:
Water for World Development Proceedings of the Vlth
IWRA World Congress on Water Resources, Volume in
Agricultural, Irrigation, and Drainage; Environment.
International Water Resources Association, Urbana, Illi-
nois.
Soil Conservation Service, Soil Conservation Districts,
Idaho Department of Health, Welfare-Division of Envi-
ronment, Agricultural Research Service, and
Agricultural Stabilization, and Conservation Service.
1988. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program Annual
Progress Report: 1988. USDA Soil Conservation Serv-
ice, Twin Falls, ID. 190p.
Clark, W.H. 1989. Rock Creek Bibliography: Water Qual-
ity Related Publications. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water
Program, Idaho. Idaho Department of Health and Wel-
fare, Division of Environment, Boise, Idaho. lOOp.
Clark, W.H. 1989. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program
Comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring Annual Re-
port- 1988. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare,
Division of Environment, Boise, Idaho. 316p.
Magleby, R., J. Kasal, D. Walker, and R. Gum. 1989.
Economics of Controlling Sediment from Irrigation: An
Idaho Example. AGES-33. ERS-NASS, P.O. Box 1608,
Rockville, MD 20849-1608. 33p.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, S. Spooner, A. Lanier,
S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik. 1989.
NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of Water,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC. EPA
506/9-89/002. 167 p.
Soil Conservation Service, Soil Conservation Districts,
Idaho Department of Health, Welfare-Division of Envi-
ronment, Agricultural Research Service, and
Agricultural Stabilization, and Conservation Service. De-
cember, 1989. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program
1989 Annual Progress Report. USDA Soil Conservation
Service, Twin Falls, ID.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, S. Spooner, A. Lanier,
S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik. 1989.
NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of Water,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC. EPA
506/9-89/002. 167 p.
Yankey, R. 1989. Rock Creek: Bom Again for Browns.
Idaho Wildlife 9(3):27-28.
Burton, T.A., F.W. Harvey, and M.L. McHenry. 1990.
Protocols for Assessment of Dissolved Oxygen, Fine
Sediment and Salmonid Embryo Survival in an Artificial
Redd. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Divi-
sion of Environmental Quality, Boise, ID. 25p.
Clark, W.H. 1990. Water Quality Problem Identification
in Rock Creek, Idaho: Evolution of a Monitoring Pro-
gram. In: Nonpoint Source Watershed Workshop:
Nonpoint Source Solutions, held January 29-31, 1990,
New Orleans, LA. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. 6p.
Maret, T. 1990. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program
Comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring Annual Re-
port: 1989. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare,
Division of Environment, Boise, Idaho. 179p.
Maret, T. 1990. Monitoring Evaluates Cold-water Fishery
in Rock Creek: BMPs are Effective but Pollution Prob-
lems Persist. Idaho Clean Water, Spring/Summer
1990:1-3.
Walker, D.J., D.T. Noble, and R.S. Magleby. 1990.
Effective Cost-Share Rates and the Distribution of Social
Costs in the Rock Creek, Idaho, Rural Clean Water
Program. J. Soil and Water Conservation, 45(4): 477-
479.
Burton, T.A., W.H. Clark, G.W. Harvey, andT.R. Maret
1991. Development of Sediment Criteria for the Protec-
tion and Propagation of Salmonid Fishes, p. 142-144.
In: Biological Criteria: Research and Regulation Sympo-
sium Proceedings. EPA-440/5-91 -005.
Clark, W.H. 1991. Rock Creek Bibliography: Water Qual-
ity Related Publications. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water
Program, Idaho. Idaho Department of Health and Wel-
fare, Division of Environment, Boise, Idaho. 167p.
Maret, T. 1991. Rock Creek, Idaho, After Ten Years:
RCWP Achieves On-farm Success but Off-site Benefits
Marginal. EPA News-Notes, 15:9-10.
Maret, R. 1991. Rock Creek Ten Year Report Lists Pro-
gram Successes, Recommendations for Preventing
Agriculture Pollution. Idaho Clean Water, Summer
1991:12-13.
Maret, T. and J. Gale. 1991. Project Spotlight: Rock Creek
Idaho RCWP Project - Highlights of the Idaho's Rock
Creek RCWP Project 10-Year Report. NWQEP NOTES
50:3-4.
Maret, R.,R. Yankey, S. Potter, J. McLaughlin, D. Carter,
C. Brockway, R. Jesser, andB. Olmstead. 1991. Rock
Creek Rural Clean Water Program Ten Year Report
Cooperators: USDA-ASCS, USDA-SCS, USDA-ARS,
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, Twin Falls and
Snake River Soil Conservation Districts. 328p.
Maret, T.R., T.A. Burton, G.W. Harvey, and W.H. Clark.
1992. Field Testing of New Monitoring Protocols to
Assess Brown Trout Spawning Habitat in Rock Creek,
Twin Falls County, Idaho. North American J. of Fish-
eries Management (In Press).
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L.
Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991.
NWQEP Annual Report: Water Quality Monitoring Re-
port for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Projects - Methods and Findings from the Rural C learn
Water Program. National Water Quality Evaluation Pro-
ject, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC.
486
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Idaho
Rock Creek RCWP Project
(continued)
Blake,R 1992. Operation and maintenance of RCWPBMPs
in Idaho to control irrigation-induced erosion, p. 223-34.
In: The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium
Proc. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/R-92/006.
Chandler, G. and T. Maret. 1992. Water quality and land
treatment in the Rock Creek, Idaho, Rural Clean Water
Program, p. 151-60. In: The National Rural Clean Water
Program Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency - Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/R- 92/006.
Dressing, S.A., J.C. Clausen, and J. Spooner. 1992. A
tracking index for nonpoint source implementation pro-
jects, p. 77-87. In: The National Rural Clean Water
Program Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency - Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J.
Spooner, and J.A. Arnold. 1992. Summary Report
Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 38p.
USEPA. 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Office of Research and Development, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
Yankey, R.L. 1992. Techniques to obtain adequate farmer
participation, p. 261-64. In: The National Rural Clean
Water Program Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency - Office of Research and Develop-
ment, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006.
487
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Illinois
Highland Silver Lake RCWP Project
Madison County Soil and Water Conservation District.
1979. Highland Silver Lake: Application for Rural Clean
Water Program. Madison County, Illinois.
Madison County Local Coordinating Committee. 1980. Plan
ofWorfc Highland Silver Lake RCWP. Madison County,
Illinois.
Illinois State Coordinating Committee. 1981. Comprehen-
sive Monitoring and Evaluation Program for the
Highland Silver Lake Watershed RCWP, Springfield, IL,
40 p.
Illinois State Coordinating Committee. 1981. RCWP Com-
prehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Report on
Highland Silver Lake Watershed. Springfield, IL, 63p.
Southwestern Illinois Metropolitan and Regional Planning
Commission .(1981-1985). Highland Silver Lake
RCWP; Annual Reports. SIMAPC: Collinsville, Illinois.
Carvey, D. G. 1982. Highland Silver Lake Angler Opinion
Survey: Preliminary Results. Economic Research Serv-
ice, U.S. Department of Agriculture, East Lansing,
Michigan.
Davenport, I.E.. 1982. Soil Erosion and Sediment Delivery
in the Highland Silver Lake Watershed. Preliminary
Analysis. Illinois EPA, Springfield, IL, 35 p.
Davenport, I.E. andM. H. Kelly. 1982. Water Resource
Data and Preliminary Trend Analysis for the Highland
Silver Lake Monitoring and Evaluation Project: Phase I.
Illinois EPA, Springfield, IL, 121 p.
Illinois State Coordinating Committee. 1982. Highland Sil-
ver Lake RCWP CM&E: Annual Report Fiscal Year
1982. Springfield, IL.
Makpwski, P. and M.T. Lee. 1982. Highland Silver Land
Silver Lake Reservoir Yield Analysis. State Water Sur-
vey Division, Champaign, IL, 5 p.
SWIL-MAPC. 1982. Highland Silver Lake Comprehensive
Monitoring and Evaluation Project: Economic Baseline.
Southwestern Illinois Metropolitan & Regional Planning
Commission, 82-07. 41p.
Davenport, I.E. and Kelly, M.H. 1983. Water Resource
Data and Preliminary Trend Analysis for the Highland
Silver Lake Monitoring and Evaluation Project: Phase II.
Illinois EPA, Springfield, IL, 145 p.
Eleveld, B. 1983. A Summary of Highland Silver Lake
Rural Clean Water Program Cooperators' Conservation
Farm Plans. Agricultural Economics Department, Uni-
versity of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, IL.
Eleveld, B. 1983. The Socioeconomic Aspects of the
Highland Silver Lake Rural Clean Water Project, p.
128-154. In: Proc. of Illinois Conference on Soil Con-
servation and Water Quality, November 9-10,
Springfield, IL. Document No. 84/02. Illinois Dept. of
Energy and Natural Resources, Energy and Environmen-
tal Affairs Division, Springfield, IL.
Eleveld, B. andK. Reed. 1983. Baseline On-Site/On-Farm
Conditions for the Highland Silver Lake Watershed,
Madison and Bond Counties, Illinois (Revised). Agricul-
tural Economics Department, University of Illinois,
Champaign-Urbana, IL.
Eleveld, B. and V. Starr. 1983. Evaluating the Effectiveness
of RCWP Cost Share Payments in Illinois Through
Representative Farm Analysis. Department of Agricul-
tural Economics, University of Illinois, Champaign-
Urbana, Illinois.
Eleveld, B. and V. Starr. 1983. Farm Enterprise Budgets
for Cropping Activities in the Highland Silver Lake Rural
Clean Water Program. Agricultural Economics Depart-
ment, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, IL.
Eleveld, B. and V. Starr. 1983. Soil Productivity- Soil
Erosion Relationships for Selected Soils Affected by the
Highland Silver Lake Rural Clean Water Program. Ag-
ricultural Economics Department, University of Illinois,
Champaign-Urbana, IL.
Illinois State Coordinating Committee. 1983. Highland Sil-
ver Lake RCWP CM&E: Annual Report Fiscal Year
1983. Springfield, IL.
Southwestern Illinois Metropolitan and Regional Planning
Commission. 1983. Highland Silver Lake Comprehen-
sive Monitoring and Evaluation Project Assessment of
Off-Site Socio- Economic Impacts. SIMAPC; Collins-
ville, IL.
Davenport, T.E. 1984. A Review of the Sediment Delivery
Ratio Techniques Component of the Highland Silver
Lake Watershed Project Illinois EPA, Springfield, IL,
27pp.
Davenport, T.E. 1984. Field Modeling in the Highland
Silver Lake Watershed: Interim Report. Illinois EPA,
Springfield, IL, 41 pp.
Davenport, T.E. and Kelly, M.H. 1984. Water Resource
Data and Preliminary Trend Analysis for the Highland
Silver Lake Monitoring and Evaluation Project: Phase
m. Illinois EPA, Springfield, IL, 216 pp.
Illinois State Coordinating Committee. 1984. Highland Sil-
ver Lake Watershed RCWP: Summary Report Fiscal
Year 1984. Springfield, IL, 127pp.
Thomerson, J.E. and S.B. Reid, 1984. An Evaluation of the
Fisheries of Highland Silver Lake, Madison County,
Illinois. Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, IL.
Davenport, T. and T. Lowrey. 1985. Watershed Water
Quality Programs: Lessons Learned in Illinois, p. 256-
258. In: Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution.
EPA 440/5-85-001.
Illinois State Coordinating Committee. 1985. Highland Sil-
ver Lake Watershed RCWP: Summary Report Fiscal
Year 1985. Springfield, IL, 96 pp.
Makowski, P.B. and M.T. Lee. 1985. Hydrologic Investi-
gation of the Highland Silver Lake Watershed: 1984
Progress Report. State Water Survey Division, Cham-
paign, IL, 68 p.
White, D., B. Eleveld, and J. Braden. 1985. On-Farm
Economic Impacts of Proposed Erosion Control Policies.
Agricultural Economics Department, University of Illi-
nois, Champaign- Urbana, Illinois.
488
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Illinois
Highland Silver Lake RCWP Project
(continued)
Illinois State Coordinating Committee. 1986. Highland Sil-
ver Lake Watershed RCWP: Summary Report Fiscal
Year 1986. Springfield, IL.
Kelly, M.H. and I.E. Davenport. 1986. Water Resource
Data and Trend Analysis for the Highland Silver Lake
Monitoring and Evaluation Project: Phase IV. Illinois
EPA, Springfield, IL, 198p.
Makowski, P.B., M. Grinter, andM.T. Lee. 1986. Stream
Geometry and Streambed Material Characteristics of the
Streams Within the Highland Silver Lake Watershed.
State Water Survey Division, Champaign, IL, 66 pp.
Makowski, P.B., M.T. Lee, andM. Grinter. 1986. Hydro-
logic Investigation of the Highland Silver Lake
Watershed: 1985 Progress Report. State Water Survey
Division, Champaign, IL, 98p.
Illinois State Coordinating Committee, 1987. Highland Sil-
ver Lake Rural Clean Water Project: Summary Report,
Fiscal Year 1986. Springfield, IL, 104 p.
Lee, M. andR. Camacho. 1987. Geographic Data Base and
Watershed Modeling for Evaluation of the Rural Clean
Water Program in the Highland Silver Lake Watershed.
Illinois State Water Survey Division, Contract Report
421: Champaign, Illinois.
Illinois State Coordinating Committee. 1988. Highland Sil-
ver Lake Rural Clean Water Project: Summary Report,
Fiscal Year 1987. Springfield, IL, 23p.
Setia, P. 1987. An Economic Analysis of Agricultural
Nonpoint Pollution Control Alternatives. Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation, 42(6): 427^31.
Setia, P. and R. Magleby. 1988. Measuring Physical and
Economic Impacts of Controlling Water Pollution in a
Watershed. Journal of Lake and Reservoir Management,
4(1):63-71.
Setia, P.P., R.S. Magleby, and D.G. Carvey. 1988. Illi-
nois Rural Clean Water Project: An Economic Analysis.
Staff Report No. AGES88067. USDA-ERS, Resources
and Technology Division, Washington, DC. 25 p.
Southwestern Illinois Metropolitan and Regional Planning
Commission. 1988. Executive Summary: Rural Clean
Water Project Highland Silver Lake Watershed. SI-
MAPC: Collinsville, Illinois.
Illinois State Coordinating Committee. 1989. Highland
Silver Lake Rural Clean Water Project: Fiscal Year 1989
Report. Springfield, IL, 17 pp.
Pei-Ing, W., J.B. Braden, and G.V. Johnson. 1989. Effi-
cient Control of Cropland Sediment: Storm Event Versus
Annual Average Loads. American Geophysical Union,
7p.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, S. Spooner, A. Lanier,
S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik. 1989.
NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of Water,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC. EPA
506/9-89/002. 167p.
Kite, R.L. and C. Bickers. 1991. Highland Silver Lake
RCWP Water Quality Monitoring Report. Illinois Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Marion, IL. 56p.
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L.
Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991.
NWQEP Annual Report: Water Quality Monitoring Re-
port for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Projects - Methods and Findings from the Rural Clearn
Water Program. National Water Quality Evaluation Pro-
ject, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J.
Spooner, and J.A. Arnold. 1992. Summary Report-
Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 38p.
USEPA. 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
- Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
489
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Iowa
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Project
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Project. 1979. RCWP Project
Application.
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Project. 1979. Supplement to
Application. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan.
EPA. 1980. Comments on Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Project
Work Plan.
Shelby County Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service. 1980. Plan of Work: Prairie Rose Lake Water-
shed.
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Project 1980. Plan of Work-
Amendment 2.
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Project. 1982. Prairie Rose Lake
Monitoring RCWP Project-Year 1 (1981), March 1982.
3,-4,-5, and SCS Report of Project Accomplishments.
Knutson, R.L. 1981. Nonpoint Pollution Control: Fact or
Fantasy. ASCE Paper. 6p.
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Project 1982. Annual Report
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Project 1982. Corrections and
Additions to the Report Entitled "Prairie Rose Lake
Monitoring RCWP-Project-Year 1 (1981), March 23,
1982".
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Project. 1982. Prairie Rose Lake
Monitoring RCWP Project-Year 2 (1982). October 19,
1982.
Bruce, D. 1983. Farmers Cooperation Makes Cleaner Lake,
Wallaces Fanner Magazine (10/83).
Lawyer, C.M. 1983. The Prairie Rose Rural Clean Water
Project. ASAE Paper No. 83-2543. 13p.
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Project 1983. Annual Report.
Betts,L. 1984.FarmersHelpNeededtoKeepOutSediment,
Wallaces Farmer Magazine (10/84).
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Project. 1984. Annual Report
(Includes Lake Monitoring Report).
Adair, B.C. 1985. The Rose Blooms Again, Iowa Conser-
vationist Magazine (6/85), Iowa Department of Natural
Resources, Des Moines, Iowa.
Agena, U., M. Wnuk, andM. Lawyer. 1985. Prairie Rose
Lake Rural Clean Water Program - Perspectives on
Nonpoint Source Pollution. U. S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. EPA 440/5-85-001.
Feltz, D. 1985. Integration of Pest Management into Con-
servation Tillage through the Prairie Rose Lake Rural
Clean Water Project Paper presented at a workshop for
Extension Workers Dealing with Pest Management, St
Louis, MO, March 20, 1985. Cooperative Extension
Service, 1105 8th Street, Harlan, IA 51537.
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Project. 1985. Annual Report.
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Project. 1986. Prairie Rose Lake
Monitoring RCWP Project-Year 5 (1985). April 9,1986.
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Project 1986. Annual Report.
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Project 1986. Prairie Rose Lake
Monitoring RCWP Project - Year 6 (1986).
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Project. 1987. Annual Report.
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Project. 1987. Prairie Rose Lake
Monitoring RCWP Project - Year 7 (1987).
Little, C.E. 1988. Rural Clean Water: The Charmed Life of
a Lake Called Prairie Rose, Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation. 43(6):459-461.
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Project 1988. Annual Report.
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Project 1989. Annual Report,
59p.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, S. Spooner, A. Lanier,
S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik. 1989.
NWQEP 1988 Annual Report Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of Water,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC. EPA
506/9-89/002. 167 p.
Patrico, J., D. Seim, and C. Johnson. 1990. "Dead" Creek
Lives Again, Farm Journal Magazine (3/90).
Lawyer, M., D. Feltz, U. Agena, B. Bryant 1991. Ten
Year Report: Prairie Rose Rural Clean Water Project,
Shelby County, Iowa. March 1991. Cooperators:
USDA-SCS, USDA-CES, and the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources.
Link, R.V., T. Oswald, and B. Bryant 1991. The Prairie
Rose Lake Rural Clean Water Program Project Pre-
sented at the Regional Lake Management Conference,
June 11, 1991, Des Moines, Iowa. 15p.
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L.
Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991.
NWQEP Annual Report: Water Quality Monitoring Re-
port for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Projects - Methods and Findings from the Rural Clearn
Water Program. National Water Quality Evaluation Pro-
ject, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J.
Spooner, and J.A. Arnold. 1992. Summary Report
Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 38p.
USEPA. 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
- Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
490
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Kansas
Upper Wakarusa RCWP Project
Upper Wakarusa River RCWP Project. 1980. Plan of Work.
Upper Wakarusa River RCWP Project. 1980. Project Ap-
plication.
Upper Wakarusa River RCWP Project. 1981. Annual Pro-
gress Report
Upper Wakarusa River RCWP project 1981. Monitoring
Plan.
Upper Wakarusa River RCWP Project. 1982. Annual Pro-
gress Report.
Upper Wakarusa River RCWP Project. 1983. Annual Pro-
gress Report.
Upper Wakarusa River RCWP Project. 1984. Annual Pro-
gress Report.
Upper Wakarusa River RCWP Project. 1985. Annual Pro-
gress Report.
Upper Wakarusa River RCWP Project. 1986. Annual Pro-
gress Report.
Upper Wakarusa River RCWP Project. 1987. Annual Pro-
gress Report
Economic Research Service. 1987. Economic Evaluation
Progress Report: Upper Wakarusa River RCWP Project.
Economic Research Service, USDA.
Upper Wakarusa River RCWP Project. 1988. Annual Pro-
gress Report.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, S. Spooner, A. Lanier,
S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik. 1989.
NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of Water,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC. EPA
506/9-89/002. 167 p.
Upper Wakarusa River RCWP Project. 1990. Annual Pro-
gress Report.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J.
Spooner, and J.A. Arnold. 1992. Summary Report:
Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 38p.
USEPA. 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
491
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Louisiana
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP Project
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP Project
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP Project. 1982. Annual Report
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP Project 1983. Annual Report
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP Project 1984. Annual Report
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP Project. 1985. Annual Report
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP Project 1986. Annual Report
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP Project 1987. Annual Report
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP Project 1988. Annual Report
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, S. Spooner, A. Lanier,
S.W. Cofley, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik. 1989.
NWQEP 1988 Annual Report Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of Water,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC. EPA
506/9-89/002. p69-73.
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP Project. 1989. Annual Report.
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP Project 1990. Annual Report
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L.
Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991.
NWQEP Annual Report Water Quality Monitoring Re-
port for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Projects - Methods and Findings from the Rural Cleam
Water Program. National Water Quality Evaluation Pro-
ject, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC.
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP Project 1992. Bayou Bonne Idee
Rural Clean Water Program Ten-Year Report 26p.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J.
Spooner, and J.A. Arnold. 1992. Summary Report:
Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 38p.
USEPA. 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Office of Research and Development, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
492
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Maryland
Double Pipe Creek RCWP Project
Double Pipe Creek RCWP Project 1980. Water Quality
Plan of Work 1980-1995.
Double Pipe Creek RCWP Project. 1983. Annual Progress
Report
Double Pipe Creek RCWP Project 1983. Water Quality
Plan of Work 1980 -1995 (Revised).
Versar, Inc. 1983. Non-Point Source Water Quality Assess-
ment Of Monocacy River Basin With Special Attention
to the Double Pipe Creek Watershed.
Double Pipe Creek RCWP Project 1984 Progress Report.
Double Pipe Creek RCWP Project. 1985. Progress Report
Double Pipe Creek RCWP Project. 1986. Plan of Work and
Progress Report
Versar Inc. 1986. Results of the Nonpoint Source Water
Quality Program Conducted in the Monocacy River Basin
With Special Attention to the Double Pipe Creek Water-
shed.
Double Pipe Creek RCWP. 1987. Progress Report.
Double Pipe Creek RCWP Project. 1988. Progress Report.
Double Pipe Creek RCWP. 1989. Progress Report and Plan
of Work. 64 p.
Magette,W.L. 1989. Maryland's RCWP and Non-RCWP
Project Results. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. Paper No.
89-2526, 8p.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, S. Spooner, A. Lanier,
S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik. 1989.
NWQEP 1988 Annual Report Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of Water,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC. EPA
506/9-89/002. 167 p.
Double Pipe Creek RCWP Project. 1990. Progress Report
and Plan of Work. 7 p.
Sanders, J.H., D. Valentine, E. Schaeffer, D. Greene, J.
McCoy. 1991. Double Pipe Creek Rural Clean Water
Program Ten Year Report Cooperators: USDA-SCS,
USDA-ASCS, University of Maryland Cooperative Ex-
tension Service, Maryland Department of the
Environment, and tile Carroll Soil Conservation District
122p.
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L.
Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991.
NWQEP Annual Report Water Quality Monitoring Re-
port for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Projects - Methods and Findings from the Rural Cleara
Water Program. National Water Quality Evaluation Pro-
ject, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J.
Spooner, and J.A. Arnold. 1992. Summary Report
Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 38p.
Greene, D.L. 1992. Diversity of information and education
efforts help obtain goals for Double Pipe Creek RCWP
project p. 313-19 In: The National RCWP Symposium
Proc., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office
of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
McCoy, J.L. and R.M. Summers. 1992. Water quality
trends in Big Pipe Creek during the Double Pipe Creek
Rural Clean Water Program, p. 181-91 In: The National
Rural Clean Water Program Symposium Proc. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Research
and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-
92/006.
Schaeffer, E.A. 1992. Farmer participation in the Double
Pipe Creek Rural C lean Water Program project, p. 265-68
In: The National RCWP Symposium Proc. U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency - Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006.
USEPA. 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Office of Research and Development, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
493
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Massachusetts
West port River RCWP Project,
Rose, D. and P. Fisher. 1981. Westport River Watershed
Application for USDA - RCWP Special Project Bristol
County, MA. 47p.
Westport River RCWP Project Local Coordinating Commit-
tee, 1981. Plan of Work and Annual Progress Report
Westport, MA. 50p.
Westport River RCWP ProjectLocal Coordinating Commit-
tee, 1982. Plan of Work and Annual Progress Report
Westport, MA. 26p.
Westport River RCWP Project Local Coordinating Commit-
tee, 1983. Plan of Work and Annual Progress Report
Westport, MA. 108p.
Westport River RCWP Project Local Coordinating Commit-
tee, 1984. Plan of Work and Annual Progress Report.
Westport, MA. 42p.
Westport River RCWP ProjectLocal Coordinating Commit-
tee, 1985. Plan of Work and Annual Progress Report
Westport, MA. 51p.
Westport River RCWP ProjectLocal Coordinating Commit-
tee, 1986. Plan of Work and Annual Progress Report
Westport, MA. 15p.
Westport River RCWP Project Local Coordinating Commit-
tee, 1987. Plan of Work and Annual Progress Report
Westport, MA.
Westport River RCWP ProjectLocal Coordinating Commit-
tee. 1988. Plan of Work and Annual Progress Report
Westport, MA.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, S. Spooner, A. Lanier,
S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik. 1989.
NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of Water,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC. EPA
506/9-89/002. 167 p.
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L.
Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991.
NWQEP Annual Report Water Quality Monitoring Re-
port for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Projects - Methods and Findings from the Rural Clean
Water Program. National Water Quality Evaluation Pro-
ject, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC.
Westport River RCWP Project Local Coordinating Commit-
tee. 1991. 10-Year Report. Westport, MA. 28p. plus
appendixes.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J.
Spooner, and J.A. Arnold. 1992. Summary Report
Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 38p.
USEPA. 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Office of Research and Development, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
Westport River RCWP Project 1992. Revised 10-Year
Report - Westport 7p.
494
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Michigan
Saline Valley RCWP Project
Saline Valley Rural Clean Water Project, Michigan. 1982.
Annual Progress Report.
Saline Valley Rural Clean Water Project, Michigan. 1983.
Revised Plan of Work.
Saline Valley Rural Clean Water Project, Michigan. 1984.
Annual Progress Report.
Holland, R. E., A.M. BeetonandD. Conley. 1985. Saline
Valley Rural Clean Water Project Interim Report on
Monitoring. Great Lakes and Marine Waters Center.
Saline Valley Rural Clean Water Project, Michigan. 1985.
Annual Progress Report.
Saline Valley Rural Clean Water Project, Michigan. 1986.
Annual Progress Report.
Holland, R.E., A.M. Beeton, and T. Johengen. 1987.
Saline Valley Rural Clean Water Project Interim Report
on Monitoring During 1986.
Johengen, T. H. 1987. Documenting the Effectiveness of
Best Management Practices to Reduce Agricultural Non-
point Source Pollution. University of Michigan,
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. Ann
Arbor, MI.
Saline Valley Rural Clean Water Project, Michigan. 1987.
Annual Progress Report.
Fox, M.G. and A.M. Beeton. 1988. Phosphorus Concen-
tration Trends in the Saline River Watershed, USA.
Internationale Vereingung Fuer Theoretische und Ange-
wandte Limnologie. Verhandlungen IV,
23(2): 1119-1124.
Holland, R.E., A.M. Beeton, and T. Johengen. 1988.
Saline Valley RCWP Interim Report on Monitoring
During 1987.
Saline Valley Rural Clean Water Project, Michigan. 1988.
Annual Progress Report.
Holland, R.E., A.M. Beeton, and T. Johengen. 1989.
Saline Valley RCWP Interim Report on Monitoring
During 1988. 85 p.
Johengen, T.H., A.M. Beeton, and D.W. Rice. 1989.
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Best Management Prac-
tices to Reduce Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution.
Lake and Reservoir Management, 5(1): 63-70.
Saline Valley Rural Clean Water Project, Michigan. 1989.
Annual Progress Report, 27 p.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, S. Spooner, A. Lanier,
S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik. 1989.
NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of Water,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC. EPA
506/9-89/002. 167 p.
Johengen, T.H., A.M. Beeton, and R. Holland. 1991. A
Final Water Quality Monitoring Report and Evaluation
of the Saline Valley Rural Clean Water Project. 137p.
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L.
Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991.
NWQEP Annual Report: Water Quality Monitoring Re-
port for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Projects - Methods and Findings from the Rural Clearn
Water Program. National Water Quality Evaluation Pro-
ject, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J.
Spooner, and J.A. Arnold. 1992. Summary Report:
Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 38p.
Johengen, T.H. and A.M Beeton. 1992. The effects of
temporal and spatial variability on monitoring agricul-
tural nonpoint source pollution, p. 89-95. In: The
National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium Proc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Re-
search and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/R-92/006.
USEPA. 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Office of Research and Development, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
495
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Minnesota
Garvin Brook RCWP Project
Garvin Brook RCWP Project. 1979. Project Application.
Garvin Brook RCWP Project. 1982. Annual Progress Re-
port.
Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation Board. 1982. Min-
nesota's Soil and Water Conservation Program: A
Process of Gaining Ground. Box 19, Centennial Office
Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155. 56 p.
Garvin Brook RCWP Project. 1983. Annual Report.
Payne, G.A. 1983. Streamflow and Suspended-Sediment
Transport in Garvin Brook, Winona County, Southeast-
ern Minnesota-Hydrologic Data for 1982. U.S.
Geological Survey. Open-File Report 83-212. St. Paul,
Minnesota 22p.
Balaban, N.H. and B.M. Olsen. 1984. Geologic Atlas
Winona County, Minnesota. County Atlas Series Atlas
C-2. Minnesota Geological Survey. University of Min-
nesota, St Paul.
Garvin Brook RCWP Project. 1984. Annual Report.
Appendix A. Agreement Between the Agricultural Sta-
bilization and Conservation Service and the MN Pollution
Control Agency.
Appendix B. Garvin Brook Watershed Water Quality:
General Monitoring for the Rural Clean Water Program.
1984 Annual Report. Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency.
Appendix C. RCWP Garvin Brook Project Technical
Report Update. September, 1984. 29 p.
Appendix D. BMP - Fertilizer Management - Split Ap-
plication.
Appendix E. Forms: ACP-305, RCWP- 3, RCWP-5,
RCWP- 7, Contract locations.
Appendix F. Questionnaire.
Appendix G. Summary of Trout Stream Habitat Improve-
ment. 2 p.
Appendix H. Project Coordinator - Position Description.
Ip.
Garvin Brook RCWP Project. 1985. Annual Report.
Garvin Brook Watershed. 1985. Detailed Action Plan. 4 p.
Garvin Brook Watershed. 1985. Supplement to Plan of
Work. 3 p.
Method Used to Determine Nitrate Loading. April 1985. 2
P-
Garvin Brook RCWP Project. 1986. Annual Report.
Garvin Brook RCWP Project. 1987. Annual Report.
Garvin Brook RCWP Project. 1988. Annual Report.
Garvin Brook RCWP Project. 1989. Annual Report.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, J. Spooner, A. Lanier, K.J.
Adler, S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik.
1989. NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricul-
tural Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of
Water, Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington,
DC. EPA 506/9-89/002. 167 p.
Wall, D.B., S.A. McGuire, and J.A. Magner. 1989. Nitrate
and Pesticide Contamination of Ground Water in the
Garvin Brook Area of Southeastern Minnesota: Sources
and Trends. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Div.
of Water Quality, St. Paul, Minnesota
Wall, D.B., S.A. McGuire, and J.A. Magner. 1989. Water
quality monitoring and assessment in the Garvin Brook
Rural Clean Water Project area: Stream and Ground
Water Monitoring and Best Management Practice Imple-
mentation Assessment (1981-1989). Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Div. of Water Quality, St
Paul, Minnesota.
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L.
Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991.
NWQEP Report: Water Quality Monitoring Report for
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Projects - Methods and
Findings from the Rural Clean Water Program, National
Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU Water Quality
Group, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Depart-
ment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.
Wall, D.B. and C.P. Regan. 1991. Water Quality and
Sensitivity of the Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer in
Western Winona County. Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Water Quality Division. 63 p.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J.
Spooner, and J.A. Arnold. 1992. Summary Report
Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 38p.
Garvin Brook RCWP Project. 1992. Ten-Year Report
USEPA. 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Office of Research and Development, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
Wall, D.B., M.G. Evenson, C.P. Regan, J.A. Magner, and
W.P. Anderson. 1992. Understanding the groundwater
system: the Garvin Brook experience, p. 59-70. In: The
National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium Proc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Re-
search and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/R-92/006.
496
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Nebraska
Long Pine Creek RCWP
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee. 1981. Long Pine Creek Nebraska: A Rural
Clean Water Program Application.
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee. 1981. Plan of Work - Long Pine Creek
RCWP Project. October 1981.
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee. 1981. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan.
11+p.
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control. 1981.
Report to Local Coordinating Committee Long Pine
Creek Rural Clean Water Program. October 23, 1981.
Program Planning Section, Nebraska Department of En-
vironmental Control. 30p.
Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 1981. Long
Pine Creek - Reclaiming a Resource. Video. Institute
of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of
Nebraska.
Jensen, D. 1982. An Index for Assessing the Water Quality
of Nebraska Streams. Program Plans Section, Water and
Waste Management Division, Department of Environ-
mental Control, State of Nebraska. 57p.
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee. 1982. Long Pine Creek Rural Clean Water
Program Annual Report: FY 1982.
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee. 1982. Long Pine Creek RCWP Plan of
Work (FY 1983).
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control. 1982.
NDEC Long Pine Intensive Survey Water Quality Up-
date. January 22, 1982.
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee. 1983. Long Pine Creek Rural Clean Water
Program Annual Report: FY 1983.
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee. 1983. Long Pine Creek RCWP Plan of
Work (FY 1984).
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee. 1984. Long Pine Creek Rural Clean Water
Program Annual Report: FY 1984.
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee. 1984. Long Pine Creek RCWP Plan of
Work (FY 1985).
Maret, T. December 1985. Water Quality in the Long Pine
Rural Clean Water Project 1979-1985. Nebraska Depart-
ment of Environmental Control, P.O. Box 94877 -
Statehouse Station, Lincoln, NE. 194p.
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee. 1985. Long Pine Creek Rural Clean Water
Program Annual Report: FY 1985.
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee. 1985. Long Pine Creek Rural Clean Water
Program: Plan of Work (FY 1986), revised November
1985. 32p.
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee. 1986. Long Pine Creek Rural Clean Water
Program Annual Report FY 1986.
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee. 1986. Long Pine Creek RCWP: Plan of
Work(FY 1987), revised November 1986. 30p.
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee. 1987. Long Pine Creek Rural Clean Water
Program Annual Report: FY 1987.
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee. 1987. Best Management Practices: Long
Pine Creek Rural C lean Water Program. Revised Novem-
ber 1987.
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee. 1987. Plan of Work (FY 1988). Long Pine
Creek Rural Clean Water Program.
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee. 1988. Long Pine Creek Rural Clean Water
Program. FY 1988 Annual Report.
Maret, T.R., 1988. A Water-Quality Assessment Using
Aquatic Macroinvertebrates from Streams of the Long
Pine Creek Watershed in Brown County, NE. Transac-
tions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences, XVI: 69-84.
Stolzenburg, B. 1988. Project Spotlight: Long Pine Creek
RCWP, Nebraska - Storage Reservoir Enhances Water
Quality. NWQEP NOTES, 30:1-1.
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee. 1989. Long Pine Creek Rural Clean Water
Program Annual Report: FY 1989. 36p.
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee. 1989. Long Pine Creek RCWP: Plan of
Work, 1990. 35p.
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee. 1989. Best Management Practices: Long
Pine Creek Rural Clean Water Program. Revised No-
vember 1989.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, S. Spooner, A. Lanier,
S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik. 1989.
NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of Water,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC. EPA
506/9-89/002. 167 p.
University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension Service.
1989. Long Pine Creek - A Stream Reborn. Video.
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee. 1990. Long Pine Creek Rural Clean Water
Program Annual Report: FY 1990. 14p, plus appen-
dixes.
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee. 1990. Long Pine Creek RCWP: Plan of
Work, 1991. 35p.
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska RCWP Local Coordinating
Committee. 1990. Best Management Practices: Long
Pine Creek Rural Clean Water Program. Revised No-
vember 1990. 18p.
Hermsmeyer, B., D. Jensen, andM. Link. 1991. Nebraska
Long Pine Creek Rural Clean Water Program Ten Year
Report 1981-1991. Brown County Agricultural Stabili-
zation and Conservation Service (ASCS), Ainsworth,
NE. 275p.
497
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Nebraska
Long Pine Creek RCWP (continued)
Hermsmeyer, B., D. Jensen, and M. Link. 1991. Long
Pine Creek Rural Clean Water Program Abbreviated
Annual Report- 1991. Brown County Agricultural Sta-
bilization and Conservation Service (ASCS), Ainsworth,
ME. 8p.
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L.
Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991.
NWQEP Annual Report: Water Quality Monitoring Re-
port for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Projects - Methods and Findings from the Rural Cleara
Water Program. National Water Quality Evaluation Pro-
ject, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J.
Spooner, and J.A. Arnold. 1992. Summary Report:
Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 38p.
Hermsmeyer, B. 1992. Document it! Procedures for the
documentation of nonpoint source project data — land
treatment, p. 273-78. In: The National Rural Clean Water
Program Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency - Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/R- 92/006.
Hilske, R.F. 1992. Problems and conflicts associated with
the administration of the Long Pine, Nebraska, RCWP
project, p. 279-85. In: The National Rural Clean Water
Program Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency - Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/R- 92/006.
Siefken, G. 1992. Cedar revetment and streambank stabili-
zation, p. 209-15. In: The National Rural Clean Water
Program Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency - Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006.
Stolzenburg, B. 1992. Information and education — lessons
learned from RCWP. p. 309-11. In: The National Rural
Clean Water Program Symposium Proc. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency - Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006.
USEPA. 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Office of Research and Development, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
498
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Oregon
Tillamook Bay RCWP Project
Tillamook County SWCP and Tillamook Bay Water Quality
Committee. January 1981. "Tillamook Bay Drainage
Basin Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement
Plan".
Tillamook Bay RCWP Project 1981. RCWP Project Appli-
cation.
Tillamook Bay RCWP Project 1982. Plan of Work.
Jackson, J. E. andE. A. Glendening. 1982. Tillamook Bay
Bacteria Study: Fecal Source Summary Report. Oregon
Dept of Environ. Quality.
Tillamook Bay RCWP Project. 1982. Annual Report.
Tillamook Bay RCWP Project. 1983. Annual Report.
Tillamook Bay RCWP Project 1984. Annual Report.
Glendening, E. A. 1985. Water Quality Criteria and Stand-
ards, p. 447-454. In: Perspectives on Nonpoint Source
Pollution. EPA 440/5-85-001.
Jackson, J.E. 1985. Protecting Tillamook Bay Shellfish
with Point/Nonpoint Source Controls, p. 425. In: Per-
spectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution. EPA
440/5-85-001.
Jackson, J.E. 1985. Shellfish Sanitation in Oregon: Can it
be Achieved Through Pollution Source Management? p.
180-184. In: Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution.
EPA 440/5-85-001.
Smolen, M.D., R.P. Maas, J. Spooner, C.A. Jamieson,
S.A. Dressing, andF.J. Humenik. 1985. NWQEP 1985
Annual Report, Appendix: Technical Analysis of Four
Agricultural Water Quality Projects. Biological and Ag-
ricultural Engineering Dept., North Carolina State
University. 90p.
Tillamook Bay RCWP Project 1985. Annual Report.
Tillamook Bay RCWP Project 1986. Annual Report.
Maas, R.P., M.D. Smolen, J. Spooner and A. Patchek.
1987. Benefit/cost analysis of nonpoint source control in
the Tillamook Bay, Oregon watershed. Lake and Reser-
voir Management J., Vol. in, pp. 157-162.
Spooner, J., R.P. Maas, M.D. Smolen, and C.A. Jamieson.
1987. Increasing the Sensitivity of Nonpoint Source
Control Monitoring Programs. In: Symposium on Moni-
toring, Modeling, and Mediating Water Quality.
American Water Resources Association, Bethesda, MD.
p.243-257.
Tillamook Bay RCWP Project. 1987. Annual Report.
Tillamook Bay RCWP Project. 1988. Annual Report.
Arnold, G., S. Schwind, and A. Schaedel. 1989. Til-
lamook Bay Watershed Bacterial Analysis: Water Years
1979- 1987. Department of Environmental Quality,
Portland, OR. 75 p.
Little, C.E. 1989. The Economy of Rain and the Tillamook
Imperative. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,
44(3): 199-202.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, J. Spooner, A. Lanier, K.J.
Adler, S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik.
1989. NWQEP 1988 Annual Report Status of Agricul-
tural Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of
Water, Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington,
DC. EPA 506/9-89/002. 167 p.
Tillamook Bay RCWP. 1989. Annual Report
Tillamook Bay RCWP Project. 1990. Annual Report.
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L.
Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991.
NWQEP Report: Water Quality Monitoring Report for
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Projects - Methods and
Findings from the Rural Clean Water Program. National
Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU Water Quality
Group, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Depart-
ment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Tillamook Bay RCWP Project 1991. Ten-Year Report
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J.
Spooner, and J.A. Arnold. 1992. Summary Report
Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 38p.
Moore, J.A., R. Pederson, and J. Worledge. 1992. Keeping
bacteria out of the bay - the Tillamook experience, p.
71-76. In: The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Office of Research and Development, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006.
USEPA. 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Office of Research and Development, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
499
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Pennsylvania
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP
Project
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Project. 1981. Project Ap-
plication. Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Project. 1982. Comprehen-
sive Monitoring Program. (Revised October 1982).
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Project. 1982. Plan of Work.
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Project 1983. Progress Re-
port.
Conestoga Headwaters Rural Clean Water Program. 1983.
Progress Report Appendix B, Water Quality Data.
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Project 1984. Progress Re-
port.
Young, C.E., E.Lengerich, J.G. Beierlein, 1984. "The
Feasibility of Using a Centralized Collection and Diges-
tion System for Manure: The Case of Lancaster County."
(In) Proceedings of Conference on Poultry Waste Con-
version, (H. C. Jordan and R. E. Graves, eds.),
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. pp.
19-26.
Alwang, J.R. 1985. An Economic Evaluation of Alternative
Manure Management Systems and Manure Hauling. Un-
published Master of Science Thesis, Department of
Agricultural Economic and Rural Sociology, Pennsylva-
nia State University.
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Project. 1985. Progress Re-
port.
Crowder, B.M. and C. E. Young. 1985. Evaluating BMPs
in Pennsylvania's Conestoga Headwaters Rural Clean
Water Program. Proceedings: Nonpoint Pollution Abate-
ment Symposium. Marquette University, Milwaukee,
WI. pp. P-m-A-1 -P-m-A-11.
Crowder, B.M. andC.E. Young. 1985. Modeling Agricul-
tural Nonpoint Source Pollution for Economic Evaluation
of the Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Project. Staff
Report No. AGES850614. Economic Research Service,
USDA, Washington, D.C. 70 pp.
Crowder, B.M. and C.E. Young. 1985. Modeling the Cost
Effectiveness of Soil Conservation Practices for Stream
Protectioa" Selected paper presented during the annual
meetings, Amherst, MA.
Young, C.E., B.M. Crowder, J.S. Shortle, and J.R. Al-
wang. 1985. Nutrient Management on Dairy Farms in
Southeastern Pennsylvania." Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 443-445.
Anderson, R., andJ. Graybill. 1986. Conestoga Headwaters
RCWP Nutrient Management Special Report
Crowder, B.M., and C.E. Young. 1986. An Economic
Analysis of the Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Project
Draft. Proposed ERS Technical Bulletin.
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Project. 1986. Progress Re-
port.
Crowder, B.M. and C.E. Young. 1986. Managing Nutrient
Losses: Some Empirical Results on the Potential Water
Quality Effects. Northeast Journal of Agricultural and
Resource Economics, pp 130-136.
Fishel, O.K., and P.L. Lietman, 1986. Occurrence of
Nitrate and Herbicides in Ground Water in the Upper
Conestoga River Basin, Pennsylvania: Water-Quality
Study of the Conestoga River Headwaters, Pennsylvania.
U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations
Report 85-4202, 8p.
Gerhart, J.M., 1986. Ground Water Recharge and its Effect
on Nitrate Concentration Beneath a Manured Field Site
in Pennsylvania. Ground Water 24(4):483-489.
Young, C.E., J.R. Alwang, and B.M. Crowder. 1986.
Alternatives for Dairy Manure Management Staff Report
No. AGES860422, Economic Research Service, USDA,
Washington, D.C. 35 pp.
Chichester, D.C. 1987. Conestoga Headwaters Rural Clean
Water Program in Pennsylvania. U.S. Geological Survey
pamphlet, 6p.
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Project 1987. Progress Re-
port.
Brown, M.J. 1988. Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Project
Clean WaDER 3(2).
Chichester, D.C. 1988. Evaluation of Agricultural Best-
management Practices in the Conestoga River Headwa-
ters, Pennsylvania: Methods of Data Collection and
Analysis, and Description of Study Areas. Water-Quality
Study of the Conestoga River Headwaters, Pennsylvania:
U.S. Geological Survey Open- File Report 88-96.
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Project. 1988. Progress
Report. USDA- ASCS, PA State ASCS Office, Harris-
burg, PA. 162 p.
Crowder, B. and C.E. Young. 1988. Managing Farm
Nutrients — Tradeoffs for Surface and Groundwater
Quality. Agricultural Economic Report Number 583,
Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC.
22pp.
Fishel, O.K. andP.L. Lietman. 1988. Occurrence of Nitrate
and Herbicides in Ground Water in the Upper Conestoga
River Basin, Pennsylvania. Proceedings: Agricultural
Impacts on Ground Water - A Conference, Association
of Ground Water Scientists and Engineers. Des Moines,
Iowa. pp. 317-323.
Lietman, P.L., J.M. Gerhart, and K.L. Wetzel. 1989.
Comparison of Methods for Sampling Dissolved Nitro-
gen in a Fractured Carbonate-Rock Aquifer. Ground
Water Monitoring Review 9(1): 197-202.
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Project 1989. Progress
Report USDA- ASCS, PA State ASCS Office, Harris-
burg, PA. 169p.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, S. Spooner, A. Lanier,
S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik. 1989.
NWQEP 1988 Annual Report Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of Water,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC. EPA
506/9-89/002. 167 p.
500
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Pennsylvania
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP
Project (continued)
Lietman, P.L., and D.W. Hall. 1991. Herbicides in Sur-
face and Ground Water of Agricultural, Carbonate
Valleys, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, p. 38-56. In:
Pesticides in the Next Decade: The Challenges Ahead,
Proceedings of the Third National Research Conference
on Pesticides. D.L. Weigmann (ed.). Virginia Water
Resources Research Center, Virginia Polytechnic Insti-
tute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L.
Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991.
NWQEP Annual Report: Water Quality Monitoring Re-
port for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Projects - Methods and Findings from the Rural Clearn
Water Program. National Water Quality Evaluation Pro-
ject, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC.
Anderson, R. 1992. Nutrient management educational in-
itiative: using demonstration and research plots and the
Penn State Nitrogen Quick Test in the Upper Conestoga
RCWP. p. 321-31. In: The National Rural Clean Water
Program Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency - Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006.
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Project. 1992. Ten-Year
Report. USDA- ASCS, Pennsylvania State Office, Har-
risburg, PA. 329 p.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J.
Spooner, and J.A. Arnold. 1992. Summary Report:
Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 38p.
Hall, D.W. 1992. Effects of nutrient management on nitrate
levels in ground-water near Ephrata, Pennsylvania. Jour-
nal of Ground Water 30(5): 720- 730.
Hall, D.W. and D.W. Risser. 1992. Effects of nutrient
management on nitrogen flux through a karst aquifer in
the Conestoga River Headwaters, Pennsylvania, In: The
National RCWP Symposium Proceedings, September 13
- 17, 1992, Orlando, Florida. Published by the Terrene
Institute, Washington, D.C.
Koerkle, E.H. 1992. Effects of nutrient management on
surface water quality in a small watershed in Pennsylva-
nia, p. 193-207. In: The National Rural Clean Water
Program Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency - Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006.
Lietman, P.L. 1992. Effects of pipe-outlet terracing on
runoff water quality at an agricultural field site, Con-
estoga River Headwaters, Pennsylvania, p. 97-113. In:
The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium
Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/R-92/006.
Ressler, L. 1992. Manure testing and manure marketing:
tools for nutrient management, p. 217-21. In: The Na-
tional Rural Clean Water Program Symposium Proc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Re-
search and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/R-92/006.
Stoltzfus, J., L. Ressler, andR. Anderson. 1992. Involving
the agricultural chemical industry in nutrient manage-
ment, p. 333-35. In: The National Rural Clean Water
Program Symposium Proc. U. S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency - Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/R- 92/006.
USEPA. 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Office of Research and Development, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
Wall, D.W. and D.W. Risser. 1992. Effects of nutrient
management on nitrogen flux through a karst aquifier,
Conestoga River Headwaters Basin, Pennsylvania, p.
115-30. In: The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Office of Research and Development, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006.
Fishel, O.K., M.J. Brown, K.M. Kostelnik, and M.A.
Howse. In press. Description and water quality of the
Little Conestoga Creek headwaters prior to the imple-
mentation of nutrient management. USGS WRI, U.S.
Geological Survey.
Hall, D.W. In press. Effects of pipe-outlet terracing on
ground-water quality near Churchtown, Pennsylvania.
Journal of Ground Water.
501
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
South Dakota
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP
Project
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP Project. 1981. Applica-
tion for RCWP Funds.
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP Project 1982. Annual
RCWP Progress Report - Project 20.
South Dakota State Coordinating Committee. 1982. Com-
prehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP.
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP Project 1983. Annual
RCWP Progress Report - Project 20.
Erickson, M. and J. McMartin. 1984. Crop Budgets by
Alternative Tillage Systems and Crop Rotations for Se-
lected Soils, Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett Rural Clean
Water Project Area, South Dakota. Unpubl. Working
Mat. Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP Project. 1984. Annual
RCWP Progress Report - Project 20.
Kimball, C.G. 1985. Monitoring the Effects to the Ground
Water System Attributing to Agricultural Practices, p.
125-128. In: Perspectives onNonpoint Source Pollution.
EPA 440/5-85-001.
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP Project. 1985. Annual
RCWP Progress Report - Project 20.
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP Project 1986. Annual
RCWP Progress Report - Project 20.
Bischoff, J.H. 1987. An Interim Report on the Rural Clean
Water Program (RCWP) at Oakwood-Poinsett Lakes
Area (1982-1986). WRI Water Resources Institute, En-
gineering and Environmental Research Center, South
Dakota State University, Brookings, SD. 45p.
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP Project 1987. Annual
RCWP Progress Report - Project 20.
Oakwood Lakes-Poinsett RCWP Project 1987. Annual
Progress Report - Project 20, CM&E Technical Report
(Water Quality Land Use Data Analysis).
Piper, Steve, MarkRibaudo, and A. Lundeen. 1987. "The
Recreational Benefits from an Improvement in Water
Quality of Oakwood Lakes and Lake Poinsett South
Dakota." North Central Journal of Agricultural Econom-
ics, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 279-288.
Ullery, C.H., G. Kimball, A.R. Bender, D.R. German, and
C.G.Carlson. 1987. The Oakwood Lakes-Poinsett Ru-
ral Clean Water Program Project: Addressing
Agricultural Nonpoint Pollution of Groundwater.
ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, Paper No. NCR-87-301. 7p.
Bender, A.R. 1988. Contaminant Movement in Clayey
Glacial Till. ASAE Paper No. 88-2606, ASAE, St.
Joseph, MI.
Kimball, C.G. 1988. Ground-Water Monitoring Tech-
niques for Non- Point-Source Pollution Studies, p.
430-441. In: Ground-Water Contamination: Field Meth-
ods, ASTM STP 963, A.G. Collins and A.I. Johnson,
Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Phila-
delphia.
Kimball, C.G. 1988. Temporal and Spatial Distribution of
Ground Water Contaminants Attributed to Agricultural
Practices. In: NWWA Agricultural Impacts on Ground
Water Conference, Held Des Moines, IA, March 1988.
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP Project. 1988. Annual
RCWP Progress Report - Project 20.
Oakwood Lakes-Poinsett RCWP Project 1988. Annual
Progress Report - Project 20, CM&E Technical Report
Bender, A.R., J. Goodman, and C. Ullery. 1989. Using
RCWP for Developing Non-point Groundwater Monitor-
ing Projects. ASAE, St Joseph, MI, Paper No. 89-2527.
Bischoff, J.H. and C.G. Carlson. 1989. Applications of
NTRM (Nilrogen-Tillage-Residue Management) Model-
ing in South Dakota. In: Proceedings 1989 RCWP
Workshop in Burlington, VT. U.S. EPA, Nonpoint
Source Branch, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 13p.
Bjorneberg, D.J. and J.H. Bischoff. 1989. An Automated
Soil Water Monitoring and Leachate Sampling System.
ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, Paper No. 89-2533.
German, D.R. and C.G. Kimball. 1989. Determining the
Role of Ground Water in the Nutrient and Hydraulic
Budget of a Prairie Lake. ASAE, St Joseph, MI, Paper
No. 89-2528. 17p.
Goodman, J. and C.H. Ullery. 1989. Using RCWP for
Developing Nonpoint Groundwater Monitoring Projects.
ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, Paper No. 89- 2527.
Hamilton, L.J. 1989. Water Resources of Brookings and
Kingsbury Counties, South Dakota. Water-Resources
Investigation Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver,
CO. 82 p.
Kimball, C.G. and J. Goodman. 1989. Non-Point Source
Pesticide Contamination of Shallow Ground Water.
ASAE, St Joseph, MI, Paper No. 89- 2529.
Lemme, G., C.G. Carlson, B.R. Khakural, L. Knutson, and
L. Zavesky. 1989. Aquifer Contamination Vulnerabil-
ity Maps: A Water Resource Protection Planning Tool,
Lake Poinsett Pilot Project SDSU Plant Science Pam-
phlet #18. South Dakota State University, Brookings,
SD. 13p.
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP Project 1989. 1989
Annual Progress Report, Executive Summary. 1 Ip.
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP Project 1989. 1989
Annual Progress Report. 74 p.
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP Project. 1989. Compre-
hensive Monitoring and Evaluation Technical Report,
Project 20. May 1989.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, S. Spooner, A. Lanier,
S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik. 1989.
NWQEP 1988 Annual Report Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of Water,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC. EPA
506/9-89/002. 167 p.
Bender, A.R. and J.H. Bischoff. 1990. Contaminant
Movement in Clayey Glacial Till. American Institute of
Hydrology, USSR, June 1990.
Bischoff, J.H., A.R. Bender, and C.G. Carlson. 1990. The
Effects of No-till and Moldboard Plow Tillage on the
Movement of Nitrates and Pesticides Through the Vadose
Zone. In: National Water Well Association 1990 Cluster
of Conferences. National Water Well Association, Dub-
lin, OH. 17p.
502
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
South Dakota
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP
Project (continued)
Cameron-Howell, K. 1990. Oakwood Lakes/Poinsett
RCWP in South Dakota: Lessons Learned. In: Nonpoint
Source Watershed Workshop: Nonpoint Source Solu-
tions, held January 29- 31, 1990, New Orleans, LA.
U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. lip.
Carlson, C.G., R. Dean, and G. Lemme. 1990. Prescrip-
tion Planning: An Approach to Nonpoint Pollution
Problems. J. Soil and Water Conservation, 45(2): 239-
241.
German, D.R. 1990. Useofthe AGNPS Model for South
Dakota Watersheds or Confessions of a Model Abuser.
In: Proceedings 1989 RCWP Workshop in Burlington,
VT. U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Branch, Office of
Water, Washington, DC. lip.
Goodman, J. 1990. Approaches to Identifying Ground-
Water Quality Problems. In: Nonpoint Source
Watershed Workshop: Nonpoint Source Solutions, held
January 29-31, 1990, New Orleans, LA. U.S. EPA,
Washington, DC. 5 p.
Goodman, J. 1990. Evaluation of Site-Specific Ground
Water Quality Data. In: Nonpoint Source Watershed
Workshop: Nonpoint Source Solutions, held January
29-31, 1990, New Orleans, LA. U.S. EPA, Washing-
ton, DC. 10 p.
Goodman, J., M. Kuck, R. Larson, D. Clayton, K.
Cameron-Howell, A. Bender, L. Holtclaw, D. German,
J. Bischoff, J. Davis, C.G. Kimball, T. Lemme, C.
Berry, C. Ullery, and G. Carlson. 1991. Ten- Year
Report: Oakwood Lakes-Poinsett Rural Clean Water
Program 1981-1991. South Dakota Department of En-
vironment and Natural Resources, South Dakota State
University, Water Resources Institute, Pierre, SD.
Lemme, G., C.G. Carlson, R. Dean, and B. Khakural.
1990. Contamination Vulnerability Indexes: A Water
Quality Planning Tool. J. Soil and Water Conservation,
45(2): 349-351.
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP Project. 1990. Compre-
hensive Monitoring and Evaluation Technical Report,
Project 20 - 1989 - South Dakota.
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L.
Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991.
NWQEP Annual Report: Water Quality Monitoring Re-
port for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Projects - Methods and Findings from the Rural Clean
Water Program. National Water Quality Evaluation Pro-
ject, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC.
Cameron-Howell, K. 1992. Factors leading to permanent
adoption of best management practices in South Dakota
Rural Clean Water Program projects. 255-59. In: The
National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium Proc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Re-
search and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/R-92/006.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J.
Spooner, and J.A. Arnold. 1992. Summary Report
Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 38p.
German, D.R. 1992. Nutrient loadings and chlorophyll a in
the Oakwood Lakes system, p. 15-31. In: The National
Rural Clean Water Program Symposium Proc. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Research
and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-
92/006.
Goodman, J., J.M. Collins, andK.B. Rapp. 1992. Nitrate
and pesticide occurence in shallow groundwater during
the Oakwood Lakes-Poinsett RCWP project, p. 33-45.
In: The National Rural C lean Water Program Symposium
Proc. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/R-92/006.
Kuck,M. andJ. Goodman. 1992. Coordination is the project
cornerstone, p. 235-38. In: The National Rural Clean
Water Program Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency - Office of Research and Develop-
ment, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006.
USEPA. 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Office of Research and Development, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
503
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Tennessee/Kentucky
Reelfoot Lake RCWP Project
Tennessee Department of Public Health, Division of Water
Quality Control. 1978. Reelfoot Lake Pesticide Survey,
Lake and Obion Counties.
Reelfoot Lake RCWP Project. 1979. Application for
RCWP Grant, Reelfoot Lake Drainage Area 57pp.
USDA-Soil Conservation Service. 1979. Land Treatment
Plan for Erosion Control and Water Quality Improve-
ment, Reelfoot Lake Drainage Area. 34pp.
Reelfoot Lake RCWP Project. 1980. Plan of Work.
Tennessee Department of Public Health, Division of Water
Quality Control. 1981. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
Reelfoot-Indian Creek Watershed RCWP. 21pp.
Reelfoot Lake RCWP Project. 1982. Reelfoot Lake RCWP
Annual Progress Report 151pp.
Smith, W.L. andT.D. Pitts. 1982. ReelfootLake: Summary
Report. University of Tennessee, Martin, TN. 128pp.
Reelfoot Lake RCWP Project. 1983. Reelfoot Lake RCWP
Annual Progress Report
Reelfoot Lake RCWP Project. 1984. Reelfoot Lake RCWP
Annual Progress Report
Reelfoot Lake RCWP Project. 1985. Reelfoot Lake RCWP
Annual Progress Report.
Denton, G.M. 1986. Summary of the Sedimentation Stud-
ies of Reelfoot Lake, 1982-1986.
Reelfoot Lake RCWP Project. 1986. Reelfoot Lake RCWP
Annual Progress Report.
Denton, G.M. 1987. Water Quality at Reelfoot Lake,
1976-1986.
Reelfoot Lake RCWP Project. 1987. Reelfoot Lake RCWP
Annual Progress Report
Reelfoot Lake RCWP Project. 1988. Reelfoot Lake RCWP
Annual Progress Report.
Tennessee Dept of Health and Environment and US Geo-
logical Survey. 1988. Stream Flow and Water-Quality
for Three Major Tributaries to Reelfoot Lake, West
Tennessee, October 1987 - March 1988.
Reelfoot Lake RCWP Project. 1989. Reelfoot Lake RCWP
Annual Progress Report.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, S. Spooner, A. Lanier,
S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik. 1989.
NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of Water,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC. EPA
506/9-89/002. 167 p.
Reelfoot Lake RCWP Project. 1990. Reelfoot Lake RCWP
Annual Progress Report
Mclntryre, S. andJ.W. Naney. 1991. Sediment Deposition
in a Forested Inland Wetland with a Steep-Farmed Wa-
tershed. J. Soil and Water Conservation, 46(l):64-66.
Reelfoot Lake RCWP Project. 1991. Ten-Year Report.
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L.
Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991.
NWQEP Report: Water Quality Monitoring Report for
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Projects - Methods and
Findings from the Rural Clean Water Program. National
Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU Water Quality
Group, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Depart-
ment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J.
Spooner, and J.A. Arnold. 1992. Summary Report
Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 38p.
GAO. 1992. Reelfoot Lake Lease Terms Met, But Lake
Continues to Deteriorate. United States General Account-
ing Office, Washington, DC. GAO/RCED-92-99. 63p.
Lewis, M.E., J.W. Garrett, andA.B. Hoos. 1992. Non-
point-Source Pollutant Discharges of the Three Major
Tributaries to Reelfoot Lake, West Tennessee, October
1987 through September 1989. U. S. Geological Survey,
Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4031.
USEPA. 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Office of Research and Development, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
504
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Utah
Snake Creek RCWP Project
Mountainland Association of Governments. 1979. Appli-
cation for Rural Clean Water Program Funds, Snake
Creek, Wasatch County, Utah. 34 pp.
Mountainland Association of Governments. 1980. Snake
Creek RCWP Monitoring Study Progress Report. Provo,
Utah. 53pp.
Snake Creek Experimental Rural Clean Water Program.
1980. Plan of Work. 25pp.
Snake Creek Local Coordinating Committee. 1982. Annual
Progress Report on the Snake Creek Rural Clean Water
Program. Wasatch County, Utah.
Snake Creek Local Coordinating Committee. 1983. Annual
Progress Report on the Snake Creek Rural Clean Water
Program. Wasatch County, Utah.
Snake Creek Local Coordinating Committee. 1984. Annual
Progress Report on the Snake Creek Rural Clean Water
Program. Wasatch County, Utah.
Sowby and Berg Consultants. 1984. Deer Creek Reservoir
and Proposed Jordanelle Reservoir Water Quality Man-
agement Plan. Prepared for Wasatch and Summit
Counties, Provo, Utah.
Snake Creek Local Coordinating Committee. 1985. Annual
Progress Report on the Snake Creek Rural Clean Water
Program. Wasatch County, Utah.
Snake Creek Local Coordinating Committee. 1986. Annual
Progress Report on the Snake Creek Rural Clean Water
Program. Wasatch County, Utah.
Wann, D. 1986. A "Fitting Solution" at Snake Creek,
Utah. EPA Journal. 12(4): 15-16:1986.
Snake Creek Local Coordinating Committee, 1987. Annual
Progress Report on the Snake Creek Rural Clean Water
Program. Wasatch County, Utah.
Brichford, S. 1989. Project Spotlight: Snake Creek Rural
Clean Water Program, Wasatch County, Utah. NWQEP
NOTES 37:2-3.
Little, C.E. 1989. Geology and Survival on the Snake
River Plain. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.
44(2): 127-129.
Mountainland Association of Governments. October, 1989.
1988 Water Quality Progress Report on the Snake Creek
Rural Clean Water Program. Wasatch County, Utah.
72p.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, S. Spooner, A. Larder,
S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik. 1989.
NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of Water,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC. EPA
506/9-89/002. 167 p.
Snake Creek Local Coordinating Committee. 1991. Snake
Creek Rural Clean Water Program Wasatch County,
Utah Ten- Year Report. October 22, 1991. 35p. plus
appendixes.
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L.
Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991.
NWQEP Annual Report Water Quality Monitoring Re-
port for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Projects - Methods and Findings from the Rural Clearn
Water Program. National Water Quality Evaluation Pro-
ject, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J.
Spooner, and J.A. Arnold. 1992. Summary Report
Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 38p.
Loveless, R, T. Nelson, andH. Judd. 1992. Utah's Snake
Creek RCWP stimulates additional efforts to improve
water quality in Wasatch County, p. 301-07. In: The
National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium Proc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Re-
search and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/R-92/006.
USEPA. 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Office of Research and Development, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
505
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Vermont
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project. 1979. An Application for
Assistance for a Rural Clean Water Program - St. Albans
Bay, Lake Carmi Watersheds. Vermont Agency of En-
vironmental Conservation.
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project. 1980. St. Albans Bay Project
Plan of Work. 1980.
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project. 1981. Comprehensive Moni-
toring and Evaluation Plan for the St. Albans Bay.
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project. 1981. St. Albans Bay
Watershed RCWP Project Comprehensive Monitoring &
Evaluation Progress Report For June - November 1981.
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project. 1982. Annual Report.
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project. 1982. Comprehensive Moni-
toring and Evaluation - Progress Report for 1981.
Young, C.E. 1982. Socioeconomic Evaluation - St. Albans
Bay, Vermont -1982 Annual Report.
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project. 1983. Annual Report.
Laible, J.P. 1984. A Finite Element/Finite Difference
Wave Model for Depth Varying Nearly Horizontal Flow.
Adv. Water Resources 7(1):2-14.
Ribaudo, M.O., C.E. Young andDJ. Epp. 1984. Recrea-
tion Benefits from Improvements in Water Quality at St.
Albans Bay, Vermont. Staff Report no. AGES840127.
Economic Research Service. U. S. Department of Agri-
culture.
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project. 1984. Annual Report.
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project. 1984. Comprehensive Moni-
toring and Evaluation -1983 Progress Report.
Young, C.E. 1984. Perceived Water Quality and the Value
of Seasonal Homes. Water Resources Bulletin 20:153.
Young, C.E. andF.A. Teti. 1984. The Influence of Water
Quality on the Value of Recreational Property Adjacent
to St. Albans Bay, Vermont. Staff Report No.
AGES831116. Economic Research Service. U.S Depart-
ment of Agriculture.
Hopkins, R.B. and J.C. Clausen. 1985. Land Use Moni-
toring and Assessment for Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control, Perspective on NFS Pollution. U.S. EPA 440/5-
85-001. p. 25-29.
Clausen, J.C. 1985. The St. Albans Bay Watershed RCWP:
A Case Study of Monitoring and Assessment. In: Per-
spective on NFS Pollution. U.S. EPA 440/5-85-001. p
21-24.
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project. 1985. Annual Report.
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project. 1985. Comprehensive Moni-
toring and Evaluation - 1984 Progress Report.
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project. 1985. Comprehensive Moni-
toring and Evaluation -1985 Progress Report.
Ribaudo, M., C.E. Young, and J.S. Shortle. 1986. Impacts
of Water Quality Improvement on Site Visitation: A
Probabilistic Modeling Approach. Water Resources Bul-
letin 22(4): 559-563.
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project. 1986. Annual Report.
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project. 1986. Comprehensive Moni-
toring and Evaluation - Progress Report May 1986.
Frevert, K. andB. Crowder. 1987. Analysis of Agricultural
Nonpoint Pollution Control Options in the St. Albans Bay
Watershed. Staff Report No. AGES870423. Economic
Research Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project. 1987. Annual Report
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project. 1987. Comprehensive Moni-
toring and Evaluation Progress Report for June, 1987 -
August, 1987.
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project. 1987. Comprehensive Moni-
toring and Evaluation Progress Report for September,
1987-November, 1987.
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project. 1988. Annual Report
Clausen, J.C. and D.W. Meals, Jr. 1989. Water Quality
Achievable With Agricultural Best Management Prac-
tices. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
44(6): 593-596.
Little, C.E. 1989. Annie-Fanny-Mike and the Dunsmore
Proposition. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
44(1): 16-19.
Meals, D.W. 1989. Bacteriological Water Quality in Ver-
mont Agricultural Watersheds Undergoing Land
Treatment. Lake and Reservoir Management 5(1):53-
62.
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project. 1989. Annual Report
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, S. Spooner, A. Lanier,
S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik. 1989.
NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of Water,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC. EPA
506/9-89/002. 167 p.
Young, C.E. and J.S. Shortle. 1989. Benefits and Costs of
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution of St Albans
Bay. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 44(1):64-
67.
Clausen, J.C. 1990. Evaluating Individual BMPs and Mod-
els. In: Nonpoint Source Watershed Workshop:
Nonpoint Source Solutions. U.S. EPA 625/4- 91/027.
p!43-144.
Clausen, J.C. and G.D. Johnson. 1990. Lake Level Influ-
ences on Sediment and Nutrient Retention in a Lakeside
Wetland. J. Environmental Quality 19(1):83- 88.
Meals, D.W. 1990. Developing NFS Monitoring Systems
for Rural Surface Waters: Watershed Trends, In: Non-
point Source Watershed Workshop: Nonpoint Source
Solutions. U.S. EPA 625/4- 91/027. p96-98.
Meals, D.W. 1990. Surface Water Trends and Land
Treatment In: Nonpoint Source Watershed Workshop:
Nonpoint Source Solutions. U.S. EPA 625/4- 91/027.
p!36-142.
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project. 1990. Comprehensive Moni-
toring and Evaluation Progress Report For June, 1989 -
August, 1990.
Meals, D. and Gale, J. 1991. Project Spotlight: St. Albans
Bay Vermont RCWP Project - Highlights of the Ver-
mont's St. Albans Bay RCWP Project 10-Year Report
NWQEP NOTES, 49:1-3.
506
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Vermont
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project
(continued)
Meals, D., G. Rogers, J. Jamrog, T. Gould, D. Lester, J.
Clausen, G. LaBar, A. Mclntosh, and W. Jokela. 1991.
St. Albans Bay Rural Clean Water Program - Final
Report, 1980- 1990. Submitted by: Vermont RCWP
Coordinating Committee with assistance from: USDA-
SCS, Water Resources Research Center, University of
Vermont, USDA-ASCS, and the Extension Service, Uni-
versity of Vermont, in cooperation with: Franklin County
Natural Resources Conservation District 508p.
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L.
Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991.
NWQEP Annual Report Water Quality Monitoring Re-
port for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Projects - Methods and Findings from the Rural Clearn
Water Program. National Water Quality Evaluation Pro-
ject, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC.
St. Albans Bay RCWP Project 1991. St. Albans Bay Rural
Clean Water Program: Final Report 1991.
Clausen, J.C., D.W. Meals, and E. A. Cassell. 1992.
Estimation of lag time for water quality response to
BMPs. p. 173-79. In: The National Rural Clean Water
Program Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency - Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006.
Croft, R. and J. Mahood. 1992. A method for ranking farms
and tracking land treatment progress in the St. Albans
Bay watershed RCWP project, Vermont, p. 351-59. In:
The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium
Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/R-92/006.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J.
Spooner, and J.A. Arnold. 1992. Summary Report:
Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 38p.
Meals, D.W. 1992. Water quality trends in the St. Albans
Bay Watershed, Vermont following RCWP land treat-
ment, p. 47-58. In: The National Rural Clean Water
Program Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency - Office of Research and Development
Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006.
Meals, D.W. 1992. Relating land use and water quality in
the St. Albans Bay Watershed, Vermont, p. 131-43. In:
The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium
Proc. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/R-92/006.
Schlagel, J.D. 1992. Spatial and temporal change in animal
waste application in the Jewett Brook Watershed, Ver-
mont: 1983-1990. p. 145-50. In: The National Rural
Clean Water Program Symposium Proc. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency - Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006.
USEPA. 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Office of Research and Development, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
507
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Virginia
Nansemond - Chuckatuck RCWP
Project
Neilson, B. J. 1977. Nonpoint Source Sampling in the Hamp-
ton Roads Area. A Report to the Hampton Roads Water
Quality Agency. Special Report No. 128 in Applied
Marine Science and Ocean Engineering. Virginia Inst of
Marine Sciences.
Neilson, B.J. 1978. Summary of the Hampton Roads 208
Water Quality Modeling Studies. A Report to the Hamp-
ton Roads Water Quality Agency. Special ReportNo. 170
in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering. Vir-
ginia Inst of Marine Sciences.
Cox, C.B. 1979. Nonpoint Pollution Control: Best Manage-
ment Practices Recommended for Virginia. Special
Report No. 9. Virginia Water Research Center,
Blacksburg, VA.
Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP Project. 1980. Project Pro-
posal.RCWP Local Coordinating Committee, County of
Isle of Wight and the City of Suffolk, Southeastern
Virginia. Nansemond- Chuckatuck Rural Clean Water
Project, City of Suffolk and Isle of Wight County.
Includes the following Appendices:
a. Presnell-Kidd Assoc., Inc. (for City of Norfolk, Va. Dept.
of Utilities) Phase 1 Water Quality Management Study Nor-
folk-Western Lakes Reservoir Systems, (no date)
b. Virginia State Water Control Board. Chuckatuck Creek
Non-point Source Bacteriological Study. April 24, 1980.
c. Virginia Department of Health. Notices of Shellfish Area
Condemnation for Chuckatuck Creek dated: 28 June 1979;
Nansemond River dated 16 August 1976, 9 March 1972, and
6 November 1963.
d. Virginia State Water Control Board. State Water Quality
Management Plan for the Hampton Roads Planning Area.
Adopted March 23-25, 1980.
e. Kilch, L.R. andB.R. Neilson. Field and Modeling Studies
of Water Quality in the Nansemond River. A Report to the
Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency. Special Report No.
133 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Gloucester Point, Va.
December 1977.
f. Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency. Hampton Roads
Water Quality Management Plan. Executive Summary.
(Draft, no date)
g. City of Norfolk, Department of Utilities. Summary Report.
Western Reservoir System Water Quality Management Plan-
Phase II. June 1980.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Exten-
sion Division. 1980. Management Practices in
Agriculture and Forestry. Publication 4 WCB 1.
Blacksburg, Va.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Exten-
sion Division. 1980. Best Management Practices for the
Urban Dweller. Publication 4 WCB 2. Blacksburg, Va.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Exten-
sion Division. 1980. Best Management Practices for
Row-Crop Agriculture. Publication 4 WCB 3.
Blacksburg, Va.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Exten-
sion Division. 1980. Best Management Practices for Beef
and Dairy Production. Publication 4 WCB 4. Blacksburg,
Va.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Exten-
sion Division. 1980. Best Management Practices for
Swine Operations. Publication 4 WCB 5. Blacksburg,
Va.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Exten-
sion Division. 1980. Integrated Pest Management-a Best
Management Practice Publication 390-409. Blacksburg,
VA.
Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP Project 1981. Best Man-
agement Practices, as approved by EPA in letter from
Peter Wise to Orin Hanson.
Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP Project. 1981. Plan of
Work.
USDA-SCS and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University. 1981. Soil Survey of City of Suffolk, Va.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Exten-
sion Division. 1981. Best Management Practices for
Tobacco Production. Publication 4 WCB 6. Blacksburg,
Va.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Exten-
sion Division. 1981. Conservation Tillage a Best
Management Practice. Publication 4 WCB 7.
Blacksburg, VA.
Kerns, W.R. R.A. Kramer, W.T. McSweeney, R. Gree-
nough, and R.W. Stavros. 1982. Nonpoint Source
Management: A Case Study of Farmers' Opinions and
Policy Analysis. Unpublished Report Virginia Polytech-
nic Inst. and State University. Blacksburg, Va.
Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP Project. 1982. Annual Re-
port.
Bosco, C. and Neilson, B.J. 1983. Intepretation of Water
Quality Data from the Nansemond and Chuckatuck Es-
tuaries with Respect to Point and Nonpoint Sources of
Pollution. A Report to the Hampton Roads Water Quality
Agency. Virginia Inst. of Marine Sciences.
Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP Project 1983. Annual Re-
port.
Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP Project 1984. Annual Re-
port.
Kerns, W.R. and R.A. Kramer. 1985. Farmers' Attitudes
Toward Nonpoint Pollution Control and Participation in
Cost-Share Programs. Water Resources Bulletin,
21(2):207-215.
Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP Project 1985. Annual Re-
port.
Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP Project. 1986. Annual Re-
port.
Fisher, Paul. 1987. Cleaning up Nansemond-Chuckatuck:
A Threatened Success Story. In: American Society of
Civil Engineers 1987 Meeting.
Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP Project 1987. Annual Re-
port.
Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP Project 1988. Annual Re-
port.
Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP Project 1989. Annual Re-
port.
508
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Virginia
Nansemond - Chuckatuck RCWP
Project (continued)
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, S. Spooner, A. Lanier,
S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik. 1989.
NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of Water,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC. EPA
506/9-89/002. 167 p.
Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP Project 1990. Annual Re-
port.
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L.
Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991.
NWQEP Report: Water Quality Monitoring Report for
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Projects - Methods and
Findings from the Rural Clean Water Program. National
Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU Water Quality
Group, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Depart-
ment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J.
Spooner, and J.A. Arnold. 1992. Summary Report
Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 38p.
Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP Project. 1992. Ten-Year
Report
USEPA. 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Office of Research and Development, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
Kramer, R.A. and D.L. Faulkner. Income Tax Provisions
Related to Agricultural BMPs. (Working Draft) Agricul-
tural Economics Department. Virginia Polytechnic Inst
and State University. Blacksburg, Va. (no date)
509
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Wisconsin
Lower Manitowoc River
Watershed RCWP Project
Lower Manitowoc River RCWP Project 1979. Application.
The Lower Manitowoc River Priority Watershed Plan,
1979. Wisconsin. 50pp.
Lower Manitowoc River Watershed RCWP, (no date). 44
pp.
Lower Manitowoc River RCWP Project. 1982. Annual
Report. Wisconsin. 68 pp.
Lower Manitowoc River RCWP Project 1983. Annual
Report. Wisconsin.
Lower Manitowoc River RCWP Project 1984. Annual
Report. Wisconsin.
Lower Manitowoc River RCWP Project 1985. Annual
Report Wisconsin.
Lower Manitowoc River RCWP Project. 1986. Annual
Report. Wisconsin.
Lower Manitowoc River RCWP Project. 1987. Annual
Report Wisconsin.
Lower Manitowoc River RCWP Project 1988. Annual
Report. Wisconsin.
Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, S. Spooner, A. Lanier,
S.W. Coffey, T.B. Bennett, and F.J. Humenik. 1989.
NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. EPA Office of Water,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC. EPA
506/9-89/002. 167 p.
Lower Manitowoc River RCWP Project. 1990. Annual
Report Wisconsin.
Lower Manitowoc River RCWP Project 1991. Annual
Report. Wisconsin.
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L.
Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991.
NWQEP Annual Report: Water Quality Monitoring Re-
port for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Projects - Methods and Findings from the Rural Cleam
Water Program. National Water Quality Evaluation Pro-
ject, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J.
Spooner, and J.A. Arnold. 1992. Summary Report:
Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engi-
neering Department, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC. 38p.
USEPA. 1992. The National Rural Clean Water Program
Symposium Proc. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Office of Research and Development, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA/625/R-92/006, 400p.
510
-------
Appendix V
FARM
OPERATOR
SURVEY DESIGN
Sample Design and
Implementation
The focus of the Farm Operator Survey was
to determine whether there are differences
between farmer operators who chose to
participate in the RCWP and those who did not
in terms of their personal characteristics, farm
structure, attitudes, and behavior. The
population included all farms in the RCWP
critical areas regardless of the program
enrollment status of the operator. A total sample
of 1000 interviews was determined to be
sufficient to provide a representative sample.
The USDA-ASCS provided lists of names,
addresses, and telephone numbers for both
participants and non-participants from each
designated RCWP critical area. In almost all
cases, fairly complete information was obtained
for all project participants, as well as for all farm
operators who were eligible, but did not
participate. Lists specified which farm operators
were participants and which were
non-participants. Comparison of these two
groups (i.e., participants and non-participants)
forms the basis for much of the analysis.
The sampling design was based on advice
from a statistical consultant and selected members
of the advisory committee. Equal numbers of
participants and non-participants for each project
area were chosen to minimize the variance
between the two groups. The sample size for
each RCWP project area was chosen to be
proportional to the cubic root of the total number
of farmers in the group with the smaller number
of cases (RCWP participants or
non-participants). For example, of the 192
participants and 65 non-participants in the
Alabama project, the selected sample size for
both groups is proportional to the cube root of 65.
This sampling technique represents a
compromise between a proportional allocation
technique which optimizes the differences
between the groups and an equal allocation design
which optimizes the estimation of the mean of the
populations.
Since there are several project areas with only
a few farmer operators in one or both groups, it
was decided to make the sample size for each
group in the project area equal to the number of
cases in the smaller group if either or both groups
had 20 or fewer cases. In order to produce a total
sample size of 500 for each group, a
proportionality constant (8.09) was used to
compute the sample size for areas with groups
containing more than 20 cases. To continue with
the Alabama project example, the final sample
size for each group was 8.09 x (65) ' = 33.
It is important to note that while this sampling
scheme was used to make comparisons between
the RCWP participants and non-participants,
sampling weights (raising factors) would need to
be applied to the data in order to make inferences
about the entire population of farm operators in
all 21 areas. Such weighting is used in this report.
Some rules were developed for counting farm
operators in ambiguous situations. Farm
operators whose phone numbers were not in the
lists were not included in the population. If there
was contradictory information about an
operators' participation in the program, farmers
who operated more than one farm in the RCWP
area were considered to be participants. Also, if
the data on one or more farms indicated that the
operator was not a participant on any farms, he
or she was considered to be a non-participant.
During the course of the survey, it was
necessary to add additional phone numbers to the
sample. This was necessary in some project areas
because too few names and numbers of either
participants or non-participants were available on
the list. When adding new sample members, the
approach was to maintain similar numbers of
participants and non-participants across all
project areas. For example, if we ran out of
non-participants in a particular project area we
had to decide whether to select more participants
from the same project area or to select more
non-participants from another project area. We
chose to select more non-participants from
another project that was as close as possible.
511
-------
Appendix V: Farm Operator Survey Design
An important factor concerning respondents
to this survey is whether respondents were RCWP
participants (i.e., had contracts with ASCS for
their specific RCWP project). In about ten
percent of the cases discrepancies arose between
reports from ASCS and farm operator responses
on the survey. In some cases, ASCS reports
indicated that certain farms were under contract,
while the farm operators said that they were
non-participants. In other cases, ASCS records
showed that the farm was not under contract but
the farm operator responded affirmatively to the
question of RCWP participation.
To help resolve this situation, we first
contacted all ASCS offices to verify their initial
reports of RCWP contracts. Some corrections
were made by this check. We learned also that,
in several cases, farm management had changed
since the contracts had been made. In some
situations a son had assumed the father's farm
management responsibilities; an owner had died
leaving the farm to heirs to operate or lease; or
other management shifts had taken place. In such
cases, the person interviewed was unaware of
previous contracts regarding RCWP.
Next, we called a sample of farmers whose
status was uncertain because the ASCS
maintained that the farm was not under contract
while the farm operator had claimed to be a
participant. In these cases, personal phone calls
revealed one of two facts: the farm operator (1)
reversed the earlier position and denied RCWP
participation or (2) acknowledged that the
reported RCWP participation was actually
participation in a different ASCS program or a
state conservation program instead of RCWP.
Through these follow-up calls we were able
to clear up all but four of the previously
inconsistent cases. Those operators who denied
participation in RCWP (while ASCS showed
contracts on their farms) were treated as
participants. Those who said they were
participants contrary to ASCS records were
included as non-participants, because they were
not formally RCWP participants.
The overall sampling plan and results for each
RCWP project are shown in Table V. 1. Target
numbers of interviews from each specific RCWP
project for both participants and non-participants
are shown. The final sample sizes listed for each
project reflect the resolution of the discrepant
cases. Our approach was reasonably successful
for nearly all the projects However, in some
cases the target sampling was the same or very
close to the population. This situation presented
the greatest challenge. In a few instances (e.g.,
participants in Delaware RCWP or
non-participants in Illinois) it was not possible to
complete the target number of interviews. As
mentioned above, in such cases replacements
were drawn from the same group (i.e., participant
or non-participant) from a nearby project.
Weighting for
Proportionate
Sample
Representation
Because the sampling was intentionally
designed to draw disproprotionately more of the
farm operators from smaller project areas in order
that they be better represented in the random
sample, farm operators from smaller project
areas are over represented in the responses to the
survey. This over representation is slight and, in
fact, causes no more than two or three percentage
points difference on various questions.
However, over representation biases the results
toward the way farm operators from the smaller
project areas answered the interview questions
and gives slightly misleading results unless this
bias is corrected.
Therefore, to adjust the responses so that all
sizes of project areas are properly represented in
the analysis, the item responses are statistically
weighted. For farm operators participating in
each RCWP area, the weighting technique
multiplies each respondent's answer to a question
by the ratio of the total number of participants in
the project area to the total number of participants
who were interviewed from that project area. An
analogous weight was used to proportionately
adjust the responses for those farming in each
project area but who do not participate in RCWP.
Using this statistical procedure, each of the 21
project areas is weighted for its sample of
participants and separately for its sample of those
who farm in the project area but who do not
participate in RCWP.
512
-------
Appendix V: Farm Operator Survey Design
For example, Alabama's project area-one
which contains many farm operators—has a total
population of 65 farm operators who participate
in RCWP. Of these, a sample of 28 responded
to the interviews. Therefore, the item responses
for each of these 28 are weighted by the ratio of
65 divided by 28 which equals a factor of 2.31.
In Utah, however, there were only two RCWP
participants and, in order to ensure that they be
represented in the random sample, both were
interviewed. The ratio of their population size to
their final sample size was 1.0. This means that,
in the final results of the survey, the answers of
Alabama's sample of 28 participants were
increased by a weight of 2.31 as compared to a
weight of 1.0 for those from Utah. In this
manner, each state is proportionately represented
in the final statistics of the study.
In order to achieve the proper balance of the
project areas of varying sizes, these weights
statistically increased the total sample from 1,107
to a weighted total of 3,083. To adjust this
weighted total back to the actual sample size of
1,107, the weights for each project area were
divided by the ratio of 3,083 to 1,107 which is
equivalent to 2.785. By doing mis, the total
number of respondents for each weighted item
again equals 1,107.
513
-------
Appendix V: Farm Operator Survey Design
(2
Q_
O
\—
DC
ir\
o " sS
DC ^_^ Q_ ^ T- CM
m
m
co
m
CD
CM
f*-
T~
CD
in
m
co
m
CO
0
CM
'r~
CO
^
1-
R
a.
co
-------
Appendix VI
FARM
OPERATOR
QUESTIONNAIRE
515
-------
Appendix VI: Farm Operator Questionnaire
RURAL CLEAN WATER PROJECT
NATIONAL SURVEY - 1991
77m<
RESPONDENT NAME
STATE
Identification Number
Card_L
RCWP Project Number
Farm Number
RCWP Participant (Yes=1, No=2)
Telephone Number ( ) -
INTERVIEW START TIME:
- INTERVIEW END TIME:
(1-5)
(6)
(7-8)
(9-12)
"DATE1
STATUS
STATUS CODES
AM ANSWERING MACHINE
BG BUSINESS/GOVERNMENT
BS BUSY SIGNAL
C8 CALL BACK / APPOINTMENTSET
CI COMPLETED INTERVIEW
CL CANT LOCATE/UNAVAIL.
DL DEAF/LANGUAGE OS OUT OF SERVICE
HI INELIGIBLE/NOT FARMING PC PARTIALLY COMPLETED
IN INSTITUTIONALIZED RF REFUSAL
NA NO ANSWER
N L NO LISTING
Tl TERMINATED INTERVIEW
WN WRONG NUMBER
INTRODUCTION
May I speak with'( RESPONDENT }?
My name is _
and I'm working on a project for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
We are conducting a national study to help farm operators receive better
information and assistance in the area of water quality protection. This survey is being
done in areas across the country that received funding and technical assistance under
the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP).
You were randomly selected from a list of farm operators provided by the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS): All of the information you
give us will be treated confidentially. The questions that I have will take about 15
minutes.
CONTINUE INTERVIEW
517
-------
Appendix VI: Farm Operator Questionnaire
1. Is water pollution a serious problem, somewhat of a problem,
or not a problem in your area?
SERIOUS PROBLEM 3 (24)
SOMEWHAT OF A PROBLEM 2
NOT A PROBLEM ' 1
DON'T KNOW 8
2. Compared to ten years ago, do you think water quality in
your area is better, about the same, or worse?
BETTER 3 (1S)
ABOUT THE SAME 2
WORSE 1
DON'T KNOW 8
3. What do you think are the major causes of water pollution in
your area? (DO NOT READ, BUT CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED)
a. RUNOFF FROM CROPLAND 1 (16)
b. FERTILIZERS (NUTRIENTS) 1 (17)
c. PESTICIDES/INSECTICIDES/HERBICIDES . . 1 (18)
d. LIVESTOCK/ANIMAL WASTE (MANURE) .... 1 (19)
e. LOGGING pR TIMBER HARVEST 1 (20)
f. CITY OR TOWN SEWER SYSTEMS 1 (21)
g. HOUSEHOLD SEPTIC SYSTEMS 1 (22)
h. RUNOFF FROM URBAN OR PAVED AREAS ... 1 (23)
i. INDUSTRIAL WASTE/FACTORY DISCHARGE . . 1 (24)
j . MINING 1 (25)
k. LITTER OR GARBAGE 1 (26)
1. HOME AND GARDEN CHEMICALS 1 (27)
(PROBE: Any others?)
m. YES (SPECIFY) ( ) (28-29)
n. YES (SPECIFY) ( ) (30-31)
4. Is water pollution a serious problem, somewhat of a problem,
or not a problem on your farmfs)?
SERIOUS PROBLEM 3 (32)
SOMEWHAT OF A PROBLEM 2
NOT A PROBLEM 1
DON'T KNOW 8
5. Are you very concerned, somewhat concerned, or not concerned
about pollution of your own drinking water?
VERY CONCERNED 3 (23)
SOMEWHAT CONCERNED 2
NOT CONCERNED 1
DON'T KNOW 8
518
-------
Appendix VI: Farm Operator Questionnaire
6. How much have you heard or read about- how agriculture might
affect water quality. Would you say you have heard ....
(READ RESPONSES)
A lot/ 4 (24)
Some, 3
A little, or 2
Nothing? 1
7. Farmers can do many things to protect water quality. How
much information about protecting water quality have you
received from ? {START WITH HIGHLIGHTED ITEM)
* Have you gotten a lot, some, a little or no information?
ALOT S L N
a. Newspapers* 4 3 2 I (35)
b. Farm magazines* 4 3 2 1 (36)
c. Television* 4 3 2 1 (3?)
d. Radio* 4 3 2 1 (38)
e. Meetings or workshops* 4 3 2 1 (39)
f. Tours or demonstrations* 4 3 2 1 (40)
g. Other farm operators* . 4 3 2 1 (41)
h. The Extension Service* 4 3 2 1 (42)
i. The Soil Conservation Service* ... 4 3 2 1 (43)
j. The ASCS* ....' 4 3 2 1 (44)
k. Pesticide or fertilizer dealers* . . 4 3 2 1 (45)
1. Other farm organizations* ..... 4 3 2 1 (46)
8. Overall, how much more information do you need about what
you can do on your farm to help protect water quality?
(READ RESPONSES)
A lot, 4 (47)
Some, 3
A little, or 2
Nothing 1
519
-------
Appendix VI: Farm Operator Questionnaire
9. Some farming practices are available to help farm operators
protect water quality. These are often called Best Management
Practices or BMPs. Are you now using any of these BMPs? Are
you using .... (READ RESPONSES)
YES NO
a. Conservation or reduced tillage ... 1 0 (48)
b. Contour strip-cropping l 0 (4:))
c. Terraces 1 0 (SO)
d. Diversions . 1 0 (SI)
e. Grass waterways 1 0 (52)
f. Animal waste management or storage . 1 0 (5Z)
g. Nutrient management or reduction . . 1 0 (54)
h. Pesticide management or reduction . . l 0 (55;
i. Irrigation improvement l 0 (5£/
j. Hayland or pasture planting and
management 1 0 (5?)
k. Permanent vegetation cover 1 0 (58)
1. Cover crops 1 0 (59)
m. Grasses or legumes in rotation ... 1 0 (60)
n. Filter or buffer strips 1 0 (61)
o. Stream protection or fencing .... 1 0 (62)
p. Sediment traps 1 0 (C2)
q. Soil testing 1 '0 (64)
(IF Q9 ALL ITEMS = NO, GO TO Q12)
10. Do you plan to continue using all of the practices you just
mentioned?
YES (GO TO Q12) 1 (C5)
NO 0
DON'T KNOW 8
(IP NO)
11. Which practices do you plan to stop using?
(WRITE LETTER OP PRACTICE)
(EDITOR CODE ) (66-67)
(EDITOR CODE ) (68-69)
520
-------
Appendix VI: Farm Operator Questionnaire
12. How important would each of the following factors be in your
decision about whether to use a new BMP to help protect
water quality? (START WITH HIGHLIGHTED ITEM)
be very important, somewhat important,
Would
or not important in your decision to use a new practice?
VI SI NI
a. Cost of the practice* 3 2 1 (70)
b. How easy the practice is to use* 3 2 I (71)
c. Labor or time required* 3 2 1 (?2)
d. Availability of government cost-sharing* ... 321 (73)
e. Experience of other farm operators* 3 2 1 (74)
f. Potential to improve water quality* 3 2 1 (75)
g. Effects of the practice on profits* 3 2 1 (76}
h. Information from government agencies* 3 2 1 (??)
i. Information from farm businesses* 321 (73)
Now I want to ask you about the Rural Clean Water Program
(or RCWP). This program was sponsored by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture over the last ten years. It provided some farm
operators in your area with technical assistance and cost-sharing
to protect water quality.
13. Have you ever heard of the Rural Clean Water Program or
RCWP?
YES (GO TO Q14) 1
NO (GO TO Q23 WHITE PAGE) .... 0
14. During the past ten years did you participate in the RCWP?
YES (GO TO Q15 GREEN PAGE) . . .
NO (GO TO Q19 PINK PAGE) ....
1
0
(79)
(30)
DUP ID
CARD 2
(1-5)
(M)
521
-------
Appendix VI: Farm Operator Questionnaire
(ASK QUESTIONS 15-18 ONLY IP RESPONDENT DID PARTICIPATE)
15 . What were the reasons you decided to participate in the
RCWP? (DO NOT READ, BUT CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED)
a. 'AVAILABILITY OF COST-SHARE FUNDS ....... .... 1 (?)
b. CONCERN FOR EFFECTS OF WATER POLLUTION ... ..... 1 (8)
c. CONSERVATION ETHIC/RIGHT THING TO DO ...... . . 1 (9)
d. INCREASED FARM PRODUCTION .... ........ . . 1 (10)
e. ASSISTANCE AND ENCOURAGEMENT FROM GOVERNMENT ..... 1 (21)
f. ASSISTANCE AND ENCOURAGEMENT FROM OTHER FARM OPERATORS 1 (12)
g. DEMONSTRATIONS OR MEETINGS SPONSORED BY RCWP ..... 1
h. CONCERN ABOUT FUTURE POLLUTION REGULATIONS ...... 1
(PROBE) Are there any other reasons you participated?
i. YES: _ ( __ ) (15-16)
j. YES: _ ( __ ) (17-18)
16. How satisfied were you .with the technical assistance and
information you received from the RCWP?
Were you .... (READ RESPONSES)
Very satisfied ...... 4 (19)
Satisfied ........... 3
Unsatisfied, or ...... 2
Very unsatisfied? ...1
17. How satisfied were you with the financial assistance you
received from the RCWP? Were you .... (READ RESPONSES)
Very satisfied ...... 4 (20)
Satisfied ........... 3
Unsatisfied, or ...... 2
Very unsatisfied? ...1
18. If the RCWP had not been available would you have been very
likely, likely, unlikely, or very unlikely to have used all
of the Best Management Practices you now are using?
VERY LIKELY ......... 4 (21)
LIKELY .............. 3
UNLIKELY ............ 2
VERY UNLIKELY ....... 1
DON'T KNOW ...... : ---- 8
(GO TO 02 2 --WHITE PAGE)
522
-------
Appendix VI: Farm Operator Questionnaire
(ASK QUESTIONS 19-21) ONLY IF RESPONDENT DID NOT PARTICIPATE)
19. What were the reasons you decided not to participate in the
RCWP? (DO NOT READ, BUT CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED*
a. APPLIED/NO MONEY AVAILABLE 1 (22)
b. APPLED BUT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE 1 (23)
c. DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE RCWP 1 (24)
d. WAS NOT ASKED TO PARTICIPATE 1 (25)
e. NOT HIGH ENOUGH COST-SHARE RATES 1 (26)
f. ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, COSTS, MONEY 1 (27)
g. WATER .POLLUTION IS NOT A PROBLEM . . • 1 (28)
h. MY LAND DOES NOT REALLY AFFECT WATER QUALITY .... 1 (29)
i. CHANGING PRACTICES IS OFTEN TOO MUCH TROUBLE .... 1 (SO)
j. CURRENT SYSTEM WORKS WELL ENOUGH '. . . 1 (Sir
k. DID NOT WANT TO BE TOLD HOW TO FARM 1 (S2)
1. LAND RENTED, LANDLORD 1 (S3)
m. TOO MUCH RED-TAPE OR COMPLICATED PROCEDURES 1 (34)
n. DON'T LIKE ANY GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS 1 (35)
(PROBE) Are there any other reasons you did not participate?
n. YES: ( } (36-37)
n. YES: ( ) (38-39)
20. Did any government agencies contact you about participating
in the RCWP?
YES 1 (40)
NO 0
21. If a new program, like the RCWP, were available to you
today, how likely would you be to participate?
(READ RESPONSES)
Very likely .... 4 (41)
Likely 3
Unlikely, or .... 2
Very unlikely ... 1
523
-------
Appendix VI: Farm Operator Questionnaire
22. Would you say the RCWP had a positive effect, no effect or a
negative effect on (READ ITEM)? (REPEAT FOR EACH ITEM)
P03 NO NEC
a. Surface water quality in your area .... 3 2 1 (42)
b. Drinking water quality in your area ... 3 2 1 (43)
c. Operating costs for farm operators who"
participated in the RCWP 3 2 1 (44)
d. Farm income for farm operators who
participated 3 2 1 (45)
e. Farm operators' Joiowledge about water
quality 3 2 1 (46)
23. I'd like to read you a list of statements about water
quality . For each statement, please tell me whether you
Strongly Agree. Agree, Disagree or Strongly Disagree with
the statement. The first statement is:
* Do you Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, or Strongly
Disagree with this statement?
SA A D SD DK
a. Agricultural water pollution 4321 8 (4?)
is a serious threat to fish
and wildlife.
b. The farming practices I use_ 4321 8 (43)
now have no significant
effect on water quality in
my area.
c. We need less expensive farming 4321 8 (49)
practices that will help
protect water quality.
d. Farm practices that protect water 4321 8 (CO)
quality usually require more labor.
e. Agriculture is being unfairly 43218 (51)
blamed as a cause of water
quality problems.
f. If farm operators don't do more 4321 8 (52)
to protect water quality on their
own, the government will force
them to through regulation.
g. The government should help 4321 8 (53)
pay more for water pollution
control on farms.
h. Farm operators do not have 4321 8 (54)
the right to farm in ways
that damage water quality.
i. Land should be farmed in ways 4321 8 (55)
that protect water quality,
even if this means lower profits.
j. Water pollution can best be 43218 (56)
controlled through educational
programs that encourage farm
operators to use BMPs.
524
-------
Appendix VI: Farm Operator Questionnaire
Now, I have a few questions about you and your farm
operation. Most of these questions are the same as those used on
the Farm Census. Remember all of the information you give will
be treated confidentially.
24. How many total acres were in your farm operation in 1990,
including all owned and rented land? Also include all
locations and land uses (cropland, pasture, and idle).
ACRES (57-61)
25. How many of these acres do you rent or lease from others?
ACRES (62-661
26. Which of the following best describes the legal organization
of your farm? (READ RESPONSES)
Family or individual operation 1 (§7)
Partnership (including family partners other
than spouse or pre-adult children), or ... 2
Incorporated under state law 3
DON'T KNOW 8
27. What is the highest grade of school you have completed?
ONE 01 1 YEAR ASSOCIATE 13 (68-69)
TWO 02 2 YEAR ASSOCIATE 14
THREE 03 1 YEAR COLLEGE, NO DEGREE .... 15
FOUR 04 2 YEAR COLLEGE, NO DEGREE .... 16
FIVE 05 3 YEAR COLLEGE, NO DEGREE .... 17
SIX 06 BACHELOR'S (BA, BS, AB) 18
SEVEN 07 SOME GRADUATE-NO DEGREE 19
EIGHT 08 MASTER'S (MS, MA, MSW, MBA,
NINE 09 MEd, MEng) 20
TEN 10 PROFESSIONAL (MD, DDS, DVM,
ELEVEN 11 LLB, JD) 21
HIGH SCHOOL (Diploma/GED) ... 12 DOCTORATE (Ph.D. EdD) 22
28. In what year were you born?
YEAR (70-71)
29. How many years have you been a farm operator?
YEARS (72-73;
30. Do you live on your farm?
YES 1 (74)
NO 0
BLANK (75-80)-
DUP ID (1-5)
CARD 3 (6)
525
-------
Appendix VI: Farm Operator Questionnaire
31. Which product or commodity would you say produced the most
gross sales or income on your farm(s) in 1990?
32. About what percentage of your total farm sales came from
livestock, poultry, or animal products-in 1990?
(7-8)
.PERCENT (9-11)
33. What was the total gross value of the farm product sales—
crops, animals and other products—from your farm for 1990?
(PROBE: "Would it be above or below $10,000?)
(CIRCLE ONE RESPONSE ONLY)
Less than $10,000 1 (12)
Between $10,000 and $39,999 2
Between $40,000 and $99,999 3
Between $100,000 and $499,999 4
Between $500,000 and $999,999 5
$1 million or more 6
34. In 1990, how many days did you work at least four hours per
day in a job away from your farm(s)?
N6NE 1 (13)
FEWER THAN 100 DAYS 2
100 to 199 days 3
200 days or more 4
35. Did you hire any labor, other than contract labor, on your
farm(s) in 1990?
YES 1 (14)
NO 0
(IF YES)
36. Please estimate how much you paid for hired labor in
1990.
DOLLARS (25-20)
37. Did you use any contract labor on your farm(s) in 1990?
YES 1 (22)
NO 0
(IP YES)
38. Please estimate how much you paid for contract labor in
1990.
DOLLARS (22-2?)
526
-------
Appendix VI: Farm Operator Questionnaire
39. Did you use any custom work, machine hire or rental
equipment on your farm(s) in 1990?
YES 1 (28)
NO - . . 0
(IF YES)
40. Please estimate how much you paid for this labor in
1990.
DOLLARS (29-34)
41. Thinking about all of the machinery, equipment, and
implements kept and used on your farm(s) as of December 31,
1990 (including cars, trucks, tractors, plows, feeders,
etc.), please give your best estimate of its toral market
value at that time. (PROBE: "Would it be above or below
$40,000?) (CIRCLE ONE RESPONSE ONLY)
Less than $40,000 1 (35)
•Between'$40,000 and $99,999 •. 2
Between $100,000 and $499,999 3
Between $500,000 and $999,999 4
$1 million or more 5
42. Now thinking about all the land and buildings on your farm
as of December 31, 1990, including rented or leased land,
please give your best estimate of its total market value at
that time. (PROBE: "Would it be above or below $40,000?)
(CIRCLE ONE RESPONSE ONLY)
Less than $40,000 1 (35)
Between $40,000 and $99,999 2
Between $100,000 and $499,999 3
Between $500,000 and $999,999 4
$1 million but less than $2 mil .... 5
$2 million or more 6
43. In 1990, about what percentage of your family's total net
income (after taxes and after farm expenses) was from
fanning?
PERCENT (37-39)
44. CODE RESPONDENT'S GENDER (DO NOT ASK UNLESS UNSURE):
MALE 1 (40)
FEMALE 2
This completes the interview. Thank you very much for your
time and cooperation. Do you have any comments you would like to
make?
BLANK (41-80)
527
-------
Appendix VII
PROJECT PERSONNEL
QUESTIONNAIRE AND
DATA SUMMARY
The project personnel survey was designed
by S.W. Coffey and T.J. Hoban of North
Carolina State University (NCSU) as a
supplement to the on-site evaluations of RCWP
projects conducted by the National Water Quality
Evaluation Project staff of the NCSU Water
Quality Group in 1991 and 1992 ( (see Chapter
1, section 1.3). The survey was administered by
mail using the following questionnaire, which
was sent to project personnel interviewed during
the on-site project evaluations (see Chapter 3,
section 3.3). Of 292 questionnaires mailed to
project personnel, 62% were returned. All
projects are represented in this survey, although
the number of surveys sent to the projects and the
percentage of returned questionnaires differed
from project to project.
Presented here are the questions to which
project staff responded and the responses
tabulated using SAS. For most survey questions,
respondents could answer only one category of
the question. Responses were totalled for each
category and are presented as a percent of the
responses for that question (see, for example,
Question 1).
For some questions, project personnel were
asked to respond to more than one category and
responses were totalled (for example, Question
3).
For two questions (Questions 25 and 26),
project personnel had to prioritize their answers.
In these cases, rather than present the actual
responses, the three categories with the highest
number of responses are noted.
For many questions, additional open-ended
comments were encouraged. For this reason,
Questions 30 and 31 have been restructured into
a tabular format to make the data more accessible
to the reader.
529
-------
Appendix VII: Project Personnel Questionnaire and Data
PROJECT COORDINATION
1 Did your RCWP project have a local project coordinator?
(Please check response)
51%No (CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 2)
49% Yes (CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 5)
2 Did you find that an overall project coordinator would have been
helpful?
33% No (SKIP TO QUESTION 7)
67% Yes (CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 3)
3 What need(s) would a project coordinator have meet?
(Check all that apply)
39 project oversight and review
20 primary contact
43 monitor project progress
51 coordination of project reports
47 improved project efficiency
4 What level of effort would be needed for a project coordinator?
27% Full Time
11% 3/4 Time
42% 1/2 Time
13% 1/4 Time
7% Less than 1/4 Time
5 What level of effort did your project coordinator have?
24% Full Time
6% 3/4Time
26% 1/2 Time
22% 1/4 Time
22% Less than 1/4 Time
6 Please rate the effectiveness of your project coordinator.
4% Ineffective
37% Somewhat Effective
59% Very Effective
531
-------
Appendix VII: Project Personnel Questionnaire and Data
7 Please provide additional comments on
coordinator position.
Many of the comments on the coordinator's position were specific to
the individual project. Listed below are general comments that were
cited by more than one individual:
Small project and very cooperative; agencies didn't require
coordination.
Needs to be given adequate authority to make project decisions. Should
be supervised by a higher level manager rather than the local district
conservationist.
The coordinator position should be in place for the entire project
period, not just the contracting phase.
Project coordination was adequately conducted by local staff, LCC,
ASCS, or SCS.
The coordinator should remain in the project until all key activities are
completed.
Some areas would have benefited from a coordinator. Those unchecked
in question 3 were adequately covered.
I assume the coordinator was a Pa DER position; there were 4 people
who held the position during the project. There was little consistency.
ASCS coordinator worked part-time. His efforts coordinated agency
activities. Improved service to farmers and improved agency
relationships.
Each agency had an established state and local lead person.
Coordinated the contacts of over 1200 landowners in the project.
Collected land use data for minority program.
Only had part-time coordinator for latter part of the project. Had no
decision-making authority.
ADVISORY COMMITTEES
(Not LCC or SCC)
8 Did your project have one or more committees?
34% No (SKIP TO QUESTION 10)
66% Yes (CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 9)
532
-------
Appendix VII: Project Personnel Questionnaire and Data
9 For each of the following committees please respond to both
questions by circling either yes or no.
Committees
administrative
information and education
land treatment
water quality monitoring
additional committees
established
Technical
PAC
Farmer's Advisory
Report Writing
Cost-sharing
Point Source
Modeling
Interagency
Administrative
Did you
have it?
Yes No
70% 30%
79% 21%
60% 40%
69% 31%
Wash
needed?
Yes No
75% 25%
90% 10%
76% 24%
82% 18%
Number of
respondents
11
1
3
2
2
1
1
2
2
EFFECTIVENESS
10 Please rate each of the following project elements for their
effectiveness in achieving project goals:
Elements
administration
information and education
critical area determination
achievement of sign-up goals
development of farm plans
development of cost-share rates
implementation of BMPs
land treatment monitoring
water quality monitoring
linkage of land treatment data
and water quality data
project report writing
Not Somewhat Very
Effective Effective Effective
7
9
9
7
3
6
4
18
21
36
9
49
46
40
37
26
31
41
55
40
50
56
533
44
45
51
56
71
63
55
27
39
14
35
-------
Appendix VII: Project Personnel Questionnaire and Data
11 How satisfied were farmers with technical assistance and information
they received from the RCWP?
34% Very Satisfied
59% Satisfied
5% Unsatisfied
2% Very Unsatisfied
12 Did your project suffer from insufficient technical support from
experts or information?
72% No (SKIP TO QUESTION 14)
28% Yes (CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 13)
13 Mark the areas where your project could not meet goals because
it was limited by technical support from experts or information.
20 information and education
1£ technical assistance for developing farm plans
23 technical assistance for structural BMPs
23 technical assistance for management BMPs
27 land treatment monitoring
19 water quality monitoring
other
14 Did your project suffer from insufficient financial resources?
74% No
26% Yes
15 How satisfied were farmers with the financial assistance they
received from the RCWF?
34% very satisfied
60% satisfied
5% unsatisfied
1% very unsatisfied
534
-------
Appendix VII: Project Personnel Questionnaire and Data
16 Did your project suffer because financial resources arrived too late?
93% No
7%. Yes
If so, provide an example:
Money was cut from what we were told at the beginning and thus hurt
the project.
Project ended in September 1991. Finally advised in 3/92 that water
quality monitoring money was not available.
When the groundwater watershed was identified, funding was slow to
provide cost-sharing monies for the expanded BMP/farm plans and
installation.
State ASCS would not release monies when they received it from the
federal government.
Large structures never received funding.
Funds for the Extension office were usually very late and the office was
operated on loans.
We went ahead before it arrived but as soon as it was approved. It
would have been a problem without it.
Monitoring of land treatment and water quality needed to continue but
there was no funding for this.
Information-Education Specialists were not available until about one
year after the start of the project.
535
-------
Appendix VII: Project Personnel Questionnaire and Data
17 Mark the areas where your project could not meet goals because
it was limited by insufficient financial resources.
14 information and education
17 cost-share limit per participant
!5 development of farm plans
J3 cost-share assistance for structural BMPs
7 cost-share assistance for management BMPs
43 land treatment monitoring
60 water quality monitoring
other:
-More farms would have signed up.
-Final water quality effectiveness evaluation.
-Research to base BMP on.
-Washington took too long to approve BMP.
-All state and local money needed federal money to help for
monitoring.
-Need more finances to have more technical assistance people.
-Ineligible participants (large feedlots).
-Cost-share rates and maximum limits.
-Water quality monitoring was very expensive for ten years
with no financial assistance from the federal government.
-Link land use and water quality empirically.
-Dairy farmers uncertain about their future—reluctant
to participate fully.
18 Would you say the RCWP had a positive effect (POS), no effect
(NO), or a negative effect (NEG) for the following?
POS NO NEG
a. Surface water quality 86% 14% 0%
in your area
b. Drinking water quality 46% 52% 2%
in your area
c. Operating costs for farm 64% 23% 13%
operators who participated
d. Farm income for farm 55 % 31 % 14 %
operators who participated
e. Farm operators'knowledge 73% 7% 20%
about water quality
536
-------
Appendix VIE: Project Personnel Questionnaire and Data
INFORMATION AND EDUCATION
19 Please indicate the overall effectiveness of the I & E program in
producing each of the following attributes among project area
producers:
Attributes Not Somewhat Very
Effective Effective Effective
awareness of the water quality 3 % 46 % 51 %
problem
awareness of potential impact 4% 48% 48%
of agricultural activities
on water quality
knowledge that each producer 9% 57% 34%
may be part of the water quality
problem
knowledge of structural BMPs 9% 54% 37%
knowledge of management BMPs 7% 58% 35%
attitude change to enable 10% 62% 28%
implementation of
structural BMPs
attitude change to enable 8% 60% 32%
implementation of
management BMPs
skills change to enable 12% 63% 25%
implementation of
management BMPs
behavior change to maintain 12% 64% 24%
BMPs for the long term
interest in tracking project 32% 57% 11%
success
development of leaders 31% 48% 21%
within farm community
education of youth on water 38% 45% 17%
quality issues
537
-------
Appendix VII: Project Personnel Questionnaire and Data
20 To what extent was the I&E program important to the adoption
and maintenance of the BMPs implemented in the project area?
BMPs Not Somewhat Very
Important Important Important
(*)
1 Permanent vegetative cover 24 59 17
2 Animal waste management systems 13 32 55
3 Stripcropping systems 45 42 13
4 Terrace systems 41 39 20
5 Diversion systems 29 53 18
6 Grazing land protection systems 39 48 13
7 Waterway systems 17 49 34
8 Cropland protective systems 19 51 30
9 Conservation tillage systems 10 38 52
10 Stream protection systems 24 44 32
11 Permanent vegetative cover 18 45 37
on critical areas
12 Sediment retention, erosion, 18 45 37
or water control structures
13 Improving an irrigation and 52 19 29
or water management system
14 Tree planting 65 31 4
15 Fertilizer management 7 39 54
16 Pesticide management 13 41 46
FARM OPERATOR PARTICIPATION
21 Did the fanners who could have had the greatest impact on water
quality implement BMPs on their farms due to RCWP?
11% No
89% Yes
22 Did the farmers who could have the greatest impact on water quality
implement BMPs on their farms through non-RCWP programs?
55% No
45% Yes
23 Did the project attract the innovative producers?
12% No
88% Yes
538
-------
Appendix VII: Project Personnel Questionnaire and Data
24 Did the project get participation from the leaders of the local
community?
15% No
85% Yes
25 In the space provided indicate (1) for the most important, (2) for the
second-most important, and (3) for the third most-important reasons
fanners decided to participate in the RCWP.
_J_availability of cost-share funds
_3_concern for effects of water pollution
conservation ethic/right thing to do
increased farm production
^.assistance and encouragement from government
assistance and encouragement from other farm operators
demonstrations or meetings sponsored by RCWP
concern about future pollution regulations
Other:
-better farm management
-to improve their irrigation delivery system
-state regulatory rules mandated implementation of BMPs
to meet water quality regulations/
-threat of existing regulatory programs
-Florida DER Dairy Rule
-state regulatory requirement
-improve land use and erosion control
-they are farmers and want their children to farm
-improved farm efficiency
539
-------
Appendix VII: Project Personnel Questionnaire and Data
26 In the space provided indicate (1) for the most important, (2) for the
second-most important, and (3) for the third-most important reasons
farmers decided not to participate in the RCWP.
_3 did not know about the RCWP
J3 were not asked to participate
not high enough cost-share rates
_1 economic conditions, costs, money
water pollution is not a problem
land use does not really affect water quality
changing practices is often too much trouble
current system works well enough
_2 did not want to be told how to farm
land rented, landlords
too much red-tape or complicated procedures
don't like any government programs
other:
-age of operator
-retirement age
-not in critical area
-quite effective
-helped in evaluation, not implementation
-help understand what was needed in the way of
implementation and documentation, even if we could
not fully develop
-the farm operator was working too much ground and
didn't have the time or want to have to do anything more
-did not feel they were a problem
-state offered "buy-out" program to dairy operators who did
not want to comply with regulations. This alternative was
chosen by some who could not economically or did not
desire to continue.
-didn't come under Florida Der Dairy Rule
-took advantage of state buy-out program and closed dairies
-distrustful of government and strangers
-social structure of the area. Many farmers of the plain
religious sects
-family grudge. The land taken from farm for the lake.
-small project, all were able to participate in the project
-uncertainty about staying in farming business
-elderly, about to retire
540
-------
Appendix VH: Project Personnel Questionnaire and Data
BMP IMPLEMENTATION
27 How important would each of the following factors be in a farmer's
decision about whether to use a new BMP to help protect water quality?
For each question, please circle Very Important (VT). Somewhat
Important (SD. or Not important (ND.
VI SI NI
Cost of the Practice 91 9 0
How easy the practice is to use 71 29 0
Labor or time required 61 36 3
Availability of government cost-sharing 68 28 4
Experience of other farm operators 39 57 4
Potential to improve water quality 18 69 13
Effects of the practice on profits 78 20 2
Information from government agencies 18 70 12
Information from farm businesses 26 63 11
28 What were the major reasons why a participant chose not to
continue maintaining a BMP after the contract ran out?
73_ poor farm economy
24 too trouble prone
48 got reduced contact by technical agencies (e.g. SCS, ES)
29 too time consuming
50 too expensive or costly
32 no pressure from peers to continue
50 change in crop eliminated the need for the BMP
other:
-"If government isn't going to pay, I'm not going to do it."
-maintenance has been excellent due entirely to SCS working with
producers
-failure to understand practice benefits
-dairy buy-out program
-rented land
541
-------
Appendix VII: Project Personnel Questionnaire and Data
29 What percent of critical area BMPs have been maintained or
continued?
Critical # Respondent
area %
10 1
25 1
40 2
50 7
60 4
65 5
70 6
75 6
80 11
85 5
89 2
90 22
92 1
95 13
98 1
99 2
100 11
542
-------
Appendix VII: Project Personnel Questionnaire and Data
30 What BMPs were often discontinued after contracts expired?
PROJECT SITES
BMPs
BMP1
Perm. veg. cover
BMP 2
Barnyard diversion
Manure storage
and handling, all
Animal waste util.
Roofed feedlots
BMP 3
Strip cropping
BMP 4
Terraces
BMPS
Diversions
BMP 6
Rotation grazing
Shade structures
Grazing land
protection system
BMP?
Water way system
BMPS
Cover crops
Cropland prot. sys.
Crop rotation
BMP 9
Cons, tillage
Chisel plowing
Contour farming
strips
BMP 10
Fence
BMPH
Field borders
Turn rows
Veg. filter strips
A
L
1
1
1
1
2
D
E
1
2
F
L
1
3
2
I
D
3
3
1
3
I
L
6
I
A
1
1
L
A
1
1
2
1
1
M
D
M
A
1
1
1
M
I
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
M
N
1
1
1
N
E
1
O
R
P
A
1
1
3
1
S
D
1
1
2
TN/
KY
1
3
U
T
V
T
1
V
A
1
I
W
I
1
1
2
1
1
K
S
2
1
543
-------
Appendix VII: Project Personnel Questionnaire and Data
PROJECT SITES
BMPs
BMP 12
Sediment basins
I-sloU
Cleaning
sediment ponds
BMP 13
Irrigation
BMP 14
Tree planting
BMP 15
Fertilizer mgt.
Manure mgt.
BMP 16
Pesticide mgt.
IPM
MISC.
Maintenance
practices on rented
land
A
L
1
D
E
1
F
L
I
D
1
2
3
I
L
I
A
1
2
1
L
A
1
M
D
M
A
1
M
I
1
1
M
N
N
E
1
1
O
R
P
A
1
S
D
3
1
2
TN/
KY
5
3
U
T
V
T
1
V
A
W
I
K
S
1
1
544
-------
Appendix VII: Project Personnel Questionnaire and Data
31 What BMPs were often not maintained after contracts expired?
PROJECT SITES
BMPs
BMP1
Grassed waterway
BMP 2
Filter strips
Gutters and
downspouts
Manure storage
BMP 3
Strip cropping
BMP 4
Terraces
BMPS
Diversions
Outlets
BMP 6
Grazing land
protection system
Cover crop
Shade structures
BMP?
Fencing
Streamside fencing
BMP 8
Crop rotation
Cropland
protection system
BMP 9
Conservation
tillage
BMP 10
Stream protection
Cedar revetments
BMP 11
Permanent
vegetative cover
A
L
1
1
1
D
E
1
F
L
1
2
1
I
D
2
1
I
L
I
A
2
L
A
M
D
M
A
1
1
1
M
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
M
N
N
E
1
1
O
R
1
P
A
1
1
1
1
1
S
D
1
1
TN/
KY
U
T
V
T
1
V
A
W
I
1
1
1
K
S
1
545
-------
Appendix VII: Project Personnel Questionnaire and Data
PROJECT SITES
BMPs
BMP 12
Control structures
Cleaning sediment
ponds
BMP 13
BMP 14
BMP 15
Manure spreading
Nutrient mgt.
Waste
BMP 16
Pesticide mgt.
MISC.
most
A
L
1
1
D
E
1
F
L
I
D
2
I
L
I
A
L
A
1
1
M
D
M
A
M
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
M
N
1
N
E
1
1
0
R
I
P
A
2
S
D
TN/
KY
1
1
U
T
1
2
1
V
T
V
A
W
I
2
1
K
S
546
-------
Appendix W: Project Personnel Questionnaire and Data
•ROJECT SITES
JMPs
IMP 13
Control structures
-leaning sediment
onds
MP13
MP14
MP15
anure spreading
utrient mgt.
faste
MP16
esticide mgt.
ISC.
lOSt
A
L
1
1
D
E
1
F
L
I
D
2
I
L
I
A
L
A
1
1
M
D
M
A
M
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
M
N
1
N
E
1
1
O
R
1
P
A
2
S
D
TN/
KY
1
1
U
T
1
2
1
V
T
V
A
W
I
2
1
K
S
547
-------
Appendix VII: Project Personnel Questionnaire and Data
32 For each statement, please indicate Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A),
Disagree (D), or Strongly Disagree (SD) with each of the following
statements:
SA A D SD
a. Agricultural water pollution is a 43 45 1 1 1
serious threat to fish and wildlife.
b. We need less expensive farming 33 64 1 2
practices that will help protect
water quality.
c. Farm practices that protect water 6 34 54 6
quality usually require more labor.
d. Agriculture is being unfairly 13 24 51 12
blamed as a cause of water quality
problems.
e. If farm operators don't do more 34 63 3 0
to protect water quality on their
own, the government will force them
to, through regulations.
f. The government should help pay 13 50 34 3
more for water pollution control
on farms.
g. Farm operators do not have the 25 67 7 1
right to farm in ways that damage
water quality.
h. Land should be farmed in ways 9 64 25 2
that protect water quality, even
if this means lower profits.
i. Water pollution can best be 22 48 26 4
controlled through educational
programs that encourage farm
operators to use BMPs.
548
-------
Appendix VII: Project Personnel Questionnaire and Data
RCWP WORKSHOPS
33 The following table is provided to gather data on attendance at
RCWP workshops by agency. In the appropriate box please put
the number of agency representatives that attended each
workshop from your project.
ASCS SCS ES STATE USGS
WQ
1983 Arlington, VA 6 13 0 14 2
1984 Raleigh, NC 1 12 1 13 3
1984 Chicago, IL 0405 1
1985 Kansas City, KS 1 11 2 14 1
1986 Chicago, IL 1717 3
1988 St. Paul, MN 9 23 4 25 4
1989 Burlington, VT 5 9 5 13 2
1990 Brookings, SD 8 19 6 18 2
34 If you attended any of the workshops, what types of sessions
were the most helpful?
.14 institutional arrangements
30 information and education
15 definition of critical area
20 technical assistance with BMPs
23 water quality monitoring design
26 water quality data analysis
1 water quality and watershed modeling
20 land treatment monitoring
42 linking land treatment and water quality data
15 economic analysis
549
-------
Appendix VII: Project Personnel Questionnaire and Data
35 Overall did workshops help your project meet the objectives of the
RCWP? Explain briefly.
24% No
76% Yes
It informed the people participating of the project and its purpose.
It helped meet the 10-year report. Staff in the field offices should attend
all annual meetings.
Everyone needs more education concerning all aspects.
Would have if money for monitoring and evaluating had been available.
Good review on lessons learned and change objectives of BMPs.
Information obtained not easily transferable to project success.
Ideas for encouraging producers to implement practices were discussed.
Results of other projects were shared with producers in our project.
Like to see positive aspects of other projects that could be integrated into
our project.
It took two years to find out what was really supposed to be done.
By the time we were invited or allowed to attend, it was too late for any
meaningful help.
Unfortunately, I only attended one due to financial constraints in SCS. I
developed a much better understanding of the RCWP nationwide as well
as gained from other project's experience.
A lot of up-to-date, useful information was obtained. They were also
good motivational tools.
Helped provide guidance on what are expected products valuable to
establish contacts with other projects.
Ideas on limiting land treatment with water quality improvements.
Should have developed user-friendly software for each project to use with
a number of appropriate statistical applications.
Be aware of the importance of keeping track of BMPs for monitoring.
The information from other programs helped improve our program.
550
-------
Appendix VII: Project Personnel Questionnaire and Data
It provided an opportunity to learn about other projects.
They gave attendees insights into the problem.
Often USGS was looked to give the answers rather than as an agency
seeking assistance from others.
Assisted agency in carrying out water quality monitoring duties.
Spend money on practices and projects.
Ideas shared were brought back to the project and shared with LCC and
SCC. Good exchange of ideas.
Were able to gain information from other projects and specialists to
improve our activities.
Participants expressed that the workshops were helpful.
We were not advised of the 1984-1989 workshops.
Periodic workshops help keep participating parties interested and on
track for attainment of project goals.
Too much theory, not enough practical solutions to project problems (too
many cooks in the kitchen).
551
-------
Appendix VIII
METHODOLOGY FOR
ON-SITE EVALUATION
553
-------
Results of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Program:
Methodology for On-Site Evaluation
November 9,1990
by
Steven W. Coffey
Michael D. Smolen
North Carolina State University
L Introduction
The Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) is a federally-sponsored agricultural nonpoint source (NFS)
pollution control program begun in 1980 as an experimental effort to achieve improvement in the impaired
water use and quality in 21 approved project areas across the US. The program is administered by the
USDA-ASCS in cooperation with the EPA, SCS, ES, ERS, FS, ARS, FmHA, and others. Landowner
participation is voluntary with cost-sharing and technical assistance offered as incentives for implementing
best management practices (BMPs). The contracting period ended for most RCWP projects in 1986. The
program will terminate in 1995, however most of the projects will end by 1992.
tt Objectives of the RCWP
The objectives of the RCWP (Federal Register 7 CFR Part 700) are: a) to achieve improved water quality in
approved project areas in the most cost-effective manner possible in keeping with the provision of adequate
supplies of food, fiber, and a quality environment, b) assist agricultural land owners and operators to reduce
agricultural NFS water pollutants and to improve water quality in rural areas to meet water quality standards
or water quality goals, c) develop and test programs, policies, and procedures for the control of agricultural
NPS pollution.
IIL Objectives of the Evaluation
Objectives of the evaluation are to assess: a) cooperation among project team members, committees and
agencies, b) the agreement between the documented water quality problem and the choice of solutions, c)
the achievements of the project and individuals in relation to RCWP objectives, d) monitoring and the
assessment of project impacts, e) the effectiveness of the project and its progress toward improving water
quality, and f) to compile lessons learned.
IV. Hie Model Project
We formulated a conceptual model RCWP project to serve as a benchmark for reviewing the activities of
individual projects and for evaluating RCWP as a program. The RCWP regulations provide a basis for the
model. The model emphasizes the coordination of project activities to achieve project goals and improve
water quality. When the findings of the evaluation are compiled, the results will be compared to the present
model and used to formulate a revised model.
The model project operates under the primary authority of USD A with consultation and concurrence from
EPA. USDA approves BMPs with the concurrence of EPA. ASCS is the administrative lead agency. SCS
provides technical supervision and assistance for the installation and maintenance of BMPs in cooperation
with other USDA agencies, such as ES and FS. ES and other agencies (SCS, FS) provide informational and
educational support. While agencies supervise project activities, committees are responsible for setting
priorities and coordination. AH agencies, committees, and program participants follow RCWP regulations.
The model project will be revised and presented in the final report on the results of the ejqjerimentalRCWP.
555
-------
Appendix VIII: Methodology for On-site Evaluation
V. la-Person Interviews
An evaluation team will visit project sites, interview project team members, review project activities, and
report results. The survey questions provided below are identical or nearly identical to the questions to be
asked at the on-site in-person interviews. Some questions maybe revised if they are difficult to interpret or if
they fail to produce useful information.
Questions are designed to gather specific information on project elements including administrative oversight,
local and state coordinating committees, information and education, land treatment, and water quality
monitoring and evaluation. A separate companion telephone survey of producers will be used to determine
factors that influence participation and BMP implementation and perceptions of program effectiveness.
1. Local Program Administration (County Executive Director, ASCS)
1.1 What are the objectives of the project?
1.2 What is the water quality problem?
1.3 How were project activities coordinated and how could they have been improved?
1.4 If needed, how could you improve local program administration?
1.5 How were cost-share rates determined?
1.6 Of the approved list of BMPs, were there any you would have added to improve the chances of achieving
water quality goals? If yes, which ones and why?
1.7 Of the approved list of BMPs, were there any you would have dropped? If yes, which ones and why?
1.8 What methods were used to help assure that a contract on a farm would be continued from year to year?
1.9 If there were contracting problems with absentee landlords versus local owner/operators, how were they
addressed?
1.10 If pooling agreements (i.e. two or more participants apply BMPs to a common area or source) were used,
tell if they were effective, neutral, or ineffective and why?
2. Local Coordinating Committee - LCC (Persons who have participated in LCC meetings)
2.1 What agencies were involved in local coordination of project activities?
2.2 What were the roles and functions of the LCC?
2.3 How were project activities coordinated and how could they have been improved?
2.4 What are the objectives of the project?
2.5 What is the water quality problem?
2.6 How were critical areas identified?
2.7 If there were technical, social, and administrative problems of producer and/or land eligibility, how were
they resolved?
2.8 How did the LCC decide which farms to treat?
2.9 How did the LCC decide which BMPs to install first and why?
2.10 How were water quality monitoring results used by the LCC?
2.11 If water quality monitoring results were used to modify BMPs or change the project critical area, what
were the changes?
2.12 In what ways would you improve coordination with state programs and agencies in your project?
2.13 Suggest ways that the SCC could assist project efforts.
556
-------
Appendix VIII: Methodology for On-site Evaluation
3. State Coordinating Committee - SCC (Persons who were members of the SCC)
3.1 What agencies were involved in state coordination of project activities and which agencies played the lead
role?
3.2 What were the roles or functions of the SCC?
3.3 What are the objectives of the project?
3.4 What is the water quality problem?
3.5 How were local project activities coordinated and how could they have been improved?
3.6 How did the SCC help the LCC in obtaining funds or technical support for special project needs?
3.7 How did the SCC help in the determination of critical areas and in the selection of BMPs?
3.8 Was the National Coordinating Committee (NCC) helpful?
3.9 Was the NCC timely with their decisions and assistance?
3.10 How could the SCC be more effective?
3.11 How could the NCC be more effective?
4. Information and Education - I&E (Persons who contributed to the I&E effort)
4.1 What agencies were involved in I&E activities and which agency played the lead role?
4.2 What were the objectives and goals of I&E?
4.3 What is the water quality problem?
4.4 Was there a difference between producer perceptions and the stated water quality problem? Were these
resolved? How?
4.5 How were project activities coordinated and how could they have been improved?
4.6 Were there targeted farmers in critical areas who were reluctant to participate?
4.7 What approaches were most effective for gaining producer participation from farmers in the critical area
and why?
4.8 What approaches were the least effective and why?
4.9 Did agrichemical companies have a significant influence on agrichemical use?
4.10 If so, how were I&E activities targeted to achieve project goals?
4.11 Which BMPs require the most I&E (as opposed to technical assistance) and why?
4.12 Do farmers in the critical area implement BMPs designed specifically to improve water quality or do they
implement traditional (soil conservation and waste management) practices?
4.13 What is your sense of the public perception regarding changes in water quality?
4.14 Describe how producers and the public in the project area were kept informed about project activities and
accomplishments,
4.15 Were producers outside of the project area informed about the project?
4.16 If so, how were they informed and describe what the project meant to them.
5. Land Treatment (SCS District Conservationists)
5.1 What agencies or contractors were involved in implementing BMPs?
5.2 What were the objectives and goals of implementing BMPs?
5.3 What are the objectives of the project?
5.4 What is the water quality problem?
5.5 How were project activities coordinated and how could they have been improved?
5.6 Please suggest any improvements that should be made in defining the critical area.
557
-------
Appendix VIII: Methodology for On-site Evaluation
S. Land Treatment (continued)
5.7 If quality of installation was a problem for any BMP, state the BMP, problem, and effect of the installation
problem on water quality.
5.8 If maintenance was a problemfor any BMP, state the BMP, problem, and effect of the maintenance problem
on water quality.
5,9 Were enough BMPs installed to achieve the water quality objective for the project?
5.10 If not, what changes should have been made?
5.11 Were the most cost-effective BMPs targeted to critical areas?
5.12 Can you suggest alternate BMPs to do a similar job?
5.13 How did the project track land use and BMP installation and maintenance?
5.14 What were the most important land use and land treatment variables measured?
5.15 What were the sources of error in tracking land use and BMPs and what type of quality assurance/quality
control was used?
5.16 Can you suggest some ways to improve the tracking of land use and BMPs?
5.17 What was learned from the water quality data analysis?
5.18 What is your sense of the public perception regarding changes in water quality?
5.19 Did agrichemical companies have a significant influence on agrichemical use?
5.20 If so, how were land treatment (installation and maintenance of BMPs) activities adjusted to achieve project
goals?
5.21 Do farmers in the critical area implement BMPs designed specifically to improve water quality or do they
implement traditional (soil conservation and waste management) practices?
5.22 Please state any innovations in BMPs or land treatment methods developed by the project.
6. Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation (Persons involved in water quality problem identification,
monitoring design, sampling, and data analysis)
6.1 What agencies or groups were involved with water quality monitoring and evaluation?
6.2 What are the objectives and goals of water quality monitoring and evaluation?
6.3 What were the objectives of the project?
6.4 What is the water quality problem?
6.5 How were project activities coordinated and how could they have been improved?
6.6 Do other pollutant sources in addition to agricultural NPSs (e.g. point sources, non-monitored NPSs, or
non-project area loadings) contribute significantly to the water quality problem but were or were not
directly evaluated?
6.7 If applicable, how did these other pollutant sources affect the ability of the monitoring program to detect
water quality trends due to RCWP?
6.8 How did the design of the monitoring network reflect the specific goal of measuring land treatment effect
on water quality?
6.9 Did the water quality monitoring program document improvement in designated use? How?
6.10 Did the water quality monitoring program document restoration of designated use? How?
6.11 Did the water quality monitoring program document compliance with water quality standards or health
advisories?
6.12 What water quality variables were the most useful for detecting trends? Why?
6.13 If additional variables would have helped you document trends, state the variables and tell why you
think so.
6.14 What water quality ejqjlanatory variables (e.g. covariates such as flow, water table depth, antecedent
precipitation, animal numbers, cropping pattern) were meaningful for the analysis? Why?
558
-------
Appendix VIII: Methodology for On-site Evaluation
6. Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation (continued)
6.15 If you had to do the 10-year RCWP project monitoring again, how would you improve the water quality
monitoring program?
6.16 Were water quality monitoring results used in modifying critical area BMPs? Was communication between
the water quality monitoring and land treatment groups regular?
6.17 What data analysis plans were made at the beginning of the project and what were the statistical hypotheses
that were formulated? How are these related to project objectives and goals?
6.18 What experimental features of the monitoring design (e.g. paired watersheds, post-BMP monitoring)
helped in isolating water quality changes attributable to land treatment activities that were independent
of climatic and meteorological factors?
6.19 Would more guidance on QA/QC for monitoring and analysis (e.g. field sampling, lab, data storage, and
data analysis) have improved the water quality monitoring and evaluation component of your project?
How?
6.20 How did the project track land use and BMP installation and maintenance for RCWP cooperators and
non-cooperators?
6.21 What were the most important land use and land treatment variables measured?
6.22 What were the sources of error in tracking land use and BMPs and what type of QA/QC was used?
6.23 Can you suggest some ways to improve the tracking of land use and BMPs?
6.24 What was learned from the water quality data analysis?
6.25 What is your sense of the public perception regarding changes in water quality?
6.26 What changes in water quality can be related to land treatment accomplishment? Suggest improvements
in either land treatment or the monitoring of land treatment or water quality to show a stronger
relationship.
6.27 If it was not possible to measure change in water quality after BMP installation, state why and suggest
techniques appropriate to detect a change in water quality.
7.0 Participation Questions (Respondents for participation questions are Local Program Administration,
Land Treatment, and Information and Education)
7.1 Overall how would you rate producer participation in RCWP?
7.2 What barriers limited participation in RCWP?
7.3 What factors motivated the adoption of practices?
7.4 Overall how would you rate the chances of continued maintenance and adoption of practices after the
program runs out?
559 *U.S. G.P.O.:1993-715-003:87042
------- |