vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Nonpoint Sources Branch
WH-585
Washington, DC 20460
EPA 506/9-89/001
December 1988
Water
Rural Clean Water Program
1988 Workshop Proceedings
National Water Quality
Evaluation Project
-------
Rural Clean Water Program
1988 Workshop Proceedings
September 12-15, 1988, St. Paul, Minnesota
by the
National Water Quality Evaluation Project
Water Quality Group
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina
In Cooperation With:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Dr. Michael D. Smolen, Extension Specialist Principal Investigator
Dr. Frank J. Humenik, Project Director
Jean Spooner, Extension Specialist Sarah L Brichford, Extension Specialist
Alicia L. Lanier, Extension Specialist Kenneth J. Alder, Extension Specialist
Steven W. Coffey, Extension Specialist
EPA Cooperative Agreement AD-12-f-0-037-0
Project Officer: Jim IttBCk Meek
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Nonpoint Sources Branch
(WH-585)
HEADQUARTERS UBRAKY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
-------
Table of Contents
Opening Remarks
RCWP National Coordinating Committee Representatives 1
Technical Sessions: Monday morning, September 12
Small Watershed Monitoring of Nutrient Management .4
BillMagette, Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Maryland
Results of a Farm-Level Nutrient Management Project 12
BillJokela, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Vermont
Farm Level Nutrient Budgeting System 20
DougBeegle, Department of Agronomy, Pennsylvania State University
Tracking Animal Waste Management: Information Needs 29
Richard Pennay, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Pennsylvania
Developing Standards for Nutrient Management 43
Jim Anderson, Department of Soil Science, University of Minnesota
A Paired Watershed Study of Pesticide Losses 65
Jack Clausen, Water Resources Research Center, University of Vermont
Pesticide Movement Model for Extension Training 67
ArtHomsby, Department of Soil Science, University of Florida
Principles of Pesticides in Water Quality , 72
Rick Moos, Department of Environmental Studies, University of North Carolina at Asheville
Development of an IPM Strategy for Protecting Water Quality 78
Bud Stolzenburg, Cooperative Extension Service, Nebraska
Pesticide Regulation in San Joaquin County, California 79
Mary Jensen, San Joaquin County Agricultural Commission, California
Panei Sessions: Monday afternoon, September 12
Developing a Nutrient Management Program for NPS Control 83
Developing a Pesticide Managment Program for NPS Control 90
Concurrent Working Sessions: Tuesday, September 13
Transfer of Appropriate RCWP Monitoring Schemes to State Programs %
Essentials of Ground Water Monitoring 99
Strategies for Ground Water Monitoring: Technical Design 102
Non-Parametric and Parametric Trend Analysis Techniques 105
-------
Relating Water Quality Data to Land Treatment: General Information Needs 116
Relating Water Quality Data to Land Treatment: Technical Approaches, 126
Targeting Critical Water Quality Areas 131
Cost-Effectiveness of BMP Implementation 143
Selecting and Developing BMPs for Water Quality Improvements 151
Panel Session: Tuesday afternoon, September 13
Transferring RCWP Information to 319 Programs 154
Final Plenary Session: Thursday, September 15
Priorities and Topics for Next Workshop: Review of Participants' Questionnaires 156
Review of Workshop Sessions: ............. ..167
What are the ongoing and emerging critical issues?
How did these sessions help resovlc these issues?
What should we do next?
Other
Field Trip to Garvin Brook Project Wednesday, September 14 176
Workshop Agenda...... ......185
List of Participants..... 187
-------
Introductory Comments from RCWP National Coordinating Committee
Representatives
Cecil Lower, Conservation Programs, USOA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
Carl Myers, Nonpoint Sources Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Dan Smith, Land Treatment Program Division, USDA Soli Conservation Service
Fred Bergsrud, USOA Extension Service
Cecil Lower
Nutrient and pesticide management has become a favorite topic at the Department of Agriculture, where ground
and surface water quality concerns are currently being considered and interwoven in programs. Many water quality
research proposals and agency initiatives are being developed for water quality.
A few short years ago when I transferred into the Conservation and Environmental Protection Division of the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service little was being said on the topic. The program that I assumed ad-
ministrative responsibility for was the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP). Since then I have taken on responsibility
for the Colorado River Salinity Control Program and some functions of the Conservation Reserve Program. Needless
to say I have developed a great deal of interest in water quality concerns.
Whether you have noticed or realized, at the grassroots or project level, the RCWP is playing a significant role in
advancing our ability to develop and administer water quality projects, programs, and water quality initiatives. For ex-
ample in my early days in working with the RCWP I began hearing about nutrient and pesticide management. People
from other agencies, involved in the implementation of the RCWP were saying we must insist that nutrient and pes-
ticide management be a part of the RCWP contract, especially where animal waste was the primary pollutant. It did
not take long to realize that we could handle the animal waste quite properly with storage facilities and related prac-
tices. But were we causing more problems by preserving the nutrient quality of animal manure? If the nutrient con-
tent of the manure is not recognized, preserving plant nutrients in the storage system could aggravate existing water
quality problems. We learned that manure must be handled and stored properly then spread on or incorporated into
the soil in a system that considers all forms of nutrients, manure and chemical fertilizer.
"Cheers" to those RCWP projects that undertook the additional responsibilities to incorporate a nutrient and pes-
ticide management effort in their projects. "Hats off* to those projects that included nutrient and pesticide practices
or measures from the very beginning of the RCWP.
As we advocate and promote conservation tillage as a practice to conserve soil, we should also promote nutrient
and pesticide management — the use of nutrients, herbicides, and insecticides. Of course we do this, however, when
a dollar or two is freed up by an innovative farming technique, its kind of the nature of the farmer to "plow" those dol-
lars back into the soil to ensure maintaining or increasing yields.
Whenever we provide financial assistance such as cost-sharing with a farmer, I believe that nutrient and pesticide
management should be the major BMP component or requirement of the contract. Financial assistance for animal
waste facilities and related practices should then be conditional upon the nutrient and pesticide management com-
ponent
In order to do this, the farmer must be given guidelines in the form of standards and specifications for carrying out
nutrient and pesticide management practices. Hopefully, the federal farm commodity programs will have a provision
similar to this in the future - something like the sodbuster and swampbustcr provision of the Food Security Act of
1985.
In my experiences as a County Executive Director of ASCS programs, I have had farmers tell me that they liked
the subsidy payments program because it enabled them to purchase greater amounts of fertilizer to apply to the
acreage that they were still permitted to plant under the commodity programs — planting less land for greater yields.
Participating in this workshop is tantamount to developing the state-of-the-art in the area of nutrient and pesticide
management. Looking over the agenda, I can say that the agenda promises a variety of topics for us to share on this
subject. I'm hoping you enjoy the workshop. Participate!
-------
Carl Myers j.
We are DOW in the middle years of the Rural Clean Water Program, and it's time to look hard at what we've ac-
complished and learned so that states and local governments can factor this information into their section 319
management programs.
At this workshop, as in past RCWP workshops, RCWP participants will share ideas regarding:
1. Resource management systems to control agricultural NPSs,
2. Targeting implementation,
3. Monitoring for results, and
4. Data analysis approaches that work for NPS.
A 1985 report (ASIWPCA NPS) showed that nutrients were the primary cause of use impairments in 59 percent of
those lake acres impacted by NPSs. Nutrients also were the chief cause of use impairment in 13 percent of river miles
impacted by NPSs. In addition, 34 states reported that nitrates were known to contaminate their ground-water
resources.
This same report showed that pesticides were the primary cause of use impairment in 3 percent of the river miles
impacted by NPSs. Twenty-one states claimed groundwater contamination by pesticides, with another 7 states
suspecting such contamination. Other reports have presented similar information.
Because of the magnitude and scope of the nutrient and pesticide problems in America, we decided to focus on
nutrient and pesticide management at this workshop. Dr. Smolen and the workshop committee have done an excel-
lent job of gathering several experts with considerable field experience in nutrient and pesticide management.
This workshop represents neither the beginning nor the end of efforts to understand and manage the environmen-
tal impacts of nutrient and pesticide usage. Rather, we hope that this workshop will provide some focus on the issue.
We fully expect that state and local governemnts will use the information gained in these few days to manage better
those watersheds which have been shown in their section 319 assessment reports to be impacted by nutrients and/or
pesticides. Furthermore, you will develop valuable contacts at this workshop, and we expect that you will continue to
communicate with each other to draw upon the wide range of expertise in this room as we all work together toward
reducing the environmental damage caused by NPSs. No single agency, state, or individual has all the answers, so it is
important that we work together, both on a formal and informal basis to share knowledge regarding NPS problems
and solutions.
One of the most important sessions of this workshop addresses the transfer of RCWP information to 319
programs. I fully expect, and hope, that those of you who have not directly participated in the RCWP will tell us what
you want to know from the RCWP. We need to understand both what you want and how you wnat it formatted. For
example, do you want fact sheets on resource management systems, technical reports on NPS.monitoring and data
analysis, or some other information and/or formats?
I thank you all for coming to this workshop and leave with you the following general objectives:
1. Learn somehting new from the RCWP.
2. Tell us what additional questions RCWP should answer.
3. Apply what you've learned here to your section 319 and other NFS management efforts.
4. pgt»hK«h new contacts which can help you to do a better job of implementing, monitoring,
evaluating, and documenting NPS management programs.
Dan Smith
Welcome to this workshop on behalf of the Soil Conservation Service. I am the RCWP Coordinator for SCS at the
national headquarters in Washington, DC.
Items of Interest to Keep in Mind:
1. Water quality has been elevated to #2 priority in SCS.
-------
2. Water Quality Action Plan (WQAP) is a strategy developed to carry out water quality in day-to-day activities of
SCS. RCWP lessons learned help greatly to carry out the WQAP. Local projects hold the key to water quality initia-
t .ves. The cutting edge of nonpoint source control is shown in this 10-year experimental RCWP program.
3. How will SCS tackle water quality activities? We see two major actions:
A. Preventative actions to prevent water quality degradation using conservation
operations program day-to-day and one-on-one application of conservation practices.
B. Remedial actions to identify the problem areas and attack them with project
oriented programs such as PL-566, RC&D, and Colorado Salinity program.
4. Part of the water quality effort involves careful coordination with other agencies. SCS is negotiating or has
tiegotiated Memoranda of Understanding with ES (pesticides/nutrients agency roles); EPA (SCS FOTG as minimum
for state program); ARS/USGS/SCS for water quality research; and SCS details to EPA's ten regional offices. In all
of these areas RCWP and project activites have much to contribute. You folks [RCWP project personnel] know what
mil work and what will not. You are the experts with eight years of field testing.
What should you expect from this RCWP workshop? Let me give you three challenges:
1. Best kept secrets at project levels.
Declare to the rest of the world what you have learned. You have an obligation to share the informa-
tion with everyone. Ask this question at every session How can I get this infornmation out??? Call it
technology transfer, whatever, but do it!
2. You are the experts with your field experience.
Take an active role in the water quality arena beyond your local project area. Help us into the 21st cen-
tury with the tools, knowledge and experience to solve NPS problems. Ask the question at each session
What role can I play in the water quality arena?
3. RCWP is shortlived - only two years to go, but a lot of work remains to be done.
Look at this ending as a new beginning. Make a plan for the remaining two years or so and then be
sure to carry it out. Ask the question at each session Where do we go from here? And how do we do
it?
Water quality is the WAVE of the future! As our demand for dean water increases so too will the water quality
problems increase. Where will you be? Thank you.
-------
Watershed Monitoring of Nutrient Management
William L Magette
Agricultural Engineering Department
The University of Maryland
College Park, MO
Abstract
Environmental concerns in the Chesapeake Bay region have been related largely to surface water quality problems.
Hydrologically, however, surface water and ground water issues cannot be considered separately. This is especially
true in regard to nutrients such as nitrogen, which in certain forms can be transported vertically to ground water, then
laterally to surface water.
Properly assessing water quality impacts requires that land management practices be correlated with ground and
surface water quality measurements. Farm-scale or small watershed scale monitoring is an appropriate level at which
to make such measurements. However, conducting intensive monitoring projects on commercial farms requires spe-
cial considerations to assure that meaningful data are obtained.
William L. Magette is Assistant Professor of Agricultural Engineering at the University of Maryland, College Park.
He received his B.S., M.E. and Ph.D. from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Currently, his research
and extension programs address water quality impacts of agricultural best management practices. Agricultural En-
gineering Department, 1126 Shriver Lab, The University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742; (301)454-3901.
Trade names, when used, are for illustrative purposes only, and do not imply endorsement by the authors or The
University of Maryland.
Introduction
Recent research (Hallberg, 1986) relates increased agricultural chemical usage to ground water problems. Current
research (Staver, Magette & Brinsfield, 1987; Angle, Gross & Mclntosh, 1988) suggests that farm chemicals which are
highly mobile in water, such as nitrate, may impact ground water even when used according to recommended
guidelines.
It is difficult to separate ground and surface water concerns when considering nonpoint sources of pollutants that
are highly mobile in water. This is especially true in areas where surface water is recharged by ground water. Such
conditions exist in much of the Chesapeake Bay drainage basin. In 1983, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA, 1983) identified excessive nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) delivery to the Bay system as a major cause of
degraded water quality. Nitrogen was projected to come mainly from nonpoint sources, of which agricultural areas
were predominant.
As part of an intensive program to reduce the delivery of nutrients to the Chesapeake Bay from both point and non-
point sources, the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA) funded the establishment of a "demonstration" farm
on which to illustrate the use of agricultural best management practices (BMP's) (Magette, et al., 1987). Another pur-
pose of the demonstration project was to identify the water quality impacts and associated economic implications of
BMP utilization on a commercial farm. Accomplishing this purpose necessitated first, a cooperative farm owner will-
ing to participate in such a demonstration, and second, a comprehensive ground and surface water monitoring net-
work. Indiantown Farm was selected for the demonstration (Magette, et al., 1987) since it met the previously
mentioned criteria and was a typical example of farms on Maryland's Eastern Shore, a region in the Atlantic coastal
plain dominated by agricultural landuse. It was also illustrative of conditions existing in small coastal plain watersheds
in the Bay region. Faculty from various academic departments with appointments in the Maryland Agricultural Ex-
periment Station (MAES) and Maryland Cooperative Extension Service (MCES) were called together to develop a
plan of study for the project.
-------
Identifying Monitoring Objectives,
Deciding what is to be accomplished by a particular monitoring system is the first step that must be undertaken in
any monitoring project. Clearly defined objectives establish the criteria by which monitoring sites, equipment, and
sampling and analytical protocol are selected. Thus, a clearly defined list of objectives is a necessary - although not
sufficient - requirement for a successful monitoring project. Numerous publications (e.g. IHD-WHO, 1978; Scalf, et
a.., 1981; EPA, 1985) describe the theory of ground and surface water monitoring.
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between MDA, MAES and MCES (Shea, 1984) was negotiated for
this purpose. Two key objectives were to be accomplished in the demonstration project:
1. Determine the costs of selected BMP's implemented on a demonstration field crop farm and evaluate the
economic and management effects of these BMFs on farm costs.
2. Obtain physical and chemical data on the quality and quantity of surface and ground water flows on the
demonstration farm and evaluate the changes in water quality induced by the introduction of BMP's.
Working from these general objectives, an interdiciplinary team of scientists from the departments of Agricultural
Engineering, Agronomy, and Agricultural and Resource Economics developed an overall study plan for the
d emonstration project. Key decisions were made to select nutrients and sediment as the pollutants of concern, to
make edge-of-field measurements rather than in-stream measurements, and to assure that the landowner was the ul-
t mate decisionmaker on BMP placement and location of monitoring stations. Numerous meetings were held with the
landowner and farm operator to appraise them of the study plan (Magette, et al., 1987).
Monitoring Site Selection
Runoff Monitoring
Because the demonstration farm was located in the coastal plain (underlain by an unconfined aquifer relatively
near the ground surface), the potential locations of monitoring wells were not a consideration in the initial stages of
defining a monitoring network. Instead, runoff monitoring sites were the controlling factor because these 1. could be
located only at places where topography dictated that overland flow would concentrate into well-defined channels
that could be measured by conventional monitoring equipment, and 2. would not interfere with farm operations.
The first step in designing the ground and surface water monitoring network was development of a topographic
map from which surface flow patterns on the farm could be determined. A private company was retained to conduct
an aerial survey and develop a topographic map. From the resulting topographic map, potential sites were identified
where it appeared that runoff would concentrate and could be monitored. The suitability of these sites was then
verified by visual examination in the field.
A variety of criteria were used to reduce the list of candidate runoff sites to a manageable number. These included
cropping practices, soil types, sizes of drainage areas, and slopes of the drainage areas. In addition, it was necessary
to coordinate selection of runoff monitoring sites with the ongoing planning process for BMP implementation as per
the farmer's soil and water conservation plan (SWC Plan). The farm owner was the ultimate decisionmaker regarding
what BMP's were utilized and where they were placed. These decisions further defined potential runoff monitoring
sites, as did the criterion that all runoff monitoring would be performed outside cropped areas. As shown in Figure 1,
:;even runoff monitoring sites were ultimately selected.
Ground Water Monitoring
In the absence of detailed information, potential ground water flow patterns were inferred from the topographic
;urvey. Because attention was focused on determining the amounts of nutrients reaching ground water, it was decided
:o concentrate monitoring efforts on the surface of the unconfined aquifer in order to identify the maximum impact
agricultural activities (and BMP's) might have on ground water quality. Ground water monitoring sites were selected
:hat were upgradient and downgradient of specific field areas on which BMP's were utilized, or that held promise of
exhibiting different hydrologic responses.
-------
The resulting ground water monitoring network is Shown in Figure 1. Twenty- two monitoring wells were installed
in an arrangement that placed a minimum of one well at the upgradicnt and downgVadicni boundaries of each
drainage area monitored for runoff. Additional wells were placed elsewhere to provide measures of ground water
quality where it was not possible to monitor runoff. '
Figure 1. Indian town BMP Demonstration Fara. Ground and Surface W.ttcr
Quality Monitoring network.
6
-------
I
Monitoring Equipment Selection and Placement
Runoff
Equipment selection was based on the types of pollutants to be measured and the intended use of the resulting
data, as well as on considerations of cost, reliability, compatibility, ease of operation, and the way in which the in-
strumentation gathered data.
Fiberglass H-flumes described by USDA-ARS (1979) were selected for use at all sites to provide a means by which
to measure runoff rates and volumes. The size of each flume was determined using USDA-SCS (1975,1986) runoff
prediction procedures. Generally, 10-year return periods were used to select storm sizes, reflecting the anticipated
rnaximium lifetime of the project. Prefabricated flumes manufactured by Plastifab, Inc. were selected on the basis of
reliable past performance, and ease of installation. Final positioning of flumes was accomplished after first complet-
ing a manual topographic survey of the immediate area around each proposed monitoring site.
Flow meters (Model 2300) and flow recorders (Model 2310) manufactured by ISCO, Inc. were chosen for use to
translate depths of flow in the flumes to flow rates and volumes. These instruments were chosen primarily because
previous experience with the equipment had been satisfactory and the new equipment would be interchangeable with
numerous other units in use on related projects. Other more technical factors influenced the selection also, such as
the ability to identify on each hydrograph precisely when samples of runoff were collected.
Runoff sampling was accomplished by ISCO Model 2700 automatic discrete samplers. Samplers capable of collect-
ing both discrete and composite samples were selected so that, if desired, changes in pollutant transport during
various phases of the runoff process could be examined.
Ground Water
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) monitoring pipe was selected because of its ready availability and reasonable cost. Tri-
lok, 5.08-cm diameter monitoring well pipe and screen were used exclusively. This pipe had a reliable method for as-
suring leak-free joints without the use of glues or sealants.
All wells were installed using a Model B-47 Mobile Drill hollow stem drilling rig. Drilling was accomplished using
:.0-cm augers. In general, well points were placed approximately 6 to 10 meters below ground surface. Screens with
0.025- or 0.050-cm slots were used in 3- or 5-meter lengths. Screen length selection was made to assure that the top of
I he screen was always above the highest anticipated water table level, and the bottom of the screen was always below
the lowest expected water table level. Such a placement assured that the upper surface of the unconfmed aquifer
would be monitored. The ground elevations of all wells were surveyed to determine their elevations above mean sea
level.
Because volatile organic compounds and pesticides were not to be monitored, a portable, battery operated ISCO
peristaltic pump was selected for obtaining well samples. It was anticipated that the ground water table would always
be within the 9-meter sampling range of the portable pump.
Field Records
In order to correlate land management practices with ground and surface water quality measurements, it was im-
jjerative to accurately record field activities related to cropping patterns, tillage and nutrient inputs. Responsibility
for this task was that of the onsite project coordinator. At the inception of the project, the onsite coordinator worked
especially closely with the farm operator to document field activities over the previous 5 years. This involved a com-
bination of searching through invoices and receipts and interviewing the farm manager for his "best guess" about
.specific operations, allocation of inputs and cropping history. Documentation was developed on a field-by-field basis.
Throughout the project, the onsite coordinator continually worked with the farm operator to collect current informa-
tion on these topics, which was then entered into the project data base.
The same types of information must be collected for any larger scale monitoring project. Because of the larger
areas and number of land ewers/farm operators involved, the task is much more complicated. Although "windshield"
surveys and low altitude aerial photography can be used to document landuse, these methods of data collection will
-------
not yield information about nutrient inputs and timing of operations. The latter information can only be obtained by
direct observation or by interviews or surveys of farmers and landowners. ?
I
Monitoring and Implementation Problems
Monitoring Problems
No monitoring project is immune to problems. The severity of such difficulties on the demonstration farm project
was largely minimized by placing a full-time, onsite project coordinator in charge of day-to-day monitoring activities.
This made possible daily checks on the status of all monitoring equipment, and facilitated a prompt correction of
minor problems as they were detected. It is essential that such a person be employed as part of an intensive, on-farm
or watershed monitoring project.
Equipment problems were most troublesome in the winter and occurred with the pressure transducers used with
the flow meters. Another troublesome instrumentation problem involved the rapid discharge of batteries designed for
use with the monitoring equipment. A continual problem was the proper selection of the sample interval with which
to collect the maximum information for both large and small runoff events.
Because equipment problems invariably occur, experience has proven that it is very beneficial to purchase equip-
ment from vendors who give exceptional service. Unfortunately, it is often not possible to accomplish this when pur-
chasing regulations require that contracts be awarded on a low-bid basis. Consequently, service agreements may be
necessary to assure interrupted data collection. If telemetry is used for remote transmission of data, additional con-
cerns (such as electrical supply and lightening protection) must be addressed.
Implementation Problems
The BMP demonstration farm was a demonstration, not a research, project and was conducted on a commercial
farm. It was typical of any larger scale water quality monitoring project in the sense that manipulative experiments
were not conducted; instead, existing conditions were measured. It is important that this feature of a monitoring
project be recongized at the outset. From a project management perspective, conducting such a study on commercial
farms poses some potential limitations.
In a research project, decisions are based solely on what effect they may have on the outcome of the project. In
contrast, when studies are conducted in commercial settings, decisions are also appropriately made in consideration
of what effect they will have on the operation, not only the study. This is especially true when it is desirable not to
have the study influence normal operations. Where monitoring was concerned, the major constraint encountered was
the requirement to keep monitoring instruments away from crop production areas.
Any study can experience changes in project personnel. Studies conducted at commercial locations are subject
also to changes in personnel at the operation itself, and to changes in managerial decisions about the operation. The
demonstration farm project experienced such a change when the farm operator originally bvolved in the study discon-
tinued farming. A different fanner was quickly found, however, that was willing to resume operations under the exist-
ing agreement governing the demonstration.
Finally, any study tries to quantify all factors that might affect the results of the study. Investigations that are con-
ducted in the natural environment have particular difficulty in achieving this objective. When such a study is per-
formed at a commercial location, the task is complicated further because numerous persons participate in activities
that influence the outcome of the study. At the demonstration farm these activities included the timing and nature of
all farming operations, especially the application of fertilizers (nutrients). The fanner was helpful in trying to keep
records of these activities and was assisted in this effort by the onsite project coordinator.
At the BMP demonstration farm, limitations of the sort expected at a commercial location were minimized because
the farm owner was extremely cooperative, conservation-minded, and very eager to participate in the demonstration
project. Just as important, the project employed an onsite project coordinator to facilitate communications between
all parties involved in the project. Although the demonstration project began to lag behind the schedule initially
planned for its implementation (Magette, et al., 1987), only a part of the delay was related to managerial decisions that
were a function of the commercial nature of the enterprise on which the project was based. Weather related
problems and delays in timely procurement of equipment held the project behind schedule also.
8
-------
Ancillary Considerations /
Personnel Requirements
An interdisciplinary team of scientists is required to give overall direction to any small watershed monitoring
p reject because the numerous objectives that accompany such projects dictate the need for expertise in a variety of
areas. Consequently, the responsibility for major tasks in such an endeavor should be distributed to different mem-
bers of the project team. Such delegation of authority does not preclude the need for an overall project director and
support staff. It does demand that excellent communications and a cooperative spirit be maintained at ail time be-
tween team members.
Capable and dedicated project support personnel can often compensate for deflciences in facilities or funding. A
project director should strive to employ the best possible persons. This requirement becomes even more important as
the complexity of the project or the distance from where central planning takes place increases.
Depending on the magnitude of the monitoring network, additional field personnel might be required to ac-
complish all the necessary tasks. Regardless of the project size, it is unrealistic to expect one person to be constantly
"on call" to collect runoff samples and service the monitoring equipment. Monitoring well sampling can occur on a
scheduled basis with consideration given to the availability of personnel. However, runoff producing-events can occur
a t any time of the day or night, during weekends and holidays. It is thus necessary to have a variety of people routinely
a vailable to share monitoring duties with primary field personnel.
There is also a need for a data manager to facilitate data collection, cataloging, quality control and analysis.
Depending on the arrangement for water quality sample analyses, there may also be a need for laboratory personnel.
laboratory Requirements
Adequate laboratory and data analysis facilities must be available to provide timely analyses and interpretation of
samples. Laboratory services can be obtained on a contract basis or performed in-house. For organizations that con-
duct many water quality and related environmental investigations, it often becomes more useful to aquire in-house
capabilities for routine sample analysis, despite the relatively high personnel costs that are involved.
When designing a new laboratory, or evaluating the capacity of an existing facility, close attention must be given to
the potential sample load that will be generated from the monitoring project. For the demonstration farm, it was
projected that in a normal year of precipitation, approximately 2500 samples would be collected. Considering that
analyses are performed for 11 different pollutants for each sample collected at the demonstration farm and that dupli-
cate samples are analyzed for statistical reliability, facilities capable of annually performing 55000 different analyses
were required. Well samples were projected to contribute approximately 6000 additional analyses, annually. These
estimates ignored any additional sample load created as a part of normal quality control procedures.
Laboratory facilities for conducting the demonstration farm project were funded by MOA as a part of the project.
Included in the funding was money for both equipment and personnel. Among the major instruments ordered for the
laboratory were were an ion liquid chromatograph, a spectrophotometer, an ultrapure water supply system, and soil
analysis equipment. Miscellaneous equipment and glassware was also purchased. Excluding physical facilities to
house the laboratory, the initial outlay for startup equipment was approximately $100,000 in 1984. Although some
delays were experienced during the laboratory startup period, sample backlogs were effectively reduced to zero soon
after laboratory protocol became stabilized.
Long-Term Funding
To be meaningful, monitoring studies involving the natural environment must be conducted over long time periods
(5 to 10 years) so that the effects of variable climatic conditions can be assessed. In 3 of the 4 years that the
demonstration farm project has been in progress, annual precipitation has been below long-term normal amounts.
Long-term studies such as the demonstration farm require significant levels of funding. As just mentioned, ap-
proximately $100,000 was spent initially on furnishing the water quality laboratory; personnel costs are in the range of
!>50,000 annually. Approximately, $80,000 has been expended on monitoring equipment. The annual operating
budget for the project, which includes an educational component, has been approximately $160,000. This budget in-
-------
eludes both the money spent on equipment and personnel. Typically, funding agencies including state governments
are reluctant to commit the quantity of dollars required for the number of years required to conduct extensive
monitoring studies. The Maryland Department of Agriculture was different in this respect, pledging support of the
demonstration farm for a minimum of 5 years. At present, negotiations are in progress to extend the initial 5-year
funding commitment.
Summary
Society's demand for better environmental quality is requiring that more and more be known about the environ-
mental effects of many of our daily activities. In the Chesapeake Bay region, water quality problems in the
Chesapeake Bay have focused attention on many such activities, among them agricultural practices. As part of its ef-
fort to learn more about, and at the same time minimize, the movement of pollutants from agricultural areas into the
Bay, the Maryland Department of Agriculture funded the Indiantown Best Management Practices Demonstration
Farm. The monitoring techniques employed in the project are illustrative of those appropriate for use on a small
watershed basis for monitoring nutrient management effects on water quality.
An effective farm-scale or watershed-scale water quality monitoring project requires several essential components:
- Cooperative landowners and farm operators
- An interdisciplinary project team with team commitment
- Capable support personnel that include at least an onsite project coordinator and a data manager
- Long-term funding
- Patience on the part of project personnel and the funding agency
Often, society's demand for information, as translated by regulatory agencies, exceeds the rate at which the infor-
mation can be obtained reliably from natural systems. This is especially true with hydrologic and water quality data
impacted by both land management decisions of individuals and unpredictable climatic events. It is imperative that
this fact be understood by all participants of a water quality monitoring project if the project is to accomplish its objec
lives.
References
Angle, J. S., C. M. Gross and M. S. Mclntosh. 1988. Nitrate leaching in conventional and no-till watersheds. J. of
Environmental Quality (submitted). 20 pp.
EFA. 1983. Chesapeake Bay program: findings and recommendations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Philadelphia, PA. 48 pp.
EPA. 1985. Field agricultural runoff monitoring (FARM) manual. EPA/600/3- 85/043. U.S. Environmental Protec
tion Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA. 230 pp.
Haliberg, G. R.. 1986. From hoes to herbicides - agriculture and ground- water quality. J. of Soil and Water Con-
servation, v. 41, no. 6, pp 357-364.
IHD-WHO. 1978. Water quality surveys. United Nations Educational, Scientific an Cultural Organization/World
Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. 350 pp.
Magette, W. L., R. A. Weismiller, B. V. Lessley, J. D. Wood and C. F. Miller. 1987. Establishing a demonstration
farm for agricultural best management practices. IN: Optimum Erosion Control at Least Cost. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI. pp. 100-107.
Office of the Governor. 1985. Maryland's Chesapeake Bay program annual report for 1984. University of Maryland
Sea Grant College, College Park, MD. 33 pp.
10
-------
•
Office of the Governor. 1986. Maryland's Chesapeake Bay program annual report for 1985. University of
Maryland Sea Grant College, College Park, MD. 33 pp.
f
Scalf, M. R.f J. F. McNabb, W. J Dunlap, R. L. Cosby and J. Fryberger. 1981. Manual of ground-water sampling
procedures. National Water Well Association, Worthington, OH. 93 pp.
Shea, E.' 1984. Memorandum of understanding between Maryland Department of Agriculture and the University
of Maryland Cooperative Extension Service and Agricultural Experiment Station. Maryland Department of Agricul-
ture, Annapolis, MD. 10 pp.
Staver, K. W., W. L. Magette and R. B. Brinsfield. 1987. Tillage effects on nutrient and sediment field losses.
Paper 87-2086. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI. 18 pp.
USDA-ARS. 1979. Field manual for research in agricultural hydrology. Agriculture Handbook No. 224. USDA
Agricultural Research Service, Washington, DC. 225 pp.
USDA-SCS. 1966. Soil survey of Queen Anne's county, Maryland. USDA Soil Conservation Service/Maryland
Agricultural Experiment Station, Washington, DC. 117 pp.
USDA-SCS. 1975. Urban hydrology for small watersheds. TR-55. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington,
DC. 90pp.
USDA-SCS. 1986. Urban hydrology for small watersheds, revised. TR-55. USDA Soil Conservation Service,
Washington, DC. 75pp.
Acknowledgement
Funding for this project was provided by the Maryland Department of Agriculture, the Maryland Agricultural Ex-
periment Station and the Maryland Cooperative Extension Service. Appreciation is also expressed to Mr. Howard
Wood, owner of Indiantown Farm, for generously supporting this project through the use of his farm.
11
-------
Results of a Farm-Level Nutrient Management Projecf, St. Albans Bay RCWP,
Vermont /
William E. Jokela
Extension Soils Specialist
University of Vermont
Plant and Soil Science Department
Burlington, Vermont 05405-0082
The Field Nutrient Management Project is a part of the St. Albans Bay Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP).
RCWP funds have provided cost-sharing for construction of manure storage facilities and other BMPs on farms in the
watershed, as well as support for a comprehensive water quality monitoring program. The objective of the Field
Nutrient Management Project is to promote and assist in the implementation of best management practices for fer-
tilizer and manure use on farms in the St. Albans Bay watershed. Increased use of these best management practices is
expected to further the RCWP objective of reducing the input of phosphorus and other nutrients to St. Albans Bay
while, at the same time, increasing economic returns to the participating farmers. The project involves the implemen-
tation of whole farm nutrient management plans, the establishment of several demonstration field trials within the
watershed, and other activities to enhance the effectiveness of the project.
Whole Farm Nutrient Management Program
The whole farm nutrient management portion of the project is an intensive, individualized effort with ten to twelve
farmers in the watershed to establish and maintain a recommended program of soil fertility and nutrient management
on each farm. The program is tailored to individual farms and to fields within each farm. It gives consideration to dif-
ferences in soil types, soil nutrient levels, availability of manure, and cropping systems, as well as the knowledge and
management skills of the individual farm operators. As part of this effort, visits are made to each farm throughout the
season to estimate nutrients available from manure, sample and soil test each field, make manure and fertilizer recom-
mendations for each field, assist in the implementation of recommended practices, and evaluate the effectiveness of
implemented practices.
Ten farmers participated in the whole farm nutrient management program in 1987 and 11 in 1988. Each field on
each of the farms is soil sampled annually for routine soil analysis (pH, P, K, and Mg). Soil test results, along with
crop history, manure management, and soil information are used to develop fertilizer recommendations for each field.
The project technician visits each cooperator to deliver and discuss the soil test results and nutrient recommendations.
A summary of the available phosphorus (modified Morgan's extractant) soil test results from fall of 1987 (Fig. 1)
shows the P soil test level for the lowest and highest testing fields, as well as the average, for all fields on seven of the
farms. Average available P soil test values for most of the farms were in the medium-high range, indicating adequate
fertility and only maintenance amounts of nutrients required for good crop growth. However, on individual fields
within each farm, soil test levels vary greatly -- from low to very high on most farms. The same pattern ocurred in
reserve P (similar to Bray PI) (Fig. 2). This points out the critical importance of soil testing to indicate those fields
that need little or no additional fertilizer to maintain top yields and those that require substantial amounts to maintain
productivity.
All corn fields are sampled for the Vermont Nitrogen Soil Test each year in June or early July. The N Soil Test
measures nitrate-N in a one-foot deep soil sample taken when corn plants are 8 to 12 inches tall. It is an indicator of
nitrogen made available to the plant from manure, crop residues, and soil organic matter, and is used to predict the
need for additional sidedressed or topdressed fertilizer N.
There was a large range in nitrate levels among individual fields in 1987 (Fig. 3), but the overall mean for all fields
was 118 Ibs NOs-N/acre. At this level, no additional nitrogen is needed unless a silage yield of greater than 25 tons
per acre is expected. Although a number of fields did need additional fertilizer N, the large number receiving a zero
recommendation reflects the application of manure and/or the rotation with legume hay on many corn fields. Several
of the cooperators saved N fertilizer expense and reduced the potential for nitrate pollution of surface and
groundwater through use of the N soil test.
12
-------
Manure sampling is conducted in an effort to better assess the nutrient contribution from manure applied to
cropland. Manure from storage facilities and/or spreaders on each farm are sampfed regularly, generally in the spring
and fall. Each sample is analyzed at the UVM Testing Laboratory for total N, P, and K, NELi-N, and percent dry mat-
ter. Results from the spring, 1988, sampling are shown in Table 1. The considerable variation among farms indicates
the potential for improving recommendations based on chemical analysis rather than on standard estimates for
nutrient content of manure.
i
Demonstration Field Trials
Field trials were established to evaluate and demonstrate best management practices for fertilizer and manure ap-
plication for corn silage and hay forage production. Trials in 1987 included comparisons of starter fertilizer rates for
corn (five sites), evaluation of phosphorus and potassium fertilizer application on legume-grass hay (6 sites), and an
experiment on manure and nitrogen fertilizer management for corn production.
Starter Fertilizer Rates for Corn
We chose to examine row fertilizer rates for corn because, aside from manure, the major phosphorus input for
com production in the watershed is the row, or starter, fertilizer. Little phosphorus is applied as a broadcast treat-
ment. Starter fertilizer is recommended by both University and industry agronomists in Vermont and northern New
England even when soil tests are fairly high because the cool, wet soil conditions limit nutrient availability early in the
s sason. If soil phosphorus levels are high, however, only relatively low rates are required, enough to supply 20 to 30 Ibs
cf PiOs per acre. Higher fertilizer rates that contain twice this amount of phosphorus are commonly used in the
watershed, as well as in other parts of Vermont. The objective of these studies, then, is to evaluate the need and re-
quired rate of starter fertilizer for corn grown on a range of soils and P soil test levels. Five field plot trials were con-
ducted during the 1987 season. Starter fertilizer treatments at each site consisted of none, a low rate (approximately
25-30 lb PaOs/acre), and a high rate (approximately 50-60 lb PjOs/acre), arranged in a randomized complete block
with four replications. Soil test levels ranged from medium high to very high in phosphorus and from medium to very
high in potassium. Response to fertilizer was measured by harvesting early growth plant samples in June or early July
and silage yields in October.
Two of the five sites showed a silage yield response to row fertilizer (Fig. 4). The most consistent and dramatic
response to starter fertilizer ocurred at the Montagne site, where a doubling of early corn growth carried through the
season to show an eight to ten ton per acre increase in silage from the use of row fertilizer. Most of this increase
resulted from the low rate, but a small additional response was observed from the high rate. Although the phosphorus
soil test was high, an apparent potassium deficiency and lack of manure probably contributed to the large yield
response. On the nonmanured Claude Bourbeau trial, row fertilizer resulted in a small silage yield increase, although
tiere was no further increase from the higher rate. No significant increase from starter fertilizer was observed on the
adjacent trial where no manure was applied. Although it is not statistically sound, this side-by-side comparison sug-
gest that the spring application of manure may have made a difference hi the need for a row fertilizer.
Manure and Nitrogen Fertilizer Management for Corn
The manure-nitrogen management trial is being conducted to evaluate the N fertilizer value of a typical rate of
dairy manure for corn silage production and to determine the optimum rate and time of application of N fertilizer. In
addition, selected plots are sampled annually and analysed for P, K, and other nutrients to determine the effect of
rianure on soil test levels. Movement of nitrates in the soil profile are being monitored by sampling to a depth of five
f set two times during the season (pre-planting and and post-harvest) and by sampling monitoring wells in selected
treatments.
The trial is located on a level, somewhat poorly drained, medium textured soil on the Don Noel farm. Nitrogen fer-
t ilizer rates of 0,50,100, and 150 lb N per acre were broadcast on field plots either at planting time (pre-plant or just
after planting) or as a sidedress/topdress application when plants were about 18 inches tall. The same N treatments
were applied to plots in areas with and without manure in both 1986 and 1987. The manured plots received dairy
rianure from a semi-solid storage structure spread at a rate of approximately 20 tons per acre just prior to spring disk-
hg.
Both manure and N fertilizer application resulted in large increases in silage and grain yields in both years with a
much greater effect of of N fertilizer where no manure was applied (Fig. 5). Where no manure was applied, 1987
13
-------
yields were doubled by application of fertilizer N (50 peceot increase in 1986) and the optimum fertilizer N rate was
100 Ibs per acre. Where manure was applied, 1987 yields were increased by only aBout 10 to 20 percent and SO Ibs per
acre was adequate (no yield increase in 1986). This reflects the addition of 170 to;200 Ibs per acre of nitrogen applied
as manure each spring. Nitrogen fertilizer recommendations based on the Vermont N Soil Test were consistent with
these yield results.
Nitrate-N present in the soil profile at the end of the season indicates the potential for nitrate leaching under the
various manure and N fertilizer management combinations. Results from the November, 1987, sampling (Fig. 4) show
that most of the nitrate is still present in the upper two feet of soil and that very little has moved below the three-foot
depth in most treatments. An exception is the treatment combination of manure and planting time fertilizer N which
shows some indication of nitrate movement below the three-foot depth. An excessively high N rate, approximately
270 Ibs per acre of manure plus fertilizer N, was applied in this treatment.
Phosphorus and Potassium Fertilization of Hay Forages
Six field trials were conducted in 1987 to evaluate the response of legume or grass forages to phosphorus (P) and
potassium (K) fertilization. The trials were aimed at improving the use of soil testing to determine optimum fertiliza-
tion rates and to avoid excessive applications. Two of the trials involve application of P and K before seeding of an al-
falfa or alfalfa- grass mixture, while four involve rates of P and K topdressed after first cutting.
Little or no yield increase from fertilizer P or K was observed at any of the alfalfa sites in 1987, the first year of the
trials. Two other sites were predominantly grass and included nitrogen, as well as P and K, variables. On those trials
nitrogen increased yields by 30 to 40 percent, while potassium produced smaller yield increases.
Only limited interpretation can be made from the results of these hay forage fertilization trials because they in-
volve data from only one year or less for a perennial crop that will be grown for three or more years. Furthermore,
growth of the last cutting was reduced substantially by a dry period in August. Results from a second, and eventually
a third, production year will be needed to accomplish the objective of evaluating the nutrient needs of forages on
these sites and relating them to soil test levels.
Extension Education Efforts
We have used a variety of approaches to encourage the implementation of best management practices both in the
watershed and in other parts of the state. Interaction with the cooperating fanners in the project has involved
numerous one-on-one farm visits, as well as an annual group meeting, to discuss recommendations and field trial
results. We have conducted field tours for farmers, extension agents, and other ag professionals to view the field trials
first-hand Summaries of soil and manure analysis and results of the field trials have been reported in extension
newletters, articles in ag publications, presentations at fanner extension meetings, radio and TV programs, and press
releases.
Work in Progress
We are in the process of developing a computerized database that includes individual field information on soils,
cropping practices, soil test results, manure and fertilizer practices, etc. This database will allow us to summarize the
data for easier interpretation, evaluate changes in practices over the duration of the project, and examine trends in
soil nutrient levels.
We are developing a manure utililization worksheet, eventually to be available as a computer program, in coopera-
tion with the SCS agronomist. It will be useful in the watershed and throughout the state to improve the utilization of
nutrients in manure and minimize the potential water quality effects.
14
-------
Summary of Results
1. Soil test results from show a high build-up of phosphorus and other nutrients in some fields on each cooperating
I arm, but low or medium levels in other fields, emphasizing the need for soil testing to determine the nutrient applica-
tion rates for individual fields.
2. Nitrogen soil testing of corn fields indicates that on many fields manure and legume rotations can meet the N
needs of the crop.
3. The nutrient content of manure varies greatly among farms, showing the value of using manure analysis rather
relying on average figures for nutrient value.
4. Starter fertilizer rates lower than those commonly used are adequate for corn silage production in the area.
5. With careful management, a typical rate of dairy manure (20 tons per acre) can supply as much nitrogen to a
com crop as 100 Ibs per acre of fertilizer N.
6. Implementation of manure and fertilizer use BMPs has the potential to reduce nutrient loading into St. Albans
Bay and improve the economic return from crop production.
15
-------
FIGURE i. Available Phosphorus Soil Test Results by Field
7 Farms, St Albans Bay, Fall 1987
' Ib P205/A
100
80
60
FIGURE 2. Reserve Phosphorus Soil Test Results by Field
7 Farms, St Albans Bay, Fall 1987
Ib P205/A
SOO
500
400
300
200
100
0
16
-------
FIGURE 3. Nitrogen Soil Test Results by Field
/
7 Farms, St Albans Bay, 1987
Ibs N03-N/A
200
6 7
average
FIGURE A. Effects of Starter Fertilizer on Corn Silage
Silage Yields St Albans Bay 1987
Montague P Sour beau C. Bourb. * man.
Parent C. Bourb. no man.
0 0 low 0 high
17
-------
FIGURE 5. Manure + Sidedrassed N Pert, for Corn
1986 - 1987 >
Noel Farm somewhat poorly drained fine sandy loam
slage yield (T/A)
, ' 30 :
no manure * manure no manure
1986 1987
0 N 0 50 Ibs/A a 100
» manure
FIGURE 6.
Soil Nitrate-N Noel Farm, Nov. 1987
1-
t2'
5-
LB/A-FT
20 40 60
TREATMENT
AON
A 0 N + monurt
D TOO PL
• 100 PL + manure
X 100 SO
IPOSDjf manur*
80
18
-------
^J
ta
c
«••*
a
e
«o
.^
00
c
1
01
Q.
O
o
u
e
0
B
0}
•O
ttl
u
^~
B
W>
O
E
CO
B
W
—4
**
^.
^^
^J
«
W
00
0}
t.
o
B
O
U
B
.•4
>>OO
CO
5 o*
« —
W 00
u e
9 in *n rM *^- M?
in rt <^ <^ *9 in CM O fH SO f->- tN
_i CN — — —
1
CN ON m
«o o eo so en oo NO
O — O O O O O
in •» ON r«- o o m
r> O r*- O — • m f»
1 «o NO eo ON r*» ON f*«»
-. — _,-, O fN —
ON O C*l v* O !•"• •*
CM r"l CN 1*1 -* — • CN
CN in O» -< OO «N —
-• ^T vO vn r-g — 00
n n •» n — m «N
•* oo — — O CN m
— « O NO — O -» O
^* l»^ p^ ^ ^M
3 3
a a
cy oi
JO .0
(- I- >,
3 9 a a> « 41
Q O S JO C 41
BO OQ 00 O CU "^ *O
C O W »H W
« • Q f*J flj (fj (Q
o o< J "> ou > a
^
'- !
^T S
es r
•j^
5
eo
eo X
rO M
C
o
*J
*s^
w-
«N O
•^ r>
O,
JO
^^
™ OH
O X
c
CN O
*•< 4J
^
— 1
z
oa i
rv ^
I
X
e
c*^ O
(M u
•^
-•
t*\
•a- Z
r^ M
8
Ait
to
> S
ON WO
•u «
o
0)
1 W
-< o
e %
01 CO
CO U
V
z °-
3 • o
U i— ( O
£ 1-1 O
,
1 ON
CN
CN
)
1 .
^
m
in
O
CN
-31
' -
I"
^^
»
ON
O
NO
CN»
—
eo
^^
V
0
J*
V
(B
e
o
19
-------
Computer-Assisted Farm Nutrient Management Planning
Douglas B. Beegle '
Associate Professor of Agronomy
The Pennsylvania State University
State College, Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania agriculture is predominantly based on animals. The latest crop reporting service records for the state
indicate that approximately 70% of farm cash income is from livestock products. Statewide, this is mainly dairy fol-
lowed by beef, poultry, and swine. This magnitude of livestock production translates into more than 140 million
animals producing over 25 million metric tons of manure annually. Agronomically this has two major implications: 1)
feed production for all of these animals and 2) disposal of the manure that they produce. These two agronomic ac-
tivities are intimately linked through farm nutrient management.
Probably more important than the manure itself are the nutrients in that manure. It has been estimated that the
manure produced in Pennsylvania contains around 113 million kg of nitrogen (N), 68 million kg of phosphorus (P),
and 91 million kg of potassium (K). At today's prices these nutrients are worth over $100 million dollars.
Unfortunately these animals and consequently their manure and the nutrients it contains are not evenly distributed
across the state. Over one-half of the total manure is produced in the southeastern region of the state. This encom-
passes the lower Susquehanna river basin and thus has important implications for the Chesapeake Bay. The
remainder is spread more evenly across the rest of the state. In addition to this general inequity of manure distribu-
tion there are many severe regional and on-farm inequities in manure distribution that must be recognized. Often a
majority of manure is spread on fields close to the barn resulting in severe excesses in these fields while other fields on
the farm are left with nutrient deficiencies. The excesses of manure produced by this distribution problem result in
under-utilization of manure resources because the nutrients in manure only have value if they are taken up by the crop
and replace purchased nutrients. This is not the case hi fields that already have excessive nutrient levels. Also, apply-
ing more nutrients than the crop can use or more than the soil can hold results in potential pollution problems.
There are two basic perspectives that must be kept fa mind when developing a nutrient management plan. First,
the whole farm must be considered. The major nutrient flows on a farm with livestock are the concentration of
nutrients from the whole farm into the barn in the crops that are harvested and then dispersion of most (about 75%)
of these nutrients back to the fields fa the manure. This is complicated by several factors including, the addition of sig-
nificant amounts of nutrients from off the farm fa the form of purchased feed, bedding, and supplements and the
residual effect of previously applied nutrients. It has been found that on many farms these nutrients add up to more
than those actually purchased fa fertilizer. The other complication is that these manure nutrients are not usually dis-
persed completely back on the whole farm. It is recognized that spreading the manure on the whole farm every year
may not be practical or desirable but over time, the whole farm should receive manure.
The best guide for distributing this manure over the whole farm is soil testing. A soil test will provide the farmer
with guidance about where to apply the manure for the maximum probability of receiving a profitable response from
the nutrients, how much to apply to meet specific crop needs and, any net fertilizer requirements. Soil testing also ser-
ves to monitor the effects of past manure applications and can thus warn against any potential problems of excesses or
deficiencies.
The second perspective that needs to be considered fa nutrient management is time. In Pennsylvania, crop produc-
tion on most livestock farms is generally based on a corn grain/silage and legume forage rotation. The rotation is an
important consideration because the different crops have different requirements and respond differently to the
various nutrients fa manure. For example, corn has a major requirement for N and a lower requirement for P and K.
On the other hand, alfalfa has a major requirement for K and a lower requirement for N and P. Also, P and K will ac-
cumulate fa the soil for future use. On this basis the common strategy is to apply manure to the corn crop to use the N
on this crop which is highly responsive to N and build soil reserves of P and K for use by the alfalfa or other forage
later fa the rotation.
Basically this can all be summarized by saving that manure should be applied when and where there is the greatest
probability for getting a profitable response to tie nutrients it contains. This decision should be based on soil test
levels and recommendations. This approach is not new, but with the availability of relatively inexpensive chemical fer-
tilizers, manure management has been relegated to a low priority on many farms. Today however the economics of
20
-------
agriculture and the pressure for environmental responsibility are dictating that farm nutrient management be given a
higher priority. I
For farmers to make this change in management level there are several important ingredients. First the change
must be beneficial in terms of the overall management of the farm. If nutrient management is to be given a higher
priority something else will probably have to be given a lower priority and the net effect must be beneficial to the
whole operation. Secondly the farmer must be made aware of technology and techniques that are a part of modern
nutrient management and understand their application and where it fits in his operation. Finally, and this is the most
difficult, this change must be practical to implement. For even though a farmer may understand exactly what to do
and why, if it is not practical it won't be done.
Our approach has been to develop tools to make nutrient management more practical by helping farmers make bet-
ter use of soil testing, manure analysis and crop records. This has been a joint effort between researchers studying
nutrient cycling on whole farm systems and Extension developing management programs based on this research. The
TVA whole farm demonstration program in Pennsylvania has been an important proving ground in this effort to
develop nutrient management tools. A major component of this effort has been the development of a computer
template to help fanners easily organize the information required for making sound nutrient management decisions.
This program, the "Farm Nutrient Management Worksheet" was written for use with Microsoft Excel spreadsheet on
an Apple Macintosh computer. A version of this program is also being completed for use on an IBM PC with RBase
System V database software.
The program is intended for any farmer who applies manure to his fields. The source and handling of the manure
do not put any limitation on the use of the program. For example, the manure may be from on the farm or purchased,
it may be stored or daily spread, or it may be solid or liquid. In general the program estimates manure nutrient resour-
ces and then allocates them to the farm fields on the basis of crop and rotation requirements, soil nutrient levels, and
farmer preferences.
Input data required for the program is broken down into the following seven categories which are also illustrated
by program printouts attached:
A. Operational Information
This information is used mainly to format the inputs and output.
Inputs:
1. Fanner identification.
2. Units (i.e. gallons or tons).
3. Diluted or raw manure.
4. Number and identification of manure management groups.
(Up to 3 different manure management groups may be used on a farm. These management groups are
defined by the user, they may be different storage systems, different barns, different storage periods in a
given storage, etc.)
5. Tune-frame for the nutrient management plan for each manure management group.
B. Animal Information
This information is used if it is desired to estimate the manure produced on a farm that is available to be spread
on the fields. This is based on estimates of the manure production per animal unit per day. If the amount of
available manure on the farm is already known it is much better to measure the actual amount of manure in a
storage than it is to estimate that amount based on animal numbers and weights. Animal types may be subdivided
into subgroups. For example, Dairy manure may be divided into the following subgroups: cows, bred heifers,
young heifers, calves or whatever groupings are convenient. Manure production may be estimated or entered
individually for the three manure management groups.
Inputs for each management group to be estimated:
1. Manure management group.
2. Animal type and subgroup.
3. Average animal weight in each subgroup.
4. Number of animals in each subgroup.
5. Time each subgroup is in confinement.
21
-------
C. Manure Information
This provides specific information about the manure in each management?group that is required for deciding
how to best utilize it for the crops. j
Inputs for each management group:
1. Total Manure Analysis.
2. Tons of bedding used in a year.
3. Default number of days between manure spreading and incorporation. This is used to estimate nitrogen
availability from the manure and may be specified for each individual field.
4. Minimum, maximum, and incremental practical application rates.
D. Dilution Information
This information is used to adjust the estimate of the total amount of manure available in each management
group for any dilution water that might be added, such as waste water or from rainfall and/or runo ff (precipitation
dilution is estimated from average precipitation figures which may be adjusted for local conditions).
Inputs:
1. Gallons of wash water added daily.
2. Size of the manure storage open to rainfall
3. Size of any runoff area emptying into the manure storage.
E. Rotation Information
This information is used as a crude check of whether any excess P and/or K that is applied in a recommended
manure application will be taken care of by the rest of the rotation or whether it will contribute to a long-term
excess. This is based on the typical corn/hay rotation on the farm.
Inputs:
1. Number of years a field is in corn and the typical yield.
2. Number of years a field is in hay and the typical yield.
3. Any other crops grown on the farm.
F. Starter Fertilizer Information
This information is used to adjust the soil test recommendations for any nutrients applied in the starter fertilizer.
This adjustment is made so that the manure requirements are based on net nutrient needs. Up to three starter
fertilizer programs may be entered plus there is a no starter option. The appropriate starter program code is
then input for each field as the individual field information is input.
Inputs (For up to three starter fertilizer programs):
1. Starter fertilizer rate per acre.
2, Starter fertilizer analysis.
G. Individual Field Information
This is specific information on each individual field on the farm. Most of this information is taken directly from
the soil test report.
Inputs:
1. Field identification and size.
2. Crop to be grown and what year it is in the rotation.
3. Starter fertilizer program.
4. Manure History information. This is used to adjust N requirements for residual N from previous manure
applications.
a) Type of manure applied b the past
b) Frequency of past manure applications.
c) Rate of past manure applications.
5. Fanner override priority. These will be fields that will or will not get manure regardless of the nutrient
management recommendations. Also the fanner may specify which manure management group is to be used if
manure is need for a given field.
6. Time between spreading and incorporation for each field if different from the default value.
7. Soil test levels for pH, P, and K.
8. Crop yield goal.
9. Crop requirements for Lime, N, P, and K.
With this information the program first calculates an estimate of available manure on the farm if necessary. The
second step is to adjust the nutrient recommendations for residual N and for nutrients in the starter fertilizer. Then
22
-------
the fields are prioritized on the basis of assigning the highest priority to fields with the highest probability of a
profitable return or the lowest probability of pollution. The priority system used is Outlined below:
9
All of the fields on the farm are sorted by:
1. Fanner override - Yes = highest priority, No = lowest priority.
2. Crop in each field * Corn > other N requiring crops > legume hay > other
crops without N requirements.
3. Year in rotation - Oldest to newest legume stands.
4. Crop N requirement - Highest to lowest N requirement.
5. Soil test P level - Lowest to highest soil test P level.
The program then calculates the manure rate to meet the N requirement of N requiring crops and the rate to meet
the P or K requirement of other crops. This rate is then adjusted for the farmers practical minimum and maximum
spreading rates. After the manure requirement for each field is calculated the available manure in each management
group is then allocated to the fields starting with the first manure management group being applied on the highest
priority fields and working down the list until all of the manure is allocated to the fields or all of the available fields
have manure allocated to them. The program uses the manure management groups in the order they are entered un-
less a specific group is specified in the individual field information. Next the net nutrient requirement or excess is cal-
culated for each field. Finally any excesses are checked against the requirements for the entire rotation. If the mix of
crops in the rotation can not effectively utilize the excess then that field is flagged as a warning.
Several pieces of summary information for the farm are provided with the results. These include total available
manure and total manure nutrients for each manure management group. The uncollected manure for each group is
aiso estimated and reported. Also, if there is an excess of manure in any group after all fields have had manure as-
signed to them this excess amount is indicated. Finally the total net nutrients required for the farm is reported. The
fcirmer may aiso request a summary of all fields requiring additional fertilizer with amounts rounded to give a group-
ing of practical fertilizer rates. The print out also includes a data sheet the farmer can use to keep track of actual
nutrient applications to assist in monitoring the implementation of the nutrient management plan.
An example output of results from the program is attached. It has been strongly emphasized to farmers and farm
advisors that this output is only a working document to be used in developing a workable nutrient management plan
for an individual farm. It provides the fanner with the vital information required for nutrient management planning
iii an organized format. It is hoped that having the information so organized will get many farmers over this initial
hurtle to developing and implementing a sound nutrient management plan.
Use of this program has been implemented in Pennsylvania through an extensive multi-phase educational program.
The first phase was a three day in-depth inservice on the principles of nutrient management for our county agents.
This inservice culminated with a hands-on workshop utilizing the computer program. With our support these primary
people conducted phase two which was similar workshops in their local areas for others involved in working with
fcrmers on nutrient management problems such as SCS technicians, conservation district personnel, and fertilizer
dealers. The third phase has been these trained personnel working one-on-one or in small groups with farmers to
develop individual nutrient management plans.
Software Reference:
Beegle, D. B., P. T. Durst, and R. Schlauder, 1988, Farm Nutrient Management Worksheet, Version 2.0, Extension
Computer Services, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, ECS # AAG-0103.
23
-------
Bee le Farm Nutrient Management womsneeT
i y i o o
Results for: Farmer Brown
Manure Amounts
Group 1
TO BE SPREAD: 752381 Gallons
EXCESS: 348381 Gallon
UNCOLLECTED: 149850 Gallons
Group 2
216 Tons
3 6 Tons
21 3 Tons
Group 3 •
SOOTdhs
186 Tons
NET FERTILIZER
Nutrients Required:
Manure Nutrients
N
P2O5
K2O
18810
9781
18057
Ibs
Ibs
Ibs
2160
864
1728
Ibs
Ibs
Ibs
18000
16500
9000
Ibs
Ibs
Ibs
N
P2O5
K2O
300 IbS
890 Ibs
2670 Ibs
Net Nutrients (Ibs/A)
Field
I
OS7
OB9
OB1
OB4
OB3
OB8
JCF5
JCF15
JCF11
JCF21
F10ACI
JCF1
JCF17
JCF7
JCF19
JCF9
OB6
OB5
O82
JCF16
JCF8
JCF2
JCF14
JCF6
JCF3
JCF12
JCF22
JCF4
JCF18
JCF13
F10BD
JCF20
Acres
157
2
4
9
7
7
1 0
4
3
8
3
6
3
6
3
4
2
5
9
10
3
3
3
5
3
4
4
3
3
6
5
6
4
Crop i
Grass
Grass
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Oats
Oats
Oats
Hay
Hay
Hay
Hay
Hay
Hay
Hay
Hay
Hay
Hay
Soybeans
Soybeans
Soybeans
Group
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Manure
Rate/A
30
30
2
2
2
2
10000
10000
10000
10000
8000
8000
6000
6000
6000
2000
2
2
2
4000
0
6000
0
0
10000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Need(-) or
Incorp
(days)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
. |
0
0
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
N
-50
-50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
60
60
20
0
30
0
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Excess
P2O5
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.
.
.
60
0
30
30
30
30
50
00
60
50
90
30
00
00
10
50
0
70
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
60
70
50
0
K20 t
1 80
140
70
70
70
70
140
50
240
250
190
190
40
100
140
0
120
120
120
-1 1 0
-250
-130
0
-150
-60
0
0
-170
0
0
0
0
Rotation P &
ok
ok
ok
ok
Excess P
Excess P
ok
ok
ok
ok
ok
Excess P
ok
ok
ok
ok
ok
ok
ok
ok
ok
ok
ok
Excess P
ok
ok
ok
ok
ok
ok
ok
ok
The Pennsylvania State University
-------
Beegle Farm Nutrient Management Worksheet
SOIL .TEST DATA
Farmer Brown
Field
OB7
OB9
OB1
OB4
OB3
DBS
JCF5
JCF15
JCF11
JCF21
F10ACE
JCF1
JCF17
JCF7
JCF19
JCF9
DBS
DBS
DB2
JCF16
JCFB
JCF2
JCF14
JCF6
JCF3
JCF12
JCF22
JCF4
JCF18
JCF13
F10BDF
JCF20
Soil
DH I
6
5.5
5.4
5.4
6.4
6.5
6.2
6.1
6.9
6.1
6.5
6.8
7.3
6.2
6.8
6
5.9
6.4
6.1
6.5
6.8
6.5
6.2
6.4
6.7
7.3
6.4
6.6
7.9
7
6.8
7.5
Soil Test Levels
P2O5
27
74
195
219
630
818
238
130
190
280
144
459
179
179
149
219
63
251
31 1
169
258
135 '
244
445
101
184
219
295
231
122
144
251
K2O I
271
271
309
328
543.
534
243
187
646
515
477
472
112
178
300
178
356
318
365
262
215
271
562
318
225
515
515
365
412
318
41 2
412
Yield Goal I
4
4
100
100
100
100
20
20
20
100
20
20
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
50
50
50
f
; Requirements:
Lime
2400
5400
6500
4400
2000
0
2000
2400
0
2400
0
0
0
2000
0
2400
2400
2000
2400
2000
0
2000
2700
2000
2000
0
2000
2500
0
0
0
0
N
150
150
100
100
100
100
1 10
1 10
1 10
80
1 10
110
60
80
80
40
60
60
60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P2O5
180
130
0
0
90
30
70
30
0
0
20
0
170
0
0
50
0
80
0
0
120
30
0
0
0
70
50
0
K2O I
60
100
0
110
190
0
0
0
1 10
50
50
0
0
0
210
250
270
0
150
300
0
0
170
60
0
0
0
The Pennsylvania State University
-------
Beegle
Farm Nutrient Management Worksheet
Manure Frequency codes:
Manure Rale codes:
Manure Priority codes:
1 - never > 2 - rare. 3 * frequent, 4 - continuous
1 - none, 2 - light. 3 • medium, 4 » med-heavy, 5 - heavy
blank - as per need, 111,112,113 * YES, regardless of need,
999 - NO, regardless of need, 1,2/3 - specific group as per need
Example Farms
Individual FIELD Information in order of entry
Field Acres Crop Crop Starter Manure History
Alternate
Manure Incorporation
No. year Program I Freq Rate Type iPriority Time
OB7
OB9
OB1
OB4
OB3
OB8
JCF5
JCF15
JCF11
JCF21
F10ACI
JCF1
JCF17
JCF7
JCF19
JCF9
OB6
OB5
OB2
JCF16
JCF8
JCF2
JCF14
JCF6
JCF3
JCF12
JCF22
JCF4
JCF18
JCF13
F10BD
JCF20
2
4
9
7
7
10
4
3
8
3
6
3
6
3
4
2
5
9
1 0
3
3
3
5
3
4
4
3
3
6
5
6
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
. 0
0
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
3
3
1
1
3
1
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
4
4
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
4
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1 112
1 112
1 3
7 3
7 3
7 3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7 3
7 3
7 3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
10
1 0
1 0
1 0
10
10
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
10
2
2
2
The Pennsylvania State University
26
-------
Beegle Farm Nutrient Management Worksheet
9/9/88
Enter DILUTION Information:
Manure Group 1
Manure Group 2 Manure Group 3
Wash Water Added Daily: 1 5 0 < - - -
(Gallons)
Rain Water Added:
Direct Rain into Storage
Storage Length: (Feet) < —
Storage Width: (Feet) < - - -
or Storage Diameter: 4 0 < —
(Feet)
Runoff into Storage
Runoff Length: (Feet) 1 0 0 < - - -
Runoff Width: (Feet) 200<---
Enter ROTATION Information:
CROP
1 = Corn
Years: 4 < —
Yield (bu/A): 135<---
2 = Legume Hay
Years: 5
Yield (tons/A): 5
NAMES of OTHER CROPS
3 - Oats <
4 « Grass <
5 = Soybeans <
Enter STARTER FERTILIZER PROGRAM:
Lbs/A
|N
Analysis
P2O5
(%)
K20
Program A
Program A
Program A
Program *
0
1
2
3
NONE
100
300
100
1 0
1 0
1 1
20
20
55
10
20
0
The Pennsylvania State University
27
-------
Beegle
Farm Nutrient Management
NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT CALCULATIONS FOR: Farmer Brown
r
Manure Types
•
CATTLE
1 dairy
2 beef
3 veal
SWINE
4 sow &pigtets
5 pigs
6 gestating sows
POULTRY
7 dry
8 crumbly
9 moist
Manure
Group
2
2
1
1
I
Manure Animal
Type Class
1 heifers
1 calves
1 cows
1 Heifers
Animal Animal
Wt. Numbers
600 30
300 20
1300 60
900 30
Days in Confinement
Full Partial Days
Days Days hrs/day
0 365 5
365
185 180 6
185 180 2
I
Enter MANURE Information:
Manure Group 1 Manure Group 2 Manure Group 3
Known manure amount: < — < — 300< —
Manure Type: Dry poultry
Unit of measure: Gallons < — Tons < — Tons < —
Analysis
Bedding
Days to
Ibs. N
Ibs. P2O5
Ibs. K2O
used (Tons):
incorporation:
Range of Application Rates:
Min.
Max.
Rate Increments
L
2.5/100 gal 1 0 /ton
1.3/100 gal 4 /ton
2.4/100 gal 8 /ton
0 < — 70 < —
5 <--- 7 <-•-
2000 < — 1 0 < —
10000<--- 30<---
2000<--- 10<---
60 /ton
55/ton
30 /ton
<-•-
2 <---
2 <---
6 <-• -
2 <---
I
The Pennsylvania State University
28
-------
Tracking Animal Waste Management — Information peeds
Richard Pennay
United States Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Animal waste may or may not be a major agricultural non-point source of pollution. The management of livestock
and poultry farm operations usually is a major determinant relative to whether or not animal waste is a pollutant or an
economical source of plant nutrients.
Problem Assessment
Water quality projects should be planned in a manner that determines water quality problems and the causes of the
problems. Agricultural non-point water quality problems are usually related to the farm management of the land.
This indicates a need for an assessment of factors that may be changed by man such as the land use, livestock density,
principal crops grown, fertilizer applications, pesticide applications, manure handling methods and other manage-
ment factors.
In addition fixed factors such as soils, geology, rainfall and rainfall intensity, and climate are needed. Water quality
improvement will require Best Management changes in the variable factors that are compatible with the fixed factors.
A good assessment of the factors affecting water quality will permit managers to identify potential variables that may
be addressed in a manner to improve the water quality.
Animal waste assessment information needs to include the volume produced, how it is disposed of or how it is
used, the expected nutrient and biological species content, application rates, weather conditions when waste is placed
on land, and the method of land application. The proximity to water bodies information should be considered. A
tiend assessment may be made to determine whether animal waste is an increasing problem or a decreasing problem.
This may affect the desired emphasis and resources needed to solve or reduce the problem to reasonable levels.
Technical Planning
The technical needs of animal waste management are expected to vary in different land areas due to factors noted
ir. the assessment. Generally, a non-point water quality animal waste system will bclude land application to farmland.
It may also include other land such as forests, strip-mined areas and others. Application methods may include surface
spreading, soil incorporation, and/or irrigation. Regardless of the application method used, it appears that nutrient
management and soU erosion management will be major means in reducing water pollution.
A nutrient management system should include nutrient loading to the land comparable to use by the plant growth
ejected on that land. Agronomic recommendations should consider expected nutrient losses in storage, surface
spreading, timing of application, and others. The agronomic variables in soils and climates and needs of specific
crops grown on the land will determine 4he crop use rates.
Manure nutrient analysis, soil testing, and the history of the land management are needed to assist technicians and
farmers to match nutrient applications to nutrient needs.
Manure handling management may include storage. Storage structures may vary as to construction from earthen to
concrete, wood, and steel. Storage structures should be constructed in a way that they do not leak and pollute ground
water and be large enough to hold a volume that will not require emptying during periods when the land is expected to
be frozen or extremely wet Surface pollution is the highest under wet or frozen land conditions. Desirable applica-
tion dates are as close to the plant maximum use date as possible.
Technical planning, application and evaluation for each type of livestock and agronomic condition should be re-
lated to the variable and fixed conditions noted in the assessment section.
29
-------
Animal Waste Management Delivery System
Federal, state, and local technicians may be involved in the delivery system for a waste management program. In
the Conestoga RCWP project the Extension Service, the Soil Conservation Service, the Conservation District, crop-
ping associations and some private agricultural suppliers are promoting and/or supervising animal waste applications
in accordance with management planning guides developed by Pennsylvania State University.
Media and manuals are also a delivery means that provide benefits. In Pennsylvania, the Department of Environ-
mental Resources has completed a set of manure management mamials with separate technical guidelines for each
major type of livestock. This was a cooperative effort by several state, federal and private groups.
Evaluation and Improvement
Evaluation of progress and benefit of animal waste systems is a must to determine the public benefits. In-stream
monitoring may be needed to evaluate the program effectiveness if the livestock waste concentration is a high percent-
age of the stream nutrient load. There may be other pollution sources that may mask the benefit of a good animal
waste program. Other evaluations may include calculated nutrient load reductions on land. Changes in erosion and
sediment control, land application methods, manure marketing, and other disposal means may indicate the effective-
ness of an animal waste management system.
Evaluation may indicate the need for expanded or reduced pollution control methods. The voluntary approach
may not adequately address manure related pollution problems. State and local governments may impose legal regula
tions to control the proper management of animal waste. Several possible alternatives include state stream water
quality laws, local building permits to control expansion and local zoning laws.
Summary
Animal waste information needs to plan, implement, and evaluate a program or project may vary. A good assess-
ment of the problem and characterization of the project area is essential. Since farm management changes are usualh
a must, the Best Management needs to be communicated to the fanners, agri-business, government, support groups,
and the public. Understanding by producers and agri-business may effect the desired changes needed to reduce pollii
tion from animal waste. Institutional direction may be assisted by a good informational data base in both voluntary
and regulatory administration.
30
-------
TRACKING ANIMAL WASTE
INFORMATION
IS ANIMAL WASTE A PROBLEM? *T
ASSESSMENT
FARM MANAGMENT
TYPE OF LIVESTOCK
LIVESTOCK DENSITY/AC/TWP/CO/ETC.
MANURE APPLICATION RATES
MANURE HANDLING METHODS
SOILS
WEATHER
PROXIMITY TO WATER BODIES
FARM MANAGEMENT
31
-------
SUGGESTED ITEMS IN A WATERSHED ASSESSMENT REPORT
I. Title Page
A, . Title of Report
0. ' Date (month/year)
C. Preparation by (district]
D. Funding Source (PADER/8SWC)
I i . Tab » e of Con tent*
III. Introduction
A. Ar ea Studied
8. Purpose of Study
C. Authorization for Study
IV. Executive Summary
V. Description of Study Area
A. Location (include map)
B. Size of Watershed
C. Watershed Population
0. Land Use Breakdown (acres/% of watershed) TABLE
E. Agricultural Land Use Breakdown (acres/% of ag land) TABLE
t. cropland
(a) corn
(b) soybeans
(c) smaII grains
(d) a I fa I fa/hay
2. Pasture
3. Other
F. Animal Populations TABLE
1. type of operation (dairy/swine/beef/pouI try /other)
2. number of operations
3. approximate animal numbers
G. Watershed Topography
H. Soils in Watershed (General Soils Map + Description)
I. Groundwater ( I imestone/geoIogy/Known pollution problems)
VI. Field Assessment Methodology
A. First Level Screening
32
-------
Prepared by Mark Lehner 1/20/8
STATISTICS ON THE CONESTOGA HEADWATERS RURAL CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
IT EH
Area of project area
of farms
QUANTITY
UNIT
Nur.b«r of cooperators
Average acreage of farms larger than 15 acres
Acres of planned farmland
Llvei.tock farns (beef)
Dairy farms
Acre;, of corn grain
Acre:; of corn si Uge
Acre!, of hay
AcreJi of sr.all grain
jAcrei. of tobacco
Acre:, of potatoes
Acre!, of other crops
Dairy cows
He $ ftrs
Breeding hogs
fattening hogs
Cattle for fattening
Poultry layers
Poul try broi lers
Manuie produced in project area
"anure produced in project area/farm
inure spread rate for farmland
anure spread rate for cropland
110,000
1,250
387
52
21,256
1,009
2^,552
•11,682
18.08^
7,550
2,310
26*.
1^52
22,058
17,^ t
8,82*.
25,090
53, 9^5
1.W5.10I
Acres
Farms
Coopers tors
Acres/farm
Acres
Farms ) some both
Farms ) <*a ! ^ and
beef
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
AnimalsA39,5*»2 cows)
An i rr-a 1 5 5
Animal 5(133.91^ hogs"
An i ma 1 s 3
Aniir-a'ls (53, 95*5 catU<
Birds ^(3>62.*i25
1,997,324
1,265,1^0
1,012
>9-5
Chi eke;
Bi rds
Tons/year
Tons/year
Tons/acre/year
Tons/acre/year
33
-------
Table 2 PLANT NUTRIENTS NEEDED VS. NUTRIENTS AVA
LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA in 1979
LZ IN
CROP PRODUCTION NEEDS
CROP ACRES
1
Com Silage 57,200
Corn Grain 120,200
Hay 88,600
Small Grains 37,300
Tobacco 11,200 1
Potatoes 1,420
Other 7,080
TOTAL 323*000
NUTRIENTS AVAILABLE FROM MANURE
SPECIES POUNDS PER
Nitrogen Phos.
Dairy Cows 5 3
Dairy Heifers 5 3
Hog Breeding 5 6
Hog Fattening 5 6
Poultry Eggs 20 40
Poultry Meat 30 55
Cattle Fattening 5 3
YIELD
CO. AVG.
18.9 Tons
105 Bu.
2.8 Tons
40 Bu.
,900 Lbs.
500 Bu.
TON3
Potash
5
5
9
9
20
30
5
TOTAL NUTRIENTS FROM MANURE
FERTILIZER PURCHASED
TOTAi NUTRIENTS AVAILABLE
TOTAL NUTRIENTS AVAILABLE PER ACRE5
EXCESS NUTRIENTS SUPPLIED (total Lancaster Co.
NITROGEN
LBS.
8,008,000
14,424,000
746,000
1,120,000
170,400
24.468,400
NITROGEN4
LBS.
7,368,440
2,908,595
1,387,000
1,573,830
3,666,940
2,824,800
12,544,405
33,274,010
14.062,060
47.336.070
146.5
fl22.867.67CI
7,971,400 31,819,400
PHOSPHORUS
LBS.
4,421,064
1,745,157
1,664,400
1,888,596
7,333,680
5,178,800
7,526,643
POTASH
LBS,
7,368,400
2,908,595
2,496,600
2,832,894
3,666,940
2,824,800
12,544,405
29,758,540 34,642,674
14,992.000 14.151.980
138.5 151.0
VALUE OF EXCESS NUTRIENTS APPLIED
(N at 22C, P at 30C, and K at 12*}
TONS MANURE PER CROP PRODUCTION ACRE
$5,030,387 $11,033,742 $2,037*030
TOTAL EXCESS VALUE $18,101,659
/16.82 TonsY-
1 1979 Crop and Livestock Annual Suircnary, USDA, PDA
2. Soil Testing Handbook, PSU
Crop removal / Co. average yield x Acres
3 1981 Acrongr.y Guide, PSU
4 Tons =anure/year (Table 1) x Pounds of nutrients/Ton
5 Total nutrients available divided by 323,000 acres
6 Total nutrients available ninus total crop production needs
7 Total manure produced divided by total acres (323,000)
-------
WHAT ARE THE POLLUTION PROBLEMS?
TOO MUCH NUTRIENT VOLUME
MANAGEMENT METHODS
LIVESTOCK ACCESS TO WATER BODIES
WINTER SURFACE SPREADING
NUTRIENT LOADING IN THE
CONESTOGA RCWP
SOURCE: SEC, 208 ASSESSMENT - PA DER - BUREAU S&W AND EPA
EXCERPTED DATA
# SAMPLE FARMS
ALL CROPS
212
CORN GRAIN
204
CORN SILAGE
204
SMALL GRAINS
203
AVG. NUTRIENT LOADING FROM MANURE
HAY
N #/A
375
430
433
376
123
P #/A
239
272
274
239
114
l\ ff / M
252
273
724
250
166
204
35
-------
WHAT ARE THE SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS?
- EDUCATION AND INFORMATION '<
(ONE-ON-ONE, GROUPS, MEDIA)
- "STATE OF THE ART" MANAGEMENT
- PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THE PROBLEM
FARMERS, AGRIBUSINESS, LENDERS, ETC,
- TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION, SCS, ASCS, AGRIBUSINESS,
STATE AGENCIES, OTHERS
- LEGAL RESTRAINTS
FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL
' (CLEAN STREAMS' LAW - BUILDING PERMITS, ETC.)
- LAND USE RESTRICTIONS
LONG RANGE - INSTITUTIONAL GUIDANCE TO
STATE, LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AG LENDERS,
AGRIBUSINESS
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE - BMPs
AREAS OF CONCERN:
NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLANNING
ANIMAL WASTE SYSTEMS APPROACH
— ADEQUATE STORAGE AND SPREADING
EQUIPMENT - CALIBRATION
— TIMING OF APPLICATION
— ANIMAL ACCESS TO WATER BODIES
(STREAM CROSSINGS, FENCING, ELIMINATING
EXERCISE LOTS ALONG STREAMS)
— MANURE EXPORT
— EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
36
-------
J. Ross Harris, Jr.
Extension Specialist
Environmental Quality
Calibrating Manure Spreaders
Procedure I For Solid
and Semisolid Manure
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE
NEWARK, DE 19711
Calibrating a manure
spreader is a simple, easy
management tool that can
help you utilize nutrients more
efficiently from manure. The
procedure described below
takes less than an hour but
can save you hundreds of
dollars. By knowing the appli-
cation rates of the manure
spreader, you can apply correct
amounts of manure to meet
crop needs. Over-applying
manure wastes nutrients, and
increases the chance of
groundwater contamination.
Using manure wisely is impor-
tant for your crops and your
pocketbook.
Materials needed
1. Bucket
2. Tarp, plastic sheet,
or bedsheet
3. Scale
Manure Spreader
Capacity
SPREADER SIZE TONS OF MANURE
70-75 bushels 1.5
90-100 bushels 2.0
125-135 bushels 2.5
180 bushels 3.5
1. Determine manure spreader
capacity
2. Lay tarp, sheet or cloth in
the field. Calculation will be
easier if cloth or sheet is
an even size, such as
10'x10'or 10'x12'.
3. Start applying manure
downrange from sheet Then
drive over sheet at the speed
you normally would drive
when applying manure.
POUNDS OF SIZE OF PLASTIC SHEET
MANURE APPLIED 8'X8' 10'X10' 10'X12'
TO SHEET
° c Tons manure applied/acre
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
0.34
0.68
1.02
1.36
1.70
2.04
2.38
2.72
3.06
3.40
3.74
4.08
4.42
4.76
5.10
5.45
5.79
6.13
6.47
6.81
7.15
7.49
0.22
0.44
0.65
0.87
1.09
1.31
1.52
1.74
1.96
2.18
2.40
2.61
2.83
3.05
3.27
3.48
3.70
3.92
4.14
4.36
4.57
4.79
0.18
0.36
0.54
0.73
0.91
1.09
1.27
1.45
1.63
1.82
2.00
2.18
2.36
2.54
2.72
2.90
3.09
3.27
3.45
3.63
3.81
3.99
37
-------
4. Collect sheet and
manure into bucket.
pour
5. Weigh bucket remembering
to subtract weight of empty
bucket This will give you
the pounds of manure
applied to sheet
6. Repeat the procedure three
times.
7. Determine average weight
of the three applications.
8. Check chart for pounds
applied and size of plastic
sheet; then read tons of
manure applied per acre.
9. If the size of your sheet is
not listed, use the following
quotation to determine the
amount applied per acre.
Ponds of mannn
01 thi sheet x 21.78
Ana of tlo sheet ft.1
Tons/acre
This procedure is particularly
good for dry manure such as
[broiler and horse manure.
The method can also be used.
for dairy cow wastes, but use
plastic sheet that has been
weighed with the empty
bucket Weigh manure, sheet,
and bucket together and sub-
tract the weight of sheet and
bucket Then follow steps 6
through 9.
If you have questions, or
need assistance with this or
other manure management
decisions, contact Ross Harris
at 736-1448, or your local
county agent
Cooperative Extension work in agriculture and home economics. Extension Service. University of Delaware and United States Department o»:-
Agriculture, cooperating; Samuel M. Gw.nn. Director. Distributed in furtherance of Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30. 1914. IT is the policy
of the University of Delaware that no person shall be subjected to discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national or ethnic
ortgin, age, handicapped or veteran status.
38
-------
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE - BMPs f
AREAS OF CONCERN:
— NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLANNING
ANIMAL WASTE SYSTEMS APPROACH
— ADEQUATE STORAGE AND SPREADING
EQUIPMENT - CALIBRATION
-- TIMING OF APPLICATION
— ANIMAL ACCESS TO WATER BODIES
(STREAM CROSSINGS, FENCING, ELIMINATING
EXERCISE LOTS ALONG STREAMS)
-- MANURE EXPORT
— EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
EVALUATION OF ANIMAL WASTE SYSTEMS
, — REVIEW OF NUTRIENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION -
CREAMS MODEL AMD OTHERS - SOME PROCESS
— DETERMINE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SYSTEMS APPROACH
ON THE RECEIVING WATERS
— WHAT ARE THE RESULTS?
POLLUTION REDUCTION?
ECONOMIC?
FARM MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY
SOCIAL ATTITUDES - FARfl AND NON-FARM
LAND MANAGEMENT CHANGE
39
-------
00
"**in
CO
V.
r>-
>-
<
T-
55
LU
O
L^
U_
O
I—
UJ
§
|
t—
z
i ^
5
5
z
o
CO
z
LU
I—
X
LU
i . *
L*KI .
£
UJ
S;
8
UJ
< p
Z
Z
LU
Q.
L
•
a
4
^
h
^
>
e
4
3
3
«
v
93
3
«
^N
.
CO
•*i
CO
u.
to
o
)•»
ac
2
E
o
CM
03
-J
» 8
>O O UJ N
<*.<& (O «X
CM — » tO
— Z CB
-i .A UJ
?
%
v< S
3 §>
5* ^
* ^
o
CO \o
00 fN.
• •
0 —
CM *»
7 '
CO
".O
^O
1
"f
00
o^
t
LO
ao oo
p*- *~
CM «
CM
t
CO
vO o
U5 "0
CO '
K)
09
s
d.
A H-
§5
5^
f fi
e«
^ <§
1 •
UJ
UJ
ec
0
, .
UJ
RE AVAILABL
9
2
^
C
|
ur> P- CM
vO ^O ^^
CM ON r-
Z ^ OC
oc 2*^ ^J
C5 T"* iJnnit
s
1
h
1
" LO"
fO CM
"™11" 1
1
K) K) vO CM
LO CM — —
P^ 1 ON 1
P*T 0
vD CM
1 l
OO K) P- O
r- i K) —
ON r*-"
t «—
i
r^ CM
\Q ^2
CM* — "
(13 fl^
<_ <_
a. Q.
a
i i
o>
>!
""" o"
t2 °
o5 ^
> d>
"E <
3 "o
fi
3 o
t.
o
o a>
•55
o- "^
qg {g
.
I§
B |
> "x
•*•"» 1 i i
^^ UiJ1
1^
I §
^
S^"
-------
CO
•^
o"*
Csl
0,
CO
5
"*•»
z
I
H
t-H
§
1
2
CL,
03
CM
^
cn
m
en
H
0)
<
r-»
M
41
r*
O
U
Ol
•H
CO
Permanent Veget
^
o
o
cu
o
41
I
3
0>
Animal Waste
fsl
"^.
t
!
i
i
i
i
CO
cu
to
<
1
1
Stripcropping
PI
,3.
S
A
m
o
o
°i
^"
rH
01
4g
so
r-
r**
*
CN
0)
4J
CO
fs
VI
0)
00
(0
rH
Conservation Ti
o\
i i i
i i i
i i i
i i i
< i i
i i i
i i i
i i i
to to
O 1
sO 0
•^
rH
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
to to co co
01 V 01 01
to to to to
< % % <
1 r- o r-
) rH O rH
en o m
M
^^
X™\
PO
*w
4-1
U
/-N 01
< 1-1
s-' O
41 4-1 C
e c cu
CO CU E
60 e o>
Fertilizer Mana
Nutrient Manage
Pesticide Manag
•K
rH rH rH
C
i
>> -C »
in M »n
ON ^ CO
in m Q,I— i
" C 6
in E y 4J
<-" U, 0 U
11 CQ O
01 rv H
T3 CO « <»
- O £<
(U 0* S
r~- ^ O W CO
^n QJ 4j s
00 3 4!
co en oo ^ ••->
co c rt <
tN o u Do x:
•H CD O 4J
o io w S
5 Oi
•a 4J o to
oi co 2 ^
_ p*1* *^
sJ OO 00?"' E
*^ CA C OS cfl
" >.•*!
•H > 13 •
O. -H rH 4J
C H3 ffl • iH O
o c 1-1 sw a.
-H >, rl 01 01
u J3 0> "O SM la
U 4J 3 0
3 T3 rH O CO
"O 41 •< to 4J -H
0» > U C J3
M ca t 0) 4-1
to * E
01 S OO S 3
CN o Ot 41 -r-i in
OLI (0 M rH
0) T) CU C
TJ LUI vw CO X! O
e o cu u u -H
CO «! S3 u
e •" u
2 o T3 C 01
cu in co co
co a u ao cu c
J iH m | • V4 iH
< e a., • W
eo h -a oo at co
3 41 C j= 01
> C 3 4J -« M -H
O sr w o >
Q OO Ctt B M-l -H
S 0> 3 -rl 4J
rH I-H d CO U
c/1 C9 *T3 C c3
32 aO > W o
•< C Ol -H CQ
Oi C(] CM U U rH
03 3
gnuS
*
-------
RCWP ACCUMULATED NUTRIENT
REDUCTIONS 1983 - 1987
SOIL
YEAR SAVED N/lbs
1983 6,340 10,144 2,536
1984 18,503 156,692 87,723
1985 23,467 176,453 99,663
1986 16,029 174,552 108,413
1987 22,440 288,857 157,539
TOTALS 86,779 806,698 455,874
42
-------
Executive Summary for Soil Conservation Service Procedure Manual:
Development of Standards and Specifications for ^Nutrient and Pesticide
Management
James L Anderson, Department of Soil Science, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota
James C. Balogh, Spectrum Research, Inc., Duluth, Minnesota
Mark Waggoner, USDA Soil Conservation Service, St. Paul, Minnesota
Significance of Water Resources and Agrlchemicals in the United States
The use of agricultural chemicals are essential components
of agricultural production systems in the United States.
Fertilizers supplement soil derived plant nutrients; organic and
inorganic amendments improve soil fertility and physical quality;
and pesticides control weeds, insects, and other pests. The
benefits of chemical management in agriculture must be balanced
against potential contamination of surface water and groundwater
resources. Concern over agricultural nonpoint source pollution of
water resources has intensified with increased reliance on use of
chemicals and water resources in agricultural systems.
Unmistakable links have been made between water quality and
nutrient and pesticide management practices (EPA 1988; Leonard
1988; Pratt 1985; Stewart et al. 1976).
Farm and land use managers are caught in the dilemna of
maintaining cost effective operations while sharing public
concern over health hazards to their water supply. Many fanners
perceive limited alternatives to chemical management options,
adopted on the recommendation of both university and Industry
scientists (Fairchild 1987a). Potential increases in regulation
of agricultural chemicals (EPA 1987) further frustrate an
industry faced with increasing financial risks. The challenge is
to develop management strategies that optimize the benefit of
agrichemicals and minimize the risk of nonpoint source pollution.
Groundwater and surface water are invaluable natural
resources. They supply drinking water, water for irrigation and
industry, a source of natural beauty and recreational focus, and
a mode of transportation. In the mid-1960's to early 1980's the
focus of water quality issues was on sediment and runoff related
transport of agricultural chemicals (Stewart et al. 1976;
Wauchope 1978; Willis and McDowell 1982). An array of soil and
water conservation practices were developed to control soil
erosion as well as control sediment transport of nutrients and
pesticides (Stewart et al. 1975).
Beginning in the early 1980's, the focus of water quality
issues shifted to groundwater (Pye et al. 1983). Nonpoint source
contamination of groundwater by agricultural chemicals 1s
emerging as one of the major environmental of the next decade
(EPA 1987; Kail berg 1986). Increased use of groundwater for
intensified use by agriculture, industry, and municipalities has
been associated with documented problems of deterioration of
groundwater quality (Koehler et al. 1982a; SraoU- et al. 1984).
Half of the population of the United States uses groundwater as
their primary source of drinking water; 75 percent of major
United States cities depend on groundwater for much of their
total supply; and 97 percent of all rural, domestic drinking
water in the United States is supplied by groundwater wells (EPA
1987; Lee and Nielsen 1987). Contamination of groundwater with
43
-------
substances making it unsuitable for human use is a matter for
public concern (Pratt 1985).
The USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has long been
involved in management programs directed toward conservation of
both soil and water resources. The SCS recognizes that
agricultural nonpoint sources are a significant problem in
relation to water quality. A strong policy commitment exists in
the SCS to implement and further develop existing management
practices to achieve surface water and groundwater quality goals
(USDA SCS 1987). In order to promote achievement of groundwater
and surface water quality goals, the SCS is committed to
1) Support of the USDA Nonpoint Water Quality Policy;
2) Recognize the rights and responsibilities of State and
local agencies in defining water use and water quality
objectives;
3) Coordinate activities that affect water quality with
both public and private agencies;
4) Emphasize the importance of voluntary management by
land owners in regard to water quality issues;
5) Integrate water quality concepts and management
techniques into appropriate programs;
6) Provide direct assistance toward mitigation of
agricultural and nonpoint source water quality
problems;
7) Support research efforts to define and assess water
quality and nonpoint source areas;
8) Develop technical tools necessary to quantify
environmental and economic impacts of soil and water
conservation measures;
9) Train agency personnel and assist in training State
soil conservation and conservation district personnel
in surface and groundwater quality concepts and
management techniques.
Development and implementation of the SCS Procedure Manual for
Development of Standards and Specifications for Nutrient and
Pesticide Management is part of the overall SCS program to
achieve these surface water and groundwater quality policy goals.
One of the principal goals of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) water resources strategy is to protect the quality
of water resources (EPA 1986). The EPA is currently developing a
44
-------
State level pesticide registration strategy to protect local and
regional groundwater resources (EPA 1987). The EPA ha's suggested
that State Extension Services and USDA Soil Conservation Service
have a pivotal role in suggesting and implementing management
practices to mitigate pollution of water resources by
agricultural chemicals. Cooperative development of standards and
specifications for nutrient and pesticide management between the
USOA SCS and Cooperative Extension Services (CES) is essential
for sound agricultural management in an environment of
increasingly complex technical and regulatory issues.
Water Quality Issues: Nonpoint Pollution of Surface Water and
Groundwater
The public, including rural agricultural communities, is
justifiably concerned about water resource issues. Although the
extent of surface water and especially groundwater pollution has
not been well characterized, it is currently apparent that water
resources are increasingly under threat of contamination (Canter
1987; Keeney 1982; Keeney 1986; Leonard 1988). Increased or
sustained use of fertilizers and pesticides, concentration of
feedlot wastes, and implementation of certain soil conservation
practices have affected both surface and subsurface transport of
water pollutants (Daniel et al. 1982). Given the prohibitive
expense for clean-up of water resources, there has been an
increasing recognition that prevention of water pollution is a
viable strategy for mitigation of water quality problems (Lee and
Nielsen 1987).
The rate and extent of nonpoint pollution of water resources
is spatially and temporally variable. Variations depend on soil
distribution, climate, topography, subsurface geology, land use,
land management strategies, and- the intensity of chemical
applications. In general the intensity of land use is directly
proportional to the potential for water quality problems. The
major transport mechanisms for nonpoint pollution are surface
runoff (solution and particulate) and subsurface flow (Pye and
Patrick 1983).
Although nonpoint source pollution of surface water and
groundwater has numerous sources, recent studies suggest that
agricultural practices may make a significant contribution to
water quality problems (Canter 1987; Leonard 1988). Major
agricultural chemicals of concern in runoff are nutrients,
principally phosphorus and nitrogen, and pesticides (Leonard
1988; Stewart et al. 1976). Pesticides and nitrate-nitrogen are
the chemicals of concern in regard to potential contamination of
groundwater (Pratt 1985).
Edge of field losses of nitrogen and phosphorus and
subsurface transport of nitrogen have been associated with
intensive use of fertilizers in row crop systems (Pratt 1985;
45
-------
Keeney 1982; Keeney 1986; Koehler et al. 1982a, 1982bf Baker
1987). Total nitrogen concentration in agricultural ounoff ranges
from less than 0.5 ppm to 92 ppm (Table 1; Koehler et' al. 1982a).
Baker (1985) cites examples of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution
of the Lake Erie Basin. Contamination of surface waters and
groundwater in this region are linked to intensive use of
nitrogen and phosphorus in row crop production systems. Keeney
(1982), Legg and Meisinger (1982), and Stewart et al. (1976)
describe numerous examples of surface runoff losses of nitrogen.
Runoff losses of nitrogen are extremely variable. Losses are
associated with amount and technique of nitrogen application,
timing and type of post-application precipitation events; soil
and topographic conditions; and tillage systems. Surface losses
of nitrogen are generally low (Legg and Meisinger 1982), except
when nitrogen rates are high and are surface applied prior to
rainfall events.
Infiltration of soil water beyond the rooting zone has the
potential to transport solution phase nitrate-nitrogen to
groundwater (Keeney 1986; Pratt 1985). In an extensive review of
nitrates and groundwater resources Keeney (1986) describes the
association of high nitrate levels in groundwater and intensive
use of nitrogen fertilizer. Increasing levels of fertilizer
derived nitrates in groundwater beneath agricultural land has
been identified in all agricultural regions in the United States
(Canter 1987; Keeney 1986; Koehler et al. 1982a). Canter (1987)
cites over 20 case studies of fertilizer nitrate contamination of
groundwater throughout the United States. At least 24 States have
documented reports of nitrate contamination of groundwater
(Fairchild 1987b).
Factors associated with nitrate contamination of groundwater
include rates and application of fertilizer nitrogen; amount of
percolating water associated with rainfall or irrigation; soil
and climate conditions; and tillage and waste management
practices. Intensity of nitrogen use and soil leaching potential
are critical factors in potential for groundwater contamination
(Table 1; Table 3). Although research data is variable,
fertilization of crops above recommended levels has been
associated with increased rates of subsurface leaching and
accumulation of nitrogen without the benefit of substantial
increases in crop yield (Aldrich 1984; Bock 1984; Keeney 1986;
Overdahl 1985; Stanford and Legg 1984).
Phosphorus losses are associated with sediment and use
soluble phase of surface runoff (Taylor and Kilmer 1980; Koehler
et al. 1982a, 1982b; Stewart et al. 1975). Total phosphorus
concentration in agricultural runoff ranges from less than 0.25
ppm to 1.25 ppm (Table 2; Koehler et al. 1982a). Rate of
application, potential for sediment transport, runoff volume, and
management practices determine edge of field losses of both
soluble and sediment-bound phosphorus. Taylor and Kilmer (1980)
46
-------
describe several studies that demonstrate increasing flosses of
soluble and sediment-bound phosphorus as the rate of;application
increases. The level of both nitrogen and phosphorus losses in
runoff are increased by surface application without incorporation
(Taylor and Kilmer 1980; Stewart et al. 1975, 1976; Keeney 1982;
KoeMer et al. 1982a). In most agricultural systems, phosphorus
is strongly adsorbed and not available for subsurface solution
transport to groundwater (Koehler et al. 1982b; Stewart et al.
1976).
Pesticides are transported in solution phase to both surface
water (Stewart et al. 1976; Leonard 1988; Wauchope 1978; Willis
and McDowell 1982) and groundwater (EPA 1988; Pratt 1985).
Sediment bound and solution transport of pesticides to surface
water is another major nonpoint pollution source (Stewart et al.
1976; Leonard 1988). Incidents of groundwater and surface water
contamination with pesticides are being reported with increasing
frequency (Canter 1987; EPA 1988; Hall berg 1987; Leonard 1988;
Smolen et al. 1984). Deterioration of drinking water quality and
associated health hazards are the principal sources of concern
related to pesticide contamination (Cantor et al. 1987).
In several extensive literature reviews estimated edge of
field seasonal losses have been established (Leonard 1988;
Wauchope 1978, Willis and McDowell 1982). Surface losses of water
insoluble pesticides are less than 1 percent of the total amount
applied. Depending on slope and hydrologic conditions, wettable
powders produce the highest surface losses ranging from 2 to 5
percent of total applied. Water soluble and soil incorporated
pesticides show losses of 0.5 percent or less. Catastrophic
surface losses of pesticides are associated with runoff events
occurring immediately after surface application of pesticides.
Catastrophic losses are defined as surface transport of 2 percent
of the applied pesticide in a single event. If runoff events
occur within two weeks of application, surface losses of wettable
powders and soluble compounds will increase three-fold (Wauchope
1978; Willis and McDowell 1982).
Factors determining runoff (soluble and sediment bound)
losses of pesticides include rainfall characteristics, interval
between pesticide application and rainfall, pesticide chemical
properties, rate and method of pesticide application, soil
properties and antecedent moisture conditions, ground cover, and
transport distance. Partitioning of pesticide between surface
transport and subsurface transport depends on chemical
characteristics and soil properties (EPA 1988; Leonard 1988;
Stewart et al. 1975). Rate of pesticide application and interval
between application and rainfall are the critical factors
determining the total mass of pesticides lost in surface runoff
(Wauchope 1978; Leonard 1988).
Contamination of groundwater by agricultural chemicals has
-------
been primarily limited to upper aquifers (EPA 1988; Fairchild
1987b). The shallow distribution and low concentration of
pesticides in groundwater may be a consequence of slow movement
and short duration of intense application (Pratt 1985). However,
nonpoint pollution of deep aquifers has been observed with
increasing frequency (Hallberg et al. 1983; Pratt 1985). In 1985
the EPA compiled a summary of 17 different pesticides detected in
groundwater. These pesticides, applied under normal application
conditions, were found in groundwater of 23 States where
monitoring has occurred (Table 4; EPA 1986). Additional
contamination sites and pesticides have been detected as State
monitoring programs have expanded (e.g. Ames et al. 1987; Klaseus
et al. 1988; Niel et al. 1987).
The potential for transport of pesticides from the root zone
to groundwater is determined by a complex interaction of
chemical, soil, climatic, and management factors (EPA 1988; Pratt
1988). Pesticide properties related to leaching potential include
amount, application technique and formulation of the pesticide;
water solubility; soil adsorption; volatility; and
degradation/persistence (Table 5). Soil properties related to
pesticide transport potential include texture, organic matter
content, cation exchange capacity, structure, porosity, and
moisture conditions. Other site specific factors related to
subsurface losses of pesticides include depth to groundwater,
geologic substrate, and cropping and tillage systems.
The variation and timing of precipitation or irrigation in
relation to pesticide application, occurrence of preferential
flow paths, pesticide handling and disposal practices, and well
location will also have profound affects on pesticide transport
(EPA 1988; Logan et al. 1987). These factors may be associated
with increased leaching potential despite mitigating pesticide
and soil properties. Fractured aquifers, shallow aquifers, and
intensified irrigation practices are additional unique concerns
for agricultural nonpoint impacts on groundwater quality (Pratt
1985, Smolen et al. 1984).
Research on aquifer contamination in Wisconsin, Nebraska,
and New York has demonstrated that water soluble pesticides (e.g.
aldicarb, alachlor, atrazine) applied for sustained periods will
result in groundwater contamination (EPA 1986; Rothschild et al.
1982; Spalding et al. 1980). These regions were located on sandy
soils with low organic matter content. These soil conditions are
conducive to rapid movement of organic chemicals. However, in
these cases pesticide contamination was associated with normal
and approved uses. Given these conditions there has been
speculation that increased use of approved pesticides and
inadvertent overuse may be associated with increased leaching
potential (Logan et al. 1987).
48
-------
Benefits of Nutrient and Pesticide Management
The use of chemical fertilizers (organic and inorganic) and
pesticides is considered necessary for economically successful
agricultural systems (Daniel and Schnieder 1979). Sound nutrient
and pesticide management involves use of practices designed to
retain the applied chemicals on site and within the rooting zone
(Rehm 1987; Stewart 1975, 1976; Koehler et al. 1982a, 19825).
Protection of surface water, groundwater, and potable water
resources has been the primary issue in recent research and
regulatory reports (EPA 1987; Pratt 1985; Lee and Nielsen 1987).
The cost of remedial cleanup of major groundwater resources is
prohibitive. Prevention of surface water and groundwater
contamination by implementation of rational nutrient and
pesticide practices is a cost effective measure to protect a
limited water resource.
Most economic analyses of management practices designed to
protect water quality have focused on the cost of implementation
in return for social, health, and environmental benefits (Daniel
and Schnieder 1979; Lee and Nielsen 1987; Stewart et al. 1975).
Soil and agricultural managers should also be aware of the
economic benefits of management practices that keep agricultural
chemicals within the root zone.
Runoff, leaching,-and volatile losses of applied chemicals
that degrade water quality also represent production input
losses. Fertilization beyond crop growth/yield requirements and
excessive application of preventive pesticides result in
leaching, surface, and volatile losses applied chemicals. These
practices are cost ineffective. Chemicals removed by runoff and
leaching are not available for plant growth and pest control. Use
of nutrient and pesticide "conservation" practices will have both
short term and long term economic benefits. Voluntary adoption
and cost-sharing selection of sound chemical management are
superior alternatives to regulatory mandates (Stewart et al.
1975). Implementation of sound nutrient and pesticide management
practices has water quality, crop production, and economic return
benefits.
Considerations in Development of Nutrient and Pesticide
Management Practices
Soil and water conservation practices (SWCP) have been
designed to increase soil water retention and to reduce sediment
transport to surface water (Koehler et al. 1982b; Stewart et al.
1975) There has been a tendency to assume that SWCPs would also
serve as management practices to reduce surface transport of
agricultural chemicals (Stewart 1975; Walter et al. 1979). Many
of the SWCPs have significantly reduced soil erosion, sediment
-------
transport, and surface runoff.
•»
However, with increased attention on groundwater quality
issues inherent conflicts in regard to surface water quality have
become apparent (Logan et al. 1987).. Minimum tillage practices
that reduce surface runoff with corollary enhancement of
infiltration have been associated with increased potential for
nitrate and pesticide transport to groundwater (Baker and Laflen
1983). There is conflicting evidence concerning reduction of
phosphorus, nitrate, and pesticides in solution runoff under
conservation tillage systems (Logan et al. 1987). Design and
development of pesticide and nutrient practices to protect both
surface water and groundwater quality may require use of a
combination of management strategies. Preventing water quality
deterioration in an environment of intense agrichemical
management will require consideration of site specific conditions
and the individual physical/chemical properties of potential
pollutants (EPA 1988; Keeney 1986; Pratt 1985).
Nutrient Management Practices. Managing the amount, source,
form, placement, and timing of nutrient applications are
practices that will accomplish both crop production and water
quality goals. Nutrient sources include organic wastes, chemical
fertilizers, and crop residues. Appropriate application rates,
timing, and placement will minimize surface water and groundwater
pollution, supply adequate nutrients for plant growth and
development, improve nutrient efficiency, and assist in
maintaining good soil conditions to reduce runoff and soil
erosion (Keeney 1982, 1986; Koehler et al 1982a, 1982b; Rehm
1987; USDA SCS 1988). Recommendations by the USDA SCS for
nutrient management will match those of the State Extension
Service.
Major nutrient management practices to enhance surface water
and groundwater quality include:
1. Selection of realistic yield goals based on historic
yield data, climatic factors, soil type, and market
conditions.
2. Selection of application rates to meet these goals.
3. Use of soil and/or tissue tests to establish proper
application rates.
4. Use history or credit previous use of manure or legumes
in rotation in determining nutrient application rates.
5. Use of application techniques to reduce surface and
leaching losses including incorporation when possible,
split applications, and directed placement (e.g. banded
and knifed placement). Utility of split applications
50
-------
depends on soil and climatic conditions.
6. Timing of nutrient application to coincide with plant
growth requirements. Avoid fall application of
nitrogen.
7. Consider source of nitrogen fertilizer used. Where
leaching is a problem ammonium and urea should be used
in place of nitrate fertilizers.
8. Use slow release fertilizers and nitrification
inhibitors.
9. Calibrate equipment to insure proper placement and rate
of delivery.
10. Use appropriate soil and water conservation practices
to reduce surface losses of nutrients. Local research
and extension information will assist in determining
the suite of management practices that will optimize
reduction of both surface losses and subsurface
leaching of nutrients. Certain conservation practices
may reduce sediment bound phosphorus and organic-
nitrogen losses, but increase soluble runoff losses.
Unless nitrogen uptake efficiency is improved on a
given site, conservation practices that reduce surface
runoff may increase leaching losses of soluble
nutrients.
Pesticide Management Practices. Managing the type, amount,
formulation, placement, and timing of pesticide applications are
practices that will accomplish both crop production, pest
control, and water quality goals. Selection of the appropriate
array of pest management practices will accomplish control of
target organisms and minimize potential contamination of water
resources and non-target organisms (EPA 1988; Logan et al. 1987;
pratt 1985; Stewart et al. 1975; Smolen et al. 1984).
Recommendations by the USDA SCS.for pest management will be
identical to those of the State Extension Service.
Major pest management practices to enhance surface water and
groundwater quality include:
1. Selection criteria for the type of pesticide should
include consideration of the target species; pesticide
characteristics such as solubility, toxicity,
degradation, volatility, and adsorption; site
characteristic such as soil, geology, depth to
groundwater, proximity to well heads, proximity to
surface water, topography, and climate.
51
-------
2. Use of integrated pest management (IPM) win redpce
pesticide loads. Use of crop rotation, alternate
control methods, determination of economic pest
thresholds, adjusting planting and harvest periods, and
field scouting are essential components of successful
IPM systems. Tremendous reductions in chemical usage
and subsequent loss continues to be a significant
benefit of IPM.
3. Selection of alternate pesticides to reduce species
resistance, use of less persistent chemicals, and
depending on site characteristics consideration of
chemical transport mode will reduce chemical loading
and potential for off-site transport.
4. Application methods including aerial, ground, and
chemigation all influence the partitioning and
potential transport of pesticides. Band applications
will reduce the amount of chemical applied to the field
limiting the potential for off-site transport. Aerial
spraying is undesirable from all aspects of
environmental losses and alternate methods should be
selected whenever possible.
5. Timing and amount of pesticide application and in
relation to local environmental conditions,
temperature, and especially rainfall determines surface
and subsurface transport and degradation
characteristics. Timing of application by crop stage
may reduce leaching losses depending on whether
multiple post-emergence applications are required
compared to a single pre-emergence application.
Restriction of application prior to anticipated storm
events may be more effective in reducing surface
losses of pesticides than most SWCPs.
6. Selection of pesticide formulation and application
technique also influences pesticide losses. Wettable
powders, dusts, and microgranules are generally most
susceptible to surface and leaching losses.
7. Losses of pesticides transported almost exclusively by
sediment (e.g. paraquat) can be reduced significantly
by SWCPs.
8. For pesticides lost primarily in the dissolved phase of
runoff (e.g. carbamates, triazines, and anilides),
runoff losses will be decreased by runoff reducing
practices such as terraces, contouring, and depending
on site characteristics reduced tillage.
9. Conservation tillage systems as runoff-reducing
52
-------
practices do not always reduce runoff losses of •
pesticides. The decrease in volume may be negated by
increases in pesticide concentration in runoff water.
Increases in infiltration of runoff will also enhance
potential leaching losses of soluble pesticides. The
impact of conservation management practices depends on
site specific soil, climate, and crop management
conditions.
10. Equipment maintenance and proper calibration is
essential for even applications at the volumes intended
by the user.
11. All label instructions, storage requirements, and
regulations must be followed to insure safe handling of
pesticides. Proper disposal of unused chemicals and
containers will insure safety of the user, water
resources, and non-target organisms.
12. Pesticide applicators should avoid chemical exposure by
safe handling practices including use of protective
clothing, respirators, gloves, and shoes.
Transport Assessment Techniques. Assessment of management
practices and screening chemicals prior to use provides an
excellent opportunity for cost effective water quality management
of nutrients and pesticides {Jury et al. 1987). Qualitative
assessment techniques and computer simulation models provide a
logical mechanism to integrate the complex factors influencing
surface water, groundwater, and chemical transport (Donigan and
Rao 1986).
Models of surface and subsurface water resources are most
useful in analyses of current and anticipated conditions. The
most effective end use of water resource models is in policy and
management decisions (Donigan and Rao 1986). Process oriented
computer simulation models provide an opportunity to ask "what
if" questions concerning nutrient and pesticide management
without the high cost of experimentation or field monitoring.
Computer simulation integrates chemical properties, site
characteristics, management options, and climatic conditions over
space and time. Data collection and monitoring programs supply
only point specific responses to nutrient and pesticide
management.
There are a wide range of computer models and assessment
techniques that address nutrient and chemical transport on
agricultural land (Addiscott and Wagenet 1985). These research
and management level models range from simplistic or
demonstration models (Nofziger and Hornsby 1986) to theoretically
rigorous models (van Genuchten 1978; Wagenet and Hutson 1986).
53
-------
Several management level models currently available
incorporate both subsurface leaching and surface transport of
agricultural chemicals. PRZM, developed by the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (Carsel et al. 1984), and GLEAMS,
developed by the USDA (Oonigan and Rao 1986), are examples of
management level models for evaluation of surface and subsurface
transport of pesticides. AGNPS, a single event surface model
(Young et al. 1986), and CREAMS, a field simulation model
(Leonard 1988) are examples of models developed for comparison of
surface transport of agricultural chemicals. DRASTIC (Aller et
al. 1985) and screening models developed by Jury et al. (1983,
1987) and Steenhuis and Naylor (1987) provide rapid assessment
techniques for qualitative assessment of chemical leaching
potential. Using GLEAMS and CREAMS Goss (1988) is currently
developing a tabular hazard rating for both surface and
subsurface losses of pesticides for the USOA SCS.
Development of Prototype Standards and Specifications for
Nutrient and Pesticide Management
The primary objective of the SCS Procedure Manual is to
improve SCS expertise and performance in analyzing nutrient and
pesticide management options. The products in the Procedure
Manual will be part of the Resource Management Systems
recommended to farmers, ranchers, and other land users to aid
them in meeting their agricultural objectives. The procedure
manual is organized into three interrelated sections: 1) the
literature search and review, 2) review of current SCS standards
and specifications with nutrient and pesticide management
components, and 3} a demonstration of techniques to develop State
level nutrient and pesticide management standards and
specifications. The development of a Procedures Manual to
implement Standards and Specifications will allow SCS field
personnel to evaluate the use of nutrients and pesticides by
their clientele. If recommended nutrient and pesticide
management practices are not being followed, these land managers
can be directed to information and educational programs and
materials to make this part of their farm management plan.
The literature search and review provides state-of-the-art
scientific and technical information in regard to nutrient and
pesticide management practices. The literature review will allow
development of technical standards consistent with up-to-date
research, and Cooperative Extension Service and other appropriate
state and federal agency recommendations. The literature search
identifies sources of information and research literature as the
basis for analyzing nutrient and pesticide management. The focus
of the review is on nutrient and pesticide management practices
to abate surface and groundwater nonpoint agricultural pollution.
Review and summary of current SCS standards and
-------
specifications identifies those management practices with
nutrient and pesticide management components. These management
practices and measures need to incorporate the water'quality
perspectives of the nutrient and pesticide standards and
specifications. Evaluation of current nutrient and pesticide
components and recommendations for additional chemical management
considerations are included in the second section of the
Procedure Manual.
Development and implementation of prototype standards and
specifications for 'nutrient and pesticide management at the state
and local level will require an interdisciplinary approach.
Five states were selected to develop prototype standards
with at least one state from each of the four National Technical
Center (NTC) regions. States selected to develop standards are
California, Illinois, Minnesota, New York and North Carolina.
In each state an interdisciplinary team was developed,
composed of appropriate specialists from Soil Conservation
Service state staff, Cooperative Extension Service, state
agencies and respective staff from the NTC's.
This team will develop a prototype standard and
specification for nutrient and pesticide management which can be
used for a selected county or region within the state.
These standards and specifications will be included in the
Procedure Manual and can be used as examples to follow by other
states as they begin to develop nutrient and pesticide management
standards and specifications.
A two- to three-day workshop will be conducted in Minnesota
to present the findings of the project and to discuss future
directions and continued cooperation in the development of
standards and specifications.
Training and Education Needs
To fully integrate and implement the use of nutrient and
pesticide management standards and specifications at the field
office level, a comprehensive interdisciplinary training and
education program should be developed.
This training and education program can be accomplished in
three phases and should be provided not only to SCS personnel,
but also appropriate staff of the respective Cooperative
Extension Services and state agencies.
The first phase of the education should involve a general
familiarization of the staffs with the respective materials,
manuals and specialists available and to discuss the basis for
55
-------
the current standards and specifications. This type of training
can be accomplished reasonably over a 1-to 2-day period.
For the second phase, each of the standards and
specifications should be discussed in enough detail so that the
individuals can answer questions regarding their development and
use. At a minimum, this phase requires a week of education for
both nutrient and pesticide management. This will also need to
be provided on a continuing basis, if not every year, at least
every other year to keep field office staff abreast with current
developments. After the initial session, this may be
accomplished by yearly updates which are conducted during 1- to
2-day sessions.
Where it is desired that the staff be educated to a level of
competence that will allow them to make recommendations, a third
phase is required. This may require that selected staff be given
the opportunity to enroll in advanced college level course on
soil fertility and pesticide management.
The Cooperative Extension Service should evaluate the need
and prepare a plan for the development of this type of course or
courses that will be available for any interested individuals.
All of the required expertise to provide the desired level
of training and education will not be available within the
Extension or SCS. This will require that the respective state
offices of SCS and CES look outside their organizations for the
required expertise. This may require using persons and materials
available in adjacent states with similar problems and concerns.
A joint plan for a phased education program should be developed
between SCS and CES at the state level to indicate the needs and
availability of staff expertise and materials.
As materials are developed whether they are publications,
computer software, video tapes, etc., attention should be paid to
provide materials in a form that can be used by other states with
similar conditions, so they need not be duplicated. An example
where this type of approach would be helpful is in the karst
region of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and Illinois. Educational
materials addressing nutrient and pesticide management in this
area could be used by all four states.
CES has established regional educational coordinating
committees on water quality. These committees may be a vehicle
to provide these materials (North Central Regional Water Quality
Task Force, 1987).
To implement at the field office level, the use of nutrient
and pesticide standards and specifications will require a
significant education effort and commitment. It will need to
evolve over a 3- to 5-year period.
56
-------
LITERATURE CITED
a
Addiscott, T. M. and Wagenet. R. J. 1985. Concepts of solute
leaching in soils: A review of modeling approaches. J. Soil
Sci. 36:411-424.
Aldrich, S. R. 1984. Nitrogen management to minimize adverse
effects on the environment. 663-673.
Aller, L. Bennett, Lehr, J. H. and Petty, R. H. 1985. DRASTIC: A
standardized system for evaluating ground water pollution
potential using hydrogeologic setting. Robert S, Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma.
Ames, M., Cardozo, C., Nicosia, S., Troiano, J., Monk, S., Ali,
S. and Brown, S. 1987. Sampling for pesticide residues in
California well water: 1987 update well inventory data base.
Environ. Assess. Prgm., Calif. Dept. of Food Ag., Sacramento,
CA. 148 pp.
Baker, D. B. 1985. Regional water quality impacts of intensive
row-crop agriculture: A Lake Erie Basin case study. J. Soil
Water Cons. 40:125-132.
Baker, J. L. 1987. Hydrologic effects of conservation tillage and
their importance relative to water quality. In Logan, T. J.,
Davidson, J. M., Baker, J. L. and Overcash, M7 R. (eds).
Effects of conservation tillage on groundwater quality. Lewis
Publ. Chelsea, MI. pp. 113-124.
Baker, J. L. and Johnson, H. P. 1981. Nitrate-nitrogen in tile
drainage as effected by fertilization. J. Envir. Qual. 10:519-
522.
*Baker, J. L. and Laflen, J. L. 1983b. Water quality consequences
of conservation tillage. J. Soil Water Cons. 38:186-193.
Bock, B. R. 1984. Efficient use of nitrogen in cropping systems.
In Hauck, R. 0. (ed.). Nitrogen in crop production. Amer. Soc.
A"gron., Crop Sci. Soc. Amer., Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. pp. 273-294.
Canter, L. W. 1987. Nitrates and pesticides in ground water: An
analysis of a computer-based literature search. In Fairchild,
D. M. (ed.). Ground Water Quality and Agricultural Practices.
Lewis Publ., Chelsea, MI, pp. 153-174.
Cantor, K. P, Blair, A., and Zahn, S. H. 1987. Health effects of
Agrichemicals in groundwater: What do we know? _l£ Agricultural
chemicals and groundwater protection: Emerging management and
policy. Proceedings of a Conference, Oct. 22-23, 1987, St.
Paul, MN, Freshwater Foundation, pp. 27-42.
57
-------
Carsel, R. F., Smith, C. N., Mulkey, J. T., Dean, J; D. and
Jowise, P. 1984. Users manual for the pesticide root zone model
(PRZM). Release 1. EPA-600/3-84-109. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Athens, GA. 216 pp.
Daniel, T. C. and Schneider, R. R. 1979; Nonpoint pollution:
Problem assessment and remedial measures; economic and planning
considerations for designing control methods. In Planning the
Uses and Management of Land. American Society o7 Agronomy,
Madison, WI, pp. 829-851.
Daniel, T. C., Wendt, R. C., McGuire, P. E. and Stoffel, D. 1982.
Nonpoint source loading rates from selected land uses. Water
Res. Bull. 18(1):117-120.
Qonigan, A. S. and Rao, P. S. C. 1986. Overview of terrestrial
processes and modeling. In Hern, S. C. and Melancon, S. M.
(eds.). Vadose zone modeling of organic pollutants. Lewis
Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, MI pp. 3-35.
*Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Pesticides in ground
water: Background document. EPA-WH550G, Office of Ground-Water,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D. C. 72 pp.
*Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Agricultural chemicals in
groundwater: Proposed pesticide strategy. Proposed Strategy
Document, U. S. Envrionmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pesticides and Tozic Substances, Washington, 0. C. 149 pp.
*Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Protecting ground water:
Pesticides and agricultural practices. EPA-440/6-88-001. U. S.
Environmental PRotection Agency, Office of Ground-Water
Protection, Washignton, D. C. 53 pp.
*Fairchild, D. M. (ed.). 1987a. Ground water quality and
agricultural practices. Lewis Pub!., Chelsea, MI. 402 pp.
Fairchild, D. M. 1987b. A national assessment of groundwater
contamination from pesticides and fertilizers. In Fairchild, D.
M. (ed.). Ground Water Quality and Agricultural~P>actices.
Lewis Publ., Chelsea, MI, pp. 273-294.
Gast, R. G., Nelson, W. W. and Randall, G. W. 1978. Nitrate
accumulation in.soils and loss in the drainage folowing
nitrogen applications to continuous corn. J. Envir. Qual.
7:258-261.
Goss, D. 1988. Water pollution risk potential for pesticides
(Draft Report). Devel. Stand, and Spec, for Nutrient and Pest.
Management Steering Committee Meeting. July 5, 1988. USDA Soil
Cons. Serv. and Univ. of Minn. St. Paul, MN 7 pp.
58
-------
Hallberg, G. R. 1986. From hoes to herbicides: Agriculture and
groundwater quality. J. Soil Water Cons. 41:357-364.
Hal.lberg, G. R. 1987. Facing the dilemma: Where do we go from
here? lr± Agricultural chemicals and groundwater protection:
Emerging management and policy. Proceedings of a Conference,
Oct. 22-23, 1987, St. Paul, MN, Freshwater Foundation, pp. 51.
Hallberg, H. R., Hoyer, B. E., Bettis III, E. A. and Libra, R. 0.
1983. Hydrogeology, water quality, and land management in the
Big Spring basin, Clayton County, Iowa. Iowa Geol. Surv., Open-
File Rept. 83-3. 191 pp.
Jury, W. A., Spencer, W. F. and Farmer, W. J. 1983. Behavior
assessment model for trace organics in soil: I. Model
description. J. Envir. Qual. 12:558-564.
Jury, W. A., Focht, D. D. and Farmer, W. J. 1987. Evaluation of
pesticide groundwater pollution potential from standard
indicies of soil-chemical adsorption and biodegradation. J.
Envir. Qual. 16:422-428.
Keeney, D. R. 1982. Nitrogen management for maximum efficiency
and minimum pollution. _In_ Stevenson, F. J. (ed.). Nitrogen in
agricultural soils. Agronomy 22:605-650. Am. Soc. of Agronomy,
Madison, WI.
*Keeney, 0. R. 1986. Sources of nitrate to groundwater. CRC,
Critical Reviews in Environmental Control 16:257-304.
Klaeus, T. G., Buzicky, G. C. and Schneider, E. C. 1988.
Pesticides and groundwater: Surveys of selected Minnesota
wells. Minn. Dept. of Health and Minn. Oept of Ag., Legistative
Comm on Minn. Res. 95 pp.
*Koehler, F. A., Humenik, F. J., Maas, R. P., Dressing, S. A.,
Kreglow, J. M. and Johnson, D. D. 1982a. Best management
practices for agricultural nonpoint source control. II.
Commercial fertilizer. USDA Coop. Agree. 12-05-300-472, EPA
Interagency Agree. AD-12-F-0-037-U. NorthCarolina Agricult.
Ext. Serv. 55 pp.
*Koehler, F. A., Humenik, F. J., Maas, R. P., Dressing, S. A.,
Kreglow, J. M. and Johnson, D. D. 1982b. Best management
practices for agricultural nonpoint source control. III.
Sediment. USDA Coop. Agree. 12-05-300-472, EPA Interagency
Agree. AO-12-F-0-037-0. NorthCarolina Agricult. Ext. Serv. 49
pp.
59
-------
*lee, 1. K. and Nielsen, E. G. 1987. The extent and costs of
groundwater contamination by agriculture. J. Soil'Water Cons.
42(4):243-248.
Legg, J. 0. and Meisinger, J. J. .1982. Soil nitrogen budgets. _In_
Stevenson, F. J. (ed.). Nitrogen in agricultural soils.
Agronomy 22:503-566. Amer. Soc. Agron., Crop Sci. Soc. Amer.,
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer.
*Leonard, R. A. 1988.Herbicdes in surface waters. In Grover, R.
(ed.). Environmental chemistry of herbicides. VcTT. 1. CRC
Press, Inc. Boca Raton, FL. pp. 45-87.
*Logan, T. J., Davidson, J. M., Baker, J. L. and Overcash, M. R.
(eds). Effects of conservation tillage on groundwater quality.
Lewis Publ. Chelsea, MI. 292 pp.
Neil, G. D., Williams, J. S. and Weddle, T. K. 1987. Second
annual report - Pesticides in ground water study. Maine Geol.
Survey. Open-File No. 87-20. 27 pp.
Nofziger, D. L. and Hornsby, A. G. 1986. A microcomputer-based
management tool for chemical movement in soil. Appl. Agricult.
Res. 1:50-56.
North Central Water Quality Task Force Report. 1987. Cooperative
Extension Service. 19 pp.
Overdahl, C. J. 1985. Nitrogen fertilization and possible
relationship to groundwater: A review of research in the Soil
Science Department, U. of M. Ag. Ext. Serv. Univ. of Minn. AG-
FO-2734. 8 pp.
*Pratt, P. F. (Chairman). 1985. Agriculture and groundwater
quality. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. CAST
Report No. 103. 62 pp.
*Pye, V. I. and Patrick. R. 1983. Ground water contamination in
the United States. Science 221:713-221.
Pye, V. I., R. Patrick, and Quarles, J. 1983. Groundwater
contamination in the United States. University of Pennsylvania
Press, Philadelphia. 315 pp.
Rehm, G. 1987. Managing nitrogen to keep the nitrates in the root
zone. Ijn Understanding Nitrogen and Agricultural chemicals in
the environment. U. of Minn. Ag. Ext. Serv. AG-BU-3166. pp. 31-
40.
Rothschild, E. R., Manser. R. J. and Anderson, M. P. 1982.
Investigation of aldicarb in ground water in selected areas of
the central sand plain of Wisconsin. Ground Water 20:437-445.
60
-------
*Smolen, M. 0., Humenik, Spooner, J., Dressing, S. A/ and Maas, R.
P. 1984. Best management practices for agricultural nonpoint
source control. IV. Pesticides. USDA Coop. Agree. 12-05-300-
472, EPA Interagency Agree. AD-12-F-0-037-0. North Carolina
Agricult. Ext. Serv. 87 pp.
Spalding, R. F., Junk, G. A. and Richards, J. J. 1980. Pesticides
in groundwater beneath irrigated farmland in Nebraska, August,
1978. Pestic. Monit. J. 14:70-73.
Stanford, G. and Legg, J. 0. 1984. Nitrogen and yield potential.
In Hauck, R. D. (ed.). Nitrogen in crop production. Amer. Soc.
flgron., Crop Sci. Soc. Amer., Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. pp. 263-272.
Steenhuis, T. S. and Naylor, L. M. 1987. A screening method for
preliminary assessment of risk to groundwater from Ian-applied
chemicals. J. Cont. Hydrol. 1:395-406.
*Stewart, B. A., Woolhiser, D. A., Wischmeier, W. H., Caro, J. H.
and Frere, M. H. 1975. Control of water pollution from
cropland: A manual for guideline development. Vol. I. EPA
600/2-75-026a. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and
U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service. Ill pp.
*Stewart, B. A., Woolhiser, D. A., Wischmeier, W. H., Caro, J. H.
and Frere, M. H. 1976. Control of water pollution from
cropland: An overview. Vol. II. EPA 600/2-75-026b. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency and U.S.O.A. Agricultural
Research Service. 187 pp.
Taylor, A. W. and Kilmer, V. J. 1980. Agricultural phosporus in
the environment. lt± Khasawneh, F. E. (ed. chair.). The role of
phosphorus in agriculture. Amer. Soc. Agron., Crop Sci. Soc.
Amer., Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. pp. 545-557.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1987. USDA Nonpoint source water
quality policy. Dept. Regulation. 460-GM. pp. 401/7-401/11.
van Genuchten, M. Th. 1978. Mass transport in saturated-
unsaturated media: One-dimensional solutions. Res. Dept. 78-WR-
11. Water Resour. Prog. Dept. Civil Eng., Princton Univ.
Princeton, NJ.
Walter, M. F., Steenhuis, T. S. and Haith, D. A. 1979. Nonpoint
source pollution control by soil and water conservation
practices. Trans. ASAE 22:834-840.
Wagenet, R. J. and Hutson, J. L. 1986. Predicting the fate of
non-volatile pesticides in the unsaturated zone. J Envir. Qual.
15:315-322.
61
-------
*Smolen, M. D., Humenik, Spooner, J., Dressing, S. #. and Maas, R.
P. 1984. Best management practices for agricultural nonpoint
source control. IV. Pesticides. USDA Coop. Agree. 12-05-300-
472, EPA Interagency Agree. AD-12-F-0-037-0. North Carolina
Agricult. Ext. Serv. 87 pp.
Spalding, R. F., Junk, G. A. and Richards, J. J. 1980. Pesticides
in groundwater beneath irrigated farmland in Nebraska, August,
1978. Pestic. Monit. J. 14:70-73.
Stanford, G. and Legg, J. 0. 1984. Nitrogen and yield potential.
In Hauck, R. 0. (ed.). Nitrogen in crop production. Amer. Soc.
Sgron., Crop Sci. Soc. Amer., Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. pp. 263-272.
Steenhuis, T. S. and Naylor, L. M. 1987. A screening method for
preliminary assessment of risk to groundwater from Ian-applied
chemicals. J. Cont. Hydrol. 1:395-406.
*Stewartt B. A., Woolhiser, D. A., Wischmeier, W. H., Caro, J. H.
and Frere, M. H. 1975. Control of water pollution from
cropland: A manual for guideline development. Vol. I. EPA
600/2-75-026a. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and
U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service. Ill pp.
*Stewart, B. A., Woolhiser, D. A., Wischmeier, W. H., Caro, J. H.
and Frere, M. H. 1976. Control of water pollution from
cropland: An overview. Vol. II. EPA 600/2-75-0265. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency and U.S.D.A. Agricultural
Research Service. 187 pp.
Taylor, A. W. and Kilmer, V. J. 1980. Agricultural phosporus in
the environment. In Khasawneh, F. E. (ed. chair.). The role of
phosphorus in agriculture. Amer. Soc. Agron., Crop Sci. Soc.
Amer., Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. pp. 545-557.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1987. USDA Nonpoint source water
quality policy. Dept. Regulation. 460-GM. pp. 401/7-401/11.
van Genuchten, M. Th. 1978. Mass transport in saturated-
unsaturated media: One-dimensional solutions. Res. Dept. 78-WR-
11. Water Resour. Prog. Oept. Civil Eng., Princton Univ.
Princeton, NJ.
Walter, M. F., Steenhuis, T. S. and Haith, D. A. 1979. Nonpoint
source pollution control by soil and water conservation
practices. Trans. ASAE 22:834-840.
Wagenet, R. J. and Hutson, J. L. 1986. Predicting the fate of
non-volatile pesticides in the unsaturated zone. J Envir. Qual.
15:315-322.
62
-------
•Wauchope, R. 0. 1978. The pesticide content of surface water
draining from agricultural'fidlds - a review. J. Envir. .Qual.
7:459-472. ,
•Willis, G. H. and McDowell L. L. 1982. Review: Pesticide? in
agricultural runoff and their effects on downstream water
quality. Envir. Tox. Chem. 1:267-279.
Young, R. A., Onstad, C. A., Bosch, 0. D. and Anderson, W. P.
1986. Agricultural nonpoint source pollution model: A watershed
analysis tool; A guide to model users. U.S.O.A. ARS and Minn.
Poll. Cont. Agency. 87 pp.
•These are major sunroaries or reviews of nutrient and pesticide
management considerations and provide an excellent first source of
information.
Table 1. Rang* of nitrogen concentrations observed from nonpoint
sources (Koehler el al. L982a).
Source Range In concentration (mg 1 )
U. S. Precipitation 1 - i (Total-N)
Far«t Surface Runoff
-------
Table 4. Typical positive pesticide values observed in drinking
water wells from agricultural land (EPA 1986;
1985).
Pesticide Use*
Alachlor
AUHcarb I
(su1fax1de
i sulfone)
Atrazlne
Sronacil
Carbofuran 1
Cynazine
OBCA
DBCP
1, 2-01 ch lor o-
propane
Olnoseb
Oyfonate
EDB
Hetolachlor
Hetrtbuzin
Oxamyl I
Slmazine
H
' N
H
H
• ™
H
N
H
N
H
I
N
H
H
t ™
H
Typical Suggested Health
Positive Advisory Concen-
States Value, ppb t rat ion, ppb
MD.
AR,
MA,
NY.
VA.
PA.
MD
FL
NY.
IA,
«Y
AZ,
SC
CA.
NY
IA
CA,
UA,
IA,
IA
NY,
CA,
IA,
AZ.
ME.
OR.
UA.
IA.
«I.
PA
CA.
HO.
FL.
AZ.
PA
RI
PA,
HE. PA
CA, FL.
NC. NO,
RI, TX,
UI
NE, UI,
MO
HI, MO,
NY, UA
GA, SC.
MA, CT
HD
0.1-10
1-50
0.3-3
300
1-50
0.1-1
50-700
0.02-20
1-50
1-5
0.1
0.05-20
0.1-0.4
1.0-4.3
5-65
0.2-3.0
700
10-50
ISO
7.5
50
5000
0.05
5-10
12.5
0
250
1500
Table 5. Chemical/physical properties of pesticides: Values which
indicate potential for groundwater contamination (EPA
1988).
Pesticide Characteristic
Parameter value or range
Indicating potential for
groundwater contamination
water solubility
Kd
• Koc
Henry's Law Constant
Sped at Ion
Hydrolysis half-life
Photolysis half-life
Field dissipation half-life
Greater than 30 ppm
Less than 5, usually less than I
Less than 300 - 500
Less than 10"2 atm m"3 mol
Negatively charged, fully or
partially at ambient pH
Greater than 25 weeks
Greater than 1 week
Greater than 3 weeks
64
-------
A Paired Watershed Study of Pesticide Losses
Jack Clausen ;
Water Resources Research Center
University of Vermont
Burlington, Vermont
t
Notes taken by Steve Coffey, NWQEP
Introduction
Pesticide usage has been on the rise in the last 20 years, especially considering the increased emphasis on conserva-
t ion tillage methods, and the need to maintain agronomic production goals. Growing concern over the use of pes-
ticides has prompted researchers to study the effects of pesticides on receiving water quality. Toward this goal a
paired watershed study was completed to measure the extent of pesticide leaching and to determine the movement of
pesticides in a mass balance approach. The effects of two pesticides and some of their metabolites were also assessed
i sing bioassay.
Methods
The paired watershed study was conducted on the La Platte River watershed in northwestern Vermont. The con-
t.-ol watershed was conventional tillage while the treatment watershed was conservation tillage. Precipitation was
measured with an on-site gage in the watershed. Runoff was diverted into fiberglass H- flumes with a passive flow
splitter collector for runoff measurement and pesticide sample collection.
A statistical procedure was used prior to the experiment to define a hydrotogic response relationship between the
paired watersheds. This calibration procedure was completed prior to the land use treatment period. No-till planting
followed a single disk pass in the spring for the conservation tillage treatment.
Zero-tension funnel-type lysimeters grouped in pairs were used to collect the water percolating through the plow
layer. Samples were taken on an event basis. Soils were sampled in the control and the treatment watersheds for
determination of pesticide storage.
Monitoring was done for s-triazine herbicides including atrazine, simazine and propazine. Other pesticides tested
in water samples were carbofuran and its metabolite 3-hydroxycarbofuran, in addition to alochlor and metachlor.
The bioassay toxicity testing for the effects of pesticides in sediment on stream benthos used Chironomuq sp. Back-
ground chemistries were monitored during the bioassay in order to track the pesticide effects on pH, dissolved
oxygen, hardness and alkalinity.
Results
Exogenous variables including precipitation, pesticide levels (atrazine and carbofuran), surface pesticide runoff,
sediment pesticide concentration, and soil solution pesticide concentration as measured by the lysimeter were plotted
against time. The graphical analyses showed an exponential decay of pesticide concentration with time, influenced
primarily by the flushing effect of the first rainfall event. Subsequent losses of the pesticides studied were due to
volatilization, soil decomposition and microbial decay. The compounds persisted in soil for 2-3 weeks after applica-
tion, with atrazine remaining longer than carbofuran. Decay rates were calculated for the two parent compounds.
A mass balance approach provided useful insights on the similarities and differences found in the behavior of
airazine and carbofuran. Research results were combined with literature values for evaporation and volitalization to
determine inputs, outputs and change in storage. Atrazine losses due to microbial degradation were 85% of the total,
while plant uptake was low and surface runoff losses were less than 1% of the total. Volitalization losses appear to be
quite high generating some concern for atrazine returning in precipitation. Little carry-over from previous year's
a pplication was found for atrazine and none was detected for carbofuran. Carbofuran losses were less than atrazine
due to both microbial degradation and surface runoff.
65
-------
Bioassay results conclude that carbofuran is acutely toxic to Chirnnomus sp. and^no toxic effects were found due to
atrazine. When both compounds were combined for antagonistic testing, the effects of carbofuran dominated. Car-
bofuran was acutely toxic to Chironomus sp. at concentrations found in runoff at tie study site. It was expected that
the primary toxic effects of the herbicide atrazine would be minimal on the stream benthic invertebrate, although
atrazine has been found to adversely affect algae.
i
Additional Discussion
Metabolites should be studied further as they are more mobile than the parent compound.
The variability in the genetics of organisms for bioassays should be addressed.
66
-------
Understanding the Water Quality Aspects of Pesticide Use: An Extension
Training Model
Arthur Q. Homsby
Soil Science Department
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611-0151
The development of sound management practices for the prevention or reduction of potential water quality
deterioration by pesticide contamination depends upon a clear understanding of the fate of pesticides in soil and
water systems. Knowledge of the pathways of water flow in both surface runoff and groundwater recharge is required
to relate agricultural management practice to the processes that determine the fate of pesticides in the environment.
Communicating the complex relationships between pesticide use and potential water quality impairment is difficult at
best. This paper describes the key elements of a Cooperative Extension training program entitled "Pesticide Usage
and its Potential Impact on Surface and Ground Water Quality" which includes microcomputer software to reinforce
the understanding of concepts and processes that control pesticide movement in soils.
Objectives of the Program
This program was developed to address the need for county extension agents and state specialist to understand
how chemicals move from where they are purposefully applied to water supplies. In particular, how do pesticides
u;ed in agricultural production become a water quality problem. The objectives of this program are:
1. to develop an understanding of the processes that control the fate of agricultural chemicals in soil
and water systems, and
2. to relate management practices to processes that control the environmental fate of pesticides.
If these objectives are met, agents and specialists can make more knowledgeable recommendations of possible
rr anagement practices aimed at reducing adverse environmental impacts, and that would make more efficient use of
water, nutrient, and pesticide resources.
Key Elements of the Program
The program is structured to provide the agents a broad understanding of the water resource system and potential
health effects of pesticide use, while providing detailed understanding of the processes that control the fate of pes-
thides and the relationships between these processes and management practices. The key elements are:
1. A.) Understanding the nature of the water resources in the state. This includes the hydrologic cycle, geographic
dstribution of aquifers, the nature of the aquifers (unconflned, confined, artesian, etc.), recharge rates, surface
hydrology, and surface water/groundwater relationships, and B.) Understanding the soil resources in the state.
2. Understanding the health effects of contaminated drinking water supplies, including the manner in which risk
assessments are made and approaches to risk management;
3. Understanding the processes that control the environmental fate of pesticides in soil and water systems. Path-
ways of loss, sorption and transport of pesticides in soil;
4. Development of management practices that relate to the processes that control pesticide fate and result in
reduced potential for water quality problems and increased resource use efficiency,
5. Legal aspects of using pesticides, including proper disposal of excess mixtures and containers;
These five elements are the core of the training program, however, additional elements are added when ap-
propriate and timely. For example, at one session a newly developed "Pesticide Assessment Procedure" used by state
agencies to focus monitoring efforts was described and discussed.
67
-------
Audiences
f
t
Although the original planning of this program targeted the county extension agents and commodity specialists,
subsequent sessions have been broadened to include representatives from the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, the Department of Environmental .Regulation, a regional water management district, and a spe-
cial presentation for the USDA Soil Conservation Service in Florida. Interest has been expressed by the chemical
sales industry for similar training. Solving water quality problems is both an interdisciplinary endeavor as well as a
multi-agency responsibility. Establishment of a common level of understanding of the issues and processes associated
with agricultural chemical use and water quality can greatly enhance resolution of water quality problems.
Transferability to Other States
With only minor adjustments, elements 2,3, and 5 of this program can be used directly in other states. Element 5
should include any state specific regulations that have a bearing on safe pesticide use and disposal of wastes, but for
the most part deals with federal regulations, statutory and case law. Element 1 should be very specific to the state or
area of interest and may require considerable materials development. Sources for this information include: the U.S.
Geological Survey; state Departments of Natural Resources and/or Geological Survey, regional, or local water
management or drainage districts; and library materials of various origins. Element 4 will require local input that re-
lates the hydrologic setting to specific crop • soil - water - pesticide management practices. Best management prac-
tices for water quality protection are likely to be site specific.
Simulation Models as Training Aids Due to the complexity of interactions among processes that control pesticide
fate in the environment, tools are needed to manage large amounts of interrelated data and to portray concepts that
may be otherwise difficult to understand. The use of tools such as computer simulation models helps the user to
develop experience and judgement in assessing potential consequences of changing management practices. Unlike
other extension programs where research based information is less costly to develop, nonpoint source water quality
aspects of pesticide use are extremely expensive to conduct. For example, recent field dissipation studies of single pes-
ticide active ingredient and its toxic degradation products cost in excess of $250,000 with most of this for chemical
analyses. Properly designed field and laboratory studies can increase our understanding of the processes that control
pesticide fate in soils and the environment such that these processes can be represented by simulation models.
Such models can be validated by laboratory and Geld testing and used to predict possible behavior of other pes-
ticides in differing geohydrological settings. There is, however, a trade off between the cost and availability of data for
state-of-the-art research models and teaching models that reduce both cost and data requirements by judicious as-
sumptions that simplify the details of the research models while recognizing the uncertainties resulting from invoking
such assumptions.
Chemical Movement in Layered Soils (Nofziger and Hornsby, 1987) is a software teaching toot that can be useful
in enhancing one's understanding of pesticide transport and degradation in soil-water systems and the potential for
either surface or ground water contamination. The model requires only seven input parameters, two of which are time
series data - rainfall/irrigation amounts and evapotranspiration. The other five are: plant rooting depth, soil bulk den-
sity, field-capacity water content, permanent wilting percentage water content, and organic carbon content of the soil
of interest. The software has been designed for simplicity of use and uses graphic outputs to help the user more readi-
ly understand the impact of the management strategies that he has chosen to evaluate.
The program is menu driven (Figure 1) and provides data files and editing capabilities for the user to input and
store his own data to make site specific assessments. The outputs can be selected as graphical (Figure 2) or tabular
representations or both. An additional option allows the representation of travel time of chemicals to four user
selected depths and the relative mass remaining at each of these depths (Figure 3). This feature permits rapid assess-
ment of potential of various pesticides to leach below the root zone and contaminate shallow groundwater. This
software can be used not only to compare relative mobility of pesticides in a soil of interest but also to evaluate the vul-
nerability of various soils for teaching of a given chemical.
The model description and assumptions are detailed in the software users manual and in a journal article by Nof-
ziger and Hornsby (1986). The users manual describes the consequences of not meeting the assumptions made in the
68
-------
model. The model has been verified with Geld data add compared with other environmental fate models currently in
use (Hornsby, et al., 1988). I
The model (CMLS) is currently being used along with long-term weather recdrds to assess the probability of pes-
licides getting into groundwater at concentrations in excess of the USEPA health advisory levels (HAL's) that have
l»en proposed by that agency. Clearly this research has shown that in a state where many soils have sandy surface tex-
lures and where shallow water tables are present, there are areas where a particular pesticide should be used only
•vith the utmost care and others areas where the same chemical can be safely used at recommended rates. This model
and other more detailed models can be used to provide guidance to state agencies as they develop groundwater
management plans.
Use of models such as CMLS can be used as screening tools to help identify those areas that are most vulnerable
to chemical leaching, thereby reducing the cost of sampling and analyzing well water samples for pesticide residues.
Likewise, these models can aid in designing environmental fate studies that are more cost efficient by predicting the
probable location of chemical pulses in the soil profile, thereby avoiding the need for excessive samples taken at vary-
ing depths.
69
-------
OPTIONS :
A.
B:
C:
D:
E:
F:
G:
I:
Q:
CHEMICAL'MOVEMENT IN LAYERED SOILS
by
D. L. Nofziger and A. G. Hornsby
Version A.I
Copyright 1987
Calculate Chemical Movement in Soil
Enter, Modify, or Print Soil Data File
Enter, Modify, or Print Chemical Data File
Enter, Modify, or Print Rainfall File
Enter, Modify, or Print Evapotranspiration File
Display File Directory
Select Default Files and Options
Import ASCII Data Files
Quit. Terminate Program and Return to DOS
Desired Option?
Figure 1. Main menu of CMLS software.
IAINFALL, in
D h" t«
• •
D 01 «
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
^ 60-
Du 98 -
w .,«
A 128 -
158 -1
8
5
1
...
I
a
^
.....
•^
L88
J
158 2
ELAPSED Tim
I J
'88
I i»S
258 38
IS
tl "
18 338
*^-r.-
2/
12/
31/1985
Soil
BLANTON
S37-7-U-8)
Root Depth
Chemcal
+ CARBOFURAN
OXAMYL
Rainfall and Depth of Cheitical as Functions of Tine.
Figure 2. Example of graphical output from CMLS showing depth
distribution of two chemicals in response to soil
and rainfall characteristics.
70
-------
Travel Times for Chemicals to Move to Selected pepths and
Relative Amounts of the Chemical Remaining in the Soil at Those Times
Chemical
Partition Coefficient, Koc, (ml/g OC)
Application date, (month/ day /year)
'Ending date, (month/ day /year)
Application depth, (in)
Sooting depth, (in)
Time (days) to 12.00 in
'.Relative Amount Remaining
Time (days) to 24.00 in
Relative Amount Remaining
Time (days) to 36.00 in
Relative Amount Remaining
Time (days) to 48.00 in
Relative Amount Remaining
CARBOFURAN
29
2/1/85
12/31/85
0.00
20.00
33
0.5389
34
0.5289
48
0.4069
67
0.2850
OXAMYL
9
2/1/85
12/31/85
0.00
20.00
13
0.2227
33
0.0221
34
0.0197
44
0.0062
figure 3. Example of tabular output of travel time to and relative amount
remaining at user specified depths.
References
Hornsby, A.G., K.D. Pennell, R.E. Jessup, and P.S.C. Rao. 1988. Modeling
environmental fate of toxic organic chemicals in soils. Final project
report to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Contract #
WH149. University of Florida. Soil Science Department. Gainesville, FL. 75
pages -
Sofziger, D.L., and A.G. Hornsby. 1986. A microcomputer-based management
tool for chemical movement in soil. Applied Agricultural Research 1:50-56.
Sofziger, D.L. and A.G. Hornsby. 1987. Chemical Movement in Layered Soils:
Jser's Manual. Circular 780. Florida Cooperative Extension
Institute of Food and
Gainesville. 44 pages.
Agricultural Sciences, University of
Service.
Florida,
71
-------
Principles of Pesticides and Water Quality
Richard P. Maas
Department of Environmental Studies
University of North Carolina at Asheville
Asheville, North Carolina
Principles
Pesticide contamination of water resources is an issue with a large disparity between the amount of public concern
and the available information. Public concern is very great, however, we lack much of the basic information needed to
address this complex topic. Some of the work that I am doing in North Carolina is aimed at developing the informa-
tion base through a ground water monitoring study, and at translating what information we do have into practical
educational materials for pesticide users.
I want to present six principles of pesticides and water quality.
1. Less pesticides used = Less pesticides in water.
2. Some pesticides pose a much greater threat to water quality than others. This is based on characteristics
such as toxicity, teachability, and persistence.
3. Strategic use of pesticides can greatly lower their aquatic inputs.
4. Concentrating pesticides on one area of soil results in water quality problems.
5. Pesticide persistence data for soils and surface water do not reflect pesticide persistence in ground water.
There is not even a relative relationship between the two.
6. Are there tradeoffs between surface and ground water protection? This is probably not a major concern
because the vast majority of contamination is not coming from field application at label rates but from the
mixing site where bleeding of equipment lines and refilling occurs.
These principles and all of the research being done in this area will have no impact unless we can translate them
into easily interpreted information for the hundreds of thousands of pesticide users. This is what we did in a video
tape called Protecting Water / Protecting Crops: Pesticides and Water Quality. This video is intended for a farmer
audience and was developed by the North Carolina State University Agricultural Extension Service under a grant
from the Pollution Prevention Pays program of the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development.
The video also comes in slide/tape format and is available for purchase or rental from Jerry Rodgers, Agricultural
Communications, Extension Media, 2 Polk Hall, North Carolina State University, Box 7603, Raleigh, NC 27695-7603,
tel. (919)737-7055. We have also developed a set often fact sheets on pesticides. The fact sheets are available from
the NCSU Water Quality Group, 615 Oberlin Rd., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27605-1126. The cost is $4.00 per set for or-
ders from outside of North Carolina.
[See pages 74-77 for a summary of the video presentation.]
Question and Answer Period
Question: What sort of concentrations are you finding and what recommendations do you make?
Answer: We don't have enough information to answer that. The first question we get from growers is how do I
get my well tested and what is the level of water quality.
Question: How is this reaching applicators?
72
-------
Answer: We really pushed to have this slide/tape included in the Extension Service's pesticide applicator training
but the length of the training was cut down such that the tape was not included du& to time constraints.
f
Question: Address your principle #6.
Answer: You may have some tradeoff but the feeling is this is not an overriding concern because there are many
other issues -- IPM and using less teachable pesticides; The vast majority of contamination is not coming from field
application at label rates but from spills back at the mixing site where bleeding of equipment lines and refilling occurs.
Question: What about macropore effects?
Answer: The soil profile is so complex and macropores are so site specific that research on this will probably have
difficulty producing practical answers. Reduced tillage systems may develop more extensive macropore networks but
it the same time they generally employ less leachable pesticides which are not soil incorporated. Thus, the overall ef-
fect of reduced tillage and macropores on pesticide groundwater movement is difficult to predict. It would appear,
however, that the present evidence is very insufficient to warrant holding back on the promotion of reduced tillage on
account of the macropore issue.
73
-------
PROTECTING WATER—
PROTECTING CROPS:
PESTICIDESKND WATER QUALITY
SUMMARY FACT SHEET
May,1987
Pesticides are an important part of producing crops and
making a living as a fanner, but if they aren't used properly,
pesticides can pose a real danger to the health of farm families
and their downstream neighbors.
Pesticide well contamination is a particular concern to farm-
ers because it will usually be their own or an immediate
neighbor's well which gets contaminated.
This fact sheet summarizes practical ways to protect our
drinking water and other water supplies from pesticide con-
tamination.
/. HOW SERIOUS A PROBLEM?
• Pesticide spills are among the largest causes of fishkills.
• Some pesticides currently on the market can cause:
-cancer in laboratory animals
-reproductive system damage
-immune system and nervous system dysfunction
• In North Carolina and other states where pesticides have
been monitored, contaminated wells have been found. N.C.
is not currently conducting a pesticide monitoring program.
• Infants, small children, and the elderly are much more
sensitive to toxic chemicals than adult humans. Pesticide
drinking water standards were based on intake by healthy
adults.
* Community drinking water treatment systems do not re-
move many commonly used pesticides.
• County health department routine well testing is for bacte-
rial contamination; testing for chemicals requires a special,
separate test
II. HOW DOES IT HAPPEN?
Pesticides travel into water in 6 ways:
1. Wind Drift: This occurs when pesticides are sprayed on
windy days and small, fine droplets are carried long distances
away.
WIND DRIFT:
2. Evaporation: Significant amounts of some pesticides
enter water when they evaporate from leaves and soil
surfaces and are redepositcd in rainfall.
EVAPORATION:
3. Surface Runoff: Surface runoff carries pesticides inio
streams and reservoirs, particularly when there is a heavy
rainfall shortly after application.
SURFACE RUNOFF:
74
-------
4. Soil Leaching: Some pesticides percolate down
throt gh the soil (especially sandy soil) and into the water
table.
5. Careless Disposal of Pesticides and Containers: Dump-
ing i i streams, ditches, or on the ground can contaminate
surface water and can leach into groundwater.
CARELESS DISPOSAL
6. Improper Use of Chemigation: When pesticides are
applied through an irrigation system using too much water,
both surface runoff and soil leaching can occur. Back-
siphoning of pesticide mixtures into the supply water can also
occur.
CHEMIGATION:
///. HOW CAN WE PREVENT rr?
1. Controlling Wind Drift:
• Spray only when there is little or no wind. 5 mph or greater
wind speeds cause large drift losses, especially if boom and
nozzle pressures are high.
* Select nozzles and pressures for the largest recommended
droplet size, since a finer mist means greater drift, especially
in high winds.
t
• Use ground application as an alternative to aerial methods,
if possible, since drift losses will usually be greater with aerial
application than ground.
2. Reducing Evaporation:
• Choose pesticide formulations that don't evaporate easily—
such as oil emulsions or granules, if your application method
allows.
• Spray late in the day, since some pesticides evaporate
quickly from dew-covered leaves or in very hot, sunny
conditions.
3. Reducing Surface Runoff:
• Avoid application on days when there is a high probability
of heavy rain. Short, intense thunderstorms can cause serious
washes of freshly applied pesticides into streams or reser-
voirs.
• For soil-applied pesticides, immediately incorporate them
into the soil—unless they are not labeled for incorporation.
• Many soil and water conservation practices reduce the
amount of pesticides carried in runoff or catch pesticides be-
fore they reach water supplies:
-conservation tillage
-contour fanning
-terraces
-grassed waterways
-filter strips
-farm ponds (sediment basins)
4. Protecting Our Groundwater:
Seepage of pesticides into groundwater is the farm family's
particular concern because it will usually be their own or their
immediate neighbor's well which gets contaminated; and
groundwater well contamination can last for years.
KEEP PESTICIDES AWAY FROM WATER WELLS.
1 Avoid applying or mixing within at least 100 feet of wells.
75
-------
Some Important Facts About Pesticides In Groundwater.
• The potential for a pesticide to leach into groundwaier is
related to the type of soil:
-clay soils are tightly packed and generally slow the
downward movement of water;
-sandy rails don't attach strongly to pesticides and
have large spaces for water to flow through.
• Some pesticides that degrade quickly in soil or surface water
-break down slowly in groundwater. because there
are fewer bacteria, no sunlight and it is colder.
• Not all pesticides are alike:
-Some barely move in soil and don't leach into
groundwater.
-Some, like systemic pesticides, are made to
travel quickly through soil and can leach into
groundwater.
Some pesticides commonly used which have a high leaching
potential and toxic properties include:
COMMON NAME TRAM NAMtK)
AIACH.C* LASSO
AUTCAflS 7EMIK
AtSAZINt AAFRK. ATRAONI «. AMD SOW.
ATRAlOl 4P.WCEP. MARKSMAN
1ROMACH WYVAJJ
KROVAR
CAMOHJRAN RIRAOAN
CYANA2N& BLADEX
CXNOSW DYAHV. CeJBJAL WBD XUfR
mEMBiG ni& nsMaiGC x saecnw
WEED NUB.
DISW/OTON DASAMI. DWWTON MOCAF PIUS
MEIHOMH. 4ANNAJ6 NUDON
MEKXACH.OR MCS>. DUAL
OXAMYL VYDAUt
SIMAZWJ «BNCSP
So, be very careful loading or mixing these pesticides near
wells or when applying on sandy soils.
This map showsareasof the country with vulnerable ground-
water, primarily based on sandy soils and shallow water table.
Pesticides and groundwater
Susceptibility
to contamination
Mwftjm
Low
5. Proper Pesticide Disposal:
Tips for avoiding leftovers and spills
• Calculate how much of each pesticide you will use at labeled
rates and buy only what you need.
• Store containers:
-off the floor so you can see if they begin to leak or
rust;
-away from other materials, like livestock feed.
• Mix directly in the spray tank unless label specifies pre-
mtxtng outside the tank; triple rinse all containers directly
into spray tank.
• Prevent backsiphoning by always keeping the hose above
the liquid level in tank.
Disposal Tips:
• Never pour leftovers into a hole or pit; pesticides concen-
trated in one place saturate the soil and destroy its ability to
biodegrade them.
-For more even dispersal of leftover tank mixes—
or the rinse water—spray them on a crop listed or
the label, or on row ends and field borders [but dc
not exceed the recommended rate].
76
-------
• Crushed and/or punctured, triple rinsed containers can be
taken to sanitary landfills that will accept them. • '•
• N.C. Department of Agriculture will collect limited quan-
! titles of unwanted or unusable pesticides free. Contact Bill
McClelland, 733-7366.
• Never put leftover tank mixes or containers in or near
streams, ditches or low wetland areas.
6. Proper Chemigatioti:
Because water and pesticides are applied together, chemiga-
tion can cause surface or groundwater contamination.
Tips for Prevention:
* Gun-type irrigation systems which spray a fine mist high
into the air shouldn't be used for chemigation.
• Center pi vot systems cause less evaporation, drift and runoff
of pesticides than gun systems.
* Use the least amount of water possible to apply the pesticide
so th;it runoff or leaching will not occur.
* For leaf applications, don't use chemigation until the crop
canopy is nearly complete.
* Learn the new N.C. regulations to prevent backsiphoning in
cherrigation systems.
7. Integrated Pest Management (IPM):
IPM practices also keep pesticides out of water supplies:
reducing pesticide use reduces pesticide loss.
Important IPM Concepts and Facts:
• Scouting for pests determines which pests and how many are
on area crops, and if a pesticide treatment is necessary.
• Becauseapest is present in a crop doesn't necessarily mean
it is causing economic damage.
• Crop plants can withstand some pest damage before yield is
reduced; threshold formulas have been worked out for many
crops.
• When economic damage—or yield reduction— from the
pest exceeds treatment costs, this is called the economic
threshold for that pesu
• Local Extension Agents can provide training on scouting
and economic thresholds.
• IPM still uses pesticides, but only when necessary, so that
money spent on pesticides is justified.
• With less insecticides, beneficial insects which feed on
damaging insects can increase and provide even more con-
trol.
• Other IPM techniques include:
-crop residue (tobacco) destruction
-resistant crop varieties
-introducing natural predators
-adjustment of planting and harvesting dates.
DO'S...
1. BUY THE RIGHT AMOUNT...
2. USE IPM...
3. SPRAY ON CALM DAYS...
4. SPRAY LATE IN THE DAY...
5. USE GOOD EROSION CONTROL
DONTS...
I. NEVER MIX, LOAD OR APPLY NEAR WELLS
2. NEVER APPLY WHEN THUNDERSTORMS ARE
FORECAST
3. NEVER DUMP INTO STREAMS, DITCHES OR
WETLANDS
4. NEVER DUMP INTO A PIT
For more information contact-
Water Quality Group
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Dept
N.C. State University -615 Oberlin Rd.
Raleigh. N.C. 27605 • (919) 737-3723
north Carolina
AGRICUITURAL
EXTENSION
SERVICE
Helping people put knowledge to work.
Funded by: The N.C. Pollution Prevention Ptyt program
Produced by: Rick Mui tnd Len Sunity. Extension Specialists
Published by
THE NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
North OaroUnaState Uhivwsly at Raleigh, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University at Greensboro, and tne U. S. Department ol Agriculture. Cooperating.
Slate Jniveraity Station. Raleigh. N.C.. Chester D. Slack. Director. Distributed in furtherance ol the Acts ol Congress of May a and June 30.1914. Tne North Carolina
AgricUtuat Extension Service offers its programs to all eligible persons regardless of race, color, or natural origin, and is an equal opportunity employer.
77
-------
Water Quality and Integrated Pest-Management
Bud Stolzenburg
Nebraska Cooperative Extension Service
Long Pine Creek RCWP
Ainsworth, Nebraska
Concern for water quality in the United States has resulted in a variety of efforts to promote and maintain an ade-
quate supply of clean water. Among these efforts is one to reduce the potential for pesticide contamination of surface
and underground water.
A strategy that can be quite effective in managing pesticides in the environment is the IPM (Integrated Pest
Management) program. The notion of an IPM program is not new but is certainly receiving considerable attention
with the current emphasis on water quality.
The underlying philosophy of an IPM program is the judicious use of chemical pest control based on a regular
scouting program and appropriate "economic thresholds" for pest treatment.
The Long Pine Area IPM Association was formed in 1983 in conjunction with the Long Pine RCWP. The Associa-
tion has grown from 3,000 acres in 1983 to 14,500 in 1988.
The particular emphasis of the Long Pine IPM Association is insect control. Fields are scouted weekly and a writ-
ten report is provided to the producer. Personal contact with the producer is made if a concern is noted. Treatment
recommendations are made based on University of Nebraska "economic thresholds".
Six years of experience has shown the IPM to be quite successful in reducing the amount of pesticide used by
producers. This translates into a cleaner water supply as well as a considerable economic savings for farmers.
A successful IPM program depends upon the attitude and support of producers, community, and associated
federal and state agencies.
As with any organization, an IPM needs a basis for existence. The emphasis of the RCWP on water quality has
been part of this. Coupled with the economic advantages and improved crop prospects, it has provided a legitimate
basis for the IPM program.
To be successful, an IPM must also provide good service to the producer at an acceptable cost. This implies good
leadership from the community in organizing the association. The selection and training of field scouts, as well as the
rules and regulations governing the organization, requires a considerable amount of time.
The various federal and state agencies can certainly be involved in the support of the IPM concept. In the case of
the Long Pine RCWP the ASCS (Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service), the SCS (Soil Conservation
Service), and the CES (Cooperative Extension Service) have all played a supportive role in the development and or-
ganization of the Long Pine IPM Association.
Water quality monitoring and testing has helped to create an awareness of the need for agricultural practices
which maintain and improve water quality. Cost-sharing for pesticide management through the Long Pine RCWP has
also been a positive factor.
Water quality is certainly a national focus, but the local focus resulting from the Long Pine RCWP has definitely
been a factor in the success of the Long Pine IPM Association.
78
-------
Pesticide Regulation in San Joaquin County, California
/
Mary Jensen ?
Assistant Agriculture Commissioner
San Joaquin County, California
San Joaquin county is located in the middle of California's great valley. Stockton is the county seat and there are
four other incorporated cities: Tracy, Manteca, Ripon and Lodi. Agriculture is our number 1 industry. This is a
county of diversified farming, thanks to the many soil types, to irrigation and to a semi-arid climate.
The San Joaquin river, which flows through the county, is fed by the Stanislaus river at the southern border of the
county, the Calaveras river, and at the north, the Mokelumne river. The water table is lowering because of increased
pumping but it is an adequate complement to the rivers. There are also irrigation districts which bring water from
dams in the Sierra Nevada mountain range.
Dairy products are the highest total dollar value commodity. The delta area around the San Joaquin river is a rich
peat bottomland. Asparagus, corn and sunflowers are principal crops there. The Tracy area produces the county's
apricots, blackeyes and lima beans and has large alfalfa plantings to supply the many dairies. The Manteca/Ripon
area has large numbers of almond orchards. Manteca also produces watermelons, casabas and banana squash. The
linden area to the east is known for its kidney beans, cherries and walnuts, Lodi for its grapes, particularly the Tokay.
Tomatoes, beans, wheat, alfalfa and corn are grown all over the county. There are smaller plantings of kiwi, peaches,
and pears. The foothill areas of the coast range and the Sierra Nevada mountains are grazed by sheep and cattle.
The county has several large foliage nurseries. We are too far north to grow cotton. Farm operations vary in size
from large com holdings in the delta, to small family-owned orchards in the Ripon and Linden areas.
Many states have a state commissioner of agriculture. In California, the comparable agency is the California
Department of Food and Agriculture, or CD FA, and the department head is the director, a political appointee,
presently Jack Parnell. CD FA, headquartered in the state capital, Sacramento, is the lead agency for the various coun-
ty departments of agriculture which are headed by commissioners. The county staff is licensed by the State as com-
petent in the areas of enforcement, of which pesticide use is one. A portion of the commissioner's salary is paid by the
State but the majority is from the county general fund. The commissioner is hired by the county board of supervisors
from an eligible list provided by the State. So while we at the county level enforce the state food and ag code, and are
accountable to CDFA, we are paid by the county and thus responsive to local needs.
The commissioner has divided the county into eleven inspection districts. An inspector is assigned to each district
and it is his responsibility to know his growers, their crops, crop rotations and methods of operation. The district in-
s sector is the front-line enforcer of pesticide law. The delivery system for enforcement is the county commissioner
system. A state senior pesticide use specialist is assigned to several counties, acting as liaison and auditor of county en-
forcement efforts.
The authority for California's regulation of pesticide use is found in state law, state regulations and in county or-
dinances. The laws have been enacted by the state legislature and are codified in the California food and agricultural
code. Laws are usually written to correct or prevent a problem, and are therefore general in nature. Having enacted
(lie law, the legislature leaves it to the CDFA to write the actual methods of enforcement, which are found in the
California code of regulations. These regulations are written by CDFA staff, approved by the director, then noticed
for public hearing and written comment. CDFA is aware of field conditions because of the commissioner system
found in our state. There are many special interest groups in California and they have input and influence during
both the legislative process and the adoption of the regulations. Some of these groups may be familiar to you: Sierra
Club, UFW, Agrarian Action, CRLA, Farm Bureau, CAAA, CAPCA, WACA. Finally, each county can adopt local
ordinances to address specific local needs.
The CDFA is the agency responsible for enforcement of ag law. It is structured with many divisions, including
measurement standards, county fairs, and veterinary regulation. What interests us today is this one: the Division of
Fest Management, Environmental Protection and Worker Safety, which is directly responsible for pesticide use enfor-
cement.
79
-------
Even though pesticides carry an EPA number showing federal registration, their manufacturers must also register
each product in California. To register, the product must meet standards of safety and efficacy that are as stringent or
more so than those of EPA. The manufacturers, in addition to a registration fee, pay a mill tax, based on the dollar
amount of their products sold in the state. A portion of this tax is distributed to thfe counties to pay for enforcement
efforts. The dealers who sell these pesticides are licensed. There must be a responsible person at each sales office of
a dealer, who has passed an examination to show he is knowledgeable and qualified to sell pesticides.
Although1 there are more and more independent pest control advisers, (PCA's), all dealers have several PCA's who
are actually salesmen. Their advice is often viewed as an ancillary service that keeps the customer happy and buying
from the dealer. PCA's are also licensed by CDFA. They must have a bachelor's degree in biology or agriculture and
CDFA administers exams to test their knowledge of the applicable laws as well as knowledge of crops, pests, chemi-
cals, equipment calibration, etc. The license is renewed every two years and the PCA must show proof of continuing
education — 40 hours of classwork every two years. The PCA is also registered in each county where he makes recom-
mendations. The PCA's recommendations are required to have certain specific information, and in writing. A map is
drawn, or a location is described for each property and anything nearby that could be adversely impacted. The recom-
mendation is signed. A statement is required that alternative chemicals or methods of control have been considered
and that every effort has been made to mitigate any adverse environmental effects.
Commercial pest control operators (PCO's) are also required to be licensed. PCO's can be ground or air ap-
plicators. The business itself requires a business license and proof of insurance coverage. Each business must have at
(east one licensed qualified applicator who has passed exams covering laws, equipment, chemicals, rates, etc. This per-
son can be a designated agent, a PCA, a pilot or a qualified applicator licensee. Any person who applies pesticides
for hire must be licensed as an ag PCO, and registered with the commissioner in each county where he works. Every
ag PCO must have a copy of the grower's permit for restricted chemicals and a written recommendation for each job.
Recommendations can be written by a grower instead of a PCA but must contain the same required information.
Pilots working as aerial applicators must possess valid FAA registration and possess an ag certificate from CDFA.
They also register in each county where they work.
Persons who apply pesticides as a part of their work for other than a pesticide applicator need a slightly different
paper, called a qualified applicator certificate. An example of this work could be someone who sprays levee weeds
for an irrigation district but also works as a ditch tender, or a manufacturing plant maintenance man who sprays
weeds or controls rodents. A certificate is required only if restricted materials are used but we recommend the per-
son be certificated as a protection to the company, and to the applicator, himself.
Structural PCO's are those who treat for termites, fumigate buildings or spray around food preparation areas. The
lead agency for these people is the state structural pest control board, which works closely with CDFA, for CDFA is
charged with the enforcement of all uses of pesticides. We county people inspect structural work now. This is a rela-
tively new program for us, but as the county is being paved and built over, the day may come when all our work will be
looking at termite control operations.
In 1970 the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, became law. A key element of this legislation was the re-
quirement that an environmental impact report, an EIR, be made before any action that would affect the environ-
ment. As you are aware, one EIR requires months of study and a lengthy approval process. Because of an attorney
general's opinion written in 1976, this requirement applied to agriculture - that is, everytime a pesticide was to be ap-
plied, an EIR had to be filed by the farmer. This was an impractical situation and so, after the usual task forces, lobby-
ing, public hearings, etc., a compromise was hammered out. Legislation in 1978 established a closely regulated permit
system that qualified as a functional equivalent of an EIR, but on a timely basis. In 1981, the counties began issuing
the seasonal permits we use today.
Two key elements to these permits are certification of the grower and the notice of intent to apply. The respon-
sibility for the safety of the application was intended to fall on the grower. There are certain pesticides whose use is
allowed only under closely controlled conditions and by people who have been certified as competent to handle them.
these are the restricted materials.
When a grower applies for an annual restricted materials permit, he must undergo a certification process. Usually
he meets with his district inspector and they review the planned crops and chemicals that may be needed. Maps show-
ing field locations are submitted and made a part of the permit. If the grower has employees, an appointment is made
to review records of training in pesticide use for each worker. Any employee who works with organophosphates or
carbamates for more than 30 hours in 30 days is required to be under medical supervision and have a baseline
80
-------
cholincstcrasc test before beginning work. At this headquarters inspection, an audit will be made to see that the
{grower has kept records of his pesticide applications for two years. His pesticide storage area will be inspected to see
that full and empty containers are in a locked, posted enclosure, incidently, when a'grower wants to dispose of empty
-------
San Joaquin county was inspected by the state field compliance assessment team in 1987. Two state men, one of
whom had had prior experience as a county inspector, spent a week in our county, their only contact with us was to
examine NOI's to determine what jobs might be coming down, and where. Other than that, we saw nothing of them
though we heard a good deal in the field. They watched all kinds of operations: ground, air, public agency, private
growers, PCO's both ag and structural. They made headquarters inspections, and our enforcement efforts were not
perfect, showing areas in which we needed improvement. Some of this was due to a difference in interpretation but a
good deal pointed to deficiencies in our methods of inspection and reporting. We have made a real effort to correct
these deficiencies. A major area of noncompliance lay in failure of workers to wear proper safety equipment as
devised a check-off list for the safety equipment provided and/or worn during applications. We have worked to iden-
tify the reasons why the state saw things we didn't. One reason was that if a non-compliance was corrected in the
inspector's presence, this non-compliance was not recorded by us. That can be corrected by a stroke of the pen on an
inspection report. But another reason is that our locals recognize our vehicles when we approach and perform dif-
ferently in our presence. Other counties experienced the same, or worse, rating by the compliance assessment team.
Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, and who could be against safe drink-
ing water, went into effect in California on January 1,1987. The governor is required to publish a list of chemicals
which cause cancer or adverse reproductive effects. Once a chemical is listed, it cannot be discharged into drinking
water and no one can be exposed to it without warning. Presently these prohibitions apply to private businesses with
10 or more employees. There is a bounty hunter provision which gives 25% of the fines collected to those who turn
people in for violating these prohibitions. In addition, "designated" government employees are required to report il-
legal discharges of hazardous materials. Failure to do so can result in a fine, and/or imprisonment plus mandatory loss
of job. I am a designated employee. The lead enforcement agency for Prop. 65 is the Health and Welfare Depart-
ment of CDHS. Environmental groups have filed suit because they feel the initial list of chemicals is inadequate.
There is also a suit against the warning requirement. You will now find warning signs in groceries and liquor stores in
California since alcohol is a listed chemicaX as are many chemicals occurring naturally in food.
AB 2021, the pesticide contamination prevention act, was enacted in 1985 but has yet to be implemented. This law
involves CDHS, CDFA and the Water Quality Control Board. The purpose is to prevent the pollution of
groundwater by pesticides. Pesticide manufacturers are to submit data on each of their chemicals. The final deadline
for this data is December 1,1989. The director will compile a list of potential pollutants from these data, called the
groundwater protection list. If any of these chemicals is ground applied, injected, irrigated in or applied by chemiga-
tion, the use will be closely regulated and monitoring by soil and water tests will follow. Registration will be cancelled
if the pesticide is found in the groundwater. The only chemical listed to date is atrazine, but simazine, diuron and
prometon will probably be added. In addition, dealers are to report sales of all pesticides to the county commissioner
on a quarterly basis.
We are also grappling with a federal law — the Endangered Species Act which, as you know, has had its implemen-
tation delayed In San Joaquin county we have an endangered fiddleneck and the San Joaquin kit fox to concern us. I
am assuming that you all are aware of this federal law and will be affected by it, too.
San Joaquin county reported the use of 6 million pounds of pesticides in 1986, the most recent year for which
CDFA data are available. Of this, 31/2 millions pounds, or 55% was sulfur. We investigate around 80 reported cases
of pesticide-related illnesses each year. Medical doctors are required by law to report all cases of suspected pesticide-
related illness to the county health district, which forwards the cases to us. The majority of the illnesses among adults
involve skin irritations and flu-like symptoms.
One positive result of the watermelon fiasco was that we have enjoyed cooperation from our growers like never
before. They have all been hit hard in their pocketbooks and they listen to us carefully now.
Like all of you here, we inspectors in San Joaquin county care about clean water and safe food. And like you, we
become frustrated by the lack of information and the lack of time and resources. California has been in the vanguard
of pesticide use regulation. There was a system already in place that allowed the state to use the commissioners as its
enforcement arm. I believe that we have many good people in the field, who have worked hard to implement the
proliferation of new laws. Within five years I believe that EPA will have most of California's regulations on label and I
welcome this. I believe our system is working. It is not perfect but it's the best system presently available. And when
everyone is working under the same rules, then California's growers won't be farming under the financial handicap
that our stricter laws present, all farmworkers will be protected and the public will have a safe, reliable, and abundant
source of food.
82
-------
Panel Session: Developing a Successful Nutrient Management Program
t
Moderator: Jim Anderson, University of Minnesota ;
Panelists: Gary Hergert, University of Nebraska
Jack Lakatosh, SCS District Conservatonist, New Castle County, Delaware
William Jokela, University of Vermont
Richard Pennay, ASCS Pennsylvania State Office
Gary Hergert
Concerns About Groundwater
During the last few years there has been an increased public awareness of groundwater quality. In many areas
water quality deterioration is occurring. However, it is not occurring in every water source. Much of the attention has
teen focused on a nitrate)nkrogen. There are many sources of nitrate- nitrogen that can enrich and eventually find
their way to the groundwater. Fertilizer nitrogen is one of these sources but determining the exact proportion from
sources including fertilizers, manures, sewage, or mineralized soil nitrogen is difficult.
Nebraska has an abundant and good quality water source in the Ogallala formation. Localized soil and
|;eologic/hydrologic conditions influence groundwater quality as well as man's activities in food production and
manufacturing. Conditions of high salinity, sodium or nitrate can be found in wells drilled in the 1940's well before
man's activities of farming could have influenced water quality.
Interest in the nitrate content of groundwater had its inception with a well water survey conducted in 1962 in
Nebraska (Extension Circular 65-165). In 1962 only 3% of 1,165 water samples had nitrate levels above the 10 ppm
nitrate N standard. In 1972,547 of the original wells were sampled again. The average level of nitrate had increased
about 29%. Much of the increase occurred in eight counties along the Platte River System. During the last 25 years
there has been a rapid expansion of irrigation wells, corn acreage, nitrogen fertilizer use, and livestock feeding in
Nebraska. Increases in nitrate-nitrogen in ground or surface water are related to these parameters increasing urban
population, shallow water tables, and higher percentage of coarse textured soils being irrigated.While much of the at-
tention on groundwater quality is focused on nitrate there are many other sources of contamination that may pose
much greater health risks. Nitrate-nitrogen poses a health risk because nitrogen is found everywhere and can be
found in most water supplies. The content may be low but the areas affected may be large. Other compounds that
pose health risks in Nebraska include gasoline from leaky storage tanks (benzene), TCE (Tricloroethlene), RDX's
from abandoned munitions dumps used during World War II, pesticides and herbicides, and naturally occurring
radioactive compounds soluble in water.
The nutrients phosphorus and sulfur do not present any major problems for most of Nebraska's surface or subsur-
face waters. This paper will concentrate on nitrate-nitrogen.
The premise of my whole discussion is that effective management programs, whether voluntary or imposed must
Kave a good research base, extension/education outreach, government/institutional support, and local citizen input
and control. I would like to discuss the history of these different factors as they relate to Nebraska and show how they
have come to produce a very workable system that can help control nitrogen losses to groundwater.
Research History
Because of the abundance of groundwater in Nebraska, irrigation development has continued at a steady pace.
The earliest record of irrigation is in 1926 in western Nebraska. In the next two decades irrigation developed primari-
ly along the major river valleys on the first and second terrace soils. By 1960 state irrigated acreage was 2 million.
Very rapid development occurred during the 1970's and today there are 8.4 million acres of irrigated land.
Nebraska's climate is extremely varied from east to west. Rainfall ranges from a low of 15 inches in western Nebras-
ka to over 32 inches in southeast Nebraska. Elevation varies from over 5,000 feet in the west to under 900 feet in the
southeast. The Ogallala formation underlies much of Nebraska and is in parts of seven other states, however, 70% of
Us exploitable water is under the state of Nebraska.
83
-------
Fertilizers were introduced after World War II.' Diking the 1950's there was an extensive effort to extend this new
technologies to farmers and have them accept it. There were dramatic yield responses most places where fertilizer
was used. Initial research began during this period on soil testing and fertilizer rate's studies to determine the proper
amount to use. Much of this early work was initiated by Professor Robert Olsen. '
With the expanded irrigated acreage there was interest in proper irrigation management. Early research work by
Paul Fischbach and Bert Somerhalder in Nebraska was with equipment design and proper field lay out for water dis-
tribution. These efforts continued into the 1960's. During the 1970's there was development of center pivot irrigation,
especially on sandy soils in Nebraska. There was increased emphasis on collection of weather data to use for deter-
mination of evapotranspiration by crops to use in conjunction with irrigation scheduling. Much of this work was done
by Darrell Watts and Jim Gilley. The low water holding capacity and fertility levels of sandy soils prompted research
on water and nitrogen management during the 70's conducted by Darrell Watts and Don Sander.
Conservation farming techniques were pioneered in Nebraska in the late 50's and early 60's. Early work on conser-
vation tillage began by Howard Wittmus and Bert Somerhalder into a system that has grown to be known as ridge-till.
Work in western Nebraska on chemical fallow systems and residue maintenance to reduce wind and water erosion on
soil was developed by Gail Wicks as the ecofallow system in the early 1960's.
A state wide effort to update the data base that had been collected during the early 50's and 60's on nitrogen
response of com was initiated. From the mid 70's to early 80's 80 different locations on fanner's fields were con-
ducted to look at the deep nitrate tests to improve the nitrogen fertilizer recommendations. This work was conducted
by Dick Wiese, Ed Penas, George Rehm and Gary Hergert. During the 1980's research work continued on nitrogen
with nitrogen timing experiments and nitrification inhibitors. Research began on the use of surge irrigation and low
pressure center pivots. This research was conducted in response to popular need for information to do a better job of
management. It provided the information bases but then could be used by Cooperative Extension Personnel in
farmer meetings.
Extension Efforts
During the 1950's one of the primary goals of the Cooperative Extension Service was to promote the new technol-
ogy of fertilizer use and to o7 3 discuss the benefits of irrigation. Many demonstrations were o7 3 conducted around
the state to show farmers the benefits of these new technologies and to show that they were profitable. During the
1960's the age of fertilizer and water management really began. There was a good deal of teaching on the importance
of fertilizer management and soil testing done by Dick Wiese and Don Sander. On the irrigation management side in-
formation from the research was extended by Paul Fischbach and Deon Axthelm. During the 1970's there was a tran-
sition from local county crop clinics to more in)depth schools to teach principles of management. The Soil in Depth
School with the main goal of using fertilizer efficiently was conducted by members of the agronomy department. Ir-
rigation schools were conducted by Ag. Engineering to teach equipment needs plus all of the techniques for using
weather data effectively, plus irrigation management techniques. During this time the University received a large
grant from the Burlington Northern Foundation to promote more effective energy usage by more efficient irrigation.
This came during the time after the energy crunch of the 1970's. During the late 70's when commodity prices began to
decline and energy prices continued to increase there was a great deal of interest in cutting production costs.
During the 1980's with the continued low commodity prices there was a renewed emphasis on improved
profitability, reducing costs and inputs to maintain productivity and profitability and an added emphasis of maintain-
ing productivity while reducing the effect of management practices on environmental quality. During this time period
the Hall County Project was initiated in the central Ptatte region where nitrate levels in groundwater were increasing
rapidly. This was a cooperative venture between the University of Nebraska, the Soil Conservation Service, Agricul-
tural Stabilization and Conservation Service, and the Natural Resource Districts. With a continued emphasis on
groundwater quality in the 1980's a series of research demonstration plots were started across the state as a joint ef-
fort between agronomy and agricultural engineering to demonstrate the use of deep soil nitrate tests and irrigation
scheduling to improve profitability and reduce nitrate leaching.
Institutional Changes
During the 1950's and 60's the primary attitude of state government was that state control was preferable to local
control During the early 1970's, however, there was a shift in the emphasis that local control in many instances would
84
-------
Ije better than control from the state government in Lincoln. The government and its agencies could provide over
!iight but regulations and enforcement would be accepted more if they came from lAcal input. One of the organiza-
tions that was created to manage and monitor the natural resources of an area was, the Natural Resource Districts
(NRD). NRD's are established on a water shed basis that may include several counties. The NRD is governed by a
locally elected board. The state of Nebraska does have a Department of Environmental Control (DEC) which is
similar to a state EPA. DEC has oversight for problems that occur related to natural resources. However, the
development of plans, procedures, and monitoring does revert to local control through the NRD's.
In 1981 the DEC developed a strategy for protecting groundwater quality in Nebraska. The final report was issued
in 1985 and listed six potential sources of contamination as the most serious threats to groundwater quality.
1. Chemical and fuel storage.
2. Agricultural chemicals.
3. Waste treatment and disposal areas.
4. Water wells and unregulated test holes.
5. Industrial facilities.
6. Spills and leaks during transport of hazardous materials.
Strategies were developed for each of the six different areas into a concept called Special Groundwater Quality
'Protection Areas (SPA). Under this concept the local efforts of towns, counties or NRD's to protect groundwater
would be tied to state authority to regulate certain potential sources of contamination. A SPA of a given size and loca-
tion could be designated within the state based on different criteria. Once a SPA was designated the local NRD
would be given the authority to develop and carry out their own measures for protecting the groundwater resource.
The DEC would assist in identifying possible alternatives, would monitor the process and determine its effectiveness
over time. If no local action were taken the DEC would then institute the protective measures in the area.
On January 1,1987 LB894 became law. This bill provided for the establishment of special groundwater protection
ureas that were previously discussed. To date two protection areas have been initiated b the state of Nebraska. The
tJurd management area under the control of the Central Platte NRD is not a special protection area but is a
Igroundwater management area. Another aspect of institutional change instituted at the beginning of 1987 was pas-
:age of the Chemigation Bill that required any applicator who applied chemicals with irrigation water must be cer-
tified. A certification program was developed under the auspices of the DEC through the University of Nebraska
Cooperative Extension Service. Farmers were trained, tested and then certified.
Summary
The effective management programs for nitrogen in Nebraska have evolved over the last 30 years. They have been
based on a good research and extension program government institutional arrangements that provide for local input
-------
f
regarding chemicals must come from some level of governmental authority. In general, fanners are more concerned
with water quality than most metropolitan citizens and probably always have been/ They are closer to nature and they
must provide their own drinking water from local aquifers. They also have a greater sense that future generations will
use our natural resources to provide a way of life and food for society.
Jack Lakatosh
Appoquinimink River RCWP, Delaware: Watershed Brief
The Appoquinimink River Watershed has a drainage basin of 48 square miles; lies entirely within the Atlantic
Coastal Plain and has a stream length of 16 miles that meanders through 4,180 acres of highly productive tidal marsh
wetland area. The basin is predominantly rural farmland with 19,600 acres of active cropland on 130 farms. Principal
crops grown are corn, small grains and soybeans (18,567 acres) with some specialty crops including potatoes, sweet
corn, tomatoes, and asparagus. Headwaters of the Appoquinimink River and its major tributaries drain agricultural
lands and feed four large impoundments: Shallcross Lake, Noxontown Pond, Silver Lake, and Wiggins Mill Pond.
Designated Water Quality Use
The State of Delaware has designated the Appoquinimink River Basin with the following uses:
— industrial water supply
— secondary contact recreation
— fish and aquatic life/wildlife
— primary contact recreation (fresh water only)
— agriculture water supply
Water Quality Impairment
The baseline water quality data for the basin was gathered by the State/DNREC since 1968 as part of the state's
primary monitoring program. In addition, Silver Lake and Noxontown Pond were part of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency's National Eutrophication Survey. Monitoring, as a pan of RCWP was funded through EPA and local
governments. The monitoring program began in 1980 and was limited to one station covering 2,170 acres for 3 years.
Additional funding expanded the program to include 3 lakes and a ground water monitoring program. The monitor-
ing program identified the following problems associated with impairment for the designated uses:
— Nutrient concentrations were high throughout the basin causing excessive algae blooms.
— During the summer season, the pH standard was often exceeded in all four ponds.
— Fecal coliform standards were typically violated throughout the watershed.
— Total suspended solids concentrations were high.
Nutrient Management Program
The nutrient management program consisted of controlling nutrients attached to soil particles, gully erosion,
animal waste management and pesticide and fertilizer management on the designated critical areas. The critical area
was defined on 13,000 acres of cropland. Water quality plans were completed for 77 contracts covering 11,362 critical
areas in the watershed.
Conservation tillage was the key practice for control of sediment-bound nutrients. The majority of the water quality
plans specified no-tillage as the preferred method for corn and soybean production. Conservation tillage workshops
were held each year emphasizing management techniques, equipment use, insect and weed control, calibration, fer-
tilizers, and farmers' experiences. Encouraging the use of cover crops in the no-till systems was promoted in the water-
shed. Aside from the crop yield benefit with the cover crop no-till system, nitrogen not utilized by the crop could be
recycled by the small grain winter cover thus preventing leaching. The use of no-tillage has reduced soil erosion to soil
loss tolerance (T). Conservation tillage was applied to 9,750 acres of the cropland acres identified as "critical" (75%
level). In addition, this BMP was also applied on many acres not designated as critical. The use of no-till not only
reduced soil erosion but controlled runoff to the extent of eliminating ephemeral rill and some gully erosion.
86
-------
The use of grassy filter strips, critical area seedlngsj waterways, diversions and grade stabilization structures were
used in conjunction with conservation tillage to control erosion and nutrient runoff Fertilizer management involved
the use of the Extension Service Education Program in three main areas: soils testing, source and method of applica-
tion (banding) and calibration of equipment (including manure spreaders). Most farmers in the watershed are high
users of a soils testing program. Along with this, just about every planter has a fertilizer attachment, which in the case
of corn, places a band of fertilizer 2" to the side and 2" below the surface. This placement has the advantage of allow-
ir g a reduction of 1/2 the phosphorus from the recommended broadcast rate given on the soil test. The following slide
d anonstrates a typical planter and fertilizer attachment. Approximately 80% of the watershed is currently banding
phosphorus. Nitrogen application in corn is also being banded as a starter. The remainder nitrogen is side dressed by
dribbling the solution (30% liquid nitrogen) between rows when the corn is 18" tall. Approximately 70% of the water-
shed is banding nitrogen in corn production. We feel this is a significant part of the RCWP program in that nutrients
are applied at a reduced rate, and at a time and manner which greatly reduces the chance for these nutrients to be car-
ried off by runoff water.
The dairy farmers in the watershed have manure management systems that include waste storage structures which
allows animal wastes to be held for a more timely application. Manure analysis helps farmers take credit for the
nutrients applied, thus reducing the need to apply commercial fertilizer. An extension specialist provides cm-farm
visits to check and calibrate manure spreaders. Computer programs are available to plan nutrient applications by
fiijld(s) for farm records.
Pesticide management involved workshop meetings on calibration and care of equipment. Proper disposal of con-
tainers was heavily emphasized in the watershed, and written into the water quality plans. Extension's integrated pest
management program was utilized in 20% of the watershed. The county agent has estimated about 1/3 of the water-
shed has reduced pesticide and herbicide use in corn and soybean production. The IPM Program accomplished 3
basic tasks:
(1) Define action threshold levels which often reduces a need for pesticide application.
(2) Determine post emergence rate.
(3) Target the program to spot spraying.
Water Quality/Trend Analysis
• Total suspended solids concentrations have declined 90% from 84 mg/1 (1/2 ton/ac/yr) in 1980 to 8 mg/1 (.04
tons/ac/yr) b 1986.
• Bacteria (total and fecal coliform and fecal strep) levels remain well below standards for primary contact
recreation.
• Unfiltered total P concentrations have declined 70% from 1980 (.20 mg/1) to 1986 (.06 mg/I). This amounts to a
reduction from 1.3 Ib/ac/yr phosphorus to .38 Ibs/ac/yr in stream flow. Filtered total P concentrations declined
64% (from .11 mg/I to .04 mg/1) during this same time.
• Total nitrogen (organic plus ammonia plus nitrate) concentrations have remained relatively constant at about
4 mg/1 or 25 Ibs of N per acre per year.
• Biological monitoring has essentially shown no change since 1980.
• BOD concentrations are increasing annually due to increases during the planting and growing seasons.
William Jokela
Nutrient Management Program in the St. Albans Bay RCWP
(notes by Michael Smolen, NWQEP)
The St. Albans Bay RCWP is located in a large popular, isolated segment of Lake Champlain. Viewing the project
from the air it is clear that the bay is largely surrounded by farmland, a major source of the plant nutrients that stimu-
lal e algal growth and eutrophication of the bay.
87
-------
The field nutrient management program was initiated in 1986 with RCWP fundipg. A number of manure storage
facilities had already been installed on area farms with cost-share funding provided by RCWP. The objectives of the
current project are to: ;
1) increase implementation and maintenance of fertilizer and manure nutrient
management in the watershed,
2) reduce nutrient input to the bay, and
3) increase the net economic return to farmers.
The program stresses regular use of soil tests for P and N, manure sampling, and crop histories. This information
is assembled and used in a one-on-one basis with farmers. The challenge is to convince the farmers that they should
give full credit for the nutrients available in the manure when applying fertilizer to their croplands.
The following activities are viewed as essential to an effective nutrient management program:
1) good communication between farmers and Extension agent (one-on-one basis)
2) cooperation among agricultural professionals including SCS, Extension, fertilizer
dealers, and others,
3) establishment of on-farm demonstrations,
4) publicity, active Extension-farmer meetings, and supporting Extension publications,
5) evaluation-It is important to return after active programs are complete to see
if the practices are still being used, and
6) an influx of money to provide the incentive to build manure storage structures.
A question and answer session followed.
Q: How far did the Vermont project go with evaluation?
A: Not too far because this project is only in its second year. Evaluation is expected to be developed more fully in
the third year.
Q: How would you characterize your problems in obtaining implementation of nutrient management?
A: Fanners are used to doing things a certain way that seems successful. It is difficult to change this. Also fer-
tilizer dealers appear to be their primary source of information and recommendations.
Q: What percent of the manure is an asset to the farmer versus a problem to the farmer?
A: Unlike Pennsylvania RCWP, St. Albans Bay area could probably use all the manure they produce.
Q: Would this be true also if the recommendations were based on P?
A: Yes, generally.
Richard Pennay
Nutrient Management in the Conestoga Headwaters RCWP
(notes by Michael Smolen, NWQEP)
The project takes a little different approach to nutrient management. We begin by asking: What is nutrient
management? Nutrient management is putting nutrient inputs on the field to match that used by the crop. The
project has done considerable research on this subject. Using scales placed on farms, Dr. Les Lanyon from Univer-
88
-------
- 1
sity of Pennsylvania found that there are typically errors as large as 40% on crop yields and nutrient input using the
normal approach. '
Looking at changes in Lancaster County (the location of the RCWP) over the last 30 years, there has been a vast in-
crease in fertilizer use and the number of animals, particularly broilers, hogs, dairy cattle, and feeder cattle.
A nutrient management program should always begin with an overall assessment:
- are nutrients increasing?
- are they concentrated*in certain areas?
- are there surface water problems? or ground water problems?
Next consider the delivery system for the nutrient management program. One-on-one contact is essential. Even
/onish people and Mennonites take personal technical advice seriously from Extension agents, vo-ag teachers, etc.
These same people reject government contracts.
- The computer budgeting program developed by Doug Beegle is very effective.
- Groups can be helpful.
- Media helps to change people's attitudes, to reach Aunt Jane and Uncle Tom.
Support groups such as the Experiment station, Extension agronomists, and soil scientists have helped. Manure
test plots let the farmers see that fertilizer may not be needed. Studies show that excess manure can be detrimental.
Other studies in the program are looking to see how long it will take to deplete the excess residual nitrogen in the soil.
E.usiness leaders, fertilizer dealers, equipment dealers and others need to be involved so that they can adjust their
business plans. Everyone needs to be involved.
Evaluation
- Is the program effective?
- Is the program being accepted?
- Are attitudes changing?
- Are regulatory programs needed?
We know we're saving them money, but they still need to be convinced. Also Lancaster County is getting
regulatory programs like it or not through changes in the zoning ordinances in particular. The farmers need to recog-
nize that their behavior influences the extent of environmental problems. Problems can be controlled if attitudes and
behavior change.
In conclusion, what is needed is state-of-the art BMPs, effective delivery system, ample financial assistance (Pen-
nsylvania RCWP may have been stingy with only 50% cost sharing compared to 75% in the other RCWPs), and fol-
low-up evaluation to make the program effective and cost-effective.
A Question and Answer Session Followed:
Q - To Gary Hergert. Do fanners continue with deep nitrogen soil sampling after the conclusion of the cost-
shared program ends?
A - Adoption is still occurring, but slower than desired. The financial incentive to continue the sampling is not
hirge. When the Hall County project concluded and cost sharing was discontinued, about 50% continued sampling. If
there are no regulations with teeth in them, there is little reason to go to the trouble.
89
-------
Panel Session: Developing a Successful Pesticide Management Program
Moderator: Richard Maas, University of North Carolina at AshevHIe '•
Panelists: Jack Clausen, Water Resources Research Center, University of Vermont
Gary Jackson, University of Wisconsin Extension Service
Mary Jensen, San Joaquin County Agricultural Commission
Bud Stolzenburg, Nebraska Cooperative Extension Service
Rick Maas
It has been gratifying to watch the gradual evolution in RCWP towards increased emphasis in nutrient and pes-
ticide management. When we first started the National Water Quality Evaluation Project b early 1981, we looked
through the lists of best management practices (BMPs) and all the various components, and there at the bottom we
saw BMFs 15 and 16 (nutrient and pesticide management). At that time, we weren't sure what these BMPs entailed.
It is a reflection of the evolution of this entire area of agricultural nonpoint source control that we have been able to
move from a vague conception of nonpoint source nutrient and pesticide management to a national RCWP con-
ference with a major focus on these elements.
The issue of pesticides and water quality is the cutting edge in the field of agricultural nonpoint source control.
The problem is that it's a very complex issue. There are many unresolved technical issues - many different chemicals
reacting in different soil types under different hydrologtc regimes. Somehow we have to develop BMP 16, pesticide
management, in the face of all these unresolved technical issues. Then we must take this information and reach out to
present reasonable, clear recommendations to the pesticide user, the fanner. What we all know is that these recom-
mendations must be technically sound, and at the same time we must be able to integrate them into the farmer's
operation with reasonable time and expense.
A pesticide managment program needs to identify the key portions of the pesticide use cycle which can cause
water contamination, and we need to emphasize these aspects. One of these is related to the fact that we have an in-
creased concern for pesticides in ground water. This is an important issue. We know that if pesticides get into
ground water they are going to stay there for quite a while. They're not going to flush out like surface water. But we
also see that in terms of promoting a pesticide management program to the end users, the farmers, the ground water
issue presents another opportunity. In fact, what it does is personalize the issue of pesticides and water quality to pes-
ticide users. My own recent experience is that growers are extremely interested in getting their wells tested for pes-
ticides.
We have some other issues we want to address in pesticide management. We want to look for ways to use less pes-
ticides. Obviously, the less we can use, the easier job we'll have of protecting water supplies. We want to emphasize
more efficient application methods; we want to recommend using less mobile pesticides, and we want to look especial-
ly for ways to improve operations in the area where mixing and disposal takes place.
Today we have with us a panel of selected individuals, each of whom has been dealing with some part of this pes-
ticide and water quality continuum. They range all the way from field researchers to people dealing with the educa-
tional and institutional mechanics of raising the level of pesticide management on the farm. We have Dr. Jack
Clausen of the University of Vermont and the St. Albans Bay RCWP. He is involved b dobg field studies dealing
with comparing pesticide transport from conventional and conservation tillage systems. Of course, this is a key issue
in recommendations that we can make for pesticide management. We have Dr. Gary Jackson, University of Wiscon-
sin Cooperative Extension, and be is going to talk about the institutional support we need to get local and statewide
pesticide management programs on tile ground. We also have with us Mary Jensen of the San Joaquin County
Agricultural Comissioner's Office. This California county is one of the most btensive agricultural areas b the
country. Mary will share with us some of her personal experiences b a situation where there is actual regulatory
authority for pesticide management. And finally we have Bud Stolzenburg of the Nebraska Cooperative Extension
Service and the Long Pine Creek RCWP who is gobg to describe the strategy of the Nebraska project in working
directly with farmers to sell pesticide management.
90
-------
Jack Clausen * '
I would like to address the question "are BMPs adequate to protect the water resource from pesticides"? This is
not an easy question to answer. '
The research results presented this morning indicate that pesticides are leaving fields in runoff and are reaching
water resources even when applied under fairly strict agronomic recommendations. Most of the lost pesticide leaves
very early in the system; it leaves in water, in sediment and as leachate in soil solution. Organisms found in water
resources systems are often strongly affected by some of these pesticides.
Most of the items in the national draft standards and specifications for pesticide management have two major com-
ponents: planning considerations and operation safety and maintenance.
For planning purposes, the standards suggest that we consider characteristics of the pesticide — solubility, toxicity,
degradation, adsorption. It is difficult to find guidance on how these characteristics should effect management of pes-
ticides. There are many things to consider, but how should these be selected and prioritized? The draft standards
also encourage Integrated Pest Management (IPM) which is very important. We must encourage field scouting, use
of alternate pesticides, and taking appropriate precautions to avoid toxicity to non-target organisms, but the guidance
on what those precautions might be is not well-known.
Under operation safety and maintenance, the standards encourage the user to follow the label directions and
<;alibrate the application equipment. An example of recommendations was shown in a fertilizer management session:
clean the equipment at an upland site where there is no runoff; store the compounds according to the label; avoid
iiuman exposure to the compound; avoid risk; read the label for re-entry times; and, follow state and local recommen-
dations. I define these recommendations as insufficient guidance to help in pesticide management.
I would like to suggest two control strategies based upon our research. The first strategy is to minimize volatiliza-
tion of pesticides by adjusting formulation, tillage practices (not currently mentioned in the national standards and
.specifications), application method, and modifying biology and chemistry of the soil. The second strategy is essential-
ly to minimize runoff and leaching by manipulating tillage, timing of application, and, possibly, soil structure.
Volatilization of pesticides can be the second major loss of pesticides from the site. Pesticides are now being
detected in rain and some recent work has been done in New York on that important phenomenon. Application
methods are certainly an area where changes may help to reduce volatilization; below surface application will reduce
volatilization. Formulation, too, is adjustable. From a water quality standpoint, it has been established that wettable
]K>wders are less desirable than foliar emulsions or water soluble pesticides applied in an aqueous solution. The latter
is less desirable than incorporating either emulsions or granular materials. Wettable powders are also susceptible to
\vind erosion which most of the others are not. Some newer techniques of micro-encapsulation of pesticides will help
reduce volatilization. Addition of oils also reduces volatilization. Thus, there are several adjustments that can be
made in pesticide formulation that I do not see in the available guidance.
Tillage practices will affect volatilization. In no-till operations, pesticides are frequently applied directly to the sur-
face, but perhaps banding in the seed row would be a desirable option. In some cases, no-till results in greater
volatilization because of greater interception on the crop residue. Moisture content is greater which typically will
result in greater volatilization. But no-till can also reduce volatilization through lowering soil temperature, contribut-
ing organic matter which adsorbs pesticide compounds, and, frequently, lowering pH which also causes greater ad-
sorption of pesticides.
The physical, biological and chemical characteristics of soil can also be altered to reduce pesticide losses. It has
been established that pesticide losses on steeper slopes, 10-15%, can be as high as 2.5 times greater than on slopes of
1 jss than 3%. Pesticide uptake can be increased by lowering pH. Also, at lower pH, adsorption is greater among the
triazines, and certain chemical processes of degradation occur at a higher rate. Surface soil organic matter content
can be raised to increase adsorption by using conservation tillage. Mulches, or conservation tillage, cools the soil sur-
face down which will reduce volatilization. Moisture content can be adjusted although perhaps to a limited extent
only. If the soil surface is drier there will be less volatilization at the surface.
In terms of water management, most of the pesticide losses are in the water form even though the highest con-
centrations are found in sediments.
01
-------
The emphasis should be on BMPs that reduce the amount of runoff, not just erosion, from agricultural areas. A
BMP that was aimed only at reducing erosion with no change in runoff may not be yery effective in pesticide manage-
ment. Timing of pesticide application is very important. Storms within the first two weeks after application have a
very large impact on pesticide losses in runoff; however, this impact is largely ignored in many applications. We need
to incorporate all of these ideas into field management if we are serious about protecting the water resource.
The issue of pesticides in groundwater is highly controversial, especially concerning conservation tillage and the
formation of macropores. Macropores have the potential to allow very rapid migration of pesticides deep into the soil
where there is less organic matter and less opportunity for adsorption. There is little known about this subject and it
needs to be looked at in much, much greater detail.
A final consideration in terms of water management is increasing transpiration on some critical areas. This would
involve developing a water budget and looking for ways to adjust water movement to reduce runoff. Increasing
transpiration is one way to make this adjustment. If transpiration could be increased, perhaps the soil could be made
slightly drier resulting in reduced runoff.
I want to close by saying that I think we need to develop many more specific practices aimed at pesticide manage-
ment. I think that we already have much of the information needed to answer our questions about pesticide manage-
ment. No doubt, there are still many questions but a lot of our answers are before us.
Gary Jackson
Norman Borlaug, winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize, stated in 1980 that he perceived the use of pesticides as "no dif-
ferent than the use of medicine. If you use them properly, you'll alleviate problems. If not, they will kill you." This is a
dramatic statement that represents the public's concern. Society's response to problems of this nature is to develop
regulatory and non- regulatory programs to reduce risks and increase benefits. Pesticide regulatory programs limit
uses through labeling and certification requirements. When necessary, compounds are banned from use. But the
question remains in the minds of many individuals, whether ppb of residues in waters constitute a problem significant
enough to take drastic regulatory action. Many here know more about the regulatory programs than I do. So, I will
focus my comments on organizing pesticide non-regulatory programs to prevent non-point source pollution.
Is there a problem related to pesticide contamination of surface and groundwater? Nearly everyone in attendance
at this conference is likely to agree that there is a problem or they would not be here. For individuals to take action to
address problems, however, the problem must be real to them. Problems become real when they affect individuals'
lives or when they perceive a significant potential for their lives to be affected in the future. Specifically, pesticide con-
tamination of waters becomes real to individuals when they, or others they know, are concerned about potential
health problems from consuming contaminated water; when livestock they depend on for economic survival may suf-
fer health problems related to consuming contaminated water, when environmental or plant, fish and wildlife com-
munities decline because of pesticide residues; when individual producers experience increased costs associated with
liability or the need to change management practices to address public concerns; and when society experiences in-
creased cost in food production or increased cost in remedying problems that result from pesticide contamination.
If we expect individual producers to take corrective action, they must know how and why this is a problem for
them; what is causing the problem(s); what they can do about them; and the costs and benefits associated with taking
corrective actions. In Wisconsin, and from what I have heard nationally, a major cause of pesticide contamination of
water is improper handling, storage, and disposal. Handling involves transportation, management of pesticide mixing
and loading areas, and disposal of pesticide equipment rinse water, leftover mixtures, and containers. Can we docu-
ment the nature of this problem? Can we specifically identify what improvements are needed? And most important-
ly, can we identify what support systems must be developed and made available to agricultural producers to bring
about the desired improvements?
A basic assumption that I have in developing non-regulatory programs and some regulatory programs is that to suc-
ceed, you need to modify decision making support systems. Support systems that influence pesticide use and manage-
ment are in place, but their water quality focus is not sharp. Technology is being refined to sharpen their focus. As
this happens, incorporation of the technology into the support systems will be key to effective implementation. For ex-
ample all education programs on pesticides recommend that wastes be "properly" disposed. In Wisconsin that means
disposal in an approved hazardous waste landfill. There are no hazardous waste landfills in Wisconsin so producers
92
-------
with wastes are required to contract with a hazardous waste hauler to transport the materials to an approved site in a
different state. An easier solution to most producers is not to call the material wastt and to use or dispose of it on
their property. Thus, a sound recommendation "proper waste disposal" is not usedgbecause no convenient, cost effec-
tive support system is available to carry out the recommendations.
A major cooperative effort is needed at the national, state and local levels. This cooperative effort must result in
clearly identifying priority problems, determining cause-effect relationships, and developing recommendations that
will prevent or limit future problems. Once these recommendations are developed, however, they must be incor-
porated into the decision making support systems or they will not significantly influence farm management decisions.
Developing this cooperation to influence changes in support systems can be done if it is given proper priority. But to
be effective, the support systems and prescription recommendations must be adaptable to the wide range of climatic,
pest management and economic variables encountered by agricultural producers. If we are to be effective in providing
support which changes agricultural producer management decisions in ways that reduce pollution potential, we must
identify ways of communicating the problem to existing agricultural support systems in our states. We must pursue
the development of cooperative efforts that bring about coordination between the many actors who are involved with
environmental concerns and agricultural management recommendations. This process is laden with potential con-
flicts. Our challenge is to find ways of communicating the problem while minimizing defensive reactions so that
cooperative efforts can be initiated to effectively identify and implement solutions.
Developing and implementing solutions will likely involve the pesticide applicator training program, the integrated
pest management program, pesticide impact assessment program, federal insecticide, fungicide and rodenticide
(FIFRA) program and soil survey programs. It will involve farmers, crop consultants, the ag-chemical industry,
agriculture agencies, and environmental agencies. Who do you know in your state who's working with these
programs? And, how will you proceed to assist in sharpening the water quality focus of support programs necessary
for producers to implement recommended solutions?
Mary Jensen
I had planned to talk with you this afternoon about the various sanctions that my department has, but I've enjoyed
tic last two speakers so much and have had so many ideas come to mind that I'm going to spark right off of Gary, par-
ti cularly when he was talking about toxic waste. He mentioned the fact that the only thing you can do with wastes is to
ship them out of state and that is absolutely true. I am very concerned about this. I think it was Gary this morning
who asked how the agricultural aircraft people get rid of their waste. Well the legal thing to do, and what we suggest
for any commercial applicator, is to rinse the cans out and put that into the final mixture and spray that mostly water
ever the field he just treated. That's fine but he brings that plane back to the landing strip and he washes it off. What
happens to that water. I have in one of my districts a crop duster who has a large plastic tank which receives the water
used to wash off the plane that runs down a slot drain under the plane. In four years I have never seen that tank
emptied and sent to a class I dump, nor has it ever filled. I work with people from the water quality agency and enfor-
cement for this situation is their responsibility. Many of these areas of enforcement can be handled at the local level
by one of us observing something and telling somebody else. It's not my area of responsibility but I'm going to see if
something can't be done about it.
As far as getting rid of cans is concerned, if pest control advisors could only write recommendations and the labels
would work so that a full can of something could be used at one time and rinsed out, then we could take care of it very
nicely. Unfortunately, some of these recommendations come out with 235 gallons of something and out of a 5 gallon
can you've got leftovers. If the applicator uses it all he's going over the label and that's illegal and his grower is sore
because he used more and if I find out about it I give him a violation. But what does that applicator do with half a
can? It has to go back to the grower. It goes into a locked enclosure and it sits there, year after year.
I guess I sound a little bitter because right now we have a lot of dinitro (dinoseb) in my county which was supposed-
ly going to be bought back and it's sitting there. What can I do with it? Send it to a class I dump is the only option.
This involves paperwork that would make the bureaucrats in this room tear our hair. You have to have so many per-
mits — you have to have a permit to possess this hazardous waste, you have to have a permit from the highway patrol
to move it, one from the air resources people and one from the water resources people every time you go over a
bridge. In fact there is only one really large area left in California that will take pesticides. They call the shots. They
like pesticides only a couple of weeks each year. You must call ahead and reserve a time to go in there and pay them
to take your waste. On top of that, you're never free of the responsibility of that waste. When that waste is taken to
93
-------
" f
the class I dump, your came and the location of where you took the waste is logged and you are responsible forever.
Every county has had many inquiries as to how can I get rid of things that are no lorfger legal or have never had an
EPA number. What can we tell them? We cannot collect them. The commissioners in the state of California would
like to have a program in which householders can bring them small amounts of waste because you know what happens
to them if we can't take care of them — they get dumped down the toilet or thrown out in the backyard. But if our
commisssioners take the responsibility for disposing of these wastes, they are putting a liability on the county that not
only not justifiable, it's not politically smart. So good, practical disposal at a reasonable cost is a number one priority.
Recently there was another bill passed in California. This one is called the Tanner bill and it requires every county
to form a toxics or a hazardous waste plan. It doesn't tell you that you have to get rid of it but you have to have a plan.
It covers everyone from people who generate cleaning fluids to farmers. It is mandatory to have this plan or the state
will make one for you. My county recently hired a friend of mine, a retired university chemistry professor, to be the
coordinator for this. I've served for him on one of his ag committees. Last week he called and said he thought that
the ag dept. has a permit to store hazardous waste. I said yes and he said how much waste is that good for? And I
began to get an uncomfortable feeling, and I told the commisssioner I think we're in for it. He is undoubtedly going to
put us down as a possible site. We have the necessary documents already to store hazardous waste. If he does this
and we start getting it from other agencies, we will have to take it and it's going to cost us a bundle, not only in money
but in liability. And I hate to sound chicken but I'm like everybody else - NIMBY, Not In My Back Yard. So it looks
as if we will be going into the toxic waste storage business unless I am very, very lucky.
Bud Stolzenburg
In order to develop a successful pesticide management program, we must first of all recognize the various needs
and concerns that are involved. The obvious concern is water quality and it must be emphasized. Other related con-
cerns that have to be considered include: agricultrual production, user safety, appropriate regulation, program sup-
port, and chemical industry economics. A successful program will meet a balance of all the needs and concerns.
Multiple needs and concerns imply a shared responsibility as we work toward the common goal of clean water.
Those sharing in the responsibility are producers, lawmakers, governmental agencies, researchers,xeducators, chemi-
cal companies, and taxpayers.
Education is still a major factor in developing a good program. We need to have enough appropriate information
for effective management of agrichemicals and water quality protection. Then we have to ensure that the right infor-
mation gets to the right people.
A positive approach suggests that we be proactive rather than reactive. We must certainly be responsive to needs
and concerns since they drive our programs, but we cannot become too involved in "putting out fires." Many of the
RCWP programs have been good examples of the proactive approach.
It is important to have a good public relations effort that keeps the community informed and involved. The Long
Pine RCWP is working with elementary and high school students, local Natural Resource Districts, 4-H clubs, chemi-
cal and fertilizer dealers, home extension groups, and other community organizations.
There must also be coordination of efforts with appropriate government agencies at the local, state, and federal
level. This emphasizes the importance of good communication, and an appreciation of the roles of all involved.
Innovative and imaginative ideas can be an important part of developing a program, but our approaches need to be
consistent with the "knowledge bank" we already have about pesticides and water quality.
Successful efforts in pesticide management need to be rewarded. Public recognition and appreciation is one tech-
nique. Cost-sharing for appropriate pesticide management practices also needs to be considered, both as an incentive
and as a reward.
Program activities related to pesticide management include: Integrated Pest Management (IPM), residual nitrate
sampling, pesticide seminars, chemical use regulations, research, biotechnology, cost-sharing, chemigation,
demonstration activities, and information sharing techniques.
94
-------
It will take time and effort to develop a sound and Successful pesticide management program, so patience and per-
sistence will be necessary. I
Our Long Pine RCWP has shown that good pesticide management programs can be developed, and also that the
(Benefits of these programs reach beyond the local RCWP with a "mushroom" effect. We feel that the spin-off from the
l^ong Pine RCWP has definitely increased the economic and environmental impact.
95
-------
Working Session: Transfer of Appropriate RCWP Monitoring Schemes to
State Programs ;
Presenters: Steven A. Dressing, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Don W. Zaroban, Nebraska Department of Environmental Control
Steve Dressing - Nonpoint Source Monitoring and Evaluation Guide
The Nonpoint Sources Branch of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with the assistance of non-
point source (NFS) experts in EPA Regional offices and other NFS experts nationwide, has drafted a monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) guide for NFS pollution control programs. This guide is targeted to state and federal water quality
professionals, researchers, and project managers.
In the past two decades water quality professionals have become increasingly aware of the importance of NFS pol-
lution to the achievement of water quality objectives. The need to consider NFS in water quality management efforts
has led to a realization that we need better methods for monitoring and evaluating NFS pollution and NFS control
measures.
The Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP), Model Implementation Program (MIP), and Rural Clean Water
Program (RCWP) have all included implementation of NFS controls, monitoring, and data analysis. However, NFS
M&E approaches were initially lacking and had to be developed over time, largely by state and local water quality
professionals.
The NFS M&E guide is a compilation of the lessons learned in NFS programs to date. Key sections in the docu-
ment include goals and objectives, water resource considerations, data needs, monitoring recommendations, and data
analysis. The focus is on monitoring plan design to meet M&E objectives, with an emphasis on the factors which
make NFS unique.
The current draft of the NFS M&E guide (February 26,1988) is being revised to reflect input received from a
nationwide, peer review team. Changes to be made include the addition of a biological monitoring and evaluation sec-
tion, enhancement of the nonparametric statistics section, the addition of more examples, and a general restructuring
of the document. Plans are to have a revised draft by late 1988 or early 1989.
All inquiries regarding the NFS M&E guide can be directed to Steve Dressing, U.S. EPA, (WH-585), 401M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. Steve can be reached by telephone at (202) 382-7110 or FTS 382-7110.
Don W. Zaroban - Use of Biomonftoring in a State Nonpoint Source Control Program
When water quality is degraded, beneficial uses of that water are impaired or lost. Aquatic resources may be im-
pacted by not only water soluble or suspended pollutants but also by disturbances of the morphological structure and
flow regime of the aquatic system. Monitoring strictly the physical and chemical parameters of water will not indicate
all impairments to aquatic resources.
The Long Pine RCWP provided NDEC an opportunity to implement a comprehensive surface water monitoring ef-
fort. We expanded our monitoring concept and emphasis. The change in our surface water monitoring approach was
that to adequately protect the resource, the whole system must be monitored and not just to focus on one component
of the system. The monitoring should directly measure use impairment. The most neglected components of NDEC
monitoring programs were aquatic life and their associated habitats. The Long Pine Creek RCWP was the first
NDEC monitoring project involving a comprehensive biological monitoring effort. Biological monitoring was in-
cluded because restoration and protection of an aquatic life beneficial use was a major project goal. Nebraska's finest
trout fisheries were being impaired and/or threatened. This approach was consistent with the Congressional mandate
to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." Legislation support-
ing biological monitoring includes the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500), the
Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217) and the Water Quality Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-4).
96
-------
To limit the context of this presentation and avoid confusion, two terms need definition. Biological monitoring and
biomonitoring shall mean instream assessment of aquatic ecosystems, emphasizing fish and macroinvertebrate com-
et unities. Biotic integrity shall mean the ability to support and maintain a balanced, aquatic community of organisms
having a composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to that of natural undisturbed habitat of the
region (Karr, et a. 1986).
Current functional applications of biomonitoring to NDEC water quality programs included resource charac-
terization, water body classification/assessment and water quality problem identification. In the area of resource char-
acterization biomonitoring may be used to describe existing fauna! conditions and to define "pre-project" conditions.
This would involve documenting the fish and macroinvertebrate species present and their abundance. In the category
of water body classification/assessment, biomonitoring can be used to establish a biotic baseline by assessing least im-
pacted water bodies. Natural fauna! range boundaries or ecoregjons can be defined by biomonitoring and can be
used to help account for natural data variability. For problem identification, biomonitoring may be used to assess the
dsgree to which water bodies support their designated uses. Site specific studies (i.e., bioassays) can then be per-
formed to identify the cause of impairment.
Biomonitoring is used in a number of NDEC programs. In the Long Pine Creek RCWP, biomonitoring is used to
characterize the resource, define critical watershed areas, and prioritize areas to be treated. Biomonitoring is also
\i>ed as a treatment evaluation tool on a project wide and site specific basis.
Biomonitoring is a main component in the NDEC statewide stream classification effort. The information gathered
is used to assign realistic water quality standards and attainable beneficial uses to stream segments. The result is
chfendable and enforceable standards. This provides for better protection of unique aquatic resources (i.e., sensitive
and threatened species, and salmonid spawning) based on documented occurrence.
NDEC toxicity detection efforts include biomonitoring. Fish tissue analysis is used as a problem identification tool.
In nonpoint source assessment and management, biomonitoring is used to determine beneficial use impairment
status, evaluate best management practices, and prioritize watersheds for further assessment.
Future NDEC biomonitoring applications include impact assessments and water quality standards criteria.
Biomonitoring will be used to detect acute and chronic impacts from point sources and nonpoint sources, habitat al-
terations, and flow regime manipulation. Biomonitoring data will be used to develop narrative and numeric standards
derived from expected fauna for a given ecoregion and stream type. From this, water body specific biological criteria
will be developed.
Disadvantages of biomonitoring include:
— Field labor intensive (3-4 people on crew)
— Indices must be adapted to account for regional and seasonal variability (life cycle and
behavioral aspects)
— Must account for human manipulation (fish stocking)
- Must be aware of sampling equipment selectivity
— Variability control requires collection and assessment to be done by trained, knowledgeable,
competent staff
— Must have knowledge of local fauna
Advantages of biomonitoring include:
- Provides direct measure of aquatic life beneficial uses
— Aquatic community provide a means to detect "pollutants" which are not water soluble or
suspended in the water (habitat modification, channelization, flow regime manipulation)
— Integrates watershed impacts
— Aquatic community will reflect environmental disturbances spread temporally or spatially
— Reduced cost per evaluation
— Public can better relate to biological assessments
97
-------
In the dosing remarks and during the question period following this presentation, several major points were dis-
cussed. These points included: I
• Biomonitoring should not replace physiochcmical water quality monitoring but should be conducted in con-
junction with it.
• Biomonitoring is an extremely useful tool in any nonpoint source pollution assessment or abatement project
• We as water pollution control agencies have been directed to protect our water resources and their associat
beneficial uses. We can not adequately do this by only monitoring one component of the aquatic system. W
must treat the aquatic system as an interrelated system, not as a group of discrete components.
Literature cited
Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L. Angermeier, P. R. Yant and I. J. Schlosser, 1986. Assessing biological integrity ii
running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 5,28 p.
98
-------
Working Session: Essentials of Ground Water Monitoring
. imiiiin » i- - .MI^^H^^^^^^^^B^MIIMII^^^^^^BMM __ immmrn _ ._., in.. \ mmmmmmmm \ ^_ ««ir
Presenter: Joe Magner, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency r.
Logistics of a Ground Water Study
1) Define the goals and objectives of study.
2) Define the water quality concerns, information expectations.
3) Assess the hydrogeologic setting.
4) Assess the land uses.
5) Determine the parameters that need monitoring.
6) Conduct initial modeling.
7) Conduct field reconnaissance to verify above steps.
8) Design ground water monitoring network.
9) Model monitoring network, to finalize design.
10) Design quality assurance/quality control plan.
11) Install monitoring equipment.
12) Collect and deliver samples.
13) Laboratory analysis of samples.
14) Reporting laboratory data.
15) Data manipulation, storage, and interpretation,
16) Prepare study report with conclusions and recommendations.
Step 1: Define the Goals and Objectives of the Study
Variable hydrogeologic settings will often exist throughout any given area, therefore, considerable thought must be
jjiven to the sampling network. Before selecting the sampling sites, project objectives and goals should be evaluated.
"he following questions can help when setting goals and objectives.
1. What are the boundaries of the aquifer or what area or volume needs to be evaluated?
2. What degree of detail is necessary or what is the scope of the study?
3. How can verification of the existing data best be achieved?
4. What pieces of information are helpful in putting together the puzzle of an area's geology,
hydrology, and chemistry?
5. How good or bad is ground water quality in the area?
6. Has the quality changed over time?
7. What level of change has occurred?
8. How clean is clean to the aquifer users?
9. What price is the Local Government Unit (LGU) willing to pay to clean up or protect ground water?
10. What will motivate LGU landowners to change their land use?
11. How long does the LGU think it takes to improve water quality?
12. What does the LGU consider an improvement in ground water quality?
13. Does the LGU want to clean up contaminated ground water or prevent further contamination or both?
14. a. How educated are the landowners in regard to ground water and ground water contamination?
b. How does the LGU plan on educating the public in this regard?
IS. Have any ground water studies or projects been done in the project area?
Step 3: Assess the Hydrogeologic Setting
The following are considerations that would not apply to every study. Nevertheless, they may be important depend-
ing on the study objective. Concerns that would or would not apply to a particular design would need to o7 3 be
flushed out.
99
-------
1. Estimate discontinuities and/or anomalies underlying an area. ,
2. Estimate pollutant attenuation capabilities of the soil. '
3. Estimate elevation of the soil/bedrock contact and/or water table. I
4. Assess topographical relief, and its effect on local and regional flow fields.
5. Estimate hydraulic gradients and directions of flow.
6. Identify any confining layer, and then estimate aquifer thickness.
7. Model flow paths from the recharge area to the ground water discharge area.
8. Model pollutant travel time.
9. Consider the effects of climate.
10. Account for seasonal ground water fluctuations.
As asked earler, what pieces of information will help clarify the puzzle, the following types of information will aid
in the construction of an overall site picture. Some items (e.g., soil mineral composition or soil moisture content) wi
simply serve to provide additional descriptive information about the nature and character of the site. Other items
(e.g., soil texture or geologic origin) will be more decisive in evaluating an area.
A. Soil texture (particle size distribution as given by the textural triangel.) *
B. Soil structure (aggregation of the primary particles as described by the four types of arrangement).*
C. Soil color (description of each strata including a description of mottling if present).*
D. Soil consistence (as described by the degree of cohesion/adhesion as determined by the resistance
of deformation or rupture).*
E. Soil reactivity (relative cation exchange capacity: low, medium, high).*
F. Soil moisture content (degree of saturation throughout the profile).
G. Soil mineral composition (parent material from which the soil was derived).*
H. Rock composition (type of rack and the degree of weathering.
I. Stratigraphy/Lithology of the area (this data should be present in either cross sections or
fence diagrams).
}. Soil density (as related to the blow count - ASTM:D1586).
K. Pore size distribution. (Primary porosity as described by shaping and packing of grains or
aggregates and secondary porosity as described by fractures or root channels).*
L. General slopes, landscape types, and other surface features (as described on a base map of
an appropriate scale with topographic relief referenced to National Geodetic Vertical Datumn).
M. Climatic regime (average precipitation, evapotranspiration data as given by the SCS hydrology,
irrigation guides and the NOAA data).
N. Water level elevations and gradients (water level elevations must be read over a period of
time for ground water and surface water in an area).
O. Hydraulic conductivity measurements.
P. Geophysical data; collection and interpretation.
* USDA Soil Conservation Service
STEP 5: Determine the Parameters That Need Monitoring
The following represents a list of potential candidates which would be monitored depending on the nature of the
study (some parameters may need to be analyzed in the dissolved state).
1. Alkalinity (as CaCO}) 16. Potassium
2. Bicarbonate 17. Redox
3. Calcium IS. Silica reactive
4. Chemical Oxygen Demand 19. Specific conductance
5. Chloride 20. Sodium
6. Magnesium 21. Solids, total dissolved
7. Nitrogen, Ammonia 22. Solids, total suspended
8. Nitrogen, Kjeldahl 23. Sulfate
9. Nitrogen, nitrate & nitrite 24. Temperature
10. Organic carbon, dissolved 25. Volatile organics
11. Organic carbon, total 26. Catkxi/ankm charge balance
12. Pesticides 27. Isotopes: carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, radium, radon
13. pH 28. Selective metals
14. Phosphorus, ortho or dissolved 29. Biological parameters
15. Phosphorus
100
-------
Reconnaissahc
STEP 7: Conduct Field Reconnaissance
1. Walk over terrain, identify new and verify mapped features.
2. Decide what field data is needed and methods and tools for obtaining data.
a. Standard penetration borings and split-barrel sampling (ASTM:DL586).
b. Thin-walled tube sampling (ASTM:D1587).
c. Flite auger borings and sampling (ASTM:D1452).
d. Mud rotary drilling (ASTM:D1586-84).
e. Diamond core drilling (ASTM:D2113).
f. Soil test pits.
g. Geophysical methods. (Seismic refraction and reflection, electrical resistivity,
electromagnetics, gravity, etc.)
h. Hydraulic conductivity measurements (double tube, double ring, borehole permearaeter,
column test, percolation test, lab core and others).
i. Piezometers, monitoring wells, and vadose samplers.
j. Sample existing wells.
k. Hydropunch; point in space/time sampling event.
STEP 11: Install Monitoring Equipment
Item Unit Price
Mobilization and Demob $1-5 mile
Travel (crew per diem) $75-200/day
Solid stem borings $100-150/hour or S7-15/foot
Hollow stem borings $120-200/hour or $10-20/foot
Well installation $150-2QO/hour or $15-20/foot
Well casing. $5-50/feet
Well screen $20-50/feet
Grout SS-10/cubic yard
Gravel pack $5-10/cubic yard
Well development $65-100/hour
Stabilization test $50-100/hour
Protective casing $2-7/foot
Protective cap $25-50/apiece
Protective posts $5-20/apiece
Installation $100-150/hour
101
-------
Working Session: Strategies for Ground Water Monitoring -Technical
Design ^
Presenter: Jeanne Goodman
Office of Water Quality
South Dakota Dept. of Water & Natural Resources
Pierre, South Dakota
Goals and Objectives
An effective NFS groundwater monitoring strategy is determined by the project/goal and objectives. The objec-
tives of the South Dakota Oakwoods/Poinsett Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation (CM&E) project are to
determine NFS pollution impacts to groundwater from agricultural activities and to determine if implementation of
certain best management practices such as fertilizer and pesticide management and conservation till age, can reduce
nitrogen and pesticide inputs to the groundwater system.
Considerations in developing a groundwater monitoring strategy include several things: the project goals and ob-
jectives, geology of the area, hydrologic characteristics of the subsurface materials, chemical parameters to be
monitored, and the data analysis and evaluation plans. The approach in the South Dakota CM&E project is to
monitor 7 sites, 20-40 acres in size. These sites consist of 5 farm fields that employ BMPs, 1-2 farm fields that do not
employ BMPs, and 1 unfanned site. The geology at the sites is glacial drift. At three sites, the glacial till, which is a
nonsorted, unstratified clay, silt, sand and gravel, is monitored. At the other sites, monitoring is conducted in the gla-
cial sand and gravel outwash. Because most BMPs were implemented prior to the installation of monitoring equip-
ment, the control site concept (no BMPs and unfanned) is being used instead of cause and effect monitoring of pre-
versus post- BMP implementation.
Background Information
The first activity hi a NFS project is to compile all available information for the area. The most important piece of
information is the geology. The geology of the study area must be studied in detail to produce an overall picture of
groundwater flow systems and potential zones of contamination. If published data are not available, a preliminary
drilling program is needed. From the drilling program, favorable test sites can then be determined. This was the case
in the South Dakota project.
A preliminary geologic assessment was conducted to obtain a list of potential monitoring sites. From the list of
potential sites, ten sites were selected, and the landowners were contacted to obtain permission and/or easements to
install monitoring equipment and to gain ingress/egress to the sites.
Site specific geologic and hydrogeologic data were collected at each site where landowner cooperation had been
obtained. To collect the data, a hollow-stem drilling method was used, and split spoon samples were taken to gain a
detailed description of the geology. A limited number of monitoring wells were installed initially to determine the
depth to groundwater and groundwater flow directions at each site.
At this point, another literature review was done to prepare for designing the monitoring system. Expected con-
centrations, modes of contaminant transport, most likely zones of contamination, and potential biases or interferen-
ces for any parameters were investigated. This knowledge was used in planning well installation construction and
placement.
Well Construction
The major consideration in well installation is the method of drilling. The three most commonly used methods are:
rotary drilling, standard flight auger, and hollow-stem auger.
102
-------
" I
1. Direct rotary drilling is the quickest method but requires the use of a drilling fluid. In uncon-
solidated materials this usually involves water and bcntonite. In wafer quality monitoring studies, it is
preferable to eliminate the need to add any fluids which can affect jvater chemistry.
2. Standard flight auger is a quick and low cost method that does not use a drilling fluid but if drilling
is done in unconsolidated materials, the drill hole tends to collapse when the auger is retrieved. This
' does not allow proper depth placement of the well. Collapsing of the drill hole walls also tends to in-
hibit good geologic logging of the hole.
3. Hollow-stem auger is the slowest and most expensive method, but does not need the addition of
drilling fluids and yields high resolution geologic logs when split spoon samples are taken inside and
ahead of the auger.
The South Dakota CM&E used all three methods for different levels of geologic assessment. Rotary drilling was
jsed for area-wide geology. Standard flight auger was used for potential site listing, and hollow flight auger was used
ibr site specific information and monitoring well installation.
Hollow-stem auger is not without field problems such as differential hydrostatic pressure pushing fines into the
bottom of the auger when the plug is pulled and uneven collapse of the drill hole walls around the casing. These
problems were overcome in the South Dakota project drilling.
Well construction is the next consideration in designing the monitoring system. Materials used for well casings are
dependent upon the parameters being monitored. There are several types commonly used: trifluoroethylene, stain-
less steel, and PVC. Trifluoroethylene and stainless steel are the least reactive but are consequently the most expen-
sive. PVC can be used for more installations than the other two because of the lower cost involved. If PVC is used,
section casings should not be glued together because of the organic interference. Manufactured well screens should
also be used as opposed to hand slotted casing.
In the Oakwoods/Poinsett project, 114 two-inch (2") PVC wells were initially installed. Two-inch diameter casing
was appropriate for the sampling equipment being used and types of samples needed. However, it was questioned
whether some pesticide detections were masked or interference with the PVC material was occurring. Therefore,
sister wells were constructed of fiberglass epoxy resin to determine any difference between the casing material.
Once the well casing is installed, gravel pack should be placed between the screen and well borehole or the natural
materials should be allowed to collapse around the screen. The screened area of the well should be sealed off to
prevent water from moving along the borehole by using bentonite clay to seal above the gravel pack.
The placement of the bentonite seal during monitoring well construction is critical in interval monitoring. Ac-
curately placing the bentonite between the well and inside wall of the hollow-stem auger was a problem initially. A
larger diameter auger was used to overcome this problem and successfully place the seal where it was needed.
Following construction, the wells should be developed to remove fine grain material from the gravel pack and sur-
i ounding formation. Well development increased the efficiency of the well.
Monitoring
Groundwater flow direction, geology, effects to be monitored, and parameters to be monitored, determine well
placement at a site. If the monitoring objective is to gather ambient or baseline water quality over a large area, wells
should be placed b the predominant geologic material and land uses of the area. Wells should be placed away from
spills and pollution sources and in accessible areas.
In a more directed study such as the South Dakota CM&E, wells need to be placed where causal effects can be
detected and explained. Using the predetermined groundwater flow direction, some wells are placed on the up-
gradient direction with the majority of wells placed in the down-gradient areas. The down-gradient wells should be
placed throughout the site to show changes across the site.
Stratification of contaminants and vertical gradients can be monitored with wells constructed to different depths.
Nests of wells at the same monitoring site can yield the data needed. For the South Dakota project, nested wells were
constructed in separate boreholes to insure separation or seal between intervals.
103
-------
The exact number of wells needed is project specific and based on site area, budgetary constraints, and geology.
An average of 15 wells were installed per project site, averaging 20 feet in depth. f
f
•f
Other Considerations
The above discussion described some of the physical field aspects of the South Dakota CM&E project and con-
siderations that should be made in any NFS groundwater project. Some of the other learning experiences and cost
considerations encountered are:
1. An experienced drilling crew is a necessity. Most of the well installations were done with a State rig
and driller and our professional labor. This was successful but time consuming and weather prohibi-
tive. It is recommended that a firm licensed for monitoring well drilling be retained for monitoring well
installation.
2. Hollow-stem and split spoon sampling was more costly but data were invaluable to adequately and
accurate describe the geology and groundwater flow system.
3. PVC worked very well. It served the chemical sampling needs and maintained physical stability in
adverse climates. It is also cost efficient. When pesticides were detected, more inert, expensive casing
could be selectively placed to determine any interferences.
4. Continuous data evaluation can assist in revising the monitoring strategy, including sampling fre-
quency, parameters, and number or samples.
5. Weather is always an unknown parameter and can cause revision in project or monitoring strategies.
6. Soils monitoring is going on concurrently with groundwater sampling, which is intended to begin to
sort out the variable weather pattern, the hydraulic conductivity differences and anomalies, and other
effects.
7. Glacial till and outwash sites are providing useful data in evaluating water and contaminant move-
ment in the subsurface.
REFERENCE
The above comments are a summary of:
Kimball, C.G., "Ground-Water Monitoring Techniques for Non-Point Source Pollu tion Studies," Ground-Water
Cnntaminatinn; Field Methndsr ASTM STP 963r A.G. Collins and A.I. Johnson, Eds., American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1988, pp. 430-441.
NOTE: Pat Lehman, USGS with the Conestoga Headwaters, Pennsylvania RCWP was also a discussion leader for
this session.
104
-------
Working Session: Nonparametrrc and Parametric Statistical Analysis of
Water Quality Data '
NON-PARAMETRIC TREND ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES • TUTORIAL
From notes taken by Jean Spooner (NWQEP) of Charles Crawford's talk.
Charles Crawford is a hydrologist with the U.S.Geological Society Water Research Division in Indianapolis, In-
diana. For the last several years he has worked with James Slack and Robert Hirsch on publishing and teaching non-
parametric tests for trends in water quality data. The statistical techniques he shared with us are documented in
Crawford et al. (1983).
Mr. Crawford presented a tutorial on nonparametric trend analysis techniques. Some of the procedures discussed
in this session are available on the mainframe version of SAS (SAS Institute Inc., 1985). In addition, he SEASKEN
and SEASRS procedures were developed for SAS by Crawford et al. (1983) and are currently available on the
Geological Survey Water Data Storage System (WATSTORE) as supplemental user procedures. Both of these proce-
dures are modifications of nonparametric that allow for seasonal correction of data. The procedure SEASKEN tests
for a monotonic trend b time by a modified form of Kendall's tau. This is called the Seasonal Kendall test. The proce-
dure SEASRS tests for a step trend between two different periods in a time series using a modified form of the Wil-
coxon (Mann-Whitney) rank sum test. This is called the Mann- Whitney-Wilcoxon rank sum test for seasonal data.
NWQEP will try to also have them available on EPA's mainframe computer. Look for an article in the NWQEP
NOTES.
Introduction to Nonparametric Statistics and Comparison with
Parametric Statistical Methods
A nonparametric procedure is a statistical procedure that has desirable properties that hold under comparatively
mild assumptions regarding the underlying population(s) from which the data are obtained. In contrast, parametric
procedures require more assumptions about the underlying population distributions such as normality. Not all popula-
tions, especially in hydrology, follow normal distributions.
The advantages of nonparametric statistical procedures include: 1) requires few assumptions about the underlying
population, specifically they do not assume normality, 2) often easier to apply than parametric counterparts; 3) typi-
cafiy easier to understand than parametric counterparts; 4) can be used in situations where parametric procedures
can not be used such as censored (e.g. below detection limit) or truncated data (e.g. too numerous to count, flow ex-
ceeds gage limit during floods); 5) gives valid significant levels and conclusions to hypothesis testing performed, in
contrast to invalid results obtained when parametric analyses are applied to data that violate assumptions about the
rormal distributions.
The disadvantages of nonparametric statistical procedures is that they may be wasteful of all the information in the
c ata set and thus be less efficient than parametric procedures. Most nonparametric procedures do not use the actual
cata values, but replace them with the ranks of the data. The less one assumes, the less one can infer from a set of
data; however, the less one assumes, the more one broadens the applicability of the method.
Characteristics of Water Quality Data and Types of Trends Exhibited o7 3
Trends can be depicted graphically by plotting a response variable on the Y-axis against time on the X-axis. There
are several scenarios possible:
• There can be no trend over time, a random variability, but no change in the location parameter. That is, no
change over time of the mean or median of the data.
• A non-zero slope with a trend in addition to random variability.
105
-------
• A random series around some periodicity,' cycling with season. You need to remove the periodicity before you
can determine if there is an underlying trend in the data. f
• Two random time series each with a zero slope, but there is a jump in the location parameter between the
groups. There is a shift at a certain time. This is common with human-induced phenomenon such as construc-
tion of a sewage treatment plant.
• A combination of the above.
Most of the nonparametric procedures are still valid with data containing missing values, censored or truncated
data, and exhibit non-normal distributions, whereas most parametric statistics are not valid under these conditions.
However, corrections for serial correlation, scasonality, and flow dependence must be performed wilh both
parametric and nonparametric procedures.
A Nonparametric Procedure to Examine Monotonically Increasing Trends
One of the first steps when one has a response variable over time is to calculate a measure of linear association.
Traditionally this has been based on the Pearson Product - Moment Correlation Coefficient (Pearson's rho). This pro-
cedure assumes:
• Data pairs (of X and Y) are mutually independent.
• Each data pair came from the same bivariate normal distribution.
A nonparametric alternative to the Pearson product-moment correlation is the Kendall Rank Correlation Coeffi-
cient (Kendall's tairi. This is a measure of monotonic association which assumes:
• Data pairs are mutually independent.
• Each data pair came from the same bivariate distribution (requires no. assumptions about distribution shape).
It should be noted that there is yet another nonparametric alternative that SAS uses in PROC CORR, the
Spearman's rank-order correlation. The Spearman's rho requires over 100 observations for the normal approximation
of the test statistic, rho. The distribution of the Kendall's tau test statistic can be approximated by the normal distribu-
tion at much smaller sample sizes as low as 10. This affects the significance levels placed on the test statistic. SAS uses
the large sample approximation and will give incorrect significance levels with sample sizes less than 100 for
Spearman's rho.
Both Pearson's rho and Kendall's tau values range from -1.0 to +1.0 where 0.0 represents zero correlation. Ken-
dall tau is not restricted to perfect linearity but is a function of monotonic increasing trend. For example, a straight
line of the plot of a response variable vs. an explanatory variable would have a value of 1.0 for both Kendall's tau and
Pearson's rho. However, an increasing quadratic relationship would have a rho value less than 1.0 such as 0.98 and
the tau value would still be 1.0 due to the fact that each subsequent value is higher than the previous observation. In
addition, it is very robust to changes in data and outliers (Figure 1.)
RHO-too
TftUaVOQ
RHO « 096
BFUNMORT VWABUu
TKtxlOO
RHO-OSS .
QPUMOOttt VARIABLE
RHOaOM
OPUNMQKT VAftABLE
Rgure 1. Comparison of the Pearson's Rho and Kendall's Tau.
106
-------
Calculation of Kendall's Tau (Figure 2):
Kendall's tau is based on the degree of discordantness of the data pairs, (X,Y^. You compare all possible data
pairs with each other (Figure 2). When both the X and the Y differ in the same direction, you assign a plus to the com-
parison. If the X and Y differ in different directions, then the comparison is assigned a minus. A zero value is used
vvhen either the X or the Y have the o7 3 same value. For example, in Figure 2, when comparing the first and fifth ob-
servation, 18 is less than 38 and 11 is less than 68, so the comparison gets a plus. Then add the number of pluses (the
concordant pairs) and minuses (the discordant pairs) and ask how different from zero is the net result.
This correlation test statistic and its significance can be obtained in the SAS procedure CORR, option KENDALL.
X 36 99 91 1 16 16 39 81 63 48
Y 68 23 54 74 11 44 99 98 73 23
X Y
( 38 . 68 ) 0
( 99 . 23 ) - 0
( 91 . 54 } 0
( 1 . 74 } 0
(18. 11} + + + - 0
(16. 44} +-+ 0
(39. 99) + + + + 0
(81. 98) •»• + + + -0
(63. 73) + + + - + 0
(48. 23) -0*-+ ++0
NUMBER OF CONCORDANT PAIRS = 21
NUMBER OF DISCORDANT PAIRS = 23
Stl(tl-l)aO ti - no. *f ti« « K
S ul(ul-l) =2 u;= no. »f ti»» in y
21-23
TAU = = -0.045
[10(lO-l)/2-0] [10(10-0/2-2]
Rgure 2. Example calculation ol Kendall's Tau.
A Nonparametric Procedure to Examine a Jump Change in the Data Over Time
Traditionally performed by the parametric l-tcsl which assumes:
• Samples are independent.
• Sampling was random.
• Populations arc normally distributed.
• Populations are identically distributed except for location parameter (i.e. constant variance).
• Data are of interval scale (i.e. one can assign an actual magnitude to the data and '2' is twice as large as '!')•
The nonparametric alternative is the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test which assumes:
' Samples are independent.
• Sampling was random.
• Populations are identically distributed except for location parameter. The only difference between the assump-
tions of identically distributions between the t-test and this test is the normality assumption.
• Data are of rank scale.
• There can be different sample sizes within the 2 comparison groups.
107
-------
Calculation of Wilcoxon Rank-Sum statistic, W (Figure 3):
Take actual data values from both groups and rank from lowest to highest. No
-------
An estimate of the measured amount of change comparable to the slope in linear regression can be calculated.
The median value of all possible slopes between years for each season i is calculated, i.e. for season i the slope be-
tween year j and year k with jk. The seasonal Kendall slope estimator is the median value these medians.
"HE TEST STATISTIC, SI. IS:
Nl-t Nl
:;i - c ' £ SCN (xi[ - xik)
k=1 (=k-H
V/HERE Nl ARC THE NUMBER OF ANNUAL
VALUES FOR SEASON I
XI | THE SEASONAL VALUE FOR
SEASON I AND YEAR I
XI k THE SEASONAL VALUE FOR
SEASON I AND YEAR k
"HE EXPECTED VALUE OF SI IS 0 (i.e. no
THE VARIANCE OF SI IS:
NI(NI-1)(2NH-S)- Tl(Tt-l)(2T1+S)
VAR[SI] = -
18
V/HERE Tl IS THE EXTENT Of A GIVEN
TIE FOR SEASON 1
THE COMPOSITE STATISTIC OF THE SEASONAL
STATISTICS. Si, IS S%:
SEASON
S* = S Si
1 = 1
THE EXPECTED VALUE OF Ss IS 0
THE VARIANCE OF THE COMPOSITE
STATISTIC, S*. IS:
VAR [S'3
SEASON
£ VAR [SI]
THE COMPOSITE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT,
TAU, IS:
SEASON SI
TAU = E
1=1 NI(NI-1}/2
Rgure 4. Seasonal Kendall test for trend.
Example Calculation:
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FE8 MAR APR MAY JIM JUL AUO SEP
1978 42 M 37 54 64 63 SI S? 63 69 33 35
1979 — 62 — 36 54 30 41 50 50 43 26 34
1980 45 42 31 40 48 35 45 39 45 — 29 56
SI t -3 -I -1 -3 -1 -1 -3 -3 -1 -I 1
$• • £ SI » -16
-16
TAU
1+3+1+3+3+3+3+3+3+1+3+3
a -0.533
3[2(2-l)(2x2+5)-0] + 9[3(3-l)(2x3+S)-0]
VAR [S'3 » - a 36.0
16+1
2 s - m -2.50
Seasonal-Wilcoxon Test for Trend
This test for differences in the location parameters of two separate periods in a time series using a modified ver-
sion of the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Figure 5 gives the test statistic calculations. This test may be appropriate when
there are 2 or more years of data before and after the expected step trend and there are seasonal effects within each
year. An estimate of the magnitude of the step trend is taken as the median of the difference between all pairs of
seasonal values, one from each period but of the same season.
The procedure is available as a SAS users supplemental procedure SEASRS on selected mainframe computers.
109
-------
THE TEST STATISTIC. Wl, ISs
Nl
SI = E RN
1*1
WHERE Nl ARC THE NUMBER OF ANNUAL VALUES
FOR SEASON I IN THE FIRST PERIOD
OF THE TIME SERIES
RN ARC THE RANKS OF THE SEASONAL
VALUES FOR SEASON t IN THE
FIRST PERIOD OF THE TIME SERIES
THE EXPECTED VALUE OF Wl IS:
E [Wl] » [Nl (Nl + Ml + 1) / 2
WHERE Ml ARE THE NUMBER OF ANNUAL VALUES
FOR SEASON I IN THE SECOND PERIOD
OF THE TIME SERIES
THE VARIANCE OF Wl IS:
VAR[WI] » [Nl Ml (Nl + Ml + 1)] / 12.
THE COMPOSITE STATISTIC OF THE SEASONAL
STATISTICS, Wt, IS W* :
SEASON
W = E Wl
THE EXPECTED VALUE OF W> IS:
SEASON
E [YT] = E E [Wl]
1 = 1
THE VARIANCE OF THE COMPOSITE
STATISTIC, W. IS:
SEASON
VAR [W] » E VAR [Wl]
Figure 5. Seasonal Wilcoxon tast for trend.
Methods to Adjust Water Quality Data for the Effect of Other Parameters
Figure 6 illustrates why it is necessary to adjust for flow. The response parameter, Y, may have a decreasing
relationship with time (Figure 6a). However, the Y also has a negative relationship with an X variable, such as flow
(Figure 6b). The variable X may have a positive relationship with time (Figure 6c). When we remove the effect of flc
from the Y and evaluate the new, corrected Y series over time, we see that the observed decreases were in fact due 1
the correlation with X. The observed trend was affected by some other constituent such as flow and probably not du
to changes in the processes that affect the loading and transport of pollutants to the river (e.g. land use changes).
110
-------
•/w
TIME
X
i
TIME
TIME
Fi jurt 6. Possibi* relationships b«tw««n Y, X, and time. Y represents a water quality parameter concentration and X represents flow.
The procedure involves several steps:
1. Estimate the relationship between concentration and strcamflow. Calculate the predicted observation value
b.ised on flow. The classes of equations that can be used to fit this relationship can be performed with standard
regression techniques (such as SAS PROC REG) and include:
C' = a + b x Q
C* = a + b x In Q
" s a + b x
* = a + b x
1
B x Q
LI NEAR
LOG-LI NEAR
HYPERBOLIC
INVERSE
Cv=a+bxQ+cxQ
QUADRATIC
In C* = a + b x In Q LOG-LOG
In C% = a + b x In Q + c x (In Q)2
LOG-QUAD
111
-------
2. Calculate the flow adjusted concentration (I*AC) defined by what you actually observed in a stream minus the
average value expected for the particular flow taken with the sample. I
3. Test the time series of the flow adjusted concentrations (FAC) for trends using the techniques discussed above.
NON-PARAMETRIC AND PARAMETRIC TREND ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
Jean Spooner
National Water Quality Evaluation Project
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina
Some Basic Comparisons Between Parametric and Nonparametric Techniques.
1. There may be more than one statistical test appropriate for each situation. These should be performed when ap-
plicable.
2. Parametric statistical tests impose assumptions on the sampled population. The residuals (error terms or varia-
tion about the location parameters) follow a known distribution, usually normal, are independently distributed with a
mean of zero and constant variance over time. This means that no serial correlation or seasonality exists. Non-
parametric statistical tests also impose similar assumptions on the distribution of the sampled population with one
major exception: the distribution does NOT have to be known and, particularly, does NOT have to be normal.
3. The distribution assumptions with parametric analyses are on the residuals of the planned experiments.
Residuals are the differences between the predicted and the observed values based on the planned statistical
analyses. Residuals may be approximated (i.e. before the actual analysis) by subtracting the mean value for each
grouping (e.g. monitoring station, season) from each observation. Normality assumptions should be tested on the
residuals.
4. For both parametric and nonparametric analyses, serial correlation and seasonality need to be accounted for
and corrected by the analysis.
5. When using either parametric or nonparametric tests, care must first be taken to assure that the distribution as-
sumptions are not violated.
6. If the assumptions of parametric tests are met, parametric tests are usually more powerful, i.e. able to detect a
true change when it exists.
7. When the assumptions for either parametric or nonparametric tests are violated, the statistical test will give in-
valid results and significance levels on the parameters.
8. Parametric tests are very sensitive to violation of assumptions, especially outliers and a non-normal distribution.
9. Nonparametric tests yield accurate detection of trends even when many parametric assumptions are not met.
They are ROBUST in analyzing data sets which contain outliers, missing values, sensored values, and truncated
values. Robust means that the test statistics are not sensitive to dramatic changes when unrepresentative data values
are present.
10. With water quality data, a logarithmic transformation is usually necessary when applying parametric trend
analyses techniques.
112
-------
11. Correction for hydrologic and meteorologic variability is essential in both parametric and nonparametric (rend
Techniques to determine if the statistically significant trends are due to processes and transport changes such as land
use changes, or to artifacts of system variability. ;
12. When the need for correction of many covariates such as adjustment for hydrologic/meteorologic variables, or
i he need to incorporate land treatment variables into the statistical models exists, nonparametric tests along become
!ess able to handle the addition of covariates? In such cases, parametric tests alone or in combination with non-
parametric tests are required.
References for Non-Parametric and Parametric Statistical Trend Analyses
Sampling, Distribution Theory, Comparison of Trend Analyses Techniques:
Gilbert, R.0.1987. Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring. Van Nostrand Reinhold Com-
pany, New York. 320 p.
SAS Institute Inc. 1985. Sas Users's Guide: Statistics, Version 5 edition. Gary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. 956 pp.
Non-Parametric Analyses:
Gibbons, J.D. 1985. Nonparametric Statistical Inference. Marcel Deker, Inc. New York. 2nd ed. 408p.
Hollander, M. and DA. Wolfe. 1973. Nonparametric Statistical Methods. John Wiley and Sons. New York. 503 p.
W.W. Daniel 1978. Applied Nonparametric Statistics. Haughton Mifflin Co. Boston. 503 p.
Crawford, C.G., J.R. Slack, R.M. Hirsch. 1983. Nonparametric Tests for Trends in Water Quality Data Using the
Statistical Analysis System. U.S. Geological survey. Open-File Report 83-550.102p.
Hirsch, R.M., J.R. Slack, and RA. Smith. 1982. Techniques of Trend Analysis for Monthly Water Quality Data.
Water Resources Research, 18(1):107-121.
Hirsch, R.M. and J.R. Slack. 1984. A Nonparametric Trend Test for Seasonal Data with Serial Dependence.
Water Resources Research, 20(6):727-732.
Note: the following are from the June, 1988 issue of Water Resources Bulletin. They represent much of the 'state-of-the-
art' and address many of the previously unresolved problems with nonparametric analyses. They are also available for pur-
chase as a Monograph from A WRA: NonparametricApproaches to Environmental Impact Assessment. 1988. K.W.
Hipel, ed. Monograph No. 10, AWRA, 5410 GrosvenorLane, Suite 220, Bethesda, MD 20814. 90p. ($7.00)
Hipel, K.W. 1988. Nonparametric Approaches to Environmental Impact Assessment. Water Resources Bulletin,
24(3):487-492.
Hirsch, R.M. 1988. Statistical Methods and Sampling Design for Estimating Step Trends in Surface-Water Quality.
Water Resources Bulletin, 24(3):493-503.
Lettenmaier, D.P. 1988. Multivariate Nonparametric Tests for Trend in Water Quality. Water Resources Bulletin,
24(3):505-512.
El-Shaarawi, A.H. and E. Damsleth. 1988. Parametric and Nonparametric Tests for Dependent Data. Water
Resources Bulletin, 24(3):513-519.
Hughes, J.P. and S.P. Millard. 1988. A Tau-Like Test for Trend in the Presence of Multiple Censoring Points.
Water Resources o7 3 Bulletin, 24(3) :521-531.
Hipel, K.W., A.I. McLeod, and R.R. Weiler. 1988. Data Analysis of Water Quality Time Series in Lake Erie.
Water Resources Bulletin, 24(3):533-544.
113
-------
»
Berryman, D., B. Bobee, D. Cluis, and J. Haemmerli. 1988. Nonparametric Teste for Trend Detection in Water
Quality Time Series. Water Resources Bulletin, 24(3):545-556.
f
•f
Alexander, R.B. and R.A. Smith. 1988. Trends in Lead Concentrations in Major U.S. Rivers and Their Relation to
Historical Changes in Gasoline-Lead Consumption. Water Resources Bulletin, 24(3):557-569.
Hall, D.C. and W.R. Berkas. 1988. Comparison of Instream and Laboratory Methods of Measuring Sediment
Oxygen Demand. Water Resources Bulletin, 24{3):571-575.
Assumptions and Basic Principles for Parametric Trend Analyses:
Snedecor, G.W. and W.G. Cochran. 1967. Statistical Methods. Sixth Ed. The Iowa State University Press, Ames,
Iowa.
Montgomery, R.H. and K.H. Reckhow. 1984. Techniques for Detecting Trends in Lake Water Quality. Water
Resources Bulletin, 20(l):43-52.
EDA, Exploratory Data Analyses (Time Plots).
Tukey, J.W. 1977. Exploratory Data Analysis. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, MA.
Quantile-Quantile (Q-Q) Plots and Cumulative Distributions Curves (Compare frequency distributions be-
tween 2 or more time periods):
1978. Water Quality Surveys: A Guide for the Collection and Interpretation of Water Quality Data. IHD - WHO
Workng Group on Quality of Water UNESCO-WHO Geneva, Switzerland.
Double Mass Curves (Check for concurrent breaks in slopes between 2 parameters over time):
Dunne, T. and L. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environment Planning. W.H. Freeman Corp., San Fransisco. Chapters
41 and 42.
Chow, V.T. 1964. Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw - Hill Book Company, New York.
T-Tests: (Pre vs. Post Periods):
Snedecor, G.W. and W.G. Cochran. 1967. Statistical Methodsl. Sixth Ed. The Iowa State University Press, Ames,
Iowa.
Montgomery, R.H. and J.C. Loftis. 1987. Applicability of the t-Test for Detecting Trends in Water Quality Vari-
ables. Water Resources Bulletin, 23(4):653-662.
Helsel, D.R. and R.M. Hirsch. 1988. Discussion of 'Applicability of the t-Test for Detecting Trends in Water
Quality Variables'. Water Resources Bulletin, 24(1): 201-204. o7 3
Montgomery, R.H. and J.C. Loftis. 1988. Reply to Discussion 'Applicability of the t-Test for Detecting Trends in
Water Quality Variables'. Water Resources Bulletin, 24(1): 205-207.
Regression Models (linear trends over time):
Snedecor, G.W. and W.G. Cochran. 1967. Statistical Methods. Sixth Ed. The Iowa State University Press, Ames,
Iowa.
Neter, J. and W. Wasserman. 1974. Applied Linear Statistical Models, Regression, Analysis of Variance, and Ex-
perimental Designs. Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, Illinois 60430.
Belsley, DA., E. Kuh, and R.E. Welsch. 1980. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of
Collinearity. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Draper, N.R. and H. Smith. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis, Second Ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
114
-------
Freund, R J. and R.C. LitteU. 1981. SAS for Linear Models: A Guide to the ANOVA and GLM Procedures. SAS
Institute, Inc., Gary, North Carolina. I
r
Covariance (comparison of period groupings and/or trends over time with adjustment for covariates
«uch as precipitation, season, flow.):
Snedecor, G.W. and W.G. Cochran. 1967. Statistical Methods. Sixth Ed. The Iowa State University Press, Ames,
Iowa.
Spooner, J. CA. Jamieson, S.A. Dressing, R.P. Maas, M.D, Smolen, FJ. Humenik. 1985. RCWP Status Report on
the CM&E Project, Supplemental Report: Analyses Methods. Department of Biological and Agricultural En-
gineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Spooner, J. 1986. Analysis of Covariance: Part I and II. NWQEP NOTES Nos. 18 and 19 (Technical Supplement):
1-2. Water Quality Group. Department of Biological and Agricultural Enfineering, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC.
Paired Watersheds:
Hewlett, J.D. and L. Pienaar. 1973. Design and Analysis of the Catchment Experiment. IN: Proc. of the Sym-
posium on the Use of Small Watersheds in Determining Effects of Forest Land Use on Water Quality. E.H.
White, ed. Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington, pp. 88-106.
Wilm, H.G. 1949. How Long Should Experimental Watersheds be Calibrated? Amer. Geophysical Union Trans.
30(2):272-278.
Paired Regression (Comparison of 2 regression trends, slope and intercepts):
SAS Institute Inc. 1985. Sas Users's Guide: Statistics, Version 5 edition. Gary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. 956 pp.
Autocovariance and Seasonally (Time Series Analyses) (Linear and seasonal trends over time with ad-
justment for season and other covariates):
Box, G.E.P. and G.M. Jenkins. 1976. Time Series Analysis Forecasting and Control, Revised Ed. Holden-Day,
Oakland, California.
Hipel, K.W. ed. 1985. Time Series Analysis in Water Resources. AWRA Monograph Series No. 4 (19 articles also
published in Water Resources Bulletin, 21(4) and 21(5)).
SAS Institute Inc. 1984. SAS/ETS™ User's Guide, Version 5 Edition. Gary, NCSAS Institute Inc. 738 pp.
Harmonic Analyses (Frequency Domain Time Series) (Linear and seasonal trends over time with adjust-
ment for season and other covariates):
Bloomfield, P. 1976. Fourier Analysis of Time Series: An Introduction. John Wiley & Sons. New York.
Hipel, K.W. ed. 1985. Time Series Analysis in Water Resources. AWRA Monograph Series No. 4 (19 articles also
published in Water Resources Bulletin, 21(4) and 21(5)).
SAS Institute Inc. 1984. SAS/ETS™ User's Guide, Version 5 Edition. Gary, NCSAS Institute Inc. 738 pp.
Intervention Analysis (Testing for step changes and/or changes In the direction/magnitude of trends
over time):
Brockleband, J.C. and DA. Dickey. 1986. SAS System for Forecasting Time Series. 1986 ed. SAS Institute Inc.,
Gary, North o7 3 Carolina.
115
-------
Working Session: Relating Water Quality Data to Land Treatment — General
Information Needs '
Presenters: Jean Spooner, NWQEP, North Carolina State Univeristy,' Raleigh, NC ^
Gary Bitter, South Florida Water Management District, Okeechobee, PL
Jack Clausen, Water Resources Research Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT
General Information Needs
Gary Bitter
This session addressed questions concerning information needs in nonpoint source projects. Two major themes for
the session were:
• How do you coordinate the acquisition of land treatment information and water quality monitoring data?
• How does one link land treatment information and water quality information?
Below are some of the questions that need to be answered at the beginning of any project that will both monitor
land use/land treatment and water quality to be able to perform this task:
GENERAL
**What are information needs?
How do you determine what kinds of
information you need?
SESSION OBJECTIVES
I. GENERAL
* What are information needs?
* How do you acquire the information
you need?
* How do you link land use information
to changes in water quality?
II- SPECIFIC
* Are program objectives appropriately
defined?
* What are your information
requirements to meet program
objectives?
* How do you quantify land treatment?
Background (Philosophical)
* How does land use affect water quality?
* How does a BMP work?
* What do water quality parameters mean?
* Are we measuring the right stuff?
* What changes should we expect?
Program Objectives (BMP evaluation)
What is the scale of your project? (ie Watershed, farm,
field)
What are the inputs?
* Land use past and present, has it changed during the
project?
* Are SMPs addressing the problem?
* ENVIRONMENTAL
* Meteorological
climate
weather
seasonal
wet
dry
* Geographic
soil
drainage
topography
116
-------
SPECIFIC
** How do you quantify land treatment?
*8MPS
What are significance of impacts of
various BMP components?
Are all components equal?
Can components of BMP plan be
separated by water quality data?
DA^A ACQUISITION
* Need to know economics?
PROJECT SCALE
* Need to know effectiveness?
SPECIFIC
** Are program objectives appropriately
defined?
* BMP Monitoring
* Water quality monitoring
* Visual indices
Sediment
Water clarity/turbidity
Chance in vegetation types
Biological indices
** What are your information requirements
to meet program objectives?
• * How do you acquire the information you need?
What kinds of information do you need?
LAND USE
* BMP implementation information (Reporting units?)
* Animal units (Do they remain static?)
* Feeding Practices (How do they change from season to
season*)
* Fertilizer Practices (When? Where? How often? How
much?)
ENVIRONMENTAL
Rainfall (Frequency?)
Stage (Synchronize with water quality collection?)
Water Quality
Sediment transport
Temperature
Landowners "EXTREMELY IMPORTANT'
State Agricultural Agencies
Federal Agricultural Agencies
Agricultural Suppliers
Universities
uses
EPA
State Environmental Agencies
EVALUATION STRATEGIES
** How do you link land use information
to changes in water quality?
* Cause and Effect
* Stochastic vs Deterministic
117
-------
METHODS
* Plots (Time series. Frequency distributions)
Pre and Post BMP
* Statistics (Test model results. Ho vs Ha)
Simple Multiple Regression (Factors)
Trend Analysis
* Simulation Models (Simple vs Complex)
AGNPS
CREAMS Require comprehensive
data inputs!
GLEAMS
ANSWERS
TECHNICAL APPROACHES
#
Association vs Caulfc and Effect
• Methods used in TCNS program
* Time Series Plots
Change in concentration over time. Pre vs post BMP
periods
• Alldata
* Mean annual concentrations
* Frequency Distributions
Comparison of pre and post BMP periods. Have
observations changed?
* Seasonal Kendall Tau Nan Parametric Trend Test
Evaluation of trends over time adjusting for seasonal
outliers. Significant at .OS
* Double Mass Curve (Quantify)
Detection of break point data. Determination when
change occurred and to what degree
Monitoring Objectlvesand Methodologies, and Statistical Approaches to Monitoring
Jean Spooner and Jack Clausen
One of the RCWP objectives is to determine the role of monitoring water quality and land treatment simultaneous-
ly to determine if water quality changes can be documented and associated with changes in land treatment. More
specifically, can the effectiveness of nonpoint source pollution control practices be documented? This is being per-
formed at the subwatershed and watershed level.
The next few years may be the most crucial period in the RCWP program to obtain this objective. The post-BMP
water quality and land treatment data are now just being collected. We need the at least 2-3 years of post-BMP infor-
mation and then we need to analyze our findings.
Quality control of water quality data and land treatment data is important when documenting changes in either,
but especially if one is going to link them together to examine associations.
The objectives of the study dictate the type of water quality monitoring data and land treatment/use data one
needs to obtain and therefore the required monitoring design.
Monitoring NonPoint Sources vs. Point Sources
«
Monitoring NPS pollution may require a monitoring design with different characteristics compared to monitoring
point sources.
The type and number of parameters measured with agricultural NPS monitoring are a function of the source and
water quality impairment. The parameters of concern may be sediment, phosphorus, nitrogen, fecal conform, BOD,
118
-------
« »
pesticides, or the degradation products of known pesticides. Good definitions of the impairments and sources will
allow monitoring for only a subset of these pollutants. Except for pesticides, the agricultural nonpoint source pol-
lutants are naturally occurring and are only harmful when found in excess. In fact£they are required in reasonable
quantities to support biota in the water resources.
Point source pollutants are also a function of the source. If the source is well defined, e.g. a known chemical or
processing plant, the number of measured parameters may be small. However, many point sources such as sewage
treatment plants may contain many pollutants, some of which are unknown, and the required number of pollutants to
•nonitor may be large. In addition, many of the pollutants from point sources may be toxic and not required in the
latural ecosystem.
The flow variability usually has a different effect in point vs. nonpoint monitoring. Flow may be variable as a func-
:ion of runoff events and season. With runoff events, the nonpoint source peak concentrations of sediment, pesticides,
nutrients are associated with the peak or near the peak of the storm hydrograph. To complicate the situation, the
peak concentrations of the particulate and soluble pollutants occur during different parts of the hydrograph. The con-
centration vs. hydrograph response is not only a function of the stream flow, but the runoff and transport
mechanisms. With point source, the concentration of all pollutants vary similarly with the changes in discharge be-
cause dilution is playing the primary role in the concentrations measured
In point source, there is still the concept 'dilution is the solution to pollution'. When stream flow increases, con-
centrations of pollutants from point source decrease. However, with nonpoint source pollution, the relationship of
pollutant concentration and increasing stream flow is usually positive. When stream flow increases, pollutant con-
centrations increase.
Point sources may be easier to monitor due to better defined location and sources.
Location, frequency, and duration of monitoring stations may be different with nonpoint sources as compared to
point sources. Nonpoint sources are more difficult to identify and quantify due to several spatial inputs and are not
composed of a defined point source. You may need more monitoring stations to monitor a collection of nonpoint
sources. For point sources, short durations of monitoring above and below the source may be sufficient to determine
the magnitude of the problem and permit compliance. With nonpoint sources, longer periods of monitoring may be
required even to determine the magnitude of the problem. This is especially true at the watershed level where the sys-
tem variability is high. More than 1 year of monitoring may be required to access the magnitude of the problem.
Trend determination may require even longer timeframes. The frequency of monitoring for both nonpoint source and
point source is a function of objective. Concentration measurements and violation of standards require fewer samples
than load calculation.
The response time of receiving waters to nonpoint sources is not constant and usually involves a longer lag time
compared to point source. The response time is a function of the distance to the monitored water resource, mag-
nitude of the source, volume of drainage or runoff, pre-existing soil and land use conditions before an event. The
mechanisms of transport, buffering effect and inertia in the system tend to cause a slower response in water resources
removed from nonpoint sources as compared to point sources where measurement near the source is usually more
feasible.
In-stream effects may affect the nonpoint source pollutants being measured. The water resources maintain quasi-
equilibriums which are a function of the pollutant and the distance of the source from the monitoring station. For ex-
ample, decreasing sediment concentration delivery to a stream may not decrease the sediment concentration
measured. The incoming water with low sediment may pick up sediment that was deposited earlier on the stream
banks. The pollutants may be assimilated, adsorbed to soil, degraded before reaching the monitoring station en route
from the source. The in-stream effects may have a larger effect on non-point pollutants due to increased distance
from the source to the monitoring station.
Study Planning
First you have to define your study and therefore monitoring objectives. Then you can determine which pollutants
to monitor, location of monitoring stations, frequency of sampling, length of monitoring, methods of monitoring,
analytical methods, and the statistical methods that may be appropriate for the data you may be collecting. Is impor-
119
-------
• I
tant to examine the power of the statistical tests to determine if your design and sample number is sufficient to detect
a water quality problem and/or trend. ?
r
Possible objectives for monitoring nonpoint sources include:
• Baseline monitoring to establish current conditions at base flow or base flow and seasonal and storm runoff
conditions. This can be used to estimate the magnitude of a problem and/or as a baseline for trend analyses.
Document a problem or magnitude of source
Determine the fate and transport of pollutants
Define critical areas of pollutant sources
Monitor effectiveness of BMPs (e.g. RCWP water quality monitoring)
Identify and quantify trends over time of pollutant concentrations or loads
Supply input parameters for models, or use to calibrate/verify models
Monitoring objective must be in line with allocated funds.
For example, if you are going to detect trends over time after BMP implementation to control nonpoint sources on
a watershed scale as we are doing in the RCWP program, the questions you need to ask include:
• What is the measured change in pollutant loads or concentration that will be needed to document a real
change in the water resources? In the highly variable systems we are monitoring, as much as 40 to 60 percent
reduction in concentrations over 6 to 10 years maybe required before your statistical trend tests will indicate
the change is real.
• What is the land treatment required?
• What is an appropriate monitoring scheme to detect such changes?
The locations of monitoring depends on:
Type of study, e.g. compliance, source documentation, loading estimates, trend detection.
Study objective. For example, you may want to measure only the impaired water resource or the inputs to the
resource.
System type, e.g. field level, streams, rivers, lakes, etc.
Scale of size, i.e. the scale of the water resource and land, e.g. Field level vs. watershed level, stream vs. lake.
Monitoring station characteristics.
The frequency of monitoring is a function of:
• Type of study.
• Study objectives. For example, if you are examining standard violations, you need to collect enough sample to
determine probability of exceedence in the baseline and runoff conditions. Trends detection in concentration
may only require grab samples over a long period of time. However, loading and mechanism studies require
continuous samples using automatic samplers.
• System type. For example, you may want to monitor only during periods of the year when runoff occurs. A
complex and changing system may require more frequent sampling to capture the true concentrations/loads
over time.
* System variability. The greater the variability due to storms, season, runoff events, the more frequently sam-
pling is required.
The length of monitoring is a function of the goals and objectives of the study:
• Short term monitoring can be used for complaint investigations, Source identification, standards violations,
setting or compliance with guidelines.
• Long term monitoring is required for: planning and policy decisions, trend detection, BMP effectiveness or
land use effects on water quality, quantification of the response time and mechanisms in the system. Water-
shed level monitoring may require a longer period of monitoring than field level. Land treatment effects
demonstrated at a field level study may not be documented in a watershed level study in the same timeframe.
120
-------
To compare monitoring data over time, you sHould maintain a consistent sampling protocol. The types of sam-
pling_methods include: ^
• Grab samples. This is low cost and can be used to compare concentrations over time. They are usually insuffi-
cient for loading calculations.
• Depth integrated. May be particularly important in lakes.
• Composite.
• Time composite.
• Flow weighted.
The types of watershed monitoring designs that can be effective for monitoring BMP effectiveness include:
• Single watershed using a 'Before-After' monitoring scheme where monitoring is performed for 2-3 years Pre-
BMP and 2-3 years Post-BMP implementation. Year-to-year variability is often greater than the change in
water quality the land treatment can achieve in any one year; you need to monitor for long periods to account
for some of these year-to-year changes.
• Single watershed monitoring 'Above and Below" the pollutant sources. Monitoring above a site can be used to
correct for varying incoming pollutant sources not related to the changes in land treatment in the study area.
• Comparison of 2 watersheds. This is usually not effective because there is no control and the relative response
of each watershed over time is not known. Therefore, the comparisons one makes may be due to the BMPs or
due to other artifacts or variabilities in the 2 watersheds.
• Comparison of multiple watersheds. This may be more useful when comparing similar subwatersheds, espe-
cially when combined with the 'before- after' and/or the 'above-below* designs.
• Nested watersheds.
• Stratified sampling, e.g. vertical strata in lake sampling, horizontal strata in stream sampling. You need to con-
sider natural strata and the flow of water and associated pollutants from side streams into larger streams and
lakes.
Specific Types of Data to Collect
The systems we work in are highly variable. To detect a real change, we need to account for the as much of the
source of this variability as we can. This is essential not only for determining statistically significant trends, but ALSO
lor determining the MAGNITUDE and DIRECTION of the trends. You may have the unknown artifacts in the sys-
I em such as hydrologjc system variability that completely distort the conclusion of the analyses, in addition to adding
high variability to the data. Water quality measurements are a function of land use, hydrologic, meteorologic, and
topographic factors. It is important to measure as much information about these factors as possible with every water
quality sample. Accounting for some of the system variability by these factors will help detect real changes in water
quality over time.
Don't forget about the changes in land use, not just the ones related to the planned experiment or cost share
programs.
At minimum, to detect changes in water quality over time, the data required includes:
• The monitoring of identified water pollutants. These water pollutants can usually be associated with a use im-
pairment associated with the monitoring site or water resource.
• include hydrologic/meteorologic variables, e.g. flow, precipitation, ground water depth.
• land treatment: RCWP and non-RCWP activities on a subwatershed- season basis. RELATIVE TO THE
WATER QUALITY MONITORING STATIONS. Non-RCWP activities could include land set aside for
CRP, changing herd size, closure of animal operations, or implementation of uncontracted soil and water con-
servation efforts. Actual land use implementation is important from the water quality prospective, not con-
tracting! Implementation does not have to go b all at once, trends over time can be just as good. But you need
adequate pre-BMP information in either case.
121
-------
From a statistical analysis perspective you need to be able to match up the water quality data with the land treat-
ment data with the hydrologic data with the other land treatment activities. This cafa be a paired relationship (best).
That is not so easy, you may have 10 grab samples in a season. You need to quantify t°e land use you can associate
with these water quality monitoring data. The land use data must be on a subwatefshed basis in terms of the monitor-
ing station for the subwatershed. This is one of the stumbling blocks the RCWP projects are now facing.
Questions and Comments:
Q: When you define a 'before' monitoring situation, are you talking about the entire rotation or part of a rotation.
For example, you can have grass in the before followed by corn in conservation tillage. The effect of conservation til-
lage may be masked when compared to the grass system.
A (Jean): The 'before* period has to be under the same land use management regime as the 'after' period. The en-
tire rotation of grass, legumes, corn must be sampled before a rotation is performed to study the effects of conserva-
tion tillage in the 'after' period. The before period would ideally be two three- year rotations and the after period
would be two three-year rotations with conservation tillage.
Q: It may not be possible to obtain sufficient pre-BMP information. You may be under pressure to implement
BMPs immediately. Can we use other information to monitor BMP effectiveness?
A (Jean): The is a good observation. Fortunately, RCWP offers one of the rare opportunities to monitor on a
watershed scale before, during, and after BMP implementation. We may have to extract BMP effectiveness informa-
tion from the RCWP and similar programs. You may still obtain BMP effectiveness information if you must install
BMPs near the beginning of your program. If your BMPs go in a watershed over a few years, you can still use trend
analyses to determine if the water quality is improving in a similar manner as the extent of land treatment and main-
tains an improved condition under the management of the BMPs.
Comment (Gary): How do we know when we first started out in the RCWP were the BMPs that were effective?
We need to go out in the watershed and evaluate the systems we are dealing with. We do not yet know all the answers.
Monitoring will continue to play an important role in documenting BMP effectiveness.
Vermont RCWP Land Use Monitoring Methodology
Jack Clausen, Vermont RCWP (from notes taken by Jean Spooner, NWQEP)
In the St. Albans Bay, Vermont RCWP we are gathering information we believe is needed to relate water quality
data to land treatment/use data. The data needs and ideas of obtaining and storing the data are presented.
We deal with watersheds up to several acres of many different land uses, many different rotations and many other
different things going on simultaneously. This introduces an interesting level of complexity in terms of relating things
together. This is common to all the RCWP program watersheds.
The St. Albans Bay is our impaired water resource. We are concerned in what's going on in the roughly 36,000
acres of land that drains into the Saint Albans Bay. The average field size is about 7 acres.
When we started this study, we knew we would need a lot of land use information, but did not know what to obtain.
There is no cookbook that tells us what information to obtain. We tried to obtain all the information we could think
of.
First, we decided what existing data do we know we want to collect. These included the baseline, first cut informa-
tion that was readily obtainable we knew we needed:
* Soils information.
• Stream course location.
• Topographic information.
122
-------
* Existing land use. ' '
• Location of all the farms and fields. f
•r
Initially there were roughly 101 farms.
We realized we needed to go back to farms and collect information that changes relatively slowing and relatively
rapidly. We wanted to find out what activities are occurring on an annual basis, and if possible on a specific date
basis. We wanted to display that information so we could track implementation of BMPs and other things over time.
We did this (baseline survey) by interviewing each farmer. This told quite a bit of time.
In our individual farm visits, we obtained a tremendous amount of information. We track each and every field on a
farm in terms of:
Plowing activities,
Amount, timing, and formulation of fertilizers,
Amount, timing of manure applications,
Amount, timing of all other agro-chemicals,
Animal changes on an annual basis,
Distribution of types of animals (not just animal units)
To obtain the field level information:
Manure logs that look like checkbooks are issued to every fanner in the watershed. About 100. The checkbook is
designed to either sit in the milk parlor or go out on the tractor with the fanner. We ask the farmer to record exactly
what they do in each field. In all conservation plans these fields are numbered. Some farmers fill out the log and some
don't. Some are religious in filling out the logs, about one-half are a-religious. Initially, for the first 5 years, we col-
lected these logs twice per year. We did a winter collection that was coincident with the SCS annual review and a sum-
mer collection to collect the spring activities. Due to funding, man power constraints and a feeling that twice a year
may not be necessary, we dropped it back to once-per-year visits in the winter time. I think we are losing something,
but do not know how much yet. The farms are divided into two groups, contract and non-contract farms. SCS does all
I he contract farms and the university does all the non-contract farms. During a month's period, we intensively go to
I he farms to get the information that is not on the forms, usually around the kitchen table over coffee.
Once the 'pile' of information is gathered, we use a computerized Geographic Information System (GIS), ARC-
INFO, as the data manager. The GIS allows production of 2-D and 3-D maps of various activities, tables of land use,
;ind the acquisition of data for subsequent statistical evaluation. Also, the GIS allows simultaneous examination of
several variables at once and class information to looks at parts of the puzzle.
Some examples of traditional displays produced by the GIS are:
• Watershed level display of acres under contract and not under contract.
• Detailed land use on an annual basis.
• Individual subwatershed land use, field by field land use, e.g. rotation information for one year.
• Track manure source and destination, e.g. manure stored in pits and not incorporated within two weeks in the
soil. This helps track the movement of nutrients around the watershed.
• Topographic information, e.g. 3-D visual display such as draping land use information over topographic infor-
mation.
• 'Modeling' within GIS. For example, GIS sets a buffer area around some stream and examines where the
manure was within certain buffer's areas around the stream. This allows the collapsing of the layers of the GIS.
GIS are not trivial in terms of money and personnel time and commitment. They require a tremendous amount of
money and time. For example, The Vermont RCWP project is spending about $40,000/year to implement its GIS.
This includes computer costs and people power.
123
-------
Some experiences:
* Some of the data being collected is insufficient for the needs. f
• Some of the data being collected is not needed. But which data that is not needed is just now being discovered.
Question and Answers:
(
Q (Gary): Can you determine ahead of time which information one should obtain instead of going through the
process and obtaining all the information? Perhaps this could be function of watershed size, scale of the project,
A (Jack): It is very important to start at 'What are your objectives?'. It is difficult to determine the project objec-
tives in terms of measurable hypothesis to test at the project initiation. Even as the St. Albans Bay project stands
today, not all the objectives are fully defined. This is because on an apriori basis, we did not know how the water
quality was going to go, so we resisted hypothesis testing and still do. If you can set your project objectives correctly
and thoroughly, you then have your data needs. However, if you don't, you are just guessing at what you need.
Questions and Comments at Session End
Q: As a result of the fanner survey, have you found that they have improved their use of pesticide or nutrient
management?
A (Jack): I have not looked at the information for that question so an exact answer is not available. We have been
tracking manure. We have discovered that with this data, I can give you a map of non-compliance versus compliance.
We have not done this yet. However, in terms of nutrient management, Bill Jokela has done allot for this cause in the
watershed by his activities in Extension.
Q: Are you planning on doing an analysis of what affect non-compliance has on water quality, i.e. are you going to
factor that in or assume contracts are met. Or is this possible to do that?
A (Jack): This is a good question with no an easy answer. I think this may be important and may become part of
the technical approaches to relating water quality to land treatment.
Q: We know what the water quality problems are and what the BMPs we should use. Now we need to transfer this
information to action. If we know about non-compliance, why can't we get the information out and improve the im-
plementation performed to meet compliance? How is it best to address non-compliance?
A (Jack): When RCWP started up in the St. Albans Bay, SCS was fully staffed and RCWP commitment has high.
Now the personnel are fewer and additional different priorities for SCS have come along such as the new Farm Bill.
How can you expect contract compliance given a lower level of commitment? It hard for management commitment to
be sustained over a 10 year project, just like for the monitor personnel and everyone else.
A (Gary): In the Florida RCWP, we were in the experimental process. Our objectives have now shifted due to
state agency pressures, regional pressure, better understanding of the relationships between different land use and
water quality. It now not an experiment any more. We have increased state funds, the land owners are contributing
large financial dollars, and now we are going back with a second generation of practices that we have to try to sell to
the land owners. This is a problem you can get into when starting a new project without actually identifying what the
problems are in the watershed. We know what the water quality problems are, but are still verifying which BMPs are
most effective.
A (Eric Flaig): In the Florida RCWP, we don't know, process wise, how some of the BMPs are working. For ex-
ample, the management of phosphorus fertilizers is currently being studied. It is difficult to present the information to
the land owners and the public. We have not found an adequate way; concentrations in the stream are extremely mis-
leading, loads are hard to calculate and they are high. We disseminate the information out each month, but it is not
easy.
Comment (Jean): It is somewhat easy to get contracting information. But if you are going to relate it to water
quality, you need a good quantitative handle on what is actually happening on the ground which is what Jack's GIS
124
-------
iind the Florida RCWP are trying to obtain. The projects need to report actual land treatment and quality of land
treatment. f
Q: Have we learned something from RCWP about BMP effectiveness at a watershed level? In the Illinois RCWP,
we were unable to document a water quality improvement in the impaired water resource of Highland Silver Lake.
We know they (the BMPs) work on a field level, but to document watershed level has been unsuccessful.
A (Jean): The Illinois RCWP is a bad example for attempting to document watershed level improvements, specifi-
cally at the impaired water resource level, even though field level improvements can be documented. This project had
low BMP implementation levels and the natric nature of the soils produces turbidity even when erosion rate is low.
The turbidity in the lake is caused by suspended charged soil particles, that are remaining in suspension, despite
decreasing sediment loads to the lake by agricultural BMPs.
RCWP does, however, have success stories in documenting BMP effectiveness were the impairment of the water
resource was from agricultural nonpoint source pollution and there were high levels of BMP implementation.
Q: Is there a cut off (size of watershed), when it is not possible to document BMP effectiveness from monitoring?
;-or example, is 10,000 acres too large to find quantifiable results?
A (Jean): I don't think there is a size limitation to the potential of monitoring to help determine the effectiveness
of BMPs. The larger the watershed, the slower the change that occurs. If you account for the sources of system
variability, real changes in water quality can be documented if you allow a timeframe similar to the RCWP of 10 years.
A (Gary): The Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough watershed is 120,000 acres, we find critical acres of about 63,000
acres. We did have problems that we have identified land treatment at a subwatershed level and not at a field level.
For example, one of our main BMPs is fencing to keep cows out of the waterways and water control practices such as
diversions. We can look at the cumulative effect of all the BMPs and land treatment at the watershed level. We have
found at station S191 (a single structure outlet from the watershed Lake Okeechobee) we have shown a 20% reduc-
i ion in phosphorus concentration. In conjunction, we have looked at each subwatershed. We have found our biggest
success in reducing P (36%) by using BMPs in Mosquisto Creek. BMP implementation started in 1985. Pre- BMP im-
plementation water quality data was collected from 1978 to 1985. Now, our problem is that it takes several years
l>efore the whole watershed and subwatersheds are fully implemented and changes in water quality can be docu-
mented.
A (Mike Smolen): I would like to make a point that the objective of RCWP is not to prove whether or not BMPs
work. The problem is whether a BMP program can be successful. In a project that addresses a water quality problem,
i here are many contributors where you can not correct every identifiable problem. The problem has many dimensions
lo it such as getting the land owners to cooperate, maintenance of practices, appropriateness of the practices, were all
i he problems in the watershed identified? RCWP projects have addressed these issues.
Q: Could RCWP also be used to identify whether the institutional programs that were put together actually func-
tioned properly and if not will we have the guts to mention the failures?
A (Gary): There were some success stories in the institution programs commitments and cooperations in the
Horida RCWP program. There is cooperation between land use and water quality agencies, which is necessary.
Q: And Florida IS meeting its water quality standards, aren't you?
A (Gary): No, we are not One aspect of RCWP with goals and objectives, e.g. reduction of P by 50%. However,
we did not have a set of guidelines where we told the land owners exactly which practices needed to be implemented
in which order. In many situations, the effective BMPs were put in at the end of the implementation period. This re-
quires a longer time to document appreciable changes in water quality.
Comment: You just brought up the most important point that the RCWP can provide to the new 319 Program.
What are the BMP effectiveness? Some of our practices were more production oriented, not primarily directly
toward the water quality effectiveness. RCWP can also help identify how the timing and order of BMP application,
stream biology and hydrology have an influence on water quality effectiveness. The 319 program has no money at-
tached to it, the RCWP needs to provide this information to 319. We would like to be selective in the 319 process to
only choose BMPs that have significant water quality effects. Most bang for the bucks.
125
-------
Working Session: Relating Water duality Data to Laryd Treatment: Technical
Approaches '
Presenters: Gary Hitter, South Florida Water Management District, Okeechobee, Ft
Jean Spooncr, National Water Quality Evaluation Project, North Carolina State University
Jack Clausen, Water Resources Research Center, University of Vermont
Experiences in the Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough, Florida RCWP Project
Gary Rftter (as interpreted by Jean Spooner)
The Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough (TCNS) basin is an 120,000 acre agricultural watershed located in south central
Florida and drains into Lake Okeechobee. It contributes between 25 to 30 percent of the total phosphorus load to the
lake while at the same time only 4 percent of the total flow in its annual water budget. Phosphorus generated from the
basin is due to point and nonpoint source runoff from dairy, beef, citrus, and other agricultural used such as pasture.
Critical agricultural acreage is estimated at 63,109 acres. Biweekly water quality monitoring has been performed in
the TCNS basin since the mid- 1970's. The primary BMPs are: fencing cows out of the streams, more efficient use of
dairy waste water and effective management of waste storage lagoons, timing of fertilizer applications on dairy and
beef operations, and controlling the release of high intensity area runoff.
In the Florida RCWP, we ask ourselves: 'How do we know that land treatments lead to water quality improve-
ments? and how effective are our BMPs?'
We are fortunate in the Florida RCWP to have an extensive pre-BMP water quality data base for statistical com-
parison with post-BMP data (1978-1985,6, or 7). This will allow for 4-5 years post-BMP water quality before the end
of the project.
The progression we have gone through in trying to relate the water quality to land treatment and land use changes
are presented. We started from an explanatory perspective where we examined the water quality data alone, moved
into investigation of associated changes in water quality with land use changes, and are now just beginning to examin-
ing possible causational relationships between land use changes and water quality changes. We are doing the latter by
more rigorous statistical approaches, better land use monitoring data, more post-BMP data is becoming available,
and we are intensifying our water quality monitoring.
The first step we took was to plot the water quality parameters over time, i.e. time plots to examine visual trends.
We have compared the frequency distributions of each water quality parameter in the pre- and post- BMP im-
plementation periods.
We used the nonparametric Seasonal Kendall Tau Trend test (with no correction for stream flow, precipitation,
ground water levels, etc.). The significant and non-significant trends for each subbasin where examined with the
qualitative level of BMP implementation and other land use changes. We had both increasing and decreasing trends
over time for different subbasins. For example, we were able to document decreasing P concentrations in the
Mosquito Creek Subwatershed where extensive BMPs were installed in 1985 or 1986. Also, decreasing P concentra-
tions were identified in Otter Creek which were thought to be associated with diary closures. In contrast, increased
animal densities and use of animal feeds with high P concentration appeared to have degraded water quality in the
N.W. Taylor Creek subwatershed.
Before water quality trends would be associated with land treatment, other land use changes needed to be taken
into account. The most important one in our watershed is cow numbers per subwatershed. Dairy shutdowns and chan-
ges in cow numbers can mask the effect of our BMPs, so we need to account for their affect in the watershed. We also
know that precipitation and ground water level affect the runoff and water quality and must be considered when
evaluating changes in land management practices and their impact on water quality.
126
-------
We are now examining the use of double mass curves to compare the break points of water quality changes, land
treatment, and changes in cow numbers and changes in BMP implementation levels. The values of observations are
f..rst put into dimensionless percents before plotting. This allows plotting and comparisons on the same graph.
Comparison of water quality trends across watersheds with varying land treatment, i.e. multiple watershed com-
parison.
Because of the need to account for the changes in land use, BMP implementation levels, changes in hydrologic and
raeteorologjc levels, etc. parametric time series and multiple regression techniques are now being investigated in addi-
tion to the nonparametric approaches that are more exploratory.
We are also examining the change required in the system to be considered real and not a function of the highly
variable system. By looking at the variability in the water quality data we are applying Dr. Pete Richard's technique of
the 't-test in reverse' (Richards, 1985). That is, what Student's t-value is needed in a t-test comparison between the
pre- and post- BMP periods to obtain a statistically significant difference in the mean values of water quality
parameters. This can be translated to the change in mean values required for statistical significance. The same ap-
proach can also be used for linear trend tests, time series, etc.
In the Florida RCWP, water quality monitoring is biweekly grab sampling. There is some thought that more land
treatment data is needed in this situation than would be required if the water quality monitoring was performed more
frequently. This is because more information on the system allows for more effective interpretation of water quality
data. Land use information may be more helpful to interpret the water quality data as it relates to fertilizer applica-
tion timing, manure spraying, changing in cow numbers. You may want to understand more about the system which
:an not be seen with infrequent monitoring and may have qualitative benefits to interpretation of land use effects on
^ater quality.
Reference:
Richards, P.R. 1985. Estimating the extent of reduction needed to statistically demonstrate reduced non-point
phosphorus loading to Lake Erie. J. Great Lakes Res. 11(2): 110-116.
Some Considerations About Data Requirements and Statistical Tests
Jean Spooner, NWQEP
Association vs. Cause and Effect
A trend in the water quality data that is associated with BMPs does NOT alone document a cause and effect link
between the two.
Ideally one can perform a 'controlled experiment' to adequately document cause and effect. 'Controlled' refers to
eliminating or accounting for all the factors that may affect the response to the treatment so the treatment effect
alone can be isolated. Usually this control is obtained by subjecting the entire system to the same conditions, varying
only the treatment variable and having random replicates to assure that unknown sources of variability do not affect
the interpretation. Ideally, in a watershed study, this includes an experiment with both treated and non-treated areas,
repetitions, and each treatment being monitored for several years.
Except for projects that have 'paired watershed' design, this is not generally being done in the RCWP. A control-
led experiment can easily be performed at the plot level, but it is very difficult to obtain on a watershed level due to
the limited resources in most NFS control projects and the pressure to implement BMPs in all critical areas. How-
ever, the RCWP offers many watersheds where analyses of the land and water quality data are and will show strong
associations between land use changes and water quality changes. These studies are useful and can be used as valu-
able tools when studying BMP effectiveness on a watershed scale. Associations can be defined as the change in water
quality that is correlated to the change in land use, specifically BMP implementation.
127
-------
Association is necessary, but by itself is not sufficient to infer causal relationships. There may be other factors in
the system causing the changes in water quality not related to the BMPs, such as oilier land use changes, changes in
rainfall patterns, etc. If the association is consistent, responsive, and has a mechatysfie basis then causality may be sup-
ported (Mosteller and Tukey, 1977). Consistency means that the relationship between the variables holds in each data
set in direction and amount. The data sets in RCWP include: different subwatersheds, multiple years, and multiple
projects. Responsiveness means that one variable will change appropriately if the other variable is changed in a
known, experimental manner. Mechanism refers to the step-by-step path from cause to effect with the ability to make
physical linkages at each step.
Some Concepts to Remember When Unking Water Quality Data With Land Use
You need to monitor land use changes relative to monitoring stations. For example, on a subwatershed basis. This
will allow for a 'pairing' of water quality data with land use data.
Year-to-year variability is so large that at lease 2 -3 years each of both pre- and post- BMP water quality data is re-
quired to give an indication that the improvement in water quality is related (i.e. associated) to land use changes in a
consistent manner.
In designing the monitoring system and subsequent statistical methods to detect changes over time or detect dif-
ferences between treatments, one would like to increase the precision of the statistical analysts by removing as much
as possible from the error term and eliminating the bias. Spatial or temporal variability and autocorrelation should
not be ignored because they can increase either the error or the bias of the estimated parameters. Also, correction for
as much of the data variability due to meteorologic and hydrologic variables will reduce the residual errors and im-
prove the power of the tests. For example, information such as rainfall, ground water levels, and stream flow need to
be paired with water quality samples.
All changes hi land use need to be monitored, not just BMPs. Land use changes such as conversion of row crops to
pasture, Conservation Reserve Program, changing in herd size or poultry flocks, closure of animal operations or im-
plementation of uncontracted soil and water conservation efforts may mask the changes in water quality due to land
treatment.
It is difficult to quantify land use and BMPs with units that can be paired with water quality data. Examples would
include: acres served by each BMP with consideration for relative efficiency from overlapping BMPs, acres served by
the BMPs 'systems' to minimize double counting of land with multiple BMPs, tons of manure spread, miles of fencing,
acres served by the fencing, pounds fertilizer applied, etc.
You need to determine what errors are associated with the land use and water quality data you obtain. There was
some discussion at the workshop that stated "the data are only as good as the least reliable factor". For example, you
monitor water quality daily, but only monitor the land use monthly, the information gained will only be as good as the
monthly mean or median of the water quality. This is more than just sampling once per month. The mean is com-
posed of more than just one grab sample in one month. It is a best estimate of central tendency and is derived from a
distribution of samples.
In Vermont, they have discovered that the information of timing of manure spreading may not be as detailed as the
water quality monitoring. The land use and subsequent water quality changes are short-term. You may need to know
detailed land use to relate to detailed water quality monitoring. For example, timing of manure spreading relative to
water quality sampling is important knowledge, but may be difficult to obtain accurately.
Some Ideas on Possible Statistical Tests to Unk Water Quality and Land Use
Double-mass balance curves.
A double mass curve is the plot of the cumulative distribution of one quantity against the cumulative distribution of
another quantity during the same period. This will be a straight line so long as the data are proportional; the slope of
the line will represent the constant of proportionality between the quantities. A break in the slope of the double-mass
curve means that a change in the constant of proportionality between the two variables has occurred (Searcy and Har-
dison, 1960). This technique has historically been used to validate long precipitation series and detect local inconsis-
128
-------
tuncies between rain gages. However, it is being used by the Florida RCWP to compare P concentrations and cow
numbers in subwatersheds over time. I
Muttivariate regression. '
This includes multivariate regression, time series analyses, or Analysis of Covariance that incorporate a linear
regression over time with land treatment variables. You can test for significance and correlation with other land treat-
ment/water 'quality variables in the model.
Intervention analysis.
Complicated name for a simple concept. Usually used with linear regression or time series models where the addi-
tion of explanatory (indicator or dummy) variables (X) whose value are 0 or 1. The reason for this term is that X
usually changes from 0 to 1 during periods of expected change in the level of Y, such as dairy closures. You can use
several exploratory variables in the same model (Brockleband and Dickey, 1986).
Principle component analysis.
Principal component analysis is a multivariate technique for examining relationships among several quantitative
variables. It can be used to reduce the number of variables in regression, clustering, etc. (SAS Institute Inc. 1985).
Ciiven a data set with p numeric variables, p principal components can be computed, Each principal component is a
linear combination of the original variables, with coefficients equal to the eigenvectors of the correlation or
cavariance matrix (SAS Institute Inc. 1985). BIPLOT is one method to visually plot the linear associations of the vari-
ables determined from principle component analyses.
Cluster analyses.
These can be used to understand and adjust for spatial heterogeneity of water quality parameters. This may be
necessary to study the transport of a pollutant in a system or to remove the spatial component in order to detect chan-
ges over time. Discriminant analysis is one example, where observations are placed into defining groups of observa-
tions based on a classification variable.
References:
Brockleband, J.C. and D. Dickey. 1986. SAS System for Forecasting Time Series, 1986 Edition. SAS Institute Inc,
Gary, North Carolina. 240 p.
Mosteller, F. and J.W. Tukey. 1977. Data Analysis and Regression: A Second Course in Statistics. Addison-Wesley
Pub. Co., Reading, MA. 588 p.
SAS Institute Inc. SAS User's Guide: Statistics, Version 5 Edition. 1985. Gary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. 956 pp.
Searcy, J.K. and Hardision, C.H. 1960. Double-Mass Curves. U.S.G.S. Water Supply Paper 1541-B, 66p.
Experiences in the St. Albans Bay, Vermont RCWP Project
Jack Clausen (interpreted by Jean Spooner)
In the Vermont RCWP we have found that we need to understand the processes that are taking place before
making conclusions regarding the effect of land treatment and water quality. An example to illustrate this point is
presented followed by a discussion of the processes we need to consider.
In 1985 we reported a positive relationship between manure applied between runoff events for the Jewett Brook
Watershed and total phosphorus in the stream (paper by Hopkins and Clausen, 1985. Perspectives on Nonpoint
Source Pollution, EPA 440-5-85-001, p. 25-29.). This was confirmed by a linear regression analysis.
129
-------
However, after further investigation, we have discovered that both the manure applied and the stream phosphorus
concentrations are related to other variables which are driving factors. They are both confounded by climate, season,
and agricultural relationships. For example, when it is raining, the fanners spreadtlow amounts of manure. The rain
also influences runoff volume and stream phosphorus concentrations. The volume of runoff from the land and there-
fore manure is related to the field conditions and time of year.
In an effort to examine these phenomena better, we have divided the data into 5 seasons based on climate and
stream flow. The relationship of land use (manure spreading) and stream phosphorus concentrations is different for
different seasons. We found high concentrations at high flow and low flow in separate periods of the year.
The moral of. this story, is that we could not properly make the conclusion that manure spreading increased stream
phosphorus concentration. The influence of land management, season, rainfall, etc. needed to be considered because
they were also influencing manure spreading and stream flow.
The methodology we have looked at to stratify the data by 'season' is:
1. Identify each month as a season.
2. Plot the means of water quality parameters for these seasons, e.g. flow, TP, TKN, FC
3. Use a multivariate cluster analysis with 3-4 water quality parameters that are important
in your system (e.g. flow, TP, sediment, N). Use DATE to see how the data cluster.
This is a multivariate problem. Water quality is a function of other variables in the system that must be considered.
For example, antecedent soil moisture, precipitation characteristics (intensity, duration, amount), amount of excess
pollutant available on the land for runoff or drainage, crop factor, runoff velocity, instream flow (Q), soil charac-
teristics, in-stream processing, kinetics, existing water quality conditions (history), BMPs, proximity of source to
monitoring station.
Suitable statistical analyses should attack this problem from a multivariate prospective. For example, FACTOR or
DISCRIMINANT analysis that use principle components as their approach are useful because they can use many fac-
tors that describe the system. Multiple regression should be examined. Separating seasons and/or removing season ef-
fects should be investigated.
Discussion and Comments
Q: There is a problem with quantifying several BMPs for water quality and land treatment trend analyses. How do
you handle the accounting for several BMPs that serve the same acreage?
Discussion: If the BMPs are part of a system, the extent and effectiveness of the BMP system may be more ap-
propriate from a physical system and statistical standpoint than reporting individual BMPs. Double counting of acres
served by multiple BMPs may or may not be appropriate. If the combined BMP effectiveness is complementary,
double counting may be appropriate. If your statistical test can handle highly correlated variables (such as principle
component analysis) than it also may be appropriate to double count acres.
Comment: You need to consider the accuracy of both the land treatment/use data and the water quality monitor-
ing data when pairing them. This should be considered both from the statistical significance perspective and the physi-
cal meaning of the land treatment data with respect to the variability in the water quality data and the timing of
monitoring.
Comment: One needs to be aware and account for time shifts. That is a lag time between the event and the
measured amount.
130
-------
Working Session: Targeting Critical Water Quality Areas
Presenter: Michael D. Smolen
National Water Quality Evaluation Project
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina
Why target?
1. You can't treat all pollutant sources with public funds.
• There is never enough money to buy it.
• There is never enough manpower to install it
• There is never enough authority or manpower to regulate it
There must be general support and participation from the public
2. Most water quality problems are multi-dimensional
• Require treatment of point source* and nonpoim sources.
• Require treatment of urban and runt sources.
• Require watershed treatment and in-lake or in-stream treatment
All important sources must be treated - mostly by the pollutor.
3. Some problems are simpler than others.
• The problem must be easily denned so that success can be identified.
• Cause-effect should be dear.
• Hydrology should be simple and response time should be as short as possible.
• Public support should exist or be easy to generate.
• Support agencies and personnel should be sufficient lo the task.
Finding the simpler problems is the key.
4. Success Is Important.
• Real, perceplabte change is the objective.
• Demonstration of acceptable technology and pollution control practices for everyone.
Success can generate support for a program.
How to target:
1. Evaluate the water quality problem.
2. Evaluate and quantify the pollutant sources.
3. Evaluate the tools for pollution control
4. Set quantitative, specific treatment goals.
5. Set priorities/rank sources-TARGET.
6. Monitor and keep track of pollution control and its impact.
131
-------
Identity the water resource and Its Impairment - be specific
* What is/are the pollutants)?
* How «™j**h excess? (concentration or load?)
• What are the spatial and temporal dimensions (Is it the whole lake or one bay?
Is it seasonal? Which season?) f
• Use screening models and more sophisticated models if necessary,
Identify and quantify the pollutant sources - by subbasin.
• Find the point sources - quantify.
• Identity population* on septic tanks, even those working properly - quantify.
• Evaluate the hydrologic system - find the runoff-contributing areas.
• Assess the nonpoint sources by category and subbasin.
Evaluate the tools for pollution control
• What technologies exist? Best Management Practices
• What regulations exist? (for point sources or for watershed protection)
• What public involvement, commitment, or concern is there? Are those who are
concerned the ones who will participate in a pollution control program?
• What incentives are available?
• What agencies are committed, and what are their areas of expertise?
• b there sufficient informational and educational support?
• b there sufficient technical support?
Set Quantitative, Specific Treatment Goals.
• Relate goals to water quality impact - use accepted formulas to quantity treatment progress.
• Be specific, set treatment goals by subbasin indicating area of water quality impact.
Set Priorities: rank sources for treatment -Targeting Criteria.
1. Magnitude of source.
• How many animals?
• How much fertilizer, and is it managed to minimize pollution?
• How much soil loss?
• What pesticides are used?
Models: USLE, Minnesota Feedlot Model, Barney, Phred, Milkhouse
2. Distance to nearest stream (or accessibility to groundwater).
Sources in runoff-contributing areas get priority.
Models: CREAMS, GLEAMS, SWAM, WIN
3. Distance to the impaired water resource.
Consider dilution, degradation, and delivery.
Models: AGNPS, GAMES, WIN, SWAM
Monitoring
• Measure progress in terms of implementation objectives and overall estimate of
pollutant sources.
• Assure the quality of implementation.
• Assure maintenance and proper performance of practices.
• Quantify implementation progress in terms of impact on water resource.
• Monitor the state of the receiving water resource to evaluate longtenn impact of
pollution control.
132
-------
FIGURE 1. FARMLANDS CRITICAL AREA RATING FORM FOR PHOSPHORUS CONTROL
Criterion * '
Type of Crop />t
Tobacco, peanuts 20
Corn, soybeans, cotton 15
Wheat 5
Hay and pasture land 0
H^4M^^B^ *H»-^»^ ^M^^ ^«BI m»^ ^^«»^ ^»^^ ^^ ^^ W^ ^^ ^^ •—
Distance _t£ Nearest Watercourse
Greater than 1/4 mile -10
1/8 to 1/4 mile 10
Less than 1/8 mile " 20
Distance _t£ Impaired Water Resource
Greater than 5 miles 0
1 to 5 miles. 10
Less than 1 mile 20
Gross Erosion Rate
Less than 5 tons/acre/year • 0
5 to 10 tons/acre/year 10
Greater than 10 tons/acre/year 20
Present Fertilizer Practices
Soil test recommendations with banded
or split application (nitrogen) -10
Soil test recommendation 0
Exceedance of soil test recommendations
(Add 1/2 point for each pound of applied P .0-100
in excess.)
Magnitude _of_ Manure Source
(A.U. » animal unit)
Less than 0.2 A.U./acre 0
0.-2 to 1.0 A.U./acre 15
Greater than 1.0 A.U./acre 30
Present Manure Management Practices
Manure nutrients measured; applied at
recommended rate from soil test; no
winter spreading -10
Manure applied at soil test
recommendations 0
Excess manure applied (Add 1/2 point for
each excess pound of manure P applied) 0-100
Observed barnyard, feedlot, or milkhouse 0- 30
runoff problem
Example from "Setting Priorities: The Key To NFS Control"
USEPA July 1987.
133
-------
FIGURE 2. FARM LEVEL SATING FORM FOR SELECTING CRITICAL FARMS IN WATERSHEDS
WITH PESTICIDE-RELAXED WATER RESOURCE IMPAIRMENT
Factor
Use of Suspected
Pesticide
of Factor
At Label Recommended Rate
Excess of Recommended Rate
Not Used
1
; Points
100
100 + Excess %
0
Distance to Nearest
Watercourse
Short Distance (e.g., i 0.5 km) 15
Long Distance (e.g., i 0.5 km) 0
Distance to
Impaired Water
Short Distance (e.g., i 5 km) 10
Long Distance (e.g., i 5 km) 0
Application Method Low Drift (e.g., ground-based 0
with shields, recirculators,
etc. )
Ave. Drift (e.g., ground-based
wich no shields) 5
High Drift (e.g., aerial) 15
Level of IPM High -10
Practiced Average • 0
Low 10
Pesticide Disposal Excellent 0
Practice Average ' 15
Poor (e.g., dumping containers 30
into stream)
Erosion Rate (use only High 20
for sediment-ads or bed Average 10
pesticides) Low 0
Runoff Rate (use only High 20
for dissolved pesti- Average ' 10
cides affecting sur- Low 0
face water)
Infiltration Capacity High 20
(use only for dis- Average 10
solved pesticides Low 0
affecting ground -
water
Example from "Setting Priorities:
USEPA July 1987 .
The Key to NPS Control'
134
-------
The following narratives on critical area selection and associated maps from sejected RCWP projects' annual
progress reports.
Garvin Brook RCWP, Minnesota
The first field application of the Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution Model (AGNPS) was completed in June,
1985 for the surface water watershed. The model was developed by the Agricultural Research Service in Morris. Min-
nesota. It was used to identify specific land area contributions to surface water pollution.
These land areas have been classified based on the model into the following priorities:
Critical: Subwatersheds with high and moderate sediment loads and moderate nitrogen and phosphorus loads.
High: Localized high erosion and barnyard "hotspots" outside the critical areas.
Medium: Subwatersheds with either moderate sediment loads or moderate nitrogen and phosphorus loads.
Low: Remaining subwatershcds excluding localized high sediment loads and barnyard "hotspois."
Figure 4 illustrates the priority areas and the location of existing acres under contract. Approximately 13,059 .icics
lie within the critical area designation. Of those acres approximately 7,574 acres are cropland of which approximately
3/..05 acres arc grown to corn. Figure 5 indicates the area of high susceptibility to groundwatcr contamination he-
cause of surface and geological characteristics.
PRIORITY AREAS & ACRES UNDER CONTRACT
Original Area: Garvin Brook Watershed
Figure 4
-------
Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP, Virginia
Critical Area
The "critical area" was originally defined as those areas within a one mile radius of the water supply reservoirs,
their principal tributaries, and the tidal shellfish areas. The critical area originally contained approximately 66,318
acres and constituted approximately 41% of the total project area. A significant amount of the critical area adjacent
to the reservoirs and tributary streams occupied relatively steep slopes and highly credible soils. Moreover, there ;irc
many instances where the steep slopes have been improperly used and severe gully erosion has occurred. It is
pointed out that the "critical area" was redefined in 1985. The area was expanded to 116,710 acres or 72% of the
project area. There are 405 farms located in the newly defined critical area. Conservation treatment is needed on
245 of these farms. Many have large numbers of livestock for which there is a critical need for BMPs to safely
manage the waste. Extensive production of feed grain crops is another characteristic of the critical area. A high level
of fertilization and pesticide application is practiced in this area.
U.S. QCFAHTMENT OF »£«IOATUHl
Fljurc II
SOIL CONSt KvaliOH Un
LEGEND
MU«
IUt«VIMOlMtIMMtO
UMNMO CmTICM. AMA
cwriucn
R.C.W.P.MAP
NANSEMOND-CHUCKATUCK
WATERSHED
CITY OF SUFFOLK AND ISLE Of WIGHT COUNTY
VIRGINIA
138
-------
TABLE 9
Nansanond-Oiuckatuck., Virginia . •,
PRIORITY SYSTEM FOR SERVICING RURAL CLEAH? WATER REQUESTS
LANDOWNER
ANIMAL WASTE 50 poiata max. Score Assigned
Live stream in feedloc . 20
Humber bogs or cows 0-100 10
100 -I- ' 15
Distance to water supply lake
or receiving blue lice scream
Less Chan 1000 feet 15
1000 feec - 2500 feet 10
More Chan 2500 feet 5
EROSION 25 points max
Gulleys present 10
Distance co water supply lake
or blue line scream
Less Chan 1000 feec 5
1000 feec - 2500 feec 4
More Chan 2500 feec 3
Cover crop presently used
Yes 0 No 5
No-till farming presently used.
<••> f* «• f
Yes 0 No -
PESTICIDES AND FERTILIZERS 25 p'oints max.
A. Crop Rotation
Corn (yes or no) Ac,
Soybeans (yes or no) Ac
Peanuts (yes or no) Ac
More than 200 Ac. 5
150 - 200 4
100 - 150 3
50 - 100 2
B. Distance to lake or
receiving blue line
3 t ream.
Less than 1000 feec 15
1000 feec - 2500 feec 7
More than 2500 feec 5
Distance to non-blue line
s t ream
Less chan 1000 feec
1000 feec - 2500 feec
More chan 2500 feec
TOTAL SCORE
High 60 - 100 points
Low Less Chan 60
With no animal waste: High' 40 - 50
Medium 30 - 40
Low 20 - 30
139
-------
Highland Silver Lake RCWP, Illinoife
Critical Area: natric soils with 2% or greater slope, fine particle size and high credibility / non-natric soils with 5%
or greater slope, high credibility and proximity to the stream system
The critical area definintion has not changed since project initiation, but the original estimate of acres meeting ihc
definition has been refined. Due to problems in delineating the exact critical area by defnintion, this project has only
recently been successful in computing the critical area by soil mapping unit within the watershed and within each con-
tract. The watershed figure includes all of the acreage of a specific critical soil mapping unit which actually has a
slope range of 1 to 5 percent. Further adjustments were made to the critical acreage figure to account for those areas
that appear to meet the defnintion but were found to be non-critical through further sudy and documentation. Feed-
lots are evaluated on the basis of proximity to streams and number of animal units to determine if they are critical
sources.
FIgura 1
v CRITICAL
' AREAS
SHYER LAKE
WATERSHED
MCTROTOUTAN AMD flfCWNAI. fVUMKS COMMSSION
140
-------
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP, South, Dakota
Critical Areas
The SCS pistrict Conservationist and SCS geologist visually examined the entire project area. Using USGS quad-
rangle maps, the area was separated into three sediment delivery categories: 1) direct delivery to one of the lakes
(Oakwook, Poinsett, Albert); 2) noncontributing sediment to the lakes; 3) the remaining acreage.
The degree of influence on ground water was evaluated, and four numerical categories were delineated. These
were based upon subjective evaluation of regional ground water movement, distance from the lakes or streams, and
drainage characteristics (potholes). Thickness of overburden over the shallowest aquifer was also considered.
Highest contamination potential was given to 0-10 feet of overburden, second to 10-30 feet, third to 30-60 feet and
fourth to greater than 60 feet. The data source was existing geologic logs of drill holes. Final prioritization was
delineated by combining the sedimentation and ground water contamination potential ranks. Priority 1 area en
p isses 59,500 acres with priority 2 and 3 containing 19,950 acres.
encom-
OMWOOO UUtfl-POinlCTT NIOJCCT
pmcMiTr AHA MAP
Figure 3
nao*i TT Ma i
141
-------
North
HIGH PRIORITY AREA
Badger
'•LIVESTOCK IN HIGH PRIORITY
AREA (10/1/85)
• SHEEP
k« SWINE
)* DAIRY
[• BEEF
' TOTAL
375
4500
830
2550
8250
Figure 6
OAKWOOD LAKES - POINSETT RCWP PROJECT
LIVESTOCK ENTERPRISES IN HIGH - PRIORITY AREA (10/1/85)
142
-------
Working Session: Cost-Effectiveness of BMP Implementation
Presenter: Richard S. Magleby
Economic Research Service
United States Department of Agriculture
Washington, DC
Cost-effectiveness, the cost of doing something divided by some measure of the resulting physical effect, is a help-
ful economic tool for making or evaluating program decisions at the project level. If cost-effectiveness (C/E) analysis
is performed prior to or during project implementation, it can help in making decisions regarding alternative Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to implement, which lands or fields or soils to treat, and the magnitude of incentives
to use. If performed after project implementation, C/E analysis provides insights for improving BMP implementation
in future projects. Both types of C/E analysis have been done by the Economic Research Service and cooperating
agencies and institutions on 5 projects of the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP). These projects were those in the
states of Illinois, Idaho, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Vermont.
While C/E analysis is useful at the project level, it is not an appropriate tool for comparing alternative projects.
Rather, benefit-cost analysis, in which a project's physical effectiveness is translated into economic benefits produced
per unit of cost, puts different projects on a comparable basis. A particular physical effect, such as a reduction in sedi-
ment loading to a water body, may produce larger benefits in one area than another due to higher valued water uses
and greater numbers of people affected. Benefit-cost analysis is capable of showing these value differences, and thus
helps direct program resources to projects with the greatest net social benefit. Subsequently C/E analysis can be used
to improve the performance of selected projects.
What Unit of Analysis?
Before applying C/E analysis, one has to decide whether the unit of analysis should be an entire project area or a
representative sub)area, farm, or field. If decisions on or evaluations of general BMP strategies are needed, project
bvel analysis Is appropriate. If one wants to make or evaluate a decision on BMP implementation in a specific situa-
tion, a smaller unit of analysis has to be selected. In our C/E analyses of the five RCWP projects, we generally looked
E t the entire project, and then at a smaller subunit, usually one or more representative farms or fields.
What Cost?
The appropriate costs to include b a C/E analysis depend upon the question to be addressed. We focused on the
question of "What BMP strategy is the most cost-effective way for the government to achieve pollutant loading reduc-
tions?" Thus we considered all government costs attributable to each alternative implementation strategy, including
cost share payments to fanners and technical assistance provided by public agencies. Also we included as a cost any
regative impact of a strategy on net farm returns, since government would likely have to compensate farmers for this
opportunity cost to get widespread voluntary program participation and BMP adoption.
If the question is "What BMP implementation is the most cost-effective from the farmer's point of view?", then the
appropriate cost would be the change in net farm returns after taxes. After tax analysis is best since depreciation ad-
vantages of structural BMPs are considered.
What Effectiveness?
Potential measures of BMP or project effectiveness include gross erosion reduction, pollutant delivery reduction,
nutrient infiltration reduction, and pollutant loading reduction. The latter two are generally preferable, particularly
when doing project level analysis, since they best depict project goals. However, these measures are also the most dif-
f .cult to obtain since monitoring data, if available, are seldom specific or conclusive enough to analyze alternatives. In
c ur analyses of RCWP, we used various models to provide needed measures of effectiveness as follows:
Illinois and South Dakota Projects: Agricultural Nonpoint Source (AGNPS) model provided estimates
of changes in sediment, phosphorus, and nitrogen loadings to the lake(s) resulting from different BMP
strategies.
143
-------
Idaho Project: Gross erosion and sediment 'delivery equations in a linear programming model provided
estimates of reductions in sediment loadings to Rock Creek. I
r
Pennsylvania Project: The Chemicals, Runoff, and Erosion From Agricultural Management Systems
(CREAMS) model provided field level runoff and infiltration estimates for sediment, nitrogen, and phos-
phorus.
Vermont Project: Sediment and nutrient delivery equations in a representative farm linear programming
model provided estimates of reductions associated with waste management alternatives. Subsequently the
AGNPS model was also run for the watershed.
Cost-Effectiveness Insights
Some observations and insights on cost-effectiveness can be drawn from our analyses of the five RCWP projects.
1. More widespread application of low cost conservation tillage and pesticide management will be more cost)effec-
tive from a water quality standpoint than applying high cost structural BMPs, even if incentives to implement manage-
ment BMPs have to be increased. The RCWP projects in the Idaho, Illinois, and Pennsylvania illustrate this.
In the Idaho project, the contracted BMPs, including high cost irrigation improvements and sediment retention
basins, are estimated to reduce sediment loadings to Rock Creek by 13*24 percent compared to what would exist
without the project (see table 1). The average cost effectiveness would be $146,000 per one-percent reduction in sedi-
ment loading. In contrast, adding 10,000 acres of low cost conservation tillage, which the project is now trying to do,
will achieve a 45-56 percent reduction in sediment loadings, and substantially improve the project's average cost effec-
tiveness. The C/E analysis further shows that if the project could have achieved a 100 percent adoption of conserva-
tion tillage on cropland in place of other measures, an even greater reduction in sediment loadings would have
resulted, with an average cost effectiveness of $30,000 per one-percent reduction.
In the Illinois project, conservation tillage was emphasized from the beginning, but some structural measures were
also contracted to further reduce erosion. With the BMPs as contracted, the project will reduce fine partical sedi-
ment entering Highland Silver Lake by some 13 percent over what would exist without the project (assuming some
normal increase in conservation tillage) (see table 2). In contrast, the C/E analysis indicates that a project involving
only conservation tillage BMPs would reduce sediment loadings by 24 to 70 percent, depending upon the extent and
targeting of implementation, and make the project much more cost effective.
In both the Idaho and Illinois projects, incentives for conservation tillage could be doubled or tripled if necessary
to stimulate widespread farmer adoption and continued use of the practice, and still leave the practice more cost-ef-
fective from a water quality standpoint than putting money into structural BMPs.
In the Pennsylvania project, field level analysis of BMPs depicted conservation tillage, nutrient management, and
sod waterways as the most cost effective BMPs (see also table 3):
Cost-effectiveness
$ per ton $ per Ib. of
of soil saved N or P saved
Management BMPs Si to $6 $.22 to $.86
Sod waterways $1+ $29 to $.54
Systems including terraces $8 to $10 $ 2 to $4
Permanent vegetative cover $14 + $ 3 to $5
Again the analysis indicates that incentives for management practices could be increased if necessary to achieve
wider implementation, and still be more cost-effective than terraces and permanent cover.
2. Improved fertilizer and nutrient management appear to be very cost-effective means of reducing nutrient load-
ings and infiltration. The projects in Pennsylvania and South Dakota are two examples.
In the Pennsylvania project, free soil and animal waste testing are beginning to convince fanners that much less and
often no commercial fertilizer is needed in addition to the existing heavy applications of animal manure. Although the
144
-------
testing and technical assistance represent costs to the government, the measures appear to be making significant
reductions in both nutrient runoff and infiltration. In contrast, costly terraces, although reducing nutrient runoff,
were depicted by the CREAMS model as increasing nitrogen infiltration into groyndwater, a problem of concern.
The Pennsylvania project illustrates that the incentives need not be cash, but can instead entail free services such as
i echnical assistance, soil testing, and lending of machinery.
In the South Dakota project, preliminary modeling results indicate that getting farmers to apply fertilizer in two
smaller applications rather than a single large application and to inject or incorporate it into the soil each time would
substantially reduce runoff losses of nutrients and could be very cost-effective ways of reducing nutrient loadings to
he lakes (see table 4). In addition, the reduced loss of nutrients in runoff would reduce fertilizer requirements and
costs to meet crop needs and help offset the added cost of split application and injection. In contrast, fertilizer
nanagement involving only soil testing and following recommendations on fertilizer type and amount, but not includ-
ng split application and injection, was depicted by the model as much less effective in reducing nutrient loadings.
3. Achieving BMP implementation on the most critical acres contributing to nonpoint pollution appears sufficient-
y more effective in reducing pollutant loadings than less targeted programs that substantially higher incentives can
5e offered if necessary to induce farmer participation. In the Illinois project situation, the C/E analysis shows a highly
targeted implementaton of conservation tillage as being nearly twice as effective in reducing sediment loading to the
Highland Sliver Lake as the less targeted actual project (24 percent reduction compared with a 14 percent reduction).
This greater effectiveness would justify an increased cash incentive if necessary to induce farmer participation in the
targeted areas, up to double that offered under RCWP.
In the South Dakota Project, the modeling analysis shows a project targeted only to the highest priority areas con-
iributing the most to phosphorus loadings in the lakes would reduce the loadings by one third more than possible with
he area actually contracted. Again this greater effectiveness would justify higher incentives if necessary to induce the
priority areas into the program.
4. Improved municipal waste treatment may be more cost effective in reducing nutrient loadings to surface waters
:han structural agricultural BMPs, but both categories may be needed to achieve sufficient nutrient loading reduction
:o remove water use impairments and generate benefits. The St. Albans Bay Project in Vermont illustrates this (see
:able 5). Improved municipal waste treatment being installed there will reduce phosphorus loadings to the Bay by
about one-half compared with pre-project conditions, at an average cost effectiveness of $81,000 per one-percent
reduction. However, such reduction may not be enough to generate benefits which exceed costs. Completion of all
contracted agricultural BMPs (mostly animal waste storage and management), will reduce phosphorus loadings by an
additional 17 percent. Although the latter are less cost-effective, $106,000 per one-percent reduction in phosphorus
loading, they will likely improve the project's benefit/cost ratio.
Additional details on the economic analysis of the RCWP projects can be obtained by writing to me at 1301 New
York Avenue, N.W., Room 532, Washington, D.C. 20005)4788.
145
-------
Table 1. IDAHO ROCK CREEK PROJECT
PROJECT SIZE: 33,503 cropland acres
PROBLEM: Sediment in Rock Creek
BMPs: Improved Irrigation
Sediment Retention (basins, mini-basins, slots)
Filter Strips
Conservation Tillage
COST-EFFECTIVENESS: Effectiveness C/E
Government Cost (X Reduction ($/one X)
Scenario (S Millions) in Sediment) Reduction
RCWP as contracted on $1.9 13-24X $146,000
17,299 acres
RCWP + 10,000 acres of $2.1 45-56X $46,000
Conservation Tillage
Conservation Tillage only $1.8 60X $30,000
on all cropland
INSIGHTS:
1. Conservation tillage is feasible and effective on irrigated land.
2. Implementation of conservation tillage on 10,000 acres will greatly improve
effectiveness of the RCWP project.
3. Incentives for conservation tillage could be increased if necessary to induce
greater implementation, and still be more cost-effective than structural
measures.
146
-------
Table 2. ILLINOIS HIGHLAND SILVER LAKE PROJECT
PROJECT SIZE: 25,205 cropland acres
PROBLEM: Sediment & phosphorus in Highland Silver Lake
BMPs Conservation tillage
Fertilizer management
Structural measures (terraces, diversions, waterways)
Animal waste management
COST-EFFECTIVENESS: (based on AGNPS and LP models)
Scenario
Government cost
($000)
Effectiveness
(X Reduction
in Sediment)
C/E
($/one X
Reduction
RCWP As Contracted
Conservation Tillage $489
on 8000 acres
+ Structures $653
+ Animal waste $182
Total $1324
Conservation Tillage
11,000 to 25,000 acres $767-1614
13%
$38,000
IX
N/A
14X
653,000
N/A
95,000
24-70X
23,000-32,000
INSIGHTS:
1. Reducing erosion to T using structural practices is less cost effective from
sediment delivery standpoint than greater use of conservation tillage .
2. Incentives for conservation tillage could have been increased if necessary
to achieve greater implementation and targeting of the practice to critical
areas.
147
-------
Table 3. PENNSYLVANIA CONESTOGA HEADWATERS .PROJECT
Project Size: 110,000 acres (16,000 critical).
Problems: Nitrogen and bacteria in groundwater
Sediment and nutrients in surface water
High animal concentrations
BMFs: Animal waste storage
Animal waste management
Terraces
Fertilizer (nutrient) management
Insights:
1. Amount of animal waste applied often exceeds crop nutrient needs.
2. Excessive nutrient availability reduces benefits of manure storage
3. Terraces may increase nitrate infiltration and dissolved nutrients
in surface water.
4. Reducing erosion to T is not cost-effective water quality
management if high cost structural practices are needed.
5. Nutrient management involving soil and manure testing and applying only wha
crops need is very cost effective to the government even if it provides th
testing and technical assistance services free to the farmers.
148
-------
Table 4. SOUTH DAKOTA OAKWOOD POINSETT LAKESf PROJECT
PROJICT SIZE: 79,450 cropland acres
Foblam: Phosphours in Lakes
Nitrogen in groundwater
BMPs: Conservation Tillage
Fertilizer management
INSIGHTS: (Based on AGNPS model)
1. Project as contracted will reduce phosphorus loadings by 2-5X.
2. Fertilizer management as implemented (soil testing and following
recomendations) is having only minor impact.
3. Requiring split application and better incorporation of fertilizer could
reduce phosphorus loadings by up to one-third at fairly low cost.
149
-------
Table 5. VERMONT ST. ALBANS BAY. PROJECT
PROJECT SIZE: 33,344 acres (15,257 critical)
BMPs:
Phosphorus from farms (48%) and sewage treatment (52X) cause
eutrophic conditions in steams and St. Albans Bay
Manure storage and animal waste management
Cropland protection system
COST-EFFSCTIVSNESS
Government
Cost
(S Millions)
Effectiveness
(Z Reduction
Phosphorous
Loading1)
Cost Effectiveness
($ Per Percent
Reduction in
Phosphorous)
Source of
Phosphorous Reduction
Wastewater Treatment
RCWP BMPs
Total
$3.8
$1.8
$5.6
64
$ 81,000
$106,000
$ 87,000
•I/This estimate is based on an assumed 90X reduction in the point source contributior
of 52% to pre RCWP phosphorous loading.
*/This estimate is based on an assumed 352 reduction in agriculture's 482 contributior
to pre RCWP phosphorous loading.
INSIGHTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sewage treatment is more cost-effective than animal waste BMPs,
but both appear needed.
Farmers benefit from manure storage:
- Reduced labor
• Reduced purchase of commercial fertilizer
Farmers profit from implementing storage systems with 75X
government cost-share
Well informed farmers may participate at lower cost share rates:
- Earthen pit systems were profitable without cost-share
- Above ground systems were profitable above 60Z cost-share
150
-------
Working Session: Selecting and Developing BtyPs for Water Quality
improvements
Presenters: Paul Robillard, Dept. of Agricultural Engineering, Pennsylvania State University
Don Martin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Idaho Field Office, Boise, Idaho
Paui Robillard
Various areas must be considered when evaluating effectiveness of animal waste BMPs. These include source
management, flow segregation and control, flow retention and adsorption, flow detention and treatment, delivery
reduction, targeting and critical area treatment, and using monitoring data for design improvement.
Source areas for waste management include cropland, barnyards, manure spreading, milkhouse waste, silage
l:achate, and others. In this case, management considerations focused on changing the drainage characteristics of the
farmstead, assuming total control of the water. Usually ail the animal waste problems were considered separately,
which tended to underestimate effectiveness of the practices in controlling the problems.
To evaluate the significance level of BMP effectiveness, with respect to loading, they used pre- and post- monitor-
ing to determine the mass load changes. They could have done upstream-downstream studies as well. They also tried
to incorporate their data into some modeling that was ongobg at the time. But the model was insensitive to certain
data.
The success level of the practices was due to the hgih cost sharing rate and admitted problems. Initial approach
was the traditional one-on-one, which was crucial to the success.
There has been no monitoring since implementation. The Wisconsin Feedlot Runoff Model was examined for
potential use here. They learned that monitoring is necessary to describe to the modeler what is going on.
Don Martin
Monitoring the condition of instream beneficial uses to determine the effectiveness of BMP implementation has
sometimes been referred to as off-site evaluation. Off-site benefits are referred to by sociologists and economists as
those benefits accrued .from the implementation of a land treatment practice at a certain upland location to abate
c rosion and provide NFS pollution con troL The off-site benefit is defined as that benefit to the stream for water
quality improvement or enhancement of beneficial uses.
In a watershed, such as that of the Rock Creek Rural Clean Water project, there are as many as 365 active farm
units. Many of these farms are implementing different practices to abate the erosion problems with some under
(RCWP) contract and some not under contract.
To determine off-site benefits of those land treatments, where should one look? Do you look instream in Rock
Creek in the headwaters? Do you look in the waters in the middle of the watershed or at the mouth of the stream
where it enters the mainstem Snake River? Or do you look for off-site bene fits in the Snake River? The determina-
tion of what and where to measure off-site benefits often eludes those trying to answer these questions.
We tend to use surrogate measures to identify water quality problems and to illustrate changes resulting from
water pollution abatement efforts. Historically, we have measured water chemistry to determine problems and il-
lustrate changes. The irony is that often we implement land treatment projects to achieve water quality goals and end
up monitoring water quality for water quality's sake. This has not proven to be a cost-effective method in demonstrat-
ing that we are getting closer to achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act, that is - fishable and swimmable. There is
i. need to do monitoring for water quality, but not just for water quality's sake. We need to determine the condition of
the beneficial uses, that is, the salmonid spawning, cold water biota, warm water biota, primary and secondary contact
recreation.
151
-------
Some researchers and implementing agencies are now incorporating aspects of monitoring beneficial use condition
other than water column chemistry. Other fish habitat components currently being measured are such things as,
stream substrate quality, rearing habitat quality, pool quality, pool-riffle ratios, temperature regimes or riparian
habitat quality. Fish populations are also being evaluated in a qualitative and quantitative manner, as weU as benthic
and macroinvertebrate populations.
Both of these biological components can provide indices of diversity and biomass, which are measures of the
stream's ability to maintain a healthier aquatic environment for the production of fish populations. Also, these physi-
cal habitat and biological population measures should be integrated with monitoring water column chemistry. These
and other habitat components of the aquatic ecosystem act as instream integrators of the results of land use. They
should be measured utilizing a watershed approach. Such an approach can give you information as to the condition
of the beneficial uses and what aspects may be in an impaired or sensitive condition.
Monitoring the existing conditions of beneficial uses can also be used to determine the stream's potential capability
to produce fish and recreation al opportunities. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed habitat evaluation
procedures (HEP) as well as habitat suitability indices (HSI), which can be used in the area of predictive modeling to
determine what optimal or minimal conditions should be to maintain populations of fish and wildlife. The U. S.
Department of Agriculture-Forest Service has also developed modeling (FISHED) capabilities to determine sedi-
ment generation and routing from non point source activities, as well as the sediment's impact on difference life stages
of anadromous fish (salmon, steelhead trout). These models give us the tools to project what potential capability is of
the aquatic environment, as well as benchmarks from which to determine beneficial use condition.
Methods to determine the economic value of fisheries are available and these have been developed by the U.S.
Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Idaho Fish and Game Department. These models can help
deter mine the economic value of increased fishing and recreational opportunities, the enhanced condition of the
beneficial use, as a result of land treatment (BMP implementation).
Integration of other measures of beneficial use conditions into a moni toring strategy can be useful in showing tan-
gible benefits from BMP implementation. Historically, water quality reports (assessments and models) have rarely
made the connection between changes in water quality (existing and/or predicted) with changes in beneficial use con-
ditions. An evaluation of bene ficial use conditions early on in a project (as in baseline information) can help focus on
what habitat component (physical, chemical and biological) should be monitored and when, and/or where BMP im-
plementation needs to occur, or what specialized site-specific BMPs may be necessary.
Another advantage of measuring beneficial use condition is that it is consistent with focusing on the goals of the
Clean Water Act, to support fishable and swimmablc waters. Also, it can provide the opportunity for the layman,
legislators, politicians, and children to develop an understanding of the benefits of water quality protection and enhan-
cement.- This approach is easily incorporated into constituency building efforts because it provides the lay public with
tangible, hands-on products. These products can be understood and appreciated more readily than parts per million
(ppm), dissolved oxygen or nutrients.
Discussion of this presentation and session were focused on the follow ing items:
Would those in the audience have the opportunity to use this approach in their own situations and projects?
What kind of response do you think they would get?
If they were to apply an approach like this would they receive the necessary support from management and the
public, from sportsmen, from politicians?
Did they think their agencies could use this sort of information in the build ing a strong education program that
would focus on constituency building due to an enhancement of fishing and recreational opportunities.
Other major issues discussed in this session were the effectiveness of BMPs, and how to measure the level of effec-
tiveness, and improve upon this level of effectiveness.
1. Education is the key. Educate farmers, show them what will work, and benefit fanners' production.
152
-------
2. How could we increase the level of conservation tillage implementation in those furrow irrigation areas? Sugges-
tions included changing the irrigation system to sprinkler irrigation, using different crops with different residue levels,
tailoring to the individual operator. (The pandhandle in Nebraska has similar problems and crops.)
3. Other types of monitoring that can be used to evaluate BMPs include sensory and qualitative. Wisconsin uses
t bis sort of monitoring.
4. How critical are the critical areas?
Often you don't see changes in the load/concentration that you hoped to see over the project life. Monitoring
could guide to watersheds/subwatersheds with the highest loads.
But monitoring has to be considered carefully, positionally and temporally.
Targeting could be used to get the most for the effort. Would provide an easy first cut. Otherwise, extensive
monitoring would be required.
Beneficial use enhancement will focus better on critical areas and fall in line with the Water Quality Act.
Additional Comments:
Paul Robillard
We need to integrate water quality monitoring into the selection and design of practices early in the project.
The selection of practices and BMP systems will changes as the project assumulates monitoring data and ex-
perience with BMP implementation.
Use on farm and small tributary monitoring to evaluate effectiveness of BMPs. Learn from this information and try
13 make improvements in practices selection and design.
In trying to achieve water quality objectives which agree with the production goals of farm operators, changes in
the BMP selection and design process are common. We need to document these changes and improvements.
Don Martin
NFS abatement/monitoring projects need to focus on what the impacts are to beneficial uses such as drinking
v/ater, fisheries, recreation to be most effective.
The integration of monitoring other parameters such as fish populations, stream bottom substrate, riparian habitat,
benthic macroinvertebrates, etc., in addition to water chemistry can be useful in showing tangible benefits to the
beneficial use from BMP implementation. This can also be useful in illustrating the need for site-specific BMPs or a
system of BMPs.
153
-------
Panel Session: Transferring RCWP Information to ?19 Programs
Carl WHhelm, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency »
Gathering, Managing and Using Nonpoint Source Data in Ohio
Bight diverse and widespread land use activities, ranging from agriculture to
mining to construction, generate nonpoint source pollution. Bach of these
land uses is studied by different agencies and professionals, each using
different types and amounts of qualitative and quantitative data, in Ohio,
the Division of Environmental Planning and Management (DEP&H) of the State's
Environmental Protection Agency centralizes, manages and uses nonpoint source
pollution data to protect and improve surface and ground water resources.
For the Ohio Nonpoint source Assessment, mandated by section 319 of the 1987
Clean Water Act, DEPiM collected 269 responses to a multi-page survey covering
nonpoint source pollution impacts on surface water, public lakes greater than
twenty acres and ground water resources. DBP&M received responses from most
of Ohio's eighty-eight county health departments, soil and water conservation
districts and USDA soil conservation service offices, areawide planning
agencies, many municipal governments, some townships and several universities
and state program offices. The Division computerized this enormous amount of
data received to produce the analyses which resulted in the Assessment
document.
Because Ohio EPA is the State pollution control agency, its own water quality
data was utilized in the Assessment. Since the Agency has been involved in
watershed-level water quality management plans and nonpoint source
education/demonstration projects beginning early 1978 (programs very similar
to RCWP projects), nonpoint source files are extensive. Each of these
projects generate data covering agricultural practices, water quality, land
use activities and many other topics for local areas. Besides these local
projects, the Agency gathered extensive nonpoint source data for the state of
Ohio Phosphorus Reduction Strategy for Lake Erie (1985). The Agency's history
in nonpoint source pollution control and associated data management predates
the currently anticipated 319 program, and the Division was able to rely on
experience gained throughout that history while compiling the Ohio Nonpoint
Source Assessment.
154
-------
To manage the large amounts of diverse nonpoint source data collected for the
Assessment and other nonpoint source projects, the technical staff included
multi-disciplinary environmental planners. These scientists, planners and
engineers use Ohio EPA's geographic information system, PEMSO (Planning and
Engineering Data Management System for Ohio) for data management and nonpoint
source modeling and water quality assessment. PEMSO has the capability to
link land use and potential land use activities to surface water quality at
both a statewide and local scale through its comprehensive (and newly updated
to include first order streams) River Mile Index (RMI). The RMI includes most
natural and people-built river attributes including bridges, pipe outfalls,
gradients, tenth mile points located by latitude/longitude, monitoring
stations, water quality segment boundaries, etc. To use PEMSO, the Agency
relies hourly on its digitized data outputs through a third generation Calcomp
plotter. Agency staff also access Ohio EPA's mini-computer and the State's
mainframe computer system for data management and manipulation, and also
utilize smaller, personal-computer systems to store and evaluate smaller data
sets on DBASE-III, LOTUS and SAS software packages.
The Division soon will begin its first annual Assessment update, utilizing
newly acquired data and reevaluated data gathered for the original
Assessment. The Division uses experience and data gathered from the 319
Assessment, as well as other programs, to define goals and strategies of
ongoing and future State Water Quality Management planning and watershed
profiles. Areawide planning commissions (six major areas) work in a
complementary, and sometimes even support capacity, to Ohio EPA nonpoint
source programs. As a non-regulatory part of the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency, the .Division of Environmental Planning and Management
promotes control of nonpoint source pollution through extensive water quality
evaluations and assessment, biological eco-region analyses, data management
and geographic information system modeling which are all utilized in the 319
Assessment, the Phosphorus Reduction Strategy and ongoing watershed-level and
statewide water quality management planning.
155
-------
Results from the 1988 RCWP Workshop Questionnaire
Compiled by Kenneth Adler
Extension Specialist
Water Quality Group
NC State University
Raleigh, NC 27713
Introduction
Participants of the 1988 RCWP Workshop were provided with a questionnaire with which to evaluate the workshop
sessions and to elicit suggestions for future workshop topics. Approximately 40% of the participants responded--
tnany with extensive written comments. Results from the questionnaire are presented in the next sections.
How Well Did the Workshop Address Its Topics?
Workshop participants were asked to rate how well the workshop addressed the following topics. Results were
divided according to job responsibilities: Technical/Field Level, Research, Information and Education, and
Management/Administration.
How well did the workshop address the following
topics?
a. Nutrient Management
b. Pesticide Management
c. Transferring RCWP Information to 319 Programs
d. Groundwater Monitoring Techniques
e. Non-Parametric and Parametric Trend Analysis
f. Relating Water Quality Data to Land Treatment
g. Targeting Critical Water Quality Areas
h. Cost-Effectiveness of BMP Implementation
i. Selecting and Developing BMPs for WQ Improvement
Average Score bv Profession
Info. Tech./ Mgmnt/ Average
& Ed. Field Level Adm. Research Score
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
4
4
3
4
2
4
3
3
2
4
4
3
3
3
3
Observations:
o Scores are fairly consistent across professions.
o "Groundwater Monitoring Techniques" (topic d) and "Non-Parametric and Parametric Trend Analysis"
(topic e) received the highest average score of 4 points, out of possible 5 points.
o Transferring RCWP Information to 319 Programs" (topic c) received the lowest average score (2 points).
156
-------
Topics for Future NFS Workshops f.
Workshop participants were asked to rate the importance of the following topics for future NPS management
v/orkshops. Results were divided according to job responsibilities: Technical/Field Level, Research, Information and
Education, and Management/Administration.
Average Score bv Profession
Please rate the importance of the following Info. Tech./ Mgmnt/ Average
opics for future NPS management workshops: & Ed. Fid Lvl Aden. Research Score
.1. Nutrient Management 5 5 44 4
ix Pesticide Management 5 5 44 4
<:. Transferring RCWP Information to 319 Programs 44 43 4
<1. Groundwater Monitoring Techniques 34 44 4
<:. Non-Parametric and Parametric Trend Analysis 34 44 3
:'. Relating Water Quality Data to Land Treatment 54 4 5 5
g. Targeting Critical Water Quality Areas 44 43 4
li. Cost-Effectiveness of BMP Implementation 54 43 4
i. Selecting and Developing BMPs for WQ Improvement 44 44 4
j. Field Trip to Local NPS Projects 44 44 4
Ic. State and Local Administration of NPS Projects 33 44 4
1. Models for Assessing NPS Loads 44 44 4
in. Models for Assessing NPS Impacts of WQ 44 44 4
it. Surface Water Monitoring Requirements 34 34 3
o. Monitoring Land Treatment Requirements 44 44 4
Observations:
o "Relating Water Quality Data to Land Treatment" (topic f) received the only 5 point score in the average
score column.
o "Non-Parametric and Parametric Trend Analysis" (topic e) and "Surface Water Monitoring Requirements"
(topic n) received the lowest average scores (3 points).
a Except for the three topics mentioned above, the remaining topics all scored an average of 4 points.
o All four professions generally agreed within one point on the relative importance of the different topics. The
one exception, "Cost-Effectiveness of BMP Implementation" (topic h), ranged in score from 3 points according
to researchers to 5 points according to information and education specialists.
Participants were also asked to list their suggestions for additional workshop topics. These suggestions are reported
below by subject:
Extracting Results from RCWP Projects
o Integrating federal (EPA) initiatives (i.e., NPS coordinators, plans, programs) into RCWP successes;
delineating on paper what RCWP projects were successful; more specific handouts/program summaries to
supply to all workshop attenders focusing on priority areas as previously identified for the conference.
o Let's have input from successful projects that may or may not be RCWP. For example, PL-566; ASCS special
projects; county programs; regulatory methodologies.
o We need more information out on how land treatment practices (resource management systems) affect WQ
and NPS problem areas.
o Difference between needs in every project vs. what is being done in RCWP as demonstration of NPS
management; Specific assistance on RCWP experience (may be too soon to do).
o Focus next workshop on RCWP results. Ideas for low-cost BMP implementation; Pesticide, nutrient, bacteria.
157
-------
soil reduction strategies. '
o Tie-in 319 with lessons learned from RCWP. How about a session on Consensus of RCWP project folks'
opinion on fiiture directions of new NPS projects, i.e., RCWP group recommends what for 319 or new round
of RCWP, etc.
o Have more techniques and results discussed by RCWP project leaders.
Interagency Coordination
o Interaction techniques for working with funding agencies and state and local and federal legislators.
o Interagency cooperation—How to make it work.
Funding
o Obtaining continued funding for continuation of data collection.
o Funding-Innovative ways to fund projects. 319 projects will depend on this in many states.
Modeling
o Effective modeling to determine water quality pollutants and loading. Effective models to evaluate BMPs.
o Description of current state-of-art or current knowledge of pesticide fate and transport in surface water and
ground water systems.
o More modeling as a process for BMP evaluation prior to and after program establishment.
Working with Growers
o Techniques in getting landowner acceptance (cost sharing, education approach taken on contacts, etc.) design
and use of cost share programs.
o Education methodology manner of target audience motivation. Unique ways to get NPS BMPs, importance
of, etc, to the land users causing NPS.
o Sociological factors to consider in water quality programs. Economics of water use.
Monitoring
o Local project monitoring needs (problem identification; BMP effects; monitoring project success).
o Monitoring vadose zone (unsaturated) and soil profile.
o Analysis of aquatic habitat parameters (physical/biological) other than water column chemistry, topics such
as riparian, stream substrate fish population.
Land Treatment/BMP Information
o QA/QC of land treatment data—it is required of water quality monitoring. Aquatic habitat parameters.
o Development of projects is important but MAINTENANCE of improved practices once a project ends is
158
-------
still an unanswered question-how can efforts be continued-who should provide support for "maintenance"-
-how will they be funded?
5
o Since serious "system delivery and other management concerns are limiting the success of the program, it
seems there should be management-oriented topics addressed.
o Wind drift control including wind erosion control.
o Deep percolation control practices (leaching).
o Evapotranspiration control practices.
o Effectiveness of BMP in protecting beneficial uses.
ci Pesticide management still an idea—has anyone developed a "successful1' plan for NFS control. Nutrient
management ditto, although the tools seem to be available.
o Runoff control practices.
ci Need to show variability and demonstrate the need for site specific values of animal waste as it is applied to
the land.
o Some methodology for reporting land treatment to coordinate with water quality. Discussion of the need to
have farmers use and maintain the system put in place.
o Land use as it pertains to high density livestock and urban nonpoint problems.
o Scientists/Researchers in nutrient transformations; use of air quality monitoring for airborne agricultural
chemicals.
Health Effects
c Identifying and quantifying urban-rural fringe effects on surface and ground water quality. Risk assessment,
re: health associated with levels of pesticide contamination of waters. Taking a stand against further
development-contamination of valuable aquifers used for drinking water?
Suggestions for Workshop Format
c I would like a workshop involving all active RCWPs involved with work at the field level, including BMP
implementation, concerns, problems, etc.
c I would like to see some landowner (fanners) response.
c SCS and ASCS participation on leading some of these sessions.
o We need to get the input of farmers and others who received help as to what they perceive the benefits are.
They could probably give us suggestions on how we can better implement BMP programs.
o Discuss each RCWP briefly stating key points, BMPs, etc.
o Have more presentations from the local RCWP staffs that deal with and implement the technical BMPs.
o Farmer speakers, especially non-cooperators.
o Speakers should try to emphasize economic benefits of BMPs and cost effectiveness of BMP implication.
159
-------
• I
You need a panel of fanners to feed back their experiences in RCWP. Then, a panel of environmental
activists to liven up dungs. We always agree with our own kind! '
f
•t
Need some input from field-level people to detail problems and successes with monitoring procedures,
practice planning and application, and economic analysis.
More SCS/ASCS folks, operators, industry representatives.
Separation of technical/ w.q. monitoring and analysis focus from state and federal perspective, i.e., 3 days
of sharing experiences, insights, ad approaches just among the RCWP projects.' Separate into Resource Type
or Monitoring Approach sessions.
160
-------
NFS Project Priorities Over the Nest Four ¥ears
f
Each participant was asked to list and discuss their top three NFS priorities for the next four years. RCWP personnel
were asked to discuss their priorities in the context of their RCWP project and their responses are listed separably.
i
Top Three NFS Priorities for RCWP Project Personnel
:L. A. Complete BMP implementation.
B. Collect data for final results.
C. Educate the public
?.. A. Continue monitoring long-term effects of BMP implementation in SW and GW quality.
B. Expand monitoring the occurrence of pesticides in SW and GW systems.
C. Initiate research into fate and transport of pesticides (Thiazines) in SW and GW systems.
3. A. Transport (modeling unsaturated and saturated zones).
4. A. WQ/land treatment data analyses and relationship.
B. Illustration of RCWP results as identified by changes in beneficial use condition.
C. Need for a year of evaluation of data after the CM&E projects end (it presently appears that data will be
collected till the end) then there may not be enough time/resources to do a thorough analysis.
D. Quality assurance of land treatment data.
';>. A. Application of practices to minimize nutrient contamination.
B. Economics of BMP-waste utilization.
C. Education of field people and fertilizer dealers of our results.
6. A. Relationship between conservation tillage and ground water quality, due to excess uses of pesticides and
fertilizers.
B. Information and education sessions with farmers on the use of conservation tillage, nutrient and pesticide
management.
C. Complete the remaining BMPs that were delayed due to the farm economy.
'1. A. Evaluate BMP efficacy.
B. Develop a forecasting NFS transport model.
C. Complete basin database development.
8. A. Developing cost-effectiveness data and assessment of BMPs used in our project.
B. See that the participants (farmers) continue to use and maintain their practice.
C. Develop ways to use what we have learned in our project in other watersheds in my area.
9 A. Urban stormwater permit planning assistance to localities.
B. Responding to state "critical area" management legislation.
C. Controlling suburbanization NFS in RCWP area.
:10A. Nutrient control.
B. Bacteria control.
C. Evaluation of BMP effectiveness toward WQ.
11 A. Nutrient Management.
B. Land Treatment.
C. Evaluation Methods and Modeling.
12A. Completing monitoring and data evaluation.
B. Tech transfer of lessons learned.
C. Using info from RCWP for establishing and conducting future NPS water quality improvement projects.
161
-------
13A. Technology transfer.
B. How does a specific BMP or combination of BMPs affect ground water ana surface water?
f
r
14A. Quantitatively relating land use changes (BMPs) to water quality.
B. Validity of statistical work we are doing.
C. What type of final monitoring report will be expected.
i
ISA. Relate water quality/land treatment data.
B. Additional field experiments and data analyses.
C. More write-up of results for "Popular" outlets.
D.More depth on pesticides.
E. More depth on biological monitoring and results.
16A. Generalized results from all projects.
B. Future strategies for RCWP and Section 319.
C. Land use/water quality relationships.
17A. Developing expertise to relate w.q. data to land use treatment.
B. Continued(?) support from state and local ag. agencies.
C. Sharing insights and experience from NWQEP and other RCWPs to accomplish A.
ISA. Develop and implement SCS field office tech. guide recommendations to address WQ.
B. Effect and disseminate list of GW monitoring devices used for sampling vadose zone and techniques for
analyzing soil samples.
19A. Evaluate all RCWP data collected to date.
B. Begin pesticide intensive studies (w/nat. cont.) SW & GR.
C. Look at mechanisms of transport to GW.
D.Get information out.
20A. Nutrient management.
B. Limiting livestock access to surface waters.
C. Transfer information first among ourselves then with farmers.
21 A. More specific mechanisms for using lessons learned from RCWP in other NFS work.
22A. Effectiveness of BMPs on water quality parameters.
B. Identification of sources of water quality problems.
C. Ways to convince landowners of need for BMPs.
23A. Well construction.
B. Movement of pesticides/herbicides through vadose zone.
24A. Irrigation water management and the technical practices that go with that.
B. Fertilizer and pesticide management.
C. Concentrate on implementing more technical BMPs and providing more success stories.
D. More information and education to landowners on the importance of water quality.
25A. Streambank management—stabilize and protect streambanks from overgrazing by livestock.
B. Nutrient management—animal waste storage and application to cropland.
C. Erosion control.
26A. Showing BMP/water quality management link (RCWP).
B. Development/assessment of BMP/water quality interaction database (Ag. and Urban) to identify appropriate
controls of NPS runoff (general).
C. Development/assessment/application of'models' to include watersheds with different land uses to develop 'best
mix* (cost and water quality) of BMPs to apply in a watershed. These models must be exclusively 'low tech,'
and not to be used for absolute answers but for 1) watershed comparison/assessment and 2) for 'planning
162
-------
1
purposes' (first or second cut, selection of watersheds and BMPs in a watershed to get 'biggest bang for the
buck1).
a
27 A. How to draw in public support and fanner participation.
B. What is realistic nutrient eduction for dairies.
C. Innovative BMPs.
D. Benefits for participant farmers.
28A. Farm-scale nutrient management—manure and fertilizer.
B. Evaluating and analyzing data or changes in practices, etc.
C. Packaging the nutrient management approach for education program beyond watershed.
29 A. Nutrient management plans.
B.IPM
C. Education
30A. Control of leaching of pollutants to groundwater under irrigated cropland.
B. Control of runoff of sediments (sands) that cover the gravel bed of the stream.
C. Utilize the application of nutrients and pesticides only to the extent needed to produce optimum crop yields
(including looking to other options for providing nutrients and to control pests).
D. Control of sources not funded by RCWP.
E. Livestock waste (considered point source).
F. Roadside erosion (public property).
G. Urban waste treatment.
H. Rural septic systems.
31 A. Nutrient management.
B. Pesticide management.
C. Ag. waste systems.
32A. Top priority is completing land treatment contracts.
B. 2nd and 3rd doing a reasonable job of gathering additional data before administrators give up on it.
33A. NFS guidance re: RMS selection and application.
B. NFS M&E, Tech. transfer.
C. 319 Management Program.
D.WQ criteria useful for NPS.
34A. Transferring MIP and RCWP information to 319 programs.
B. Develop an information and education program for pesticide management.
C. Develop BMPs that address both ground water and surface water.
163
-------
Top Three Priorities for Non-RCWP Personnel Over the Next Four Years ^
;
1. A. Priority of watershed assessment.
B. Priority of treating critical areas.
C. Development of specific tools to address Section 319 requirements.
i
2. A. Implement state NPS control (local projects funded by state and 319).
B. Address water resource problems, attainable uses compared with BMP implementation.
3. A. More emphasis on setting up interagency teams, delegation of responsibilities. It may be that learning to work
together cooperatively will be the most important product of RCWP effort.
4. A. Delineating watersheds with wq impacts.
B. Targeting state site priorities.
C. Starting implementation hi high priority areas.
5. A, Information and education programs for ag. producers on pesticide contamination and minimization-production
of written and visual materials.
B. Working with Conservation Districts on the application of BMP and keeping them and other agency cooperators
up to date on BMP and water quality research.
C. Should we be seeking more monitoring and S & E funding from private foundations, chemical companies, Jerry
Lewis type telethons, etc? Federal government is doing too little with respect to funding.
6. A. Reviewing NPS strategy.
B. Completing BMP specs for the states.
C. Planning NPS watershed projects.
7. A. Transfer of technology from RCWP projects to other activities.
B. Expanding RCWP principles to ongoing SCS activities.
C. Identification of geographic areas where WQ is of concern.
8. A. BMP effectiveness (WQ).
B. Targeting
C. Cost-effectiveness.
D. Funding
9. A. Infield material development.
B. Farm assessment system development.
C. Interagency cooperation.
10.A. Long Island Sound study implementation.
B. Lake Lillinogh, Connecticut phosphorus reduction.
C. Additional Connecticut state cost-share for ag. BMP implementation.
11 A. Need definite focus on information and education.
B. Assisting states to implement NPS management plans.
12.A. Nutrient and pesticide management.
B. implementation at field level for WQ--319 or RCWP.
C. Public information and awareness.
13A. Critical Area Projects.
B. State Assessment Review and Improvement.
C. CIS Updating.
14A. Estimating NPS nutrient loading.
B. Developing a monitoring program.
164
-------
C. Identification and implementation of BMPs. ,
*
15A. Education and public awareness of NFS. ',
B. Assessment/Enhancement.
C. Demonstration Projects.
16A. Improve adoption of N and irrigation management to reduce N leaching.
B. Initiate a project to quantify N loss in structured soil.
C. Evaluate how long BMPs must be in place before noticeable changes in groundwater NO3 are shown.
17A. Manure/nutrient management.
B. Conducting urban NFS education/awareness.
C. Demonstrating filter strip effectiveness.
ISA. Planning land treatment practices (systems) that will improve/maintain WQ.
B. Relating soils to appropriate NFS control systems.
C. Tech. transfer to field concerning NFS control systems.
D.Need much more info, on effects of all practices (mgmt., veg., and engr.), including systems of practices, on
WQ. Need also to know about conflicts installation of practices might pose to various WQ objectives.
19 A. 319 money and other money sources for NFS implementation.
B. The role of local Conservation Districts.
C. National info, campaigns, t.e., "we owe it to our children" by USDA.
21 A. Implementing nutrient management BMPs (manure management, estimating legume credits).
B. Implementing pesticide management BMPs.
2 LA. Develop technical guides for field office use in SCS.
B. Monitor a water quality and NFS problem area in the states.
C. Train SCS field office employees on pesticide, nutrient management and WQ standards and specifications.
ZlA. Better quantification and characterization of NFS loads from various sources so as to "target" control activities
and to develop control strategies.
23A. Educational strategies for the long-run (ultimately sound economic analysis must accompany other results if
fanners and politicians will endorse a new set of recommendations).
24A. Evaluating effectiveness of nutrient management.
B. Monitoring nutrients and pesticides - ground water.
C. Evaluating tradeoffs between surface and ground water BMPs.
165
-------
OTHER COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
o Need to get local management coordinators together to discuss lessons leaVaed and what should be shared
nationally.
o Implementing nutrient and pesticide BMPs will improve farm profitability and may or may not improve water
quality, especially groundwater quality.
o From the RCWP experience, should we do anything differently in identifying nonpoint source problems and
solutions? Is there any information from the monitoring data that indicates we made any mistakes in BMP
selection or implementation? Should we continue or change?
o Not sure we will ever be to show improvements to WQ from land treatment program over a short (< 10 yr)
period. Should discuss this.
o The success of an RCWP or other NFS effort is dependent on a team effort. A key to this success is the one-
on-one planning and application assistance with the landowners, including the design of the individual plans and
the implementation of these plans. A major shortcoming of this workshop was not having any SCS presentations
during the working sessions. We can talk all day about theory but that does not get anything applied to the land.
Communication among team members is important. This required all parties to take the effort to study and
understand the others jargon, mission, organizational structure, policy and procedures, etc. We cannot dictate to
each other or make assumptions in the dark. We must begin with the existing frameworks and structures. By first
really understanding this, we can jointly work together to develop a revised structure, policy, and/or procedures,
if needed, to reach common objectives
o I hear the loudest cry for "information" related to w.q. monitoring results and BMP effectiveness. I certainly
appreciate the difficulty of supplying this, but I wonder why projects were not better designed to be able to answer
this. Have the primary objectives changed since the RCWP creation? Is our research appropriate to answer these
questions?
o For maximum return from 319 or other funds, the lead agency must be designated in each state and must be
willing to work with other agencies including SCS, Extension and Research to develop plans and programs.
o There is too much emphasis placed on models without knowledge of physical processes or groundtruthing of the
models. There is no consensus on groundwater monitoring and too many workshops addressing this issue.
o Need to put more emphasis on land treatment practices (resource management systems) as they apply to WQ
and NFS problem areas.
o RCWP is done with monitoring now. Let's put effort on BMP application as more projects will have BMP
applications with little monitoring. Let's have technical cause-effect.
o The most limiting factor accomplishing RCWP objectives is establishing current pollutant loading. If this is done,
then pollutant loading targets can be determined, what and how the pollutants are delivered, i.e., leaching, runoff,
evapotranspiration, wind drift, excessive application of chemicals, etc. Then the practices can be selected that
address these delivery functions to the extent to reach the loading goals.
166
-------
Final Plenary Session: Review of Technical and Concurrent Working
Sessions •
^^^^^^^^^^ ^
Presenters: Jim Meek, Moderator
Jim Anderson, University of Minnesota
Pat Lietman, USGS Pennsylvania
Gary Bitter, South Florida Water Management District
Jack Clausen, University of Vermont
Alicia Lanier, National Water Quality Evaluation Project
Wayne Anderson, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Jim Meek
We've come to the end of this workshop and we have a panel that's going to give you their wrap-up on various
areas. We want to end this workshop by answering these questions:
What are the ongoing and emerging critical issues?
How did these [workshop] sessions help resolve these issues?
What should we do next?
You can appreciate the importance of those questions and I went back over my notes and came up with the follow-
ing list.
There's nutrient and pesticide management, of course.
We need to address surface and ground water together, not separately.
Water quality standards: How are we addressing those? That's what drives all of this.
Jargon: We continually run into the problems of jargon.
What's the impact of the drought on our data?
We're also hearing we don't need as much fertilizer, but how are we getting that message across and is there a
reluctance because of liability or inertia to make that point.
We've known about IPM for a long time, but I still don't get a sense that there is much of it going on.
How do we regulate? Do we do it like California [Mary Jensen's technical session]? Are we going to get regula-
tion in five years as some predicted?
Are we talking to the same people over and over again, or are we starting to reach another audience? How do we
change attitudes?
The support system for the disposal of agricultural chemical containers: one suggestion was if we put a $25 deposit
3n those they might not be found, like we did yesterday (field trip], out in the field.
Are state plans really looking at what the farmer needs, these are the state water quality management plans - the
NFS management programs, or are they looking at what the state has traditionally been doing? We need a better job
Df setting objectives. One suggestion was to help more in the monitoring to set up teams.
Contract compliance: are we following through on what the farmer is doing on the field?
The panel we have for this final session is Jim Anderson (University of Minnesota, Department of Soil Science, Ex-
:ension Service), Fat Lietman (U.S. Geological Survey and Conestoga Headwaters RCWP, Pennsylvania), Gary Rit-
167
-------
ter (South Florida Water Management District and Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough RCWP, Florida), Jack Clausen
(University of Vermont, Water Resources Research Center and St. Albans Bay R#WP, Vermont), Alicia Lanier
(North Carolina State University, Water Quality Group -- National Water Quality Evaluation Project), and Wayne
Anderson (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency).
Review of Nutrient Management
Jim Anderson
As I looked at the three questions that we were supposed to address this morning, I think that, going back to my
notes from the Monday sessions, I wouldn't necessarily call them [nutrient management issues] "emerging.'' But they
certainly would fall in the category of continuing or ongoing types of issues. I'm not going to be able to stand up here
this morning and give you a comprehensive list of those, but what I did try to do was sit back for a few moments and
pick out some from the discussions of the previous days and some of my own feelings that I think are significant to the
nutrient management area.
One of the observations I had is that there are producers out there selecting realistic yield goals. That is, some-
thing that they can really achieve and it's not something just based on the maximum potential productivity in that par-
ticular area but basing it on something that's achievable and also has a water quality, as it were, element built into it,
so that decisions can be made both on an environmental and an economic basis. That's something that I think we can
do a much better job of showing to our producers out there.
Admittedly, I think it is a proper criticism of some of the approaches in the past. I've seen our own Extension
people, myself among them, at sessions really saying from a N standpoint here again, you don't want to be caught
short on this particular nutrient so you kind of buy yourself an insurance policy. That's one of the pitches, "Don't be
short of this most major nutrient, make sure that you're going to get your return out." Well, we can do a much better
job of backing off on some of that, and that is going to be the educational aspect and it is something that we really
need to do.
From the management standpoint, if we're going to do a better job of determining rates and selecting yield goals
and understanding all the inputs that go in, in an overall nutrient balance for that particular fanning operation we
need some improvements in the equipment that we use to apply the materials, be they commercial fertilizers or
manure out of the storage pit. What I mean by that is that we've seen some developments along these lines, we need
to have equipment that will allow us to more closely tailor the amounts of nutrients that we are applying out there to
the particular soils at the point in the field where we're applying. And that those pieces of equipment give us the
flexibility to change that rate of application as we move across that field. There have been developments in various
places along these aspects and entering into the whole thing, of course, are the low applications that we talked about.
But there is a lot of room for improvement in terms of the application equipment that we need to put in place.
From an irrigation standpoint, certainly nutrient management is inextricably linked to the water management issue.
We can't really address one without the other. I challenge my agricultural engineering compatriots that we need to be
looking at irrigation systems that allow us more flexibility in terms of our nutrient management. And I know that from
the California perspective, and maybe some of the others, you've heard a lot about drip irrigation and that sort of
thing for certain crops. There is big room there to do some very good work in terms of water management and being
more efficient in that water management. Likewise, that will help us in the nutrient management end of it in terms of
limiting, certainly, leaching potential to ground water.
From a nitrogen assessment standpoint it is essential that we develop better soil sampling and analysis methodol-
ogy so that we have, in terms of nitrogen anyway, a soil test or some combination of tissue testing-soil testing that the
producer can use to zero in on what kinds of nitrogen he's got remaining in his profile after a cropping season and
going into the next one so that he can make that better rate [application rate] decision.
Last in terms of continuing issues, at least from my short list, if we're going to recommend changes, either in our
recommendations of rate or die way that we handle particular components of our nutrient inputs, I want to be sure
that our studies and demonstrations such as the ones that we carry on in these programs really are able to
demonstrate a defensible cause-effect relationship between those changes and the practice that we're promoting, I
168
-------
* 't
i hink that we've made a lot of assumptions and you had to make some assumptions Certainly going into some of these
programs and elsewhere of cause-effect types of things that were going to happen 4nd they obviously have not always
necessarily happened as we thought they would. In some cases yes but in some capes they haven't. We really need to
ITC able to understand those and defend those if we're going to take it out to the producer and tell him or her that they
should be changing some management practice.
As to the question of these sessions being useful and allowing any resolution of some of these, I'm not sure that we
totally resolved it. I guess what I saw, on Monday certainly, is that we can have an impact out there, make some chan-
ges if we communicate well with our cooperators and we work as & team out there in conjunction with industry, agen-
cy personnel, farmers themselves, that we provide those on farm demonstrations where we go out and actually put the
practices in place, and we allow the opportunity for adequate evaluation of those particular types of demonstrations
l>oth on an economic and a production profitability sense. I'm encouraged from that part because I think what we've
;,een examples that we can accomplish those types of objectives. I see most of these as continuing and ongoing and
we're going to have to be addressing them not only still this year but for some period into the future.
What to do next? I really want to work on the cause-effect relationship. I think that's absolutely essential certainly
from now into the future. That is that we do not rely on integration anymore as we did maybe going into some of
these projects but we need to really have that nailed down. That may mean in some cases stepping back and moving
back up into these watersheds, and I know that we've done some of that already also, but moving back a little bit and
being more specific b some lesser extensive locations to get a handle on some of that.
Review of Monitoring Design Working Session
Pat Leitman
From the monitoring perspective, I see the major ongoing critical issues as data and information sharing between
people and between projects, and application of the monitoring data to the recommendations of the BMPs. The
£ merging critical issues are integrated monitoring programs, monitoring of pesticides, and transferability of data.
This workshop is providing a forum for information transfer just by bringing so many people involved in NFS
programs together. We need to continue to communicate on a regular basis with each other. We also need to be
flexible in our response to the information that we're obtaining. As monitoring data become available they need to be
reflected in the implementation of the best management practices. An example of this might be in carbonate areas in
Pennsylvania where we've found through our research that nitrate concentrations have increased as a result of terrac-
ing. Nutrient management plans should be implemented simultaneously with terracing where terraces are recom-
r.iended as the best procedure to control soil erosion. We have much of this coordination within the RCWP but we
still need to take advantage of the non-RCWP programs that exist. These are often conducted by other fractions of
tie same agencies that are participating in the RCWP and their cooperators.
Jim Meek brought up the point of looking at surface water and ground water in a monitoring program since the
BMPs can have an influence on both of these water quality components. It appears that if we're going to be able to ef-
fectively evaluate water quality response to BMPs, we need to understand the principles of nutrient movement
tirough the hydrologic cycle. This repeatedly became apparent during the workshop discussions. We need to look
not only at surface water and ground water, and the supporting precipitation quantity and land use data, but also
precipitation quality, soils, and the unconsolidated zone. This additional data may allow us to begin to understand the
fate and transport of agricultural chemicals.
Although I've referred to nutrients because that's where our primary emphasis has been to this point, the pes-
ticides need to be given equal emphasis. Jack Clausen shows in one of his studies that 85-99% of the pesticides did
not go to runoff or to volatilization or to leaching through the soil profile, but these chemicals were chemically or
niicrobially degraded. So there also needs to be monitoring of the degradation products of the applied herbicides
which in some cases are more toxic than the parent compound.
When we begin to understand the fate and transport of agricultural chemicals, we'll be better able to make edu-
cated decisions on the proper sorts of successes of BMPs. And by better understanding of the systems we're dealing
with and by accumulation of large central databases, the question of transferability of monitoring data can be ad-
169
-------
dressed. Accumulating the information in databases such as described is a costly prospect, and probably beyond the
means of the RCWP since it's now established. So, in addition to future funding, w$ also need to go back to the issue
of coordination in monitoring efforts between and within agencies to produce a synergistic effect. Some examples of
this might be the U.S. Geological Survey's national thrust programs that are in existence now or starting this coming
year. Some herbicide initiative including fate and transport studies, and a national water quality assessment of surface
and ground water. These regional type studies provide baseline data over large areas. The studies are not intended
to look at the effects of BMPs but they can provide much needed information and databases on a broad spectrum.
This type of data used in combination with the detailed field and small watershed studies on water quality effects of
BMPs can drastically reduce the amount of data needed to determine the transferability of the RCWP monitoring
results to a large scale system. In closing, we need to continue what the experimental RCWP program has begun.
Through the RCWP we have established a strong base for future programs. Our task now is to find methods of collec-
tively progressing to protect our natural resources.
Review of Water Quality Data Analysis and Handling
Gary Bitter (as interpreted by Jean Spooner)
This session will summarize the issues of water quality data analysis and handling as addressed by the three
workshop sessions on Tuesday: nonparametric and parametric trend analysis techniques, relating water quality data
to land treatment: general and technical approaches.
What Are The Ongoing And Emerging Critical Issues?
Development of land treatment information has progresses nicely, and we have learned quite a bit from this
workshop on how to gather land treatment and water quality information. However, the integration of land treatment
and water quality data is not complete for documenting land treatment effectiveness. We need to see more interac-
tion between land treatment and water quality personnel. I remind myself of Jack and Jill who went up the hill, Jack
fell down because he didn't have his land treatment information booklet with him when he went out to collect his
bucket of water.
We are unsure at times if we have the correct land treatment techniques. For example, the situation in Florida is
such that we need to develop a better grasp for which BMPs are the best to use in the compliance programs we are
now in, based on information from RCWP. Can models help us with this? Can models be used as a means of predict-
ing BMP impacts on water quality? That is, can we identify some BMPs that may be more effective than others for im-
proving water quality BEFORE implementation begins?
We now have a lot of land treatment and water quality information. We now need to integrate this information. In
Jack Clausen's session we developed a list of the land treatment data required such as topography, soils data,
meteorologic variables, and land use data. We need to compare these with water quality data. I would like to see more
attempts to work with data and data analyses at the next workshop. This type of 'hands-on' interaction may help us
form processes that we can use for more effective evaluation of the data.
How Did These Sessions Help Resolve These Issues?
I feel that we are effectively ineffective at evaluating the data. We need to move on from program development to
actual evaluation of the data, i.e. using Kendall Seasonal Trend, t-tests, cumulative frequency distributions, regression
covariance, time series, etc. I would tike to have seen more examples of people trying these techniques, even if these
were only preliminary results. Then we could have opened up more issues for discussion.
In many sessions we examined the land treatment and how it improved the overall efficiency of the farm waste
management practices. However, the actual environmental impacts after implementation of BMPs needs to be inves-
tigated further, Le. downstream water quality evaluation to document effectiveness of BMPs.
What Should We Do Next?
Let's not become complacent. Water quality and land treatment people need to hold each others' hands and work
together in evaluating land treatment effects on water quality.
170
-------
For the next workshop, we should go into the steps'needed to manipulate the land treatment and water quality data
and plug them into statistical analyses. ;
We also need to look at the role of regulation and what it means to the landowners and to the state and local areas.
We need to develop some process models to evaluate land use practices.
Review of Pesticide Management
Jack Clausen (as interpreted by Jean Spooner)
The major focus of this summary is pesticide management, but my comments are also reflective of issues covered
during the entire workshop and general ovservations about the RCWP.
What Are The Ongoing And Emerging Critical Issues?
There are a number of research answers that are known that are not being transferred to the management
programs.
The RCWP projects are not helping each other with their ideas of management took, implementation, and water
quality information; we are working as individuals.
There is still much research needed, especially with pesticide transport through the ground water and the water in
the unsaturated zone of the soil.
An excellent reference book that should be obtained by individuals working on pesticide management is a publish-
ed U.S. EPA symposium:
Logan, TJ., JM. Davidson, J.L. Baker, M.R. Overcash (eds.). 1987. The Effect of Conservatioi^Tillage on Hround
Water Quality; Nitrates and Pesticides. Lewis Publishers, Inc. 121 South Main Street, P.O. Drawer 519, Chelsea,
Michigan 43118.
How Did The Workshop Sessions Help Resolve These Issues?
The sessions helped 'identify1 issues as we have done before and will probably do again. I don't know that the ses-
sions 'resolved* the issues.
New contacts were made with persons in other projects and programs. For example, Charles Crawford from the
USGS, who gave a tutorial on nonparametric trend analyses techniques, was one of the best statisticians and speakers
we have had at the RCWP workshops.
We realize that we need to work together on pesticide management, not continue to work as individuals.
We have not resolved the issues. During a session on developing a pesticide management program for NFS control,
I discussed the mechanisms and relative quantities of pesticide loss as a function of formulation, application techni-
c ues, timing, etc. At the end of this panel, Pat Leitman (Conestoga Headwaters RCWP, Pennsylvania) turned to me
and said 'Where you just ended is where we need to begin'. This is sadly true.
What Should We Do Next?
Most importantly, we should form formal working groups among the RCWP constituency to improve communica-
t on. This does not exist now. NWQEP, US. EPA, and the projects should be involved and working |ogether instead
c f as individual agencies or projects. This is NOT the standard interagency task force. It is for getting some people
together to work on the issues. A similar mechanism is used with great success by national professional societies to
communicate and to solve problems.
171
-------
We need to pair up RCWP projects working on similar issues to improve communication. We need to talk to neigh-
bors. We need to develop partners in RCWP. f
We need to continue the workshops.
We need to prepare for the end of RCWP. The end is near -1991 is not far away. I don't think we are prepared.
We need to, devote specific work time together to prepare for the end.
Follow-up questions to the speakers
Steve Dressing, U.S.EPA, asked what specific topics the work groups would address?
Answer: Data analysis, pesticide and nutrient management
Review of BMP Effectiveness
Alicia Lanier
Many of the workshop sessions either directly or indirectly covered some aspect of BMP effectiveness. Therefore,
my discussion is a general treatment of the topic, rather than an analysis of one specific session.
What arc the ongoing and emerging critical issues?
The critical issues in BMP effectiveness can be categorized into three major areas:
1. How do we determine which BMPs are effective at the watershed level?
2. How do we determine the level of effectiveness of these BMPs? and
3. What are the best mechanisms for gathering information on BMPs and disseminating results to appropriate
audiences?
How did these sessions help resolve these issues?
The intent of the workshop was not to compare different practices for their levels of water quality effectiveness, but
rather to address these critical issues and demonstrate the need for meaningful analysis and future use of the work
that has been done to date.
First of all, we learned through the workshop that water quality monitoring should be integrated into the selection
and design of practices early in the project. Most of the projects have shown or will show over the next few years that
the BMPs they selected were effective in controlling the water quality problem. However, some will show that the
BMPs were not as effective as expected at the watershed level.
Secondly, we had several good sessions on monitoring and data analysis. Monitoring and modeling are valuable
techniques that can be used to document BMP effectiveness quantitatively. These techniques provide a scientific basis
for evaluating BMPs. RCWP is one of the few places where such extensive monitoring networks are found, and in par-
ticular over such a long duration.
And finally, this workshop documented the need for information transfer to 319 coordinators, farmers, state agen-
cies, local agencies, and others, but specific mftp-hamsms were not defined nor are they sufficiently funded.
What should we do next?
We need to first decide what has been learned-make a concerted effort to pull this information together. Where
are the BMPs that worked? Why did they work? Can this scenario be repeated successfully?
172
-------
• "l
The next three years of the RCWP are the most crucial in understanding the effect of these BMPs on water quality.
Post-BMP information is just now coming in, along with much needed land treatment data. Monitoring and analysis
should be on-going. ',
Finally, we need to identify appropriate mechanisms such as an interagency information center at the national and
local levels. This center should be funded to gather and disseminate specific information for appropriate audiences
for future use.
Review of Garvin Brook Field Trip and Lessons for State NPS Control Program
Wayne Anderson
My intention this morning is to focus less on introspection on RCWP and its efforts and more to present some
motivation in terms of where are we going to go from here (RCWP experience).
There have been a lot of lessons coming out of RCWP: lessons for information education, for technical delivery,
tor monitoring evaluation, for project and program administration, and for cooperation. We need to begin to institu-
tionalize some of these lessons and that's what I want to talk about. My intention isn't to say what the lessons are or to
j.ay that what Minnesota is doing is what every state should be doing. Minnesota is ready to move on from RCWP.
We still have work to do in the Garvin Brook project and this has been a valuable program for us. I hope that by talk-
ing a little bit about what we're doing, each of you directly or indirectly involved in section 319 programs will go back
to your state, identify those lessons that you've learned out of this program, and begin to incorporate those lessons
into your 319 program so that NFS control will continue.
RCWP has influenced our 319 program. One of the first areas is technical assistance to local programs.
Throughout our effort in the state, partnership with that local unit of government is very important. I think that's one
of the first lessons. We're not going to be able to correct NPS problems from the state and federal level. I think we
knew that all along. I think RCWP has demonstrated that to us and it's a very important part of what we're doing in
Minnesota.
We have several tasks ongoing at the present time. We are developing BMP handbooks, collecting the existing in-
formation that we know about water quality practices. Maybe these things are really better management practices.
We've talked throughout this workshop that we're not sure we've got the best managements practices yet but we do
know something about what some of the better management practices are. We're starting to incorporate those into
handbooks. We're developing four handbooks in the state - agricultural, urban, forestry, and mining. I was glad to
tear that Paul Robillard (Penn. State University) is also doing work on this effort and through this workshop, he and I
h ave been able to get together and start to compare some notes about what we're doing. I think that's been a valuable
c utcome of these types of meetings.
In addition to that we're also involved in the development of models and assistance to projects that are gong to be
using models. We've put a lot of effort in the state into development of the AGNPS model, not because there aren't
ether models but at the time that we began to develop our NPS program we weren't sure that those models did every-
thing we needed. We had the capability in the state through ARS and the University of Minnesota to develop water-
shed delivery models and AGNPS is the model that we've delivered. The original model was a storm-based
watershed model. We are currently developing components for urban land uses, for lakes and watersheds, for ground
water components, an annualization of the model, and several other components. We have a good team of people
that is guiding the ARS and the University of Minnesota in developing those components. In addition to that we are
putting together the teams that can go out and assist those projects that are needing to use models.
One of the things that we can't forget as we develop these models, and we have yet to nail down, is how are we
going to distribute the models? What is going to be the maintenance program for them? As improvements are iden-
tified, as problems arise, how are we going to ensure that that maintenance occurs and then also training in use of the
models? Frankly, we've found that the interest in training is greater than what we've been able to provide so far and
that is something that we're going to have to address.
173
-------
I'll talk a just a little bit and touch on the area of assessment of impact on water because I think, while generally it
has been seen as a state responsibility in our state, we have a great opportunity to 4o it along with local units of govern-
ments. While we are doing an assessment and have completed an assessment of impacted waters for 319 using both .
monitored waters and evaluated waters using local resource managers, we also have at the current time an effort for (
comprehensive local water planning going on in the state and in each of those counties that is doing comprehensive
local water planning, part of the responsibility is also to assess their waters and to set goals for local waters. So we
have a unique opportunity in that there is are state, national and local efforts all going on at the same time, and we can
share information and what is being developed is helping each other.
One of two prongs that we're developing and that really learns the lessons from RCWP is a program for watershed
management that was recently established in the state. The term here has been an excellent one and one that has
helped us establish the program and set a philosophy for it - it's called the Clean Water Partnership. It's a program of
financial grants and technical assistance to local units of government for watershed NFS pollution control efforts. It
begins with as it says the watershed approach. It requires that we're looking at all of the land uses in the watershed,
both urban and rural, forestry, mining, whatever, to address whatever the problems of a specific body of water.
It begins by identifying that body of water. There are two phases to the process. First is really project development
which includes what I call the diagnostic study - taking some time to be sure we understand what are the problems of
that water body? What are the goals we're trying to achieve? Who are the players out there who are going to be par-
ticipating? What BMPs are available to correct the problems that are identified? There will be funding for a two to
three year effort to go through that project development phase and implementation won't be begin until that's com-
pleted. We aren't requiring that everybody go through this process to do project development. If that's been done
satisfactorily through some other program then a project can move right into implementation, but that second phase is
once we know where we're going then launch into the implementation.
There will be a responsibility for a local unit of government to sponsor these projects. We said that they need a cer-
tain amount of qualifications to be that local sponsor. They need certain authorities. They need the authority to raise
funding. There is going to be a matching requirement in this. There's got to be local commitment and ownership to
that project. We've said that 50% of the funding will have to come through that local unit of government. We heard
originally that that was going to be tough to do and so we softened that by allowing a certain amount of non-program,
other federal and state, dollars to be included in that local match, but what we have required is that at least 30% of
the dollars have to be locally derived to ensure there is that local ownership of the effort.
Monitoring will be included throughout the effort to evaluate are we reaching our goals? Have the goals that we
set been right? Are the BMPs the right ones? Do we have to get even better management practices than what we
have selected?
I think we're moving from RCWP which is an experimental program into, in our case in the Clean Water Partner-
ship, a demonstration program in the state. Our intent is not to create another municipal construction grant program
where everybody is going to wait out there until one of these comes along but instead to create demonstration
throughout the state in terms of the processes of how to go through, to show success in what can be done in correcting
NFS problems, to create some expertise at that local level, and hopefully from there that it can move on into locally
run programs. Without it we're just not going to get enough state and federal dollars to correct every problem that we
have in this state. We've got a lot of water. We've got a lot of watersheds that we've identified as having a NPS prob-
lem. We're going to have to pick out some priority ones and deal with those.
The other prong that we're going to do is dealing with statewide programs. We have identified the need to con-
tinue to work through those programs that focus on land use practices: programs for agricultural runoff and erosion,
programs for highway de-icing, for feedlot control, for on-site sewage systems. We've identified about ten different
areas. These exist throughout various state, federal and local agencies in the state of Minnesota. We've identified the
need to improve those and continue those efforts on a statewide basis. In many cases the lessons that have come out
of RCWP will be incorporated into those programs. I've identified some of what I think are some of the areas where
we're going to see an influence: feedlot manure management. We've had a feedlot program in this state since 1971, a
regulatory program and a cost- share technical assistance program. I think more emphasis is going to be placed not
just on the collection of that feedlot runoff manure but on doing a better job of getting those nutrients out in the field.
We kind of left that as an afterthought in the process. SCS has developed a plan. We kind of assume that the farmer
will take that and implement it I think more emphasis will go into the ultimate use of that manure and the nutrients
in it. Fertilizer and pesticide management • I think as these practices are developed the efforts will be increased in in-
corporating those into our state programs.
174
-------
The final area that I think we've learned lessons from is the area of coordination and cooperation. I talked about
'he partnership, really the entire program is going to be built on the theme of partnership. We're doing some things
;:hat are I think practical ways to get at the issue of coordination and cooperation.! We began the process of develop-
: ng Memoranda Of Understanding with various agencies in the state. We're very close to revising one that we've had
•with the Extension Service. We have one with our Department of Natural Resources. We'll be doing them with the
Department of Agriculture, with SCS and with various other agencies in the state to better identify the myriad goals
,ind to get people going on their jobs so that they're not looking at each other and wondering who's on first and
second.
Another area is interagency staff mobility. I talked about the developing of the best management practices hand-
book. We currently have an interpersonnel agreement with the SCS whereby we're leasing an engineer from them for
l wo years to develop the BMP handbooks in our shop. It's helping in terms of bringing in that expertise, getting a very
large task like this one done in a reasonable amount of time. It's also paying dividends in terms of bettering that un-
derstanding of between our agency and the SCS in the state. I'd encourage other states to look at this possibility.
Project coordination teams within the legislation for Clean Water Partnership and indeed overall in helping the
319 program we've developed a project coordination team made up of 17 various federal, state and local agencies and
other interest groups. This group is a sounding board in terms of developing rules. It is helping us in project selection
«md in evaluation of the programs that are occurring, and I think if we're not going to invite everybody on board then
we're going to be fighting them somewhere along the way. This project coordination team is inviting everyone to get
on board - be a part of driving this train and we've found this has been very successful.
We're using technical advisories in several efforts in the state. We're using it in the development of the models that
we're using. We've found that if people aren't part of the development they tend not to trust the product and they
tend to not want to use it. The best way is to get them involved in the development of your efforts. We're using techni-
cal advisories in the development of guidance for monitoring for practice selection, for how you put programs
together for administration, and I really think that these are practical approaches. We need to build the teams to talk
E.bout them. We heard that down at Garvin Brook. The project struggled in the early years. The people were trying
to find their roles. Finally, I think that things got desperate enough in that project that people began to ask the ques-
tion of what can we do together? That's what I heard said yesterday and I think that's a good lesson from that
project. When they began to look at what they could do together the project began to turn around, and they began to
make some real concrete advances and I think we can all learn some lessons from that.
Finally, I think that we're going to have to provide some technical assistance. I talked about that at the beginning.
We're creating some expertise in the state that can go out into projects that can help be SWAT teams to get things
going. We need that in the ares of monitoring, modeling, and some of these technical areas where we're finding that
t tie expertise may not be there at the beginning of the project. We're not going to have the resources to go in there
and always do it for them. We're going to instead have to find innovative ways to create teams that can help them set
up the processes, the approaches, provide the support for those projects that will exist.
175
-------
WINONA
COUNTY
MINNESOTA
THE
GARY IN BROOK
Rural Clean Water Project
Field Trip to Garvin Brook RCWF
Wednesday, September 1^,1988
176
-------
FIELD TRIP TO THE GARVIN BROOk RCWP
Wednesday, September i
-------
TOUR OF THE GARVIN BROOK RURAL CLEAN WATER PROJECT
f
•r
(A) Lewj.stgn^ .S_ijnkh_qle; Runoff from the city of Lewiston
runs across a field for about 3/8 mile into a series of five
sinkholes, where all of the water infiltrates through a thin
mantle of eroded soil and enters conduits to the underlying
aquifers.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) placed a
stainless steel suction lysimeter (soil moisture sampling
device) S 1/S feet into the sediment that eroded into the
first sinkhole receiving runoff water. The MPCA is
detecting two pesticides at relatively high levels in this
sinkhole; atrasine (up to 17 ppb) and metolachlor (up to 7
ppb). Soil moisture from this sinkhole also has high sodium
and chloride, especially in the winter (from road salt
runoff). Nitrate has been ranging from 1.7 to 8.6 mg/1.
Also showing up at -relatively high levels are cadmium (0.03
mg/1), nickel (1.96 mg/1), chromium (0.05 mg/1), iron (1.7
mg/1), and magnesium (0.4 mg/1).
RAchard Fischer Weed fc^. Feed Plot; This is a study by
Dr. George Rehm, Extension Soil Scientist and Dr. Jeff
Gunsolus, Extension Weed Scientist, University of Minnesota.
The study is investigating the affects of split nitrogen
applications and the use of liquid nitrogen as an herbicide
carrier on corn yield and Lasso weed control respectively.
(8) Rpbert_ a.nd .Gary Mue 11t? r _ U)a t e r Mo nit or i ng ; Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) monitoring equipment at the
Mcel le«- sit?? was installed in November 1987. The site 1*3-5
chosen fcr nionitor ing primarily because of the existence of
ground water perched on top of glacial till in a drainage?
area of the -farm enrolled in che RCWP for split application
of ritrcgen, pesticide management, and conservation' till 331?.
Thc us** of i we fype-; cf subr.urf cct? water ^amji;: : nc;
rer'i, -np prr-ss^re vacuum ly-si-neter artel t?'Q "SAT" u'at.?-
: er , '.-.-ill br? demcns* rated ut this site.
(C> L-ave _ _ n;jppr_ef:ht .IN.i.t.rpt;en__ ..Pic t:: Dr. Goc-rge Rekir.
Extc?nr, JOT Soil 5=. : pnt i --t of tr-.c Uni ve^s i t-/ uf Mi rmssc t-. :s
concise t: ng this study w'-iirh takes a look at various oi crags-
rates for corn frcm 0 tc S*»0 pounds per acre at -+O po..nd
increfments wfiile investigating previous crop and manure
application credits of N fcr the corn.
Four pressure vacuum lysimeters were placed by the MPf.A
in the University of Minnesota nitrogen plots. Spring
nitrate concentrations, in the soil water at a four foot
depth we're 3Q.9, 2^.2, and 1 .<> mg/1 in the plots with 2^0,
160, arid O Ibs N'ar.re. Cir\ eight foot deep lysirreter in the
160 Ib/acre plot had a spring nitrate concentration of 10
mg/1.
178
-------
(D) Dale Panqrac AQ Waste ManagementSystem; This system
was installed in 19B7 to provide waste storage for 55 dairy
cows, 15 heifers, and S3 young stock. The concrete bottom
earth pit provides one year storage and the waste is applied
to 35 acres of corn, supplying all of the nitrogen needed
for the crop.
(E) Limes tone Quar ry/Road Cut; This exposure of the Oneota
Limestone shows the verticle and horizontal fractures that
are typical of all of the limestone bedrock in the Karst
region. A thin layer of loess soil can be seen over the top
of the rock. The stone from this quarry is crushed and used
for rock surfacing on roads.
Clarence^Ressie Ao Waste System and Sinkhole: Barnyard
runoff used to run directly into this large sinkhole before
the installation of the Tibbits Tank in 1.986. The tank
holds one year of animal waste and barnyard runoff and the
waste is applied to 62 acres of cropland. Diversions also
keep excess water from washing across the barnyard and
divert water away from the sinkhole. The sinkhole is to be
cleaned out and a dike will be constructed around it to keep
all surface water runoff out of it.
(B) Par y1 Potter D&m; Runoff from the watershed above this
cam usec! to wash acres?, a portion of this trailer court
carrying rocky rubble, £.ncl debri-s with ;t. The dam wa^
installed in 198*f to control the dangerous, unsightly, gully
and provide a small amount of flood protection to the
residents of the trailer court.
f aimers._Commu ;->)_. ty . _f?a.r.k : This -oell kept park wi?l :c-ne'--
over R5,G90 visitors aach year ar.d is the pride of the
community. The stone arches, the rumble of the? traj-s,
babble of the brook, and the wooded hills provide 3
beautiful, tranquil, rural, -setting for the park. About a
mile upstream of the park, cool spring wafer comes out of
the hills and flows down stream toward the Mississippi Rivi?r
in the trout teeming waters of the Barvin Brook.
FAREWELL
We hopo you have enjoyed ycur visit with us here in
beautiful southeast Minnesota. Direct any questions or
comments that you may have to any of the members of the
local tour coord i nat i nt| committee listed herein. Hase a
safe trip home and come and visit us again.
179
-------
TOUR BOOKLET f
t
Mueller Site
Beginning in 1984, the emphasis of the Garvin Brook project shifted from surface
to ground'water. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (HPCA) began a post-BMP
implementation ground water monitoring project in the fall of 1987. The
objectives of this monitoring are to assess: 1) assess changes in soil and
shallow ground water nitrate and pesticide concentrations resulting from the
RCWP program, 2} assess pathways of nonpoint source pollutants found in the
major aquifer in the region {Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer), and 3) assess
long-term changes in water quality in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer that
may result from changes in land management. In order to meet these objectives,
sampling of water at several levels in the soil/geologic profile is necessary.
Water samples are collected with pressure-vacuum lysimeters, BATse, monitoring
wells, and domestic wells located in the unsaturated subsoil, perched ground
water above glacial till, and major limestone/Dolomite and sandstone aquifers
below the glacial deposits.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) monitoring equipment at the Mueller
site was installed in November of 1987. The site was chosen for monitoring
primarily because of the existence c* ground water perched on top of glacial
till in a drainage area of farms mosiiy enrolled in the RCWP Program for split
application of nitrogen, pesticide management, and conservation tillage.
The use of two types of subsurface water sampling equipment, the pressure vacuum
lysimeter and the BATo Water Sampler, will be demonstrated at this site. The
lysimeter, which is placed four feet into the soil at this site, is used to
collect soil moisture in either saturated or unsaturated conditions. This
lysimeter is constructed out of stainless steel to ensure that pesticides do not
adsorb to the inner sides of the sampler. It is being used at most sites in the
Garvin Brook area to determine downward movement of farm chemicals. Depending
on the soil type and rainfall conditions, this lysimeter will collect up to 600
ml of soil water in 4-6 hours, and up to 2 liters in a 24 hour period.
The BATo Water Sampler is used for sampling water in deeper sediments (> 10 ft.)
where it would be difficult to use a lysimeter. The BAT® at this site is placed
19 feet below the land surface and is used to sample perched ground water. This
water should be representative of water that has percolated through soil from
the Mueller farm and other nearby farms.
Water from the BATo and lysimeter is being analyzed quarterly for nitrate,
pesticides, chloride, sulfate, major metals, and other cations and anions.
Nitrate concentrations in the lysimeter have been around 1 mg/1, indicating that
very little nitrate is originating from the adjacent field. The cornfield
adjacent to the monitoring site was out of production in 1987. Water from the
19 ft. BATo has a nitrate concentration between 14 and 19 mg/1. This suggests
that water with "high" nitrate concentrations is percolating to the water table
in upgradient fields and then moving laterally in the subsurface above glacial
till confining units. It is possible that some of the nitrate found at 19 feet
could have originated from nitrogen applied to the adjacent cornfield in past
years. In other fields throughout the study area, lysimeter water (4 ft. depth)
has nitrate concentrations between 20 and 35 mg/1. No pesticides have beer.
detected in the BATs or lysimeters located in farm fields.
180
-------
IMPROVING NITROGEN "RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORN
S OUTHEAST MINNESOTA f
f
•t
George Rehm
Soil Science Department
University of Minnesota
Background;
Nitrogen management practices used in southeast Minnesota have
been examined very carefully in recent months because of the
widespread concern over the quality of the ground water. There
are several management practices that a farmer can use to assure
the most efficient use of nitrogen inputs into the soil system.
There is no question that selection of an adequate, but not
excessive, rate is the most important management decision.
Currently, there is no soil test procedure that will accurately
predict fertilizer nitrogen needs in southeast Minnesota.
Nitrogen recommendations used today are based on yield goal,
organic matter content of the soil, previous crop, and a history
of manure use. These recommendations are in need of refinement.
Therefore, this study was initiated in 1986 to define more
precisely the impact of a previous crop of alfalfa and manure
usage on fertilizer nitrogen requirements for com production.
Procedure;
This study started with the selection of three sites in 1986.
All had different histories. The Rupprecht site was in alfalfa
in 1985 and was chiseled in late fall. This site was also near
the dairy barn where rather heavy applications of manure are made
through the years.
Seven rates of nitrogen (0, 40, 80, 120, 160, 200, 240 Ib.
N/acre) have been applied each spring as urea (46-0-0) . This
nitrogen is incorporated following application. The treatments
are assigned to specific plots and are reapplied each year.
Recommended farming practices such as choice of plant population,
etc., are used each year. Grain yields are measured each fall.
Results;
Grain yields measured in 1986 and 1987 are summarized in the
following table.
181
-------
Influence of rate of fertilizer N on corn' grain yield at the
Rupprecht location. '
N Applied 1986 1987 Ave.
Ib./acre __-__--_ ib./acre --------
0 215 198 207
40 223 197 210
80 209 196 203
120 211 199 205
160 207 196 202
200 212 191 202
240 214 197 206
In both years, use of fertilizer N did not increase corn yield.
These data show that the soil in this field was capable of
supplying enough nitrogen for a 200 bu./acre corn crop each year.
It is important to emphasize that the Rupprecht location is not
typical of all soils in southeast Minnesota. Results from other
locations in this study with different cropping sequences and
manure usage show that approximately 160 Ib.N/acre each year are
needed to provide for the most profitable yield. Although 1988
has been a very dry year, visual observation indicated that 120
Ib.N/acre would probably be needed to attain optimum yield in
1988 at the Rupprecht location. Yields measured this fall will
determine if visual observations are correct.
The yield data collected from the Rupprecht location underscore
the importance of developing a soil test procedure to predict
fertilizer nitrogen needs rather than use "rules of thumb". We
hope that development of such a test can start soon.
182
-------
UINONf* COL/MTV EXTENSION SERVICE
RCWJC" DEMONS-TUITION f=*CT I V I TIES
SUMMER 1^QQ
1. Thr** nitrogen rat* plot* on three different farms looking at
replicated N rates from 0 to 240 IDS. Yield* will be checked and
nitrate/nitrogen residue* dovn to 5 ft. level in cooperation vith
University of NN Extension Soil Scientist.
2. Ten farmers cooperating in a study on at least 4 acres within a corn
field to compare regular N practices with taking a soil sample at corn
planting and applying M as a sidedress after soil analysis in cooperation
with University of HN Soil Scientist.
3. 30 farmers cooperating in a split N program on approximately 4500
acrits. Each farmer is advised on N rate, taking into account N credits
from manure application and previous crop. Each farmer is also
encouraged to use proper selection of pesticides and applied at proper
ratiia.
4. A one-year atudy at 5-week intervals looking at possible seasonal
variation in well water nitrate/nitrogen content on 12 wells selected
according to location, depth, age of well, construction of well. These
ait«s are also being used to cooperate with HN Pollution Control Agency
to teat for pesticides and other pollutants.
5. Continuation into the 6th year of a well-water study on 161 wells to
check nitrate/nitrogen levels for citizen awareness and understanding of
grovindwater concerns. The HN Dept. of Ag analyzes the samples at no cost
to i.he project.
(6. A weed and feed plot looking at results of 2SX N and Lasso herbicide
as compared to Lasso and water in cooperation with University of UN
Extension Agronomist and Soil Scientist.
7. A study to determine differences in corn hybrids with N accumulation,
the affect of tillage on N uptake, and the relationship of soil-water
depletion within the soil profile with N uptake, in cooperation with
University of MH Experiment Station Soil Scientist.
8. Early crop season insect scouting to monitor extent of any
infestation to help determine if insecticides are needed rather than
faraers automatically applying material, in cooperation with Area
Extension CPM Agent.
SPLIT N/SIDEDRESS PROGRAM
EARLY EARLY SIDEDRESS
ACRES H/A. TOTAL £/£ TOTAL «H SAVED
1984 3,323 176 583,578
1983 3,323 91 303,608 51 169,209 112,761 - 34f/A
1S86 4,400 86 378,400 39 259,600 149,600 - 34f/A
4,824 92 444,271 52 252,796 139,562 - 29#/A
<388 4,942 76 377,912 50 244,821 240,303 - 49»/A
183
-------
TWELVE WELL 5 WEEK. IMTERVAL WATER SAMPLING STUDY
ENS*
07WR01
02UT10
09UT03
20WR03
10UT03
19UT01
10UT02
08WR06
19UT05
24UT04
19WR04
19WR03
YEAR
161 WELLS
1988
1987
1986
80 WELLS
2-4-88
14.92
0. 17
0.085
13.34
5.69
2.76
14.10
3.68
2.74
8.05
15. 1
3.43
<3.0
39
38
42
3-7-88
15.0
0.40
0.040
12.0
6.01
2.59
16.6
5.56
2.57
11.4
23.1
3.01
RCWP
24. 2X
23. 6X
26 X
Nitrate
4-12-88
15.0
0. 03
0.03
13.6
5.68
2.43
14.5
3. 12
2.45
11.0
24.6
3.03
WELL WATER
3. 1-9.9
61
62
60
>-N mg/L ,
5-18-88
13.9
0. 14
0.01
14. 54
6. 39
2.39
13.7
2.72
2. 36
10.7
25.5
3.00
6-28-88
15.8
0.04
0.05
14.5
7. 12
2.89
14.3
3.05
1.91
8.42
16.9
2.49
7-26-SB
19.22
0.07
0.08
14.05
7. 29
2.37
14.98
2.86
2.06
7.27
23.53
3.54J
SAMPLING PROJECT
N03N
^^^ 9.9
61
61
59
N03N
J^
37. 9X
37. 9X
37 X
1985 32
1984 33
1983 31
40X
44X
64%
29
28
12
36%
3SX
15X
19
17
17
24X
15X
21X
184
-------
i
I
o
8
2
I
1
1
!J8
si
n
I
n
V) •
il
j< -^
8 H
« I
^||.3§
vs
fF
£
<
I
S
i
I
i
i
2
s
.2
185
-------
CM
I
I
i
i
i
Si5
^* T
I
H
I
s
m
fi
K 5
I
s
«
i
I
I
a:
a
i
a;
186
-------
12/14/88
1988 RCNP HORKSWP PARTICIPANTS, ST. PAUL, W, 9/12-1b, 1988
IENAIUR
SUSAN ALEXANDER
BEJOftlH ALIEN
JAMES ANDERSON
WAYNE t. ANDERS*
DIEGO AYALA
SHAHimTA
BAWD 1. Mlfll
ROGER IANNERMAH
AHDRE1IN. BARRASS
JIHMUW*
JOHN IIEQ£R£R
DOU6I1EEBLE
ALANII8KR
STEVE BENNETT
FED
DEPMf EKVIRON. HAKAGFJCNT
ENVIRONHENTAL RESOURCES
DIV.- ENVIRONHENTAL DUAL.
IOX 2120, SOUTH DAKOTA
UESTVIEH BLD6, LYHAN SCHOOL
POLLUTION CONTROL
NATURAL RE9XRCES
1445 ROSS AVENUE
450 H. STATE STREET
UNIVERSITY OF VESHOHT
1,15 (BERLIN RO-, SUITE 100
5957 LAtESIDE BLVD.
1549 HOLLARD ROAD
5600 DIPLOMAT CIRCLE
220 S. DEARBORN ST.
20360V. $T.,STE2tt
W 18TH STREET
SOD 12TH STREET. SUITE 100
316 K. ROBERT STREH
UH-S8S 401 H ST. S.H.
122 D ST., NH, SUITE 700
7(0 S. BROADWAY
177 JOHNSON HALL
345 COURTLAHO STREET
7612 PIONEER NAY,
3301 GUN an ROAD
17S1 FEDERAL BUILDING
Ol€ ARARAT BLVD.
PO BOX 176
STATE UNIVERSITY
ROUTE?
2200 CHURCHILL ROAD
JOE FOSS BUILDING, RH. 416
RALEIGH, I
DM.LAS,
LANSING. '•
ST. PAUL,
ST. PAUL.
AINSHORTH.
SILVER SPRING,
TIFFEN,
HADISOH.
NASHVILLE,
KADISON.
*S1 LAFAYEHE,
UNIVERSITY
PARE,
HASHINGION,
GROWINGS,
GREEN BAY,
UASHINBKM,
UASHWGTON.
BROOUNGS.
HANHATTEN,
RALEIGH,
HARXISBUW,
DALLAS.
BOISE.
BURLINGTON.
RALEIGH.
INDIANAPOLIS,
SUFFOLK,
ORLANDO,
CHICAGO,
RICHMOND.
DENVER.
OAKLAND,
WASHINGTON,
ST. PAUL.
WASHINGTON,
HASHINBTON,
SALINA.
PIUHAH,
ATLANTA,
PUYALLUP,
CHESAPEAKE,
NESTPAU
BEACH,
HDNTGOHERY.
KARRIS8URG,
JEFFERSON CITY,
BROMINES,
MESTtOROUGH,
SPRINGFiai
PIERRE,
NC 27605-1124 919-717-3723
TX 75202 214-655-7140
NI 48909 517-373-4624
IH 55108 612-*25-62W
MN 55155-3898 612-296-7323
* 69210 402-387-2242
MO 20910 301- 495-4540
OH 44GB3 419-448-2201
NI 53707 608-266-9273
TN 37219-5404 615-741-0638
NI 53707 608-266-9277
IN 47906-1334 337-494-9555
PA 1<£02 814-&3-101(>
DC 20418 202-334-3062
SO 57007 605-688-4910
HI 54311-7001 414-465-2317
K 20250-0900 202-447-5369
DC 20001 202-629-1400
SO 57037-0650 605-688-4910
JS 6*502 913-539-12$'?
NC 27605-1126 919-737-3723
PA 17110 717-657-4590
TX 75287 214-655-7140
ID $3720 208-334-5860
VT 05405 802-656-4057
HC 27605-1126 919-737-3723
!N 46278 317-290-3333
VA 23434 804-539-1338
Fl 32854-7854 407-647-8899
IL »to04 312-886-0209
VA 23219 604-786-3199
CO 80202-2413 303-293-1571
CA 9(607-4014 415-874-3043
DC 20036 202-328-5150
HN 55J01 612-29H67?
DC 20460 202-332-7110
DC 20001 202-628-1400
IS 67401 913-823-4548
HA WJ64-6420 509-335-2887
GA 30365 404-347-2126
HA 98371-4998 206-841-0055
VA 23320 604-420-5364
FL 33416-4660 407-686-8800
AL 36130 205-271-7839
PA 17110 717-540-5080
Hi) 65102 314-751-7144
SD 57007 605-688-5612
HA 01581 508366913142
IL 62794-9276 217-762-3362
SO 57501 605-773-3296
187
-------
12/14/89
1968 W» WRISHOP PARTICIPANTS, ST. PAUL rtl, 9/1HS, 1988
RICHARD A. HANSOM
DAVID N. HARDING
JERRY HARDY
HOARD HEASlff
WIERT T. HEIKCKER
GARY «. HERBERT
JOHN N. HNGIMS '
ROBERT HILStE
ERNEST A. HINT;
ARTHUR 6. HORNSBY
JOHN HOULIHAN
FRANK J. HUCNII
INERT L. HUNG.
WLlMf IRELAND, III
SARYJACKSOX
JAHJAWOG
IWSJFUNSH
NARY JENSEN
THOMAS JQHEWQI
LEUStMBM
BEG JOHNSON
ULLIAM E. JtXELA
SUSAN A. JOES
DAVID JONES
CAROL JONES
JAHES J. JOES
JAHES 6. HAP
LAHSOH KNIGHT
OHUB N. KOEW1I
LYNN IOL2E
ffWN H. rOSlELNK
SUSWI. MO
HKHUL wot
JAfltLAIATOSH
ALICIA LAWER
DOWNIOE LUECSFJKFF
PATRICIA A. UETHW
ROGER V.UHK
m H. L WILLE
CHARLES E. L066INS
CATHERINE H. LONG
TOHLWBC
MYLOVBISS
CECIL LONER
MARILYN LUOERG
RICHARD f . HAAS
HH.IUK HlfiETTE
RICHARD HAGL3Y
JOEHAGNER
6EJYSUEKAII
Mi C. HALOME
HLLHMBLEY
SD-ONNR
NC-OETT. Of NATURAL RFS.
SOIL CONSERVATIONIST
USOA
STATE RES. CONSERVATIONIST
WEST CENTRAL RESEARCH AND
TEHHESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
MIDDLE NIOIRARA NATURAL
USDA-SCS
UNIVERSin OF RORIOA
USEPA-IE6ION VII
NORTH CAROLIHA STATE UNIV.
USEPA - REGION VII
USOA
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
USOA-ASCS
UI-OEPT OF AGRICULTURE
SAN JOMUIH CO. AG.
OEPT. Of ADbSFHERlC t
LA DEPT.OF EWIRtN. DUALITY
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL
UNIVERSITY OF VERHOHT
US EPA
U.S. EPA
U5DA
U.S. - EPA
US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
U. S. EPA
US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
HHEPT Of HEALTH
SOUTH DAKOTA
DISTRICT COKSER.
EflBSKH SPECIALIST
US-ETA
USGS-NRD
USOA-SCS
EfA REGI'M IV
US-EPA iSWS-TUB-8)
US-EPA
EPA
Iff «*«» LANS ASSCC.
USDA-ASCS-CEn
NN STATE PLANNING AGENCY
DIPT, if EWIRHNHEHTAL
(MVERSfTY OF HAfflUM)
USDA-FRS/NRFD/SC£»
HME9&TA POLLUTION CONTROL
2048 S.E. * 1/2 ST.. AH. F
USOA-SCS
SD-MNR
JOE TOSS BUILDING
AND COMNITY DEVELOPMENT
USOA-SCS
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
USOA-SCS
EXTENSION CENTER
270 HAHEY WILDING
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
REDERAL BlOG. , ROOM 345
SOIL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
EXT. - 110. 1 AG. ENG.
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
SDR. CONSERVATION SERVICE
216 AGRICULTURAL HALL
EXECUTIVE SQUARE OFFICE 8L
801 U. BADGER ROAD
CONHISSIOHER'S OFFICE
OCEANIC SCIENCES
P.O. BOX 44091
AGENCY
EXTENSION SERVICE
REGIUNV
401 M STREET
SCS
NAIL CODE HH-585
HATER RESOURCES DIVISION
HATES PLANKING DIV. W-585
RATED RESUMES DIVISION
645 HALfKAlWLA STREET
USDA-SCS
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
NCSU-ME-NNEO?
REGION VII
FEDERAL ILK.
693 FEDERAL WILDING
SCS
230 DEARBORN STREET
401 H SHEET, a
REGION VII
DFGOVERHNMS •
P.O. IOX 2415
300 CENTENNIAL BUILDING
STUDIES, UC-ASHEV1LLE
AGRIOiriM ENGINEER!*
130] HEH YORK AVE. N.M.
AGENCY
512 N. SALISBURY STREET
440 E. STH STREET
69 UNION STREET
SOX 985 FEDERAL SO. STA.
R.R. 4, Boi 46A
526 EAST FIRST STREET
100 CEHTENNIAL HALL. N
2169 MCCARTY HALL
726 MINNESOTA AVENUE
BOX 7625, NCSU CAMPUS
726 HMESOTA AVENUE
16 PROFESSIONAL PARK ROAD
1450 LINDEN DRIVE
346 SHEUUDC STREET
BOX 1760. 811 SH SIXTH AVE
UNIVERSITY OF KICHIGAN
520 LAFAYETTE ROAD
HILLS (HOLDING
230 S. DEARBORN ST. 15WSI
R.R. 2, BOX 171
R.R. 2, SOX 171
IPH-2211
4MU HAMERSLEY RAAD
401 N STREET. S.N.
CO BOX 1107
401 H STREET S.U.
P.O. BOX 1107
3RD FLOOR
107 22ND AVENUE
6 PEOPLES' PLA2A
615 08ERLIHJB).. SUITE 100
726 MINNESOTA AVENUE
P.O. IOX 1107
210 HALHUT STREET
34$ OURTIAW STREET
PH-221
726 HIMESOTA AVEM.E
2545 N. CANYON ROAD
SO. AG. BUILDING
658 IBM STREET
RHQAKSHML
SHRIVFR LAtOMIdRY
RWH 532
520 LAFAYETTF KW
3422 ELDER STREET. ROOK 124
JOE FOSS BUILDING
ROOH217
PIERRE, '
RALEIGH.,;
AINSUORTH,
WHOOSH,
HARRIS8URS,
NORTH PLATTE,
CHATTANOOGA,
VALEHTIIC.
LINOdN.
GAIHESVILLE,
(AHSAS CITY.
RALEIGH.
IAH5AS CITY,
STORRS.
MADISON,
BURLING™,
HANSON.
STOCKTON,
ANN ARBOR.
IATGN ROUGE,
ST. MU.,
BURLINGTON.
CHICAGO,
AINSUORTH,
AIHSWftTH.
HASHIHSTW,
HAOISDH.
MASHINGTON,
HARRISIUK.
HASHING™,
HMRISBUR6,
HuNOLULU,
IROOIINGS,
NEUARK.
RALEIGH.
KANSAS CITY,
HARRISIURG.
DES HOINES.
ATLANTA.
CHICAGO.
HASHIHS™.
KANSAS CITY.
PROW.
NASHINGTON,
ST. PAa,
ASHEVILLE,
COLLfGE PAH,
HASHING™,
ST. PALI,
ROOESTER,
BOISE,
PIERRE.
SO 57501 M5-773-4216
NC 27611 919-r53-5083
NE 69210 402-387-2242
VT 05404 802-951-6795
PA MOiMWft 7l?-782-3446
HE 69101 308-532-3611
TH 37402 615-751-7299
HE 69201 402-376-3241
IE 68506-33t* 402-437-5315
R 32011-0151 904-392-1951
IS 66101 913-236-2817
NC 27695-7625 919-737-2675
(S n.101 913-236-2817
CT 06268 203-487-4028
HI 53559 (03-262-1916
VT 05401 802-951-6715
HI 53708 603-266-0157
CA 45201 209-468-3300
HI 48109 313-763-1510
U 70(04-4091 504-342-6363
m 55155 612-296-8847
VT 05405-0082 HB-656-0480
IL »ObG4 312-88)1-0142
HE 69210 102-387-2171
NE 69210 402-387-2171
DC 20460 202-382-2755
« 53711 M8-264-5S57
K 204tO 202-382-7110
PA 11708 717-782-3732
DC 20460 202-362-7110
PA 17108 717-782-3732
HI 96813 808-549-6767
SB STOOD 605-692-2344
BE 19702 302-834-3560
NC 27605-1126 919-737-3723
KS 66101 9i3-23tr2817
PA 17108 717-782-3831
IA 5030» 515-284-4172
GA 30365 404-347-2126
IL 60tW 312-353-6424
DC 20460 202-382-2755
IS 66101 91.V236-2817
UT ttbW ®H77-22»2
DC 20013 202-475-5924
m 55155
NC 28804:3299 704-251-6441
m 20742 381-454-3901
K 2000V47C8 202-786-1435
HJt 55155 612-296-868!)
HN 35904
18 83705 208-334-1610
SB 57501 t<6-733-32«
188
-------
19fi6 fOf NORTH* PAIIUCJPANIS, ST. PAUL. NN, 9/1MS.
DUULD K. MARTIN
DCHtCALS
MI KB
FHW C. HHMJUO
otiHjcAs
NAJKffl NEHLER
IHMAS K. HJLLER ,
l£ff IBITW
DA/ID C. HOFFITT
GEUU) KMTGOHM
ED JOT HOOK
CAIKYEIB
JI1 MCLAUGHLIN
M'SAfSET
NIX tea
niin F. NELSON
ism i. NOT
PAX O'GMOY
«»EL T. OLOHAH
Km V. PATTERSON
AVWASH PANAHMN
vn PAYNE
PU F. PEDDHE
U4PEEREHMON
RI3WB PENMtY
(AMY F. PIELSTlCffll
JOflPDttY
M1IAH RITTER
SAW UTTER
nimaun
.JACRUFF
urwsNK
ANMEU SWEDE
LINDA L. SMOOCH
RUSSELL L. sour;
JMSEHL
SEJSMH
GAfti SIEFIEN
DAVID L. SHUT
una A. SWTH
KHESWUH
LARRY SOKSOK
JEANSPOOHER
ROSX E. SPRHGW
J(B STMft (JOHN. «.)
WHO STOdBRIK
M* STOLTEHBEK
11D STaZOWfi
SCOTT snisa
CNMUS H. mar
U.S.E.P.*. IMHO OPERATIONS (JfflCE
SCHOOL Cf NATURN. ESOUMXS UW-A1KDI IXKtER
US £?* 401 H. SIRKT S.M.
USD* SOIL COHSRWICH SERVItt
IHHRHATIim SCIDCE i TEOKLOGT, INC.
*I. IXSOURCES 1 EW. PWrECTIOH (11
UHIVERSin OF MUM) CES
SCS 3737 GUVEBMCMT SIfiEET
U.S. - EP» SOIL CONSffrtTI* SEftVICE
U7HM&LMIVE
NFS cDororN*™ u. s. En REGION x
UATER FUWINB DIV.. W-S8S EPA ROOM $11, E. TOttR
ASCS 471 FILER *«.
U5M SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
KI-Wt Of ASMOITUE
USDA-SCS SS5 VAWIVER DRIVE
BOARD ON AGRICULTURE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
CED-USOA-ARS P. 0. BOX 246
RUTGERS-QMP. EXTENSION BOX 231
USDA-SCS SO. A6RI. ILK.
NIMC50TA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
EWIIXNENTAL EWJJCE8 1BW-3CS
UBOA-SCS 1220 S» 3RD STREET
HHEPT. OF A6810LTURE
USDA-ASCS
fflCHKAK KPT. OF NAT. RES. SURFACE HATEX UUALITT DIV.
USDA-SCS 693 FEKRAL IJILDING
PROFESSOR UNIV. OF DELAWARE
SOUTH ROWDA HATES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
PENH. STATE (DIVERSITY 226 AG MINER!* ILK.
HEAD - 110. 1 A6. ENS. NuRTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV.
OHIO EPA - KPM 1800 HATEXHAH DR.
OREGON DEPT. OF ENVIRONfiffAL QUALITY
FRESHWEX FOWOATION 2500 SHADYUOOD ROAD
USDA-SCS - 100 CENTENNIAL HALL NuRTH
SD-DHft JOE FOSS tUILDINC
SOUTH FLORIDA NATES HANAEflOT DISTRICT
USOA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
USD* SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
SCS 10139 FOREST HILL CIRCLE
EXTENSION SPECIALIST NCSU-UE-NMEP
ASCS OFFICE
EXTENSION SPECIALIST HCStHAE-NMCP
UHWISON, COLLEGE OF AG. I LIFE SCI. SOIL SCIENCE
USDA-ASCS
IOW STATE UNIVERSITY 2104 AGONOHY HALL
UNIVERSITY OF NEIRASU COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SER.
UI-KPT. Of ASRICU.M
UAf. 4 NAT. RES. SPECIALIST CES, W 16. ENG.
422 K. HASHINGTON ST.
UNIVERSITY OF VT
ROOn 821, EAST TOMER
7tO S. BKMWAY
l\M ROGER BACON DR. 1201
IB REILLY ROAD
700 AGRICULTURE INTER.
511 m BROADWAY I24S
1200 OH AVENUE
401 H STREET. S. M.
U PROFESSIONAL PAR! ROAD
801 V. SADGER NAD
2101 CONSTITUTION AVE, *
COLLEGE FARM ROAD
14TH 1 INDEPENDENCE
520 LAFAYETTE ROAD
P.O. BOX 311
ROOH !«40
m U. IAOGER ROAD
K1 1004 FEDERAL SO. STA.
P.O. BOX 30028
210 UAUUT DRIVE
ASRI01TURAI. EHGR. DEPT.
P.O. BOX 933
BOX 762S, NCSU CAMPUS
P.O. (OX 1049
811 SN SIXTH AVE.
P.O. BOX 90
3*5 FEDERAL BUILDING
ROUN217
P.O. BOX 24e£0
440 E m STREET
1370 NANILTON STREET
ilUtERLIHRD., SUITE 100
RURAL RUITE 12
615l«ERLINRD.. SUITE 100
1S2S OBSERVATORY Dfi.
609 S.H. PARK STREET
BROW Cu. COURTHLUSE
SCI U. BADGER ROAD
SD STATE UNIVERSITY
BOISE, t
BURLINGTOK.'
HASHlWTOfl.
SALINA.
RESTM.
FRAWFORT.
tfSTHINSTER.
ALEXANDRIA.
PORTLAH).
HERHITAGE,
SEATTLE,
UAMN6TCW,
THIN FALLS.
STORRS,
NADISON,
CfltUHSIA,
HASHiNGTIJN.
EDHARHSVILLE.
NEU BRUNSNICI.
HASHINGTON.
ST. PAUL.
AUBURN.
PORTLAND.
moist*.
HARRISILIRG.
LANSING,
PES MODES,
ICUARI,
MEECHKEE.
UNIVERSITY
PAR(,
RALEIGH.
OX USDS.
PORTLAND,
HAVARE,
LINCOLN.
PIERRE,
WEST PAD!
BEACH,
AINSNURTH.
SOMERSET,
NAHASSAS.
RALEIGH,
AIHSK«TH,
RALEIGH.
MAOISM,
CUEEOWff.
AKS,
AINSNURTH.
HJUJISUH.
(ROWINGS.
IB 83702 20S-334-949B
VT OS405 8Q2-t«-«OS7
DC 20460 202-22-7085
IS k7401 «13-«>4S2S
V» 22W 70J-OJWJW7
IY 40iOJ 5^S4-J4|fl
It 21 157 301-M*-4*||
LA 71302 3ifc-47>7(ttl
« 97209 503-221-2854
TN 37076 -Hf»-lw>l
UA 48101 306-442-4181
X 204M 20>3»-7100
18 83301 W-7M-»m
CT Ob268 203-487-4028
« 53708 !«-2t«-7137
* t5203 314-*7VS224
DC 20418 202-334-3062
IL fr2025 tl&t>56-7jOO
HJ 08903 201-93^•^»34
K 20250 202-382-1867
NN S51SS »12-?fc-7237
AL 3nB30 205-821-M70
(* 97204 203-221-2746
VI S370B t«-266-27:£
PA 17108 717-782-4593
HI 48909 517-i>i371
IA 50309 515-284-4369
It 19717 32-451-24tS
a 33472 Sl3-?b3-3776
PA 16802 Si4-:*7-4709
NC 27695-276J •jr>-'37-26«4
* 432bt-0149 t,J4-644-2131
U« 97204 503-22<*-60i*
«N 55392 612-471-8407
HE 68509-3866 402-437-5302
SD 57501 (05-733-3296
R J341o 407-ii36-e800
NE 6-1210 402->2'-2242
«J OBB73 201-2«*-411fl
VA 22110 202-382-8524
NC 27tfl5-1126 9
189
------- |