United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington DC 20460
June 1986
Status of Agricultural
IMPS Projects —1985

-------
         NWQEF»   1985   ANNUAL    REF*ORT

  STATUS  of  AGRICULTURAL  NF»S  PROJECTS
                            BY
       North Carolina  Agricultural  Extension  Service
         National  Water  Quality  Evaluation  Project
                      .   Personnel

       Richard P.  Maas                 Jean Spooner
    Catherine A.  Jamieson          Steven A.  Dressing

          Michael  D.  Smolen - Principal  Investigator
          Frank J.  Humenik  - Project Director
        USDA Cooperative Agreement:   12-05-300-472
        EPA Interagency Agreement:    AD-12-f-0-037-0
       Biological & Agricultural Engineering Department
               North Carolina State University
               Raleigh,   North Carolina  27695
     EPA PROJECT OFFICER             USDA PROJECT OFFICER
        James W. Meek                   Fred N. Swader
    Nonpoint Source Branch             Extension Service
Criteria and Standards Division        Natural Resources
       Washington, DC                    Washington, DC
                         June 1986

-------
     This  publication was developed by the National Water Quality  Evaluation
Project,  a  special project of the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Ser-
vice,  sponsored  by the United States Department of  Agriculture  Cooperative
Agreement 12-05-300-472 and the United States Environmental Protection Agency
Interagency  Agreement AD-12-f-0-037-0.   The contents and views expressed in
this  document  are  those of the authors and do not necessarily  reflect  the
policies  or positions of the North Carolina Agricultural  Extension  Service,
the United States Department of Agriculture or the United States Environmental
Protection  Agency.   The mention of trade names for products or software does
not constitute their endorsement by the North Carolina Agricultural Extension
Service,  the  United  States Department of Agriculture or the  United  States
Environmental Protection Agency.

-------
                                   FOREWORD

   .  This manuscript is Part I of the 1985 Annual Report by the National Water
Quality Evaluation Project to the Project Advisory Committee.   Part II, Tech-
nical Analysis of Four Agricultural Water Quality Projects, is available as an
appendix  to  this report.   Projects analyzed in the appendix  include:   the
Saline  Valley RCWP in Michigan,  the Tillamook Bay RCWP in  Oregon,  and  the
LaPlatte River Watershed Project in Vermont.
                                      111

-------
                                        8IBWASY


     The  increasing concern about agricultural nonpoint sources (Agricultural
NFS) has spawned numerous federal and state Agricultural NFS pollution control
programs  intended  to proiaote or to demonstrate technologies for  control  of
Agricultural NFS pollution of major water resources.  The following unresolved
issues are addressed in this report:

     1)   determining what types of water resources are most responsive to NFS
          control measures.

     2)   effective  means  of gaining landowner participation in NFS  control
          efforts.

     3)   determining  the effectiveness of watershed level implementation  of
          Best Management Practices (BMPs).

     4)   methods for identifying and targeting funds to water quality  criti-
          cal areas.

     5)   designing  cost-effective water quality monitoring systems to  docu-
          ment the effectiveness  of Agricultural NFS control efforts.

     The purpose of the present report is to examine the progress achieved  to
date  by  completed  and on-going AgNPS control projects   in  resolving  these
issues.   Twenty  Agricultural  NFS control projects were  selected  for  more
intensive study.    Of the  twenty projects,    four have been reviewed in-depth
and are included in an appendix to this report.   The National Water  Quality
Evaluation   Project  (NWQEP) performed original analysis of water quality  data
on  four of  these projects  to  contribute significant information to the state-
of-the-art on Agricultural  NFS control.

     The major findings presented  in the report are summarized below:

     1.   Arid   land   irrigation   canals exhibit the  quickest  water  quality
          response  to BMP  implementation.

     2.   Four   years was  sufficient time   to  document statistically  signifi-
          cant    sediment   concentration   reductions in irrigation  canals   in
          Idaho  where  36%  of the  land area was treated by BMPs.

     3.   Streams are  the  next most responsive water resource  type because   of
          their  short  hydraulic residence  time.  However,  stream water quality
           is   extremely  variable,   making  documentation  of    improvements
          difficult.    Fecal coliform  concentrations appear  to be more respon-
          sive to treatment than  sediment.

     4.   Water resource use impairments based on  quantitative standards  such
           as  swimming and drinking water  supply  are easier  to address through
           AgNPS control  than qualitative  impairments such as eutrophication.
                                        LV

-------
 5.    100% BMP  treatment of a 2,000  acre   irrigation  block in  Washington
      reduced   sediment loss by 80%  and phosphorus  loss by 50% within  one
      year.

 6.    Sediment  basins along with subsurface  drainage and automated water
      cutback systems in   furrow-irrigated fields yielded an 80% reduction
      in sediment  and 50%  reduction  in phosphorus.

 7.    The required timeframe  for  observing water quality  results  from
      AgNPS  control depends on monitoring design,  meterologic  variabili-
      ty,   watershed  size,  water   resource  type,  and pollutant  type.
      Analysis  of  data from Oregon,   Vermont,  and  Illinois indicates that
      at  least 5 years are  required to  document  improvements  in  water
      quality  in humid regions.

 8.    Model  results for the  Vermont RCWP project suggest that  management
      of  all  aspects of  manure  handling can reduce surface water  inputs
      of manure P  by 80-90% from  northeastern U.S.  dairy operations.

 9.    Monitoring   results  from  the New York MIP project indicate that  50-
      90% reduction of manure  P  can be obtained through barnyard  manage-
      ment practices alone.

10.    Eliminating   the  practice   of winter manure  spreading  may  reduce
      loss of  total P  (slightly)  and ortho-P (substantially).

11.    While  structural  BMPs  can be effective in reducing  sediment  and
      nutrient losses,  they  often are not the most cost-effective methods.
      Our preliminary evaluation  shows that conservation tillage and vege-
      tative  cover practices are substantially more  cost-effective  than
      sediment basins,   diversions,  terraces and sediment control struc-
      tures .

12.    Improved fertilizer  management appears to be the most cost-effective
      BMP  for reducing nutrient  losses in most projects we have examined.
      This BMP should be equally effective for protection of surface water
      and groundwater.

13.    Bringing   approximately  60%  of the manure  in  the  Tillamook  Bay
      watersheds  under best management has  resulted  in a 40-50%  decrease
      in log-mean fecal coliform concentrations  in the Bay.    This  result
      has been documented by water quality monitoring  and analysis  in this
      report.                  ,
                             i
14.    From  water quality data we have determined that 80% BMP implementa-
      tion on animal production operations  in a  700-acre critical area  in
      a  Utah watershed has produced 43%  reduction  in  total P,  55% reduc-
      tion  in  ortho-P,   59% reduction in  TKN and  90% decrease in fecal
      coli form concentrat ions.

15.    Forty  percent  sediment  concentration    reduction    in irrigation
      canals has been achieved in the Idaho RCWP project  from treatment of
      36% of the  identified water quality critical  area.
                                   v

-------
16.    The variability  in concentration data from water quality monitoring
      over  a  four-year  time frame is generally so high  that  a  "true"
      change  of 50-60% mean annual concentration is necessary to document
      statistically significant change.   If the monitoring period extends
      beyond  four  years or the data analysis accounts  for  meteorologic
      variability, sensitivity can be improved substantially.

17.     Smaller  Agricultural NFS projects have generally  obtained  higher
       participation rates than larger projects.

18.    Most  projects which have a high level of farmer participation  have
      extensively employed radio and newspaper media,  one-on-one-contacts
      with farmers, and relatively high cost-sharing rates.
                                   VI

-------
                               TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                                       Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	     iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS	    vii

ABBREVIATIONS OF PROJECTS	     ix

ABBREVIATIONS USED WITHIN THE REPORT	      x

LIST OF TABLES	    xii

LIST OF FIGURES	    xii

CHAPTER 1:     INTRODUCTION	      1

CHAPTER 2:     MAJOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO AGRICULTURAL
               NFS CONTROL	      4
                                                                    [
               1. Water Resource Treatment Feasibility	      4
               2. BMP Effectiveness 	      9
               3. Critical Area Selection and Implementation	     14
               4. Institutional/Organizational Considerations	     18
               5. Water Quality Monitoring	     20

CHAPTER 3:     BRIEF SUMMARIES OF AGRICULTURAL NFS PROJECTS
               REVIEWED	     22

               RURAL CLEAN WATER PROJECTS (RCWP)	     22

                    Rock Creek, Idaho	     22
                    Prairie Rose Lake,  Iowa	     24
                    Highland Silver Lake, Illinois	     26
                    Bonne Idee, Louisiana	     28
                    Double Pipe Creek, Maryland	     30
                    Saline Valley, Michigan	     32
                    Tillamook Bay, Oregon	     34
                    Conestoga Headwater, Pennsylvania	     36
                    Oakwood Lakes-Poinsett South Dakota	     38
                    Snake Creek, Utah	     40
                    Nansemond-Chuckatuck, Virginia	     42
                    St. Albans Bay, Vermont	     44

               MODEL IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS  (MIP)	     46

                    W. Branch Delaware River, New York	     46
                    Broadway Lake,  South Carolina	     48
                    Yakima, Washington	     50

-------
               OTHER NONPOINT SOURCE PROJECTS	      52

                    Lake Le-Aqua-Na, Illinois	      52
                    Skinner Lake, Indiana	      54
                    Big Stone Lake, South Dakota/Minnesota	      57
                    LaPlatte River Watershed, Vermont	      59
                    Columbia Basin Block 86, Washington	      61

REFERENCES	      65
                                    Vlll

-------
                         ABBREVIATIONS OF PROJECT NAMES

AL- RCWP       Lake Tholoco, Alabama
DE- RCWP       Appoquinimink, Delaware
FL- RCWP       Taylor Creek, Florida
IA- RCWP       Prairie Rose Lake, Iowa
ID- RCWP       Rock Creek, Idaho
IL- RCWP       Highland Silver Lake, Illinois
TN- RCWP       Reelfoot Lake, Tennessee
LA- RCWP       Bonne Idee, Louisiana
MA- RCWP       Westport River, Massachusetts
MD- RCWP       Double Pipe Creek, Maryland
MI- RCWP       Saline Valley, Michigan
MN- RCWP       Garvin Brook, Minnesota
NE- RCWP       Long Pine Creek, Nebraska
OR- RCWP       Tillamook Bay, Oregon
PA- RCWP       Conestoga Headwater, Pennsylvania
SD- RCWP       Oakwood Lakes—Poinsett, South Dakota
UT- RCWP       Snake Creek, Utah
VA- RCWP       Nansemond-Chuckatuck, Virginia
VT- RCWP       St. Albans Bay, Vermont
WI- RCWP       Lower Manitowoc, Wisconsin
NY- MIP        W. Branch Delaware River, New York
SC- MIP        Broadway Lake, South Carolina
WA- MIP        Yakima, Washington
IL- LAN        Lake Le-Aqua-Na, Illinois
IN- BC         Black Creek, Indiana
IN- SL         Skinner Lake,  Indiana
SD/MN- BSL     Big Stone Lake, South Dakota/Minnesota
VT-LP          LaPlatte River Watershed, Vermont
WA-B86         Columbia Basin Block 86, Washington
RCWP = Rural Clean Water Program
MIP = Model Implementation Program
                                       IX

-------
                      ABBREVIATIONS USED WITHIN THE REPORT
ACP
AGNPS
AgNPS
ANSWERS

ARS
ASCS
CDF
Chi a
CLP
CM&E
CREAMS

DO
DP
ERS
FC
CIS
IPM
MIP
MLRA
MPN
NWQEP
NPS
NPSCA
NTU
OP
PLUARG
RCWP
SCS
STP
TKN
TN
TP
TSS
USBR
USDA
USEPA
USGS
 VSS
 PL-566
 108a
 208
Agricultural Conservation Program
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Model
Agricultural Nonpoint Source (generic)
Areal  Nonpoint Source Watershed Environment Response  Simulation
(Model)
Agricultural Research Service, USDA
Agricultural Stabilization Conservation Service, USDA
Cumulative Distribution Frequency
 Chlorophyll a
Clean Lakes Program
Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation
Chemical,  Runoff,  and  Erosion from Agricultural Management
Systems  (Model)
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved Phosphorous
Economic Research Service, USDA
Fecal Coliform
Geographic Information System
Integrated Pest Management
Model Implementation Program
Major Land Resource Areas
Most Probable Number/100 ml
National Water Quality Evaluation Project
Nonpoint Source
Nonpoint Source Critical Area
Nessler  Turbidity Unit
Ortho phosphate
Pollution of the Great Lakes  from Land Use  Activities, Organization
Rural Clean  Water Program
Soil Conservation Service,  USDA
Sewage Treatment Plant
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total Nitrogen
Total  Phosphorus
Total  Suspended Solids
United States  Bureau of Reclamation
United States  Department of Agriculture
 United States  Environmental Protection Agency
 United States  Geologic Survey
 Volatile Suspended Solids
 Public Law 566
 Section 108a of the 1972 Clean Water Act
 Section 208 of the 1972 Clean Water Act
                                        x

-------
RCWP BMPs by Number  [Reference:   ASCS 1-RCWP, "National BMPs and
                     Guidelines,"  Revision 1,  Exhibit 10,  par.
                     37, August,  1984]

BMP 1    Permanent Vegetative Cover
BMP 2    Animal Waste Management System
BMP 3    Stripcropping Systems
BMP 4    Terrace System
BMP 5    Diversion System
BMP 6    Grazing Land Protection System
BMP 7    Waterway System
BMP 8    Cropland Protection System
BMP 9    Conservation Tillage Systems
BMP10    Stream Protection System
BMP11    Permanent Vegetative Cover on Critical Areas
BMP12    Sediment Retention, Erosion or Water Control Structures
BMP13    Improving an Irrigation and or Water Management System
BMP14    Tree Planting
BMP15    Fertilizer Management
BMP16    Pesticide Management
BMPXX    Other Developed by Local Coordinating Committee
                                         XI

-------
       -   Three types of BMPs were implemented to deal with the animal  waste
     problems in OR-HCWP and NY-MIP:  (1)  waste storage structures, (2)  sub-
     surface pasture drainage,  and  (3) milkhouse curbing and guttering.   It
     appears  that  curbing and guttering of milkhouses is the  most  cost-ef-
     fective  of these practices,  reducing a large proportion (20-40*) of the
     waste  input  to streams at low cost compared to other animal  waste  BMP
     components.


2c. To what extent do groundwater BMPs conflict with surface water BMPs?

     Of all common agriculture-related pollutants,  only soluble nitrogen  and
soluble  pesticides generally present a potential conflict between efforts  to
reduce surface water and groundwater inputs.   Preliminary results from PA and
from  other field studies suggest that surface runoff-reducing practices  have
potential  to increase groundwater contamination by nitrate or soluble  pesti-
cides.   Simulations  with the CREAMS model,  in the PA-RCWP,  suggested  that
conservation tillage has no real effect on groundwater,  but that terraces may
increase nitrogen transport to groundwater.  The IA-RCWP might contribute some
perspective on potential conflicts due to terracing if the watershed treatment
retains sediment but fails to reduce nutrient flow to the lake.

2d. What  degree of sediment  reduction can be achieved by BMP implementation
      at the watershed level?

     The answer to this question will develop out of all projects' results for
various size areas, climates, topographies, soil types, and crops.

      ID-RCWP  has  shown significant reductions in irrigation  canal  sediment
concentrations  in  the subbasins where high levels of sediment  control  BMPs
were  installed.   Our analyses show that these reductions are  in the range  of
approximately 40-60 percent (NWQEP, 1985a).  Additional   land  treatment  data
are   needed,  however,   to   tie  the observed reduction  to   BMP  application
unequivocally.  Sediment basins and improved irrigation systems implemented on
a  2000-acre  area  reduced sediment loading  (WA-B86)   80  percent.   Likewise,
conversion  from furrow to sprinkler irrigation systems resulted  in  sediment
reductions  at  the edge of fields  and often resulted  in  total elimination  of
return flows  (WA-MIP).  Unfortunately,   overall reduction in  sediment  loadings
from  the watershed  was not estimated in  the WA-MIP project,   and no  watershed
level sediment  reduction has  yet been documented  on Rock  Creek (ID-RCWP).

      Several  other projects  are expected  to determine potential sediment  re-
ductions  from  conservation  tillage (MD-RCWP,  MI-RCWP,   IL-LAN) and   terraces
(IA-RCWP and PA-RCWP)  on the  field-scale to the small  watershed level  (10-8000
acres).

2e.  What  degree of nutrient reduction can  be achieved by  BMPs  at a  water-
      shed level?

      Considerable information on nutrient  loading and  concentration  reduction
from  land   treatment has  been developed by the VT-RCWP and PA-RCWP  projects.
The  VT-RCWP has projected,   based on  results  from BMP  implementation,  water
quality data,   and modeling,   that total P loadings from its most   extensively
 implemented  subbasin will decrease by 30 percent over the  project   time frame.
 A  57  percent decrease in dissolved P is projected.    It appears   that  these


                                      12

-------
                                   CHAPTER 1

                                  INTRODUCTION
     Control  of agricultural nonpoint source (Agricultural NFS) pollution has
been  recognized  as  a necessary element to achieve  national  water  quality
goals,  and in response, numerous federal and state sponsored Agricultural NFS
control  projects  have been initiated.   These projects are  providing  basic
institutional/organizational   experience,   synthesis  of  results  for  such
projects provides the opportunity to evaluate technologies for future  efforts
to control agriculture-related water quality problems.

     This  report brings together much of what has been learned to  date  from
these Agricultural NFS projects.   We have identified 18 specific questions to
assess  individual  project  contributions towards understanding  the  techno-
logical  and institutional aspects of Agricultural NFS control.  The result of
this  approach  is  an overview which will extend  the  findings  and  lessons
learned  from  existing  water quality projects to the managers of  new  water
quality projects.

     The  Agricultural  NFS control programs either currently in  progress  or
completed include the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP),  the Model  Implementa-
tion   Program  (MIP),  the Agricultural Conservation  Program  Special  Water
Quality Projects,  the EPA 108a Program, the Clean Lakes Section 314 projects,
PL-566  projects,  the  Wisconsin state projects,  and others.   Table 1 is  a
compilation  of  Agricultural  NPS control projects we have  identified  which
include land treatment and water quality monitoring  components.    We selected
20  of  these  projects for in-depth consideration of  their  contribution  to
present state-of-the-art knowledge.   Future reports will analyze   other  pro-
jects   from  Table 1.   For several projects we conducted water quality  data
analysis  beyond  that reported previously.  (Cassell and  Van  Calcan,  1983;
NWQEP,  1985;  Davenport and Lowrey, 1985; Agena et.al,  1985; Neubieser, 1985;
Jackson,  1985;  Hopkins and Clausen,  1985; Clausen, 1985).  An appendix with
separate  extended  chapters devoted to each of these  projects  is available
under separate cover.

      Finally,  it  should be noted that in the past 3 years a large number  of
state-sponsored Agricultural NPS control  projects have been authorized and  are
currently in either the planning or early implementation phase.   Most are  not
included in this report because their  contributions will require several years
to  develop.

-------
Table 1      U.S. Agricultural Honpoint Source Projects in HHQEP Data Base.
                                         RCUP PROJECTS


PROJECT NAME
Lake Tholoco, AL
Double Pipe Cr, HD
Saline Valley, HI
St. Albans Bay, VT
Tillaiook Bay, OR
Cones toga Headwater, PA

Long Pine Cr, HE

Rock Cr, ID
Prairie Rose Lake, IA
Taylor Cr, FL
Lower Hanitowoc, HI
Hanseiond-Chuckatuck, VA
Appoquiniiink, DE
Highland Silver Lake, IL
Reel foot Lake, KY
West port River, HA
Garvin Brook, HN
Oakwoods Lakes-
Poinsett, SD
Snake Cr, UT
Bonne Idee, LA


TYPE
RCUP+
RCHP+*
RCHP+**
RCHP+*
RCHP+**
RCHP+*

RCHP+

RCHP+*
RCHPi*
RCHP+
RCHP+
RCHPt*
RCHP+
RCHP+*
RCHP+
RCHP+
RCHP+

RCHP+*
RCHP+**
RCHP+*


DATES
1980-91
1980-91
1980-91
1980-91
1980-91
1980-91

1981-91

1981-91
1981-91
1981-91
1981-91
1981-91
1980-90
1980-90
1980-90
1981-91
1981-91

1981-91
1980-90
1980-91


ACRES
51,400
110,000
74,030
33,334
23,540
110,000

58,310

45,000
4,610
110,000
102,000
165,000
30,762
30,946
153,600
37,000
30,720

100,000
700
54,400

PROBLEH
TYPE
An. waste, seditent
Sediient, An. waste
Hutrients
Nutrients, an. waste
An. waste
An. waste, nutrients,
sediient
Sediient, nutrients,
an. waste
Seditent, an. waste
Sediient
Hutrients
Hutrients, sediient
An. waste
Turbidity
Hutrients, an. waste
Sediient
An. waste
An. waste

Hutrients
An. waste
Pesticide
LAHD
QUALITY
TREAT- HOHI-
HEHT
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
TORIH6
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
                                         ACP AND HIP PROJECTS
 Little R, CT

 L.Q. Drain, ID
 Blue Cr, IL
 Dirty Baker's Dz., IHD
 Saginaw Bay, HI
 Hall County, HE
 Chestuee, Cr, TH
 Mulberry, Cr, TH
 Indiana Heartland, IH

 Haple Cr, HE
 West Br Delaware  R, HY
ACP+     1980-83
19,200
ACP
ACP+
ACP
ACP+
ACP
ACP
ACP
HIP+
HIP+
HIP+*
1976-80
1979-82
1979-83
1979-82
1979-82
1978-80
1978-80
1979-82
1979-82
1978-82
3,704
7,012
23,000
242,636
41,360
85,000
-
103,000
33,088
287,224
Sediient, an.  waste       X      X
     nutrients
Sediient                  X      X
Sediient                  X      X
Sediient, nutrients       X      X
Hutrients, sediient       X      X
Hutrients,                X      X
An. waste                 X      X
An. waste                 X      X
Sediient, nutrients       X      X
     an. waste
Sediient, nutrients       X      X
An. waste, nutrients      X      X

-------
Table 1   U.S. Agricultural Honpoint Source Projects in HWEP Data Base (contined).
Broadway Lake, SC
Lake Herian, SD
Yakiia, HA
HIP+* 1978-82
HIP* 1978-82
HIP+* 1978-82
25,183
42,948
26,500
Sediient
Sediient, nutrients
Sediient
X
X
X
OTHER PROJECTS
Hatkinsville, 6A

Lake Le-Aqua-Ha, IL
Black Cr, IH
Skinner Lake, IN
Chonan R., HC
N. Appalachia, NC
Union, HC
Hayne Lenoir, HC
HE Pesticide Iipact
I Accessient Prograi
Genessee R Basin, HY
Defiance County, OH
Big Stone Lake, SD I HH

LaPlatte R, VT
Coluibia Block, HA
Henotenee, HI
Washington County, HI
White Clay Lake, HI

ARS 1970-cont

CLP.ACP* 1981-86
108A+ 1972-81
CLP* 1977-82
208+ 1979-83
Univ. 1982-84
208 1978-82
208 1978-82
1983-88
-
PLUAR6 1975-77
EPA 1981-
CLP* 1982-88
* Others
PL-566** 1979-90
EPA* 1979-82
PLUAR6 1975-77
108A+ 1976-78
State 4 1975-79
EPA
plot
studies
2,400
12,038
10,000
13,000
stall
12,700
1,880
4 field
studies
1,572,522
2,000
750,000

34,137
2,000

7,940
3,040

Nutrients, sediient,
pesticides
Nutrients, sediient
Sediient, nutrients
Nutrients, sediient
Nutrients
An. Haste
An. iiaste
An. waste
Pesticides, nutrients

Nutrients
Sediient, nutrients
Sediient, nutrients

An. Haste
Nutrients, sediient

Sediient
An. Haste

X

X
X
X

X
X
X



X
X

X
X

X
X

                                                                                        X
                                                                                        X
                                                                                        X

                                                                                        X
                                                                                        X
                                                                                        X
                                                                                        X
                                                                                        X
 *  Brief  Sundries in this Report.
 ** Extended  Reports and Brief Suuaries  in  this Report.
 +  Projects  Reviewed in other HHQEP Reports.

-------
                                   CHAPTER 2
              MAJOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO AGRICULTURAL NFS CONTROL
Water Resource Treatment Feasibility
1.  What   types   of water resources  can be most effectively protected or  re-
     stored through land treatment efforts?

     Streams,  lakes,  estuaries,  groundwater and irrigation canals are among
the  impaired  water resources being addressed by  agricultural  NFS  control
projects.   All of  these  resources are represented in the projects we selected
for consideration in this report.

     Our analyses show with  increasing clarity that the water quality of irri-
gation canals responds most  quickly  and effectively to BMP  implementation.  We
have identified statistically significant reductions in canal pollutant  load-
ing  or in  concentrations within four years of project initiation in each arid
land irrigation project we have studied.  (ID-RCWP,  UT-RCWP,  WA-886, and WA-
MIP)* We believe  this is  because the variability due to meteorological factors
is lower,   there  is greater  control  over the management of  the water resource,
and  agriculture  is the major or sole pollutant source in these projects  com-
pared to most humid region,   non-irrigated projects.  In addition, some of the
available  irrigation BMPs such as conversion of furrow systems to sprinkler or
drip systems and  installation of sediment basins appear to  be highly effective
in controlling certain pollutants such as sediment and total phosphorus.   The
increased   analytic control  for meteorologic and other sources of  variability
in  these  studies has also allowed more efficient monitoring to  document  the
water quality changes.

     Because of their short  hydraulic residence time, streams appear to be the
next  most treatable water resource.  Stream water quality,  however,  is ex-
tremely variable, and actual quantification of improvements continues to prove
difficult.   Treatability appears to vary as a function of pollutant.  Fecal
coliform   concentrations appear to be more responsive to treatment than  other
pollutants (OR-RCWP, AL-RCWP).  At  the other extreme, stream suspended solids
concentrations and  loadings  seem to  be much less responsive to land  treatment
efforts,   presumably because of streambank and bedload contributions and  the
extended   time frame during  which the stream establishes a  new sediment trans-
port/deposition steady-state (SC-MIP,  AL-RCWP, VT-RCWP).   The response of the
stream   system decreases as  size increases,  due to  the increasing number   of
sources  and  the  increasing   time  lag  for  flushing pollutants  from the system.
 *  Project  abbreviations  in  parenthesis  indicate  source  of  information.
    Summaries are presented in the appendix and in other NWQBP reports.

-------
     The treatability of estuaries varies considerably.  IB oost respects  the
Tillasook Bay,  Oregon can be viewed as representing a aost responsive type of
estuary  because of its small size,  very high flushing  rate  largely forested
watershed (SOXs forest cover) , and high concentration of dairy  sources directly
above the bay.   Intensive nanure aanageaient has reduced the concentrations of
fecal colifora bacteria in the bay rapidly.  In this case changes  in  contam-
ination  of  the bay were aore easily docuaented than in the tributary  streams
because  changes  in bay salinity were used as a Barker  to  distinguish  real
changes fmma those attributable to Beteorologic factors.

     He  believe that the Be&tport River estuary (MA-BCE3P) could also  show   a
fecal coliforu response to improved waste Banagenent.  At the  other extreme is
the  Nansesond-Chuckatuclk KJW estuary where:   1)  the watershed is large  amd
has  multiple  land uses,  2) the largest sources of pollutants are quite  far
upstream  and  isolated  frosa the estuary by irapoundaerats 3)   the   estuary is
large,  and  4)  there  may  be a sizable urban  WPS.   We  believe that  the
Nansesaomd-Chuckatuck  system  is less® responsive to WPS control than  a  river
system of the msms watershed size and land us®.

     We  have observed that lakes change lesss rapidly them  irrigation  canals,
streams or estuaries in response to land treatment.   We assume this is  due to
longer  hydraulic  residence  tines and recycling   of  pollutants   within  the
lacustrine system.   However,  other Banagement tools exist  for protecting and
restoring iapaired lake uses besides watershed land treatment.  These  include
such  practices  as weed harvesting,  copper sulfate or  herbicide  treataent,
water  level  control,  and dredging.   Each of these can have a   direct  and
profound effect both on the lake water quality and  on the use  impairment.  The
result  is that,  although lakes are less responsive to  land treatment,   there
are acre ©xaoples of success in restoring uses impaired by  nonpoint sources  in
lakes  than   in stresses or estuaries.   The aore  ssimcosssful   strategies  have
employed both watershed and im-lake
      The   treatability of groundwater resources is difficult  to  characterize
 froffl   the   available  data base.    The preliminary data from PA-HGWP show  that
 intermediate   depth (30-100  ft.)  groundwater can be relatively  responsive  to
 land  raanageaent  activity  in  permeable soils underlain by liaestone.


 la. What   tyjps  of AgfflPS-csnis&d isms iqpaircents cmn be cost effectively  re-
      stored through reisedial effort?

      The   most cosmon impaired or potentially iognaired uses addressed by  pre-
 vious  and current  AgWPS projects are domestic  supply,  reservoir  storage,
 recreation,   fisheries,   and aesthetic em joynaent .   All of these uses are well
 represented by the projects  given special consideration in this report.  Swi»-
 aing  innpairaents nay  be the 'easiest to restore because often only a  reduction
 of sueaaertime fecal  colifora concentrations below 200/100 al is required (AL-
 RCWP, VT-ECWP, OR-BCWP).   In naay ©ystesas this can be acconplished by treating
 only  the   most critical animal production operations.  Impairments of domestic
 water supply  nay be the next most amenable to restoration through HPS control.
 The extent of impairment  can be quantitatively defined in terms of established
 drinking water standards  and is often manifested by only a single chemical  or
 physical parameter (PA-RCWP,  LA-BCWP, MB-HCWP) . Thus, for example, if maximum
 nitrate levels   can  be reduced below 10 ug/1,  the impairment has,  by  defi-
 nition,  been alleviated.   At the other extrese,  use impairments caused  by
                          i

                                       5

-------
eutrophication  (e.g.  fishery,  aesthetic,  boating) are often  difficult  to
quantify,  and  hence,  it is difficult to define at what point they have been
alleviated.  (IN-SL,  VT-RCWP, SD/MN-BSL)  Generally, there may be a change in
the  probability that the use will be impaired at any given time  as a  result
of the NFS control effort.  Shellfisheries (e.g.,  OR-RCWP, MA-RCWP) present a
very  difficult  problem  because the water must be improved to  such  a  high
quality  (i.e.,  median  concentration not exceeding 14 npn/100  ml  of  fecal
coliform) to support the use.

Ib. What   timeframe  is required  to observe water quality results from a  land
      treatment program?

     All  NFS  control projects that progress toward their BMP  implementation
goals  and monitor their water quality effects will ultimately  contribute  to
answering this question.   We define an "adequate level" of BMP implementation
as  the  level  of implementation that reduces the mean concentration  of  the
pollutant of interest by 30-40*  (see Question 5b).   To monitor water  quality
effects,  a  program should be able to characterize this 30-40% reduction  as
statistically significant  (see Question 5b).  Based on our current analyses of
projects that appear to meet these criteria, we observe that:

      1.  Four  years is   sufficient to observe a  significant  reduction  of
         sediment  concentration in irrigation canals where 40* or more of the
         land surface is protected by BMPs (ID-RCWP, UT-RCWP, WA-MIP, WA-B86).

      2.  100*  BMP   treatment  of sediment sources in a  2000-acre  irrigation
         tract,  reduces phosphorus losses significantly within one year  (WA-
         B86).

      3.  Bringing  half  of  the manure in a northestern watershed  under  best
         management  does not produce statistically significant stream phospho-
         rus reductions in a three-year timeframe (VT-RCWP); however, signifi-
         cant  fecal coliform  reductions are possible with the same  level  of
         management  and three  year timeframe  (OR-RCWP).

      4.  Erosion  control  on  the majority of a 4000 acre watershed  may  not
         produce  a   statistically significant improvement in  lake  turbidity
         within four years (IA-RCWP).   However,  the anticipated  improvements
         may be masked by natural variability, due to weather and  climate.

      5.   In Alabama,   treatment of   the  majority   of   agricultural  nonpoint
          sources  on 50,,000  acres has  produced observable  in-lake  fecal  coli-
          form  reductions  but not sediment  reduction  within four years.

-------
Table  2.  Anticipated  Tineframe  for Obtaining and Observing  Water  Quality
           Improvement from Watershed Level NFS Control Efforts.
  Water      "Actual
Resource     Physical/Chemical
Type	Improvements	Pre-Treatment
                   Documented Significant Improvements*
                            Improvements
                          Post-treatment   Total
Irrigation
Canal            0-1
Stream

Estuary

Lake

Ground Water
Aquifer
 1-5

 0-5

 2-10


unknown
1

2-3

2-3

2-3


1-2
Years


1-5

1-5

1-5

1-5


1-5
  1-2      3-8

  2-5      5-13

  2-4      5-12

  2-6      6-14
unknown
unknown
^Assuming BMP implementation of at least 40% effectiveness.
     The required timefrane for observing water  quality results  depends  on  the
watershed size,  water resource type, hydraulic  residence time,   the pollutant
type,  and  the starting conditions.  The conception  of timeframe may be  biased
by short-term results,  however,  because major  storms or other  anomalies  in-
fluence water quality.  In addition, there  are two timeframes to consider:  the
timeframe   in which water quality can actually improve to the desired level in
a physical,  chemical, biological, or aesthetic  sense;   The other is the time-
frame  required to document the water quality improvement with monitoring data.
The latter  timeframe  must,  by necessity,   include  a pre-treatment monitoring
period,  an implementation period and a post-treatment monitoring period.   In
Table  2 we  have  charted the time range  for  each  by water resource type.

Ic. Do groundwater  resources respond rapidly enough to reflect  changes  in
      land management  within a ten year time frame?

     The  PA-RCWP field studies show that a moderate depth (30-100 ft.)  water-
table  in the Conestoga watershed respond to each major  precipitation  event,
and  that   almost complete recharge occurs  over  a one-year  period.   In  this
situation,   the  quality of the groundwater may  respond quickly (1-2 years) if
there  is drastic change in land management.  However, in this project, a large
soil   nutrient   reservoir  exists which will have to be  leached  through  the
system before  improvement will be seen.    The SD-RCWP plot and field  studies
should also provide information toward answering this question  when  those
results become  available.

-------
Id. How much problem definition is needed  to select and develop a  successful
     and cost-effective NFS control project?

     Our  approach  to problem definition,   developed in the 1985  RCWP  Cross
Project  Report (NWQBP,  1985c),  outlines  three problem definition steps  to
maximize  the probability of a successful  (improving water resource) and rela-
tively cost-efficient project.

     1.   Determine  the extent to which a use or potential use  of the  water
          resource is impaired,  and make a best estimate of the economic cost
          of the use impairment.

     2.   Estimate  the  relative  magnitude of sources that  can  be  treated
          through  the  program  versus those that are  beyond  the  program's
          jurisdiction, such as point sources or background.  (These estimates
          should be updated as more information is obtained).

     3.   Determine what pollutant(s) is causing the impairment,  and estimate
          how  much  reduction in that pollutant(s) is needed to  achieve  the
          desired  effect.    (BMP  goals should then be set  to  achieve  this
          amount of reduction).


     In this analysis we evaluate the apparent effect of problem definition on
each project's overall effectiveness.

     The  following are some  observations  from specific projects which  illus-
trate  the potential effect  of problem definition on project success.

     -   In  the Black Creek,   Indiana 108a project,  30% of their funds were
          used  for  streambank  erosion control, whereas this source was later
          estimated to contribute only 5%  of sediment load.

     -   Clear  problem  definition  in the total WA-MIP and  WA-B86  projects
          allowed  rapid  implementation  with resulting water quality success.
          (NWQEP and Harbridge House,  1983; King et.al, 1983)

          The  SC-MIP  spent  most funds on pasture   improvement  and  sediment
          ponds below  pastures,  both of which were  later  found  to  have little
          effect   on sediment loadings from  the project.  (MWQEP and Harbridge
          House,  1983)

     -   Pre-project  source identification indicated  that  NPS  control  alone
          would not  solve problems  in the  VT-RCWP project.   Thus, an effort  to
          control  point   sources   was initiated  simultaneously rather   than
          waiting for  NPS efforts  to produce desired results.
                                        8

-------
	Effect i^osaoso

2.  How  effective are the various BPiPs in reducing pollutant inputs  to water
    The  water quality effectiveness of a BMP or BMP system is generally  site
specific.  Important factors include proximity to watercourse ,  surface slope,
soil types  timing of activities. Magnitude of land disruption, and intensity,
frequency,  and duration of precipitation.   Pieces of the overall picture are
coming  froa  plot and field studies,  HCWP projects,  and other  WPS  control
projects. These include the following observations:


     -  Managing  all  aspects of Manure handling properly can reduce  surface
     water  inputs  of manure phosphorus by 80-90 percent from  northern  U.S.
     dairy operations (VT-RCWP).   With approximately 60& of manure under best
     management,   a   40-50   percent  reduction  in  Bean   fecal   coliform
     concentration has been accomplished  (OR-BCWP) .   Nutrients (TP,  OP, TKW)
     and  fecal coliform concentrations have been reduced (40-65& and  50-90%,
     respectively) through the implementation of animal waste management  sys-
     tens in a snail irrigated watershed  (UT
     -   Barnyard management practices have  the potential  to reduce   TP   load-
     ings  50-90&   (MY-MIP) .     These practices  include diversion  of  upland
     flow,  use  of concrete  slab  surfaces  to prevent   surface  erosion,   and
     diversion of barn roof water.

      -   Elimination of winter manure  spreading reduces  the yield  of total  P
     (slightly)  and ortho  P  (substantially)  (VT-BCWP).  Observation with  re-
     spect  to  nitrogen from  the PA-RCWP and VT-1SCWP projects appear to  con-
     flict  to  some extent.   The PA-RCWP model iag studies  suggest   that,   in
     practice,   the benefits of  eliminating winter  manure  spreading   are
     offset  by  storage  factors that make  available a large slug  of  manure
     nitorgen for transport.   (30 percent increase) The VT-RCW field studies,
     in contrast,   showed that TSK  export increased 148 percent and   amonia-W
     increased 618  percent  as  a result of winter  manure spreading.  The  high W
     losses  from   the VT-RCWP areas could be due to the fact that winter  and
     early spring events produce the greatest pollutant yields in VT-HCWP when
     manure is spread during winter.

     -    Evidence   of the effectiveness  of conservation tillage practices  for
     reducing nutrients and sediment should  be available from MD-RCWP and  MI-
     RCWP, and IL-LAW projects within the next 2-3 years.

      -  The  IA-RCWP project will provide  considerable information about the
     effectiveness  of terraces for  the control of turbidity and  sedimentation
      in western  Iowa.   In  PA-RCWP, terraces were installed at the field sites
     during  the past year,  and should  provide  some definitive information on
      the effects   of  terracing  on transport of pollutants  to  surface  and
     subsurface  water  resources.   On the basis  of  pre- implementation   water
     quality data,   it is projected that terraces may increase nitrate concen-
     trations  of water transported to surface and groundwater because of  the
      increased exposure time  of manure to water.   Increases in surface  runoff

-------
     nitrogen  loads should be moderated by terraces,   however,    if they also
     reduce runoff volume.   Suspended sediment  and total  phosphorus  losses  in
     surface runoff should also be reduced by terraces.

           Sediment  basins  along with subsurface drainage and   treatment  of
     100%  of  area with automated irrigation  water cutback systems   reduced
     sediment  loss 80 percent and reduced phosphorus loss by 50 percent   with
     no significant changes in nitrogen (WA-B86).   Our analyses  of the ID-RCWP
     water  quality  data  show conclusively that   significant  reductions  of
     sediment  concentrations have occurred in  drainage canals as a  result  of
     BMP implementation.  However, both BMP-12  (sediment  retention basins) and
     BMP-13 (irrigation management) have been integrated  in such a way that it
     is  not  possible to distinguish the effects  of the   two practices.    We
     conclude,   therefore,  that the combined effect of irrigation and sediment
     retention BMPs   reduces sediment concentrations significantly.

          Studies  of  20  humid  region sediment  basins   show  sediment   trap
     efficiencies  ranging  between 65 and 98 percent  depending  on  incoming
     sediment concentrations,  particle size distribution, retention time, and
     basin geometry (NWQEP, 1982).  Total phosphorus reductions  from a subset
     of   those  studies have ranged between 10 and 77 percent with  a mean  of
     about  50 percent.   The Skinner Lake (IN-SL) project with  its  fine   clay
     soils may approximate "worst case" conditions; only  marginal reduction in
     sediment and nutrients was observed.   In  general,  we would expect  humid
     region sediment basins to be less effective than those in arid  irrigation
     areas because they are less effective under storm-flow conditions.

     -    Conversion from furrow to sprinkler irrigation  often totally  elimi-
     nates return flows when proper water management is used.   Thus, this BMP
     can  be 100* effective in reducing sediment losses attributable to  irri-
     gation. (WA-MIP)

2a. ffotf  do  external  (uncontrolled) factors such as meteorologic   conditions
     affect  the  ability   of BMPs  to protect or restore  impaired  water re-
     sources?

     There are two components to the answer to this question because:  (1) the
effectiveness  of BMPs may be influenced by meteorologic factors,  such as the
frequency,  magnitude,  and duration of storm events and  (2) the precision  of
monitoring  and data analysis are also affected by these factors.  The  occur-
rence  of  storm events coincident with field activities  (e.g.   spreading  of
fertilizer,  manure  spreading, or plowing)  may change drastically the effec-
tiveness  of BMPs such  as manure management.  Therefore,   we must   distinguish
between  design  characteristics and management options to  determine  whether
BMPs are susceptible to large runoff events and which BMPs are most  effective
over a wide range of meteorologic conditions.  Clearly, there is a  probabilis-
tic aspect to the answer.   Meteorologic variability has only a minor effect in
arid,  irrigated regions  (ID-RCWP,  UT-HCWP, WA-MIP, and WA-B86). Even so, our
analysis  of  subbasin  data from  ID-RCWP  indicated that a 40-60% reduction  in
concentrations   is  required for  a  decrease  to be  statistically   signficant.
These  four projects had statistically significant results within a short  (4-
year) timeframe.  Projects  in humid areas require more time  to document   water
quality   changes because meteorologic variability  affects BMP performance and
other water  quality factors (IA-RCWP,   VA-RCWP,  VT-RCWP,   VT-LAP,   IN-SL, and
other projects).


                                      10

-------
     The  second component refers to experimental and  statistical  considera-
tions.   There  are aethods to account for part of the variability of  natural
systems,  thereby,   improving analytical sensitivity.   In our analysis of the
estuary of the OR-RCWP, we were able to account for about 30SS of the variabil-
ity  in the concentration data by considering salinity as a surrogate  measure
of precipitation and stresua flow in a linear regression aodel.  The regression
models  of stream water quality were improved significantly by adding terras to
the  model  to account for stream discharge (UT-HGW),  stream  discharge  and
hydrograph direction  (rising or falling) (OH-KCfflP),  or stream discharge  and
season  (MI-BCWP).   Hiver stage, where controlled by locks, may also be useful
as  a control variable (LA-KCW),  because it appears to be related to concen-
trations;  regression  analysis should verify this relationship.   Other tech-
niques  that are used to reduce the effect of seteorologic variability  include
pairing watershed  responses (VT-BGWP) and pairing upstream and  downstream
observat ions. (ID-RCWP).

2b. What  SfiPs are most cost-effective in addressing water resource  impaii—
     The  answer  to this question will develop from the results  of  many  NFS
projects.   A  more detailed discussion of this topic will be  given at a later
time.  The following  are preliminary observations:

         While  structural  BMPs  can be effective  in   reducing   sediment  and
     nutrient (especially P) losses,  they may not  be the most cost-effective.
     Our  preliminary evaluation suggests that ainiBrau  tillage and vegetative
     cover  practices  are  substantially  Bore cost-effective  (in  terms  of
     cost/ton of soil saved/year) than sediment basins,  diversions, terraces,
     and sediment control structures (IN-SL).   Structural BMPs,  such as sedi-
     ment basins and irrigation systees,  were also found by BBS  not to be  as
     cost-effective  as  practices that reduce erosion  on the  field,  such  as
     conservation  tillage  (ID-HCWP). (See Status Heport on  the CM&K Projects,
     [WWQEP, 1985] for more details).  Results from two projects  in Washington
     state  suggest  that   improved irrigation water  management   (timing  and
     automatic  furrow  cutback) is also sore cost-effective  than structural
     alternatives for reducing sediment losses (WA-MIP, WA-B86).

       -   Fertilizer  management is a relatively inexpensive  practice to  re-
     duce  nutrient  loss.  In  terms of cost per pound of   phosphorus  saved,
     fertilizer management  is estiuated to be raore  cost-effective than conser-
     vation tillage,  and both are raore cost-effective  than  animal waste  man-
     agement   (MI-RCWP)  when animal waste management involves cost sharing   a
     waste storage structure.   Prelisainary  results fron field site monitoring
     (PA-RCWP) suggest that a nutrient management  (both fertilizer and  animal
     waste)  program,  which provides soil testing  and  precise recommendations
     that Ejatch nutrient application rates to crop  utilization rates,  may  be
     the  jaost  effective   BMP for reducing  nitrogen  losses  to  groundwater.
     Preliminary  economic  analysis  for PA-RCWP suggests  that   the  cost  of
     hauling   to export cattle and swine manure  from  the  110,000-acre  project
     area would be unacceptably high.   Exporting poultry manure, however, may
     be  Bore  cost-effective because it is dry and  relatively  high in nitrogen
     content.
                                      11

-------
           Three types of BMPs were implemented to deal with the animal  waste
     problems in OR-RCWP and NY-MIP:  (1)  waste storage structures, (2)  sub-
     surface pasture drainage,  and  (3) milkhouse curbing and guttering.   It
     appears  that  curbing and guttering of milkhouses is the  most  cost-ef-
     fective  of these practices,  reducing a large proportion (20-40*) of the
     waste  input  to streams at low cost compared to other animal  waste  BMP
     components.


2c. To what extent do groundwater BMPs conflict with surface water BMPs?

     Of all common agriculture-related pollutants,  only soluble nitrogen  and
soluble  pesticides generally present a potential conflict between efforts  to
reduce surface water and groundwater inputs.   Preliminary results from PA and
from  other field studies suggest that surface runoff-reducing practices  have
potential  to increase groundwater contamination by nitrate or soluble  pesti-
cides.   Simulations  with the CREAMS model,  in the PA-HCWP,  suggested  that
conservation tillage has no real effect on groundwater,  but that terraces may
increase nitrogen transport to groundwater.  The IA-RCWP might contribute some
perspective on potential conflicts due to terracing if the watershed treatment
retains sediment but fails to reduce nutrient flow to the lake.

2d. What  degree of sediment reduction can be achieved by BMP  implementation
      at  the watershed level?

      The answer to this question will develop out of all projects' results for
various size areas, climates, topographies, soil types, and crops.

      ID-RCWP  has  shown significant reductions in irrigation  canal  sediment
concentrations  in  the subbasins where high levels of sediment  control  BMPs
were  installed.   Our analyses show that these reductions are  in the range  of
approximately 40-60 percent (NWQEP, 1985a).  Additional  land  treatment  data
are   needed,  however,   to  tie  the observed reduction  to   BMP  application
unequivocally.  Sediment basins and improved irrigation systems implemented on
a  2000-acre  area reduced sediment loading (WA-B86)   80  percent.   Likewise,
conversion  from furrow to sprinkler irrigation systems resulted  in  sediment
reductions  at  the edge of fields and often resulted  in total elimination  of
return flows  (WA-MIP).  Unfortunately,  overall reduction in sediment loadings
from  the watershed was not estimated in the WA-MIP project,  and no  watershed
level sediment  reduction has yet been documented on Rock Creek (ID-RCWP).

      Several  other projects  are expected  to determine potential sediment  re-
ductions  from  conservation tillage (MD-RCWP,  MI-RCWP,  IL-LAN) and  terraces
(IA-RCWP and  PA-RCWP) on the  field-scale to the small  watershed level  (10-8000
acres).

2e.  What  degree of nutrient  reduction  can be achieved by  BMPs  at a  water-
      shed level?

      Considerable  information on nutrient  loading and  concentration  reduction
from   land   treatment has been developed by the VT-RCWP and PA-RCWP  projects.
The   VT-RCWP has  projected,   based  on results  from BMP implementation,  water
quality  data,   and modeling,   that  total P loadings from  its most   extensively
implemented  subbasin will  decrease by  30  percent over the  project  timeframe.
A  57 percent  decrease in  dissolved P  is  projected.    It appears   that  these


                                      12

-------
loading  reductions  would  be even greater except that very  high  phosphorus
levels  have built nap in the soils as a result of historical  over-application
of Manure and coEaercial fertilizer.  The total saanure P reduction anticipated
froa bringing aanure raider best taanageisent is estimated as 80—90 percent.

     Our projections from the PA-BCWP field and modeling studies are:   1)  that
practices  such as terracings  conservation tillage,  and Manure storage   will
have  a relatively Hinor influence on transport of nitrogen to groundwater  or
to streaai baseflow;  and 2) that  terraces and conservation tillage will   pro-
duce  SOBS reduction of total phosphorus and total nitrogen transport  to   sur-
face waters.  On the other hand, we expect that  nutrient EanageBent,  matching
nitrogen  application© to crop needs based on soil and eamure nitrogen tests,
will  have a significant irapact on nitrogen losses.  After an initial  flushing
period  we expect that nitrogen loading reductions to both ground and   surface
waters will be proportional to the reduction in e«cess JJ applied to soil.

       Our  analysis  of OT-RCW,  a ©mall project area (700 acres) with   five
treated  aniBal operations identified statistically significant  concentration
reductions in total P (438), ortho P (55^)s and total Ijeldahl H  (5S&).   These
reductions resulted frosa  iaproving aniaal waste Banagesent , and they  occurred
even though herd sizes increased during the SEES tiussfrsos.

       An irrigated systea with sediaent basins and water aanageHent practices
insalled reduced total P loading 50 percent and reduced dissolved P  loading by
20-40 percent (WA-B86).  Under the saiae conditions ,  nitrogen loadings did not
decrease.   Our analysis of the IB-BCfflP showed significant  reductions  of  total
P  'concentrations  in three of the subbasins with sediment  basins   and  water
management .   We found no significant reductions in TIN concentrations.   The P
reductions  were   less than the sedisaent  reductions s  corroborating  previous
studies  which showed that sediment-control BMP& reduce total suspended solids
to a greater extent than total P.

     Other  projects eventually will add  iraforaation to this  topic.    MI-RCWP
could  potentially have results -(on a  1000-8000 acre scale)  on   nutrient  re-
ductions  froa  conservation tillage and  anisial waste  aanageaent  within  two
years.   On  a smaller scale (25-150 acres) nutrient reductions  free  specific
BMPs  Bay  be determined by the MD-BCKP and IL-KCWP.   W-IP  and VA-HCWP  may
also  show  soue nutrient reductions,  and results  are espected   froa  studies
conducted in the IL-BCWP.

2f .  K&at degree  of bacterial reduction can be  achieved  through various
      levels of
      With approsieately SO  percent of the sanure (OH-BCW) under best  aanage-
 ment,   our  analyses   show   40  to 50 percent reduction in the  log-nean  fecal
 coiifona concentrations.    Other work in siaall upstreara tributaries containing
 1-2  dairies  suggests that about SO percent fecal col i fora reduction  cam  be
 accoaplished by treating all dairies in the watershed.

      In addition,   we found SO  percent reduction in fecal colifora  concentra-
 tions  froEi installing animal waste oanageaent on 5 out of 6 critical  dairies
 in the 700-acre UT-KCW project.
                                      13

-------
     The  ID-RCWP  did not implement many animal wast«  BMPs.   However,  they
achieved significant reductions in fecal coliform in one subbasin,  after  the
cattle were kept from traversing the stream area.

     Additional  information  on possible fecal coliform reductions will  come
from other projects, especially VT-RCWP and VT-LP, MW-RCWP, and MA-RCWP.
                                      14

-------
3.  Where ia a watershed should BMPs be placed to restore or protect a  given
     water resource?
     The  projects we studied have used a wide variety of criteria to identify
critical areas within their boundaries.  Among the criteria employed are:

     1.   distance of the farm from the nearest watercourse,

     2.   distance from the impaired water resource,

     3.   erosion rate,

     4.   nutrient application rates and timing,

     5.   presence of manure sources,

     6.   designated high or low priority subbasins,

     7.   on-site evaluation.
     It  is  very difficult to correlate a project's critical   area   targeting
approach with its present or potential water quality results because  there  are
many confounding variables.   However,  insights  into appropriate methods   for
selecting  critical areas can be gained from the  approaches and experiences of
projects  to  date.    The  following  discussion highlights   some   of these
approaches and experiences.

     At  one  end of the critical area spectrum is the  IA-RCWP  project where
nearly the entire watershed above the lake is  targeted  for BMP treatment.   The
watershed is relatively small and designation  of  all cropland  as critical   ap-
pears  to  be  appropriate.    The OR-RCWP provides two valuable  insights   to
critical area selection.  First,  because the  impairment is bacterial contami-
nation of shellfish beds,  the needed bacterial   reduction is  very large,   and
thus,  the  project concluded that most dairy  sources should be classified   as
critical.   Second, OH-HCWP is one of only two projects (ID-HCHP is  the other)
we have found that have used the "designated  subbasin"  criteria  explicitly.
Because  one of the tributaries to Tillamook Bay  enters the bay very near   its
outlet  to the Pacific Ocean,   the  project determined  that material from this
tributary  could not reach the shellfish beds.  Thus,   they  eliminated dairy
operations on this tributary from cost-sharing consideration.

     SD/MN-BSL used two models  (AGNPS  [Young,  et al.,  1985] and the Minnesota
Feedlot  Model  [Young,  et al.,  1982]) to identify critical areas in a  large
watershed  (750,000 acres).   A modeling approach  appears to be appropriate  for
large watersheds where farm by farm  evaluation may be  impractical.
                                      15

-------
     Ideally,  the moat efficient way to select critical areas would b© ©SB the
basis  of water quality monitoring data froa within the  project  area.   Four
current  projects (ID-RCWP,   IL-KCWP,  VT-RCWP,  UT-RCWP) are in a position to
refine critical areas on this basis.

     Several projects (MI-HCWP, MD-RCWP, WI-RCWP, VA-RCWP) have used "distance
to  nearest watercourse" as  their priiaary or sole criterion  for critical  area
selection.   This  is  a good first cut but could be improved  by  considering
other factors.   The LA-HCWP project is noteworthy in  that it designated areas
directly  adjacent  to the impaired water body as "extra-critical" with  cost-
sharing raised to 90%.

     Quantitative  farm level rating forms have been used to prioritize  cost-
share applications in several projects (e.g.  OR-RCWP, VT-RCWP, WA-MIP).  This
has proven to be a very useful  tool provided that the  form is weighted to  the
appropriate water quality concerns.

     The  PA-RCWP  and SD-RCWP  have developed targeting criteria specific  for
groundwater impairments.   These focus on soil permeability,  nutrient  appli-
cation rates, and depth to groundwater.


3a. What  fraction of watershed critical  areas  or sources must be treated with
     BMPs to restore or protect a  given  water resource?

     An   answer to this question will be forthcoming from the agricultural NFS
control   projects  presently underway.   These projects encompass  the  entire
spectrum  from almost no BMPs to essentially  100*  treatment.   As water quality
responses are documented,   it should be possible  to predict  water  quality  for
some   impariraents based on  the fraction of watershed area treated,   assuming  a
valid  critical area  selection procedure has  been  followed.    Below are some of
the more  concrete results presently available.

      1.    In  Idaho  (ID-RCWP) approximately  40%  reduction in irrigation  canal
           sediment concentration has been associated with the treatment of 36%
           of  the  identified critical area.

      2.    The OR-RCWP  project has  observed 40-50% reduction  in  log-mean  fecal
           coliform   concentration  in Tillamook Bay that corresponds  with their
           bringing   approximately  60%  of the manure produced in the  watershed
           under  best  management.    Further  improvements  are anticipated   from
           this project as  the treatment  level  approaches  90%.

      3.    Extensive  modeling and  monitoring efforts  in VT-RCWP indicate   that
           animal  waste management is  approximately 80% effective in  reducing
           the  loss   of total phosphorus to  area  streams.    Continued water
           quality monitoring  should document how closely this translates   to
           the watershed level effects.

      4.    Treatment   of 100% of the land in a Columbia Basin irrigation  block
           (WA-B86)reduced   sediment yield 80%  and total phosphorus yield 50%
           The BMPs employed had no effect on nitrogen losses from the system.
                                       16

-------
5.   In  the UT-RCWP project approximately 80* of the project area  dairy
     farms  had waste management BMPs implemented.   Our analysis of  the
     water  quality data indicates a 43% total P reduction,  55* ortho  P
     reduction,  59*  concentration TEN reduction and 90* fecal  coliform
     reduction.
            t
6.   In  the  NY-MIP 91 of 275 barnyards were treated (154 were  of  high
     priority)  with only marginally significant reductions  (10-15*)  in
     dissolved phosphorus loadings estimated by modeling.

7.   In the IL-LAN project approximately 60* of the watershed was treated
     with conservation tillage.  The water quality monitoring program was
     insufficient to clearly document any water quality change;  however,
     visual improvements in the lake have been observed.
                                 17

-------
Inatitutonal/Organizational CoaaideratioBS


4a.  What are  the aoat effective means of obtaining fanner participation?

     A  diversity  of  approaches to obtaining farmer participation  in  water
quality projects is apparent  in  the projects reviewed for this report.   These
include: one-on-one contact of project personnel with fanners; high cost share
rates  on  desirable practices;  extensive media coverage  along  with  public
meetings  and  field days;  supplying services such as pest scouting and  soil
sampling;  targeting effort to specific key individuals in the community;  and
negative  reinforcement  such as regulations and  economic  disadvantages  for
those who do not comply with  project objectives.

     Project   size,  also,  appears to be a major factor in the implementation
rate  achieved by projects,   perhaps because a drastic increase in  work  load
occurs with increasing project size,  and more effective personal interactions
and group dynamics occur in smaller projects.   Thus,  smaller projects appear
to  be more successful than large projects in obtaining farmer  participation.
As  a  corollary,  one-on-one attention by project  personnel  appears to be on©
of the most effective means of obtaining  farmer participation.   A high degree
of personal contact was visible  in the VT-HCWP,  VT-1P,  OR-RCWP, MI-RCWP, WA-
MIP,  and WA-B86 projects.    VT-HCWP,  in particular,  has a  person designated
specifically to market the program, and WA-B86  involved direct contact between
university  engineering  faculty and each farm operator in the  project  area.
Bach of  these  projects is notable for  its high  implementation rate.

     High  cost share rates for  a slate of practices  that the farmers  prefer
was  apparently an effective  means of  obtaining participation in the  LA-RCWP,
UT-RCWP,  ID-RCWP,   SC-MIP, WAHMIP, and IN-SL projects.  The  IN-SL project had
poor  participation  rates  until  it  increased  its  cost share rates  from   45
percent  to  85 percent.   The  LA-RCWP obtained the participation of  the  most
critical farms by  offering them preferential cost share rates as high as  90%.
The  WA-B86 achieved 100% participation with severely restricted  cost-sharing
rates,   however,   by providing a great deal of  personal attention. The UT-RCWP
helped   its  farmers to  improve their animal waste  management facilities  suf-
ficiently   that participants  were able to increase  herd  sizes  substantially,
and   ID-RCWP   assisted its participating  farmers  to improve   their  irrigation
distribution   systems,   to  provide  increased  water use   efficiency,   labor
savings, and erosion control  benefits.  The high rate of nutrient and  pesticide
management  in  the  SD-RCWP also was,   at  least  in  part,  due  to  a  simultaneous
Extension   Service  effort  that provided pest  scouting  to   those  who   signed
contracts  for  pest management in the RCWP project.

      Most   successful   water quality projects  have used   radio  and  newspaper
media  effectively to develop awareness of their projects.    The MI-RCWP,   VT-
RCWP,   and IL-RCWP projects supplemented their media efforts with public meet-
 ings and highly publicized field days and tours that were helpful  in  promoting
BMPs and in stimulating participation.
                                       18

-------
     The PA-RCWP,  WA-MIP, IN-BC, and MD-ROJP projects took very specific tar-
geting approaches to address their participation objectives.   The IN-BC  pro-
ject  was highly successful in obtaining the participation of its large  Amish
ccwBunity  by targeting an intense effort to obtain the approval of the comsau-
nity's religious leaders.   The PA-RCWP, which also has large Amish and Menno-
nite population©5 followed the XW-BC example with ouch less success.   The WA-
MIP  project  targeted  its efforts toward the trend-setting  farmers  in  the
project  area,  and  the MB-SCW project targeted its effort to  operators  of
large  farms with the rationale that they could,  thereby,  achieve  extensive
iE$>lementatiora with fewer contracts.   Targeting was apparently successful  in
the WA-KHP, but in the MB-KCKJP project, results ar© somewhat equivocal.

     The  high participation rate in the OH-I5CW project  is largely  attribut-
able  to the negative consequences that Bay be  invoked for dairy farmers that
do  not cooply with project objectives.   All of the fanners in the  watershed
©ell their milk to a cooperative which support© the objectives of the  project.
Any  dairy operation that does not oeet specified manure  handling criteria  i©
penalized  in the price paid for its HiIk.   Participation  in the project  as-
sures  that  a fan® will sieet the coop's criteria and  provides  cost  sharing
assistance.  In addition, the OB-KCWP has regulatory statutes which  it can and
does invoke where necessary.

     In summary8  small project size and close contact between project person-
nel  and project area farmers appear to be effective aspects of projects  that
are  successful  in achieving participation objectives.    High cost share  rates
or direct assistance for  desirable practice© also have been shown to be effec-
tive  incentives.   The  threat of negative consequences for those who  do not
coaply with project objectives has been deaonstrated effective  in at least one
project,  but  targeting to key  community leaders or  large  farms has not  been
effective in all of the  projects studied.


4b.  How Does Multiplicity of Objectives,  e.g.  simultaneous groundwater and
     surface water objectives affect project performance?

     Two  groundwater  projects  should contribute substantially  to  answering
this  question.    The experience in  SDHSCW0   to date,   indicates  that  severe
problesas  can arise in multiple-objective projects  unless considerable  effort
is  devoted   to  determining how  to  coabine  objective®  properly.    The lack   of
clarity  and  definition of surface water and  groundwater  objectives  has
slowed  the development of the SD-iCW  project.    Infcreation  from the  PA-RCWP
project  shows that there are some  BMP©,  such as  fertilizer  management„   that
can   reduce both surface and  groundwater  iHpainments.    These results  further
suggest  that  increasing infiltration through terracing or no-till  practices
without  nutrient Banagesaent nay  have negative  isjpact© on groundwater quality.
                                      19

-------
Sggtgr Quality Monitoring

5a. What   are   the groundwater levels of pesticides  that  can be  expected in
     areas with intensive agriculture?

     There is a paucity of data to address this question.  However,  the  emer-
ging  picture   shows   that the occurrence of pesticides in  groundwater   is  a
function of application rate,   soil type, pesticide  type, and aquifer recharge
rate.   Extensive  use  of  soluble pesticides (e.g. aldicarb) on  sandy soils has
produced documented groundwater contamination at an  increasing  number of  sites
nationwide.   Anilide  and  triazine   herbicides in  groundwater are  the  most
commonly observed  pesticide  contaminants, in this   concentration  range of 1-40
ug/1 (Maas et al,   1984).    Herbicide concentrations in the PA-HCWP monitoring
wells showed significant  increases following field application  in the  spring.
However,   the concentrations observed were consistently less than 1 ug/1,  not
considered sufficient to cause a water use impairment.   A major unresolved
issue is the effect that  increasing usage of runoff  reducing practices such as
conservation tillage will have on groundwater pesticide concentrations, espec-
ially if these  practices  require an increase in herbicide use.
5b.  How much  change in nonpoint source pollution must occur to be detectable
      through water quality monitoring.

      NWQEP has focused a great deal of attention on this question in the  past
year,   and  we anticipate a continuing effort.    The answer is fundamental  to
development of successful NFS control projects.   For example,  if the goal of a
particular project is to produce water quality improvements through BMP imple-
mentation,  knowing the minimum detectable water quality change is crucial for
setting  realistic  BMP implementation goals (and consequently,  for  funding,
critical area designation, timefrerae, technical assistance, etc.).

      Our  research  into  the  issue  has  taken  two  separate,  but  related
approaches.   One  is to observe what level of pollutant reduction is  statis-
tically  significant  in projects with different timeframes and/or  with  dif-
ferent types of water quality monitoring programs.   In the other approach, we
examine the natural variability of water quality data from BMP  implementation
projects in a variety of water resource types without regard to the documented
 improvement  in  water  quality.   With a statistical analysis of  data  vari-
ability,  we  have  estimated the duration of monitoring and  how  many  water
samples must be taken to document a given level of change. A detailed  prelim-
 inary  presentation of this analysis can be found in the Technical  Supplement
 to the 1985 RCWP CM&E Report (NWQEP, 1985b.)
                                       20

-------
     With the data we have examined so far, we have found that the sensitivity
of  a  nonpoint  source water quality monitoring system  increases  with  time
(i.e.,  increasing  number  of independent samples).   The more of  the  total
variability  which can be explained by sources other than BMP  implementation,
the  greater is the potential sensitivity of the monitoring system.   Prelimi-
nary work suggests that a 50-60% decrease in mean pollutant concentrations  in
precipitation-driven  systems may be the minimum change that is  statistically
significant  without correcting for meteorologic variability.  If meteorology-
related  variables  can  be  accounted  for,   then  30-40%  decrease  may  be
sufficient.

     Examining the water quality data from specific projects has provided  the
following information related to this question:

     1.   In  the OR-RCWP project 40-50% reduction in log-mean fecal  coliform
          concentration  was required for significance.   Fecal coliform  data
          are  extremely variable,  but we were able to achieve this level  of
          sensitivity  by using bay salinity measurements to adjust for  mete-
          orological effects.

     2.   In  the  ID-RCWP  project we found that 35% reduction  of  raw  mean
          sediment,  concentration (corrected  for upstream concentration) over
          four  years was statistically significant.  This low value  was  at-
          tributed  to the fact that meteorological effects on the system  are
          small.

     3.   Very similar results were found  for  the UT-RCWP where, approximately
          40% reduction in mean sediment concentration was required.  Meteoro-
           logical  effects  within the  UT-RCWP  irrigated  system,  too,  are
           relatively  small.  Also,   in  both  ID-RCWP and UT-RCWP we  used  an
           "upstream-downstream" analytical design which  adjusted  for  incoming
           sediment concentrations in  the irrigation system.

     4.    The  MI-RCWP has an excellent water  quality database consisting of  5
           years of weekly samples with corresponding streanflow  measurements.
           The data show a significant seasonal effect.   Our preliminary analy-
           sis  suggests   that  a  linear regression model  which   adjusts  the
           concentration   data for both streamflow and season  may  allow   a  30%
           change  in phosphorus concentration  to  be  considered significant.
                                      21

-------
           Brief Summaries of Agricultural NonPoint Source Projects
                      RURAL CLEAN WATER PROJECTS (RCWF)
                               Rock Creek RCWP

                           Twin Falls County, Idaho
                                 MLRA: B-ll
I.   Project's  contributions  toward understanding the effectiveness  of  NPS
control efforts:

     Information  on the effectiveness of BMPs in an irrigated system will  be
gained from this project. After four years of water quality monitoring, signi-
ficant  sediment  concentration reductions have been found in  six  subbasins.
Additional  documentation of the relationship between land treatment and water
quality  will be helpful to establish a cause-and-effect relationship of  BMPs
to  water quality improvements.   (For more information see RCWP Status Report
on the CM&E Projects, 1985, pp. 35-64.)


II.  Project Characteristics

     1.   Project type: RCWP-comprehensive monitoring and evaluation, project
          area  = 45,000 acres.

     2.   Water resource type:  Irrigation canals and streams.

     3.   Use impairment:  Recreation, fishing, and aesthetics.

     4.   Timeframe:  1981-1991.

     5.   Water quality at start of project:

          1980  flow-weighted mean concentrations at the mouth of Rock Creek:

                TSS   =           158 mg/1      (irrigation season only)

                TP    =             0.123 mg/1  (irrigation season only)

                TN                 3.3 mg/1    (water year)

                FC    =           1182 mpn       (geometric mean)
                                      22

-------
    6.   Meteorologic factors:  Annual rainfall  =8.5  inches;  USLE "R"  factor
         = 20

    7.   Water  quality monitoring program:    Grab samples and  instantaneous
         flow  are  taken  biweekly   to  weekly at   Rock  Creek  and  subbasin
         stations  during  the irrigation period;   monthly monitoring is  per-
         formed  during the non-irrigation season.  Samples are analyzed  for
         total phosphorus,  dissolved orthophosphate,  suspended solids, fecal
         coliform, Kjeldahl nitrogen, and inorganic nitrogen.

    8.   BMPs:   Focus  is on sediment  retention  structures  and  irrigation
         management  systems  with some permanent vegetative cover on critical
         areas   (RCWP-BMPs 12,  13,   and 11).    Several other practices  were
         approved, but few are implemented (i.e. RCWP-BMPs 2,  9, 15, and 16).

    9.   Critical areas:   The subbasins  were prioritized, however, the imple-
         mentation of practices has  not  followed the designated order closely.

    10.   Incentives:  80%  cost-sharing,  $50,000  maximum.

    11.   Economic  information:   BRS performed analysis.   Preliminary  esti-
         mates   of    total benefits are projected to be much less  than  the
         total  costs    (benefit/cost =  0.2).   However, it was projected that
         the  benefits could    exceed costs if the project were to  emphasize
          lower   cost  practices,   such  as conservation tillage  and  erosion
         control,  in place of sediment  basins and irrigation systems.


III. Lessons Learned

     Arid,   irrigated   argicultural areas,  like the Rock  Creek  subbasins,
appear to respond faster to land treatment than do non-irrigated, humid areas.
This  is probably  due to a relatively low variability  in the  hydrology  and
water  quality  of  the irrigated  system.   Further  comparisons  with  other
projects will  help to test this hypothesis.   Although less  variability  is
present in  these data than in other projects in humid regions, analyses show a
40-60% decrease in concentrations is necessary to achieve statistical signifi-
cance.   More variability is likely to exist in the Rock Creek and Snake River
systems that receive the effluent from the irrigation tract,  because they are
influenced more by meteorologic factors.
                                      23

-------
                           Prairie Rose Lake, RCWP

                             Shelby County, Iowa
                                  MLRA: M-107
I.   Project's  contributions  toward  understanding the effectiveness  of NFS
control efforts:

     This  project  is a prime test of whether treating most of  the  critical
erosion areas in a watershed can reduce turbidity and sedimentation in a lake.


II.  Project Characteristics:

     1.   Project Type:   RCWP budget:  $801/849.  $446,000 allotted for  cost
          sharing incentives on BMPs.   Total watershed area is 4,490 acres of
          which 80% is cropland.

     2.   Water Resource Type:   Recreational lake, 218 acres, max depth 24ft.
          The  lake is surrounded by state-owned park land.   The lake is used
          for fishing and primary contact recreation with some drinking  water
          withdrawn for use  in the park.

     3.   Use  Impairment:   The fishery and swimming are degraded by sediment
          and turbidity.  Bathymetric evidence indicates that sedimentation is
          filling the lake faster than expected.

     4.   Timeframe:  1980-1991.

     5.   Water Quality at start of project:   In 12 years preceding the proj-
          ect,  there  was 10* loss of boating area,  19% loss of storage vol-
          ume,  and major destruction of fish habitat.  High concentrations of
          pesticides  were   observed  in storrawater at the  start  of  project
          (Dieldrin > 0.0019ug/l and toxaphene > 0.013ug/l;   TP averaged 0.23
          to  0.5 mg/1 and Chi a averaged 17 to 34ug/l in lake stations during
          the summer).

     6.   Meteorologic and hydrologic variability:   Climate  is subhumid, with
          precipitation  uniformly  distributed  through  the  year.   Average
          precipitation: 29  in, USLE R-factor 150 to 175.

     7.   Monitoring:  Bi-weekly monitoring of three lake stations through the
          summer   recreational  season   (May  through  September).  Additional
          samples  are collected following storms greater than  1 inch of  rain-
          fall  during period June through August.
                                      24

-------
     8.    Land Treatment:  Primary emphasis  in this project is on installation
          of  terraces  with  underground outlet structures and  Nutrient  and
          Pesticide Management.    Several sediment control structures are also
          slated  for construction.    Conservation tillage and fertilizer  and
          pesticide management  are generally required along with the  terrace
          contracts.

     9.    Critical Areas:  All cropland in this project is considered critical.

    10.    Incentives:   The  project offers 75* cost sharing on all BMPs except
          Nutrient and  Pesticide management,  which are not cost  shared.   An
          Extension program  was  conducted early in the project  to  promote
          nutrient and  pesticide management by offering soil sampling and pest
          scouting services.

    11.    Economic  Information:   Only limited information is available  from
          the RCWP project reports.


III. Lessons learned:

     This  project  offers the clear opportunity to document  whether  or  not
thorough land treatment can accomplish water quality goals.   In addition,  it
will offer insight into the benefits and disadvantages of terraces;  i.e.  the
terraces  are expected to reduce soil loss effectively,  but terraces may  in-
crease nutrient transport through subsurface routes.

     This  project is a good  example of successful  implementation  and  high
participation that can be achieved by a small project with clear objectives.
                                      25

-------
                           Highland Silver Lake, RCWP

                            Madison County, Illinois
                                   MLRA: M-114
I.   Project's  contributions  toward understanding the effectiveness  of  NFS
control efforts:

     At  the present time,  there is no certainty the water quality impairment
of  the  lake will be reversed.   The field study aspect of  the  project,  if
continued,  may  help to  determine  if  BMPs  can  effectively   reduce   the
erosion  of  fine particles of sediment from natric soils.   (For more  infor-
mation see HCWP Status Report on the CM&E Projects, 1985, pp. 65-78.)


II.  Project Characteristics:

     1.   Project  type:   RCWP,   comprehensive  monitoring  and  evaluation,
          project area = 30,640 acres.

     2.   Water resource type:  Stream and lake

     3.   Use impairment:  Recreational, water supply, fish and wildlife.
                 (i

     4.   Timeframe:  1980-1990

     5.   Water quality at beginning of project:

               Average water  quality from lake site
          nearest water intake (May 1981 - April  1983)

TSS
Turbidity
TP
TN
Chi a
mean
27.8 mg/1
54.4 NTU
0.18 mg/1
2.0 mg/1
6.26 ug/1
n
18
17
18
18
17
      6.    Meteorologic factors:   Annual rainfall = 40.5 inches;
           USLE 'R'  factor ~ 200.
                                      26

-------
    7.   Water Quality Monitoring Program:

         9  lake sites sampled monthly
         1  lake outflow site sampled biweekly
         3  tributary sites sampled biweekly, discontinued during Oct.  1984
         8  field sites sampled during runoff events,  not  reported
            and discontinued during Oct.  1984
         3  biological tributary  sites sampled  twice a year
         1  channel and streambed survey
         1  lake sedimentation survey

    8.   BMPs:  Practices have been selected that will increase ground cover,
         decrease  the velocity  of surface runoff, and improve the management
         of  livestock waste  (i.e.  RCWP BMPs  1,2,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,14,   and
         15).   Implementation is behind  schedule.

    9.   Critical areas:   Criteria are  soil type and slope,   which appear to
         be  appropriate.   Water quality data should be  used to  re-evaluate
         critical  areas and where other important sources of pollutants  are
         located.

    10.   Incentives:  75% cost-sharing with $50,000 maximum.

    11.   Economic  Information:   BRS  performed analysis;   a preliminary esti-
         mate  of  the   total  benefits   did  not  exceed  the  total   costs
          (benefit/cost   =  0.2).  The onsite  longterm productivity  benefits
         from erosion control are  low due to the deep and fertile soils  with
          low  slope,  and the cost of increasing filtration of drinking water
         and potential  to increase recreational use are less than the cost of
          the program.


III. Lessons Learned:

     The Highland Silver Lake project had much  advance  planning.   Critical
areas were  defined and a sound monitoring program was developed.  However, BMP
implementation  level is low and there is a possibility that the current  BMPs
may not be  able to alleviate the lake's water quality problem.
                                     27

-------
                             Storehouse Parish, LA
                                MLRA:  0-134
I.   Project's  contributions toward  understanding the effectiveness  of  NFS
control efforts.

     No  useful information about BMP water quality relationships has yet come
from this project.   A major concern of the project is the reduction of pesti-
cide  residues in water,  sediment and biota.   Present indications  are  that
little  information on BMP effectiveness for reducing pesticide residues  will
be  obtained  due to poor coordination of monitoring and  land  treatment  and
inappropriate  water quality monitoring design.  Some information on turbidity
reduction from irrigation improvements may be forthcoming.    A recent drastic
reduction in project size and a corresponding increase in farmer participation
rate lends some optimism that this project may yet make a useful  contribution
to the field of knowledge on NPS control.


II.  Project Characteristics

     1.   Project type:  RCWP - 66,000 acres (reduced from 220,000 acres).

     2.   Water resource type:  River  (bayou).

     3.   Use impairment:  The only documented impairment is  the occurrence of
          excessive organochlorine insecticide residues in fish tissue.

     4.   Timeframe:   1080-1991.

     5.   Water   quality  at  start of  project:  River bottom  sediment  samples
          contained 5-400 ppb of various  organochlorines  during 1982.

     6.   Meteorologic factors:   Mean annual precipitation = 48  inches.  USLE
           'R' factor  = 400.

     7.   Water quality monitoring program:

           a.    5  ambient  stations  (monthly)  53 parameters,

          b.    2   automated stormwater tributary sites  (quarterly storm),

           c.    3  fish sampling sites  (biannual).

           The  monitoring  system,  while extensive,   does  not  appear  to   be
           coordinated  with BMP activities nor does it  seem to be designed   to
           answer any specific questions.
                                      28

-------
     8.    BMPs:   All RCWP  BMPs have been  approved except BMP-3,  BMP-6 and BMP-
          14.    The majority of funds have been  spent on BMP-13 (irrigation
          land leveling,   land smoothing,  and irrigation water conveyance).  As
          of 9/30/84,   57% of the critical acreage (39* of total project area)
          was under contract.    The 1985  goal was to bring an additional  8300
          acres  under contract.    About  60* of this was actually completed as
          of 9/30/84.

     9.    Critical areas:    Critical  areas are defined as cotton  lands  and
          cropland within  3/4 nile of Bayou Bonne  Idee.  There is no  indica-
          tion of how  well contracting has adhered to these criteria.

    10.    Incentives:    Cost-sharing  rates .vary from 50-75* depending on BMP.
          In  addition  the project has increased the cost-share  to  90*  for
          those farms  directly bordering the Bayou Bonne Idee.

  •  11.    Economic information:   RCWP and farmer BMP expenditures.


III. Lesson Learned:

     It  is  uncertain   at  this time whether  the  project  will  contribute
significant information to the field of NFS  control.  There is some potential
because of the high farmer participation and extensive water quality  monitor-
ing,  in  spite of the lack of coordination between the project  elements.   A
major  lesson learned is that the original 220,000 acre project area was  much
too  large to achieve observable water quality results with the level of fund-
ing available through RCWP.
                                      29

-------
                            Double Pipe Creek HCWP

                           Carroll County, Maryland
                                 MLRA:  S-148
I.   Project's  contributions  toward understanding the effectiveness  of  NPS
control efforts:

      The project  will make  at least some contribution to knowledge of  BMP-
water quality relationships.   Reporting of BMP implementation accomplishments
has been unclear, but it appears that insufficient implementation has occurred
to be observable from water quality monitoring.   Project area may also be too
large to obtain observable improvements with available cost-share funds.   The
three farm sites (17,  80, and 175 acres) may show water quality effectiveness
of specific BMPs within 2—3 years, if the project can get BMPs completed.


II.  Project Characteristics

     1.   Project type:  RCWP, 110,000 acres.

     2.   Water resource type: Rivers.

     3.   Use impairment:  Domestic water supply and fishery  degraded by sedi-
          ment and bacterial  contamination. Project area contributes nutrients
          disproportionately  to  the Chesapeake Bay.

     4.   Timeframe:   1980-1991.

     5.   Water  quality   at  beginning of   project:   Maximum  fecal  coliform
          concentrations   of   40,000/lOOml  during  runoff   events.   Turbidity
          commonly   in excess of 40 NTUs during and after  runoff events.

     6.   Meteorologic factors - Annual rainfall 45 inches,   USLE 'R' factor =
          200.

     7.   Water quality monitoring program:   Storm  and baseflow monitoring was
          conducted  for  two years using  flow-proportional composite  samplers
          at  one   mainstream and  three farm  sites.    The  post-BMP monitoring
          phase has been  put on hold because  of  difficulties in  getting  BMPs
          applied.   The  post-BMP   monitoring scheme should be  sufficient  to
          detect fecal coliform,  sediment  and turbidity changes in the  range
          of 35-40%.

      8.   BMPs:   Primarily animal  waste management,  conservation tillage  and
           grassed waterways.
                                      30

-------
     9.   Critical   Areas:   Appropriate  critical area criteria have been  de-
         veloped  (distance from major streams,   size of  operation,  present
         conservation  status).   There  is little information on how rigorous-
         ly these  are   applied.   Accurate targeting to critical areas is very
         important for  this project because the goal is to treat only 15% of
         the watershed area.

    10.   Incentives: 75* cost-sharing, $50,000.00 maximum.

    11.   Economic   information:   Nothing quantitative is presented.  Domestic
         water treatment  costs are reported to be excessive because of  high
         sediment  and  fecal coliform concentrations.
III.  Lessons Learned:

     1.   Project  may  be a good test of whether 40% pollutant  concentration
          reduction  can  be  achieved by treating identified  critical  areas
          that comprise only 10-15% of the watershed.

     2.   Project  personnel very consciously directed recruitment efforts  to
          the  large producers in  the watershed.   Final participation  level
          will indicate whether this was a good strategy.

     3.   Project area is probably too large for available cost-share funds.
                                      31

-------
                              Saline Valley, RCWP

                           Washtenaw County, Michigan
                             MLRA:  M-lll and L-99
I.   Project's  contributions  toward understanding the effectiveness  of  NFS
control efforts.

     At  the present tine very little information on the actual water  quality
effectiveness of BMPs has yet developed from the project.  However, BMP imple-
mentation is approaching levels which can produce water quality  improvements,
and  the water quality monitoring program is well designed to quantify project
impact.  On this basis we believe that this project may document water quality
effectiveness  of nutrient control BMPs at a subbasin  (1000-8000 acres)  level
within the next two years.


II.  Project Characteristics

     1.   Project type:  RCWP - 77,000 acres.

     2.   Water resource type: Streams and river draining to western basin of
          Lake Erie.

     3.   Use impairment:  Excessive per area nutrient loading to Lake Erie.

     4.   Timeframe:   1980-1991.

     5.   Water  Quality at  start   of project:   Highest per acre phosphorus
          loading   to   Lake  Erie.   Majority of TP  loading  from  project  area
          derives from point sources.

     6.   Meteorologic factors:  Mean annual  precipitation - 32 inches.  USLB
          'R' factor = 125.

     7.   Water  quality monitoring program:    Weekly grab  samples accompanied
          by  stream   flow measurements   at   nine   sites   since   1980.   This
          monitoring   program  is   appropriate to   determine   whether   mean
          nutrient  concentrations  are changing significantly over  time.

     8.   BMPs:  The project   is focusing on  obtaining nutrient  loading  reduc-
          tions  from  animal  waste management, conservation tillage,  and fer-
          tilizer   management.    14,465  out of 42,428 critical  cropland   acres
          were   under   contract as of 9/30/84 in  addition to  19 of 27  critical
          dairy operations.
                                      32

-------
     9.    Critical   Areas:  Criteria - All cropland and animal operations with-
          in 1/4 mile of watercourses.

    10.    Incentives:     RCWP cost-sharing up to 75* and $50,000.

    11.    Economic   Information:    RCWP  allocation for BMPs is $1,880,000.00.
          This  translates  to  a  government  expenditure   of  approximately
          $25/acre.    If  farmer contributions and only  cropland are  consid-
          ered,  the BMP investment is about $50/acre.


III. Lessons learned from project:

     1.    Original   200,000  acre project area was too large to  achieve  ade-
          quate, BMP coverage with amount of funding available through RCWP.

     2.    Monitoring  smaller  subbasins  within the overall project area  can
          associate water quality  results  with BMP implementation more effi-
          ciently than monitoring the overall project area.
                                      33

-------
                               Tillamook Bay RCWP

                            Tillamook County, Oregon
                                   MLRA:  A-l
I.   Project's  contributions  toward  understanding the  effectiveness of NFS
control effort:

      This  project  is  making an important contribution concerning  the  ef-
fectiveness of animal waste management for improving water quality at a water-
shed level.  The water quality results to date show that a 40-50% reduction in
log-mean fecal coliform concentrations have been achieved by bringing approxi-
mately 60% of the animal waste produced in the project area under best manage-
ment.  A  more  thorough knowledge of the marginal water quality  benefits  of
increased  manure  management should be gained from this project as the  total
treatment approaches 90* of needs over the next two years.


II.  Project Characteristics

     1.   Project type:  HCWP - 23,540 acres.

     2.   Water resource type:  Estuary and river tributaries.

     3.   Use  impairment:  Bacterial contamination of shellfish beds.

     4.   Timefrarae:   1981-1991.

     5.   Water quality at beginning of project:  Fecal coliform concentra-
          tions in  Tillamook  Bay were in excess of public health standards  a
          majority  of  the  time.

     6.   Meteorologic factors:  Mean annual  precipitation=  90 to  140  inches
          depending on elevation.   USLE  'R' factor > 50.

     7.   Water   quality monitoring program:   14 bay sites have been grab sam-
          pled for fecal  coliform and salinity since  1960.   Several intensive
          storm samplings  have also been conducted  in  the bay.  Grab  sampling
          with flow measurement has been conducted for various periods of time
          on several tributary sites.  This has  included both intensive storm
          and  baseflow sampling.

     8.   BMPs:   All  activity has been  related to  improving the management of
           animal    waste.    This has included manure  storage  facilities,   im-
           proved  milkhouse conditions (curbing and  guttering), and sub-surface
           drainage on pasture receiving manure applications. Approximately  80%
           of dairies in the project area were contracted and 60% of  implemen-
           tation  work completed by 9/85.
                                      34

-------
    9.   Critical  area:   The  project made an extensive effort to  identify
         critical  dairy operations.  Most  of this  was done by on-site inspec-
         tion  using an on-farm  rating  procedure.

    10.   Incentives:   Seventy-five percent RCWP cost-sharing has been avail-
         able   to  a maximal of $50,000.    The cost of some systems has  been
         very  high resulting in a high cost to the dairy fanner. The state of
         Oregon allows a  60* tax  credit  for conservation investments over  10
         years.  The Tillamook  Creamery  Association reduces the price it pays
         the  dairy  farmer   for  milk  if substandard  aesthetic  or  sanitary
         conditions  are  observed at the dairy.   State water quality regula-
         tions  are also  available to  compel farmers to comply  with  project
         objectives.

    11.   Economic  information:    Total  BMP  cost  = $4,000,000.   Cost/acre =
         $170.00.   The   project  is attempting to  quantify on-farm and  water
         quality benefits of the  project.


III. Lessons Learned:

     1.   Animal waste management  can affect water  quality improvements  in
          terms  of reduced  mean  fecal  coliform concentrations  when  imple-
         mented on a  23,000  acre  project.

     2.    Some  measurable indicator of  the meteorological state is generally
          needed  in a monitoring  program to attribute water quality changes
          to BMP implementation.

     3.    A  pre-BMP  water  quality  data base of at least  2  years  greatly
          facilitates  documenting water quality effects of BMPs.

     4.    A high  level of farmer  participation can be achieved when agricul-
          tural  and  water  quality agency personnel  work  together  closely
          designing and publicizing the program.

     5.    The  combination  of financial incentive and  environmental  regula-
          tion is effective in achieving high rates of participation.
                                      35

-------
                            Conestoga Headwater RCWP

                         Lancaster Couoty, Pennsylvania
                                MLRA:  S-148
I.   Project's contributions toward  understanding the  effectiveness of NFS
control efforts.

     Project  results  come  exclusively from  one  25-acre,  intensive  field
site.   A  full  description of project contributions is provided in the  1985
NWQEP RCWP-CM&E Report.  (NWQEP, 1985)  Results are summarized below:

     A.   In permeable soils with excess manure, terraces may increase nitrate
          transport to groundwater and may increase dissolved nutrient concen-
          trations  in surface runoff.  Terraces may also reduce sediment  and
          nutrient  loadings to surface water by  reducing the volume of  run-
          off.

     B.   In this project raanurial nutrients greatly exceed crop needs.  Thus,
          water  quality benefits from animal waste  storage  (e.g.  improved
          timing of applications) are offset because nitrogen that  could  have
          been volatilized  is conserved in storage.

     C.   Nutrient  management BMPs  (soil and  manure testing, proper matching
          of  application   rates,  and timing to plant  needs) can reduce  both
          ground and surface water nitrogen  losses.

II.  Project Characteristics

     1.   Project Type:   RCWP - Comprehensive  Monitoring  and Evaluation   of
          110,000 acres.

     2.   Water Resource Types:  Streams, groundwater.

     3.   Use  Impairment: Groundwater  is  impaired  for domestic water supply  by
          excessive nitrate concentrations.

     4.   Timeframe:   1981-1991.

     5.   Water  quality  at initiation   of project:    Nitrate  levels  exceeded
           lOrag/1  in   a majority of wells.    Maximum  concentrations were  over
           100mg/l.

     6.   Meteorologic  factors:    Average  annual precipitation =  42  in.  USLB
           'R'  factor  = 175.
                                      36

-------
    7.   Water  Quality  Monitoring  Program:   The  program is  comprehensive
         and  monitors both ground and surface waters.    The most \intensive
         monitoring is done on two 25 acre field  sites where complete  moni-
         toring of ground and  surface water  losses  is performed.  A system of
         wells  and  stream  gages is also present to detect changes  at  the
         project  and subbasin levels.

    8.   BMPs:    The BMPs  emphasized include animal waste management,   ter-
         races,   fertilizer  management,  grassed  waterways, and conservation
         tillage.   Farmer  participation to date has   been low with only 4*
         of the project  area under BMP contract as of 9/85.

    9.   Critical Areas:   Qroundwater   critical areas   are  indentified  as
         farmland overlying carbonate  soils. Directing  BMP cost-sharing to
         critical areas has not been effective because  of the lack of farmer
         part icipat ion.

    10.   Incentives:  Project has RCWP cost-sharing  that ranges 40 - 75%  de-
         pending  on BMP.  The usual on-farm economic incentive for  nutrient
         management appears to be minimized  in  this  project because there  is
         a large  excess  of manure.   Therefore,  manure  is a  'waste  product'
         rather than a  'resource'.

    11.   Economic  information:   The  Economic  Research  Service  (ERS)  has
         performed  an    on-farm economic analysis  of  this  project.   This
         analysis  is  summarized  in the 1985 NWQEP RCWP-CM&E Report.


III. Lessons Learned from the  Project

     1.   Most economic incentive for nutrient management is  lost  when menu-
          rial nutrients produced in the project area greatly exceed crop  and
         pasture requirements.

     2.   A  50% cost-share  for  animal waste management is  insufficient  to
          generate  very  much farmer participation when  on-farm  manure  nu-
          trients exceed crop needs.

     3.    Low participation  rates  undermine  the effectiveness of  a  critical
          area targeting plan.
                                      37

-------
I.   Project's  contributions   toward understanding the effectiveness   of HPS
control effort©:

     This  project  has  a high probability of  showing  whether  conservation
tillage  is  beneficial  or  detrimental   to  groundwater   quality  in   highly
peraeable soils.


II.  Project characteristic©:

     1.   Project Type:  HCWP  Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation.   Budget
          $3,848,157;,  $1.24  million allocated for cost sharing incentives  on
          BMP   implesaentatioin.    Total  project  area is 106,000 acres  in  four
          counties.

     2.   Water Resource Type:   Tfee project is  concerned with protection  of
          near  surface aquifers and recreational  lakes.

     3.   Use IsapairiBent: Nitrate contamination of aquifer drinking water sup-
          plies and eutrophication of  the recreational lakes.

     4.   Tisaefrasie:   1981-1991.

     5.   Water quality at  start of project:  Mitrate  in 27% of 861  private
          wells sampled  exceeded 10  sag/l K;  TP in  lakes 0.12-0.15  mg/1  P;
          TP=0.5 mg/1 in tributaries;  total -M 3-9 mg/1.

     6.   Sfeteorologic and faydrologic  variability:   Average precipitation:  22
          in/yr,  largely in snowfall.   H-factor for USLB is 100.

     7.   ffcnitoring:   Growndwater is monitored 'by groups of wells associated
          with  field sites with known levels of BMP implementation and  known
          geologic formation.

     8.   Land Treatment:   F*k>st project effort is directed toward conservation
          tillage,   fertilizer oanageraent and pesticide taanagement.  Minor ef-
          forts  are directed  to sediment control with terraces and to  animal
          waste management systems.

      9.   Critical Areas:   The project has developed a scheme for prioritizing
           farms  based  on proximity to the  lakes for  sediment  control,  and
           aquifer  depth and soil characteristics for groundwater  protection.
           At  this tioe there  is no indication whether these criteria will  be
           successful.
                                       38

-------
    10.    Incentives:   The project  offers  a cost  sharing incentive for imple-
          mentation  of  conservation  tillage and a  dollar incentive for  imple-
          mentation   of  fertilizer  management.    Pesticide management is  en-
          couraged  by  a complementary IPM program sponsored  by  Cooperative
          Extension.    Fertilizer management is still viewed by area  farmers
          more trouble  and expense than it  is worth.

    11.    Economic  Information:   Economic analysis of this project  suggests
          that protection of  the groundwater supply may not be worth the  cost
          of  the program,   but  protection of the recreational  benefits  of
          Oakwood and Poinsett lakes might  justify the cost.


III. Lessons learned:

     Intensive  Extension  efforts to promote IPM are a strong  incentive  for
implementation of pesticide management as a BMP.   A similar effort to  assist
farmers in soil sampling might also have positive effects.
                                      39

-------
                               Snake Creek, RCWP

                             Wasatch County, Utah
                                  MLRA: E-47
I.   Project's  contributions
Control efforts.
           toward  understanding  the effectiveness of NFS
     The UT-HCWP project has added to our  understanding of  the effectiveness
of  BMPs  in  arid,  irrigated  areas and the effectiveness  of  animal  waste
management  system.   The  project has nearly 100% implementation of  a  small
area.   Significant reductions  in phosphorus (40-65%),  nitrogen (45-60%), and
bacteria  (50-90%)  concentrations  were found after  animal  waste  BMPs  were
implemented.   These results were documented with five years of water  quality
data  (two years pre-implementation,  one year during implementation,  and two
years  post-implementation),  which is a much shorter period than is generally
required  to  document  effectiveness for  projects   in  humid,  non-irrigated
regions.
II.  Project Characteristics:

     1.   Project  Type:   RCWP,   project   area  is  approximately 700  acres, near
          the mouth of a 24,700-acre watershed.

     2.   Water Resource Type:   Streams  and a  reservoir.

     3.   Use   Impairment:    Phosphorus  limited eutrophication of  Deer Creek
          Reservoir   domestic  water supply,    recreation,    and    aesthetic
          enjoyment.

     4.   Timeframe:   1980-1990.

     5.   Water quality at  beginning of  project (1980-1981 concentrations):

              Station 14 ISnake Creekl          Station 6 iditchi
                                   geometric
                              max.       mean
 TP (mg/1)
 TKN (mg/1)
 FC (count/100ml)
0.02
0.05
 30
0.71
1.00
7500
0.09
0.46
 282
0.04
 .10
  19
                                              geometric
                                         max.       mean
 .56
4.6
12,800
0.15
0.77
 407
      6.   Meteorologic factors:  USLE 'R' factor ~ 30.
                                      40

-------
     7.   Water   quality  monitoring:    Consists  of  monthly  (weekly  during
         spring runoff)  grab   samples  with  simultaneous flow measurements;
         State  Health Department  analyzed samples for fecal coliform. Several
         different  labs analyzed the samples for nutrients at various times.
         Different labs  reportedly used the same analytical techniques.

     8.   BMPs:   Mainly  animal waste management (BMP #2) with storage facili-
         ties.

     9.   Critical  Area:   All of the dairy operations in this small  project
         area were thought to be critical.

    10.    Incentives:  cost-share at 75%, with $50,000 maximum.

    11.   Economic Information:  Limited information available.
III. Lessons Learned:

     This  project not only was successful in reducing nutrient and  bacterial
concentrations,  but  also was exemplary in its region.   Other dairies in the
Heber  Valley  area  now are considering installing  similar  practices  after
seeing  the success of the Snake Creek RCWP.   The small area of this  project
made  it  ideal  for  (nearly) complete implementation and  ease  of  tracking
Water   quality  data identified two critical areas:  one small reach  of  the
Snake Creek and the Huffaker Ditch.  Water quality data indicate that  it  may
not  have  been necessary to install practices outside of these  two  critical
areas.
                                      41

-------
                           Nansemond-Chuckatuck, RCWP

                       Suffolk and Isle of Wight Counties
                                    Virginia
                                  MLRA:  T-153A
I.   Project's  contributions  toward understanding the effectiveness  of  NFS
control efforts:

     Little  contribution will be obtained from this project unless it concen-
trates  its  implementation efforts to address the  phosphorus,  nitrogen  and
bacterial sources in the critical area.
II.  Project Characteristics:

     1.   Project Type: HCWP, budget: $2,076,931, 1.5 million for cost sharing
          incentives on BMPs.   Total project area is  161,365 acres  including
          only 44,000 acres of  cropland.  The project   is  administered in two
          counties.

     2.   Water  Resource  Type:  The  project includes  two estuaries and seven
          water  supply reservoirs.   The  combined surface area of reservoirs
          is 4,850  acres.

     3.   Use Impairment:  Shellfish  production  in the estuaries is severely
          impaired,  due   to  bacteria  and  BOD from  nonpoint  sources.   The
          water  supply  reservoirs  are not impaired   but are  threatened  by
          eut rophicat ion.

     4.   Timeframe:   1981-1991.

     5.   Water  Quality  at  start  of project:   Estuary - 3,000  acres  of
          shellfish area  has  been condemned,  chlorophyll  a  concentrations
          often  exceeds  40 ug/1,   and DO  is frequently depleted.  Reservoirs-
          phosphate concentrations  ranged 0.05  to 0.20  in  fall  and  winter
          samples,   higher values  accompanied by  high fecal coliform  bacteria
          were observed  in some tributary  streams.

     6.   Meteorologic  and   hydrologic variability:   Mild  climate,   48  in
          annual  rainfall with periodic  summer  droughts.   R-factor for USLE
          is 300.

     7.   Monitoring:  Monthly  sampling of water  supply reservoirs and estu-
          aries.  A  thorough  longitudinal study of water quality through  the
          length  of the estuaries was conducted  in  1983.    This was  supple-
          mented  by  monthly sampling at  specified stations during 1983  and
          1984.
                                      42

-------
     8.    Land Treatment:    Project  effort is  directed toward implementation
          of animal  waste management  systems,   conservation tillage,  ferti-
          lizer and  pesticide  management,  cropland protection systems,  and
          sediment  control structures.  Implementation  prior to October 1984
          had not been substantial.

     9.    Critical  Areas:    The  project  designates  critical areas  on  the
          basis of proximity to  the reservoirs,  the  reservoir  tributaries,
          and  the  estuaries.   The  designated  critical area  accounts  for
          29,000 acres of farmland.

    10.    Incentives:   Most  implementations  were cost  shared at 75% except
          for crop  cover,  waste  transportation vehicles, and injectors which
          were  cost shared at 50*.   No  cost sharing  is offered for  ferti-
          lizer management or pesticide management.

    11.    Economic Information:  Limited information available.
III. Lessons learned from the project:

     A large project such as this one has considerable difficulty focusing  its
activities  sufficiently to achieve a measurable impact on the quality of   its
impaired water resource.
                                      43

-------
                             St. Albans Bay - RCWP

                            Franklin County, Vermont
                                  MLRA: R-142
I.   Project's  contributions  toward understanding the effectiveness  of  NFS
control efforts:

     This  project  has  made  substantial contributions to understanding  the
water  quality effects of animal waste management BMPs and will  make  greater
contributions  in the future.   These contributions are discussed in detail in
the 1985 NWQEP RCWP-CM&E Report. (NWQBP, 1985a)


II.  Project Characteristics

     1.   Project type:  RCWP-Conprehensive  Monitoring and Evaluation, 33,000
          acres.

     2.   Water Resources: Bay of Lake Champlain and small tributaries to  bay.

     3.   Use   Impairments:    Degraded  water  quality  impairs  the  bay  for
          swimming,  boating,   fishing, and  aesthetic enjoyment, and has re-
          duced property  values relative  to other lake-side property on Lake
          Champlain.  P loading is  24% NFS and 76% municipal point source.

     4.   Timeframe:  1980-1991.

     5.   Pre-project water  quality:  Dissolved  P  concentration  in the inner
          bay were   consistently above   levels known to cause  eutrophication.
          Fecal   col i form  counts   at the state park beach  were  often  above
          200/100 ml.

     6.     Meteorologic  factors:    Mean Annual precipitation =  35 inches USLE
            'R'  factor =100.

     7.     Water quality monitoring program:  The RCWP Comprehensive Monitoring
            and   Evaluation Project  conducts  a very  detailed WQM  program on  the
            bay   and tributaries.   At  least  2 years of pre-BMP monitoring   was
            conducted at   most sites against which  post-BMP data can   be  com-
            pared.

     8.   BMPs:   Animal  waste management  is the primary  BMP being implemented
          on dairy farms  in  the project.   12,762 out of  15,257 critical  areas
           in the project  area were under RCWP or ACP contract  as of 9/84  with
           about 75% of this  amount completed.
                                      44

-------
    9.   Critical  areas:  criteria  include amount of manure,   distance  from
         watercourse,  present  manure storage and spreading  practices,   and
         manure  spreading  rates.    The project appears to have  adhered  to
         these criteria  in prioritizing cost-share requests.

    10.   Incentives:   Nearly all  RCWP practices carry a 75* cost-share..

    11.   Economic  information:  Economic Research Service (ERS) has conducted
         an  extensive on-site  and off-site analysis of project benefits  and
         cost.  This  analysis   is summarized in the  1985  NWQEP  RCWP-C.M&E
         Report.   (NWQWP,   1985a)   The analysis shows the project to have  a
         high benefit to cost ratio.


III. Lessons Learned from Project

     This project demonstrates that a high level of dairy farmer participation
in NFS control can be obtained when:

     1.    Farmers and the local  community are educated about the water quality
         problt
     2.   Investments  in  waste  management provide payback in terms  of  de-
          creased commercial  fertilizer usage and labor.

     3.   A high initial cost-share rate is provided.

The project also demonstrates that very detailed monitoring of land management
activities may be needed to relate water quality to land use changes.
                                      45

-------
                      MODEL IMPLBBNTATION PROJECTS (MIP)
                     West Branch of the Delaware River, MIP

                           Delaware County, New York
                                  MLRA:  R-140
I.   Project's contributions toward understanding the water quality effective-
ness of NPS control efforts:

     Estimates  of  the effectiveness of barnyard management  of  dairy  farms
(potential  50-90*  reduction  of'TP) were'ga'ined from  this  project.   Manure
spreading  schedules to minimize phosphorus1 "losses were also  developed  using
soil  and manure testing and modeling techniques.   Average TP  load  reduction
from  these new schedules was  estimated to be 35% for the  seven farms analyzed
by  model simulation.  Project contributions were beneficial to the  beginning
phases of several RCWP projects, particularly VT-RCWP.


II. Project Characteristics
                                            tr ••*'..
     1.   Project   type:  Model Implementation  Project, Project area = 287,000
          acres.                 -    '     •'   '••'•''','•

     2.   Water  resource  type:  Streams  and reservoir;

     3.   Use impairment:   Domestic water supply,  eutrophication  of reservoir,
          downstream flow quality.

     4.   Timeframe:   1978-1982.

     5.   Water   quality  at beginning of project:   Eutrophic conditions  pre-
          vailed in Cannonsville reservoir.

     6.   Meteorologic factors: annual rainfall = 40 inches,  USLE ' R '  factor
           100.

      7.    Water quality monitoring program:   Event and baseflow monitoring of
           one  station at the mouth of the river was performed for 30  months.
           These  water  quality data were used in the modeling aspect  of  the
           project.   They  were not sufficient by themselves to  document  any
           potential trends.   Two field sites  (barnyards) were monitored,  one
           site  for  a year and the other for approximately  five  months,  to
           document the effectiveness of barnyard practices.

      8.   BMPs:    Emphasis  was on animal waste and barnyard management  prac-
           tices,  with some erosion control,   streambank  protection, and other
           practices.
                                       46

-------
     9.    Critical areas:

          Criteria for critical  areas were:

          a.   areas with highest concentrations of apparent problems,

          b.   distance to water  course,  and

          c.   landowner's willingness to participate.

          The  275  farms  in the project area were prioritized  according  to
          these criteria.  Out of 154 high priority barnyards, 91 were treated
          by 1982.

    10.    Incentives:    Cost-sharing ranged from 50% (for permanent vegetative
          cover) to 90% (for animal and milkhouse waste facilities) for  vari-
          ous practices.


III. Lessons Learned:

     Although many farms were treated with barnyard practices,  no net  effect
on  the impaired reservoir has been documented.  Modeling of  the  West  Branch
Watershed  indicated  that the majority of TP losses were from  direct  runoff
from  manured  cropland.   Manure  spreading schedules to reduce 35%  of  this
portion of the loading were developed,  but not widely implemented.  Perhaps a
total  manure management strategy with the implementation of  these  developed
manure spreading schedules would have been more effective.

     Data  from  this project have not yet been  fully  analyzed.   Additional
analyses  could  give  more insights on the benefits  of  barnyard  management
practices and potential water quality gain on a watershed  level.
                                      47

-------
                   Broadway Lake Model Implementation Project

                              Anderson County, SC
                                  MLHA: P-136
I.   Project's  contributions  toward understanding the effectiveness  of  NFS
control efforts.

     Although  there  are  many "lessons learned" (see Section III)  from  the
project,  there  is little contribution to knowledge about the  water  quality
effectiveness  of  BMPs.   This is due primarily to the project's emphasis  on
farm ponds below pasture and pasture improvement.   Interrupted monitoring  of
the  major water resources also limited any useful results.   The Clemson sub-
basin  monitoring  work provided a methodology for  calculating  the  relative
sediment contribution of streambank erosion. It showed that streambank erosion
could be expected to contribute 20-50% of sediment loading in the southeastern
piedmont physiographic province.


II.  Project Characteristics

     1.   Project type:  Model Implementation Program (MIP) 25,183 acres.

     2.   Water resource type:  300-acre lake and feeder streams.

     3.   Use  impairments:  a) filling of the lake by sediment impairs boating
          and  fishing,  b) sedimentation in stream channels  may be  increasing
          flood frequency.

     4.   Timeframe:  1978-1982.

     5.   Water   quality  at  start  of project:    Little  information  is   avail-
          able.    A  biological monitoring  study conducted in  1979 at 4   sites
          immediately  upstream from the  lake  indicated  that the water quality
          was   relatively  good overall.    Pre-MIP studies at  the  same   sites
          found high nitrate and  sediment concentrations during storm events.

     6.   Meteorologic  factors:      Mean annual precipitation = 47.5   inches.
          USLE 'R'  factor = 300.

      7.   Water  quality  monitoring program:   The monitoring  of  the lake  and
           lower  tributaries was  curtailed  in  the middle of the project   time-
           frame,  and the monitoring effort  was inadequate to  determine  water
           quality  effects of the project.    A separate monitoring  effort  by
           Clemson  University in the upper tributaries was designed to   deter-
           mine BMP effects by comparing treated and untreated subbasins.  This
           effort  was  plagued by inaccurate land use information and  by  the
           fact  that  BMPs were contracted inappropriately in the control  ba-
           sins.
                                      48

-------
     8.    BMPs:   Sixteen BMPs were  approved for  the  project.   The majority of
          implementation included farm ponds,   terraces,   conservation tillage
          and pasture  improvement.

     9.    Critical   Areas:    Critical  areas were identified as  cropland  and
          roadside  banks.   Nearly all program applicants received cost-sharing.

    10.    Incentives:    Cost-sharing rates were  90%  for most practices with a
          maximum of $3,500 per  year per farm.

    11.    Economic  information:   Only BMP cost figures are available.


III. Lessons learned:

     1.    Treating   pastures  which have low erosion rates is probably  not  a
          cost effective means of reducing watershed sediment loading.

     2.    Constructing  sediment ponds below pastures is,  likewise,  probably
          not a cost-effective means of reducing watershed sediment loading.

     3.    Large  projects,   such as the MIP,  benefit from having a  full-time
          project  manager  who has both agricultural and water quality  know-
          ledge.

     4.    Cost-share  funds should be made available to watershed NFS  control
          projects on a total project basis rather than year by year.   Annual
          funding can seriously undermine critical area targeting attempts.
                                      49

-------
                   South Yakioa Model Implementation Project

                           Yakima County, Washington
                                    MLRA: B-8
I.   Project's  contributions  toward  understanding the effectiveness of  NPS
control efforts:

     This  project has provided substantial information relating to the  water
quality  improvements from BMP implementation in irrigated  agriculture.   The
project  fell  far short of  its potential contribution because  BMP  implemen-
tation  and  water  quality  monitoring ceased at the end of  the  MIP  funding
period.   There was,  consequently,  not enough time to achieve or monitor the
water quality benefits of the land treatment.   Nonetheless the project demon-
strated  that significant sediment reductions in return flows could be  accom-
plished with irrigation BMPs.

     The  conversion  from   furrow  to sprinkler  or  trickle  irrigation  was
particularly  effective in reducing both erosion and  water  usage.  Practices
which reduce water usage also improve the quality of the return flow.   From a
water quality perspective, the ideal is to manage irrigation operations to the
level  at  which  return flows are eliminated.   The monitoring  results  also
demonstrated  that  high  sediment losses are associated with   1)  the  first
irrigations  of the season,  2) highly erosive crops and 3) accidents such  as
broken pipes and  direct field-sloughing into drains.


II.  Project Characteristics

     1.   Project type:  Model Implementation Program  (MIP)-26,500 acres.

     2.   Water resource type:   Irrigation  canals,  river.

     3.   Use  impairment:  Excessive sediment from  improper irrigation  manage-
          ment  was   found   to  impair waters  for irrigation uses  by   filling
          canals  and  drains  and  clogging  irrigation equipment.   Fisheries   are
          also  believed  to  have been affected,   although  no documentation   is
          available.

     4.   Timeframe:   1978-1982.

     5.   Pre-project water  quality:    Pre-MIP  studies indicated that  approxi-
          mately  80% of sediment loading to the Yakima River  was  derived from
           irrigated agricultural sources.    The remaining 20%  originated  from
          natural  upstream  sources (snowmelt,   streaabank erosion.    At   the
          beginning  of  the project a majority of return flows had  suspended
           solids  concentrations  greater  than 3.5 ml/1 as measured  by  the
           Imhoff cone.)
                                      50

-------
    6.   Meteorologic factors:  Mean annual precipitation is about 10 inches.
         USLE 'H' factor =20.

    7.   Water Quality  Monitoring Program:   Three levels of monitoring were
         conducted.

         a.  Daily  sediment  sampling  of all MIP-1 individual  fields where
             irrigation was occurring.   Collection ditches and drains, 1979-
             1981.

         b.  Weekly or biweekly sampling by the conservation district of   all
             supply water and ditches/drains  carrying water in or out of pro-
             ject area.

         c.  An  Imhoff  cone - 10 percent -  systematic sampling of all   ir-
             rigated  farms throughout  the entire  irrigated area  of central
             Washington,  1979-1981.    Unfortunately all monitoring  ceased at
             the conclusion of the project.

    8.   BMPs:   Many BMPs were approved for the project.   The emphasis was on
         a)  conversion from  furrow  to  sprinkler  systems  (3,100  acres),   b)
         crop residue use management (5,573 acres),  c) water conveyance pipe
         (1  million  feet),  d)  sediment basins  (23),  e)  subsurface  drain
         system   (9740  ft) and f) improved water  management   (8,100 acres).
         About 50% of project area benefited  from  BMP  installation.

    9.   Critical areas:   A  quantitative on-site  evaluation rating  form   was
         developed using soil type,  crop, slope,  irrigation method and  return
         flow  system as criteria.    The ratings were  not  strictly adhered to
         because of the need to  generate momentum early  in  the   project   and
  ;       because cost-share funds were  available  only  on  an  annual basis.

    10.   Incentives:  ACP cost sharing  up  to  90* was available with  a maximum
         of $3,500/yr.   However, the  practices  installed were  expensive, so
         that,  in the final analysis, farmers paid about  67% of  the  total  BMP
         cost.

    11.   Economic  information:    No economic information has been  reported
         except  BMP costs.


III. Lessons learned from Project

     1.    To generate  initial  enthusiasm and farmer participation,   some  com-
          promise of the critical  area targeting is generally be needed.

     2.    The  Imhoff cone  is  a very effective tool in helping irrigators  see
          their soil loss and thereby promote better management practices.

     3.    The conversion of furrow to sprinkler irrigation systems is the most
          effective  BMP both  for reducing sediment   losses  and  conserving
          water.

     4.    A  fulltime  project  manager is a key ingredient  to  developing  a
          coordinated project.


                                     51

-------
                        OTHER NONPOINT SOURCE PROJECTS:
                                Lake Le-Aqua-Na

                          Stephenson County, Illinois
                                  MLRA:  M-108
I.   Project's  contributions  toward understanding the effectiveness  of  NPS
control efforts:

     This project has an integrated approach to watershed management that  in-
cludes  land  use and in-lake treatment.   It has a strong probability  of  a-
chieving  its  goal  to cleanup the lake,  but it may not fully  document  the
effectiveness of the BMPs implemented in the watershed.   It has the potential
to demonstrate the effectiveness of conservation tillage.  The organization at
the  local level contributed considerably to the successful implementation  of
this project.


II.  Project Characteristics:


     1.   Project type:   Clean  Lakes  Program along with  the  Agricultural
          Conservation Program and the  Illinois Dept. of Conservation.  Water-
          shed area = 963 ha  (2400 acres).

     2.   Water resource type:  Lake with streams.

     3.   Use   impairment:    Recreation, aesthetics, and  loss of lake  capacity
          due to sedimentation.

     4.   Timeframe:  Phase I 1981-1983;  Phase  II  1984-1986.

     5.   Water quality at  beginning of project:

                      1981 mean lake concentrations

                              TP =  0.323 mg/1
                              DP =  0.217 mg/1
                              IN =  1.85   mg/1

          Chlorophyll  a   ranged   from  2 to 243  ug/1 with mean   =   89.4  ug/1;
          nuisance   algal   blooms  dominated by blue-green algae.   During  peak
          stratification,   51* of  lake  volume was anoxic.   Several winter fish
          kills have occurred.

      6.   Neteorologic factors:   USLE  'R'  factor = 175.
                                      52

-------
    7.   Water quality monitoring  program:  Program is based on a  before-and-
         after implementation sampling scheme.   It has 5 stations:   one  on a
         creek just  above  the lake;  3  stations  within the lake;  and 1 station
         below   the  dam.   Unfortunately,   there are no stations in any of the
         small subwatersheds of the  project area that could be used to  docu-
         ment the effectiveness of  specific BMPs treatment.  The one station
         located just above the lake may not be adequate to show  significant
         changes  in water quality if  hydrologic variability is  high  during
         the program period.

     8.   BMPs:    Consist   mainly of  conservation tillage with some terracing,
         stripcropping,  waterways,  sediment basins,  and streambank protec-
         tion.    Other  non-BMP in-lake  treatments  include  (1)  lake  de-
         stratifiers,  (2) macrophyte  harvesting,  (3) chemical algae control
          (CuSOi), and (4)  shoreline  stabilization.

     9.   Critical  areas:   Criteria for selection of critical areas  were  (1)
         distance to water course  and (2) erosion rate.

    10.    Incentives: Cost-share payment for conservation tillage varied with
         the  amount of residue left.   Practices  other  than  conservation
         tillage received 80* cost-share.
                                   i

III. Lessons Learned:

     Comparisons  (two  sample t-test)  of 1981 to 1984 water quality data  for
both  the  stream  and the lake stations showed  no  significant  differences;
however,  the means of most parameters were lower in 1984 than in 1981. Use of
stronger  statistical  analyses  may verify significant  decreases  over  this
period.    The  monitoring  scheme may not be adequate to document  changes  in
water quality,  especially changes due to BMPs,  but visual  improvement in the
appearance of the lake have been reported.   In this respect,  the project may
be  successful with its lake protection/restoration program  and  may   increase
the  recreational benefits of the  area whether or not improvement is   verified
by chemical monitoring.
                                      53

-------
                       Skinner Lake, Clean Lakes Program

                             Noble County, Indiana
                                   MLRA
I.   Project's  contributions  toward understanding the effectiveness  of  NFS
control efforts:

     Public  perception of water quality efforts produced a successful project
even though public costs were very high (approx. $1,000 per acre) and measured
water quality impact was marginal.


II.  Project Characteristics:


     1.   State of Indiana Clean Lakes Project, funded by EPA Great Lakes Pro-
          gram  . $909,000 (50* local funds).  Project size: 9977 acres.

     2.   Water Resource Type:   125-acre  lake,  mean depth:  14 ft., flushing
          coefficient varied 2.55 to 5.30  during study.

     3.   Use impairment:    Whole body contact  recreation and fishery degraded
          by eutrophication.

     4.   Tiaeframe:  1977-1982.

     5.   Water quality  at  start of project:    TP=0.082 mg/1  in  the   lake,
          TN/TP=19 to 220 (considered to be P-limited).

     6.   Meteorologic  and  hydrologic variability:  Snowmelt produced 21%   to
          53% of discharge;  35% to 39% of annual  streamflow from spring rain-
          fall.   June  rainfall accounted  for 25%  of 1981 annual runoff.    An-
          nual  R-factor for  USLE is 150.

     7.   Water Quality Monitoring Program:  Bi-weekly in  lake  and tributary
          streams  1978 through  1981.  Daily sampling was added  during   spring
          1979, spring  1981, and spring 1982.
                                      54

-------
    8.   Land Treatment:
          Practice    Contracts Units  tons soil    cost     cost/ton
                                      saved/yr
Sediment basins 3
Diversions 5
Minimum Tillage 16
Sediment control
structures 9
Terraces 17
Vegetative
cover 22
Large sediment
basin (5acre)
each
2700ft
1178ac


22525ft

469ac


590
25
3372

225
2014

3250


$13,363
1,792
12,371

6,886
166,859

13,892

137,011
$23.11*
71.68*
3.67

30.60*
82.85*

4.27


           *cost  should be amortized over useful  life for comparison.


     9.   Critical  Areas:  Project  defined critical sites as those with severe
         erosion problems,   particularly those on slopes adjacent to the lake
         or  its tributaries.    Applications were, prioritized on  first  come
         first served basis,   then accepted or rejected by SWCD based on:   1)
         whether  it was  in the project work plan,  2)  seriousness of problem
         and relationship to agricultural pollution,  3) whether  application
         was  for  an individual or a group (groups were placed ahead of indi-
         viduals),  4)  urgency of problem,  and 5) interest and aptitude  of
         applicant.

         Locations were rated by proximity to lake or tributaries as A, B, or
         C.  Of  79 participants, 50 were rated as A, 14 as B, and 15 as C.

     10.  Incentives:  Initially,   cost sharing  incentives were set to  range
         from 25* for repair of tile mains to 50% for construction of  sedi-
         ment basins. These rates were too low  to attract many participants,
         so they were raised to 80 to 85% of total costs.   By the end of the
         project,  interest was very high.   Participants were not allowed to
         pick practices  that had high cost share rates exclusively when other
         practices were  identified in the conservation plan.

     11.  Economic  Information:  None presented in project reports.


III. Lessons learned:

     Control of agricultural nonpoint sources can be very expensive  ($909,000
to  treat 9,977 acres),   particularly if practices such as terraces and  large
sediment basins are included in the plan.   Indications from monitoring within
the project period,  1979 to 1982,  are that some water quality  improvement has
occurred,  but no follow-up has apparently been done.  According to USLE esti-
mates,  more  soil  loss  was prevented by spending $12,000 on minimum  tillage
than by spending $166,000 on terraces.   Project data show about 10% reduction
                                     55

-------
in sediment,  nitrogen, and phosphate delivered to the lake as a result of the
large sediment basin.   Although this efficiency is very low,  any  reductions
here affect the quality of Skinner Lake directly.
                                      56

-------
                     Big Stone Lake Restoration Project CLP

                           Minnesota and South Dakota
                                 MLRA:  M-102A
I.   Project's  contributions  toward understanding the effectiveness  of  NFS
control efforts:

     Although it is too  early for this project to show effectiveness of BMPs,
it  does  offer insights into the organizational aspect of  large,  interstate
projects.  The  cooperative efforts among the nany agencies involved with this
project  reflect successful communications and  planning which  are  important
factors of watershed management.


II.  Project Characteristics

     1.   Project type:   Clean Lakes  Program with some SCS,  ASCS,  CES, and
          local funding as well.  Watershed area = 750,000 acres.

     2.   Water resources type:  Streams and lake.

     3.   Use impairment:  Recreation and fishing.

     4.   Timeframe:  Phase I 1981-1983;  Phase II  1984-1988.

     5.   Water  quality at beginning of project:   The lake  is hypereutrophic
          with abundant plant growth, noxious odors, and high sedimentation.

     6.   Meteorologic factors:  USLE 'R' factor  = 90.

     7.   Water  quality  monitoring  program:  There  are several  levels   of
          monitoring:

                (1)   tributary  - 9 stations for storm  event sampling with base
                     flows  sampled quarterly to assess nutrient  and  sediment
                     concentrations,  loadings, and exports,

                (2)   subwatershed  monitoring - 3 subwatersheds with  baseflow
                     and storm  event monitoring,

                (3)   above and  below  grab samples for  assessment  of the impact
                     of streambank erosion on water quality,

                (4)   before and after grab sampling of feedlots  and,

                (5)   in-lake  monitoring - 6 stations, each  one having 6 sub-
                     sites  to  form  one composite,  sampled  monthly  for  nu-
                     trients,   sediments,  chlorophyll a,  oxygen, and physical
                     parameters.
                                      57

-------
     8.    BMPs:   Conservation  tillage,  waterways, and animal waste (feedlot)
          management.

     9.    Critical areas were determined via models.  Feedlots were rated  and
          prioritized separately from other sources using a feedlot model. The
          AGNPS model was used to determine critical areas.   It was also used
          to  estimate  the percent reduction after 2 years of  implementation
          and for the final implementation goals.

    10.    Incentives:   Various agencies provided cost-share funds:

               feedlot management:  85%, to a maximum of $7500
               conservation tillage: $15/acre
               waterways: 75%, to a maximum of $3500


III. Lessons Learned:

     This project is beginning to implement land treatment practices and  it will
be  at least a few  years before it can demonstrate BMP effectiveness.    Its use
of models to select critical areas for a large watershed will hopefully lead  to
successful  targeting of resources.    The communications and planning developed
among the many agencies involved in the pre-project and Phase I periods produced
a strong organizational structure for  the project.
                                      58

-------
                       LaPlatte River Watershed,  PL83-566

                           Chittenden County, Vermont
                                  MLRA:   R-142
I.   Project's  contributions  toward understanding the effectiveness  of  NFS
control efforts:
     The  LaPlatte  River Watershed project will contribute knowledge  on  the
effectiveness  of manure management (timing and type of spreading on   fields)
and  of barnyard and milkhouse practices.   On a watershed scale,  the project
may  reveal  the potential water quality benefits from the  implementation  of
animal waste storage facilities.   In addition,  the study examined the  model
CREAMS for simulating pollutant losses under northern U.S. climatic conditions
found within this watershed.
II.  Project Characteristics:


     1.   Project  type:   PL83-566.   The  watershed is approximately  34,000
          acres.

     2.   Water resource type:  Streams and bay of Lake Champlain.

     3.   Use impairment:  Recreation, aesthetics.

     4.   Timeframe:  1979-1990.

     5.   Water quality at beginning of project:  (1980 Data)
                 Station 1
            (~ 67* of watershed)
(ng/D
TSS
TP
TKN
min.
1.1
0.113
0.47
max.
64.8
1.406
3.52
median
8.95
0.327
1.02
   Station 2
12* of watershed)
(mg/1)
TSS
TP
TKN
min.
2.9
0.023
0.07
max.
78.3
0.424
3.35
median
15.5
0.90
0.79
     6.   Meteorologic factors:  normal yearly precipitation =33.7  inches;  USLE
           'R'  factor ~ 90.
                                      59

-------
    7.   Water quality monitoring program:   A  comprehensive Monitoring scheme
         with  automatic  and continuous monitoring  is  one  of  the strong char-
         acteristics  of   this  project.    This  scheme includes   four  stream
         stations,  one point source (STP),  two edge of field  sites,  and other
         special  short-term monitoring projects.   More details  are  presented
         in  the appendix  to this  report.

    8.   BMPs:  The main   focus of  this project  is  on  animal  waste management
         systems,   with some implementation of erosion and sedimentation con-
         trol  practices,   such  as  conservation   cropping   systems,  strip
         cropping,  contour  farming,  hayland  management,   permanent  vegeta-
         tion,  diversions,  waterways, and streambank protection.  Milkhouse
         waste and  barnyard management systems were also included.

    9.   Critical   Areas:  Critical areas were not  defined for the watershed.
         Applications for  the contracts  were  ranked subjectively either high
         or  low without   supporting evidence as  they were received.   Some on-
         site  visits did occur.  For the  most  part,   there  were no criteria
         for determining  critical areas.

    10.   Incentives:  The  percentage of  cost-share for BMPs  in this  program
         varied among the different BMPs  as follows:

         75%   -   agricultural waste management (including storage  facili-
                    ties)  and streambank protection.

         60%   -    waterways,  livestock   exclusion,  and pasture and hayland
                    planting.

         50%   -    diversions and troughs for pasture management.

         A maximum of $30,000 per item (BMP) was allowed.
III. Lessons Learned:
     It will take several years of water quality monitoring before any  signi-
ficant  trends can be established from the water quality data due to the  high
variability  of  meteorologic and hydrologic factors.   The model  CREAMS  was
found  to be inadequate for predicting runoff,  sediment and phosphorus export
for the two field sites tested.  It was recommended that the model be modified
and/or carefully fitted with observed data to yield more accurate  estimations
of export under northern U.S. climatic conditions.
                                      60

-------
                            Columbia Basin Block 86

                            Grant County, Washington
                                   MLRA: B-8
I.   Project's  contributions  toward understanding the effectiveness  of  NFS
control efforts.
     This  project  has  made a tremendous contribution to  understanding  the
water  quality  effectiveness of irrigated  agriculture  BMPs.   By  obtaining
nearly 100% land treatment (sediment basins,  subsurface drainage,  structural
modifications of drains, conversion of furrow to center pivot systems)  accom-
panied  by  an intensive water quality monitoring program,  this  project  has
demonstrated  water quality improvements.   Sediment loading reductions of ap-
proximately 80% and total P reduction of approximately 50% have been rigorous-
ly documented.   These  results are displayed in  Figure 1.  Sediment  control
practices  were found to have no significant effect on nitrogen loadings.   As
shown in Table 3, the decrease in sediment yield was a function of controlling
the amount of soil loss and trapping sediment in basins.
     5000
 c
 O)
 -o
 Ol
 OO
2500
           (4472)(2903)
            4386  _ 2867
                            (2463)
                             2422
                                          Sediment

                                          Phosphorus
                                                                   -,3000
                       (2578)
                         2556
 (1284)
  1373
                                     (835)
                                     843
                                                (1152)
                                                 1252
             (1261)
              1404
                                                 (506)
                                                  501
                                                        (976)
                                                         1004
          2000  —
                in
                3
                O
                c.
                o
                _c
                o.
                                                                          1000
              1977
                       1978
1979
1980
1981
 Figure  1.   Net  sediment   and phosphorus   losses from  study  area,   1977-1981.
            Note  that  the values  in parentheses  were corrected by the USGS to
            account  for errors  in   compositing samples,  (from King et al,  1983)
                                      61

-------
TABLE 3    OVERALL SEASONAL SEDIMENT BASIN RETENTION PERFORMANCE,  1977-1981
           (from King et al., 1983).


Date
1977
1978
"l979
1980
1981

Number of
sediment
bas i ns
8
8
15
20
20
Total
sediment
produced
(mt)
5594
4193
3452
3462
4257
Main-drain
sediment
discharge
(mt)
4809
3015
1287
1101
1550
Sediment
basin
retention
(mt)
785
1178
2165
2361
2707

Sed iment
retent ion
(%)
14
28
63
68
64
II.  Project Characteristics

     1.   Project  Type:   University,   EPA,   USGS and USBR joint effort;   2000
          acres.

     2.   Water resource type:   Irrigation drains into Columbia River.

     3.   Use   impairment:  No impaired uses identified.   Project was intended
          as    demonstration  of  sediment and nutrient reductions  achievable
          through construction of on-fann facilities.

     4.   Timeframe:   1977-1982.

     5.   Water  quality at start of project:   In 1977,  4,386 mt sediment and
          2,867 kg P were lost from 2,000 acres project area.

     6.   Meteorologic  factors:  Project area receives  only 7.3 in/yr p~eci-
          pitation; USLE  *R' factor is less than 20.

      7.   Water  quality monitoring program:  A  very  intensive  program  was
           carried  out  from 1977 through 1981.   Samples were taken  automat-
           ically at 2  hour intervals from the main drain and composited  into
           daily  samples.   These automated samples were correlated  with  nu-
           merous  replicated  concentration  in sample  form  depth-integrated
           samples taken with a standard U.S.G.S.  DH-48 sampler.  Samples were
           also  taken  at the point of diversion into each farm.  In  addition
           approximately   40* of the individual fields were monitored from 1978
           through   1981  for   runoff  volume  and   sediment  using   Parshall
           flumes.This WQM program provided very precise measurements of  sedi-
           ment,  P, and N loading both within  the project area  and discharging
           from   the project area.
                                       62

-------
    8.   BMPs:   The principal BMPs were sediment  basins,  buried  pipeline,
         gated  pipe, concrete-lined head ditches and center pivot  sprinkler
         systems. The sediment basins were designed so   that they would  have
         a  sediment  holding capacity of at  least one-year loading and  they
         were cleaned out 1-2 times per year.    The purpose of the other  BMPs
         was  to allow irrigation water to be drained away with less   erosion
         of furrows and ditches.  In addition,  farmers were encouraged to use
         automatic or semi-automatic water cutback systems to  reduce   end-of-
         furrow discharge.

         Essentially all land in the project  area benefited form the   BMPs.  A
         pre-project  survey determined that all farmers in the study  area
         were ready to participate.

    9.   Critical  areas:    All agricultural  land in  the  study area  was  tar-
         geted for treatment.    It was noted  that certain crops (i.e. sugar
         beets, potatoes) were especially critical sources of  sediment.

    10.   Incentives:   A 70% cost-share rate   was established  for the project
         with a maximum cost-share of  $125.00 per acre benefited.   There was
         also some tax and  production  benefit incentive  especially for larger
         operations.

    11.   Economic information: A total of $70,000.00  was spent on BMPs during
         the  study. This amounted to an average of about $35/acre.  There  is a
         continuing  cost   for maintenance  of the sediment basins.   The  BMPs
         prevented the  loss of approximately  12,600 mt of sediment ($5.56/mt)
         and  5,000 kg of phosphorus.   An economic model  was developed out  of
         the  project   data which showed  that tax   considerations  are  very
         important in motivating BMP adoption.


III. Lessons  learned  from project.

     1.   Sediment  losses   from a 2,000  acre  furrow and sprinkler  irrigated
         area  can be reduced  by 80%  through the  combination  of  subsurface
         drainage, improved furrow  and drain  structures and sediment basins.
         Total   P  reductions   (50%) were   significantly less  than  sediment
         reductions  because  of  P enrichment  on   the  finer,  less  easily
         captured,   sediment  fraction.   These   practices had no  observable
         effect on nitrogen loadings.

     2.    Use  of  practices to control stream size in individual furrows  can
          reduce sediment  in tailwater.

     3.    Irrigation  scheduling has  a significant effect on the seasonal sedi-
         ment  loss   from a field.    Reducing the number of  irrigations  can
          reduce sediment  losses without affecting productivity in many cases.

     4.    The  Imhoff  cone can be used effectively at the farm level to  help
          the irrigator visualize his soil loss and optimize water  management
          for soil retention.
                                      63

-------
5.   Economic modeling of the project showed that a program  of  variable
     incentives that depend upon farm size and debt/equity position would
     be  the  most efficient expenditure of funds to induce  adoption  of
     BMPs.

6.   Farmers should be required to pipe center pivot sprinkler  overflows
     to an acceptable, improved drain, especially for new installation of
     center pivots.

7.   Water  quality improvements from furrow irrigated agriculture should
     focus  on reducing on-field erosion as well as trapping eroded sedi-
     ment.
                                 64

-------
                                  REFERENCES
Agena,  U.,   M.  Wnuk,   and C.M.  Lawyer.  1985.  Prairie Rose Lake Rural Clean
     Water Program Project. In:  Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution.
     EPA 440/5-85-001.   pp. 259-263.

Cassell,  E.A.,  and J.V.  Calcan.  1983.  East and West, Animal Waste Cleanup
     Pays.   In:   Using  Our Natural Resources.   1983 Yearbook of  Agri-
     culture,  pp. 346-353.

Clausen,  J.C.   1985.    The St.   Albans Bay Watershed RCWP:   A Case Study of
     Monitoring and Assessment.   In:  Perspectives on Nonpoint Source
     Pollution.  EPA 440/5-85-001.  pp. 21-24.

Davenport,  T.  and  J.  Lowrey.    1985.   Watershed Water  Quality  Programs:
     Lessons Learned in Illinois.  In:  Perspectives on Nonpoint Source
     Pollution.  EPA 440/5-85-001.  pp. 256-258.

Hopkins, R.B. and J.C.  Clausen.   1985.  Land Use Monitoring and Assessment for
     Nonpoint Source Pollution Control.  In:  Perspectives  on Nonpoint
     Source Pollution.   EPA 440/5-85-001.  pp.  25-29.

Jackson,  F.E.   1985.   Protecting Tillamook Bay Shellfish  With Point/Nonpoint
     Source  Controls.    In:   Perspectives on  Nonpoint Source  Pollution.
     EPA 440/5-85-001.   p. 425.

King,   L.G.,  B.L.  McNeal, F.A. Ziari, and S.C. Matulich.  1983.  On-farra Im-
     provements  to Reduce Sediment and Nutrients  in Irrigation  Return   Flow,
     Project Report Columbia Basin Project, Washington State University,  Pull-
     man, Washington.

Maas,   P.,  S.A. Dressing, J. Spooner,  M.D. Smolen, F.J.  Humenik.  1984.  Best
     Management Practices  for Agricultural Nonpoint Source  Control.    IV. Pes-
      ticides.   National  Water Quality Evaluation Project.   Biological and
      Agricultural Dept., North Carolina State  University, Raleigh, NC.

National Water Quality Evaluation Project.  1985a.  Rural Clean Water  Program,
      Status Report on  the  CM&E Projects. Biological and Agricultural Engineer-
      ing  Dept., North  Carolina State  University, Raleigh, NC.

National  Water Quality Evaluation Project.  1985b.  Rural Clean Water  Program,
      Status Report on  the  CM&E Projects.  Supplemental Report:  Analysis Meth-
      ods.  Biological  and  Agricultural Engineering Dept., North Carolina State
      University, Raleigh,  NC.
                                      65

-------
National Water Quality Evaluation Project.  1985c.  Rural Clean Water Program,
     Cross Project Evaluation.  Biological and Agricultural Engineering Dept.,
     North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

National  Water  Quality Evaluation  Project and  Harbridge  House Inc.  1983.
     An Evaluation of  the Management  and Water Quality  Aspects of the Model
     Implementation Program.  Biological and  Agricultural Engineering  Dept.,
     North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

Neubieser,  M.J.  1985.  Rural Clean Water Program:  The Experiment Continues.
     In:   Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution.   EPA  440/5-85-001.
     pp. 391-396.

Young, R.A., C.A. Onstad, D.D. Bosch, and W.P. Anderson.  1985.   Agricultural
     Nonpoint  Source  Pollution Model (AGNPS).   Minnesota Pollution  Control
     Agency, St. Paul MN and  USDA-Agricultural  Research Service, Washington,
     D.C.

Young, R. A., M.A. Otterby, and A. Roos.  1982.  An Evaluation  System to Rate
     Feedlot Pollution Potential.  USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Peoria,
     IL.  78 pp.
                                      66

-------