&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Water
(4503F)
EPA841-S-93-003
December 1993
Section 319
National Monitoring Program
Projects
1993 Summary Report
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
1993 SUMMARY REPORT
SECTION 319
NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM
PROJECTS
NONPOINT SOURCE WATERSHED PROJECT STUDIES
NCSU Water Quality Group
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service
North Carolina State University
Raleigh. North Carolina
In Cooperation With:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
December 1993
-------
1993 SUMMARY REPORT
SECTION 319
NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM
PROJECTS
Nonpoint Source Watershed Project Studies
NCSU Water Quality Group
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7637
Deanna L. Osmond Jean Spooner Jo Beth Mullens
Judith A. Gale Daniel E. Line
Jean Spooner, Group Leader - Co-Principal Investigator
Frank J. Humenik, Program Director - Co-Principal Investigator
U.S.EPA - NCSU-CES Grant No. X818397
Steven A. Dressing
Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Washington, DC
-------
Disclaimer
This publication was developed by the North Carolina State University Water Quality Group, a part of the
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Grant No. X818397. The contents and views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect the policies or positions of the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, the
USEPA, or other organizations named in this report, nor does the mention of trade names for products or
software constitute their endorsement.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the coordinators of the 319 National Monitoring Program projects, who
have provided invaluable information and document review. The authors are most appreciative of the time
and effort of Janet Young, who formatted this document. Additional thanks to Melinda Pfeiffer, who
edited this publication.
This publication should be cited as follows: Osmond, D.L., J. Spooner, J.B. Mullens, J.A. Gale, and D.E.
Line. 1993.1993 Summary Report: Section 319 National Monitoring Program Projects, Nonpoint Source
Watershed Project Studies, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
-------
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 2: Associating Water Quality Trends
With Land Treatment Trends 5
Chapter 3: Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project
Profiles 13
California - Morro Bay Watershed Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 17
Idaho - Eastern Snake River Plain Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 31
Iowa - Sny Magill Watershed Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 41
Michigan - Sycamore Creek Watershed
Section 319 Nationa Monitoring
Program Project 57
Nebraska - Elm Creek Watershed Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project 67
North Carolina - Long Creek Watershed
Section 319 National Monitoring
Program Project 77
Appendices 89
I. Minimum Reporting Requirements for Section 319
National Monitoring Program Projects 91
II. Abbreviations 95
III. Glossary of Terms 99
IV. Project Documents and Other Relevant Publications 107
V. Project Profile Reviewers 117
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1: Morro Bay (California) Watershed 17
Figure 2: Paired Watershed in Morro Bay (California)
(Chorro Creek and Los Osos Creek) 18
Figure 3: Eastern Snake River Plain (Idaho)
Demonstration Project Area 31
Figure 4: Eastern Snake River Plain (Idaho) Project Field
Well Locations 32
Figure 5: Sny Magill and Bloody Run (Iowa) Watersheds 41
Figure 6: Water Quality Monitoring Sites for Sny Magill
and Bloody Run (Iowa) Watersheds 42
Figure 7: Sycamore Creek (Michigan) 57
Figure 8: Paired Water Quality Monitoring Sites for the
Sycamore Creek (Michigan) Watershed 58
Figure 9: Elm Creek (Nebraska) Watershed 67
Figure 10: Elm Creek (Nebraska) Water Quality
Monitoring Stations 68
Figure 11: Long Creek (North Carolina) Watershed 77
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
Monitoring of both land treatment and water quality to document water
quality improvement from nonpoint source (NFS) pollution controls is
ncursary, in at least a few projects, to provide information to decision
makers regarding the effectiveness of NPS pollution control efforts. The
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Section 319
National Monitoring Program is designed to provide information on
pollution control efforts by documenting water quality changes associated
with land treatment.
The Section 319 National Monitoring Program projects comprise a small
subset of NFS pollution control projects funded under Section 319 of the
Clean Water Act as amended in 1987. Currently, projects are focused on
stream systems, but USEPA intends to expand into ground water, lakes, and
estuaries as suitable project criteria are developed. The goal of the
program is to support 20 to 30 watershed projects nationwide that meet a
minimum set of project planning, implementation, monitoring, and evalu-
ation requirements designed to lead to successful documentation of project
effectiveness with respect to water quality protection or improvement. The
projects are nominated by their respective USEPA Regional Offices, in
cooperation with state lead agencies for Section 319 funds. USEPA
Headquarters reviews all proposals, negotiates with the regions and states
regarding project detail, and recommends that regions fund acceptable
projects using a regional 5% set-aside of Section 319 funds.
The selection criteria used by USEPA Headquarters for Section 319
National Monitoring projects are primarily based on the components listed
below. In addition to the specific criteria, emphasis is placed on projects
that have a high probability of documenting water quality improvements
from NPS controls over a 5- to 10-year period.
• Documentation of the water quality problem, which includes identi-
fication of the pollutant(s) of primary concern, the source(s) of those
pollutants, and the impact on designated uses of the water resources.
• Comprehensive watershed description.
• Well-defined critical area that encompasses the major sources of
pollution being delivered to the impaired water resource. Delineation
of a critical area should be based on the primary pollutant(s) causing
the impairment, the source(s) of the pollutant(s), and the delivery
system of the pollutants to the impaired water resource.
• A watershed implementation plan that uses appropriate best manage-
ment practice (BMP) systems. Systems of BMPs are a combination
of individual BMPs designed to reduce a specific NPS problem in a
given location. These BMP systems should address the primary
pollutant(s) of concern and should be installed and utilized on the
critical area.
• Quantitative and realistic water quality and land treatment objectives
and goals.
• High level of expected implementation and landowner participation.
• Clearly defined NPS monitoring program objectives.
• Water quality and land treatment monitoring designs that have a high
probability of documenting changes in water quality mat are associ-
ated with the implementation of land treatment.
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
• Well established institutional arrangements and multi-year, up-front
funding for project planning and implementation.
• Effective and on-going information and education programs.
• Effective technology transfer mechanisms.
Minimum tracking and reporting requirements for land treatment and
surface water quality monitoring have been established by USEPA for the
National Monitoring Program projects (USEPA, 1991). These require-
ments should be considered as minimum guidelines for those projects
whose objective is to evaluate water quality changes at a watershed or
subwatershed level as a result of land treatment implementation. These
minimum reporting requirements for Section 319 National Monitoring
Program projects are listed in Appendix I.
This publication is an interim report on the five Section 319 National
Monitoring Program projects and one ground water pilot project approved
as of July 31,1993. Project profiles were prepared by the North Carolina
State University (NCSU) Water Quality Group under the USEPA grant
entitled Nonpoint Source Watershed Project Studies, and by the Oregon
State University Water Resource Research Institute. Profiles have been
reviewed and edited by personnel associated with each project.
The five surface water monitoring projects selected as Section 319 National
Monitoring Program projects are Elm Creek in Nebraska, Long Creek in
North Carolina, Sny Magill in Iowa, Sycamore Creek in Michigan, and
Morro Bay in California. The sixth project, Snake River Plain, Idaho, is
a pilot ground water project.
Each project profile includes a project overview, project description, and
maps. In the project description section, water resources are identified,
water quality and project area characteristics are described, and the water
quality monitoring program is outlined. Project budgets and project
contacts are also included in the description.
The Appendices include the minimum reporting requirements for Section
319 National Monitoring Program projects (Appendix I), a list of abbre-
viations (Appendix II), and a glossary of terms (Appendix ID) used in the
project profiles. A list of project documents and other relevant publica-
tions for each project is included in Appendix IV. Project profile reviewers
are listed in Appendix V.
REFERENCES
USEPA. 1991. \\btershed Monitoring and Reporting for Section 319 National
Monitoring Program Projects. Assessment and Watershed Protection Division,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, V&shington, DC.
-------
Chapter 2
:r~
Associating Water Quality Trends
With Land Treatment Trends
-------
Chapter 2
The disadvantages of the paired watershed design:
• Requires increased coordination of personnel and land treatment/land
use.
• Requires similar drainage areas in close proximity.
• Requires that land use and land treatment in the control
subwatershed be maintained the same throughout
the monitoring duration.
Match Between the Pollnfant
-------
Chapter 2
Recommendations for land treatment and water quality monitoring pro-
gram elements that will likely facilitate documentation of a link between
land treatment and water quality are summarized below. Many of the
following recommendations for monitoring are based on the 12-year Rural
Clean Water Program, an experimental agricultural-watershed, NFS pol-
lution control program that combined land treatment and water quality
monitoring in a continuous feedback loop to document NFS control
effectiveness (Gale et al., 1992, 1993; Spooner et al., 1991).
Good Experimental Design for Water Quality and Land Treatment
Monitoring
A good experimental design for water quality and land treatment monitor-
ing is essential to document a strong relationship between land treatment
and water quality changes. Common designs include: the paired watershed
design, upstream-downstream sites monitored before and after land treat-
ment implementation, and multiple watershed monitoring.
The paired watershed design is the best method for documenting BMP
effectiveness in a 1 imited number of years (at least three to five years). This
design involves the monitoring of two or more similar subwatersheds
(drainage areas) before and after implementation of BMPs hi one of the
subwatersheds. The paired drainage areas should have similar precipita-
tion runoff patterns. Ideally, the paired watershed design has the following
characteristics: a) simultaneous monitoring at the outlet of each drainage
area; b) monitoring of all sites prior to any land treatment (calibration
period) to establish the relative hydrologic response of the drainage areas;
and c) subsequent monitoring where at least one drainage area continues
to serve as a control through the land treatment period (that is, receives
significantly less land treatment than the other drainage areas). The
calibration period is generally one to three years, depending on the
consistency of the data relationships between subwatersheds. Consistent
water quality monitoring data across subwatersheds will show similar
changes in the magnitude and direction of the monitored pollutant(s) with
changes in hydrology and climate.
The advantages of the paired watershed design:
• Requires shorter time period to document water quality
changes due to land treatment.
• Accounts for hydrologic and meteorologic variability.
• Minimizes meteorologic monitoring.
• Strengthens the ability to document cause-and-effect relationships.
-------
Chapter 2
Hie Section 319 National Monitoring Program was designed to associate
land treatment implementation with improvement in water quality. Be-
cause this is such an important part of the program, a detailed explanation
of the basic concepts involved in associating water quality and land
treatment follows.
Over 50% of the pollutant loading to waterbodies of the United States are
caused by nonpoint source (NFS) pollution (USEPA, 1990). In any given
ecoregion, land use affects the type and amount of NFS pollution entering
a receiving waterbody. To reduce this pollution, land treatment is neces-
sary. However, historically it has been difficult to demonstrate the rela-
tionship between land treatment and water quality changes due, at least in
part, to a lack of well-designed water quality monitoring efforts. The
purpose of several government sponsored programs (Model Implementa-
tion Program (MIP), Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP), Section 319
National Monitoring Program) has been or is to illustrate the relation
between land treatment implementation and changes in water quality.
In programs or projects where the objective is to link water quality changes
and land treatment implementation, two goals must be considered when
designing the monitoring network and analyzing the data:
1) Detecting significant (or real) trends in both water quality and
land treatment implementation.
2) Associating water quality trends with land treatment trends.
Associating water quality changes with land treatment changes is very
difficult because the relationship is generally only inferred. An association
can be defined as a change in water quality mat is correlated with a change
in land use, specifically best management practice (BMP) implementation.
While it is necessary to demonstrate the association between changes in
water quality and changes hi land treatment implementation, an association
by itself is not sufficient to infer causal relationships. There may be other
factors, not related to the BMPs, causing the changes in water quality, such
as changes in land use or precipitation. However, if the association is
consistent and responsive and has a mechanistic basis, then causality may
be supported (Mosteller and Tukey, 1977).
• Consistency means that the relationship between the variables holds
in each data set in terms of direction and degree. A consistent,
multi-year, improving trend in water quality after implementation of
BMPs provides evidence needed to attribute water quality improve-
ments to land treatment. Similarly, improvements in multiple water-
sheds treated with BMP systems provide strong evidence that water
quality improvements resulted from land treatment.
• Responsiveness means that one variable changes similarly if the other
variable is changed in a known, experimental manner.
• Mechanistic refers to the step-by-step path from cause to effect where
there is a relationship between the predicted means by which the
installed system reduces NFS pollution and the observed change in
water quality.
-------
Chapter 2
water quality. The land treatment and water quality databases must be
collected and/or summarized to the spatial scale desired.
The linkage of land treatment to water quality impacts can be made at the
farm field, subwatershed, watershed, or project levels. The scale of
monitoring is a function of the goals and the desired interpretations. In
general, the larger the drainage area, the harder it is to identify and
quantify the linkage. Subwatershed monitoring is the most effective
method for demonstrating water quality improvements from a system of
BMPs. Water quality changes are more likely to be observed at the
subwatershed level than at the larger watershed level. Confounding effects
of external factors, other pollutant sources, and scattered BMP implemen-
tation are minimized at the subwatershed level.
Match *hft Lpnd Treatment and Water Quality Data on a Temporal
Scale
The water quality and land treatment databases should be temporally
related. Actual land treatment implementation needs to be recorded at least
seasonally or annually. For some studies, land treatment data (e.g., timing
of manure or commercial fertilizer applications, tuning of construction of
a new sediment control basin or lagoon storage structure, or timing of a
dairy closure) should be collected more frequently if the effect on water
quality is more short-term or has a large, immediate impact.
Water quality samples are usually collected weekly or biweekly. The water
quality data do not have to be summarized on the same time scale as the
land treatment data; land treatment data can be added to the trend analysis
as repeating explanatory variables. Alternatively, the water quality data
can be aggregated to the same time scale as the land treatment data for
analysis. Data aggregation is particularly useful for plotting and explana-
tory data analysis.
Monitor of Explanatory Variables Affecting Water Quality
Accounting for all major sources of variability in the water quality and land
treatment data increases the ability to isolate true water quality trends that
result from BMPs. Correlation of water quality changes and land treatment
changes by itself is not sufficient to infer causal relationships. There may
be other factors not related to the BMPs that are causing the changes in
water quality, such as changes in land use, rainfall patterns, etc. These
factors are referred to as explanatory variables. Factoring explanatory
variables into trend analyses yields water quality trends closer to those that
would have been measured had there been no change in the climatic
variables over time. In addition, accounting for variability in water quality
due to known causes decreases the error term in the trend analyses and
increases the power of the statistical trend analyses. Accounting for spatial
and temporal autocorrelation in trend analyses is also important in making
correct interpretations regarding the statistical significance of observed
trends.
10
-------
Chapter 2
The selection of explanatory variables is project-dependent. Explanatory
variables may include changes in animal numbers, changes in cropping
patterns, orner land use changes, season, stream discharge, precipitation,
ground \vv r.r table depth, salinity, changes in known pollutant sources,
changes in amount of impervious land surface, and other climatic or
hydrologic variables. Seasonal effects may be significant due to seasonal
land use changes or climatic changes. Explanatory variables should be
monitored at the same frequency as the principle chemical/physical or
biological/habitat variables.
Quantitative Monitoring of Land Treatment and Land Use
Land treatment and land use monitoring (tracking) is needed to quantify
the extent of land treatment. Quantitative monitoring of implemented land
treatment allows for documentation of trends in land treatment and is a
necessary step hi linking water quality to land treatment. The methods of
reporting and quantifying land treatment and land use should be consistent
throughout the project.
Careful planning is required to determine which land treatment variables
to monitor and how the land treatment and land use data will be collected
and stored so that it can be matched with the water quality data. Land
treatment and land use must be reported in quantitative units that reflect
treatment strength and that can be paired with the water quality data.
Examples include: acres treated with each BMP, acres treated with BMP
systems, tons of manure spread, pounds of fertilize- and acres served by
each BMP (acres served includes all BMP trea-txi acres plus all acres
whose pollutant delivery is being reduced by the BMP). When reporting
acres treated or served, correction should be given for differing pollutant
controlling efficiencies of BMPs or multiple BMPs serving the same acres.
Operation, management, and maintenance of BMPs may need to be tracked
because these factors also affect the water quality impacts of the land
treatment.
In addition to land treatment, changes in land use need to be documented.
Such documentation is required to help isolate the water quality changes
associated with the NFS controls from water quality changes due to altered
land use factors. Land use changes mat affect water quality include acres
converted from row crops to pasture, set-aside acres, changes in the
number of annuals per acre, number of animal units per acre, closure of
annual operations, changes in impervious land areas, or implementation of
non-contracted soil and water conservation practices that have not been
specified under a Soil Conservation Service plan or program.
Sufficient Land Treatment that Addresses the Water Quality
Problem
A high level of NFS control implementation in the critical area is usually
necessary to achieve a substantial improvement in measured water quality.
The land treatment implemented must be targeted toward reducing pollut-
11
-------
Chapter 2
ant delivery to the impaired water resource with emphasis on the primary
pollutant(s) causing the water quality problem.
A good experimental design for water quality and land treatment monitor-
ing is essential in order to provide clear documentation of the relationship
between land treatment and water quality changes. The water quality
monitoring design which can best demonstrate the relation between land
treatment and water quality in the shortest amount of time is the paired
watershed design.
To determine if the trends in water quality match the mechanistic prediction
in trends, the water quality and land treatment monitoring design must
have the ability to combine water quality, land treatment, and land use data
on suitable spatial and temporal scales with pre- and post-BMP implemen-
tation monitoring. Incorporation of explanatory variables helps isolate
water quality changes that result from land treatment.
REFERENCES
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffby, J. Spooner, and J.A. Arnold.
1992. Summary Report: Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Waer
Program. National \teter Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU Water Quality
Group, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC. 38p.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J. Spooner, J.A. Arnold, T.J.
Hoban, and R.C Wimberley. 1993. Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean
Vttter Program. National \Vfcter Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU \Vfcter Quality
Group, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC, EPA-841-R-93-005. 559 p.
Mosteller, F. and J.W. lukey. 1977. Data analysis and regression: Second course
in statistics. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Reading, MA. 588 p.
Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L. Lanier, and M.D.
Smolen. 1991. NWQEP Report: Vbter Quality Monitoring Report for Agricul-
tural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Projects - Methods and Findings from the
Rural Clean Wtter Program. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU
V&ter Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 164p.
USEPA. 1990. National Water Quality Inventory: 1988 report to Congress.
USEPA Report 440-4-90-003. USEPA, Washington, D.C.
12
-------
Chapter 3
Section 319
National Monitoring Program
Project Profiles
13
-------
Chapter 3
This chapter contains a profile of each of the Section 319 National
Monitoring Program projects approved as of July 31, 1993, arranged in
alphabetical order by state. Each profile begins with a brief project
overview, followed by detailed information about the project, including
water resource description; project area characteristics; information, edu-
cation, and publicity; nonpoint source control strategy; water quality
monitoring; total project budget; impact of other federal and state pro-
grams; other pertinent information; and project contacts.
Sources used in preparation of the profiles include project documents and
review comments made by project coordinators and staff.
Project budgets have been compiled from the best and most recent infor-
mation available.
Abbreviations used in the budget tables are as follows:
Proj Mgt Project Management
I&E Information and Education
LT Land Treatment
WQ Monk Water Quality Monitoring
NA Information Not Available
A list of project documents and other relevant publications for each project
may be found in Appendix IV.
15
-------
California
Morro Bay Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Morro Bay Watershed
San Luis Obispo County
Figure 1: Morro Bay (California) Watershed
17
-------
MORRO BAY WATERSHED
V
S»H IUS O«ISPO COUNTY. CAlr
'V Xj •//
3 m«.B V ^^
e Ch*i>TAsL \ _lx
Figure 2: Paired Watershed in Morro Bay (California)
(Chorro Creek and Los Osos Creek)
18
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Mono Bay watershed is located on the central coast of California, 237
miles south of San Francisco in San Luis Obispo County (Figure 1). This
76-square mile watershed is an important biological and economic re-
source. Two creeks, Los Osos and Chorro, drain the watershed into the
Bay. Included within the watershed boundaries are two urban areas, prime
agricultural and grazing lands, and a wide variety of natural habitats that
support a diversity of animal and plant species. Morro Bay estuary is
considered to be one of the least altered estuaries on the California coast.
Heavy development activities, caused by an expanding population in San
Luis Obispo County, have placed increased pressures on water resources
in the watershed.
Various nonpoint source pollutants, including sediment, bacteria, metals,
nutrients, and organic chemicals, are entering streams in the area and
threatening beneficial uses of the streams and estuary. The primary
pollutant of concern is sediment. Brushland and rangeland contribute the
largest portion of this sediment and Chorro Creek contributes twice as
much sediment to the Bay as Los Osos Creek. At present rates of
sedimentation, Morro Bay could be lost as an open water estuary within
300 years unless remedial action is undertaken. The objective of the
Morro Bay Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution and Treatment Measure
Evaluation Program is to reduce the quantity of sediment entering Morro
Bay.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Section 319 National
Monitoring Program project for the Morro Bay watershed has been
developed to characterize the sedimentation rate and other water quality
conditions in a portion of Chorro Creek, to evaluate the effectiveness of
several best management practice (BMP) systems in improving water
quality and habitat quality, and to evaluate the overall water quality at select
sites in the Morro Bay watershed.
A paired watershed study on tributaries of Chorro Creek (Chumash and
Walters Creeks) will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of a BMP system
in improving water quality (Figure 2). Other monitoring sites, outside the
paired watershed, have been established to evaluate specific BMP system
effectiveness. In addition, water quality samples throughout the watershed
will be taken to document the changes in water quality during the life of
the project.
19
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource
Type and Size
Water Uses and
Impairments
Pre-Project
Water Quality
The total drainage basin of the Morro Bay watershed is approximately
48,450 acres. The monitoring effort is focused on the Chorro Creek
watershed. Chorro Creek and its tributaries originate along the southern
flank of Cuesta Ridge, at elevations of approximately 2,700 feet. Currently
three stream gages are operational, one each on the San Luisito, San
Bernardo, and Chorro creeks. Annual discharge is highly variable, rang-
ing from approximately 2,000 to over 20,000 acre-feet, and averaging
about 5,600 acre-feet. Flow is intermittent in dry years and may disappear
in all but the uppermost areas of the watershed. In spite of the intermittent
nature of these creeks, both Chorro and Los Osos creeks are considered
cold-water resources, supporting anadromous fisheries (steelhead trout).
Morro Bay is one of the few relatively intact natural estuaries on the Pacific
Coast of North America. The beneficial uses of Morro Bay include
recreation, industry, navigation, marine life habitat, shellfish harvesting,
commercial and sport fishing, wildlife habitat, and rare and endangered
species habitat.
A number of fish species (including anadromous fish, which use the Bay
during a part of their life cycle) have been negatively impacted by the
increased amount of sediment in the streams and the bay. Sedimentation
in anadromous fish streams reduces the carrying capacity of the stream for
steelhead and other fish species by reducing macroinvertebrate productiv-
ity, spawning habitat, and egg and larval survival rates, and increasing gill
abrasion and stress on adult fish. Although trout are still found in both
streams, ocean-run fish have not been observed in a number of years.
Accelerated sedimentation has also resulted in significant economic losses
to the oyster industry in the Bay. Approximately 100 acres of oyster beds
have been lost due to excessive sedimentation. Additionally, fecal coliform
bacteria carried by streams to the Bay have had a negative impact on the
shellfish industry, resulting in periodic closures of the area to shellfish
harvesting (SCS, 1992). Elevated fecal coliform counts have been detected
in water quality samples taken from several locations in the watershed.
Elevated fecal coliform detections, exceeding 1600 MPN/100 ml, gener-
ally, in areas where cattle impacts in streams are heavy.
Hie Tidewater Goby, a brackish-water fish which has been proposed as a
federally threatened species, has been eliminated from the mouths of both
Chorro and Los Osos creeks, most likely as a result of sedimentation of
pool habitat, in combination with excessive water diversion.
The two creeks that flow into the estuary (Chorro Creek and Los Osos
Creek) are listed as impaired for sedimentation, temperature, and agricul-
tural nonpoint source pollution by the State of California (Central Coast
Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1993).
20
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Project Water Quality
Objectives
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
Studies conducted within the watershed have identified sedimentation as a
serious threat in the watershed and estuary. Results of a Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) Hydrologic Unit Areas (HUA) study show that the rate of
sedimentation has increased ten-fold during the last 100 years (SCS,
1989b). Recent studies indicate that the estuary has lost 25% of its tidal
volume in the last century as a result of accelerated sedimentation and has
filled in with an average of two feet of sediment since 1935 (Haltiner,
1988). SCS estimated the current quantity of sediment delivered to Morro
Bay to be 45,500 tons per year (Soil Conservation Service, 1989b).
The overall goal of the USEPA 319 project is to evaluate improvements in
water quality resulting from implementation of best management practices.
The following objectives have been identified for this project:
• Identify sources, types, and amounts of nonpoint source pollutants (see
the list of variables which will be monitored) originating in paired
watersheds in the Chorro Creek watershed (Chumash and Walters
creeks).
• Determine stream flow/sediment load relationships in the paired water-
sheds.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs implemented as a BMP system in
improving water quality in one of the paired sub-watersheds (Chumash
Creek).
• Evaluate the effectiveness of three implemented BMP systems in
improving water or habitat quality at selected Morro Bay watershed
locations.
• Monitor overall water quality in the Mprro Bay watershed to identify
problem areas for future work, detect improvements or changes, and
contribute to the database for watershed locations.
aphical Information System (GIS) database to be used
in future water quality monitoring efforts.
August 1, 1993 - June 30, 2003
1993
Develop a
for this project
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
The Morro Bay watershed drains an area of 48,450 acres into the Morro
Bay estuary on the central coast of California. The Bay is approximately
four miles long and one and three-quarters miles at its maximum width.
The project area is primarily located in the northeast portion of die Morro
Bay watershed.
Morro Bay was formed during the last 10,000 to 15,000 years (SCS,
1989a). A post-glacial rise in sea level of several hundred feet resulted in
a submergence of the confluence of Chorro and Los Osos creeks (Haltiner,
1988). A series of creeks that originate in the steeper hillslopes to the east
of the Bay drain westwardly into two creeks, Chorro and Los Osos, which
drain into the Bay. The 400-acre salt marsh has developed in the central
21
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
portion of the Bay in the delta of the two creeks. A shallow ground water
system is also present underneath the project area.
Hie geology of the watershed is highly varied, consisting of complex
igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rock. Over fifty diverse soils,
ranging from fine sands to heavy clays, have been mapped in the area.
Soils in the upper watershed are predominantly coarse-textured, shallow,
and weakly developed. Deeper medium- or finer-textured soils are typi-
cally found in valley bottoms or on gently rolling hills. Earthquake activity
and intense rain events increase landslide potential and severity in sensitive
areas.
The climate of the watershed is Mediterranean: cool, wet winters and
warm, dry summers. The area receives about 95% of its 18-inch average
annual precipitation between the months of November and April. The
mean air temperatures range from lows around 45 degrees in January to
highs of 75 degrees in October, with prevailing winds from the northwest
averaging around 15 to 20 miles per hour.
Land Use Approximately 60% of the land in the watershed is classified as rangeland.
Typical rangeland operations consist of approximately 1,000 acres of
highly productive grasslands supporting cow-calf enterprises. Brushlands
make up another 19% of the watershed area. Agricultural crops (truck,
field, and grain crops), woodlands, and urban areas encompass approxi-
mately equal amounts of the landscape in the watershed.
Land Use Acres %_
Agricultural Crops 3,149 7
Woodland 3,093 7
Urban 3,389 8
Brushland 8,319 19
Rangeland 26,162 59
Total 44,112 100
Source: Morro Bay watershed Enhancement Plan, 1989
Pollutant Source(s) It has been estimated that 50% or more of the sediment entering the Bay
is a result of human activities. Sheet and rill erosion account for over 63 %
of the sediment reaching Morro Bay (SCS, 1989b). An SCS Erosion and
Sediment Study identified sources of sediment to the Bay, which include
activities on rangeland, cropland, and urban lands (SCS, 1989b). The
greatest contribution of sediment to the Bay originates from upland brush-
lands (37%) because of the land's steepness, parent material, and lack of
undercover, as well as rainfall. Rangelands are the second-largest source
of sediment entering into streams (12%). Cattle grazing has damaged
riparian areas by stripping the land of vegetation and breaking down bank
stability. The unvegetated streambanks, as well as overgrazed uplands,
have resulted in accelerated erosion. Brushlands and rangelands, the two
largest contributors of sediment, account for roughly half of the total
sediment yield in the watershed. Other activities hi the watershed which
22
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
have contributed to sediment transport into Mono Bay include abandoned
mines, poorly maintained roads, agricultural croplands, and urban activi-
ties.
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
At least one informal educational program on the 319 National Monitoring
Program project and the watershed will be conducted each year. Informa-
tion and education (I&E) programs thus far have been workshops about the
water quality problems within the watershed for landowners and local
agency personnel and a presentation before the Central Coast Regional
Water Board. Future public presentations about the Morro Bay 319
National Monitoring Program project will be made to such local advocacy
or other interest groups as Friends of the Estuary, the Morro Bay Natural
History Association, and the Morro Bay Task Force, as well as Cal Poly
State University and Cuesta Community College.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY
Paired Watershed
BMP Systems at Sites
within the Morro Bay
Watershed
In the paired watershed, a BMP system will be used to control nonpoint
source pollutants. Cal Poly State University (Cal Poly) will be responsible
for implementation of this BMP system on Chumash Creek, one of the
streams in the paired watershed. The BMPs to be implemented include:
1) fencing the entire riparian corridor; 2) creating smaller pastures for
better management of cattle-grazing activities; 3) providing appropriate
water distribution to each of these smaller pastures; 4) stabilizing and
revegetating portions of the streambank; and 5) installing water bars and
culverts on farm roads where needed. During the project, riparian
vegetation is expected to increase from essentially zero coverage to at least
50 % coverage. The proj ect team has established a goal of a 50 % reduction
in sediment following BMP implementation.
SCS has established three different BMP systems throughout the water-
shed. These three systems will be evaluated for their effect on water and
habitat quality. A floodplain sediment retention project will be established
at Chorro Flats to retain sediment (sediment retention project). A riparian
area along Dairy Creek, a tributary of Chorro Creek, will be fenced and
revegetated (cattle exclusion project). Fences will be installed to allow
rotational grazing of pastures on a 1,400-acre ranch (managed grazing
project). The goals for these projects during the next 10 years are to
achieve a 33.8% decrease in sediment yield from the sediment retention
project, a 66% reduction in sediment yield from the cattle exclusion
project, and a 30% reduction in sediment as a result of the managed grazing
project.
23
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Two watersheds have been selected for a paired watershed study. Chumash
Creek (400 acres) and Walters Creek (480 acres) both drain into Chorro
Creek. These creeks are similar in soils, vegetative cover, elevation, slope,
and land use activities. The property surrounding these two creeks is under
the management of Cal Poly. Because the rangeland being treated is owned
by Cal Poly, project personnel will be able to ensure continuity and control
of land management practices.
The paired watershed monitoring plan will entail three specific monitoring
techniques: stream flow/climatic monitoring, water quality monitoring,
and biological/habitat monitoring. The calibration period, in which the
two watersheds will be monitored to establish statistical relationships
between them, will be at least two rainy seasons in duration. After the
calibration period is complete, a BMP system will be installed in one of the
watersheds (Chumash Creek). The other watershed, Walters Creek, will
serve as the control.
Other systems of BMPs will be established at different locations in die
Morro Bay watershed. Water quality will be monitored using up-
stream/downstream and single station designs to evaluate these systems.
An upstream/downstream design will be adopted to monitor the water
quality effect of a floodplain/sediment retention project and a cattle
exclusion project. A single station design on a subdrainage will be used to
evaluate changes in water quality from implementation of a managed
grazing program.
In addition to BMP effectiveness monitoring, ongoing watt- quality sam-
pling will take place at selected sites throughout the Morrc y watershed
to document long-term changes in overall water quality <^d to discern
problem areas in need of further restoration efforts.
Variables Measured
Biological
Fecal Coliform
Riparian Vegetation
Chemical and Other
Suspended and Bedload Sediment
Turbidity
Nitrate (NOs-N)
Tbtal Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
Total Phosphate
Conductivity
PH
24
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
Explanatory Variable
Precipitation
Stream Flow
Evaporation
Animal Units
Sampling Scheme
Weekly grab samples will be taken for at least 20 weeks during the rainy
season, starting on November IS. The samples from the paired watershed
will be analyzed for suspended sediment, turbidity, nitrate, total phosphate,
and fecal coliform. The two upstream/downstream sites and one of the
downstream monitoring sites will be analyzed for suspended sediment,
turbidity, and fecal coliform. In addition, year-round samples for pH,
dissolved oxygen, turbidity, temperature, and fecal coliform will be con-
ducted every two weeks at these locations, the gage stations, and several
additional sampling sites.
In the paired watershed, suspended sediment samples will be collected
during storm events using automated sampling equipment set at even
intervals (15-minute, 30-minute, or hourly intervals, depending on the
sediment/flow relationship). The water collected from each individual
sample will be analyzed for suspended sediment and turbidity and will then
be composited and analyzed for total suspended sediment mass and its
chemical composition (total kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus, pH, and
conductivity).
Bedload sediment will be sampled after each flow event (4 to 10 events per
rainy season) for total mass. Physical (particle size) analysis will be
performed on composite bedload samples.
Vegetation will be assessed via aerial photography conducted bi-annual ly
in March and September during the first, fifth, and tenth years of the
project. Four permanent vegetation transects will be conducted three times
each year to sample actual vegetation and document changes during the life
of the project.
Data Management
Data and BMP implementation information will be handled by the project
team. As required by the USEPA Section 319 National Monitoring
Program Guidance, data will be entered into STORET and reported using
the Nonpoint Source Management System Software. GIS will be used to
map nonpoint pollution sources, best management practices, and land uses,
and to determine resulting water quality problem areas.
A Quality Assurance Project Plan for project water quality sampling and
analysis will be developed by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality
25
-------
Morro Bay Watershed. California
Control Board. The plan will be used to assure the reliability and accuracy
of sampling, data recording, and analytical measurements.
Data Analysis
Parametric and non-parametric statistical tests will be adopted to analyze
the data. Possible tests include linear regression F-tests, analysis of
variance, covariance F-test, Wilcoxon-Rank Sum tests, and Kendall's Tau
test. A two-way contingency table will be used for comparison of the levels
of pollutant concentrations and levels of explanatory variables (explanatory
variables). Three variable contingency tables will also be prepared; these
include time (season or year), pollutant concentration, and an explanatory
variable (such as flow or land treatment).
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The estimated budget for the Morro Bay watershed Nonpoint Source
Pollution Monitoring project for the period of FY 92 - 94:
Project Element Funding Source ($)
Federal State Sum
PrqjMgt 51,710 51,710
I&E 60,000 60,000
*LT 130,000 1,593,500 1,723,500
WQ 85,540 10,000 95,540
Monit
Totals 327,250 1,603,500 1,930,750
* Land Treatment dollars are largely to be used for permanent structures.
These funds will probably be used for matching funds throughout the
duration of the project, not just the first two years.
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
In addition to the USEPA 319 National Monitoring Program project being
led by the California Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board,
several other agencies are involved in various water quality activities in the
watershed. The California Coastal Conservancy contracted with the
Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District in 1987 to inventory the
sediment sources to the estuary, to quantify the rates of sedimentation, and
to develop a watershed enhancement plan to address these problems. The
Coastal Conservancy then provided $400,000 for cost share for BMP
implementation by landowners. HUA grant funding has been obtained for
technical assistance in the watershed ($140,000/year), Cooperative Exten-
sion adult and youth watershed education programs ($100,000/year), and
26
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
cost share for farmers and ranchers ($100,000/year) for five years. An
SCS Range Conservationist was hired through 319(h) funds ($163,000) to
manage the range and farm land improvement program. Cooperative
Extension has also received a grant to conduct detailed monitoring on a
rangeland management project in the watershed. The California National
Guard, a major landowner in the watershed, has contracted with the SCS
($40,000) to develop a management plan for grazing and road management
on the base. State funding from the Coastal Conservancy and the Depart-
ment of Transportation has been used to purchase a $1.45 million parcel
of agricultural land on Chorro Creek just upstream of the Morro Bay delta
which will be restored as a functioning flood plain. Without the coopera-
tion of these agencies and without their funding, this project would be
unable to implement BMPs or educate landowners about nonpoint source
pollution.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Board is conducting a study of
the abandoned mines in the watershed with USEPA 2050) funds. The
Board has also obtained a USEPA Near Coastal Waters grant to develop a
watershed workplan, incorporate new USEPA nonpoint source manage-
ment measures into the Basin Plan, and develop guidance packages for the
various agencies charged with the responsibility for water quality in the
watershed.
The Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Conservation Board has
provided funding ($48,000) for steelhead habitat enhancement on portions
of Chorro Creek. The State Department of Parks and Recreation has
funded studies on exotic plant invasions in the delta as a result of
sedimentation. The California Coastal Commission has used Morro Bay
as a model watershed in development of a pilot study for a nonpoint source
management plan pursuant to Section 6217 of the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990.
In addition to state and federal support, the Morro Bay watershed receives
tremendous support from local citizen groups. The Friends of the Estuary,
a citizen advocacy group, has been invaluable in its political support of
Morro Bay, including an effort to nominate the Bay for the National Estuary
Program. The Bay Foundation, a non-profit group dedicated to Bay
research, has funded a $45,000 study on the freshwater influences on
Morro Bay, has developed a library collection on the bay and watershed at
the local community college, and is actively cooperating with the Morro
Bay National Monitoring Program project in development of a watershed
GIS database. The Bay Foundation has also recently purchased satellite
photographs of the watershed which will prove useful for the monitoring
program effort. The Friends of the Estuary and the Bay Foundation of
Morro Bay are cooperating to develop a volunteer monitoring program for
the Bay itself, which may include water quality monitoring.
27
-------
Morro Bay Watershed. California
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Karen Worcester
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
81 Higuera St. Suite 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 549-3333, Fax (805) 543-0397
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Thomas J. Rice
Soil Science Department
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
(805) 756-2420, Fax (805) 756-5412
Gary Ketchum
Farm Supervisor
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
(805) 756-2548
Scott Robbins
SCS-Range Conservationist
545 Main Street, Suite Bl
Morro Bay, CA 93442
(805) 772-4391
Karen Worcester
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
81 Higuera St. Suite 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 549-3333, Fax (805) 543-0397
Information and
Education
Karen Worcester
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
81 Higuera St. Suite 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 549-3333, Fax (805) 543-0397
28
-------
Morro Bay Watershed, California
REFERENCES
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1993. Nonpoint Source
Pollution and Treatment Measure Evaluation for the Morro Bay Watershed.
Haltiner, J. 1988. Sedimentation Processes in Morro Bay, California. Prepared
by Philip Williams and Associates for the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation
District with funding by the California Coastal Conservancy.
SCS. 1989a. Morro Bay Waershed Enhancement Plan. Soil Conservation
Service.
SCS. 1989b. Erosion and Sediment Study Morro Bay Vtaershed. Soil Conserva-
tion Service .
SCS. 1992. FY-92 Annual Progress Report Morro Bay Hydrologic Unit Area.
Soil Conservation Service
29
-------
Idaho
Eastern Snake River Plain
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
IDAHO. SNAKE RIVER PLAIN
WATER QUALITY DEMONSTRATION AREA
Figure 3: Eastern Snake River Plain (Idaho) Demonstration Project Area
31
-------
"F" FIELD WELL LOCATIONS
N
FORGEON TEST FIELD
N
j
"M" FIELD WELL LOCATIONS
COHCIETE LINED IRRICAridH DITCH
150 fc
•500 ft-
.••W2
: N
MPES
HPUS
MEH i-
HE1 4.
ELECTRIC fHHCE
.MPES
MONCUR TEST FIELD
ALL DISTANCES ARE APPROXIMATE
Figure 4: Eastern Snake River Plain (Idaho) Project Field Well Locations
32
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Idaho Eastern Snake River Plain is located in southcentral Idaho in an
area dominated by irrigated agricultural land. The Eastern Snake River
Plain aquifer system, which provides much of the drinking water for
approximately 40,000 people living in the area, underlies about 9,600
square miles of basaltic desert terrain. The aquifer also serves as a
important source of water for irrigation. In 1990, this aquifer was desig-
nated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as a sole
source acquifer.
A wide diversity of agricultural crops are produced throughout the Eastern
Snake River Plain region. Excessive irrigation, a common practice in the
area, creates the potential for nitrate and pesticide leaching and/or runoff.
Ground water monitoring indicates the presence of elevated nitrate levels
in the shallow aquifer underlying the project area.
The objective of a five-year United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Demonstration Project within the Eastern Snake River Plain
(1,946,700 acres) is to reduce adverse agricultural impacts on ground
water quality through coordinated implementation of nutrient and irrigation
water management (Figure 3). As part of this project, two-paired field
monitoring networks constructed to evaluate best management practices
(BMPs) for nutrient management effects are funded under Section 319 of
the Clean Water Act (Figure 4).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource In the intensely irrigated areas overlying the Eastern Snake River Plain
Type and Size aquifer, shallow, unconfined ground water systems have developed primar-
ily from irrigation water recharge. Domestic water supplies tend to be
obtained from these shallow systems. Within the project area, the general
direction of the shallow ground water system is toward the north from the
river; however, localized flow patterns due to irrigation practices and
pumping effects are very common. Proximity of the shallow system to
ground surface, the intensive land use overlying the system, and the
dominant recharge source (irrigation water) makes this ground water
system very vulnerable to contamination.
Water Uses and Some wells sampled for nitrate concentrations have exceeded state and
Impairments federal standards for allowable levels. This occurrence of elevated nitrate
concentrations in the ground water impairs the use of the shallow aquifer
as a source of drinking water. Low-level pesticide concentrations in the
ground water have been detected in domestic wells and are of concern in
the project area. Both nitrate and potential pesticide concentrations
threaten the present and future use of the aquifer system for domestic water
use.
33
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain. Idaho
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Project Water Quality
Objectives
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
Ground water data collected and analyzed within the project area indicate
the widespread occurrence of nitrate concentrations which exceed state and
federal drinking water standards. In a study conducted from May 1991
through October 1991,195 samples were obtained and analyzed for nitrate
in 54 area wells. Average concentrations were around 6.5 milligrams per
liter (mg/1) and the maximum was 28 mg/1. The federal Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) of 10 mg/1 was exceeded in 16 % of the wells
at least once during the sampling period. Five percent of the wells yielded
samples which continuously exceeded the MCL during the sampling
period.
Ninety-eight samples were collected from the same 54 wells and analyzed
for the presence of 107 pesticide compounds. Fourteen of the 54 wells
yielded samples with at least one detectable pesticide present, but all
concentrations measured were below the federal Safe Drinking Water MCL
or Health Advisory for that compound. Even though the wells now meet
MCL standards, pesticide concentrations are still believed to be a future
concern for the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer.
The overall Demonstration Project objective is to decrease nitrate and
pesticide concentrations through the adoption of BMPs on agricultural
lands. Specific project objectives for the USEPA 319 National Monitoring
Program project are:
• Effects of irrigation water management on nitrate-nitrogen leaching
to the ground water will be evaluated on the "M" paired field through
comparison of water quality conditions of the two sides of the paired
field.
• Effects of crop rotation on nitrate-nitrogen leaching to the ground
water will be evaluated on the "F" paired field through comparison
of water quality conditions of the two sides of the paired field.
Source: James Osiensky (Personal communication, 1993).
October 1991 - October 1997
1992
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
The Demonstration Project is comprised of over 1,946,000 acres. Costs
and resources available limit the ground water quality monitoring activities
to a 30,000-acre area of south Minidoka County. The 319 project consists
of two sets of paired, five-acre plots (a total of four, five-acre plots) located
in this 30,000-acre area (Figure 4). The paired fields are located in the
eastern and western portions of the area to illustrate BMP effects in
differing soil textures. The "F" field soils are fairly clean, fine to medium
sands. The "M" field soils are silty loams. Due to the differences in soils
and the traditional irrigation methods employed on these fields (flood and
furrow respectively), the "M" field has relatively lower spatial variability
34
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain. Idaho
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
Land Use
of existing water quality than the "F" field.
greater influences from adjacent fields.
The "F" field also shows
A regional monitoring well network consisting of existing domestic stand-
point (driven) wells has also been established within the Demonstration
Project Area. The regional network is intended to augment the paired field
data and provide a means to document the influence of the Demonstration
Project on the quality of the area's shallow ground water system.
The average annual rainfall is between 8 and 12 inches. Shallow and deep
water aquifers are found within the project area. Because of the hydro-
geologic regime of the project area, there is a wide range in depths to
ground water. Soils in the demonstration area have been formed as a result
of wind and water deposition. Stratified loamy alluvial deposits and sandy
wind deposits cover a permeable layer of basalt. Soil textures vary from
silty clay loams to fine sandy loams and are predominantly level, moder-
ately deep, and well drained.
Beets, potatoes, and grains are grown in the "M" field. Alfalfa, beans, and
pasture grass are grown in the "F" field. Both fields were converted to
sprinkler from furrow and flood irrigation in 1993. Comparison demon-
strations between sprinkler and gravity irrigation systems is not occurring
because project personnel feel that this information is apparent and avail-
able.
The "M" paired field will be used to establish baseline conditions which
exist using a "wheel line" sprinkler system. After baseline conditions have
been established, the "BMP" side of the paired field will use a 12-hour
sprinkler duration.
The "F" paired field will be used to establish baseline conditions which
exist under sprinkler-irrigated alfalfa production. After baseline condi-
tions have been established, the "BMP" side of the paired field will be
planted in grain, while the "control" side of the field will be planted in
beans.
Pollutant Source(s)
Within the project area there are over 1,500 farms with an average size of
520 acres. A wide variety of crops, including alfalfa, barley, dry beans,
corn, potatoes, sugarbeets, and wheat are grown in the area. Nutrient
management on irrigated crops is intensive. Heavy nitrogen application
and excessive irrigation are the primary causes of water quality problems
in the shallow aquifer system. In addition, over 80 different agrichemicals
have been used within the project area. Excessive irrigation may cause
some leaching of these pesticides into ground water (Idaho Eastern Snake
River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project, 1991).
35
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Presently, there are no plans to implement a separate information and
education (I & E) campaign for the 319 National Monitoring Program
preset. I & E for the 319 National Monitoring Program project will be
included in the Demonstration Project I & E program.
Two Eastern Snake River Plain Demonstration Project brochures have been
published. One brochure, targeting the local public, was designed to
provide a general explanation of the project. The second explains the
nitrate sampling results from the project area. A survey was conducted to
gain insight into the attitudes of the general public and me farmer on water
quality. The results of these surveys have been published. In addition,
presentations have been conducted and Demonstration Project displays
have been exhibited in the area.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY
The NPS control strategy focuses on nitrogen and pesticide management
practices that will reduce the amount of nutrients and pesticides in surface
water and the amount leached into the ground water.
Fertilizer evaluations and recommendations based on soil tests, petiole
analysis, crop growth stage, crop type, rotation, and water sampling will
be adopted.
Fanners will be asked to incorporate pesticide management strategies into
their farming practices. It is hoped that these strategies will reduce farm
input and overuse of pesticides. Integrated Pest Management will be
utilized and will include, but not be limited to, scouting, trapping, and
rotational management.
An irrigation management program will be implemented for each partici-
pating farm in the Demonstration Project. Recommended activities include
changes in irrigation scheduling, tailwater management, repair of existing
structural components, and conversion to other types of systems.
36
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Variables Measured
The 319 National Monitoring portion of the Demonstration Project incor-
porates two field networks consisting of 24 constructed wells, of which
eight are centrally located "permanent" wells and four are peripheral
"temporary" wells, installed on bom fields (Figure 4).
Chemical and Other
Nitrate (NCb-N)
pH
Temperature
Specific Conductivity
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Specific Conductance
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) on a monthly basis
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and Ammonium (NH4-N) on a quarterly
basis
Organic scans for pesticide on a semi-annual basis
Sampling Scheme
Water Quality Data
Management
Explanatory Variables
A number of explanatory variable monitoring activities are being under-
taken by some of the other agencies participating in the project. Vari-
ables to be considered in this project include precipitation and crop,
soil, and irrigation water analysis. In addition, vadose zone suction
lysimeters are being used to monitor nitrate transport.
Paired Field Networks
Type: Grab
Frequency and season: Monthly, third week of each month starting
April, 1992
The Idaho Division of Environmental Quality will enter all raw water
quality data in the USEPA STORET system. Data will also be entered into
the USDA Water Quality Project's Central Data Base, and the Idaho
Environmental Data Management System.
37
-------
Eastern Snake River Rain, Idaho
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Project Element Funding Source ($)
Federal State Local Sum
ProjMgt NA NA NA NA
I&E NA NA NA NA
LT NA NA NA NA
WQ 70,000 NA NA 70,000
Monit
Totals 70,000 NA NA 70,000
* Federal USEPA 319 Budgets for 2/1/92 - I/ 31/93
Source: Osiensky and Long, 1992
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
None
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
The Eastern Snake River Plain Demonstration Project is led by the USDA
Soil Conservation Service and the University of Idaho Cooperative Exten-
sion Service. In addition to the two lead agencies, this project involves an
extensive state and federal interagency cooperative effort. Numerous
agencies, including the USDA Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation
Service, the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, the University of
Idaho Water Resource Research Institute, the USDA Agricultural Research
Service, the Idaho Department of Water Resources, U.S. Geological
Survey, and Idaho Department of Agriculture, have taken on various
project tasks.
The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and the Idaho Water
Resources Research Institute will be responsible for the 319 National
Monitoring Program portion of the project.
An institutional advantage of this project is that the Soil Conservation
Service and the Cooperative Extension Service are both located in the same
office.
The success of the USDA Demonstration Project requires the cooperation
and support of a number of federal, state, and local agencies working in
the project area. These various agencies come to the project bringing
different backgrounds, but will be working to achieve central project
objectives and goals.
38
-------
Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Jeff Bohr
USDA Soil Conservation Service
1369 East 16th St.
Burley, ID 83318
(208) 678-7946
Land Treatment
Randall Brooks
Cooperative Extension
1369 East 16th St.
Burley, ID 83318
(208) 678-7946
Water Quality
Monitoring
Tony Bennett
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 North Hilton
Boise, ID 83706-1253
(208) 334-5860
Information and
Education
Randall Brooks
Cooperative Extension
1369 East 16th St.
Burley, ID 83318
(208) 678-7946
REFERENCES
Idaho Eastern Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project 1991. Plan
ofVfork. April 1991.
Osiensky, J. and M.F. Long. 1992. Quarterly Progress Report for the Ground
Witter Monitoring Plan: Idaho Eastern Snake River Plain Vbter Quality Demon-
stration Project.
39
-------
Iowa
Sny Magill Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
BLOODY RUN WATERSHED
ana.. ..—... *-.^_ Bloody ;R\cn Creek y Marquatta
, \ w' /T JzC't \ /*-•
SNY MAGILL WATERSHED
Figure 5: Sny Magill and Bloody Run (Iowa) Watersheds
41
-------
BLOODY RUN WATERSHED
SNY MAGILL WATERSHED
—- 1000 meters
—— 5000 feet
© Weekly Monitoring Sites
A Monthly Monitoring Sites
— Perennial stream
— Intermittent stream
— Watershed drained by
gage station
The USGS gage stations are SN1 and BR1.
Supplemental discharge is being measured
monthly at all other monitoring sites.
Figure 6: Water Quality Monitoring Sites for Sny Magill and Bloody Run
(Iowa) Watersheds
42
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Sny Magill watershed project is an interagency effort designed to
monitor and assess improvements in water quality (reductions in sedimen-
tation) resulting from the implementation of U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture (USDA) land treatment projects in the watershed. The project areas
include Sny Magill Creek and North Cedar Creek basins (henceforth
referred to as the Sny Magill watershed) (Figure 5).
Sny Magill and North Cedar creeks are Class "B" coldwater streams
located in northeastern Iowa. North Cedar Creek is a tributary to Sny
Magill Creek. The creeks are managed for "put and take" trout fishing by
the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and are two of the more
widely used streams for recreational fishing in the state.
Sny Magill Creek drains a 22,780-acre watershed directly into the Upper
Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge and part of Effigy Mounds
National Monument. The refuge consists of islands, backwaters, and
wetlands of the Mississippi River. These backwaters are heavily used for
fishing and also serve as an important nursery area for juvenile and young
largemouth bass.
The entire Sny Magill watershed is agricultural, with no industry or urban
areas. There are no significant point sources of pollution in the watershed.
Land use consists primarily of row crop (for cropland) (26%), cover crop,
pasture (24%), forest, forested pasture (49%), farmstead (1 %) (based on
preliminary 1991 land use data). Half of the cropland is typically in corn,
with the rest primarily in oats and alfalfa in rotation with corn. Row crop
acreage planted to com has increased substantially over the past 20 years.
There are about 140 producers in the watershed, with farm sizes averaging
275 acres. Animals in the watershed include dairy cattle, beef cattle, and
hogs.
Water quality problems result primarily from agricultural nonpoint source
pollution: sediment is the primary pollutant. Nutrients, pesticides, and
animal waste are also of concern.
The USDA land treatment projects being implemented in the watershed are
the Sny Magill Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA) project and the North Cedar
Creek Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) - Water Quality Special
Project (WQSP). The purpose of the two projects is to provide technical-
assistance, cost sharing, and educational programs to assist agricultural
producers in the watershed to implement voluntary changes in farm
management practices mat will result in improved water quality in Sny
Magill Creek. Sediment control measures, water and sediment control
basins, animal waste management systems, stream corridor management
improvements, bank stabilization, and buffer strip demonstrations around
sinkholes will be utilized to reduce agricultural nonpoint source (NFS)
pollution. A long-term goal of a 50% reduction in sediment delivery to Sny
Magill Creek has been established. The land treatment projects are also
43
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
focusing on nutrient and pesticide management to reduce nitrogen, phos-
phorus, and pesticide loading.
A paired watershed approach is being used with the Bloody Run Creek
watershed (adjacent to the north and draining 24,064 acres) serving as the
comparison watershed (Figure 6). Weekly nitrate samples collected be-
tween February and December 1991 by the IDNR indicate mat the two
watersheds respond similarly to precipitation events (in terms of nitrate
concentrations). However, the large size of the two watersheds will create
significant challenges in carrying out a true paired watershed study. Land
treatment and land use changes will have to be kept to a minimum in the
Bloody Run Creek watershed throughout the project period and for the first
two years of water quality monitoring in the Sny Magill watershed.
Subbasins within the Sny Magill watershed will be compared using
upstream/downstream stations.
Primary monitoring sites, equipped with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
stream gages to measure discharge and suspended sediment, have been
established on both Sny Magill and Bloody Run creeks. Other sites on both
creeks will be sampled for chemical and physical water quality variables
on a weekly to monthly basis. An annual habitat assessment will be
conducted along stretches of both stream corridors. Biomonitoring of
macroinvertebrates will occur on a bi-monthly basis and an annual fisheries
survey will be conducted.
Coordination of land treatment and water quality data collection, manage-
ment, and analysis among the many participating agencies is being handled
by the IDNR - Geological Survey Bureau (IDNR-GSB) in an effort to
maximize the probability of documenting linkage between land treatment
and water quality improvements. lb the extent practicable, the agencies
will coordinate land treatment application with water quality monitoring to
focus implementation in particular subbasins, attempting to maintain other
subbasins in an unaltered state for a longer period of time for comparison.
This profile is based primarily on information contained in the project work
plan (Seigley et al., 1992).
WATER RESOURCE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource Sny Magill and North Cedar creeks are Class "B" coldwater streams
Type and Size located hi northeastern Iowa.
Water Uses and Sny Magill and North Cedar creeks are managed for "put and take" trout
Impairments fishing by the IDNR and are two of the more widely used streams for
recreational fishing hi Iowa. Sny Magill Creek ranks ninth hi the state for
angler usage.
44
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
The Sny Magill watershed drains an area of 35.6 square miles directly into
the Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge. The refuge consists
of islands, backwaters, and wetlands of die Mississippi River. The creek
also drains into part of Effigy Mounds National Monument. These back-
waters are heavily used for fishing and also serve as an important nursery
area for juvenile and young largemouth bass.
The creeks are further designated as "high quality waters" to be protected
against degradation of water quality. Only 17 streams in the state have
received mis special designation. The state's Nonpoint Source Assessment
Report indicates that the present classifications of the creeks as protected
for wildlife, fish, and semi-aquatic life and secondary aquatic usage are
only partially supported. The report cites impairment of the creeks' water
quality primarily by nonpoint agricultural pollutants, particularly sedi-
ment, animal wastes, nutrients, and pesticides. There are no significant
point sources of pollution within the Sny Magill watershed.
Sediment delivered to the creek includes contributions from excessive sheet
and rill erosion on approximately 4,700 acres of cropland and 1,600 acres
of pasture and forest land in the watershed. Gully erosion problems have
been identified at nearly 60 locations.
There are more than 30 locations where livestock facilities need improved
runoff control and manure management systems to control solid and liquid
animal wastes. Grazing management is needed to control sediment and
animal waste runoff from over 750 acres of pasture and an additional 880
acres of grazed woodland.
Streambank erosion has contributed to significant sedimentation locally
and improved stream corridor management (to keep cattle out of the stream
and repair riparian vegetation) is needed in critical areas to mitigate animal
waste and nutrient problems and improve bank stability.
Pre- Project Water quality evaluations conducted by the University Hygienic Laboratory
Water Quality (UHL) in 1976 and 1978 during summer low-flow periods in Sny Magill
and Bloody Run creeks showed elevated water temperatures and fecal
colifbrm levels (from animal wastes) in Sny Magill Creek. Downstream
declines in nutrients were related to algal growth and in-stream consump-
tion. An inventory of macroinvertebrate communities was included from
several reaches of the streams (Seigley et al., 1992).
Assessments in North Cedar Creek during the 1980s by IDNR and the
USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) located areas where sediment is
covering the gravel and bedrock substrate of the streams, lessening the
depth of existing pools, increasing turbidity, and degrading aquatic habitat.
Animal waste decomposition increases biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
in the streams to levels that are unsuitable for trout survival at times of high
water temperature and low stream flows. The IDNR has identified these as
the most limiting factors contributing to the failure of brook trout to
establish a viable population (Seigley et al., 1992).
45
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Project staff are currently preparing a summary of pre-project water quality
studies mentioned above plus baseline data collected during the summer of
1991. A paper on sedimentation rates and analysis of STORET data from
surrounding tributaries will also be included in the report.
Project Water Quality Project objectives include the following:
Objectives
• To quantitatively document the significance of water quality improve-
ments resulting from the implementation of the Sny Magill HUA
Project and North Cedar Creek WQSP;
• To develop the protocols and procedures for a collaborative inter-
agency program to fulfill the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) standards for Nonpoint Source Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements for Watershed Implementation Projects;
• To refine monitoring protocols to define water quality impacts and
the effectiveness of particular management practices;
• To develop Iowa's capacity for utilization of rapid habitat and biologic
monitoring;
• To use the water quality and habitat monitoring data interactively with
implementation programs to aid targeting, and for public education to
expand awareness of the need for NPS pollution prevention by
farmers; and
• To provide Iowa and the USEPA with needed documentation for
measures of success of NPS control implementation (Seigley et al.,
1992).
Specific quantitative water quality goals need to be developed that are
directly related to the water quality impairment and the primary pollutants
being addressed by the land treatment implemented through the USDA
projects.
Project Time Frame 1991 - unknown
(approximately 10 years, if funding allows)
Project Approval 1992
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area The watershed drains an area of 22,780 acres directly into the Upper
Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge and part of Effigy Mounds
National Monument.
Relevant Hydrologic, Average yearly rainfall in the area is 33 inches.
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors The creeks are marked by high proportions (70-80% or more of annual
base flow) of ground water base flow, which provides their coldwater
characteristics. Hence, ground water quality is also important in the overall
water resource management considerations for area streams.
46
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
The watershed is characterized by narrow, gently sloping uplands that
break into steep slopes with abundant rock outcrops. Up to 550 feet of relief
occurs across the watershed. The landscape is mantled with approximately
10-20 feet of loess, overlying thin remnants of glacial till on upland
interfluves, which in turn overlie Paleozoic-age bedrock formations. The
bedrock over much of the area is Ordovician Galena Group rocks, which
compose the Galena aquifer, an important source of ground water and
drinking water in the area. Some sinkholes and small springs have devel-
oped in the Ordovician-age limestone and dolomite.
The stream bottom of Sny Magill and its tributaries is primarily rock and
gravel with frequent riffle areas. Along the lower reach of the creek where
the gradient is less steep, the stream bottom is generally silty. The upstream
areas have been degraded by sediment deposition.
Land Use The entire watershed is agricultural, with no industry or urban areas.
There are no significant point sources in the watershed. Half of the
cropland is typically in corn, with the rest primarily in oats and alfalfa in
rotation with corn. There are about 140 producers in the watershed, with
farm sizes averaging 275 acres.
Land use is variable on the alluvial plain of Sny Magill Creek, ranging
from row cropped areas, to pasture and forest, to areas with an unproved
riparian right-of-way where the IDNR owns and manages the land in the
immediate stream corridor. The IDNR owns approximately 1,800 acres of
stream corridor along approximately eight miles of the length of Sny Magill
and North Cedar creeks. Some of the land within the corridor is used for
pasture and cropping through management contracts with the IDNR.
Row crop acreage planted to corn has increased substantially over the past
20 years. Land use changes in the watershed have paralleled the changes
elsewhere in Clayton County, with increases in row crop acreage, fertilizer
and chemical use, and attendant increases in erosion and runoff and
nutrient concentrations. Forest Service data show a four percent decline in
woodland between 1974 and 1982. Much of this conversion to more
erosive row crop acreage occurred without adequate installation of soil
conservation practices.
T jinH TTsp Sny Magill Blnndy Run
Acres %. Acres %_
Rowcrop (for cropland) 5,842 2S.9 9,344 38.6
Cover crop, pasture 5,400 23.9 6,909 28.5
Forest, forested pasture 11,034 48.9 7,171 29.6
Farmstead 263 1.2 415 1.7
Other 28 0.1 376 1.6
Total 22,567 100 24,215 100
Source: unpublished 1991 land use data
47
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Pollutant Source(s) Sediment - cropland erosion, streambank erosion, gully erosion, animal
grazing
Nutrients - animal waste from livestock facilities (cattle), pasture, and
grazed woodland; commercial fertilizers; crop rotations
Pesticides - cropland; brush cleaning
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Information and education efforts in the watershed will focus on the
following:
• Demonstration and education efforts in improved alfalfa hay manage-
ment (to reduce runoff potential on hayland and increase profitability
and acreage of hay production);
• Improved crop rotation management and manure management (to
reduce fertilizer and chemical use);
• Implementation of the Farmstead Assessment System (SCS, Iowa
State University Extension (ISUE);
• Woodland management programs (to enhance pollution-prevention
efforts on marginal cropland, steep slopes, riparian corridors, and
buffer areas in sinkhole basins); and
• Intensive Integrated Crop Management (ICM) assistance services to
producers in the watershed (ISUE).
Information will also be disseminated through newsletters, field days,
special meetings, press/media releases, and surveys of watershed project
participants.
Additional resources for technical assistance and educational programs will
be provided in the area through the Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project,
directed by ISUE, and the Big Spring Basin Demonstration Project,
directed by IDNR.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY
He project is intimately connected to two ongoing land treatment projects
hi the watershed: the Sny Magill Hydrologic Unit Area project and the
North Cedar Creek Agricultural Conservation Program - Water Quality
Special Project. The HUA Project is a five-year project begun in 1991 and
covering 19,560 acres (86%) of the Sny Magill watershed. Hie remainder
of the watershed is included hi the WQSP, which began hi 1988. The
purpose of the projects is to provide technical and cost sharing assistance
and educational programs to assist farmers in the watershed hi implement-
ing voluntary changes hi farm management practices that will result in
improved water quality in Sny Magill Creek. Implementation of conserva-
48
-------
Sny Magill Watershed. Iowa
tion measures had not begun in the HUA and was approximately 75%
complete in the WQSP as of August, 1992.
No special critical areas have been defined for the HUA Project. Highly
erodible land has been defined and an attempt is being made to treat all
farms, prioritizing fields within each farm to be treated first. Structural
practices, such as terracing and a few animal waste systems, are being
implemented. Extension staff are assisting fanners with farmstead assess-
ment and with ICM, in the hope of reducing fertilizer and pesticide inputs
by at least 25% while maintaining production levels.
The WQSP is essentially completed. Practices implemented were structural
(primarily terraces). No ICM or other information and education programs
were implemented. Farmer participation was 80-85%. Data on actual
acreage treated are being compiled.
The long-term sediment delivery reduction goal for Sny Magill Creek is
50%. Fertilizer and pesticide inputs are expected to be reduced by more
than 25%.
Agencies participating in the Sny Magill Watershed Nonpoint Source
Pollution Monitoring Project and their roles are listed below:
Clayton County USDA Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service Committee:
Administer ACP cost share for
approved management practices
Iowa State University Extension:
Survey/evaluate current farm practices
and attitudes regarding water quality
Provide intensive ICM assistance
services to producers in the watershed
Coordinate implementation of the
Farmstead Assessment System
Coordinate the farm well-water quality
sampling program
Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship:
Participate in program reviews and
coordination with other state programs
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division:
Provide overall coordination and
oversight for 319 programs
Coordinate an interagency group to
develop quantitative habitat monitoring
protocols and training for interagency
staff to conduct annual habitat monitoring
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Fisheries Bureau:
Conduct annual fisheries survey
Assist in annual habitat monitoring
49
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Geological Survey Bureau:
Provide overall monitoring project
coordination and management, data
management and data reporting to the
USEPA-NPS data system, including
implementation program reporting, and
annual project reporting and data synthesis
Coordinate/conduct the water quality
monitoring and coordinate sampling
with the biomonitoring program
Preventive Medicine - Analytical
Toxicology Lab (University of Iowa):
Program reviews and planning and
development of habitat protocols
Soil Conservation Service:
Accelerated technical assistance and
leadership for development and
implementation of water quality improve-
ment practices to control sediment and
animal manure runoff in the watershed
University Hygenic Laboratory:
Provide laboratory analytical work and
lab QA/QC
Conduct macroinvertebrate monitoring
Provide annual reports on biomonitoring
May assist in implementation of annual
habitat assessment
U.S. Forest Service:
Assist in improving forest management
and markets for forest products
Aid in demonstrations on buffer strip
establishment
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
Support the water quality monitoring
Assist habitat monitoring
Provide technical support for habitat
evaluation procedure models
U.S. Geological Survey:
Install/operate surface water gage sites,
precipitation collectors, variable moni-
tors, and suspended solids measurements
Provide cooperative expertise for
monitoring data interpretation/analysis
Annual reports on streamflow, suspended
solids loading, and other variables
U.S. National Park Service:
Assist in the water quality monitoring
50
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
The IDNR-GSB is establishing a coordinated process for tracking the
implementation of land treatment measures with SCS, Agricultural Stabi-
lization and Conservation Service (ASCS), and ISUE. SCS is utilizing the
"CAMPS" database to record annual progress for land treatment and may
link this to a geographic information system (CIS), as well. ISUE will
conduct baseline farm management surveys and attitude surveys among
watershed fanners and will also have implementation data from ICM -
Crop System records. IDNR-GSB will transfer the annual implementation
records to the project CIS, ARC/INFO, to provide the necessary spatial
comparisons with the water quality monitoring stations.
Participating agencies will meet in work groups as needed, typically on a
quarterly basis, to review and coordinate needs and problems. Monitoring
results will be reviewed annually by an interagency coordinating committee
to assess needed changes.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design The Sny Magill watershed is amenable to documentation of water quality
responses to land treatment. The coldwater stream has a high ground water
baseflow which provides year-round discharge, minimizing potential miss-
ing data problems. These conditions also make possible analysis of both
runoff and ground water contributions to the water quality conditions.
Because of the ultimate linkage of ground and surface water in the region,
the watershed has a very responsive hydrologic system and should be
relatively sensitive to the changes induced through the implementation
programs.
A paired watershed study is planned to compare Sny Magill watershed to
the (control) Bloody Run Creek watershed (adjacent to the north and
draining 22,064 acres). Watershed size, ground water hydrogeology, and
surface hydrology are similar; both watersheds receive baseflow from the
Ordovician Galena aquifer. The watersheds share surface and ground water
divides and their proximity to one another minimizes rainfall variation.
However, the large size of the two watersheds will create significant
challenges in conducting a true paired watershed study. Land treatment and
land use changes will have to be kept to a minimum in the Bloody Run
Creek watershed throughout the project period in the Bloody Run Creek
watershed and for the first two years of water quality monitoring in the Sny
Magill watershed.
Within the Sny Magill watershed, subbbasins will be compared using
upstream/downstream stations.
51
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
Variables Measured
Sampling Scheme
Biological
Fecal coliform bacteria
habitat assessment
fisheries survey
benthic macroinvertebrates .
Chemical and Other
Suspended sediment (SS)
Nitrogen (N)-series (NOb + NO2-N, NH4-N, Organic-N)
anions
total phosphorus (TP)
BOD
immuno assay for triazine herbicides
temperature
conductivity
dissolved oxygen
turbidity
Explanatory Variables
Stream discharge, precipitation
Primary monitoring sites (SN1, BR1) (Figure 6) have been established on
both Sny Magill and Bloody Run. Hie sites are equipped with USGS
stream gages to provide continuous stage measurements and daily dis-
charge measurements. Suspended sediment samples are collected daily by
local observers and weekly by water quality monitoring personnel.
Monthly measurement of stream discharge will be made at seven supple-
mental sites (NCC, SN2, SNT, SNWF, SN3, BRSC, and BR2).
Baseline data were collected during the summer of 1991. A report
documenting these data was published in early 1993. The monitoring
program as described below began in October of 1991.
Weekly grab sampling is being conducted at the primary surface water sites
(SN1, BR1) for fecal coliform bacteria, N-series (NOa + NOz-N, NH4-N,
Organic-N,) anions, TP, BOD, and immuno assay for triazine herbicides.
Four secondary sites are being monitored weekly (three on Sny Magill:
SN3, SNWF, and NCC; and one on Bloody Run: BR2).* Grab sampling
will be conducted for fecal coliform, partial N-series (NOs + NO2-N,
NH4-N), and anions.
Weekly sampling will be conducted by the USNPS (weeks 1 and 3) and
IDNR-GSB (weeks 2,4, and 5).
Three additional sites are being monitored on a monthly basis (two on Sny
Magill: SN2, SNT; and one on Bloody Run: BRSC).* These are grab
sampled for fecal coliform, partial N-series, and anions.
Temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity are measured
at all sites when sampling occurs.
52
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
An annual habitat assessment will be conducted along stretches of stream
corridor, biomonitoring of macroinvertebrates will occur on a bi-monthly
basis, and an annual fisheries survey will be conducted.
* Note: Originally, site BRSC was monitored weekly and site BR2 was
monitored monthly. However, after one water-year of water sampling,the
invertebrate biomonitoring group requested (in March of 1992) that the
sites be switched. Thus, since October 1,1992, BRSC has been monitored
monthly and BR2 has been monitored weekly.
Water Quality Data
Management and
Analysis
Data Management
Data management and reporting will be handled by the IDNR - GSB
and will follow the Nonpoint Source Monitoring and Reporting Require-
ments for Watershed Implementation Grants.
USEPA Nonpoint Source Management System (NPSMS) software will
be used to track and report data to USEPA using their four information
"files": the Waterbody System File, the NFS Management File, the
Monitoring Plan File, and the Annual Report File.
All water quality data will be entered in STORET. Biological monitor-
ing data will be entered into BIOS. All U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
data will be entered in WATSTORE, the USGS national database.
Data transfer processes are already established between USGS, UHL,
and IDNR-GSB. Coordination will also be established with SCS and
ISUE for reporting on implementation progress.
Data Analysis
For annual reports, data will be evaluated and summarized on a water-
year basis; monthly and seasonal summaries will be presented, as well.
Statistical analysis and comparisons will be performed as warranted us-
ing recommended SAS packages and other methods for statistical signifi-
cance and time-series analysis.
Paired watershed analysis will begin after sufficient data have been col-
lected. In addition to the pairing between Sny Magill and Bloody Run,
and the intra-basin watersheds, data can be compared with the long-
term watershed records from the Big Spring basin. This will provide a
temporal perspective on monitoring and provide a valuable frame of ref-
erence for annual variations.
53
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Estimated budget for the Sny Magill Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution
Monitoring Project for the period FY91 - 93:
Project Element
Proj Mgt
I&E
LT
WQ
Monit
Totals
* from 319 funds
Source: Seigley et al., 1992
Funding Source ($)
Federal
100,000
180,000
300,000
*175,000
State
20,000
90,000
75,000
137,500
Local
NA
NA
75,000
NA
Sum
120,0000
270,000
450,000
312,500
755,000 322,500 75,000 1,152,500
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
Please refer to the section entitled Nonpoint Source Control Strategy.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
None
54
-------
Sny Magill Watershed, Iowa
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Lynette Seigley and George Hallberg
Geological Survey Bureau
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
109 Trowbridge Hall
Iowa City, IA 52242-1319
(319) 335-1575
Land Treatment
Jeff Tlsl (Land Treatment for the HUA Project)
USDA - SCS
Elkader Field Office
117 Gunder Road
Elkader, IA 52043
(319) 245-1048
Water Quality
Monitoring
Lynette Seigley
Geological Survey Bureau
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
109 Trowbridge Hall
Iowa City, IA 52242-1319
(319) 335-1575
Information and
Education
Nick Rolling (I&E for the HUA Project)
Sny Magill Watershed Project
111 W. Greene Street
P.O. Box 417
Postville, IA 52162
(319) 864-3999
REFERENCES
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 1991. Sny Magill Vtaershed Nonpoint
Source Pollution Monitoring Project Vtorkplan, Iowa Department of Natural
Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, November 1991.
Seigley, L.S., G.R. Hallberg, T. Wilton, M.D. Schueller, M.C Hausler, J.Q
Kennedy, G. Winder, R.V. Link, and S.S. Brown. 1992. Sny Magill Watershed
Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitoring Project Vbrkplan, Open File Report 92-1,
Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, August 1992.
55
-------
Michigan
Sycamore Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Sycamore Creek
Figure 7: Sycamore Creek (Michigan)
-------
Michigan
Sycamore Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Sycamore Creek
Figure 7: Sycamore Creek (Michigan)
57
-------
Holt Rd.
Harper Rd.
\\
Howe I I Rd.
Mason WWTP
Co I umbi a Dra i n
Wi I low Creek
Watershed
City of Mason
Rayner Creek
Marsha I I 'Drain
Watershed
Ha i nes Dra i n
Watershed
Perry Creek
Figure 8: Paired Water Quality Monitoring Sites for the Sycamore Creek
(Michigan) Watershed
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Sycamore Creek is located in southcentral lower Michigan (Ingham
County) (Figure 7). The creek has a drainage area of 67,740 acres which
includes the towns of Holt and Mason, and part of die city of Lansing.
Hie major commodities produced in mis primarily agricultural county are
corn, wheat, soybeans, and some livestock. The major pollutants of
Sycamore Creek are sediment, phosphorus, nitrogen, and agricultural
pesticides. Sediment deposits are adversely affecting fish and macroinver-
tebrate habitat and depleting oxygen in the water column. Sycamore Creek
has been selected for monitoring, not because of any unique characteristics,
but rather because it is representative of creeks throughout lower Michigan.
Water quality monitoring will occur in three subwatersheds: Haines Drain,
Willow Creek, and Marshall Drain (Figure 8). The Haines subwatershed,
where best management practices (BMPs) have already been installed, will
serve as the control and is outside the Sycamore Creek watershed.
Stormflow and baseflow water quality samples will be taken from each
watershed from March through July of each project year. Water will be
sampled for turbidity, total suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand,
nitrogen, and phosphorus.
Land treatment will consist primarily of sediment-and-nutrient-reducing
BMPs on cropland, pastureland, and hay land. These BMPs will be funded
as part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Sycamore Creek
Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA) project.
WATER RESOURCE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource Sycamore Creek is a tributary to the Red Cedar River. The Red Cedar
Type and Size River flows into the Grand River, which flows into Lake Michigan.
Water Uses Sycamore Creek is protected by Michigan State Water Quality Standards
and Impairments for warm-water fish, body contact recreation, and navigation. Currently
the pollutant levels in the creek are greater than prescribed standards. In
particular, dissolved oxygen levels (the minimum standard level is 5
milligram per liter) are below the minimum standard, primarily because of
sediment but also, in some cases, nutrients (Suppnick, 1992).
Pre-Project The primary pollutant is sediment. Widespread aquatic habitat destruction
Water Quality from sedimentation has been documented. Nutrients (nitrogen and phos-
phorus) are secondary pollutants. Pesticides may be polluting ground
water; however, evidence of contamination by pesticides is currently
lacking. Low levels of dissolved oxygen in the creek are a result of excess
plant growth and organic matter associated with the sediment.
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
Table 1: Sediment and Phosphorus Content of Sycamore Creek Under
Routine (dry) and Storm (wet) Flow Conditions.
Project Water
Quality Objectives
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
DryP
0.01-0.09
WstP
me/1
0.04-0.71
Dry Sediment
mg/1
4-28
Wet Sediment
6-348
Source: Sycamore Creek Watershed Water Quality Plan, 1990
A biological investigation of Sycamore Creek, conducted in 1989, revealed
an impaired fish and macroinvertebrate community. Fish and macroinver-
tebrate numbers were low, suggesting lack of available habitat.
Channelization of Sycamore Creek is causing unstable flow discharge and
significant bank-slumping and erosion at sites that have been dredged.
The water quality objective is to reduce the impact of agricultural nonpoint
source (NFS) pollutants on the surface and in ground water of Sycamore
Creek.
The goals of the project are to reduce:
• the amount of sediment leaving agricultural fields and entering
watercourses;
• the amount of phosphorus available to surface runoff;
• the amount of nitrate available to move below the root zone; and
• the amount of pesticides available to surface runoff or movement
below the root zone.
Monitoring will be conducted for a minimum of six years, contingent upon
federal funding.
1993
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
The project, located in southcentral lower Michigan, includes 67,740
acres.
The geology of the watershed consists of till plains, moraines, and eskers
(glacially deposited gravel and sand that form ridges 30 to 40 feet in
height). The Mason Esker and associated loamy sand and sandy loam soil
areas are the major ground water recharge areas for Ingham County
residents. Eskers are the predominant geologic feature near the stream.
These grade into moraines that are approximately one-half to one mile in
width. The moraines have sandy loam textures and slopes of 6 -18%. The
moraines grade into till plains. Interspersed within the area, in depres-
sional areas and drainageways, are organic soils.
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
Land Use
Pollutant Source(s)
Information, Education,
and Publicity
Nonpoint Source Control
Strategy
Approximately 50% of the land in this primarily agricultural watershed is
used for crops, forage, and livestock.
Critical areas for targeting BMPs are agricultural fields (cropland, hayland,
or pasture) within one-half mile of a stream.
Major BMPs already implemented in the project area are pasture and
hayland planting, pasture and hayland management, diversions, cover and
green manure crops, critical area plantings, conservation tillage, grade
stabilization structures, grassed waterways, and integrated crop manage-
ment.
Crop and residue cover will be recorded on a 10-acre cell basis in each
subwatershed.
TjinH Use Acres
Agricultural 35,453
Forest 8,017
Residential 9,336
Business/Industrial 2,562
Idle 6,381
Wetlands 2,324
Transportation 1,349
Open land 826
Gravel pits and wells 806
Water 359
Other 325
Total 67,738
Source: SCS/CES/ASCS, 1990
Streambanks, urban areas, agricultural fields
The Ingham County Extension Service is responsible for all information
and education (I&E) activities within the watershed. These I&E activities
have been developed and are being implemented as part of the Sycamore
Creek HUA project. Activities include public awareness campaigns,
conservation tours, media events such as news releases and radio shows,
display set-ups, workshops, short courses, farmer-targeted newsletters,
homeowner-targeted newsletters, meetings, and presentations.
The Sycamore Creek U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Section 319 National Monitoring Program project is nested within the
Sycamore Creek HUA project. The nonpoint source control strategy will
include: 1) identification and prioritization of significant nonpoint sources
of water quality contamination in the watershed and 2) promotion of the
adoption of BMPs that significantly reduce the affects of agriculture on
surface water and ground water quality.
Selection of the BMPs will depend on land use: cropland, hayland,
pastureland, or urban land. BMPs for the cropland will include conserva-
tion tillage, conservation cropping sequence, crop residue use, pest man-
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
agement, nutrient management, waste utilization, critical area planting,
and erosion control structures. Hayland area BMPs will consist of conser-
vation cropping sequence, conservation tillage, pest management, nutrient
management, pasture/hayland management, and pasture/hayland planting.
BMPs to be utilized on pastureland are conservation cropping sequence,
conservation tillage, pasture/hayland management, pasture/hayland plant-
ing, fencing, waste utilization, filter strips, and critical area planting.
Practice installation and the effect on water quality will be tracked using
the database ADSWQ (Automatic Data System for Water Quality). The
EPIC model (Erosion Productivity Index Calculator) will be interfaced
with a Geographical Information System (CIS), GRASS (Geographic
Resources Analysis Support System), to estimate changes in edge-of-field
delivery of sediment, nutrients, and pesticides and bottom of root zone
delivery of nutrients and pesticides resulting from BMP implementation.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Variables Measured
A paired watershed design will be used to document constituent changes
in Sycamore Creek. Two subwatersheds within the project, Willow Creek
and Marshall Drain, will be compared to a control subwatershed, Haines
Drain, that is outside the boundaries of the project (Figure 8). BMPs were
installed in the Haines Drain prior to the commencement of water quality
monitoring in 1990.
The Willow Creek and Marshall Drain subwatersheds were selected be-
cause they had demonstrated excessive sediment loads and contained the
largest percentage of erodible land within one-quarter mile of a channel
among all subwatersheds in the Sycamore Creek watershed.
Biological
None
Chemical and Other
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Turbidity
Total Phosphorus
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrite (NO2-N) + Nitrate (NOa-N)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Explanatory Variables)
Rainfall, flow, and erosion-intensity index
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
Sampling Scheme Sampling during storm events will be conducted from March through the
appearance of a crop canopy (sometime in July). Samples will be collected
every one to two hours. For each location and storm, six to twelve samples
will be selected for analysis from each storm. Automatic stormwater
samplers equipped with liquid level actuators will be used.
Twenty evenly spaced weekly grab samples will also be taken for trend
determination.
A continuous record of river stage will be obtained with Isco model 2870
flow meters which will be converted to a continuous flow record using a
stage discharge relationship already determined by field staff of the Land
and Water Management Division of the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources.
One recording rain gauge will be installed in each agricultural subwater-
shed (Figure 8).
Water Quality Data Management
Data will be stored in the STORET system and in the USEPA Nonpoint
Source Management System.
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
If applicable (including federal, state, fanners, and other sources for cost
share, I&E, technical assistance, water quality monitoring, etc.)
Prt^ject Flanent Funding Source; ($)
Federal State Local Sum
Project Mgt 129,370 122,000 3,130 254,500
I&E 159,900 N/A 9,935 169,835
LT 978,300 N/A 500,751 1,479,051
WQ 285,000 222,000 N/A 507,000
Monit
Totals 1,552,570 344,000 513,816 2,410,386
Source: John Suppnick (Personal communication, 1993).
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
The funds for the 319 project will provide for the water quality monitoring
in the HUA project area. The county Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Committee has agreed to use Agricultural Conservation
Program (ACP) funds for erosion control, water quality improvement, and
agricultural waste management.
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
Agency responsibilities are as follows:
Soil Conservation Service:
Technical assistance
AGNPS and EPIC modeling
CIS-GRASS
ADSWQ maintenance and reports
Landowners within the Sycamore Creek Watershed:
Project support
Ingham County Cooperative Extension Service:
I&E
Farmer survey
Michigan Department of Natural Resources:
Water quality monitoring, assessment, and reporting
Data interpretation
Ingham County Health Department (Environmental Division):
Well testing
PROJECT CONTACTS
Land Treatment
Water Quality
Monitoring
Bob Hicks (Land Treatment for the HUA Project)
Ingham County District Conservationist
USDA-SCS
521 N. Okemos Rd.
P.O. Box 236
Mason, MI 48554
(517) 676-5543
Vicki Anderson (GIS for the HUA Project)
USDA-SCS
State Office
1405 S. Harrison Rd.
East Lansing, MI 48823-5202
(517) 337-6701, Ext. 1208; Fax (517) 337-6905
John Suppnick
Department of Natural Resources,
Surface Water Quality
P.O. Box 30273
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-4192; Fax (517) 373-9958
-------
Sycamore Creek Watershed, Michigan
Information and Jack Knorek (I & E for the HUA Project)
Education Ingham County Extension Service
706 Curtis St.
P.O. Box 319
Mason, MI 48909
(517) 676-7207; Fax (517) 676-7230
PROJECT DOCUMENTS AND RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS
SCS/CES/ASCS. 1990. Sycamore Creek Watershed water quality plan. Soil
Conservation Service, Michigan Cooperative Extension Service, Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service.
Suppnick, J.D. 1992. A nonpoint source pollution load allocation for Sycamore
Creek, in Ingham County, Michigan; im Tfie Proceedings of the WEF 65th Annual
Conference. Surface Wfeter Quality Symposia, September 20-24, 1992, New
Orleans, p. 293-302.
-------
Nebraska
Elm Creek Watershed
Section 319
I Monitoring Program Project
Figure 9: Elm Creek (Nebraska) Watershed
67
-------
Figure 10: Elm Creek (Nebraska) Water Quality Monitoring Stations
68
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Elm Creek is located in southcentral Nebraska, near the Kansas border
(Figure 9). The creek flows in a southerly direction through agricultural
lands of rolling hills and gently sloping uplands. The creek has a drainage
area of 35,800 acres, consisting mainly of dryland crops of wheat and
sorghum and pasture/range lands with some areas of irrigated corn produc-
tion.
A primary water use of Elm Creek is recreation. The creek serves as a
coldwater trout stream. Sedimentation, increased water temperatures
caused by the increased sedimentation, and high peak flows are impairing
aquatic life by destroying habitat and thus the creek's recreational use by
reducing trout productivity.
Land treatment for creek remediation will include non-conventional best
management practices (BMPs), water quality and runoff control structures,
water quality land treatment, and conventional water quality management
practices (see section on nonpoint source control strategy). Many of these
BMPs will be funded as part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA) Project. Land use will be invento-
ried. Cropland and BMP implementation will be tracked. Additionally,
land treatment monitoring will include tracking land use changes based on
the 40-acre grid system of the Agricultural Nonpoint Source (AGNPS)
model.
Water quality monitoring will include an upstream/downstream design as
well as a single station downstream design for trend detection. Grab
samples will be collected weekly from March through September to
provide water quality data. Additional biological and habitat data will be
collected on a seasonal basis.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource Type Elm Creek flows through cropland and pasture/range into the Republican
and Size River. Flow in the creek is dominated by inflow springs. The average
discharge of Elm Creek is 21.4 cubic feet per second and the drainage area
is 56 square miles.
Water Uses and Elm Creek is valued as a coldwater aquatic life stream, as an agricultural
Impairments water supply source, and for its aesthetic appeal. It is one of only two
coldwater habitat streams in southcentral Nebraska. Sedimentation, in-
creased water temperatures, and peak flows are impairing aquatic life by
destroying stream habitat of the macroinvertebrates and trout. These
negative impacts on the stream result from fanning practices which cause
excessive erosion and overland water flow.
69
-------
Elm Creek Watershed. Nebraska
Pre-Project
Water Quality
Project Water Quality
Objectives
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
A thorough water quality analysis of Elm Creek conducted in the early
1980s indicated that the water quality of Elm Creek was very good. There
was, however, short-term degradation of water quality following storm
events. The coldwater habitat use assignment of Elm Creek appeared to
be attainable if it was not impaired by nonpoint source (NFS) pollution,
particularly sedimentation and scouring of vegetation during storm events.
The NFS management objective in the Elm Creek watershed is to imple-
ment appropriate and feasible NFS control measures for die protection and
enhancement of water quality in Elm Creek.
Project goals are to:
• Reduce maximum summer water temperature,
• Reduce instream sedimentation,
• Reduce peak flows, and
• Improve instream aquatic habitat.
Monitoring will be conducted from April 1992 through 1996. Two
additional years of monitoring have been planned, contingent upon avail-
ability of funding.
1992
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
The project area, in southcentral Nebraska, consists of 35,800 acres of
rolling hills, gently sloping uplands, and moderately steep slopes.
Elm Creek, which receives 26.5 inches of rainfall per year, lies in a
sub-humid ecological region. Seventy-five percent of this rainfall occurs
between April and September. The average temperature is 52 degrees
Fahrenheit with averages of 25 degrees in January and 79 degrees in July.
The soils are derived from loess and the predominant soil types are highly
erosive.
70
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
Land Use Wheat and sorghum are the primary dryland crops produced. Corn is the
primary irrigated crop. Range and pasture dominate the more steeply
sloping lands.
Land Use Acres SL
Agricultural
Dryland 14,630 42
Irrigated 2,680 7
Pasture/Range 16,170 44
Forest 650 2
Other 1,670 5
Total 35,800 100
Source: Elm Creek Project, 1992
Pollutant Source(s) Streambank erosion, irrigation return flows, cattle access, cropland runoff
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Information and education (I&E) activities have been developed and are
being implemented as part of the Elm Creek HUA Project. The University
of Nebraska and Cooperative Extension in Webster County are in charge
of I&E activities. I&E activities will include: newsletters, a NFS video,
slide shows, programs, questionnaires, fact sheets, demonstration sites,
field days, and meetings.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL STRATEGY
Sediment-reducing BMPs will be installed. These BMPs have been di-
vided into four BMP types, which will include upland treatment measures
and riparian and instream habitat management measures.
Non-conventional
Vegetative Filter Strips
Permanent Vegetative Cover on
Critical Areas
Streambank Stabilization
Livestock Access & Exclusion
Ground Water Recharge
Water Quality SL Runoff Control Structures
Water Quality Land Treatment
Tree Planting
Permanent Vegetative Cover
Terraces
Stripcropping
71
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
Conventional Water Quality Management Pmgrams
Irrigation Management
Conservation Tillage
Range Management
Integrated Pest Management
Non-conventional BMPs will be funded under the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) Section 319 grant. Other BMPs will be
funded with 75% cost share funds from the HUA Project. Finally,
selected BMPs will be cost shared at 100% [75% from the Section 319
grant and 25% from Lower Republican Natural Resource District
(LRNRD)]. The number and types of BMPs implemented will depend on
voluntary fanner participation.
Land use will be inventoried. Cropland and BMP implementation will be
tracked over the life of the project. Tracking will be based on the 40-acre
grid system used for AGNPS modeling.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Variables Measured
Upstream/downstream: The two sampling sites (sites 2 & 5) are located
two miles apart (Figure 10)
Single downstream for trend detection (site 5) (Figure 10)
Biological
Qualitative and quantitative macroinvertebrate sampling
Fish collections
Artificial redds
Creel survey
Chemical and Other
Water Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Substrate Samples (% Gravel, % Fines)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Atrazine/Alachlor
Stream morphological characteristics (width, depth, velocity) and habitat
Continuous recording thermograph (June - September)
Explanatory Variables
Rainfall (recording rain gage) April - September
Stream discharge (United States Geological Survey gaging station)
72
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
'Sampling Scheme
(See Figure 10 for sampling site locations.)
Qualitative and quantitative macroinvertebrate sampling spring, sum-
mer, fall, and winter at sites 2 and 5.
Fish collections spring and fall at sites 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
Artificial salmonid redds (sites 2, 4, 5).
Rainbow trout eggs will be placed in the redds during the spring.
Brown trout eggs may be placed in the redds during the fall. Compari-
son redds will be placed in the Snake River and/or Long Pine Creek.
Creel survey (passive).
DO (sites 2, 5): Weekly grab samples from April through September.
Monthly samples from October through March.
Substrate samples spring and fall at sites 2, 4, 5.
TSS (sites 2,5): Weekly grab samples from April through September
and monthly samples, October through March. Selected runoff samples
will be collected April through September.
Atrazine/Alachlor (sites 2,5): Grab and runoff samples will be analyzed
selectively in the spring for these pesticides.
Stream morphological characteristics (width, depth, velocity) and habi-
tat: Spring/summer at sites 2, 5.
Rainfall (recording rain gage): The main rain gage will be placed in the
upper or middle part of the watershed. A volunteer network for record-
ing rainfall amounts has also been established.
Continuous recording thermograph (hourly water temperatures for at
least 60% of the period June through September and at least 80% of the
period July through August) at sites 2 and 5.
Water Quality Data
Management
Ambient water quality data will be entered into USEPA STORET. Biologi-
cal data will be stored in USEPA BIOS. Other data will be stored using
either Lotus or dBase IV files. All data will be stored and analyzed with
the USEPA NonPoint Source Management System (NPSMS). These data
will be managed by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
(NDEQ) (formerly called the Department of Environmental Control or
DEC).
Data assessment and reporting will consist of quarterly activity reports,
yearly interim reports focusing on land treatment, and a final report that
will assess and link water quality and land treatment results.
73
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
Prqject Element
Project Mgt
I&E
Reports
LT
WQ
Initiative Program
WQ
Monit
Totals
Federal
11,200
0
6,300
*375,000
30,000
100,000
522,500
Funding
Stale
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JLocal
0
3,400
0
101,600
0
15,000
120,000
Sum
11,200
3,400
6,300
476,600
30,000
115,000
642,500
* $260,000 from HUA Project funds, $115,000 from 319 project funds
Source: Elm Creek project, 1991
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
This USEPA 319 National Monitoring Program project will provide the
water quality monitoring for the area HUA project. Agricultural Conser-
vation Program (a USDA program) funding will be used for approved,
conventional BMPs.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
The HUA activities will be jointly administered by the University of
Nebraska Cooperative Extension and the USDA Soil Conservation Service
(SCS). Employees of these two agencies will work with local landowners,
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service personnel, personnel
of the NDEQ, and personnel of the LRNRD. Section 319 project activities
will be administered by the NDEQ.
Project responsibilities are outlined below:
Landowners within the Elm Creek Watershed:
Project support
Lower Republican Natural Resources District:
Local project sponsor
Monitoring
Cost share responsibilities
Little Blue Natural Resources District:
Technical assistance
Cost share assistance
74
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission:
Water quality monitoring
Data interpretation
Soil Conservation Service:
AGNPS Modeling
Technical assistance
U.S. Geological Survey:
Technical assistance
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality:
Technical assistance
Overall Section 319 project coordination
Water quality monitoring, assessment,
and reporting
Nebraska Natural Resources Commission:
Technical assistance
Cost share assistance
University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension:
Technical assistance
Local information and education
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Dave Jensen
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
1200 N Street, Suite 400, The Atrium
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509
(402) 471-4700
Land Treatment
Scott Montgomery (Land Treatment for the project)
USDA-SCS
20 N. Webster
Red Cloud, NE 68970-9990
(402) 746-2268
Water Quality
Monitoring
Dave Jensen / Greg Michl
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
1200 N Street, Suite 400, The Atrium
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509
(402) 471-4700
Information and
Education
Robert Ramsel (I & E for the HUA project)
Webster County Extension Service
621 Cedar
Red Cloud, NE 68970
(402) 746-3345
75
-------
Elm Creek Watershed, Nebraska
REFERENCES
Elm Creek Project. 1991. Elm Creek Watershed Section 319 NFS Project:
Overview and Vbrkplan. Lower Republican Natural Resource District, Nebraska
Department of Environmental Control, Soil Conservation Service, Nebraska
Game and Park Commission, Cooperative Extension Service, Lincoln Nebraska.
Elm Creek Project. 1992. Elm Creek Vtoershed Section 319 NFS Project:
Monitoring Project Plan. Nebraska Department of Environmental Control, Lin-
coln, Nebraska.
76
-------
North Carolina
Long Creek Watershed
Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project
Long Creek Watershed
Gaston County, NC
O Dairy
A. Sampling Location
Strip Mine
aired
WatershedsF G
Figure 11: Long Creek (North Carolina) Watershed
77
-------
Long Creek, North Carolina
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Long Creek Section 319 National Monitoring Program project
(28,480 acres), located in southcentral North Carolina just west of Char-
lotte, consists of an area of mixed agricultural and urban/industrial land
use. Long Creek is a perennial stream which serves as the primary water
supply for Bessemer City, a municipality with a population of about 4,800
people (1990 est.).
Agricultural activities related to crop and dairy production are believed to
be the major nonpoint sources of pollutants to Long Creek. Sediment from
eroding cropland is the major problem in the upper third of the watershed.
Currently, the water supply intake pool must be dredged quarterly to
maintain adequate storage volume. Below the intake, Long Creek is
impaired primarily by bacteria and nutrients from urban areas and animal
holding facilities.
Proposed land treatment upstream of the water supply intake includes
implementing the land use restrictions of the state water supply watershed
protection law and the soil conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act.
Below the intake, land treatment will involve implementing a comprehen-
sive nutrient management plan on a large dairy farm and installing fence
for livestock exclusion from a nearby tributary to Long Creek. Land
treatment and land use tracking will be based on a combination of voluntary
farmer record-keeping and frequent farm visits by extension personnel.
Data will be stored and managed in a geographic information system (GIS)
located at the county extension office.
Water quality monitoring includes a single-station-before-and-after-land-
treatment design near the Bessemer City water intake (Figure 11), up-
stream and downstream stations above and below an unnamed tributary on
Long Creek, stations upstream and downstream of a dairy farmstead on an
unnamed tributary to Long Creek, and monitoring stations on paired
watersheds at a cropland runoff site. Continuous composite and grab
samples are being collected at various sites to provide the chemical,
biological, and hydrologic data needed to assess the effectiveness of the
land treatment program.
WATER RESOURCE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Water Resource The study area encompasses approximately 7 miles of Long Creek (North
Type and Size Carolina stream classification index # 11-129-16). Typical mean dis-
charges at the outlet of the study area range between 10 and 45 cubic feet
per second.
79
-------
Long Creek, North Carolina
Water Uses and
Impairments
Pre-Project Water
Quality
Long Creek is the primary water supply for Bessemer City. Water quality
impairments, include high sediment, bacteria, and nutrient levels. The
stream channel near the water supply intake in the headwaters area requires
frequent dredging due to sediment deposition. The section of Long Creek
from the Bessemer City water supply intake to near the watershed outlet
sampling station (Figure 11) is listed as support-threatened by the North
Carolina Nonpoint Source Management Program. Biological (macroinver-
tebrate) habitat is degraded in this section due to fecal conform and
excessive sediment and nutrient loading from agricultural and urban
nonpoint sources.
Water quality variables change with time and location along Long Creek,
but generally are close to the following averages:
Fecal BOD TSS TKN NCfc-N TP
Coliform (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
#/100ml
2100 2 14 0.35 0.41 <0.17
Note: These average values were computed from the analyses of twelve
monthly grab samples taken from three locations along Long Creek.
Project Water
Quality Objectives
Project Time Frame
Project Approval
The objectives of the project are to quantify the effects of nonpoint source
pollution controls on:
• Bacteria, sediment, and nutrient loadings to a stream from a working
dairy farm,
• Sediment and nutrient loss from a field with a long history of manure
application, and
• Sediment loads from the water supply watershed (goal is to reduce
sediment yield by 60 percent).
In addition, biological monitoring of streams will attempt to show improve-
ments in biological habitat associated with the implementation of nonpoint
source pollution controls.
January, 1993 to September, 2001
1992
PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Project Area
Relevant Hydrologic,
Geologic, and
Meteorologic Factors
About 44.S square miles or 28,480 acres
The average annual rainfall is about 43 inches. The watershed geology is
typical of the eastern Piedmont with a saprolite layer of varying thickness
overlaying fractured igneous and metamorphic rock. Soils in the study
80
-------
Long Creek, North Carolina
area are well-drained and have a loamy surface layer underlain by a clay
subsoil.
TJse Acres Si
Agricultural 6,975 24
Forest 15,289 54
Residential 3,985 14
Business/Industrial 1,842 6
Mining 516 2
Total 28,607 100
Source: Jennings et al., 1992
Pollutant Source(s) The monitored area contains the following four dairy farms:
Dairy Name Cows (#) Feedlnt Drainage
Dairy 4 125 Open lot into
holding pond
Dairy 3 85 Open lot across
pasture
Dairy 2 100 Open lot across
grass buffer
Dairy 1 400 Under roof
Source: Jennings et al., 1992
INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLICITY
Cooperative Extension Service (CES) personnel will conduct public meet-
ings and media campaigns to inform the general public, elected officials,
community leaders, and school children about the project and water quality
in general. In addition, project personnel will make many one-to-one visits
to cooperating and non-cooperating farmers in the watershed to inform
them of project activities and address any questions or concerns they may
have.
Progress An education plan for Gaston County has been developed which includes
activities in the Long Creek watershed.
NPS CONTROL STRATEGY
Water Supply Watershed (site H):
Bessemer City has recently purchased 13 acres of cropland immediately
upstream of the intake with the intention of implementing runoff and
erosion controls. Also, to comply with the North Carolina Water Supply
Watershed Protection Act, strict land use requirements will be implemented
on land within one-half mile of and draining to the intake; less strict
81
-------
Long Creek, North Carolina
requirements such as the conservation provisions of the Food Security Act
will be implemented in the remainder of the watershed.
Up/downstream nf Dairy 1 Tributary on Long Treelc (sites B and C):
The control strategy will be to design and implement a comprehensive
nutrient management plan on the land between the sampling stations
including construction of a new waste holding facility.
Dairy 1 Farmstead (sites P and EV
A larger waste storage structure will be constructed along with implement-
ing improved pasture management and livestock exclusion from the un-
named tributary draining the farmstead area.
Paired Cropland Watersheds (sites F and ft):
The control strategy on the paired watersheds involves implementing
improved nutrient management on the treatment watershed while continu-
ing current nutrient management and cropping practices on the control
watershed. The number and types of best management practices (BMPs)
implemented will depend on voluntary farmer participation.
Progress
Work has begun on developing farm plans for more than 20 farms within
the watershed. Additionally, preliminary work has begun for a land use
survey of the water supply watershed.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Design
Variables Measured
The water quality monitoring effort incorporates the following three
designs:
• Single downstream station at water supply intake and watershed outlet
• Upstream/downstream on Long Creek and unnamed tributary
• Paired watersheds on Dairy 1 cropland
Biological
Percent canopy and aufwuchs (organisms growing on aquatic plants)
Invertebrate taxa richness: ephemeroptera, plecoptera, trichoptera, coleop-
tera, odonata, megaloptera, diptera, oligochaeta, Crustacea, mollusca, and
other taxa
Bacteria: fecal coliform and streptococci
82
-------
Long Creek, North Carolina
Chemical and Other
Ibtal Suspended Solids (TSS)
Sediment
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
PH
Conductivity
Nitrate-Nitrogen (NOs-N) + Nitrite-Nitrogen (NO2-N)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
Total Phosphorus (TP)
Physical stream indicators: width, depth, bank erosion, and substrate
Explanatory Variables
Rainfall at several locations; flow rate of Long Creek at several locations;
and rainfall and runoff rate at paired watersheds
Sampling Scheme Water Supply Watershed:
Type: grab (site H)
Frequency and season: weekly from December through May and monthly
the remainder of the year for suspended sediment (SS), temperature,
conductivity, DO, pH, and turbidity; occasional storm event sampling for
total sediment
Upstream/downstream of Dairy 1 Tributary on Long Creelc!
Type: grab (sites B and C)
Frequency and season: weekly from December through May and monthly
the remainder of the year for fecal streptococci and coliforms, temperature,
pH, conductivity, turbidity, DO, TSS, TP, TKN, and NO2+NO3
Annual biological for sensitive species at station C only
Dairy 1 Farmstead:
Type: grab and continuous (sites D and E)
Frequency and season: weekly from December through May and monthly
the rest of the year for fecal streptococci and coliforms, temperature, pH,
conductivity, and DO; continuous for TSS, SS, TKN, NO2+NO3, and
TP; several storm events may also be sampled
Paired Cropland Watersheds:
Type: storm event (sites F and G)
Frequency and season: stage activated storm event for flow, TSS, SS, TKN,
NO2+NO3, TP, and total sediment
Single Downstream Station at Watershed Outlet:
Type: grab (site I)
Frequency and season: weekly from March through August and monthly
the rest of the year for temperature, pH, conductivity, turbidity, DO, TSS,
TP, TKN, NO2+NO3, and fecal streptococci and colifonns; annual
biological for sensitive species
83
-------
Long Creek, North Carolina
Progress The water quality monitoring stations have been established and 3 months
of data have been collected. Also, climatic and flow measurements are
being made at several points in the watershed.
Water Quality Data Data are stored locally at the county Extension Service office. The data
Management and are also stored and analyzed at North Carolina State University using the
Analysis U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) NonPoint Source Man-
agement System software. The Norm Carolina Division of Environmental
Management will also store the water quality data in the USEPA STORET
system. Data will be shared among all participating agencies for use in
their databases. Data analysis will involve performing statistical tests for
detection of long term trends in water quality.
TOTAL PROJECT
BUDGET
Project Element
Federal State LocaL
Siim
ProjMgt 340,300 147,360 98,240 585,900
I&E 0 20,000 80,000 100,000
LT 0 370,000 80,000 450,000
WQ 561,186 0 12,000 573,186
Monit
Totals 901,486 537,360 270,240 1,709,086
Source: Jennings et al., 1992
IMPACT OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
State and probably federal USDA - Agricultural Conservation Program
cost share programs will be essential for the implementation of BMPs. The
provisions of the North Carolina Water Supply Watershed Protection Act
(see section below) and the threat of additional regulation will motivate
dairy farmers to implement animal waste management and erosion control
BMPs.
84
-------
Long Creek, North Carolina
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
The North Carolina Water Supply Watershed Protection Act, as applied to
this class of watershed, requires that 1) agricultural activities within
one-half mile and draining to the water intake maintain at least a 10-foot
vegetated buffer or equivalent control and 2) animal operations of more
than 100 animal units must use BMPs as determined by the North Carolina
Soil and Water Conservation Commission. Other regulations in the Act
apply to activities such as forestry, transportation, residential development,
and sludge application.
Project responsibilities are outlined below:
Landowners within the Long Creek Watershed:
Project support
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service:
Modeling
Analysis of technical data
Technical support
Gaston County Cooperative Extension Service:
Project administration
Educational and policy development programs
Technical assistance
Soil Conservation Service:
Sediment modeling
NPS control strategies
Technical assistance & evaluation
Gaston Soil & Water Conservation District:
Implement NPS control strategies
Land treatment priorities
BMP cost share priority
North Carolina Division of Soil and Water Conservation:
Administration of North Carolina
Agricultural Cost Share funds
United States Geological Survey:
Install stream gauges at continuous monitoring sites
Technical assistance
Gaston County Quality of Natural Resources Commission:
Plan educational and policy
development programs
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management:
Conduct biological/habitat monitoring
Technical assistance
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service:
Water Quality Incentive Program
85
-------
Long Creek, North Carolina
PROJECT CONTACTS
Administration
Martha Bums
County Extension Director
P.O. Box 476
Dallas, NC 28034
(704) 922-0301
Greg Jennings
Assistant Professor
NCSU Box 7625
Raleigh, NC 27695-7625
(919) 515-6795
Land Treatment
Glenda M. Jones, Administrator
Gaston Soil & Water Conservation District
1303 Cherryvilie Highway
Dallas, NC 28034-4181
(704) 922-4181
Steve Coffey
Extension Specialist
NCSU Water Quality Group
615 Oberlin Road, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27605-1126
(919) 515-3723
Water Quality Monitoring
William A. Harman
Asst. Ext. Agent, Natural Resources
P.O. Box 476
Dallas, NC 28034
(704) 922-0301
Dan Line
Extension Specialist
NCSU Water Quality Group
615 Oberlin Road, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27605-1126
(919) 515-3723
86
-------
Long Creek, North Carolina
Information and Education
William A. Harman
Asst. Ext. Agent, Natural Resources
P.O. Box 476
Dallas, NC 28034
(704)922-0301
REFERENCES
Jennings, G.D., W.A. Harman, M.A. Burns, and F.J. Humenik. 1992. Long Creek
Waershed Nonpoint Source Water Quality Monitoring Project. Project Proposal.
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, NC 21p.
87
-------
Appendices
89
-------
Appendix I
Minimum Reporting Requirements
For Section 319 National Monitoring
Program Projects
91
-------
Appendix I: Minimum Reporting Requirements
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has devel-
oped the NonPoint Source Management System (NPSMS) software to
support the required annual reporting of water quality and implementation
data for Section 319 National Monitoring Program projects (USEPA,
1991). The software tracks NFS control measure implementation with
respect to the pollutants causing the water quality problem.
Currently, NPSMS can accept and track the following information
(USEPA, 1991):
Management Area Description:
• State, USEPA Region, and lead agency.
• Watershed management area description (management area name,
management area identification, participating agencies, area
description narrative).
• 305 (b) waterbody name and identification.
• Designated use support for the waterbody.
• Major pollutants causing water quality problems in waterbody and
relative source contributions from point, nonpoint, and background
sources.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Nonpoint Source (IMPS)
Pollution Control Measures:
• Best management practices (BMP name, reporting units,
indication whether the life of the practice is annual or multi-year).
• Land treatment implementation goals for management area.
• Pollutant source(s) causing impaired use(s) that is (are) controlled
by each BMP. Each control practice must be linked directly to the
control of one or more sources of pollutants causing impaired uses.
Funding Information:
• Annual contributions from each funding source and use of funding
for each management area.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan:
• Choice of monitoring approach (chemical/physical or biological/habi-
tat).
• Monitoring design and monitoring station identification (paired wa-
tersheds, upstream-downstream, reference site for biological/habitat
monitoring, single downstream station). The paired watershed ap-
proach is recommended; the single downstream station is discouraged.
• Drainage area and land use for each water quality monitoring station.
• Delineation of monitoring year, seasons, and monitoring program
duration.
• Variables measured (variable name; indication if the variable is an
explanatory variable; STORET, BIOSTORET, or 305(b) Waterbody
System code; reporting units).
93
-------
Appendix I: Minimum Reporting Requirements
Quartile values for chemical/physical variables. Quartile values are
established cutoffs based on historical or first-year data for each
season and monitoring station.
Maximum potential and reasonable attainment scores for biological
monitoring variables. Indices scores that correspond to full, threat-
ened, and partial use supports are required.
Monitoring frequency. Chemical/physical monitoring, with associ-
ated explanatory variables, must be performed with at least 20
evenly-spaced grab samples in each season. Fishery surveys must be
performed at least one to three times per year. Benthic macroinver-
tebrates must be performed at least once per season, with at least one
to three replicates or composites per sample. Habitat monitoring and
bioassays must be performed at least once per season.
Annual Reporting:
• The NPSMS software is used to report annual summary information.
The raw chemical/physical and biological/habitat data are required to
be entered into STORET and BIOSTORET, respectively.
• Annual chemical/physical and explanatory variables. The frequency
count for each quartile is reported for each monitoring station, season,
and variable.
• Annual biological/habitat and explanatory variables. The scores for
each monitoring station and season are reported.
• Implementation tracking in the watershed and/or subwatersheds that
constitute the drainage areas for each monitoring station. Implemen-
tation reported corresponds to active practices in the reporting year
and includes practices with a c1,3-year life span and practices pre-
viously installed and still being maintained.
REFERENCES
USEPA. 1991. Waershed Monitoring and Reporting for Section 319
National Monitoring Program projects. Assessment and Watershed Pro-
tection Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, USEPA,
Washington, D.C.
94
-------
Appendix II
Abbreviations
95
-------
Appendix II: Abbreviations
ACP Agricultural Conservation Program
ADSWQ Automatic Data System for Water Quality
AGNPS Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Pollution Model
ASCS Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service, USDA
BMP(s) Best Management Practices)
BIOS USEPA Natural Biological Data
Management System
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Cal Poly California Polytechnic State University
CES '. Cooperative Extension Service,
USDA
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
DO Dissolved Oxygen
EPIC Erosion Productivity Index Calculator
CIS Geographic Information System
GRASS Geographic Resources Analysis Support System
HUA Hydrologic Unit Area
I&E Information and Education Programs
ICM Intergrated Crop Management
IDNR Iowa Department of Natural
Resources
IDNR-GSB Iowa Department of Natural
Resources Geological Survey
Bureau
ISUE Iowa State University Extension
LRNRD Lower Republican Natural Resource
District
LT Land Treatment
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
Mg/1 Milligrams Per Liter
N Nitrogen
NA Information Not Available
NCSU North Carolina State University
NDEQ Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality
97
-------
Appendix II: Abbreviations
NH4 Ammonium - Nitrogen
Nitrite-Nitrogen
Nitrate -Nitrogen
NFS Nonpoint Source
NPSMS NonPoint Source Management System
Proj Mgt Project Management
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
SCS Soil Conservation Service, USDA
Section 319 Section 319 of the Water Quality Act of
1987
SS Suspended sediment
STORET EPA STOrage and RETrieval Data
Base for Water Quality
TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TP Total Phosphorus
TSS Total Suspended Solids
UHL University Hygienic Laboratory
(Iowa)
USDA United States Department of
Agriculture
USEPA United States Environmental
Protection Agency
USGS United States Geologic Survey
WATSTORE United States Geological Survey
Water Data Storage System
WQ Monit Water Quality Monitoring
WQSP Water Quality Special Project
98
-------
Appendix III
Glossary of Terms
99
-------
Appendix III: Glossary of Terms
AGNPS (Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Model) - an event-based,
watershed-scale model developed to simulate runoff, sediment, chemical
oxygen demand, and nutrient transport in surface runoff from ungaged
agricultural watersheds.
Artificial redds - An artificial egg basket fabricated of extruded PVC
netting and placed in a constructed egg pocket. Artificial redds are used
to measure the development of fertilized fish eggs to the alevin stage (newly
hatched fish).
Alachlor - Herbicide (trade name Lasso) that is used to control most
annual grasses and certain broadleaf weeds and yellow nutsedge in corn,
soybeans, peanuts, cotton, woody fruits, and certain ornamentals.
Atrazine - Herbicide (trade name Atrex, Gesa prim, or Primatol) that is a
widely used selective herbicide for control of broadleaf and grassy weeds
in corn, sorghum, sugar cane, macadamia orchards, pineapple, and turf
grass sod.
Autocorrelation - The correlation between adjacent observations in time or
space.
Bedload - Sediment or other material that slides, rolls, or bounces along
a stream or channel bed of flowing water.
Before-after design - A term referring to monitoring designs that require
collection of data before and after BMP implementation.
Beneficial uses - Desireable uses of a water resource that encourages such
purposes as recreation (fishing, boating, swimming) and water supply use.
Best management practices (BMPs) - Practices or structures designed to
reduce the quantities of pollutants - such as sediment, nitrogen, phospho-
rus, and animal wastes — that are washed by rain and snow melt from farms
into nearby surface waters, such as lakes, creeks, streams, rivers, and
estuaries. Agricultural BMPs can include fairly simple changes in practices
such as fencing cows out of streams (to keep animal waste out of streams),
planting grass in gullies where water flows off a planted field (to reduce
the amount of sediment that runoff water picks up as it flows to rivers and
lakes), reducing the amount of plowing in fields where row crops are
planted (in order to reduce soil erosion and loss of nitrogen and phosphorus
from fertilizers applied to the crop land). BMPs can also involve building
structures, such as large animal waste storage tanks that allow fanners to
choose when to spread manure on their fields as opposed to having to
spread it based on the volume accumulated.
BMP system - A combination of individual BMPs into a "system" which
functions together to reduce the same pollutant.
101
-------
Appendix III: Glossary of Terms
BOD (Biochmicd Oxygen Demand) - Quantitative measure of the strength
of contamination by organic carbon materials.
COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) - Quantitative measure of the strength
of contamination by organic and inorganic carbon materials.
Cost sharing - The practice of allocating project funds to pay a percentage
of the cost of constructing or implementing a BMP. The remainder of the
costs are paid by the producer.
County ASC Committee - County Agricultural Stabilization and Conserva-
tion Committee: a county-level committee, consisting of three elected
members of the fanning community in a particular county, responsible for
prioritizing and approving practices to be cost shared and for overseeing
dissemination of cost-share funds by the local USDA-Agricultural Stabili-
zation and Conservation Service office.
Critical area - Area or source of nonpoint source pollutants identified in
the project area as having the most significant impact on the impaired use
of the receiving waters.
Demonstration project - A project designed to install or implement pollu-
tion control practices primarily for educational or promotional purposes.
These projects often in volve no, or very limited, evaluations of the
effectiveness of the control practices.
Designated use - Uses specified in water quality standards for each water
body or segment, whether or not they are being attained.
Drainage area - An area of land that drains to one point.
Ecoregion - A physical region that is defined by its ecology, which includes
meterological factors, elevation, plant and animal speciation, landscape
position, and soils.
EPIC (Erosion Productivity Index Calculator) - A mechanistic computer
model that calculates erosion from field-size watersheds.
Erosion - Wearing away of rock or soil by the gradual detachment of soil
or rock fragments by water, wind, ice, and other mechanical or chemical
forces.
Eskers - Glacially deposited gravel and sand that form ridges 30 to 40 feet
in height.
Explanatory variables - Explanatory variables, such as climatic, hydrologi-
cal, land use, or additional water quality variables, mat change over time
and could affect the water quality variables related to the primary pollut-
ant(s) of concern or the use impairment being measured. Specific exam-
ples of explanatory variables are season, precipita tion, streamflow, ground
water table depth, salinity, pH, animal units, cropping patterns, and
impervious land surface.
102
-------
Appendix III: Glossary of Terms
Fecal Coliform - Colon bacteria that are released in fecal material.
Specifically, this group comprises all of the aerobic and facultative anaero-
bic, gram-negative, nonspore-forming, rod-shaped bacteria which ferment
lactose with gas formation with 48 hours at 35 degrees Celsius.
Fertilizer management - A BMP designed to minimize the contamination
of surface and ground water by limiting the amount of nutrients (usually
nitrogen) applied to the soil to no more than the crop is expected to use.
This may involve changing fertilizer application techniques, placement,
rate, and timing.
Geographic Information Systems (CIS) - computer programs linking fea-
tures commonly seen on maps (such as roads, town boundaries, water
bodies) with related information not usually presented on maps, such as
type of road surface, population, type of agriculture, type of vegetation, or
water quality information. A GIS is a unique information system in which
individual observations can be spa tially referenced to each other.
Goal - a narrowly-focused measurable or quantitative milestone used to
assess progress toward attainment of an objective.
Land treatment - The whole range of BMPs implemented to control or
reduce NFS pollution.
Loading - The influx of pollutants to a selected water body.
Macroinvertebrate - Any non-vertebrate organism that is large enough to
been seen without the aid of a microscope.
Mechanistic - Step-by-step path from cause to effect with ability to make
linkages at each step.
Moraine - Glacial till (materials deposited directly by ice) which is
generally irregularly deposited.
Nitrogen - An element occurring in manure and chemical fertilizer that is
essential to the growth and development of plants, but which, in excess,
can cause water to become polluted and threaten aquatic animals.
Nonpoint source (NFS) pollution - Pollution originating from diffuse areas
(land surface or atmosphere) having no well-defined source.
Nonpoint source pollution controls - General phrase used to refer to all
methods employed to control or reduce nonpoint source pollution.
NonPoint Source Management System (NPSMS) - A software system
designed to facilitate information tracking and reporting for the USEPA 319
National Monitoring Program.
103
-------
Appendix III: Glossary of Terms
Objective - A focus and overall framework or purpose for a project or other
endeavor, which may be further defined by one or more goals.
Paired watershed design - In this design, two watersheds with similar
physical characteristics and, ideally, land use are monitored for one to two
years to establish pollutant-runoff response relationships for each water-
shed. Following this initial calibration period, one of the watersheds
receives treatment while the other (control) watershed does not. Monitor-
ing of both watersheds continues for one to three years. This experimental
design accounts for many factors that may affect the response to treatment;
as a result, the treatment effect alone can be isolated.
Pesticide management - A BMP designed to minimize contamination of
soil, water, air, and nontarget organisms by controlling the amount, type,
placement, method, and timing of pesticide application necessary for crop
production.
Phosphorus - An element occurring in animal manure and chemical
fertilizer that is essential to the growth and development of plants, but
which, in excess, can cause water to become polluted and threaten aquatic
animals.
Post-BMP implementation - The period of use and/or adherence to the
BMP.
Pre-BMP implementation - The period prior to the use of a BMP.
Runoff- The portion of rainfall or snow melt that drains off the land into
ditches and streams.
Sediment - Particles and/or clumps of particles of sand, clay, silt, and plant
or animal matter carried in water.
Sedimentation - Deposition of sediment.
Single-station design - A water quality monitoring design that utilizes one
station at a point downstream from the area of BMP implementation to
monitor changes in water quality.
Subbasins - One of several basins that form a watershed.
Substrate Sampling - Sampling of streambeds to determine the percent of
fine particled material and the percent of gravel.
Subwatershed - A drainage area within the project watershed. It can be as
small as a single field or as large as almost the whole project area.
Tailwater management - The practice of collecting runoff, "tailwater",
from irrigated fields. Tailwater is reused to irrigate crops.
104
-------
Appendix III: Glossary of Terms
Targeting - The process of prioritizing pol lutant sources for treatment with
BMPs or a specific BMP to maximize the water quality benefit from the
implemented BMPs.
Tracking - Documenting/recording the location and timing of BMP imple-
mentation.
Upstream/downstream design - A water quality monitoring p73 design that
utilizes two water quality monitoring sites. One station is placed directly
upstream from the area where the implementation will occur and the
second is placed directly downstream from that area.
Vadose Zone - The part of the soil solum that is generally unsaturated.
Variable - A water quality constituent (for example, total phosphorus
pollutant concentration) or other measured factors (such as stream flow,
rainfall).
Witershed - The area of land from which rain fall (and/or snow melt) drains
into a stream or other water body. Watersheds are also sometimes referred
to as drainage basins. Ridges of higher ground generally form the bounda-
ries between watersheds. At these boundaries, rain falling on one side flows
toward the low point of one watershed, while rain falling on the other side
of the boundary flows toward the low point of a dif ferent watershed.
105
-------
Appendix IV
Project Documents And
Other Relevant Publications
107
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
This appendix contains references to publications addressing the Section
319 National Monitoring Program projects. Project documents lists appear
in alphabetical order by state. All lists are organized in alphabetical order.
108
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
CALIFORNIA MORRO BAY WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1993. Nonpoint Source
Pollution and Treatment Measure Evaluation for the Morro Bay Watershed.
Haltiner, J. 1988. Sedimentation Processes in Morro Bay, California, Prepared
by Philip Williams and Associates for the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation
District with funding by the California Coastal Conservancy.
The Morro Bay Group. 1987. Vbstewater Treatment Facilities. Final Environ-
mental Impact Report. County of San Luis Obispo, Government Center.
The Morro Bay Group. 1990. Freshwater Influences on Morro Bay, San Luis
Obispo County, California. Prepared for the Bay Foundation of Morro Bay, P.Ot
Box 1020, Morro Bay, CA 93443.
SCS. 1989a. Morro Bay Waershed Enhancement Plan. Soil Conservation
Service.
SCS. 1989b. Erosion and Sediment Study Morro Bay Vbtershed. Soil Conserva-
tion Service.
SCS. 1992. FY-92 Annual Progress Report Morro Bay Hydrologic Unit Area.
Soil Conservation Service.
109
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
IDAHO EASTERN SNAKE RIVER PLAIN
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Camp, S.D. 1992. Management Practices on Your Farm: A Survey ofMinidoka
and Cassia County farmers about their farming practices. The Idaho Snake River
\\bter Quality Demonstration Project.
Camp, S.D. 1992. Urban Survey: Minidoka and Cassia County.. Idaho Snake
River Plain 'Water Quality Demonstration Project.
Cardwell, J. 1992. Idaho Snake River Plain USDA Water Quality Demonstration
Project Witer Quality Monitoring Program DRAFT. Idaho Division of Environ-
mental Quality.
Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project 1991. Plan of
Work. April 1991.
Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. 1991. FY 1991
Annual Report.
Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. 1992. FY 1992
Annual Report.
Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. 1991. FY 1992
Plan of Operations.
Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. 1992. FY 1993
Plan of Operations.
Osiensky, J. 1992. Ground Wuer Monitoring Plan: Snake River Plain, Vbter
Quality Demonstration Projects. University of Idaho and Idaho Water Resources
Research Institute.
Osiensky, J.L. and M.F. Baker. 1993. Annual Progress Report: Ground Vtoter
Monitoring Program for the Snake River Plain Witer Quality Demonstration
Project, February 1, 1992 through January 31, 1993. University of Idaho and
Idaho Water Resources Research Institute.
Osiensky, J. and M.F. Long. 1992. Quarterly Progress Report for the Ground
Vbter Monitoring Plan: Idaho Snake River Plain Vbter Quality Demonstration
Project. University of Idaho and Idaho Water Resources Research Institute.
Osmond, D.L., J.A. Gale, D.E. Line, J.6. Mullens, J. Spooner and S.W. Coffey.
1992. Idaho-Snake River Plain Section 319 National Monitoring Program;
injiSummary Report Section 319 National Monitoring Program Projects. Nonpoint
Source Watershed Project Studies, North Carolina State University, Water Quality
Group, Raleigh, North Carolina, p. 4-10.
110
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
IOWA SNY MAGILL WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 1991. Sny Magill Wbtershed Nonpoint
Source Pollution Monitoring Project Vforkplan, Iowa Department of Natural
Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, November, 1991.
Littke, J.P. and C.R. Hallberg. 1991. Big Spring Basin Witter Quality Monitoring
Program: Design and Implementation. Open File Report 91-1, Iowa Department
of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, July 1991, 19p.
Osmond, D.L., J.A. Gale, D.E. Line, J.B. Mullens, J. Spooner and S.W. Coffey.
1992. Iowa - Sny Magill Watershed Section 319 National Monitoring Program
Project; la Summary Report Section 319 National Monitoring Program Projects,
Nonpoint Source Watershed Project Studies, North Carolina State University,
Water Quality Group, Raleigh, North Carolina, p. 10-19.
Schueller, M.D., M.C Hausler and J.Q Kennedy. 1992. Sny Magill Creek
Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitoring Project: 1991 Benthic Biomonitoring Pilot
Study Results. University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory, Limnology Section,
Report No. 92-5. 78p.
Scbueller, M.D., M.W. Birmingham and J.O. Kennedy. 1993. Sny Magill Creek
Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitoring Project: 1992 Benthic Biomonitoring Re-
sults. University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory, Limnology Section, Report No.
93-2. In Press.
Seigley, L.S. and D.J. Quade. 1992. Northeast Iowa Vkll Inventory Completed.
Water Watch, December 1992. p. 2-3.
Seigley, L.S., G.R. Hallberg and J.A. Gale. 1993. Sny Magill Watershed (Iowa)
Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project; NWQEP Notes, Number 58,
p. 5-7. North Carolina State University Water Quality Group, Cooperative Exten-
sion Service, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Seigley, L.S., G.R. Hallberg, T. Wilton, M.D. Schueller, M.C Hausler, J.O.
Kennedy, G. Wunder, R.V. Link, and S.S. Brown. 1992. Sny Magill Watershed
Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitoring Project \\brkplan, Open File Report 92-1,
Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, August 1992.
SCS. 1986. North Cedar Creek Critical Area Treatment and Wuer Quality
Improvement: Clayton County Soil Conservation District, Iowa Department of
Natural Resources, and the Upper Exploreland Resource Conservation and Devel-
opment Area. 31p.
SCS. 1991. Sny Magill Creek Cold Vtoter Stream Vtoter Quality Improvement
Agricultural Non-Point Source Hydrologic Unit Area: Fiscal Year 1991 Hydro-
logic Unit Plan of Operations, Iowa State University Extension, Iowa Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service, 15p.
SCS. 1992. Sny Magill Creek Cold Water Stream Water Quality Improvement
Agricultural Non-Point Source Hydrologic Unit Area:. Fiscal Year 1992. Hydro-
logic Unit Plan of Operations, Iowa State University Extension, Iowa Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service. 15p.
Ill
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
University of Iowa, State Hygienic Laboratory. 1977. Summer Vbter Quality of the
Upper Mississippi River Tributaries. 77-20. 9p.
University of Iowa, State Hygienic Laboratory. 1977. Summer Vbter Quality
Survey of the Bloody Run Creek and Sny Magill Creek Basins, 79-14. 24p.
112
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
MICHIGAN SYCAMORE CREEK WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. TMDL Case Study: Sycamore Creek,
Michigan. EPA 841-F-92-012, Number 7. .
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1990. A Biological Investigation of
Sycamore Creek and Tributaries, Ingham County, Michigan, May -August, 1989.
SCS/CES/ASCS. 1990. Sycamore Creek Watershed Water Quality Plan. Soil
Conservation Service, Michigan Cooperative Extension Service, Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service.
Suppnick, J.D. 1992. A Nonpoint Source Pollution Load Allocation for Sycamore
Creek, in Ingham County, Michigan; Ja^The Proceedings of the WEF 65th Annual
Conference.S\izface Water Quality Symposia. September 20-24, 1992. New Or-
leans, p. 293-302.
Sycamore Creek Water Quality Program. 1992. Annual Progress Report: Syca-
more Creek Vtuer Quality Program: Fiscal Year 1992. Ingham County, Michigan.
113
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
NEBRASKA ELM CREEK WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Elm Creek Project 1991. Elm Creek Watershed Section 319 NFS Project:
Overview and Workplan. Lower Republican Natural Resource District, Nebraska
Department of Environmental Control, Soil Conservation Service, Nebraska
Game and Park Commission, Cooperative Eextension Service, Lincoln Nebraska.
Elm Creek Project. 1992. Elm Creek Wtoershed Section 319 NFS Project:
Monitoring Project Plan. Nebraska Department of Environmental Control, Lin-
coln, Nebraska.
Jensen, D. and C Christiansen. 1983. Investigations of the Wuer Quality and
Waer Quality Related Beneficial Uses of Elm Creek, Nebraska. Nebraska Depart-
ment of Environmental Control, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control. 1988. Surface Waer Quality
Monitoring Strategy. Surface Water Section, Water Quality Division, Nebraska
Dept. Environmental Control, Lincoln, Nebraska, April 1988.
. 199 la. Title 117- Nebraska Surface 'Water Quality Standards. Nebraska
Dept. of Environmental Control, Lincoln, Nebraska, September IS, 1991.
. 199 Ib. Nebraska Stream Inventory. Surface Water Section, Water Quality
Division, Nebraska Dept. of Environmental Control, Lincoln, Nebraska. (Draft)
1992. Procedure Manual. Surface Water Section, Water Quality Division,
Nebraska Dept. of Environmental Control, Lincoln, Nebraska. Revised and
Updated April 1992.
Osmond, D.L., J.A. Gale, D.E. Line, J.B. Mullens, J. Spooner and S.W. Coffey.
1992. Nebraska - Elm Creek Watershed Section 319 National Monitoring Pro-
gram Project; in Summary Report Section 319 National Monitoring Program
Projects. Nonpoint Source Watershed Project Studies, North Carolina State Uni-
versity, Water Quality Group, Raleigh, North Carolina, p. 20-26.
USEPA. 1991. Watershed Monitoring and Reporting for Section 319 National
Monitoring Program Projects. Assessment and Watershed Protection Division,
Office Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Young, R.A., CA. Onstad, D.D. Bosch, and W.P. Anderson. 1987. AGNPS,
Agricultural Non-point Source Pollution Model- A Vbtershed Analysis Tool. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Conservation Research Report 35. 80 p.
114
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
NORTH CAROLINA LONG CREEK WATERSHED
SECTION 319 NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT
Danielson, L.E., L.S. Smutko, and G.D. Joinings. 1991. Ah Assessment of Air,
Surface Water, and Groundwater Quality in Gaston County, North Carolina; in:
Proceedings of the National Conference on Integrated Vfaer Information Manage-
ment. USEPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC p. 101-107.
Jennings, G.D., W.A. Harman, M.A. Bums, and F.J. Humenik. 1992. Long Creek
Vbtershed Nonpoint Source Vbter Quality Monitoring Project. Project Proposal.
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, NC 21p.
Levi, M., D. Adams, V.P. Aneja, L. Danielson, H. Devine, T.J. Hoban, S.L.
Brichfbrd, M.D. Smolen. 1990. Natural Resource Quality in a Gaston County.
Phase I: Characterization of Air, Surface Waer and Groundwater Quality. Final
Report. North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina. 174p.
Levi, M., G.D. Jennings, D.E. Line, S.W. Coffey, L.S. Smutko, L. Danielson, S.S
Quin, H. A. Devine, T.J. Hoban, V.P. Aneja. 1992. Natural Resource Quality in
Gaston County - Phase 2: Implementation of Natural Resource Education and
Policy Development Programs - Final Report. North Carolina Cooperative Exten-
sion Service, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 181p. (plus a stand
alone Volume for Appendix 5 of 112p.)
Line, D.E. and S.W. Coffey. 1992. Targeting Critical Areas with Pollutant Runoff
Models and CIS. ASAE Paper No. 92-2015. American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan. 21p.
Osmond, D.L., J.A. Gale, D.E. Line, J.B. Mullens, J. Spooner and S.W. Coffey.
1992. North Carolina - Long Creek Watershed Section 319 National Monitoring
Program Project; in Summary Report Section 319 National Monitoring Program
Projects, Nonpoint Source Watershed Project Studies, North Carolina State Uni-
versity, Water Quality Group, Raleigh, North Carolina, p. 28-33.
Smutko, L.S. 1992. Evaluating the Feasibility of Local Wellhead Protection
Programs: Gaston County Case Study, p. 37-41. In: Proceedings of the National
Symposium on the Future Availability of Ground 'Witter Resources. American
\\kter Resources Association, Bethesda, Maryland.
Smutko, L.S. and L.E. Danielson. 1992. An Evaluation of Local Policy Options
for Groundwater Protection; in: Proceedings of the National Symposium on the
Future Availability of Ground Vbter Resources. American Water Resources
Association, Bethesda, Maryland, p. 119-128.
Smutko, L.S. and L.E. Danielson. 1992. Involving Local Citizens in Developing
Groundwater Policy; in: Proceedings of the National Symposium on the Future
Availability of Ground Vhter Resources. American )ftbter Resources Association,
Bethesda, Maryland, p. 185-188.
115
-------
Appendix IV: Project Documents
Smutko, L.S., L.E. Danielson, and W.A. Harman. 1992. Integration of a
Geographic Information System in Extension Public Policy Education: A North
Carolina Pilot Program; itii Computers in Agricultural Extension Programs,
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference. Florida Cooperative Exten-
sion Service, University of Florida, Gainesville.Florida. p. 658-663.
Smutko, L.S., L.E. Danielson, J.M. McManus, and H.A. Devote. 1992. Use of
Geographic Information System Technology in Delineating Wellhead Protection
Areas; io: Proceedings of the National Symposium on the Future Availability of
Ground Witter Resources. American Water Resources Association, Bethesda,
Maryland, p. 375-380.
116
-------
Appendix V
Project Profile Reviewers
117
-------
Appendix V: Project Profile Reviewers
Morro Bay \\fctershed (California) Project Profile Reviewers:
Thomas J. Rice
Soil Science Department
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
(805) 756-2420, Fax (805) 756-5412
Karen Worcester
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
81 Higuera St. Suite 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 549-3333, Fax (805) 543-0397
Snake River Plain (Idaho) Project Profile Reviewers:
Jeff Bohr
USDA Soil Conservation Service
1369 East 16th St.
Burley, ID
(208) 678-7946
Jim Osiensky
University of Idaho
Department of Geologic Sciences and Water Resources
Moscow, ID 83843
(208) 678-7946
John Cardwell
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 North Hilton
Boise, ID 83706-1253
(208) 334-5860
Sny Magill Watershed (Iowa) Project Profile Reviewers:
Lynette Seigley
Geological Survey Bureau
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
109 Trowbridge Hall
Iowa City, IA 52242-1319
(319) 335-1575
George Hallberg
Geological Survey Bureau
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
123 North Capitol St.
Iowa City, IA 52242
(319) 335-1575
Nick Rolling
Sny Magill Watershed Project
111 W.Greene Street
P.O. Box 417
Postville.IA 52162
(319) 864-3999
119
-------
Appendix V: Project Profile Reviewers
Sycamore Creek Watershed (Michigan)
Project Profile Reviewers:
Bob Hicks
Ingham County District Conservationist
USDA-SCS (Land Treatment)
521 N. Okemos Road
P.O. Box 236
Mason, MI 48554
(517) 676-5543
Vicki Anderson
USDA-SCS (GIS)
State Office
1405 S. Harrison Road
East lansing, MI 48823-5202
(517) 337-6701, ext. 1208
John Suppnick
Department of National Resources
Surface Water Quality
P.O. Box 30273
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-4192
Jack Knorek
Ingham County Extension Service
706 Curtis Street
P.O. Box 319
Mason, MI 48909
(517) 676-7207
Elm Creek Watershed (Nebraska) Project Profile Reviewers:
Dave Jensen
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
1200 N Street, Suite 400, The Atrium
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509
(402) 471-4700
Scott Montgomery
USDA-SCS
20 N. Webster
Red Cloud, NE 68970-9990
(402) 746-2268
Robert Ramsel
Webster County Extension Service
621 Cedar
Red Cloud, NE 68970
(402) 746-3345
120
-------
Appendix V: Project Profile Reviewers
Long Creek Watershed (North Carolina)
Project Profile Reviewers:
Martha Bums
County Extension Director
P.O. Box 476
Dallas, NC 28034
(704) 922-0301
Glenda M. Jones, Administrator
Gaston Soil & Water Conservation District
1303 Cherryville Highway
Dallas, NC 28034-4181
(704) 922-4181
WillHarman
Asst. Ext. Agent, Natural Resources
P.O. Box 476
Dallas, NC 28034
(704) 922-0301
121
------- |