United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Washington, DC 20460
EPA 506/9-89/002
June 1989
Water
NWQEP 1988
ANNUAL REPORT:
Status of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Projects
-------
NWQEP 1988 ANNUAL REPORT:
Status of Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Projects
BY
National Water Quality Evaluation Project
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department
North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina 27695
Personnel
Dr. Michael D. Smolen - Principal Investigator
Dr. Frank J. Humenik - Project Director
Sarah L. Brichford
T. Bradley Bennett
Jean Spooner
Steven W. Cotfey
Alicia Lanier
Kenneth J. Adler
U.S.EPA-USDA Interagency
Agreement: RW-12932650
EPA Project Officer
James. W. Meek
Nonpoint Sources Branch
Office of Water Regulations & Standards
Washington, DC
USDA-NCSU Cooperative
Agreement: 88-EXCA-3-0853
USDA Project Officer
Fred N. Swader
Extension Service
Agricultural Programs
Washington, DC
May 1989
-------
DISCLAIMER
This publication was developed by the National Water Quality Evaluation Project, a special
project of the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, sponsored by the USDA and the
U.S. EPA under Interagency Agreement RW12932650 through the Cooperative Agreement
88-EXCA-3-0853 between the Agricultural Extension Service, North Carolina State Univer-
sity and the Extension Service, USDA. The contents and views expressed in this document
are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or positions of the North
Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, the USDA, the U.S. EPA, 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 Dr. John Clausen (Vermont RCWP) and Gary Ritter
(Florida RCWP) for their contribution to Chapter Two. Also thanks to the USDA - Economic
Research Service for contributions to Chapter One from the economic evaluation of RCWP.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FOREWORD
This report is one in a series of annual water quality reports published by the National Water
Quality Evaluation Project (NWQEP) in cooperation with the United States Department of
Agriculture and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. NWQEP performs
technical evaluations of Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) projects, analysis of nonpoint
source (NPS) pollution abatement progress, and technical assistance on monitoring and data
analysis systems.
RCWP is a federally-sponsored NPS control program begun in 1980 as an experimental
effort to address agricultural NPS pollution problems in 20 watershed projects across the
country. The program is administered by USDA- ASCS in cooperation with EPA, SCS, ES,
ERS, FS, ARS, FmHA and others. Landowner participation is voluntary with cost-sharing and
technical assistance offered as incentives for implementing best management practices
(BMPs). The contracting period ended for most RCWP projects in 1986. The program will
terminate in 1995.
Results and lessons learned from RCWP projects are the primary source of information for
other federal, state, and local NPS pollution control programs. RCWP provides detailed
information on how to conduct a NPS control project. The program has also pointed up
research needs in NPS pollution control and helped to promote NPS control objectives
through increased public awareness.
Chapter one of this report is a complete, up-to-date listing of RCWP water quality results
and lessons learned. RCWP projects have employed many of the recommendations of two
previous NPS programs, the Model Implementation Program (MIP) and Great Lakes
Demonstration Program (108a). These recommendations are listed in Appendix A. Chapter
two focuses on reporting and information needs for linking land use with water quality
monitoring data. Chapter three contains brief profiles of each RCWP project. The profiles
include the most recent information about project results, major contributions to NPS control
efforts, and lessons learned about NPS control.
-------
HIGHLIGHTS OF RCWP RESULTS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Water Quality Results
• BMPs, when implemented properly, improve water quality.
• Fencing, water management, and animal waste management systems in the Florida
Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough RCWP have significantly reduced phosphorus con-
centration in water entering Lake Okeechobee.
• Animal waste management systems reduced phosphorus concentration in the
Snake Creek RCWP. This reduces the impact of agricultural activity on Deer
Creek Reservoir, an important water supply for Salt Lake City, Utah. This project
is a model for other projects in the area.
• Water management and sediment control BMPs reduced sediment and phos-
phorus concentration in return flows from irrigated land in Rock Creek RCWP,
Idaho.
• Animal waste management systems installed on dairies in the Tillamook Bay,
Oregon RCWP reduced bacterial contamination of oyster beds in the Bay.
• Sediment and phosphorus loadings have been reduced by conservation tillage,
animal waste management, vegetative cover on critical areas, and fertilizer
management in the Appoquinirmnk River RCWP, Delaware.
• Terracing and other soil conservation practices have reduced sedimentation of an
important Iowa recreational lake in the Prairie Rose Lake RCWP.
Lessons Learned from RCWP
Administration and Planning
• A clear statement of specific goals and objectives is essential guidance for all
aspects of NPS project implementation.
• Cooperation of local, state and federal agencies is necessary to achieve an effective
NPS project.
• Economic benefits depend on reversing or preventing impairments to high valued
public use water resources.
• Water quality models (AGNPS, CREAMS) have been demonstrated as useful
tools for planning and evaluating NPS control projects and BMP- implementation
sites.
• Pre-project assessment of impaired water uses, likely benefits of reduced or
prevented impairments, and the costs and effectiveness of BMP options will
contribute to greater economic efficiency of future programs.
II
-------
Executive Summary
Farmer Participation I Information and Education
A high level of participation is needed in the critical area in a voluntary project to
ensure that BMPs treat the most important sources.
• An intensive publicity campaign with one-on-one contact between project person-
nel and targeted landowners helps to achieve BMP contracting and implementa-
tion goals.
• Attractive cost sharing and technical assistance incentives can increase farmer
participation, but these incentives may not be uniformly effective if there are
recalcitrant farmers/landowners or uncertain economic conditions.
Land Treatment
• Target land treatment to critical areas where BMP implementation is most likely
to yield water quality benefits.
• Practices should be selected to address pollutants of concern and water quality
objectives.
• Practices must be acceptable to the landowners who will implement them.
• Monitor land treatment/use (RCWP and Non-RCWP) for correlation with water
quality monitoring data
• The highest cost share expenditures were earned by animal waste management
systems (BMP-2), conservation tillage (BMP-9), permanent vegetative cover on
critical areas (BMP-1 1), sediment retention, erosion or water control structures
(BMP-12), water management systems (BMP-13) and nutrient and pesticide
management (BMPs- 15 & 16).
Water Quality Monitoring and Data Analysis
• A data analysis strategy should be planned early in the project to address clearly
stated water quality goals and objectives.
• The monitoring strategy must be appropriate for the water quality problem, water
resource type, and project objectives.
• Consistency and uniformity in data collection, analysis and reporting over the
project timeframe are essential for detecting water quality trends and relating them
to implemented BMPs.
• Climatic variability can mask water quality effects in short-term monitoring or
casual observation if there is no control site for comparison.
iii
-------
Effectiveness of Best Management Practices
• BMP effectiveness is very site specific.
• The effectiveness of BMP implementation is influenced by meteorology, hydrol-
ogy, distance to waterbody, extent of implementation, and maintenance.
• A reduction in erosion rate may or may not result in improved water quality.
• The effectiveness of structural practices such as animal waste storage structures,
sediment basins, terraces, and improved irrigation systems can be enhanced by
water quality-oriented management practices such as nutrient management, pes-
ticide management, waste management and conservation tillage.
• Practices that reduce surface runoff (e.g. level terraces and some forms of conser-
vation tillage) generally increase the concentration of dissolved nutrients and
pesticides in runoff and may increase leaching of nitrate and pesticides to ground
water.
Economic Efficiency
• Recreation is generally the highest value public use and projects that reverse or
prevent an impairment to recreational use can show high economic benefits.
• Elements other than water quality may produce economic benefits observed in NPS
control projects (eg. park facilities, road improvements, population increase).
• Conservation tillage, nutrient and fertilizer management, and filter strips have
been shown generally to be more cost-effective practices than structures (e.g.
manure holding pits, sediment retention basins) for controlling sediment and
nutrients.
Problems and Pitfalls
• Projects lacking a clear statement of goals and objectives are inefficient.
• Targeting is not effective in voluntary projects if participation is low in the critical
area.
• There is no single accepted relationship to determine the amount of land treatment
needed to restore impaired water uses. Generally, RCWP projects used 75% of
the critical area as their treatment goal. This amount appears to be sufficient for
some projects but not for others.
• Many projects lack the research expertise and reporting procedures to relate water
quality changes to land treatment.
• Some RCWP projects were inappropriate for demonstration of NPS pollution
control for the following reasons: a water use impairment was not documented,
project areas were too large and contained varied pollution sources, local interest
was inadequate, or monitoring capability was inadequate.
iv
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Map of RCWP Project Locations vi
Chapter One 1
RCWP Objectives 1
Lessons Learned 2
Project Administration and Planning 2
Farmer Participation I Information & Education 4
Land Treatment 6
Water Quality Monitoring and Data Analysis 8
Effectiveness of Best Management Practices 10
Economic Efficiency 12
Chapter Two: Relating Water Quality Data to Land Treatment 14
Part I: Progress Reporting 14
Part II: Information Needs 19
Chapter Three: RCWP Project Profiles 31
Alabama - Lake Tholocco (RCWP 1) 32
Delaware - Appoquinimink River (RCWP 2) 36
Idaho - Rock Creek (RCWP 3) 42
Illinois - Highland Silver Lake (RCWP 4) 51
Iowa - Prairie Rose Lake (RCWP 5) 59
Kansas - Upper Wakarusa (RCWP 6) 65
Louisiana - Bayou Bonne ldee (RCWP 7) 69
Maryland - Double Pipe Creek (RCWP 8) 74
Michigan - Saline Valley (RCWP 9) 79
Tennessee/Kentucky - Reelfoot Lake (RCWP 10) 84
Utah - Snake Creek (RCWP 11) 88
Vermont - St. Albans Bay (RCWP 12) 93
Wisconsin - Lower Manitowoc River (RCWP 13) 99
Florida - Taylor Creek Nubbin Slough (RCWP 14) 104
Florida - Lower Kissimmee River (RCWP 14A) 111
Massachusetts - Westport River (RCWP 15) 116
Minnesota - Garvin Brook (RCWP 16) 120
Nebraska - Long Pine Creek (RCWP 17) 126
Oregon - Tillamook Bay (RCWP 18) 133
Pennsylvania - Conestoga Headwaters (RCWP 19) 139
South Dakota Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett (RCWP 20) 146
Virginia - Nansemond - Chuckatuck (RCWP 21) 152
Appendix A: MIP & 108a Recommendations 159
Appendix B: BMPS Approved for RCWP Projects 163
List of Abbreviations 168
V
-------
Locations of RCWP Projects
LEGEND: 0 General
• Comprehensive Monitoring &
Evaluation
-------
CHAPTER ONE
This report is the sixth in a series of annual water quality reports published by the National
Water Quality Evaluation Project (NWQEP) in cooperation with the United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. NWQEP was
begun in 1981 and is directed to play a supporting role to the Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP). The role of NWQEP has evolved into three basic functions: technical evaluation
of RCWP projects, analysis of nonpoint source (NPS) pollution abatement progress, and
technical assistance on NPS monitoring and data analysis systems. The overall objective of
NWQEP is to measure the degree of success experienced by federal and state agencies in
solving identified agricultural NPS problems through application of Best Management Prac-
tices (BMPs).
RCWP OBJECTIVES
The federal Rural Clean Water Program’ provides long-term financial and technical
assistance to owners and operators having control of agricultural land for the purpose of
installing and maintaining BMPs to control agricultural NPS pollution for improved water
quality. Participation in RCWP is voluntary. Landowners are contracted to implement BMPs
in designated critical areas. The length of a contract varies depending on the practice —
typically three years minimum (conservation tillage) and up to ten years maximum (terraces,
animal waste management systems). Appendix B contains a complete list of BMPs approved
for RCWP projects.
There are 20 RCWP projects across the country. They were selected from state lists of NPS
priority watersheds developed during the section 208 planning process under the 1972 Clean
Water Act. RCWP projects began in 1980—1981 and will continue through 1990-.- 1995. Each
project is required to monitor water quality in addition to its land treatment activities. Five
projects (Vermont, Illinois, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, Idaho) were selected to receive
additional funds for Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation (CM&E) programs.
The lead agency for RCWP is the USDA’s Agricultural Stabilization and, Conservation
Service. Other federal agencies involved in RCWP are the Soil Conservation Service, En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Extension Service, Forest Service, Agricultural Research
1 Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY80, FL 96.108
I
-------
Service, Economic Research Service, Farmers Home Administration, and others. There are
many state and local agencies involved in RCWP, principally the state water quality agency
which is usually housed within the department of natural resources or environmental quality.
The program objectives of RCWP are:
1. Achieve improvement in impaired water use and quality in approved project areas
in the most cost-effective manner possible in keeping with the provisions of adequate
supplies of food, fiber and a quality environment.
2. Assist agricultural land owners and operators to reduce agricultural nonpoint source
water pollutants and to improve water quality in rural areas to meet water quality
standards or water quality goals.
3. Develop and test programs, policies, and procedures for the control of agricultural
nonpoint source pollution.
LESSONS LEARNED
RCWP has produced direct water quality benefits and provided a wealth of experience in
agricultural NPS pollution control. Results and lessons learned from RCWP projects are a
primary source of information for other federal and state NPS pollution control programs.
The program has also helped to define research needs in NPS pollution control and promote
increased public awareness and attention to this important water quality problem. This
chapter focuses on lessons from the RCWP experience that can be applied to development,
implementation and evaluation of a NPS control program or project.
Project Administration and Planning
Lesson: NPS problems can be addressed successfully in any watershed given enough resour-
ces. The amount of technical, financial, and informational resources allocated to a project
must be sufficient to address the water quality problems. Magnitude of effort should be based
on the extent, diversity, and implementation needs of the critical area. Competing workloads
must be anticipated over the long-term when project personnel are assigned responsibilities.
Lesson: Project size can effect attainment of water quality goals. Large projects with many
farms may have difficulty gaining enough participation to achieve their land treatment goals.
These projects are not generally suitable for demonstration projects. The magnitude of effort
required to do the project properly could easily exceed available resources and the benefits
accrued for demonstration purposes are likely minimal. A small watershed with well defined
use impairment, pollutants, and pollutant sources makes a good demonstration project.
2
-------
Chapter One
Lesson: Cooperation of local, state, and federal agencies is essential to the success of a water
quality project. Federal programs like RCWP depend heavily on the long-term support and
commitment of state agencies to achieve program objectives.
In developing their RCWP projects, many states have built strong working relationships between
agricultural agencies, such as ASCS, SCS and Extension Service, and state water quality agencies.
These relationships have been formalized through Memoranda of Understanding and other ad-
ministrative mechanisms.
Lesson: Projects requiring interstate cooperation are difficult to conduct effectively if the
states involved do not share the same priorities for the project.
Jurisdictional problems in the Massachusetts project are affecting the land treatment strategy. A
subbasin in Rhode Island, outside the project area, may be contributing contaminants to shellfish beds
in the project’s designated water resource.
The Reelfoot Lake RCWP covering counties in Tennessee and Kentucky has obtained good coopera-
tion between state agencies in defining, evaluating, and addressing common project objectives.
Lesson: Time and money can be saved by setting priorities for project selection and implemen-
tation.
Highest priority should be given to projects where there is high probability for reversing the water use
impairment, i.e. clearly documented use impairment, substantial local support, adequate staff and
expertise for technical assistance, and information and education support. Some regulatory authority
is also helpful.
Projects addressing water resources with high public value, many users, high visibility, and clearly
documented impairment of beneficial use generally have the highest probability of producing economic
benefits.
Lesson: Causes of water pollution within a watershed may be diverse (e.g., animal waste,
surface runoff, sewage treatment plants, residential septic systems). Therefore, water quality
improvements from agricultural BMP implementation could be masked by non-agricultural
sources of pollution.
Lesson: A project’s timeframe should include a two to three year pre-implementation period
for thorough assessment of water use impairments, economic and other benefits from water
quality improvement, surficial and ground water flow regimes, identification and quantifica-
tion of all pollutants and their sources, identification, quantification, and targeting of critical
areas, and selection of BMPs. Pre-project assessment will contribute to the efficient use of
water quality funding.
One-third or more of the RCWP projects have low likely economic benefits compared with costs. Many
projects could have been more cost- effective in achieving water quality improvement by selecting
different BMPs aimed at controlling the pollutants of concern.
Some RCWP projects lacked good assessment information and, as a result, had to redefine their original
critical area two to three years after the program began. Reasons for these changes included better
3
-------
documentation of the water resource use impairment (Minnesota), and better documentation of
pollutant sources (Massachusetts).
Two years into the project, the Kansas RCWP determined that there was no water use impairment and
the project decided not to continue.
Lesson: Nutrient and water budgeting techniques and modeling are useful in quantifying
pollutants and their sources and estimating the location and extent of land treatment needed
to reverse the water use impairment.
Water quality models (AGNPS and CREAMS) have been demonstrated as useful for planning and
evaluating activities such as critical area identification and land treatment strategy selection. (Min-
nesota, Illinois, Vermont)
The Vermont project used models in assessing sources of agricultural NI’S phosphorus and sediment,
critical and total pollutants loads, changes over time, and BMP selection. This type of modeling effort
at the beginning of a project would be useful for ranking farms and setting treatment priorities.
Balance of nutrient mass at the farm level is required by law in the Florida RCWP. The project is
directed to reduce phosphorus in effluent from dairies and beef cattle operations by a new State
regulation that requires all available phosphorus beyond that assimilated by plants or adsorbed by the
soil to be controlled. The intent of the regulation is to recycle all nutrients produced on livestock
operations through nutrient budgeting.
The Vermont project monitored annual nutrient and water budgets to identify relative contributions
of point and nonpoint sources to the impaired water resource. A wastewater treatment plant in the
project area was identified as a significant and variable source of phosphorus loading to St. Albans Bay.
South Dakota is completing a water and nutrient budget study for a lake system to assess sources
(origination areas) and sinks (storage areas) in this system. These data will be used to model the impact
of changes in agricultural practices on water quality.
The nutrient budgeting technique is the basis of a computer template developed by the Pennsylvania
RCWP to assist in making nutrient management decisions for farm and field application of manure.
The template is a model for the country and has been demonstrated at several national water quality
workshops and training sessions.
Farmer Participation / Information and Education
Lesson: Obtaining a high level of participation is a major factor in project effectiveness. A
high level of participation is needed to ensure that BMP implementation covers the critical
area.
The Oregon, Utah, Florida, Iowa and Vermont projects achieved a high level of farmer participation
through the cooperative effort of agricultural and water quality personnel on designing and publicizing
the program.
4
-------
Chapter One
Lesson: An intensive pre-project publicity campaign and one-on-one contact between project
personnel and targeted landowners helps to achieve participation goals.
The Alabama RCWP showed that even in an economically depressed farming area voluntary participa-
tion is possible if the targeted BMPS are acceptable to the farmers and there is enthusiastic one-on-
one contact between farmers and project personnel. Other projects (Iowa, Louisiana, Vermont,
Virginia, Oregon) have shown that a high level of participation can be gained by cost-sharing practices
that are acceptable to area farmers.
Lesson: Attractive cost-sharing and technical assistance incentives generally increase farmer
participation. The RCWP cost-share maximum is $50,000 per farmer is an adequate incentive
level for most projects, however, some projects found this limit too low.
The Florida project has several large livestock operations (dairies and beef cattle) that require animal
waste management systems. The cost of treatment exceeds the $50,000 cost-share limit for the largest
operations. Thus, instead of 75% cost share the operator receives about 25% from RCWP. The State
is providing additional cost share funds.
In the early stages of the Minnesota project, supplementary local funding reduced the farmer’s
cost-share responsibility to 10%, however, this was still not enough incentive to get dairy farmers to
participate. The farm economy was very depressed. A change in project priorities led to redefining
critical areas and emphasis on nutrient and pesticide management for ground water protection.
Participation was gained through intensive contact with a different target audience to explain the
project’s goals and objectives.
Pooling cost-share monies among several cooperators was used successfully by the Nebraska project
to fund construction of a water control structure to prevent erosion and improve the timing of irrigation
flows. The project benefitted many farmers and increased their interest in the RCWP.
Lesson: Regulatory authority boosted participation in the Florida and, Oregon RCWP
projects.
Florida’s State law requires animal operations to maintain nutrient mass balance. This law compels
operators to implement BMPs.
In the Oregon RCWP, the creamery that buys milk from project area dairy farmers penalizes those who
don’t participate in the RCWP.
Lesson: Media publicity stimulates public interest in the project, and newsletters, public
meetings, and media exposure help keep participants informed.
In the Pennsylvania project a training session and workshop on nutrient management principles is
provided for county extension agents who work one-on-one with participating area farmers. Water
quality and project objectives are promoted through public meetings, mass media, experimental
nutrient management, no-till and fertilizer management field plots and project newsletters. They issue
special reports on experimental findings and public tours.
Demonstration field trials and other Extension education programs are offered through a fertilizer
management program of the Vermont RCWP. Education programs provide newsletters, articles, mass
5
-------
media coverage and farmer-Extension meetings, as well as one-on-one contact, field tours, and
summary reports on field test results and soil and manure analysis.
The information and education program in the Alabama RCWP established five pre-project objectives
for improving farmer and general public awareness of the efforts, importance and benefits of the
project. Training sessions, group meetings, letters, demonstrations, media coverage and personal
contacts have been part of the educational program. These activities paid off in a high level of
participation although the project area farm economy was very depressed.
I & E activities in the Idaho RCWP center on conservation tillage and project accomplishments. Two
Soil Conservation Districts along with technical support from SCS have provided videotapes of RCWP
activities, publications, media coverage, newsletters and tours of ARS field trials in the project area.
The project has also placed signs designating conservation tillage activities and project accomplish-
ments throughout the project area.
The South Dakota RCWP has found that public meetings, media releases, on-site demonstrations, and
newsletter circulation are effective mechanisms for communicating information on project status to
personnel, participating farmers, and the general public. Well defined educational procedures are
aimed at making all the area landowners aware of the project benefits. Recent information and
education efforts have focused on technical assistance in fertilizer and pesticide management, including
one-on-one contact, soil sampling information, pest scouting, and presentation of project accomplish-
ments.
Demonstration farms are utilized in Nebraska as information and education tools for RCWP activities.
Integrated Pest Management (1PM) and RCWP information is presented in two separate monthly
newsletters. Weekly field scouting and a radio broadcast report of insect activity support the 1PM
program. Extension programs are gathering yield data to show the benefits of fertilizer and pesticide
management. A video tape of the activities and progress in this project is also being developed.
Land Treatment
Lesson: Land treatment should be targeted to critical areas where BMPs are likely to provide
the greatest improvement in the water resource. The primary factors in identifying critical
areas are the pollutant(s) causing the water use impairment and the major pollutant sources.
Appropriate criteria for prioritizing critical area treatment needs are: source magnitude,
distance to water resource, type and severity of water resource impairment, type of pollutant,
present conservation status, and on-site evaluation.
To control soil erosion and sediment yield problems, the Illinois project targeted critical areas as natric
soils with 2% slope, fine particle size and high erodibility, and non-natric soils with 5% slope, high
erodibility, and proximity to stream system.
The Louisiana RCWF, addresses turbidity and sedimentation problems by considering all cropland
critical. Cotton on silty soils has highest priority because it is close to waterbodies, intensively cultivated,
and has high pesticide and nutrient requirements. This project also offered high cost-share rates (90%)
to farmers located adjacent to Bayou Bonne Idee to increase participation in the critical area.
The Maryland RCWP targeted farms with pollution sources close to streams based on their contribu-
tion to the documented water quality problems caused by sediment loads and high levels of fecal
coliform bacteria.
6
-------
Chapter One
In addressing eutrophication problems in St. Albans Bay, the Vermont RCWP targeted critical areas
based on distance to streams and the Bay, presence of major NPS phosphorus source which reach the
stream, and distance to major water courses. The project feels that evaluation of progress based solely
on critical acres does not give an accurate indication of BMP effectiveness. As an alternative the project
has used SCS computer models to estimate the total phosphorus and sediment loads. The portion of
the total load that can be controlled by agricultural BMPs is designated as critical. Progress toward
project goals is evaluated in terms of the amount of critical load treated with BMPs.
Water quality problems in the Oregon RCWP result from high fecal coliform levels and sediment
loading to Tillamook Bay. Critical area in the project was identified as the acres on high priority dairies
in the project area. Priority levels were based on a rating system that allocated points based on: distance
to open water course, manure management practices, number of animals, and location of the operation
within the project area.
The Utah project targeted dairies close to streams and ditches to control high levels of fecal coliform
and phosphorus in streams draining the project area.
Lesson: Projects should be flexible in allowing partial BMP implementation on individual
farms. BMP contracting rules that require all or none implementation involving expensive
structures may deter project participation. Even with a 75% cost-share rate, the farmer’s cost
for BMP implementation can be a barrier to participation. It may be better to contract for
management practices or BMP components that address the water quality problem and not
hold up implementation because of minor needs for erosion control or one animal waste
structure.
Lesson: In watersheds where cropland is the primary source of pollutants, implementation of
BMPs must cover most of the critical cropland before water quality changes can be anticipated.
Treating a smaller percentage of targeted area can produce positive results if animal waste is
the primary source of water quality problems.
Lesson: Monitoring land treatment is necessary to assure effective implementation of a NPS
project. Land treatment monitoring should include spatial and quantitative tracking of BMP
implementation, including non-RCWP activities. See Chapter Two for further discussion.
Most projects, particularly Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee have a significant amount of
non-RCWP, non-contract BMP implementation. Monitoring of this implementation is also necessary
to document BMP effectiveness.
Lesson: Progress reports should distinguish between contracted BMPs and BMPs that have
been implemented (i.e. installed, applied). Implementation is necessary for effectiveness and
overall progress toward water quality objectives.
The monitoring procedures used by RCWP projects vary in their effectiveness. Most projects have
found that manual tracking of BMP contracting and implementation using RCWP forms is tedious and
have switched to computer spreadsheets. The Vermont project uses a GIS to track land use with good
results. Reliance on the forms to tell the story leaves many questions unanswered, especially if the
project has undergone changes in the project or critical area definition.
7
-------
The Vermont project attempted a unique approach to tracking manure spreading in the project area.
Each RCWP cooperator contract was given a “checkbook” and asked to write a check for the amount
and location each time manure was spread on a field. The RCWP personnel collected the checkbooks
on a regular basis and analyzed the data. Unfortunately, the contact of project personnel and farmers
has decreased and check writing has declined.
Lesson: Depending on the water quality problem, the most popular BMPs for RCWP projects
include animal waste management systems (BMP2), conservation tillage (BMP9), permanent
vegetative cover on critical areas (BMP 11), sediment retention, erosion or water control
structures (BMP 12), water management systems (BMP 13), nutrient management (BMP 15),
and pesticide management (BMP 16). Waste management systems and erosion control
structures are popular because they are desirable, expensive items that could be obtained for
a fraction of the total cost by using RCWP cost share funds. Tillage, cover, and management
practices have shown economic benefits to producers.
Water Quality Monitoring and Data Analysis
Lesson: A data analysis strategy for linking water quality to the land use record should be
planned early in the project. The strategy should address the stated water quality goals and
objectives directly, rigorously, and specifically.
Lesson: Statistical tests that employ analysis of covariance techniques are preferable because
they account for changes in meteorology and hydrology from year-to-year, season-to-season,
and sample-to-sample.
Lesson: Selection of a monitoring strategy must be appropriate for the water quality problem,
water resource type and project objectives. The most common monitoring strategy at the start
of RCWP was to compare water quality data from pre- and post- BMP implementation periods.
These strategies have largely been replaced with a trend-analysis approach in which improving
trends in water quality over time could be associated with BMP implementation.
The Oregon, Florida, Idaho and Utah projects have shown that a pre-BMP water quality data base of
at least 2-3 years duration facilitates documenting water quality effects of BMPs.
Most projects do not have sufficient water quality data from the pre-BMP implementation period.
Trend analysis can still be attempted, however, the precision is significantly reduced such that a bigger
change in water quality is needed if it is to be detected in the analysis.
Year-to-year variability in water quality data is very high and at least 2-3 years of post-BMP implemen-
tation are needed in all cases.
Lesson: The most effective monitoring design for documenting BMP impacts on water quality
is the paired watershed design. In this design, two watersheds with similar physical charac-
teristics, and ideally land use, are monitored for 1-2 years. Following this initial calibration
period one of the watersheds receives treatment and monitoring continues in both watersheds
8
-------
Chapter One
for 1-2 years. This is a controlled experiment which accounts for all the factors that may effect
the response to the treatment so that the treatment effect alone can be isolated.
The Vermont RCWP utilized a paired watershed study to demonstrate the detrimental effects of
manure spreading in winter due to increased phosphorus losses in runoff.
Lesson: Consistency and uniformity in data collection, analysis and reporting over the project
timeframe are essential for detecting water quality trends and associating them with imple-
mented BMPs.
Lesson: Monitoring timeframes to assess water quality response to land treatment BMP
implementation should account for type of water resource, location and climatic variability.
Short-term monitoring is seldom effective because climatic and hydrologic variability can mask
water quality changes.
Utah RCWP results indicate significant water quality response in drainage ditches and Snake Creek
from animal waste management systems over a relatively short five-year data collection period. These
results may be attributed to a small watershed (700 acres) with few pollutant sources that have been
identified and treated.
Water quality response in large watersheds and lakes has been slower generally due to longer hydraulic
residence times and recycling of pollutants. These factors constitute a buffering effect, essentially a
time lag between initial impact and observed effect.
Lesson: Location of the water quality monitoring stations must complement BMP implemen-
tation if the objective is to associate BMPs with water quality changes.
The Wisconsin RCWP has found that the site selection for its monitoring station was inappropriate
because the station is influenced by pollution sources outside the project area.
The Michigan, Vermont, Idaho, Utah, Virginia and Florida RCWPs have found that monitoring
subbasins within the overall project area is a more effective strategy than monitoring only at the
watershed outlet. Water quality changes are more likey to be observed at the subbasin level closer to
land treatment areas where the confounding effects of external factors, other pollution sources, and
scattered BMP implementation are minimized. It is still important to locate monitoring stations at the
watershed outlet to document changes occurring at the watershed level.
Lesson: Monitoring of biological and habitat variables may be appropriate for NPS control
projects.
Four projects (Idaho, Vermont, Wisconsin, Nebraska) have used extensive monitoring of biological
and habitat variables as indices of water quality. Idaho has measured improvements in stream habitat
and aquatic life. Nebraska and Wisconsin have pre-treatment data and will need a post-treatment data
set for comparison. Preliminary analysis of biological data from the Vermont RCWP indicates a
different interpretation of water quality changes compared to chemical data. Project personnel
acknowledge that much work needs to be done to develop meaningful biological indices.
The Idaho project has measured increased trout numbers and size in Rock Creek since the RCWP
began, These results have been used successfully to stimulate public interest in the project.
9
-------
Effectiveness of Best Management Practices
Lesson: BMP implementation and effectiveness are site specific depending on pollutants of
concern, water resource, and use impairment. Approval of the BMPs or BMP modifications
in voluntary programs should be based on their effectiveness for addressing the designated
water quality problem and acceptability to farm operators.
Lesson: Projects that meet the following criteria are most likely to provide information on
BMP effectiveness (see also Chapter Two):
BMPs were selected and implemented based on water quality problems and geographic location.
BMP implementation and land use are monitored closely such that this information can be paired with
water quality monitoring data. Implementation data should include timing and location of all practice
components.
An appropriate water quality monitoring design (e.g. sampling location, frequency, pollutants and other
variables measured) is used. Design is dependent on water quality goals (e.g. documentation of BMP
effectiveness, trend detection), variability in the water quality monitoring data, and selected statistical
tests.
An appropriate data analysis method is employed that addresses water quality goals in the context of
project conditions.
Lesson: Meteorologic conditions and other factors beyond control by human activities have
an impact on BMP effectiveness.
Variability in annual rainfall can affect a project’s effort to monitor BMP effectiveness. Because NPS
pollution is generated mostly during storm events, the effectiveness of BMPs may appear to be
deceptively large from monitoring in a year with few storms or low rainfall.
Irrigation canals and small streams with low hydraulic residence times have shown water quality
improvements within a relatively short timeframe compared to lakes and rivers. While irrigation canals
in the Idaho project may be “cleaner” than before RCWP, the impaired waterbody, Rock Creek, has
been slower to show water quality improvement. Rock Creek is still prone to NPS pollution from runoff
events, especially in spring.
Lesson: Soil characteristics can mask water quality improvements.
In the Illinois RCWP, fine colloidal sediment originating from natric soils on the watershed critical
areas is remaining in suspension causing turbidity problems in a lake. Although BMP implementation
controlled most of the large sediment particles reaching the lake, the fine particles still cause turbidity.
The fine sediment fraction is difficult to control with BMPs and a significant amount of NPS pollutants
may be associated with this fraction.
Lesson: Nutrients and agricultural chemicals in solution or attached to fine sediment particles
can cause water quality problems independent of the volume of gross erosion. The amount of
10
-------
Chapter One
applied nutrients and chemicals that reach a water body may be more a function of runoff or
fine sediment loss than total soil loss.
Lesson: Soil loss is not equivalent to sediment delivered to an impaired water body. Sediment
delivery is a function of distance to water body, transport mechanisms, and relative percentages
of sand, silt and clay fractions.
Lesson: If phosphorus and fecal coliform bacteria are the cause of water quality problems in
an agricultural watershed, dairies and other livestock operations should be targeted as first -
priority for land treatment.
Implementation of BMPs, fencing, water management, and animal waste management on dairies in the
Florida Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough RCWP has significantly reduced phosphorus concentration in
water entering Lake Okeechobee.
The Oregon RCWP documented a 40-50% reduction in mean fecal coliform concentration attributed
to treating 60% of the animal waste from dairies with BMPs.
The Utah RCWP documented significant reductions in phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations and
fecal coliform bacteria levels as a result of improved animal waste management. This project has a
small area (700 acres) with 4 dairies and 4 beef feedlots, all targeted for treatment with 100% of
treatment goals obtained.
The Alabama project has learned that treatment of a few key animal operations is an effective strategy
for reversing a water use impairment caused by fecal coliform bacteria.
Lesson: The effectiveness of structural practices such as animal waste storage structures,
sediment basins, terraces, and improved irrigation systems can be enhanced by water quality-
oriented management practices such as conservation tillage and nutrient management.
Sediment and phosphorus concentration in return flows from irrigated land in the Rock Creek RCWP,
Idaho have been significantly reduced by water management and sediment control BMPs coupled with
conservation tillage.
Sediment and phosphorus loadings have been reduced in Delaware by animal waste management
systems (manure holding structures), conservation tillage, vegetative cover on critical areas, and
fertilizer management in the Appoquinimink River RCWP.
Sedimentation of Prairie Rose Lake, an important Iowa recreational lake, has been reduced by
implementing terraces and conservation tillage in the Prairie Rose Lake RCWP.
Lesson: Conservation tillage, and other forms of surface runoff reduction practices, generally
increase the concentration of dissolved nutrients and pesticides in runoff and may increase
leaching of nitrate and pesticides to ground water. Therefore, it is especially important to
incorporate nutrient and pesticide management with surface runoff reduction practices to
avoid over-application of nutrients and pesticides.
The Pennsylvania RCWP found that nutrient management can reduce transport of nitrate-nitrogen to
both ground and surface water. Project results suggest that terraces, while effective in reducing
sediment loading to surface water, may increase nitrate-nitrogen transport to ground water. A sesonal
11
-------
trend of increasing nitrate-nitrogen concentrations has been observed at a field site monitoring well
located down-gradient of four terraces. The project feels that the pooling and controlled discharge of
rainfall promoted by the terraces provides more time for leaching of nutrients. This along with variation
in manure application rates is viewed as a possible cause of increasing nitrate-nitrogen concentrations.
The South Dakota RCWP has found that soil macropores are a significant pathway for nutrient and
pesticide transport to ground water. Therefore, management practices that minimize the amount of
excess nutrients and pesticides available for infiltration are essential.
Lesson: Nutrient management likely will not cause an immediate reduction in nutrient
concentrations in ground and surface waters. The soil acts as a buffer, releasing nitrate-
nitrogen to ground water on a continual basis. Also, a significant amount of nutrients can
accumulate in stream and lake bottom sediments such that the effect of nutrient management
is offset by existing high levels of nutrients.
Economic Efficiency
Lesson: Economic efficiency requires that costs be kept in line with benefits and that the most
cost-effective BMPs be utilized.
Lesson: From the viewpoint of public expenditure, management practices such as nutrient
management, pesticide management, water management, and conservation tillage are more
cost effective than structural practices in the long-term. These practices must offer an
economic advantage to the farmer if they are to be maintained long-term.
Lesson: Conservation tillage and vegetative cover have been shown generally to be more cost
effective practices than sediment retention structures for reducing sediment and nutrient
losses.
The Idaho RCWP has documented reduction in sediment concentration in irrigation canals associated
with structural practices (sediment basins, I-slots), but now the project is promoting conservation tillage
as the preferred BMP because conservation tillage does not have the high maintenance costs associated
with structural devices. Idaho found no-till practices reduce soil losses by 80% or more and minimum
tillage reduce losses by 60 to 85% at the edge of field.
Illinois RCWP found conservation tillage to be the most cost effective method for reducing delivery of
pollutants to Highland Silver Lake. Conservation tillage costs were $14-33 per ton of sediment
controlled and $7-17 per pound of phosphorus controlled in lake (see project profile).
In the South Dakota RCWP, nutrient management including split application and injection of nutrients
would be a very cost effective addition to soil testing and applying recommended amounts of fertilizer.
Lesson: Economic benefits depend on more than just water quality improvement or deteriora-
tion prevented. Economic benefits depend primarily on changes in water use and the number
12
-------
Chapter One
of users affected. Recreation is generally the highest value public use and projects successfully
addressing impaired recreation can show high benefits.
The Vermont project can show economic benefits for many people in terms of recreational enhance-
ment of St. Albans Bay. This makes the NPS project more cost effective in terms of public expenditure.
The Illinois RCWP found that the documented rate of sedimentation did not threaten use of Highland
Silver Lake for domestic water supply. Potential benefits from reversal of recreational use impairments
are diminished by limitations on contact recreation activities, boat motor size and access facilities.
On-farm benefits have been positive, but these represent a majority of the total project benefits and
are not expected to approach the costs of the project.
The South Dakota RCWP projected high potential benefits from reversal of recreational use impair-
ments (swimming, boating, fishing), however, it may not realize these benefits because of insufficient
surface water quality improvement.
The Utah project is a successful demonstration of NPS control at the project level. Benefits from this
small project area include its use as a model that encourages farmer participation and public support
in the watershed and across the state.
13
-------
Chapter Two
Relating Water Quality Data to Land Treatment:
Progress Reporting and Information Needs
Annually since 1982 NWQEP has reviewed the RCWP progress reports. In conducting our
1987 RCWP progress report reviews we have developed a series of reporting recommenda-
tions that may be useful to NPS control projects. Below are recommendations to other water
quality projects on how to establish useful and readable progress reports. Part I is general
reporting recommendations for land treatment and water quality monitoring results. Part II
focuses on information needs, monitoring, and statistical approaches for relating water quality
data to land treatment.
PART I: NPS PROJECT PROGRESS REPORTING
General Recommendations
Progress report writers should keep in mind that some readers have no knowledge of the
project objectives, approach, or previous accomplishments, while others may be quite familiar
with these topics. Primary documentation such as the Plan of Work or the first progress report
should contain a thorough presentation of the project background and documentation of water
quality problems. Later reports only require a concise description of the project area and the
water quality problem if there are precise references to the earlier documents.
• Include a Table of Contents.
• Present annual project highlights and new information in an Executive Summary.
• Update existing background information to establish correct documentation on
water quality problems.
• Provide interpretation of project results through reporting findings and observa-
tions.
• Include an abstract. The abstract can be located just after the cover page or just
after the Table of Contents. It is a very concise summary of the report which can
be used by abstracting services or others compiling literature references.
• Sections for acknowledgements and literature cited should always be included.
• The report should always have the author(s) listed. It is often very difficult to track
reports without authors.
14
-------
Land Treatment and Land Use
As many RCWP projects have discovered during the BMP implementation phase, consistent
and accurate reporting of location, type and maintenance of land treatment can be very difficult
but is necessary. Standard report forms provide baseline information on program develop-
ments overall in a consistent manner; however, forms seldom tell the whole story. Therefore,
they must be supplemented to describe the unique aspects of land treatment in each project.
The framework presented below is based on procedures for land treatment/use reporting
used by RCWP projects. Some of the problems encountered in using land treatment/use data
to assess water quality impacts of RCWP projects are addressed.
Objectives
The water quality analyst seeks to answer these main questions:
• Do BMPs affect the magnitude of pollutant sources?
• How much reduction of pollutant loading to the water resource is possible from
BMPs?
• Will BMPs improve the quality of the receiving water body?
To answer these questions, the analyst needs to know the location and extent of practices,
and the timing of their installation and period of effect.
Location of Treatment
Is the practice in the critical area — completely, partially or not at all? What subbasin is it
in? Report the location of the practice, the sources treated, and the impaired resource 1
effected. Identify the water quality monitoring station(s) associated with the subbasin in which
the practice was implemented. For example, an annual summary chart for each subbasin could
look like the one shown in Table 1.
Extent of Treatment
The extent of land treatment can be tracked as: acres treated, number or units of practice
installed, portion of critical pollutant loads treated with BMPs, or complete or partial Resource
Management Systems (RMSs). Basic reporting should specify the total number of acres
treated in each project year, counting acres with more than one practice only once. Total acres
treated provides a good approximation of the extent of land treatment that can be related to
water quality data over time.
1 Information about the water resource of concern can be accessed using the U.S. EPA’s Waterbody System (U.S.EPA, 1987). This
system is a national computer database containing a geographically based framework for entering, tracking, and reporting
information on the quality of individual waterbodies as defined by each state. The Waterbody System was developed to support
reporting requirements as defined in Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act (state biennial reports to U.S.EPA describing quality
of navigable waters) and to fulfill new reporting requirements under the 1987 Water Quality Act.
15
-------
Chapter Two
TABLE 1. BMP Implementation Data: Year
Subbasin #_ Monitoring Station #_
Total Area of Subbasin _acres
Critical Area of Subbasin _acres
Critical Sources (animal operations) in Subbasin _operations
RCWP Total Units Treated Primary Critical
BMP Units in Pollutants Acres
Treated Critical Area Treated Treated
2 Animal Waste Management 5 systems 5 systems N, P, FC 300 acres *
12 Sediment Retention Structure 3 sediment basins 3 sediment basins sediment, P 250 acres
16 Pesticide Management 500 acres 300 acres pesticides 300 acres
*receiving better manure management
**reducing sediment load to stream
reduced pesticide application associated with 1PM scouting
Acres treated means the number of source acres that are treated by best management
practices. Note that acres treated does not mean acres benefited because those benefited may
be off-site; acres treated also may not be actual acres implemented because the number of
actual acres occupied by certain practices, like grass waterways, does not reveal the size of the
field they protect.
Annual BMPs implemented on the same acres over time should not be counted multiple
times for a cumulative implementation total. This is particularly troublesome where annual
BMPs are implemented on the same acres. For instance, conservation tillage implemented
on the same 10,000 acres over three years should be reported as 10,000 (not 30,000) acres
treated each year.
Practices installed accounts for individual practices, acres treated or number, even if they
overlap. Different BMPs may be selected to control different pollutants; therefore, it is helpful
to track some practices separately and list the pollutants that each practice addresses.
Estimation of pollutant load reduction associated with each practice may be desirable.
Pollutant load reduction should be calculated for both on- site and off-site locations if possible.
A reduction in the magnitude of pollutant source is an on-site reduction. In addition, to
calculate an off- site (e.g. subbasin outlet, project area outlet, watershed outlet, impaired water
resource) reduction requires the estimated pollutant delivery ratio for the specified sampling
points. An indication of error associated with these estimated values should be given.
Inclusion in Table 1 is optional based on the availability of information.
Designating systems of practices, two or more practices implemented on the same acreage,
is important because the effect of individual practices may be complementary, resulting in a
greater water quality impact than any one practice for the targeted pollutant. Also, practices
may have benefits for controlling other pollutants in addition to their targeted pollutant.
Reporting should specif ’ which pollutants the systems are believed to be controlling.
16
-------
Timing of BMP Implementation
Implementation data should be reported on an annual basis so they will be compatible with
water quality monitoring data. Note that for practices expected to have a dramatic impact on
water quality (e.g. construction of an animal waste lagoon, fencing) the specific dates of
implementation should be reported.
Information on the timing of practice implementation and maintenance is needed to
evaluate when the BMPs start working to protect water quality and when they stop working.
Reporting should include information on the estimated time for a practice to stabilize, i.e.
have a water quality benefit; The effective life of a practice should be documented. Table 1 is
suggested reporting for annual information. Supporting discussion should be included in the
text to cover situations when the effective life of a practice is less than one year (e.g. ‘T’ slots
for sediment control) or when implementation occurs within a year. If landowners choose to
continue the practices after their initial contract expires, this should be indicated in a project’s
land treatment records.
Changes in Land Use
All changes in land use need to be reported, not just BMP implementation. Land use
changes such as conversion of row crops to pasture, changes in herd size or poultry flocks,
closure of animal operations, implementation of the Conservation Reserve Program, non-con-
tract soil and water conservation efforts, etc., may mask the changes in water quality due to
land treatment. Specific dates for major changes, such as large changes in herd size, dairy
closures, or acreage set aside should be reported.
Other
Accuracy of the land use and BMP data should be evaluated and reported. Errors can be
introduced by: lack of specific dates and location of land use changes (e.g. manure spreading)
in relation to water quality monitoring dates and sites; lack of knowledge about maintenance
of BMPs; lack of knowledge of efficiency of practices; lack of quantification of relative
performance of the same practice in different physiographic settings.
Consider the accuracy and precision of both the land treatment/land use data and the water
quality monitoring data when analyzing for cause-effect relationships. Consider the variability
in the water quality data and the land treatment data and document the spatial and temporal
orientation of land treatment and water quality observations. The record should indicate the
time between runoff events and land use or land treatment activities.
It is understood that much of this information is difficult to obtain and the information needs
are different for each project. The appropriate information should be gathered with this
objective in mind: quantitative analysis to document the association between land treat-
ment/use changes and water quality changes.
17
-------
Chapter Two
Water Quality Monitoring
Changes in the water quality monitoring program should be avoided unless absolutely
necessary. If changes are unavoidable describe them in detail in the progress report.
In each presentation of water quality data analysis include a recap of all previous years’
results for comparison and consider the following aspects:
• Specify the water pollutants and use impairments associated with each monitoring
site.
• Describe and quantify the sources of pollution affecting each monitoring site.
• Provide annual data on land use, land treatment, and topographic factors. The best
presentation of this information is by subwatershed so that it can be associated with
a monitoring station or specific hydrology-based unit.
• Provide pertinent hydrologic and meteorologic data for each water quality sample.
For example, report precipitation data, groundwater level, or stream flow as-
sociated with each sampling observation. Other parameters might include salinity,
depth, flow rate, etc.
• The primary flow and concentration data should be reported with loading estimates
if they are based on grab sampling.
• Identify STORET station numbers if available or latitude- longitude.
• Specify what statistical techniques were used in data analysis.
• Include a detailed map of monitoring station locations and land treatment within
the associated subwatershed.
• AU water quality monitoring methods should be described in detail. Any new or
innovative methods or techniques should be described and illustrated if ap-
propriate.
• Quality assurance should be discussed in each report. Methods for accuracy and
precision determination should be described in detail. Include discussion of the
significance of the findings in appropriate Results and Discussion sections.
• Discuss the relationships between the BMPs implemented on the land and water
quality monitoring results. Even if these relationships are not completely known
or understood, it may give others useful ideas.
18
-------
PART II: RELATING WATER QUALITY DATA TO LAND TREATMENT:
INFORMATION NEEDS
This part addresses questions concerning information needs in nonpoint source projects.
This discussion was written with primary consideration given to chemical and physical surface
water quality monitoring, however, most of the following concepts are also applicable to
biological, habitat, and ground water monitoring. Special considerations for the latter are not
addressed in this chapter. Two major themes are:
• How do you coordinate the acquisition of land treatment information and water
quality monitoring data?
• How does one link land treatment information and water quality information?
Monitoring Objectives and Methodologies, and Statistical
Approaches to Monitoring
The objectives of the study dictate the type of water quality monitoring data and land
treatment/use data one needs to obtain and, therefore, the required monitoring design. Most
RCWP projects established their designs some time ago and now are completing their
collection and analysis phases.
One of the RCWP objectives is to determine the role of monitoring water quality and land
treatment simultaneously to determine if water quality changes can be documented and
associated with changes in land treatment. More specifically, can the effectiveness of nonpoint
source pollution control practices be documented at the project level, the watershed level or
at the subwatershed level.
The next few years may be the most crucial period in the RCWP program to attain this
objective because the post-BMP water quality and land treatment data are now just being
collected. At least 2-3 years of post-BMP information is needed to analyze these data.
Quality control of water quality data and land treatment data is important when document-
ing changes in either, but especially if one is going to link them to examine their associations.
Monitoring NonPoint Sources (Agricultural) vs. Point Sources
Monitoring NPS pollution may require a monitoring design with different characteristics
compared to monitoring point sources.
The type and number of parameters measured with agricultural NPS monitoring are a
function of the source and water use impairment. The parameters of concern may be sediment,
phosphorus, nitrogen, fecal coliform, BOD, pesticides, or the degradation products of known
pesticides. Good definition of the impairments and sources will allow monitoring for only a
subset of these pollutants. Except for pesticides, most agricultural nonpoint source pollutants
19
-------
Chapter Two
are naturally occurring and only harmful when found in excess. In fact, most are essential in
some quantities to support biota in the water resources.
Point source pollutants are also a function of the source. If the source is well defined, e.g. a
known chemical or processing plant, the number of measured parameters may be small.
However, many point sources such as sewage treatment plants may contain many pollutants,
some of which are unknown, and the required number of pollutants to monitor may be large.
In addition, many of the pollutants from point sources may be toxic to the aquatic ecosystem.
For point sources, when stream flow increases, concentrations of pollutants usually decrease
due to a dilution effect. However, with nonpoint source pollution, the relationship of pollutant
concentrations and increasing stream flow or storm discharge is usually positive. When stream
flow increases, pollutant concentrations increase.
Both point and nonpoint pollutant concentrations are affected by stream flow and in-stream
processes, however, with nonpoint sources the concentration-hydrograph is further compli-
cated by runoff and transport mechanisms. The flow vs. concentration pattern for nonpoint
sources is not equivalent for each pollutant; the peak concentrations of the particulate and
soluble pollutants occur during different parts of the hydrograph because concentration-
hydrograph response is a function of both stream flow and the runoff and transport
mechanisms. Usually, point source pollutant concentrations vary similarly because dilution is
the primary determinant of concentrations.
The location of monitoring stations and the frequency and duration of sampling may be
different for point and nonpoint sources. Point sources may be easier to monitor because
location and sources can be identified more precisely than nonpoint sources. Nonpoint sources
are more difficult to identify and quantify due to several spatial inputs, and more monitoring
stations may be needed because sources are spatially diffuse instead of originating at a defined
point.
Variability in water quality data can be a significant problem in evaluating both point and
nonpoint sources. Point sources can vary with industrial processes, time of day, and day of
week. Nonpoint sources usually exhibit high variability due to large fluctuations in hydrologic
and meteorologic processes. For point sources, a short duration of monitoring above and below
the source may be sufficient to determine the magnitude of a problem. Also, point source
effluent is monitored directly for permit compliance. For nonpoint sources, longer periods of
monitoring may be required to determine the magnitude of the problem. This is especially
true at the watershed level where system variability is high. More than one year of monitoring
may be required to assess the magnitude of a problem, and trend determination requires far
longer timeframes.
The frequency of both nonpoint source and point source monitoring is a function of
objective. Concentration measurements for trend analysis or assessment of standards viola-
tions require fewer samples than load calculation.
20
-------
Due to the spatially diffuse nature of nonpoint sources, measuring NPS pollutants at the
monitoring station is not constant and may involve a longer lag time compared to point sources.
Lag time refers to the time elapsed during pollutant origination and pollutant detection at the
monitoring station. Lag time at the monitoring station is a function of the distance to the
monitoring point (e.g. tributary, lake), magnitude of the source, volume of drainage or runoff,
and pre-existing soil and land use conditions before a runoff event.
In-stream processes affect the fate and transport of both point and nonpoint source pol-
lutants. Water resources tend toward quasi-equilibriums maintained by these processes. For
example, decreasing the delivery of sediment to a stream using NPS controls may not decrease
the sediment concentration measured at a downstream monitoring station. Stream flow may
pick up sediment that was deposited earlier on the stream bed or may scour the banks. The
pollutants may be assimilated, adsorbed to soil, or degraded before reaching the monitoring
station en route from the source. The influence of in-stream processes increases as distance
from the source to the monitoring station increases.
Study Planning
The study and monitoring objectives determine which pollutants to monitor, location of
monitoring stations, frequency of sampling, length of monitoring, methods of monitoring,
analytical methods, and the statistical methods that appropriately match these objectives.
Study planning should also include selection and evaluation of statistical tests to determine if
the design and sample number are sufficient to detect a water quality problem and/or trend.
Water quality data for this preliminary evaluation can be obtained from prior studies at the
same location or similar locations.
The level of funding for water quality monitoring in RCWP projects varied widely. Funding
for monitoring is an important consideration when selecting objectives and appropriate
monitoring strategies.
Possible objectives for monitoring nonpoint sources include:
• Baseline monitoring to establish current conditions (concentration, variance, etc)
under base flow or storm flow on an event basis over seasonal or annual timeframes.
This can be used to estimate the magnitude of a problem and/or as a baseline for
trend analysis.
• Document a problem or identify major pollutant sources.
• Determine the fate and transport of pollutants.
• Define critical source areas.
• Monitor effectiveness of BMPs (e.g. RCWP water quality monitoring).
• Identify and quantify trends of pollutant concentrations or loads over time.
• Obtain input parameters for models, or obtain data for model calibration and/or
verification.
21
-------
Chapter Two
To detect trends over time as influenced by BMP implementation to control nonpoint sources
on a watershed scale, considerations include:
• What is the measured change in pollutant loads or concentration that will be
needed to document a real change in the water resource? Watershed systems are
highly variable and require as much as 40 to 60 percent reduction in concentrations
over 6 to 10 years before statistical trend tests will indicate the change is real.
• What is the land treatment required?
• What is an appropriate monitoring scheme to detect such changes?
The location of monitoring depends on:
• Type of study, e.g. source documentation, loading estimates, trend detection, com-
pliance.
• Study objective, e.g. measure only the impaired water resource and/or the inputs or
tributaries to the resource. If pollutant source identification is an objective, field
or subwatershed level monitoring is usually required.
• System type, e.g. fields, streams, rivers, lakes, ground water, etc.
• Scale of the water resource and watershed, e.g. field level vs. watershed level,
stream vs. lake.
• Monitoring station characteristics, e.g. hydrology, flow gaging record.
• Stratified system, e.g. vertical strata in lake sampling, horizontal strata in stream
sampling. Consider natural strata and the flow of water and associated pollutants
from side streams into larger streams and lakes.
The frequency of monitoring is a function of:
• Study objectives, e.g. to examine frequency of standards violations, enough samples
must be collected to determine probability of exceedence in the specified high or
low runoff conditions. Trend detection in concentration, on the other hand, may
require regular grab sampling over a long period of time. However, loading and
transport mechanism studies generally require continuous sampling using auto-
matic samplers.
• System type, e.g. monitor only during periods of the year when runoff occurs. A
complex and changing system may require more frequent sampling to capture the
true concentrations/loads over time.
• System variability, e.g. the greater the variability due to storms, season, runoff
events, the more frequently sampling is required.
22
-------
The length of monitoring is a function of the goals and objectives of the study:
• Short-term monitoring can be sufficient for: complaint investigations, source iden-
tification, standards violations, establishing guidelines.
• Long-term monitoring may be required for: planning and policy decisions, trend
detection, BMP effectiveness or land use effects on water quality, quantification of
the response time and mechanisms in the system. Watershed level monitoring may
require a longer period of monitoring than field level. Land treatment effects
demonstrated at a field level study may not be documented in a watershed level
study in the same timeframe.
To compare monitoring data over time, a consistent sampling protocol should be followed.
The types of sampling methods include:
• Grab samples. This is low cost and can be used to compare concentrations over
time. They are usually not sufficient for loading calculations.
• Depth and/or cross section integrated samples may be necessary to account for
stratification or other inhomogeneities.
• Flow weighted composite sampling.
• Time weighted composite sampling.
The types of watershed monitoring designs that can be effective for monitoring BMP effec-
tiveness include:
• Paired watershed. This design consists of monitoring downstream from two or more
agricultural drainages where at least one drainage has BMP implementation and
at least one does not. The paired drainages must have similar precipitation patterns.
Ideally, this design has the following characteristics: a) simultaneous monitoring
below each drainage; b) monitoring at all sites prior to any land treatment (calibra-
tion period) to establish the relative responses of the drainages; and c) subsequent
monitoring where at least one drainage area continues to serve as a control through
the land treatment period, i.e. receives significantly less land treatment than the
other drainage areas. The calibration period is generally 1-3 years depending on
the consistency across basins of magnitude and direction of water quality monitor-
ing data with respect to changes in hydrology and climate. An equally valid use of
the paired watershed design could be the following: monitor treated and untreated
basins for 2-3 years, then treat the untreated basin and continue monitoring for 2-3
years.
• Single watershed using a before-after monitoring scheme where monitoring is
performed for 2-3 years Pre-BMP and 2-3 years Post-BMP implementation. Year-
to-year variability in water quality parameter concentrations/loads is often greater
than the BMP induced change in water quality in any given year or season; longer
monitoring periods (pre- and post- BMP) are needed to account for year-to-year
variability.
23
-------
Chapter Two
• Single watershed monitoring above and below the pollutant sources. Monitoring
above a site can be used to correct for varying incoming pollutant sources not
related to the changes in land treatment in the study area. Varying levels of
consumptive use between monitoring points, however, may make interpretation
difficult. This technique is applicable to point source monitoring and may also be
useful in nonpoint source monitoring where a high correlation exists between
concentrations of the pollutant over time measured at the monitoring sites above
and below BMP implementation.
• Comparison of two watersheds with no control, i.e. both watersheds have BMP
implementation over the same timeframe. This is usually not effective for relating
water quality data to land treatment because there is no control and the relative
response of each watershed over time is not known. Therefore, comparisons made
may be due to the BMPs or due to other artifacts or variabilities in the two
watersheds.
• Comparison of multiple watersheds. This may be more useful when comparing
similar subwatersheds, especially when combined with the before-after and/or the
above-below designs.
• Nested watersheds, i.e. subwatershed within watershed. The nested subwatershed
can be treated and its outlet monitored for comparison with monitoring data from
the outlet of the entire watershed. The control area is represented by water quality
data monitored at the watershed outlet if the land use outside the nested subwater-
shed remains unchanged. The treated area is represented by the water quality data
from the nested subwatershed outlet. Calibration (before) and treatment (after)
periods are required.
Specific Types of Data to Collect
Hydrologic systems are highly variable. To detect a real change in water quality, one must
account for as much of the source of this variability as possible. This is essential not only for
determining statistically significant trends, but also for determining the magnitude and direc-
tion of the trends. There may be unidentified or unmeasured variables in the system (e.g. flow,
precipitation, ground water level) that distort the conclusion of the analyses, or yield highly
variable data from which no conclusions can be drawn. Water quality measurements are a
function of land use, hydrologic, meteorologic, and topographic factors. It is important to
measure as much information about these factors as possible with every water quality sample.
Accounting for some of the system variability by these factors will help detect real changes in
water quality over time. These include the changes in land use, not just the ones related to the
planned experiment or cost share programs.
At minimum, to detect changes in water quality over time and associate them with land
treatment/use changes, the data required include:
• The concentration of identified water pollutants. These water pollutants should
be associated with a use impairment in the water resource.
• Hydrologic/meteorologic and related chemical parameter variables, e.g. flow,
precipitation, ground water depth, salinity, conductivity, DO, temperature, pH.
24
-------
• Land treatment (cost shared and non-cost shared) and land use on a subwatershed-
season basis relative to the water quality monitoring stations. Land use data
includes set aside acreage, Conservation Reserve Program, changing herd size,
closure of animal operations, or implementation of non-contracted soil and water
conservation efforts. Contracting data alone do not reflect treatment actually
installed, therefore, information on actual land use and any land use changes is
needed. These data should reflect changes over time including adequate pre-BMP
information.
The water quality analyst seeks to match up the water quality data, the land treatment data,
the hydrologic data and other land use data. A paired relationship is best, but that may not be
possible. You may have ten or more grab samples in a season, requiring assumptions to
quantify the land use associated with the water quality monitoring data. The land use data is
presented best on asubwatershed basis in terms of the monitoring station for the subwatershed.
Some Considerations About Data Requirements and Statistical Tests
Association vs. Cause and Effect
A trend in the water quality data that is associated with BMPs does NOT alone document
a cause-effect link between BMPs and water quality.
A controlled experiment is the only way to confirm cause-effect relationships. Controlled
refers to eliminating or accounting for all the factors that may affect the response to the
treatment so the treatment effect alone can be isolated. Usually this control is obtained by
subjecting the entire system to the same conditions, varying only the treatment variable and
selecting replicates at random to assure that unmeasured sources of variability do not affect
the interpretation. Ideally, in a watershed study, this includes an experiment with both treated
and non- treated areas, repetitions, and each treatment being monitored for several years.
Except for projects that have paired watershed design, this is not generally being done in the
RCWP. A controlled experiment can be performed at the plot level but is very difficult to
obtain on a watershed level due to the limited resources and project goals calling for BMP
implementation in all critical areas. However, the RCWP offers many watersheds where
analyses of the land and water quality data can show strong associations between land use
changes and water quality changes. These studies have important implications for demonstrat-
ing BMP effectiveness on a watershed scale.
Associations can be defined as a change in water quality that is correlated to a change in
land use, specifically BMP implementation. Association is necessary but, 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, rainfall patterns, etc. However,
if the association is consistent, responsive, and has a mechanistic basis then causality may be
25
-------
Chapter Two
supported (Mosteller and Tukey, 1977). Consistency means that the relationship between the
variables holds in each data set in direction and amount. The data sets in RCWP include
different subwatersheds, multiple years, and multiple stations. Responsiveness means that one
variable will change accordingly if the other variable is changed in a known, experimental
manner. Mechanism refers to the step-by-step path from cause to effect with the ability to make
physical linkages at each step.
Possible Statistical Tests to Link Water Quality and Land Use
Regression:
Regression is a statistical technique whereby a dependent variable (Y) is regressed against
independent variables (Xs) to determine the extent of association that different Xs have with
Y. This includes multiple regression, analysis of covariance, multivariate regression, and time
series analyses. In agricultural NPS research, multiple regression can be used to determine
the extent to which the value of a water quality parameter (dependent variable, Y) is influenced
by land use or hydrologic factors (independent variables, Xs) such as crop type, soil type,
percentage of BMP coverage, type of BMPs, amount of rainfall, or time. A regression model
is used to test the significance of the correlation between land treatment/water quality
variables.
Analysis-of-covariance combines the feature of analysis-of-variance with regression.
Analysis of covariance is used to test the significance of the difference in mean values of a
variable between levels of a group variable (e.g. years, seasons) after adjusting for the effect
of other correlated variables (covariates). For RCWP water quality monitoring data, the mean
values of the pollutant of concern can be compared over years after correcting for covariates
such as precipitation, land use changes, and land treatment variables. If the land treatment
variables explain a significant amount of the annual variation in the pollutant after correction
for known changes in the system (e.g. precipitation, other land use changes), there is supporting
evidence that land treatment may be associated with water quality change.
Another example of an analysis-of-covariance technique is the paired watershed analysis.
The paired watershed approach is described under ‘Types of Watershed Monitoring Designs”
(p. 23). Pollutant concentration pairs are plotted with the treatment basin values on the Y-axis
and the control basin values on the X-axis. The concentration means for the calibration and
treatment periods are compared for differences. In addition, the slopes of the pollutant
concentrations plotted for both periods are tested for homogeneity. A change in slope and/or
mean value indicates that pollutant concentrations for the treatment watershed exhibited
different patterns, or magnitude, after BMP5 were applied as compared to the pre-BMP (or
calibration) period.
Multivariate regression models have several dependent variables (Ys). Multivariate
analyses are used to examine the extent to which different data populations overlap or diverge.
Also, these analyses are used to include the relationships between the dependent variables in
26
-------
simultaneous analyses. An application might be to examine the effect of different BMP
implementation programs on several water quality parameters.
Time series is a sequence of values in order of occurrence that can be characterized by
statistical distribution properties. Time series analyses can account for autocorrelation in the
residuals in a regression analysis and may be required to remove autocorrelation in the
observations. Autocorrelation is defined as the correlation of neighboring values in a time
series. If autocorrelation exists and a correction factor is not added to the regression model,
interpretations of the significance of the regression independent variables will be incorrect.
Time series analysis can also remove seasonal fluctuations in the data. A time series which
consists of a dependent variable (Y) can be regressed on a transfer function (a time series of
the independent variable, X) to show the effect on a system parameter (Yt) from an input
series (Xt).
Double-mass cuives:
A double-mass curve is a plot of accumulative distribution of one variable against the
accumulative distribution of another quantity during the same period. The plot will be a
straight line if the data are proportional; the slope of the line represents the constant of
proportionality between the quantities. A break in the slope of a double-mass curve means
that a change in the constant of proportionality between the two variables has occurred (Searcy
and Hardison, 1960).
Historically, this technique has been used to validate long precipitation series and detect
local inconsistencies between rain gages (Chow, 1964; Dunne and Leopold, 1978). The
records from a rain gage may not be representative due to change in location or exposure. The
double-mass curve is a plot of the accumulated annual totals over years of the suspect gage vs.
accumulated average aniiual totals from a representative group of nearby gages. Chow (1964)
recommends at least 10 stations be used in the representative group and that the record of
each of the station in the group be tested for consistency with the other stations by the
double-mass curve method to assure homogeneity in the data. If a break in the slope can be
related to changes in location of the gage, or other changes, then the annual precipitation
records before the change can be adjusted to make them more consistent with recent records
by multiplying the precipitation values by the ratio of the slopes of the two lines.
Chow (1964) and Dunne and Leopold (1978) caution that factors other than a change in
gage catch may have caused a real change in precipitation. Chow (1964) recommends that at
least 5 years of data be collected before a correction in the slope can be made and states that
the double-mass curve technique is not recommended for correction of storm or daily rainfall
amounts when data are missing.
The double-mass curve technique is being used by the Florida RCWP to compare phos-
phorus concentrations and cow numbers in subwatersheds over years. This allows for a visual
inspection of the possible effect of BMPs on phosphorus after accounting for changes in cow
numbers. A break in the curve would indicate a change in phosphorus concentrations due to
some factor other than changes in cow numbers.
27
-------
Chapter Two
Intervention analysis:
This is a complicated name for a simple concept. An intervention is an identifiable change
in the observed system that occurs over a short time period which is thought will have an
influence on measured variables (Ys). Intervention analyses can be used with linear regression
or time series models with the addition of explanatory (indicator or dummy) variables (X)
whose value are 0 or 1. An example could be a term in the regression model, X, which changes
from 0 to 1 when a dairy shuts down. Several exploratory variables can be used in the same
model (Brockleband and Dickey, 1986).
Principle component analysis:
Principal component analysis is a multivariate technique for examining relationships among
several quantitative variables. It can be used to reduce the number of variables in regression,
clustering, etc. (SAS Institute Inc. 1985). Given a data set with p numeric variables,p principal
components can be computed. Each principal component is a linear combination of the
original variables. The end result is that each of the principal component vectors are statisti-
cally independent and therefore can each be used independently each with 1 degree of
freedom.
Factor analysis is a type of principle component analysis. BIPLOT is one method to visually
plot the linear associations of the variables determined from principle component analyses.
Principle component analyses can be used to determine the relative importance of each
independent variable and determine the relationship among several variables. This technique
can be used in regression when there are too many X variables which are highly correlated to
each other, for example, multiple BMPs treating the same acres, precipitation, or stream flow.
Cluster and discriminant analyses:
Cluster analyses group variable and/or observations into similar categories. Discriminant
analysis is one example where observations are placed into defined groups based on a
classification variable. Cluster analyses can be used to understand and adjust for spatial
heterogeneity of water quality parameters. This may be necessary to study the transport of a
pollutant in a system or to remove the spatial component in order to detect changes over time.
Some Concepts to Remember When Linking Water Quality Data With
Land Use
• Monitor land use changes relative to monitoring stations. For example, on a
subwatershed basis. This will allow for a pairing of water quality data with land use
data.
• Year-to-year variability is so lar e that at least 2-3 years each of both pre- and post-
BMP water quality data is required to give an indication that the improvement in
water quality is related (i.e. associated) to land use changes in a consistent manner.
28
-------
• Seasonal effects may also be very large. This is due to seasonal land uses, seasonal
climatic changes, and field conditions that change during a year.
• In designing the monitoring system and subsequent statistical methods to detect
changes over time or differences between treatments, one needs to increase the
precision of the statistical analysis by removing as much as possible from the error
term and eliminating bias. Spatial or temporal variability and autocorrelation
should be accounted for because they can increase either the error or the bias of
the estimated parameters. Also, correction for as much of the data variability due
to meteorologic and hydrologic variables will reduce the residual errors and
improve the power of the tests. For example, information such as rainfall, ground
water levels, and stream flow need to be paired with water quality samples.
• All changes in land use need to be monitored, not just BMPs, to help identify the
water quality changes associated with BMPs alone. Land use changes such as
conversion of row crops to pasture, acreage set aside, Conservation Reserve
Program, changing in herd size or poultry flocks, closure of animal operations or
implementation of non-contracted soil and water conservation efforts are impor-
tant because they also affect water quality.
• Quantify land use and BMPs with units that can be paired with water quality data.
Examples include: acres treated by each BMP with consideration for relative
efficiency from overlapping BMPs, acres treated by the BMPs systems to minimize
double counting of land with multiple BMPs, tons of manure spread, miles of
fencing, acres served by fencing, pounds fertilizer applied, etc.
• Determine what errors are associated with the land use and water quality data. It
has been stated that “the data are only as good as the least reliable factor”. For
example, if you monitor water quality daily but only monitor the land use monthly,
the information gained will only be as good as the monthly mean or median of the
water quality. This is more than just sampling once per month. The mean is
composed of more than just one grab sample in one month. It is a best estimate of
central tendency and is derived from a distribution of samples.
References:
Brockleband, J.C. and D. Dickey. 1986. SAS System for Forecasting Time Series, 1986 Edition. SAS Institute
mc, Cary, North Carolina. 240 p.
Dunne, T. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in environmental planning. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Fran-
cisco. 8l8pp.
Gilman, C.S. Section 9: Rainfall. 1964. In: Handbook of applied hydrology: a compendium of water-resources
technology. Chow, Ven Te (ed.). McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. p. 9-26 to 9-27.
Mosteller, F. and J.W. Tukey. 1977. Data Analysis and Regression: A Second Course in Statistics. Addison-
Wesley Pub. Co., Reading, MA. 588 p.
SAS Institute Inc. SAS User’s Guide: Statistics, Version 5 Edition. 1985. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. 956 pp.
Searcy, J.K. and Hardison, C.H. 1960. Double-Mass Curves. U.S.G.S. Water Supply Paper 1541-B, 66p.
U.S.EPA, 1987. Section 305(b) Waterbody System User’s Guide. U.S. EPA, Monitoring and Data Support
Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
29
-------
Chapter Three
RCWP PROJECT PROFILES
This chapter contains profiles of all RCWP projects. Each profile provides a summary of
project characteristics and results, contributions to NPS control, lessons learned, a bibliog-
raphy of project documents, and project contacts. The information is based on 1987 annual
progress reports from RCWP projects.
Projects
Alabama — Lake Tholocco (RCWP 1)
Delaware — Appoquinimink River (RCWP 2)
Idaho — Rock Creek (RCWP 3)
Illinois — Highland Silver Lake (RCWP 4)
Iowa — Prairie Rose Lake (RCWP 5)
Kansas — Upper Wakarusa (RCWP 6)
Louisiana — Bayou Bonne Idee (RCWP 7)
Maryland — Double Pipe Creek (RCWP 8)
Michigan — Saline Valley (RCWP 9)
Tennessee/Kentucky — Reelfoot Lake (RCWP 10)
Utah — Snake Creek (RCWP 11)
Vermont — St. Albans Bay (RCWP 12)
Wisconsin — Lower Manitowoc River (RCWP 13)
Florida — Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough (RCWP 14)
Florida — Lower Kissimmee River (RCWP 14A)
Massachusetts — Westport River (RCWP 15)
Minnesota — Garvin Brook (RCWP 16)
Nebraska — Long Pine Creek (RCWP 17)
Oregon — Tillamook Bay (RCWP 18)
Pennsylvania — Conestoga Headwaters (RCWP 19)
South Dakota — Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett (RCWP 20)
Virginia — Nansemond - Chuckatuck (RCWP 21)
31
-------
Lake Tholocco — RCWP 1
Dale and Coffee Counties, Alabama
MLRA: P-133A
H.U.C. 031402-01
I. Major Contributions Toward Understanding the Effectiveness of NPS Control
Efforts
Voluntary farmer participation is possible even in an economically depressed agricultural area if practices
are acceptable and there is enthusiastic one-on-one contact by local agricultural agency representatives.
Water quality monitoring indicates that fecal coliform concentrations can be reduced significantly by treating
a few key animal operations.
II. Water Quality Goals and Objectives
The primary goal for Lake Tholocco is to reduce the fecal coliform bacteria count to a sustained level that
will allow whole body contact recreation. (The lake is closed to whole-body, water-contact recreation when
fecal coliform level exceeds 200/mi.) The second major goal is to reduce the sediment load to the lake by
reducing the average cropland erosion rate of 11 tons per acre to an average of 5 tons per acre.
Ill. Characteristics and Results
1. Project Type: RCWP
2. Timeframe: 1980-1991
3. Total Project Budget (for timeframe):
SOURCES: Federal
ACTIVIIY:
Cost-share 1.409.448
info. & Ed.
Tech. Asat.
Water Quality
Monitorina
4. Area (acres):
Watershed
Proiec .t
Critical
51,400
51,400
9,270
Farmer
Other 5
SUM:
563,780
0
1.973,228
0
40,000
52,250
355,626 0 0
State
0
0
62,000 10,000 0 35,000 107,000
SUM: 1,839,324 10,000 563,780 180,934 $2,594,038
a Soil & Water Conservation District, U.S Army, Alabama Dept. of Environmental Management &
U.S. Army Preventive Medicine Branch
32
-------
Lake Tholocco RCWP, Alabama
5. Land Use:
1i % Prolect Area % Critical Area
cropland 15 90a
pasture/range 7 NA
woodland 55 NA
urban/roads 4 NA
military reserve 19 NA
a estimated — 10% of critical area land use is shared by other categories (gully erosion, unpaved roads and road ditch
erosion)
6. Animal Operations in Project Area:
ODera lIon # Farms Total # Animals Total A.U
I-logs 20 4,000 1,200
7. Water Resource Type:
Lake Tholocco (600 acre impoundment) and tributary streams.
8. Water Uses and Impairments:
Lake Tholocco’s designated uses are swimming, fishing and wildlife. Watershed streams have a fish
and wildlife classification. The lake is used for recreation by over 100,000 people each year. Boating
and fishing account for about 20,000 user-days per year.
The lake was closed to body contact recreation for 85 days during 1979 due to high bacteria levels.
The lake has not been closed to contact recreation since then. Capacity of the lake is impaired by
sediment, which also impairs boating and water-skiing.
9. Water Quality at Start of Project:
Fecal coliform densities often exceeded 200/lOOmi in Lake Tholocco and 5000/lOOml in tributaries.
10. MeteorologIc and Hydrogeologic Factors:
a. Mean Annual Precipitation: 55 inches
b. USLE ‘R’ Factor: 400
c. Geologic Factors: The project area is located in the Lower Coastal Plain. Soils range from loamy
sands to fine sandy barns and are erosive when unprotected. Topography is rolling to steep. Much
of the cropland is on slopes too steep for row crop farming.
11. Water Quality Monitoring Program:
a. Timeframe: 1980-1990
b. Sampling Scheme: conducted by the Alabama Dept. of Environmental Management and the U.S.
Army
1. Location and number of monitoring stations: 7 lake stations and 9 tributary stations
2. Sampling Frequency: biweekly summer, monthly other times
3. Sample Type: grab
c. Pollutants Analyzed: suspended solids, turbidity, fecal coliform, total coliform, nitrate
d. Flow Measurements: began in 1983
33
-------
12. Crdical Areas:
a. Criteria:
— all confined animal systems without waste treatment measures installed
— sloping cropland without adequate water disposal systems
— pastureland adjacent to creeks eroding above tolerance
— woodland with gullying problems
— eroding roadbanks
— abandoned or active soil mining pits
b. Application of Criteria: The project has adhered to the critical area criteria in committing cost
share funds.
13. Best Management Practices:
a. General Scheme: Treat nearly all cropland; fix gullies; treat hog operations near streams
b. Quantified Implementation Goals: 6,953 acres, 8 swine operations
c. Quantified Contracting/Implementation Achievements:
Critical Area Project
Pollutant Treatment Treatment % Needs / Goals % Needs / Goals
Sources Nffls isal Contracted Installed
Acres Needing Treatment 9,270 6,953 80 / 107 64 / 85
HogFarms 11 8 64/88 64/88
# Contracts 115 96 83/99 NA/NA
d. Cost of BMPs:
Ave. Farmer Ave. RCWP
Share ISLI Share (S Total Cost (S
I perm. veg. cover 69/ac. 128/ac. 197/ac.
2 animal waste nlgmt. 675 ca. 12,800 Ca. 13,475 Ca.
4 terraces 44/ac. 176/ac. 220/ac.
5 diversions 20/ac. 79/ac. 99/ac.
6 grazing land prot. 1,630 ca. 4,900 Ca. 6,530 Ca.
7 waterways 215/ac. 870/ac. 1,085/ac.
8 cropland prot. 56/ac. 84/ac. 140/ac.
9 conservation tillage 33/ac. 97/ac. 130/ac.
10 stream prot. 22/ac. 90/ac. 112/ac.
11 perm. veg. cover 80/ac. 450/ac. 530/ac.
12 sediment retention,
erosion control struc. 440 ca. 3,960 Ca. 4,400 ea.
14 tree planting 11/ac. 33/ac. 44/ac.
16 pesticide mgmt. 2/ac. 6/ac. 8/ac.
e. Effectiveness of BMPs: Project estimates that sediment control BMPs have reduced average soil
loss on critical acreage to 6 tons/year.
14. Water Quality Changes:
Annual mean fecal coliform counts observed in Lake Tholocco have not exceeded 200/lOOmI (the State
standard) since 1982. Exceedances of the standard still occur in spring during high intensity rainfall
events.
15. Changes in Water Resource Use:
There is no documented change in water resource use since RCWP began. There have been no lake
closures due to high bacteria levels since 1980 and lake use has remained steady at approximately
100,000 user-days per year. Reduced sedimentation is thought to have protected boating and fishing
areas from degradation.
34
-------
Lake Tholocco RCWP, Alabama
16. Incentives:
a. Cost Share Rates: 75% for most practices
b. $ Limitations: $50,000
c. Assistance Programs: I&E activities. This project uses radio programs and newsletters to inform
the public about conservation programs.
17. Potential Economic Benefits:
a. On-farm: not evaluated
b. Off-farm:
1) Recreation: $65,000 - $195,000 per year
2) Water Supply: 0 - $5,000 per year
3) Commercial Fishing: 0
4) Wildlife Habitat: unknown
5) Aesthetics: unknown but positive
6) Downstream Impacts: 0
IV. Lessons Learned
This is an extremely economically depressed farming area with an average net farm income of only $6,400 in
1974. The success of the project in obtaining farmer participation shows that aggressive marketing by the
local agricultural agency personnel combined with water quality plans that integrate on-farm concerns can
work even under very economically depressed conditions.
V. Project Documents
1. Lake Tholocco Rural Clean Water Project Application. Dale and Coffee Counties, Alabama. July 15, 1979. Alabama Rural Clean Water
Coordinating Committee.
2. Water Quality Monitoring Rcport Lake Tholocco RCWP Project, Fiscal Year 1981. November 1981. Alabama Water Improvement
Commission.
3. 1982 Annual Progress Report, Lake Tholocco Rural Clean Water Program.
4. Water Quality Monitoring Report Lake Tholocco RCWP Project, Fiscal Year 1982. November 1982. Alabama Department of Environ-
mental Management.
5. 1983 Annual Progress Report, Lake Tholocco Rural Clean Water Program.
6. Water Quality Monitoring Report Lake Tholocco RCWP Project, Fiscal Year 1984. October 1984. Alabama Department of Environ-
mental Man agement.
7. 1984 Annual Progress Report, Lake Tholocco Rural Clean Water Program.
8. 1985 Annual Progress Report, Lake Tholocco Rural Clean Water Program.
9. 1986 Annual Progress Report, Lake Tholocco Rural Clean Water Program.
10. 1987 Annual Progress Report, Lake Tholocco Rural Clean Water Program.
VI. NWOEP Project Contacts
Water Quality Monitoring Land TreatmentlTechnicai Assistance
Mr. Victor Payne Mr. Bennie Moore
USDA - Soil Conservation Service USDA - SCS
P.O. Box 311 984C E. Andrews Ave.
Auburn, AL 36830 Ozark, AL 36360
tel. (205) 821-8070 tel. (205) 774-4749
35
-------
Appoquinimink River — RCWP 2
New Castle County, Delaware
MLRA: 149A
H.U.C. 020402-05
I. Major Contributions Toward Understanding the Effectiveness of NPS Control
Efforts
This project shows a declining trend in P concentration, attributable to BMPs. This appears to be due to a
high level of BMP implementation early in the project timeframe and a consistent water quality monitoring
effort at a stream station within the project area.
The project has also shown that farmers are willing to make adjustments in their practices to help improve
water quality.
II. Water Quality Goals and Objectives (ref. 7)
The project’s stated goal is to improve water quality in the Appoquinimink River Basin and the surrounding
region through control of nutrient loads, sediments, bacteria and chemical runoff from agricultural sources.
Ill. Characteristics and Results
1. Project Type: RCWP
2. Timeframe: 1980-1991
3. Total Project Budget (for timeframe):
Watershed Prolect
30,762 30,762
CrIlical
13,000
cropland
pasture/range
wetlands/Open water
woodland
urban/residential
% Project Area
63.7
4.1
13.6
13.1
55
% Critical Area
61.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
SOURCE:
ACTIVITY:
Cost-share
Federal State Farmer Other
845,401
0
426,109
0
Into.&Ed.
0
0
0
0
0
Tech.Asst.
53,549
0
0
78,077
131,626
Water QualIty
SUM:
1.271.150
SUM: 1,123,950
MonitorIng 225,000 0 0
4. Area (acres):
0
426,109
90,000
168,077
5. Land Use:
315,000
$1,718,138
36
-------
There are about 160 farms in the project area, mostly grain and vegetable producers. Eighty-five
percent of these farms are located in the critical area.
6. Animal Operations in Project Area:
Ooeration # Farms Total # Animals Total kU .
Daiiy 7 945 1323
Beef 2 293 293
Hog I NA NA
Poultiy 1 70,000 350
Most dairy, beef and hog operations are located along or near streams. None of the operations had
animal waste treatment facilities before the RCWP.
7. Water Resource Type:
lakes, streams, Appoquinimink River
8. Water Uses and impairments:
The lakes and streams of the Appoquinimink River watershed are used for recreation by approximately
1/2 million people who live within 20 miles of the watershed. Water uses include passive recreation
(sightseeing and birdwatching) and active recreation (fishing, hunting and boating). Contact recrea-
tional uses such as swimming have been constrained by degraded water quality at Silver Lake in recent
years.
Appoquinimink River water quality is fair. All lakes have eutrophic conditions with dense aquatic
vegetation and algal growth due to excessive nutrient concentrations.
9. Water Quality at Start of Project: (ref. 4)
The Appoquinimink River had high nutrient levels. All three impoundments were eutrophic.
Water Quality Characterization for the Appoquinimink River (1977)
Wiggins MIII Sliver Lake Noxontown
RL446 Pond Pond
Pollutant mg /I
Total IN 1.1 4.6 1.0
TKN 2.3 5.4 2.0
TP 0.4 0.2 0.2
ChI a --- 27.0 38.0
Fecal coliform standards (200/lOOmI) were typically violated throughout the watershed during ambient
conditions, even though point sources do not indicate violations of fecal coliform standards.
10. Meteorologic and Hydrogeologic Factors:
a. Mean Annual Precipitation: 45 inches
b. USLE ‘R’ Factor: 200
c. Geologic Factors: The watershed is underlain by deep sediments covering the bedrock. The surface
formation consists largely of medium to coarse sands and gravels. This formation is an important water
supply presently used as a potable water source for public and private supplies. The predominant soil
type is deep, well-drained and medium to coarse textured. Slopes are nearly level in the uplands and
steep near the stream channels.
37
-------
Appoquinimink River RCWP, Delaware
11. Water Quality Monitoring Program:
a. Timeframe: Monitoring began in 1980 at Wiggins Mill, in 1983 at Silver Lake and Noxontown
Pond. Groundwater monitoring began in 1984. Monitoring at the river and pond stations ended
in 1986. Groundwater monitoring ended in July 1987.
b. Sampling Scheme: Conducted by the University of Delaware, Agricultural Engineering
Department
1. Location and Number of Monitoring Stations:
a) Wiggins Mill Pond - one station to monitor a 2,200-acre subwatershed, approximately
1,200 acres of this subwatershed are in the critical area
b) Noxontown Pond, Silver Lake and Shallcross Lake - 3 stations for each waterbody (2
within the lake and 1 at the outlet)
c) Groundwater - 2 row crop sites, 2 potato field sites
2. Sampling Frequency:
a) monthly for baseline data development of all physical/chemical parameters and generally
bimonthly for biological indicators
b) three storm event samples collected seasonally
c) periodic water quality surveys taken at Silver and Shalicross Lakes
3. Sample Type: grab
c. Pollutants Analyzed: filtered and unfiltered N and P series, chl a, suspended and dissolved solids,
COD, DO, FC, FS, BOD.
d. Flow Measurements: taken with each sample at Wiggins Mill
e. Other: temperature, alkalinity, acidity, pH also measured
12. Critical Areas:
a. Criteria:
— soil erosion exceeds T value
— gully erosion (including ephemeral) is present
— concentration of animal wastes are 1,500 feet or less from a stream
— need for better farm management with respect to application of fertilizer, pesticides and animal
wastes
b. Application of Criteria: Critical area designation for individual contracts was determined by soil
conservationists using the above criteria on a field by field basis.
13. Best Management Practices:
a. General Scheme: Primary BMPs are conservation tillage, fertilizer management and pesticide
management. There is some implementation of animal waste management systems, primarily in the
areas of manure - holding structures and calibration of manure application equipment.
b. Quantified Implementation Goals: The project goal was to treat 9,750 acres of the 13,000 acre critical
area.
c. Quantified Contracting/Implementation Achievements: as of Sept. 30, FY87. (ref. 15)
Critical Area
Pollutant Treatment Project %Needs/Goals %Needs/Goals
Sources iQal 1 Contracted Imol emented
Acres NeedingTreatment 21,190 NA NA NA
Cropland 13,000 9,750 87.4/ll6 61.3/81.7 l
Dairies 7 S 42.9/60 42.9/60
# Contracts 160 80 48.1/96.3 46/92c
Not permitted to take further RCWP contracts in FY87.
a Based on total of 11,362 acres contracted for BMPi within cnticai area. This figure indudcs some acreage not contracted with cost share funds.
b Based on acreage covered under land treatment practices. The largest reported acreage (7,963; 1982) for BMP 9 was used for this purpose.
C Based on the amount of project funds utilized as of 9129/87 (92%) for implementation of projects.
38
-------
d. Cost of BMPs:
Ave. Farmer
Share (S
1 perm. veg. cover 85/ac.
2 animal waste mgmt. 10,110 ea,
5 diversions 1/It.
7 waterways 1,550/ac.
8 cropland protection 14/ac.
9 conservation tillage 13/ac.
11 perm. veg, on crit. acres 330/ac.
12 sediment retention,
erosion control structures 2,000 ea.
e. Effectiveness of BMPs:
1. Cost shared BMP installation for FY1986 saved 7,2.13 tons of soil on 977 acres (7 tons of soil
per acre).
2. Improved fertilizer and pesticide management (BMPs 15 & 16) has reduced the rate of P
application on cropiand to one-half the amount needed if P were broadcast applied.
Split N application for corn has minimized the opportunity for large amounts of N to wash
away soon after application.
3. Installation of manure holding structures allows farmers to store animal waste for timely
application to meet crop needs.
4. Meetings and printed fact sheets on how to calibrate fertilizer and pesticide application
equipment are expected to improve the calculation of correct amounts and rates for
application.
5. Changing tillage practices and implementation of BMPs which disturb less acreage has
resulted in a decrease of more than 60 percent in the concentrations of suspended solids
and total P reaching the stream. The BMPs credited with this effect include the following
practices: permanent vegetative cover, waterway, cropland protection system, conservation
tillage system, permanent vegetative cover for critical area, and erosion/water control
structure.
f. Non-RCWP Activities:
USDA’s P1K program resulted in the idling of 75 acres of cropland in the monitored watershed.
An additional 200 acres of cropland has also been idled by P1K. Monitoring results, however,
are believed to show minimal effects from these changes in practice. (ref. 15)
14. Water Quality Changes:
Suspended solids concentrations at Wiggins Mill have declined by 90% since 1980, for the three ponds,
however, little change has been observed. Total phosphorus concentrations have declined by 65-70%
since 1980. N03-N concentrations at Wiggins Mill have declined slightly the last three years.
Chlorophyll a concentrations have increased sharply the last three years in Wiggins Mill and have
increased through the sampling history for all three ponds (ref. 15).
15. Changes In Water Resource Use:
There are no documented changes in water use. However, swimming is not currently allowed in Silver
Lake due to high bacteria, and algae in Noxontown Pond impairs boating. Assuming the area is used
for recreation primarily by local residents and they would recreate at the state average, an additional
18,000 swimming user-days and 42,000 boating user-days could be possible if water quality improves
in the future (ref. 14).
39
-------
Appoquinimink River RCWP, Delaware
16. Incentives:
a. Cost Share Rates: up to 75%
b. Limitation: $50,000
c. Assistance Programs: fertilizer and pesticide management programs conducted by the Extension
Service.
17. Potential Economic Benefits:
a. On-farm: not evaluated
b. 0ff-farm:
1) Recreation: $15,000 - $180,000 per year.
2) Water Supply: 0
3) Commercial Fishing: 0
4) Wildlife Habitat: unknown
5) Aesthetics: unknown but positive
6) Downstream Impacts: unknown
IV. Lessons Learned
The project reports that implementation of BMPs existed prior to RCWP but no records are available that
track those accomplishments, thus the pre-project level of implementation is difficult to define. This factor
combined with the lack of baseline data in the sampling program may preclude demonstrating water quality
improvements as a direct result of BMP implementation under RCWP. The sampling program’s ability to
detect subtle changes in water quality may have been hampered by the timing of RCWP efforts in relation to
what had already been accomplished.
The project has shown that voluntary programs for BMP implementation have resulted in conservation tillage
becoming an acceptable practice for many farmers.
The water quality monitoring program results show that BMPs have decreased the total phosphorus and total
suspended solids concentrations in the Appoquinimink watershed.
V. Project Documents:
1. U.S. EPA National Eutrophication Survey Working Paper Series: Report on Silver Lake, New Castle County, Delaware. Working Paper
No. 240. June 1975.
2. State of Delaware. Water Quality Standards for Streams. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Amended
March 25, 1979.
3. Regional Nutrient Technical Advisory Committee. Recommendations for Reducing Losses of Applied Nutrients in Region Ill of the
EPA. 12/31179,
4. New Castle Conservation District and the Water Resources Agency for New Castle County. Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control Pro.
gram for the Appoquinimink River Basin. Rural Clean Water Program Proposal. Revised July 1979.
5. Water Resources Agency for New Castle County. Rural Clean Water Program Monitoring and Evaluation (DRAFT Plan). April 16,
1980.
6. RCWP Appoquinimink Project, New Castle County, Delaware. Monitoring and Evaluation Report. 1981.
7. RCWP Appoquinimink Project. New Castle County Delaware. Plan of Work Update for 1982.
8. Appoquinimink Rural Clean Water Program. Annual Progress Report. 1982.
9. RCWP Appoquinimink Project. New Castle County, Delaware. Annual Report. 1983.
10. Appoquinimink Project. New Castle County, Delaware. RCWP Progress Summary for Fiscal Year 1983. Plan of Work: Update for 1984.
11. RCWP Progress Summary for Fiscal Year 1984.
12. Ritter, W.F. and R.W. Lake. 1984 Summamy of Water Quality Monitoring in the Appoquinimink Watershed. Appendix D to RCWP
Progress Report.
13. RCWP Progress Summary for Fiscal Year 1985.
14. RCWP Progress Summary for Fiscal Year 1986.
40
-------
15. RCWP Appoquininiink Project. New Castle County, Delaware. Annual Report. 1987.
16. RCWP Progress Summaiy for Fiscal Year 1987.
17. Ritter, W.F. and R.W. Lake. 1987. Water Quality Monitoring in the Appoquinimink Watershed. Final Report for the Water Resources
Ageny for New Castle County.
VI. NWQEP Project Contacts
Water Quality Monitoring Land Treatment/Technical Assistance
Bruce Kraeuter Jack Lakatosh
Water Resources Agency USDA - SCS
2701 Capitol Trail 6 Peoples Plaza
County Engineering Building Newark, Delaware 19702
Newark, Delaware 19711 tel. (302) 834-3560
tel. (302) 731-7670
and
Bill Ritter
College of Agricultural Science
Department of Agricultural Engineering
Townsend Hall
Newark, Delaware 197 17-1303
tel. (302) 451- 2468
41
-------
Rock Creek - RCWP 3
Twin Falls County, Idaho
MLRA: B-i 1
H.U.C.: 170402-12
I. Major Contributions Toward Understanding the Effectiveness of NPS Control
Efforts
Information on the effectiveness of BMPs in an irrigated system has been gained from this project. After six
years of water quality monitoring, significant sediment concentration reductions have been found in at least
five subbasins, however, sediment concentrations have also increased in some basins. Biological monitoring
has been succesfully used to evaluate water quality changes. Additional documentation of the relationship
between land treatment and water quality is expected. Detailed analysis of this project is available in the
NWQEP--CM&E Report, 1985.
II. Water Quality Goals and Objectives
The project’s stated objective is to significantly reduce the amount of sediment related pollutants and animal
waste discharging into Rock Creek.
iii. Characteristics and Results
1. Project Type: RCWP, Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Project
2. Timeframe: 1981—1990 for water quality monitoring; BMP implementation will continue until 1996.
3. Total Project Budget:
SOURCE: Federal State Farmer Other
SUM
4,772,659
ACTIVITY:
Cost-share
2,689,413
2,083,248
Info. & Ed.
187,417
10,000
0
12,000
209,417
Tech. Aest.
1,213,336
15,000
0
47,685
1,276,021
Water Quality
Monitoring 110,000
SUM: 4,200,166
70,000
95,000
0
2,083,246
0
59,685
180,000
$6,438,097
4. Area:
Watershed Project
198,400 45,238
Critical
28,159
42
-------
a. Subbasins
Subbasin # Priority Total Acreage Total Critical Acreage
1 6 2,430 1,700
2 5 3,290 3,160
3 4 2,160 1,880
4 3 4,365 3,758
5 2 3,180 1,148
6 7 4,995 4,653
7 1 6,720 5,105
8 8 6,440 3,285
9 9 4,577 2,154
10 10 7,081 1,316
Total = 28,159
5. Land Use: (ref. 35 and 16)
% Prolect Area % Critical Area
cropland(irrigatcd) 74.5 100
(inciudcs alfalfa)
pasture/range NA NA
woodland NA NA
urban/roads NA NA
6. Animal Operations in Project Area: (personal communication, Bill Clark, Idaho DOE, Aug. 1986)
Oneration # Farnts Total # Animals Total A.U .
Dairy 34 6,800 6,800
Cattle 21 6,300 5,355
Mink 1 20,000 200
•Not thought to be a critical farm by the project.
7. Water Resource Type:
Irrigation canals and Rock Creek (approx. 20 miles) flowing into the Snake River.
8. Water Uses and Impairments:
Rock Creek provides diverse habitat for wildlife and is a popular stream for swimming, tubing and
fishing. Water-skiing and swimming are major recreational activities in the Snake River, 10-15 miles
downstream from the confluence with Rock Creek. Rock Creek receives irrigation return flow from
the RCWP project area.
The primary use impairments are to fishing and contact recreation in Rock Creek, and to irrigation
ditches, canals and drains which become clogged with sediment. Fishing use of Rock Creek in 1981
was about 500 fishing days compared to an estimated 8,000 if it were a quality trout fishery.
43
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
High sediment loads in Rock Creek may have created additional equipment and maintenance costs
for filtering sediment and removing gravel at the hydroelectric plant near the confluence of Rock Creek
with Snake River (personal communication, Bill Clark, Idaho DOE, 10/13/87). These costs are not
formally documented and are subject to debate. The muddy color of Rock Creek is an aesthetic
impairment which also effects the Snake River. The primary pollutants are sediment, phosphorus,
nitrogen and bacteria coming mostly from irrigation return flow and feedlot runoff. Sediment loads
entering the Snake River from Rock Creek do not appear to be significantly impairing downstream
reservoir capacity and causing increased cost of power generation. The nearest power plant which
relies on reservoir capacity is 120 miles downstream.
9. Water Quality at Start of Project:
1980 flow-weighted mean concentrations at the mouth of Rock Creek: (Monitoring site S-i)
Poltutnnt Concentration
TSS 158.0 mg/I (irrigation season only)
TI’ 0.123 mg/I (irrigation season only)
TN 3.3 mg/I (water year)
FC 1182.0 mpn (geometric mean)
10. Meteorologic and Hydrogeologic Factors:
a. Mean Annual Precipitation: 8.5 inches
b. USLE ‘R’ Factor: 20
c. Geologic Factors: The watershed is underlain by limestone, quartzite, shale, sandstone, granite and
metamorphosed sediments. The lower watershed (most of the farmed area) is underlain by basalt.
This formation yields large supplies of groundwater to the northeast. Soils in the project area are highly
erosive. Subsoils range from silty to loamy. Surface soils are generally medium textured. Slopes range
from nearly level to very steep on hill and mountain sides.
11. Water Quality Monitoring Program:
a. Timeframe: 1981 - 1990. Data collection scheduled to end at the end of the 1990 irrigation season.
b. Sampling Scheme: conducted by Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare
1. Location and Number of Monitoring Stations: Monitoring stations have been established on
Rock Creek since 1980, and at 6 of the 10 project subbasins since 1981. The subbasin
stations are located on irrigation ditches. Some of the subbasin stations have been
positioned in pairs at inlets from supply canals and at upstream and downstream
points to Rock Creek. There are 21 monitoring stations on irrigation ditches and 6
stations on Rock Creek. There was a monitoring station on the Twin Falls Main Canal
from 1980 - 1983. The project has initiated a study to determine if they should be assesing
conservation tillage pesticide use on groundwater. The project has begun to monitor ground water.
2. Sampling Frequency: Biweekly to weekly at the Rock Creek and and subbasin stations
during the irrigation period. Monthly monitoring is performed during the non-irrigation
season on Rock Creek (the drains are dry during that time period).
3. Sample Type: grab samples
c. Pollutants Analyzed: TP, UP, TSS. FC, TKN, inorganic-N for the Rock Creek and the subbasin
samples. Additional parameters are analyzed on Rock Creek including macroinvertebrates,
fish population analysis, pesticides, metals and substrate sediment.
d. Flow Measurements: instantaneous flow taken with each grab sample. A USGS gauge records
flows on Rock Creek at station S-2.
44
-------
12. Critical Areas:
a. Criteria: All the irrigated cropland and animal production facilities are considered critical. The 10
subbasins within the project area were prioritized by project personnel. In addition, NWQEP examined
the relative upstream- downstream water quality in subbasins 1,2,4,5, and 7. Subbasins 2 and 7 and the
subbasin drained by sampling stations 4-4 and 4-3 have additional potential for sediment reduction.
These subbasins and subbasin 5 also have potential for improvement in FC, phosphorus, and nitrogen
levels.
b. Application of Criteria: The implementation of BMPs has not followed the order of subbasin priority
because of economic conditions and the desire to issue contracts in the order that applications were
received.
13. Best Management Practices:
a. General Scheme: Focus during 1981-1984 was on sediment retention structures and irrigation
management systems with some permanent vegetative cover on critical areas (BMPs 12, 13, and 11).
Several other practices were approved, but few were implemented (i.e., BMPs 2, 9, 15, and 16). For
the duration of the project, through 1991, emphasis has shifted to conservation tillage (BMP 9) and
animal waste management (BMP 2).
b. Quantified Implementation Goals: The project goal is to install BMPs on 75 percent of the criti-
cal erosion acres within 10 years. The deadline for contracts was September 30, 1986. However,
amendments to existing contracts will add conservation tillage beyond that date. It appears the im-
plementation may fall short of the stated goal, especially in animal waste management.
c. Quantified Contracting/Implementation Achievements: as of 9/30/87 (Ref. 46)
Critictd Area
Pollutant Treatment Project %NeedWGoals %Needs/Goals
Sources Contracted Imniement ed
Acres Needing Treatment 28,159 21,119 75.3/100 42/56
Dairies 8 8 25 NA
Feedlots 17 17 118 NA
ConscrvationTillage 10,000 10,000 30 11
# Contracts 235 176 77.5/103 9.8/13.1 ’
a In addition, a significant amount ot partially completed contracta eatit
Achievements for Individual Subbasins: (ref. 46)
Subbasin % Critical Area Coniracted
1 1,700 90
2 3,160 52
3 1,880 62
4 3,750 71
5 1,148 63
6 4,653 81
7 5,505 67
8 3,285 91
9 2,154 82
10 1,316 105
45
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
d. Cost of BMPs:
Costs of implementing principal BMPs were estimated in terms of the total change in variable and
fixed costs per acre. Least costly were conservation tillage and irrigation water management
(IWM), which actually reduced total costs:
S/Acre chanee in cost/yr .
9 Conservation tillage $33 cost savings
13 IWM $4 cost savings
11 Filter strips $2 cost savings
12 Sediment retention $9-IS added cost
13 Irrigation structures $20.48 added cost
e. Effectiveness of BMPs:
With 75% of the critical area under treatment, expected decreases in pollutant loads to Rock Creek
from subbasins are estimated at 70 percent sediment, 70 percent TI ’ and 65 percent toxics (mostly
pesticides) (ref. 35, p.2). These estimated reductions appear to be feasible based on water quality data
analysis already conducted (NWQEF, 1985).
Sediment reduction coefficients for the sediment retention BMPs have been developed by the
USDA-ARS at Kimberly, ID. Mini-Basins, I-slots, sediment basins, and buried pipe runoff were
effective with coefficients between 75 and 92 percent. Vegetative filter strips have a coefficient of 50
percent, irrigation improvements 5 to 40 percent, and conservation tillage 60 percent.
Management practices are by far the most cost-effective for reducing sediment loss on a per acre basis:
$Change in cost/acre per one %
reduction in sediment/acre
9 Conservation tillage $0.55 reduced cost
13 IWM 0.11 reduced cost
11 Filter strips 0.04 added cost
12 Sediment retention 0.09-0.17 added cost
13 Irrigation structures 0,48-5.20 added cost
f. Non-RCWP Activities:
Some landowners have implemented BMPs on thier own without RCWP funding.
14. Water Quality Changes:
Suspended sediment has decreased significantly in five of six subbasins studied over the project
timeframe: however, 1986 and 1987 data show an increase in sediment in some subbasins. Severe
streambank erosion on the upper reaches of Rock Creek may be masking some of the effect on Rock
Creek.
Efforts to monitor streambank erosion continued in 1987 showing that over 50% of Rock Creek has
streambank erosion problems. Bulk density measurements of streambank soils were very low ranging
from 1.05 to 1.22 glcm 3 and were considered a major cause of high streambank erosion. Streambank
erosion in 1987 was about two-thirds below 1986 conditions due to spring drought.
Between 1985 and 1987, the standing crop (fish/rn 2 ) for rainbow and brown trout continued to increase
at almost all stations. Fish in Rock Creek were sampled in 1987 for pesticides; however, concentrations
appear to be below public health and ecological levels of concern and no changes from previous
sampling were apparent.
Based on a model of the watershed, full implementation of the project as contracted would reduce
sediment loadings to Rock Creek by 20 to 31 percent compared with pre-project conditions. Modifica-
tion of contracts to implement 10,000 acres of conservation tillage is expected to reduce sediment
loadings by 52 to 63 percent (ref. ERS, 1987).
46
-------
15. Changes in Water Resource Use:
A 52-63 percent reduction in sediment loadings should help restore Rock Creek as a quality trout
fishery, increasing fishing days per year from 500 prior to the project up to possibly 8,000. Other
recreational uses of Rock Creek and the Snake River would be enhanced, but not so directly or
dramatically as the fishery.
16. Incentives:
a. Cost Share Rates: 50 or 75 % depending on the practice
b. $ Limitations: $50,000 maximum on sediment retention and agricultural waste control systems, less
for other BMPs
c. Assistance Programs: The University of Idaho has demonstration and research plots for conserva-
tion tillage. Researchers at the USDA-ARS station at Kimberly, Idaho have conducted extensive
research on conservation tillage as a management practice for southern Idaho. There is a need for
better technical assistance for animal waste management. A full-time SCS position for I & E activities
was created in 1986 and will continue until the end of the project. The project publishes a newsletter,
creates media contacts, and promotes publicity.
d. Other Incentives or Regulations: The General Permit for Confined Animal Feeding Operations in
Idaho (EPA Region X) was passed into law in June 1987. Since the deadline for BMP contracts was
September 1986, the new law will not have the significant incentive to implement animal waste
management that was hoped. Fines for violating the permitting system may, however, speed implemen-
tation of animal waste management. Existing contracts can still be modified, to include BMP2.
17. Potential Economic Benefits:
a. On-farm: Farmers are gaining soil productivity (long term yield) maintenance benefits from
conservation tillage and irrigation practices which keep soil in place in the fields. Conservation tillage
also reduces short-term costs. Farmers also get depreciation on income tax deductions for the
structural measures installed. Modification of contracts to add additional conservation tillage (CT)
could substantially increase on-farm benefits over 50 years: (ref. 40)
Project as Project wIth 10,000
contracted 9/86 acres ot CT
Benefits: ( In million S Dresent value
Cost share payments received 1.2 1.3
Short & long term yield benefits 1.0 1.9
Tillage cost reduction 0.3 1.2
Tax savings on BMPs 0.9-tO 09-1.0
Gross benefits 3.4-35 5.3-5.4
Less Cost of Benefits 2.8-3.1 28.11
Net on-farm Benefits 0.60.0.4 23-2.3
b. Off-farm: Estimated beneftis over 50 years are:
Project as Project with 10,000
contracted 9/86 acres ot CT
Benefits: ( In million S nresent value
Improved water recreation 0.3-03 0.8-1.0
Water supply and treatment N/A N/A
Commercial fishing N/A N/A
Improved hunting (habitat
benefit of CT) negligible 0.2
Reduced ditch cleaning costs 0.1 0.3
Aesthetic benefits not measured not measured
Reduced power generation costs negligible negligible
Total Off-Farm 0.4-0.6 1.3-13
47
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Ida ho
c. Benefits versus Costs: (over 50 years)
Project as Project with 10,000
contracted 9/86 acres or CT
Benelils: ( in million S nresent valuel
On-farm benefits total 0.6-0.4 23-2.3
Off-farm benefits total 0.4-0.6 1.3-13
Total benefits 1.0 3.8
Government Costs 1.9 2.1
Total benefits minus cost —0.9 1.7
IV. Lessons Learned:
Project’s such as this can succeed on a voluntary basis. Landowners who don’t participate, however, can
adversely impact the project. Also, landowner participation outside project contracts, while good, can
complicate data analysis. (ref. 46)
Based on results from this project, irrigation canals appear to respond faster to land treatment than do
streams and non-irrigated, humid areas. This is probably due to a relatively low variability in the hydrologic
factors associated with the irrigated system, and to greater control of the water resource. Further com-
parisons with other projects will help to test this hypothesis. Although analyses showed less variability existed
in the water quality and flow data of this project compared to projects in humid regions, a 40-60 percent
decrease in mean concentrations over a period of 4 to 5 years is still necessary to have a statistically significant
change in the water quality of irrigation canals. Data variability is likely to be greater in the Rock Creek and
Snake River systems which are more strongly influenced by meteorologic factors. Adjusting for sources of
variability (i.e., upstream concentration) has allowed more efficient monitoring to document the water quality
changes.
Water quality monitoring was used successfully to quantify sediment loads to the impaired resource from
subbasins and to indicate the subbasins that could most benefit from BMPs.
Results from the nearby LQ Drain project show that significant reductions in sediment loads may be lost if
sediment retention devices are not properly maintained. It is possible that a similar situation could develop
in the Rock Creek RCWP. Conservation tillage techniques to reduce in-field erosion are receiving increased
emphasis as an effective, low-cost alternative to structural practices for improving water quality; however,
the CT adoption rate, is still very low after four years of cost share availability. Many farmers reject CT
because it is a non-traditional farming method. Custom operators who farm rented land do not have an
economic incentive to practice CT. Most of the crops grown in the project area are dry beans (garden and
commercial seed varieties) and sugar beets. Contractors for dry beans know that conventional tillage methods
yield good bean crops and they are prone to contract with farmers who practice conventional methods. While
there are several surface applied herbicides registered for use on soybeans, there are no such products
registered for dry beans. This is a deterrent to adopting CT. (personal communication with Dr. David Carter,
USDA-ARS, Kimberly, Idaho, Oct. 6, 1987).
Off-farm economic benefits from water quality improvement in Rock Creek are limited because no large
scale recreational or municipal uses are impaired. Even though off-farm benefits may be small, additional
implementation of conservation tillage could result in total benefits of the project exceeding costs, and.would
certainly have done so if the practice could have been implemented earlier in place of the less cost-effective
irrigation structures.
V. Project Documents:
1. Idaho Department of Health. May 1960. Report on Pollution in Rock Creek: Cassia and Twin Falls Counties, Idaho 1959. Idaho Depart.
ment of Health, Engineering and Sanitation Section, Boise, ID. 30 p.
2. U.S. EPA. February 1973. Report on Effects of Waste Discharges on Water Quality of the Snake River and Rock Creek Twin Falls
Area, Idaho. USEPA, Office of Enforcement, National Field Investigations Center, Denver Colorado. 54 p.
48
-------
3. Itami, B., W. Johnson, J. Miller, G. Hage, J. Scring, J. Atkins, J. Bcdc, T. Iverson, JJ. Kuska, W.H. Snyder, RWells. May 1974. Rock
Creek Recreational Resource Inventory and Analysis. 3 p.
4. Clark, W.H. 1975. Water Quality Status Report Rock Creek, Twin Falls County, Idaho 1970-1974. Division of Environment, Idaho Dept.
of Health and Welfare, Boise, Idaho. 69 p.
5. Baucr, S.B. April 1979. Water Quality Status Report: Upper Rock Creek (Twin Falls and Cassia Counties). Department of Health and
Welfare, Division of Environment, Boise, Idaho. 9 p.
6. Idaho Soil Conservation Commission, April 1979. Idaho Agricultural Pollution Abatement Plan. 79 p.
7. Application for Rural Clean Water Program Funds: Rock Creek, Twin Falls County, Idaho. July 1979. Submitted by John V. Evans,
Governor of Idaho. Prepared by Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environment. 53 p.
8. Plan of Work: Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Project, Twin Falls County, Idaho. July 1980. 58 p.
9. Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare. Idaho Water Quality Status Report 1980. April 1981. Division of Environment (DOE), Bureau of
Water Quality. 40 p.
10. Rural Clean Water Project Monitoring Plan, Rock Creek, Twin Falls County, Idaho. December 1980. Soil Conservation Service,
Economic Statistical Service, Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare: DOE, and Science Education Administration. 30 p.
11. Annual Report: Rock Creek RCWP Intensive Monitoring. 1981.
12. Intensive Monitoring Work Plan: Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Project. July, 1981.
13. llrock-way, CE., F.J. Watts, and C.W. Robison. November1981. Annual Report: Development of a Sediment Generation and Routing
Model for Irrigation Return Flow, Rock Creek Intensive Monitoring Program. University of Idaho: Dept. of Agricultural Engineer-
ing and Dept. of Civil Engineering, and Idaho Water and Energy Resources Research Institute, Kimberly Idaho. lop.
14. Socioeconomic Monitoring and Evaluation Progress Report for FY 1981, Rock Creek RCWP Project - Idaho. Januaiy 1982.
15. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Project Annual Progress Report. October 1, 1982. 12 p.
16. Description of Project Area. 1982. 11 p.
17. Executive Report -Annual Report 1982: Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation of Rock Creek RCWP. November 1982. 5 p.
18. Martin, D.M. and S. Bauer. September 1982. Water Quality Monitoring Assessment of the Rural Clean Water Program: First Year
Baseline Report, Rock Creek, Water Year 1981. Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare, DOE, Boise Idaho. 51 p.
19. Carter, D.L. and RD. Berg. 1982. Rock Creek Intensive Monitoring Project: ARS Activities Report for 1982.
20. Brockway, CE., Fi. Watts, CE. Robison, R.P. Sterling. November, 1982. Annual Report: Development of a Sediment Generation and
Routing Model for Irrigation Return Flow. University of Idaho: Dept. of Agricultural Engineenng and Dept. of Civil Engineering,
and Idaho Water and Energy Resources Research Institute, Kimberly Idaho. 54 p.
21. Evens, C. November 1982. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Project Report on Information and Education Activities. University of
Idaho. 6 p.
22. Walker, Di., J. Hamilton, and P. Patterson. September, 1982. Annual Report Fiscal Year 1982: Economic Evaluation of the Rock
Creek Idaho RCWP.
23. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Project Annual Progress Report: Executive Summary. October 1, 1983. USDA and SCS. Boise Idaho.
21 p.
24. Martin, D.M. 1983. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Annual Report. (Attachment
I of 1983 Annual Progress Report). Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare, DOE, Boise, Idaho 83720. 85 p.
2.5. Carter, D.L 1983. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Project Intensive Monitoring Project: Report of ARS Activities for 1983. Attach-
ment II of the 1983 Annual Progress Report. 4 p.
26. Brockway, CE., FJ. Watts, C.W. Robison, RP. Sterling, V.L Watkins. October 1983. Development of a Sediment Generation and
Routing Model For Irrigation Return Flow. Attachment III of the 1983 Annual Progress Report. University of Idaho: Dept. of
Agricultural Engineering and Dept. of Civil Engineering and Idaho Water and Energy Resources Research Institute, Kimberly Idaho.
44 p.
27. Brockway, C.E., FJ. Watts, C.W. Robison, R.P. Sterling, V.L Watkins. October 1983. Development of a Sediment Generation and
Routing Model For Irrigation Return Flow. Attachment IV of the 1983 Annual Progress Report. Appendix Ito attachment III. LO
Drain, An Experiment in Irrigation Return Flow Water Quality Improvement. Attachment IV of the 1983 Annual Progress Report.
University of Idaho: Dept. of Agricultural Engineering and Dept. of Civil Engineering, and Idaho Water and Energy Resources Re-
search Institute, Kimberly Idaho, 69p.
28. Gum, RL October 1983. Annual Report: Socioeconomic Evaluation of Rock Creek RCWP. Attachment V of the 1983 Annual
Progress Report. Economic Research Service. 5p.
29. Hamilton, J., P. Patterson, Di. Walker. September 1983. Economic Evaluation of the Rock Creek Idaho RCWP project. Attachment
VI of the 1983 Annual Progress Report. Dept. of Agricultural Economics, University of Idaho. 46 p.
30. Martin, D.M. 1983. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program - Idaho. ASAE paper No. 83-2449.
49
-------
Rock Creek RCWP, Idaho
31. Gum R.L. October 1982. Annual Report: Socioeconomic Evaluation of Rock Creek RCWP. Economic Research Service. 34p.
32. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program Annual Progress Report: Executive Summary. 1984. 33p.
33. Martin, D.M. 1984. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Annual Report. Idaho Dept.
of Health and Welfare, DOE, Boise, Idaho 83720. 151 p.
34. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program Annual Progress Report: Executive Summary. 1985. 32 p.
35. Clark, W.H. 1985. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Annual Report. Idaho Dept. of
Health and Welfare, DOE, Boise, Idaho 83720. 153 p.
36, Kasal, J. and R. Magleby. 1985. Economic Evaluation Progress Report for FY85, Rock Creek, Idaho RCWP Project. Economic Re-
search Service, USDA. 29 p.
37. Bauer, S.B. 1985. Pilot Study of Quality Assurance Sample Procedures for Division of Environment Water Quality Surveys. Idaho
Dept. of Health and Welfare, DOE, Boise, Idaho. 41 p.
38. USDA, Mi. Neubeiser, W.H. Clark, D.L. Carter, R. Magleby, and ASCS, 1987. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program 1986 Annual
Progress Report. 3lpp.
39. Clark, W.H. 1986. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program: Comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring Report, 1981-1986. Idaho
Dept. of Health and Welfare, Division of Environment, Boise, Idaho. 14’lpp.
40. Kasal, J., R. Magleby, D. Walker, and R. Gum, 1987. Economic Evaluation of the Rock Creek, Idaho, Rural Clean Water Project.
Economic Research Service, USDA.
41. Gum, It and S. Garifo. Recreation Impacts of Improved Water Quality In Rock Creek. Unpublished background paper. Economic Re-
search Servicc/RTD, USDA. 1984. 5 Op.
42. Kelly, S. and R. Gum. Income Distribution and the Rural Clean Water Project. Unpublished background paper. Economic Research
Service/RTD, USDA. l 984 . 9 p.
43. LaPlant, D., D. Martin, L. Wear, and R. Gum. Wildlife Habitat Impacts. Unpublished background paper. Economic Research Ser-
vice/RTD, USDA. 1984. 2lp.
44. Walker, D. P. Paterson, J. Hamilton. Costs and Benefits to Improving Irrigation Return Flow Water Quality in Rock Creek, Idaho,
Rural Clean Water Project. Research Bulletin no. 139. Agricultural Research Station, University of Idaho. 1986. 30 p.
45. Young, CI. and R.S. Magleby. 1987. Agriultural Pollution Control: Implications from the Rural Clean Water Program. Water Resour-
ces Bulletin, 34(4):701-707.
46. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program Annual Progress Report - 1987. Co-authored by Soil Conservaton Service, Soil Conservation
Districts, Idaho Department of Health, Welfare-Division of Environment, Agricultural Research Service, and Agricultural Stabiliza-
tion, and Conservation Service. 84 p.
47. Clark, W.H. 1987. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program Comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring Annual Report. January 1988.
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environment, Boise, Idaho. 226p.
48. Clark, W.H. 1989. Rock Creek Bibliography Water Quality Related Publications. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program, Idaho.
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environment, Boise, Idaho. lOOp.
Vi. NWQEP Project Contacts
Water Quality Monitoring Land Treatment/Technical Assistance
Terry Maret and Rick Yankey
William (Bill) H. Clark Rock Creek RCWP
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality Soil Conservation Service
Dept. of Health and Welfare 634 Addison Ave. W.
450 West State Street Twin Falls, ID 83301
Boise, Idaho 83720 tel. (208) 733-5380
tel. (208) 334-5860
Information and Education Economic Evaluation
Gayle Stover Richard Magleby
Information and Education Specialist Economic Research ServiceIRTD
Rock Creek RCWP U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service 1301 New York Ave., NW, Rm. 532
634 Addison Ave. W. Washington, DC 20005-4788
Twin Falls, ID 83301 tel. (202) 786-1435
tel. (208) 733-5380
50
-------
Highland Silver Lake - RCWP 4
Madison County, Illinois
MLRA: M-114
H.U.C. 071402-04
I. Major Contributions Toward Understanding the Effectiveness of NPS Control
Efforts
This project has shown that although BMPs may be successful in reducing sediment load to a lake, they may
not improve the lake’s water quality problem. A large part of the turbidity problem in Highland Silver Lake
is caused by in-lake resuspension of fine sediment particles and the tendency for charged particles of natric
soils to remain in suspension. RCWP efforts are unlikely to reverse this water quality impairment. The
importance of controlling the fine particle sediment load to the lake has been demonstrated by this project.
The project has demonstrated that effective field site and stream water quality monitoring is heavily
dependent on accurate identification of influential variables, careful documentation of land treatment
activity, length of monitoring timeframe, and adequate collection of storm event data.
Water quality models (CREAMS and AGNPS) used by the project have proven to be effective tools for
planning and evaluating activities such as critical area identification and land treatment strategy selection.
(For more information see the RCWP Status Report on the CM&E Projects, 1985, pp. 65-78.)
ii. Water Quality Goals and Objectives
1) Reduce sediment delivered to the lake by 60 % (with parallel reductions in P and organic N) — based on
pre-project watershed gross erosion rate of 7.6 tons/acre/year and sediment delivery rate of 25% (ref. 2)
2) Increase transparency in lake to greater than 2 feet and reduce suspended soilds to less than an average
0125 mgfl. (ref. 33)
Ill. Characteristics and Results
1. Project Type: RCWP, Comprehensive Monitoring & Evaluation Project
2. Timeframe: 1980—1990
3. Total Project Budget (for timeframe): (ref. 29, form RCWP 5)
SOURCE: Federal State Farmer Olher
ACTIVITY: SUM:
Coal-char. 1.974.363
Info. & Ed.
47,738
0
0
0
•
47,738
Tech. Aset.
462,560
0
0
109,427
571,987
Waler Quality
Monitoring
1,479,483
3,846
0
245,963
1,729,292
SUM: 3,492,153 6,846 466,990 355,390 $4,323,379
51
-------
4. Area (acres):
Watershed Project Critical
30,946 30,348 6,525
5. Land Use:
% Project Meg % Critical Area
cropland 82 100
pasture/range 5
woodland 4
other 9
6. Animal Operations in Project Area: (ref.29)
Operation # Farms Total # Animals Total A.U .
Beef 944
Dairy 760
Swine 1,178
Project area has 35 animal operations and 21 are designated critical.
7. Water Resource Type:
Highland Silver Lake (600-acre impoundment) and tributaries
8. Water Uses and Impairments: (ref. 1)
Highland Silver Lake is a public water supply for about 8,500 residents in the county. Several industrial
firms located in the city of Highland also use the lake for water supply. Non-contact recreational use
of the lake includes boating, fishing, and waterfowl hunting. In 1979, the lake supported an estimated
42,600 angler-days.
Use of the lake is impaired by sediments, nutrients and toxics. High turbidity levels are caused by
suspension and resuspension of fine natric soil particles. Lake volume is being lost to sedimentation.
Excessive nutrient concentrations contribute to eutrophic conditions. Agricultural chemicals in sur-
face runoff entering the lake are a public health concern.
9. Water Quality at Start of Project: (ref. 10, p. 111-43)
Average water quality from Site 1, nearest the water intake at the base of the lake (May 1981 - April
1983).
Parameter i n
1’SS 27.8 mg / I 18
Turbidity 57.4 mg/I 17
Secchi 11.4 inches 17
TP 0.18 mg/I 18
TN 2.0 mg/i 18
ChI a 6.26 ug/I 17
10. Meteorologic and Hydrogeologic Factors:
a. Mean Annual Precipitation: 40.5 inches
b. USLE ‘R’ Factor: 200
c. Geologic Factors: Soils in the project area are almost entirely glacial in origin. Topography ranges
from nearly level to very gently sloping.
52
-------
Highland Silver Lake RCWP, Illinois
11. Water Quality Monitoring Program:
a. Timeframe: conducted by Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and Illinois Dept. of Energy
and Natural Resources - State Water Survey
1) lake - May 1981 to 1990
2) streams - Jan. 1982 to Oct. 1984
3) field sites - spring 1982 to Oct. 1984
b. Sampling Scheme:
9 lake sites (5 main lake & 4 bay sites) sampled monthly
1 lake outflow site sampled daily (MWF) with automatic sampler
3 stream sites sampled daily (MWF) with automatic samplers
8 field sites sampled during events with automatic samplers
c. Pollutants Analyzed:
Daily (MWF) TSS,TVS, Turb., Temp., DO, pH & Conductivity sampled at tributary &
spiliway sites
Semimonthly -- TSS,TVS,Turb., TP, DP, TKN, N03, N02, Temp., DO, pH, Conductivity
sampled at tributary & spiliway
Monthly -- ICAP metals sampled at tributary & spillway / TSS, TVS, Turb., TP, TKN, DP,
N03, NO 2 , NH3, Temp., DO, pH, Conductivity, Total alkalinity, Chi a, ICAP sampled at
lake sites
Events -- TSS, TVS, Turbidity, TKN, TP were sampled at tributary & field sites
d. Flow measurements:
1) spillway - daily
2) streams - continuous
3) field sites - event
e. Other:
1) precipitation at 3 sites within watershed
2) 3 stream sites biologically sampled twice a year
3) 1 channel and streambed survey
4) 1 lake sedimentation survey (1982)
12. Critical Areas:
a. Criteria: (1) crop and pasture lands composed of natric soils with fine particle size and high
erodibility and slopes greater than 2%. (2) crop and pasture lands of non-natric soils with slopes greater
than 5% with high erodibility and close proximity to water course. Feedlots are also prioritized
according to the number of animal Units and distance to stream. These criteria were found to be an
accurate assessment of high pollutant source areas according to the AGNPS modeling results.
b. Application of Criteria: The criteria were followed carefully in selection of farm fields for contract.
13. Best Management Practices:
a. General Scheme:
Project uses practices that increase ground cover, decrease the velocity of
surface runoff, and improve the management of livestock waste (i.e., RCWP BMPs 1, 2, 4, 5,
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15).
b. Quantified Implementation Goals:
The project established a goalbf treating 75% of the ritical areas, which is equal to 4,894 acres.
Apply waste management systems on 10 swine, 5 beef, and 5 dairy operations. Implementation
goals for each BMP were also established.
53
-------
c. Quantified Contracting/Implementation Achievements: (through FY1987) (ref.30, Tables 1 & 2)
Critical Area
Pollutant Treatment Project % Needs / Goals % Needs / Goals
Sources Contracted Installed
Acres Needing Treatment 6,525 4,894 82 / 109 62 / 83
Beef 695A.U. 521A.U. 119/158 107/143
Dairy 727A.U. 545A.U. 80/107 63/84
Swine a 1,116A.U. 837A.U. 23/31 103/138
#Contracts 125 94 89/118 89/118
a includes animal unit, treated through RCWP and non-RCWP actMties
d. Cost of BMPs:
Ave. Annual Gov’t
Expected Cost/Acre
Average Treated or
Lire (vearsi BeneFited (Si
I Permanent Veg. Cover 5 24
4 Terraces 10 24
5 Diversions 10 22
7 Grassed Waterways 10 5-6
9 Conservation Tillage 4-20 22-4
11 Critical Area Cover 5 8-9
12 Sediment Retention System 10 24
15 Fertilizer Management 3-10 4-1
(Based on CRES data and $17.60 per hour for technical assistance)
e. Effectiveness of BMPs:
BMPs have reduced erosion by approximately 42,000 tons per year (USLE) which corresponds to
about 19,700 tons of sediment delivered to the lake.
Field site (CREAMS) modeling results: (ref. 29)
— non-structural BMPs on critical areas (conservation and no-till, permanent vegetative cover,
etc.) can reduce sediment yield from the field sites by as much as 45%, to the streams by 8 to 18%,
and to the lake by 17%. These BMPs were not effective in reducing soluble nitrogen and phos-
phorus loads from critical areas.
— no-till was most effective in reducing sediment yield from fields.
— contouring was effective in reducing overland flow erosion.
Watershed (AGNPS) modeling results under four BMP scenarios: (ref. 29)
— non-structural BMPs were effective in reducing sediment yield and sediment-associated nitrogen
and phosphorus at field sites and gaging stations.
— waterways and impoundments were effective in reducing peak discharge, sediment yield and
sediment-attached nitrogen and phosphorus at four field sites.
— animal waste systems were effective in reducing soluble nitrogen and phosphorus at field sites
with feedlots in their drainage area.
— fertilizer management was effective in reducing soluble nitrogen and phosphorus at field sites
and gaging stations.
54
-------
Highland Silver Lake RCWP, Illinois
d. Cost-effectiveness of BMPs: Estimates of project-wide cost-effectiveness based on the AGNPS and
LP models for three categories of BMPs are:
cost of cost of cost of cost of
sediment control P control 1% reduction 1% reduction
(delivered to lake) (in lake) (sed. in lake) (N & P in lake)
$LIQU. Lll 1 $L000 %1.000
Conservation Tillage 14—33 7—17 3—7 4—9
Structural Practices
(4,5,7,12) 266 172 59 108
Animal Waste
Systems NA 43 70
14. Water Quality Changes:
Gage sites: Multiple linear regression analysis of normalized loading data indicates statistically
significant reductions in TSS and TP over time.
Lake sites: In 1987, the mean Secchi transparency was 17 inches, the best yet recorded, and the mean
TSS concentration was 21.7 mg/I, first time below the project goal of 25 mg/i. The project reports that
1987 was an exceptionally dry year and these data probably do not respresent a real change in water
quality associated with RCWP activities. No statistically significant improving trends have been
documented. High turbidity levels in the lake not directly related to sediment loading have masked
the effect of reduced sediment load.
Lake sedimentation survey indicates an average annual capacity decrease by 0.67 percent. This rate
does not pose a threat to use bf the lake as a water supply for the city of Highland.
15. Changes in Water Resource Use:
Changes in use of Highland Silver Lake will likely be negligible. A survey of anglers conducted in 1982
indicated that most would increase trips to the lake by about 12 per year if water appearance (clarity)
improved to the ppint of two-foot visibility. Such an improvement is unlikely as projected by models.
16. Incentives:
a. Cost Share Rates: 75%
b. $ Limitations: $50,000 per landowner
c. Assistance Programs: Extension I&E and SCS technical assistance.
17. EconomIc Benefits: (ref. 29)
a. On-farm:
Discounted Value
Over 50 Years
(@7-7/S% Near)
Reneflis millions
Cost share payment 1.2
Tillage cost savings 1.1
Productivity benefits negligible
Gross benefits 2.3
Installation of BMPs 1.6
Maintenance of BMPs
Total costs 1.8
Net benefit before taxes 2.3 - 1.8 0.3
55
-------
Productivity benefits over 50 years were analyzed using the SOILEC model. The model indicated
that benefits from BMP implementation are offset by a lack of productivity benefits, because most
soils in the project area are deep.
b. Off-farm:
Discounted Value
Over 50 Years
Benefits ( Ja) 7.7/8% / Yearl
Boating Negligible
Fishing $24,000
Swimming Not Applicable
Property values Negligible
Water treatment cost reduction $225,000
Reservoir capacity Ne ligihle
Total $249,000
Fifty-six percent of the surveyed anglers indicted willingness to pay an additional fee to improve water
clarity in the lake and that they would increase their visits per year by over one-half. Boating benefits
apart from fishing are negligible because of limitations on boat and motor size. The lake’s capacity is
large relative to future water supply needs and sedimentation rate is low. Therefore, reducing the
sedimentation rate has negligible benefits.
Several other possible benefits such as increased picnicking and aesthetics, improved upland game
habitat and reduced maintenance of roadways were not estimated in this analysis due to lack of reliable
data.
IV. Lessons Learned (ref. 29)
The 75% cost-share rate for BMP installation was a very attractive incentive for project area landowners and
a key motivation for participation in RCWP. Project acceptance was also gained through extensive one-on-
one contacts at the beginning and, later, through visibility of installed BMPs seen on educational tours and
discussed privately among landowners.
The definition of critical area was based on soil mapping units and many farm fields covered only a portion
of the critical area. This presented problems in tracking land treatment because the smallest treatment unit
was usually the farm field, which covered both critical and non-critical area. The reporting system was not
sensitive to this problem and, as a result, total acres under contract were more than twice the number of
critical acres targeted for contract. The project believes that a more practical approach would have been to
identify the entire farm field as critical. Also, the land treatment reporting system was inadequate for tracking
more than one BMP applied to the same acreage.
Automated tracking of BMP contracting and installation was a vast improvement over manual methods.
The project’s CM & E water quality goal is to 1) reduce turbidity and increase visibility to greater than two
feet, and 2) reduce total suspended solids concentrations to an average of less than 25mg/I. It is unlikely that
the project will meet these goals. The project believes that a more appropriate goal statement would have
been in terms of percent reduction in fine particle size loading and to have included a particle size analysis
in the monitoring strategy. Turbidity produced by natric soils, even when gross erosion rate is low, has been
a persistent water quality problem. The BMPs applied may be effective in reducing sediment loading to the
lake but ineffective in alleviating the lake’s water quality problem.
The project reports that field site monitoring was unsuccessful due to “1) too many uncontrolled variables,
2) incomplete management records, and 3) too little event data collected.’ (ref. 29, p.50)
A modeling approach using CREAMS and AGNPS was demonstrated late in the project. The project found
that use of these models in the planning stage of the project could have helped in identifying pollutant sources
and critical areas, evaluating alternative treatment schemes, and developing an appropriate monitoring
strategy.
56
-------
Highland Silver Lake RCWP, Illinois
The CREAMS and AGNPS models have been used to identify expected changes. According to the AGNPS
modeling results, full implementation of RCWP contracts and the increasing adoption of conservation tillage
should reduce sediment yield 33 percent and N and P yield 18 percent by 1991 compared to pre-project
conditions. However, the net effectiveness of the RCWP project, taking out the conservation tillage trend,
gives only about 12 percent reduction in loading of the three pollutants to the lake.
Conservation tilage and fertilizer management were shown to be the least costly BMPs to implement,
assuming the practices will be continued well beyond the contract period. Grassed waterways were also shown
to have low average annual costs per acre benefited compared with other structural measures and permanent
cover.
Conservation tillage was the most cost-effective method of reducing the delivery of pollutants to the lake.
Grass waterways and impoundments and animal waste management systems further reduced the generation
of pollutants; however, these practices have a very high cost for the amount of additional pollution reduction
achieved.
The modeling and economic evaluation show that the cost effectiveness of the project in achieving water
quality could have been improved by promoting more extensive adoption of conservation tillage (reduced
tillage or no-till) and certain crop rotations (e.g. soybean-wheat/double crop soybean) on all cropland in the
watershed rather than using more costly structural measures to reduce erosion to tolerance levels on fewer
acres.
The SOILEC model indicated that no significant long-term on-farm benefits are likely from BMPs primarily
because of the deep soil over most of the project area.
V. Project Documents
1. Madison County Soil and Water Conservation District, 1979. Highland Silver Lake: Application for Rural Clean Water Program.
Madison County, Illinois.
2. Madison County Local Coordinating Committee, 1980. Plan of Work: Highland Silver Lake RC’IATP. Madison County, Illinois.
3. Illinois State Coordinating Committee, 1981. Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Program for the Highland Silver Lake Water-
shed RCWP, Springfield, IL, 40 pp.
4. Illinois State Coordinating Committee, 1981. RCWP Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Report on Highland Silver Lake Water-
shed. Springfield, IL, 63pp.
5. Makowski, P. and MT. Lee, 1982. Highland Silver Land Silver Lake Reservoir Yield Analysis. State Water Survey Division, Cham.
paign, IL, 5 pp.
6. Davenport, T.E., 1982. Soil Erosion and Sediment Deliveiy in the Highland Silver Lake Watershed. Preliminary Analysis. Illinois EPA,
Springfield, IL, 35 pp.
7. Illinois State Coordinating Committee, 1982. Highland Silver Lake RCWP CM&E: Annual Report Fiscal Year 1982. Springfield, IL.
8. Davenport, T.E. and M. H. Kelly, 1982. Water Resource Data and Preliminaty Trend Analysis for the Highland Silver Lake Monitoring
and Evaluation Project: Phase I. Illinois EPA, Springfield, IL, 121 pp.
9. Carvey, D. 0. 1982. Highland Silver Lake Angler Opinion Survey Preliminary Results. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, East Lansing, Michigan.
10. Illinois State Coordinating Committee, 1983, Highland Silver Lake RCWP CM&E: Annual Report Fiscal Year 1983. Springfield, IL
11. Davenport, T.E. and Kelly, M.H., 1983. Water Resource Data and Preliminary Trend Analysis for the Highland Silver Lake Monitoring
and Evaluation Project: Phase II. Illinois EPA, Springfield, IL, 145 pp.
12. Eleveld, B. and K. Reed, 1983. Baseline On-Site/On-Farm Conditions for the Highland Silver Lake Watershed, Madison and Bond
Counties, Illinois (Revised) Agricultural Economics Department, University ollllinois; Champaign-Urbana, IL
13. Eleveld, B. and V. Starr, 1983. Farm Enterprise Budgets for Cropping Activities in the Hkghland Silver Lake Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram. Agricultural Economics Department, University of Illinois; Champaign-Urbana, IL
14. Eleveld, B. and V. Starr, 1983. Soil Productivity-Soil Erosion Relationships for Selected Soils Affected by the Highland Silver Lake
Rural Clean Water Program. Agricultural Economics Department, University of Illinois; Champaign .Urbana, IL
15. Eleveld, B., 1983. A Summary of Highland Silver Lake Rural Clean Water Program Cooperators’ Conservation Farm Plans. Agricul-
tural Economics Department, University of Illinois; Champaign-Urbana, IL
57
-------
16. Southwestern Illinois Metropolitan and Regional Planning Commission, 1983. Highland Silver Lake Comprehensive Monitoring and
Evaluation Project: Assessment of Off-Site Socio-Economic Impacts. SIMAPC; Collinsville, IL
17. Eleveld, B. and V. Starr. 1983. Evaluating the Effectiveness of RCWP Cost Share Payments in Illinois Through Representative Farm
Analysis. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Illinois: Champaign-Urbana, Illinois.
18. Southwestern Illinois Metropolitan and Regional Planning Commission, (1981-1985). Highland Silver Lake RCWP; Annual Reports.
SIMAPC: Collinsville, Illinois.
19. Thomerson, J.E. and S.B. Reid, 1984. An Evaluation of the Fisheries of Highland Silver Lake, Madison County, Illinois. Southern Il-
linois University, Edwardsville, IL.
20. Davenport, T.E., 1984. A Review of the Sediment Delivery Ratio Techniques Component of the Highland Silver Lake Watershed
Project. Illinois EPA, Springfield, IL, 27 pp.
21. Davenport, T.E., 1984. Field Modeling in the Highland Silver Lake Watershed: Interim Report. Illinois EPA, Springfield, IL 41 pp.
22. Illinois State Coordinating Committee, 1984. Highland Silver Lake Watershed RCWP: Summary Report Fiscal Year 1984. Springfield,
IL, 127 pp.
23. Davenport, T.E. and Kelly, M.H., 1984. Water Resource Data and Preliminary Trend Analysis for the Highland Silver Lake Monitoring
and Evaluation Project: Phase III. Illinois EPA, Springfield, IL, 216 pp.
24. Makowski, P.B. and M.T. Lee, 1985. Hydrologic Investigation of the Highland Silver Lake Watershed: 1984 Progress Report. State
Water Survey Division, Champaign, IL 68 pp.
25. Illinois State Coordinating Committee, 1985. Highland Silver Lake Watershed RCWP: Summary Report Fiscal Year 1985. Springfield,
IL, 96 pp.
26. Kelly, M.H. and T.E. Davenport, 1986. Water Resource Data and Trend Analysis for the Highland Silver Lake Monitoring and Evalua-
tion Project: Phase IV. Illinois EPA, Springfield, IL, 198 pp.
27. Makowski, P.B., M.T. Lee, and M. Grinter, 1986. Hydrologic Investigation of the Highland Silver Lake Watershed: 1985 Progress
Report. State Water Survey Division, Champaign, IL 98 pp.
28. Mat owski, PB., M. Grinter, and M.T. Lee, 1986. Stream Geometry and Streambed Material Characteristics of the Streams Within the
I-Iighland Silver Lake Watershed. State Water Survey Division, Champaign, IL, 66 pp.
29. Illinois State Coordinating Committee, 1987. Highland Silver Lake Rural Clean Water Project: Summary Report, Fiscal Year 1986.
Springfield, IL 104 pp.
30. Illinois State Coordinating Committee, 1988. Highland Silver Lake Rural aean Water Project: Summary Report, Fiscal Year 1987.
Springfield, IL, 23 pp.
31. White, D., 13. Eleveld, and J. Braden. 1985. On-Farm Economic Impacts of Proposed Erosion Control Policies. Agricultural Economics
Department, University of Illinois; Champaign-Urbana, Illinois.
32. Lee, M. and R. Camacho, 1987. Geographic Data Base and Watershed Modeling for Evaluation of the Rural Clean Water Program in
the Highland Silver Lake Watershed. Illinois State Water Survey Division, Contract Report 421: Champaign, Illinois.
33. Southwestern Illinois Metropolitan and Regional Planning Commission, 1988. Executive Summaiy Rural Clean Water Project High-
land Silver Lake Watershed. SIMAPC: Collinsvillc, Illinois.
VI. NWOEP Project Contacts
Water Quality Monitoring Land Treatment I Technical Assistance
Robert L. Hite Wayne Kinney
Environmental Protection Specialist SCS
Div. Water Pollution Control Rt. 1 Box 35
Planning Section,IEPA Edwardsville, IL 62025
2209 W. Main Street tel. (618) 656-4710
Marion, IL 62959 and
tel. (618) 997-4371 Sandy Andres
S.W. Illinois Metro-area Planning Commission
Economic Evaluation 203 West Main Street
Parveen Setia or Richard Magleby Collinsville, IL 62234
Economic Research ServicefRTD tel. (618) 344-4250
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
1301 New York Ave., NW, Rm. 532
Washington, DC 20005-4788
tel. (202) 786-1435
58
-------
Prairie Rose Lake - RCWP 5
Shelby County, Iowa
MLRA M-107
H.U.C. 102400-020
I. Major Contribution Toward Understanding the Effectiveness of NPS Control
Efforts
The project shows that a very high rate of implementation is possible in a voluntary NPS control project.
Factors that may contribute to the high rate of participation include: water quality objectives that are visible,
substantial amounts of money available for cost sharing (approx. $114 per acre), preferred BMPs (terracing
in this case), a technical assistance program, active publicity programs, and services to assist farmers in
fertility management and integrated pest management.
The institutional relationships in this project could provide a model for other NPS projects. In addition,
completion of the implementation and monitoring programs *ill provide a definitive test of the effectiveness
of terracing as a BMP for protection of water quality in a small midwestern lake. An in-depth analysis of this
project can be found in the NWQEP 1987 Annual Report.
II. Water Quality Goals and Objectives
The project’s stated goals are to control excessive soil erosion on at least 80% of the agricultural land area
and reduce sediment delivery rate by 60%. The project stated in their application (ref. 1) that they consider
sediment delivery as a measure of water quality improvement because the lake water quality problems are
all related to delivered sediment.
Ill. Characteristics and Results
1. Project Type: RCWP
2. Timeframe: 1980- 1991
3. Total Project Budget(for timeframe):
SOURCE: Federal Stat. Farm.r Other
446,182
0
148,748
0
.
Info.& Ed.
18,750
0
0
0
18,750
Tech. Asst.
131,140
0
0
0
131,140
Water Quality
Monl1orln ’
—
—
0
0
NA
ACTIVITY:
Cost-share
SUM:
594.930
SUM: 596,072 0 148,748 0
Combination of state and federal (EPA) funds - amount not reported.
b does not include water quality monitoring budget.
59
-------
4. Area (acres): (ref. 9)
Watershed Project Critical
4,568 4,568 3,920
5. Land Use:
% Project Area % Critical Area
Cropland 79.9 93.0
Pastureland 3.2 3.8
Lake & parkiand 14.2 0
Farmsteads/roads/woodland 2.7 3.2
6. Animal Operations:
The original RCWP project application identified a need for up to 8 animal waste control systcms and
set as a project goal the installation of 6 systems. However, further evaluation determined that only
one cattle feedlot posed a problem and required additional waste controls. This cattle feedlot was
closed in 1986. At present, 4 small cow-calf operations (averaging 30 stock cows per operation) and
9 small swine feeding operations (averaging 300 pigs per operation) are located in the project area.
None of these operations is considered to require additional waste controls at this time.
7. Water Resource Type:
Prairie Rose Lake (215 acre impoundment)
8 Water Uses and Impairments:
Prairie Rose Lake is a 215-acre man-made lake located in one of the largest parks in west- central
Iowa. The lake is used for swimming, boating, and fishing by about one-quarter million park visitors
each year.
Use of the lake is impaired by sediment, turbidity and agricultural chemicals. Between 1971 and 1980,
19% of the lake volume was lost to sediment. The lake is eutrophic.
9. Water Quality at Start of Project:
Upper Mixed Zone and Bottom Sites- 1981 (n = 10)
(Annual means were calculated from STORE’F values for this project. Observations reported with less than detection limit
values were set to one half the detection limit.)
(upper/bottom)
Parameter
Turbidity(NTU) 21.0/31.0 11.0/103.0 9.0/84.1
Secchi depth (in) 16.0/-. 21.0 /-- 23.0 /
TP (mg/1-P) 0.12/0 .15 0.08/0.18 0.08/0.16
OP (mg/l.P) 0.04 /0.05 0.02/0 .05 0.02/0 .06
Chi a (ugh) 33.7/33.0 21.8 / 24.2 17,4/ 24.1
* TP & OP n = 5
io. Meteorologic and Hydrogeologic Factors:
a. Mean Annual Precipitation: 29.15 inches
b. USLE ‘R’ Factor: 150-175
c. Geologic Factors: Upland soils are generally well-drained, silty clay barns that developed in bess.
Soils in the drainageways are alluvial. Slopes in the watershed range from 0-18%.
11. Water Quality Monitoring Program:
a. Timeframe: 1981 to completion of the project
b. Sampling Scheme: conducted by the Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources (1987 funding from EPA)
1. Location and number of monitoring stations: 3 lakes stations sampled at surface and bottom,
60
-------
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP, Iowa
one station at the drinking water intake of the lake, and one station at the swimming beach
2. Sampling frequency: bi-weekly sampling summers only, sampling after rainfall events
3. Sample type: grab
c. Species Analyzed: NO 3 + NO 2 , N}14 and free N H 3 , Dissolved P, TP, Sediment, DO, CM a, FC,
Secchi, Turbidity, E. Coli and enterococci
d. Other: Precipitation records are maintained at the lake.
12. Critical Areas:
a. Criteria: All croplands are critical acres.
b. Application of Criteria: consistently applied
13. Best Management Practices:
a. General Scheme: Most of the land treatment effort focused on controlling soil loss through practices
such as terracing. Conservation tillage is encouraged, and there are I&E programs to introduce
fertilizer management and integrated pest management.
b. Quantified Implementation Goals:
Amount Amount
I Perm. veg. cover 111 ac. 9 Conservation Tillage 2,100 ac.
11 Perm. Veg. on Crit. Acres 10 ac.
4 Terracing 75 mi 12 Sediment Control Struc. 6 unitS
5 Diversions 2,000 ft. 15 Nutrient Management 3,170 ac.
7 Waterway System 20 ac. 16 Pesticide Management 3,170 ac
c. Quantified Contracting/Implementation Achievements: as of 9/30/87 (ref. 16)
CritIcal Area
Pollutant Treatment Project %Needs/Goals %Needs/Goals
Sources Contracted Imolemented
Acres Needing Treatment 3,920 3,136 83/104 74/93
Cropland 3,648 2,926 77/96 65/81a
Pasture 148 111 34/45 22/29
Farmsteadb 120 95 54/68 NA
Woodlands 4 4 0 0
# Contracts 47 37 72/92
a Project claims that a large majority of cropland is farmed under some form of conservation tillage though only 579 acres are under RCWP contract.
The major RCWP land practice is terracing (51 miles of terrace systems effecting 1.785 acres).
b No indication ot what practice, are involved with farmatead source,.
Based on amount ol project funds spent on intallation of practices as of 913W87.
The project estimates that 87% of the wort baa been done on the contracts signed. Some contracts have been started but are not complete.
d. Cost of BMPs: (from RCWP Table 4, Ref. 14)
Ave. Farmer Ave. RCWP
Share ($1 Share ($1 Total Cost (S1
1 perm. veg. cover 7.50/ac. 2230/ac. 30/ac.
2 animal waste mgmt. 1,000 ea. 3,000 ea. 4,000 Ca.
4 terraces 0.15/ft. 0.75/ft. 0.90/ft.
5 diversions 0.33/ft. 0.67/ft. 1./It.
7 waterways 845 ea. 2,530 ea. 3,375 ea.
9 conservation tillage 5/ac. 15/ac. 20/ac.
11 pcrm. veg. on crit. ac. 9/ac. 21/ac. 30/ac.
12 sediment retention &
erosion control 2,500 ca. 7,500 ea. 10,000 ea.
61
-------
e. Effectiveness of BMPS: Soil loss has decreased from 80,800 tons/year (1980) to 36,900 tons/year
(1985). Data from three bathymetric surveys indicate a reduction in sedimentation rate. Confirmation
of this trend, however, depends on completing the fourth bathymetric survey planned at the conclusion
of the RCWP project.
f. Non-RCWP Activities: BMPs installed prior to RCWP including contour farming on 1,000 acres,
grassed backsiope terraces protecting 528 acres and two sediment control structures and 14 conser-
vation plans covering 2,270 acres. Approximately 150 more acres have been treated through other
programs (ACP, state, county, private).
14. Water Quality Changes:
There has been no documented decrease in turbidity since the RCWP began. The project’s water
quality monitoring data indicate high variability with no consistent trend in surface turbidity and water
clarity. Chlorophyll a concentration may explain a large portion of this variability, and improved clarity
may be masked by increasing algal growth.
Drawdown and fish toxicant applications in the Praire Rose Lake in 1981 may have resulted in the
relatively high water clarity observed in 1982 and 1983.
15. Changes in Water Resource Use:
Total recreational use of the lake increased from 1981 to 1985 before declining in 1986 to the lowest
level since 1981. Fishing use decreased from 1981 to 1983, following a total fishery renovation, but
increased from 1983 to 1985. Use of the swimming beach also increased annually from 1981 to 1985.
The project notes that increased swimming use may have been a reflection of improved public
perception of lake aesthetics. Construction on the park access road in the latter part of 1985 may have
depressed the annual increase of park visitors and contributed to decreased user totals in 1986. The
sudden decline in lake use in 1986 may be attributable to the institution of a state park user fee,
predominantly wet weather, and additional roadway construction.
16. Incentives:
a. Cost Share: Rates are generally 75%, except for nutrient and pesticide management, which are
handled under the I&E program and are not cost shared.
b. $ Limitation: $50,000 per farm
c. Assistance Programs: Extensive I&E program handles all the nutrient and pesticide management
in the project (program conducted by the Extension Service).
17. Potential Economic Benefits:
a. On-farm: not evaluated
b. Off-farm:
1) Recreation: $30,000- $85,000 per year
2) Water supply: 0 - $45,000 per year
3) Commercial fishing: 0
4) Wildlife habitat: unknown
5) Aesthetics: unknown but positive
6) Downstream impacts: 0
62
-------
Prairie Rose Lake RCWP, Iowa
IV. Lessons Learned
A high rate of BMP implementation is possible when water quality objectives are clear and where the
practices are considered desirable by the landowners. In this case, the farmers recognize the need for
terracing to prevent soil erosion, and they believe this will improve the quality of the recreational lake.
Assistance in the form of cost sharing, soil testing, and pest scouting provided enough incentive to promote
this project.
Recreational use of the lake has increased during the project period. This maybe at least partially attributable
to the attention it has received as an RCWP project. Some water quality improvement has apparently been
perceived by lake users, although water quality data do not yet confirm this.
Reduction of the sedimentation problem by extensive adoption of conservation practices (primarily terrac-
ing) may have improved water clarity, but this appears to have allowed algal density to increase. Evidence to
date suggests that BMPs have not reversed eutrophication.
The project has met its implementation goals, and the monitoring program has been consistent throughout
the project period. Water quality effects attributable to erosion control should be documented by the end of
the implementation period in 1991.
Positive net economic benefits are possible when treating sediment which adversely affects recreation.
V. Project Documents
1. Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Application. July 1979.
2. Prairie Rose Lake RCWP Supplement to Application. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. August 1979.
3. EPA Comments on Work Plan. June 2, 1980.
4. Experimental RCWP Plan of Work, Prairie Rose Lake Watershed. June 1980.
5. Prairie Rose Lake. Plan of Work-Amendment 2. September 5, 1980.
6. Prairie Rose Lake Monitoring RCWP Project-Year 1 (1981). March 23, 1982. 3,-4,-5, and SCS Report of Project Accomplishments.
7. Corrections and Additions to the Report Entitled “Prairie Rose Lake Monitoring RCWP-Project-Year 1(1981), March 23, 1982”.
8. Prairie Rose Lake Monitoring RCWP Project.Year 2 (1982). October 19, 1982.
9. 1982 Annual Report. November 30, 1982.
10. 1983 Annual Report. November 30, 1983.
11. 1984 Annual Report. November30, 1984 (Includes Lake Monitoring Report).
12. 1985 Annual Report. November 30, 1985.
13. Prairie Rose Lake Monitoring RCWP Project-YearS (1985). April 9, 1986.
14. 1986 Annual Report. November30, 1986.
15. Prairie Rose Lake Monitoring RCWP Project - Year 6 (1986).
16. 1987 Annual Report. November 30, 1987.
17. Prairie Rose Lake Monitoring RCWP Project - Year 7(1987).
63
-------
VI. NWQEP PROJECT CONTACTS
Water Quality Monitoring Land Treatment/Technical Assistance
Ubbo Agena Merle Lawyer
Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources SCS
900 E. Grand Ave. 1112 Morningview Dr.
Des Moines, IA 50319 RR# 4
tel. (515) 281-6402 Harlan, IA 51537
tel. (712) 755-2417
information and Education
Duane R. Feltz
Shelby County Extension Service
1105 8th Street
Harlan, IA 51537
tel. (712) 755-3104
64
-------
Upper Wakarusa — RCWP 6
Osage, Shawnee & Wabaunsee Counties, Kansas
MLRA: M-106
H.U.C. 102701
I. Major Contributions Toward Understanding the Effectiveness of NPS Control
Efforts
This project will contribute little toward the objectives of RCWP due to the lack of a documented water
quality impairment.
II. Water Quality Goals and Objectives (ref. 1)
The project’s objective is to improve and maintain water quality in the water impoundments and streams
within the 154,011 acre project area by applying BMPs to control agricultural NPS pollution.
Specific Goals:
— Have 95% of the agricultural land area adequately protected.
— Reduce pollutant loading from livestock operations by 75%.
— Reduce nitrogen loading by 41%.
— Reduce phosphorus loading by 43%.
— Reduce organic matter entering waters by 45%.
— Reduce soil loss from 5.2 to 2.8 tons/acre/year.
Ill. Characteristics and Results
Background:
The project area was identified as Kansas’ number one priority agricultural NPS water quality
management area through criteria set in the State Water Quality Management Plan adopted in 1979.
Of the 154,011 acre project area, 2/3 was considered to be adequately protected prior to the RCWP
project. The project targeted 85% of the remaining area for treatment. Pre-RCWP data showing high
TSS and turbidity values targeted sediment as the project’s major water quality problem. Runoff from
agricultural lands was estimated to produce 2.1 tons/acre/year of sediment load to streams.
The project began to implement erosion control practices on unprotected acres. In 1983 an interagen-
cy appraisal of the project by ASCS, SCS, ES and EPA determined that there was no documented
water quality problem causing use impairments of waters in the project area (ref 5). The NCC
determined that as of September 30, 1983 the project was concluded under RCWP authority, but
contracts already approved would be honored and serviced.
1. Project Type: RCWP
2. Timeframe: 1980-1994
65
-------
3. Total Project Budget (for timeframe): (ref. 9)
cropland
rangeland
pasture
forest
other
%ProiectArea
40
41
7
7
5
Critical
43252
% Critical Area
83
8.6
1.8
3
3.6
SOURCE
ACTIVITY
Cost-share
Federal
Stat.
Farmer
Other
2,229,000
0
2,928,000
Inlo.& Ed.
87,000
0
0
5,000
92,000
Tech. Asst.
466,344
0
0
72,540
538884
Water Quality
SUM:
5,157,000
Monitoring 78,000 2,328,880 0 1,500
SUM: 2,860,344 2,328,800 2,928,000
2,408,300
79,040 $8,196,184
4. Area (acres):
Watershed Proiecl ______
154,011 154,011
5. Project Land Use:
6. Animal Operation in Project Area: 1982 data
Operation # Farms Total # Animals Total A.U .
hog 7 2100 420
dairies 10 375 525
7. Water Resource Type:
Wakarusa River and its tributaries, water district reservoirs, Clinton reservoir, watershed flood-
retarding reservoirs.
8. Water Uses and Impairments:
Water resources uses are identified for public and domestic water supplies, recreation, agriculture,
and fish and wildlife habitat. Water supplies and reservoirs were reported to have periodic taste and
odor problems attributed to algae growth and sediment (ref. 11). Sediment depositions posed
potential threats to wildlife and fish habitats along project streams as well as excess sediment loads to
Clinton Reservoir. Potential threat of impairments from phosphorus, bacteria and pesticides was also
a concern.
9. Water Quality at Start of Project:(ref. 1)
No pesticides detected
Condition
Runoff event
Low Flow
Tss
m L
1,170
106
Turbidity
L I I I
519
91
F.C.
#IIOOml
53,400
770
N03
m k
1.0
0.7
TP
m k
0.73
0.24
66
-------
Upper Wakarusa RCWP, Kansas
10. Meteorologic and Hydrogeologic Factors:
a. Mean Annual Precipitation: 34.46 inches (most during April-Oct.)
b. USLE ‘R’ Factor: 200
c. Geologic Factors: Topography of the region varies from nearly level flood plains to bluffs and slopes
up to 30%. The upland soils are deep to moderately deep silt barns to silty clay barns, bottom soils
are deep and friable silty clay barns.
11. Water Quality Monitoring Program:
a. Timeframe: 1981-1994
b. Sampling Scheme: conducted by the Kansas Dept. of Health and Environment
1.Location and number of monitoring stations: Single sampling station at the Wakarusa River near
Richland. (36 stations were monitored throughout the project area to gather baseline data in 1982.)
2. Sampling Frequency: monthly and for selected runoff events
3. Sampling Type: grab samples
c. Pollutants Analyzed: sediment, turbidity, nutrients, BOD, pesticides, TSS, nitrate, ammonia,
phosphorus (also have periodic analysis of macroinvertebrates, fish and fish tissues).
12. Critical Areas:
a. Criteria: The drainage area of two public water supplies was targete&as the number one priority.
Drainage areas of 14 constructed and 8 planned PL- 566 watershed retarding structures were targeted
as second and third priority. The remainder of the area is fourth priority.
b. Application of Land Treatment According to Criteria: No criteria for critical area identification is
given other than the priority areas outlined above. No relationships are given between critical areas
and priority areas.
13. Best Management Practices:
a. General Scheme: Emphasis of project focused on sediment reduction. Land treatment through
conservation tillage, vegetative cover and control structures.
b. Quantified Implementation Goals: treat the unprotected critical area (43,252 acres)
c. Quantified Contracting/implementation Achievements: The project reports that as of 1987, 71%
of 150 contracts have been completed.
d. Cost of BMPs:
Average cost share Average cost share
ner unit annilsd ner unit anpiled
1 & 11 perm.veg cover $45/ac 7 waterways $375/ac
2 animal waste mgmt. S9,0 0 0ea. 9 cons. tillage $11.25/ac
4 terrace systems $990/mi. 12 scd. retention S1,875ea.
5 diversions $1,584/mi. 15 fert. mgmt. 0
6 grazing land prot. S3,60 0ea. 16 pest. mgmt. 0
e. Effectiveness of BMPs: The project estimates that at completion, the annual sediment delivery to
the stream will be reduced by 24% (318,000 to 242,00 tons annually). Also estimate a 25% reduction
in sediment load to Clinton Reservoir. (No indication of what these estimates are based on.)
f. Non-RCWP Activities: Twenty-two PL-566 watershed-retarding reservoirs.
14. Water Quality Changes:
No documented water quality changes have been seen.
15. Changes in Water Resource Use: None
67
-------
16. Incentives:
a. Cost Share Rates: 75% except for grazing land protection (60%)
b. $ Limitations: $50,000 per farm
17. Potential Economic Benefits:
a. On-farm: 0
b. Off-farm:
1. Recreation: little change, probably due to no apparent water quality changes
2. Water Supply: no change
3. Wildlife Habitat: may improve, but no real economic benefits
4. Downstream Impacts: may prolong storage capacity of Clinton Reservoir, but sediment is not
currently a problem.
IV. Lessons Learned
Clear definition and documentation of water quality problems, critical areas and monitoring strategies is
important in achieving NPS control objectives.
V. Project Documents
1. Upper Wakarusa Rural Clean Water Project Plan of Work. 1980.
2. Upper Wakarusa Rural Clean Water Project Application. 1980.
3. Annual Progress Report: Upper Wakarusa RCWP, 1981.
4. Annual Progress Report: Upper Wakarusa RCWP, 1982.
5. Annual Progress Report: Upper Wakarusa RCWP, 1983.
6. Annual Progress Report: Upper Wakarusa RCWP, 1984.
7. Annual Progress Report: Upper Wakarusa RCWP, 1985.
8. Annual Progress Report: Upper Wakarusa RCWP, 1986.
9. Annual Progress Report: Upper Wakarusa RCWP, 1987.
10. Upper Wakarusa River RCWP Monitoring Plan, 1981.
11. Economic Evaluation Progress Report for FY87, Economic Research Service, USDA.
VI. NWQEP Project Contact
Land Treatment! Technical Assistance
Kansas State ASCS Office
2601 Anderson Avenue
P.O. Box 1448
Manhattan, Kansas 66502
68
-------
Bayou Bonne Idee — RCWP 7
Morehouse Parish, Louisiana
MLRA: 0-134
H.U.C. 080500-01
I. Major Contributions Toward Understanding the Effectiveness of NPS Control
Efforts
This project has demonstrated a high rate of landowner participation with cost-shared BMPs that have
productivity benefits such as land leveling, land smoothing, and irrigation water conveyances. These practices
may have been effective in reducing sediment loads to Bayou Bonne Idee, however, an improvement in water
quality associated with land treatment has not been documented with the available water quality data.
Reducing sediment loads may reduce the total sedimentation rate, however, this effect may not have a
measurable impact on bayou turbidity, pesticide residues in fish, and eutrophication rate. The reasons for
this are: 1) field level management may not have the anticipated effect at the watershed level, 2) a large
percentage of fine sediment particles may still be reaching the bayou from treated lands, 3) the ratio of
phosphorus to sediment is highest for the fine sediment soil fraction, 4) dissolved nutrients in runoff may not
be controlled as effectively as sediment loss with the practices (land leveling, land smoothing) used by this
project.
U. Water Quality Goals and Objectives
To abate non-point pollution (sediment and toxic agricultural chemicals) to a level compatible with State
water quality standards.
Ill. Characteristics and Results
1. Project Type: RCWP
2. Timeframe: 1980—1991
3. Total Project Budget (for timeframe):
SOURCE: Federal Slat. Farm.r Other
ACTIVI1Y: SUM:
Cost-chars 5,320,000
info. & Ed.
6,000
0
0
15,000
21,000
Tech. Asst.
728,000
0
0
75,000
803,000
Water Quality
Monltorln
850,000
72,000
0
0
722,000
SUM: 4,384,000 72,000 2,320,000 90,000 $6,866,000
4. Area (acres):
Wat.rshed Prolect CrftIcp
66,000 66,000 44 , 880 b
originally 164452
69
-------
5. Land Use:
% Project Area % Critical Area
cropland 75 100
pasture/range 4
woodland 11
urban/roads 10
6. Animal Operations in Project Area: not applicable
7. Water Resource Type:
Bayou Bonne Idee (meandering - approximately 100 miles long)
8. Water Uses and Impairments:
Bayou Bonne Idee is used mainly for water sports and fishing. It is popular for recreation that
contributes significantly to the local economy. Use of project area water resources is impaired by
turbidity, sedimentation, and toxic agricultural chemicals in cropland runoff.
9. Water Quality at Start of Project:
Means and Ranges for 6 grab samples taken from Nov. ‘81 through May ‘82
Parameter Station Ms a Ian,e
Turbidity S. 121 109 10- 260
(JTU) S-122 28 3.120
S-123 113 11.360
S-124 146 15.330
Total S-121 176 32-580
Suspended S - 122 391 6 . 140
Solids S - 123 184 24 - 440
(ppm) S.124 83 32-240
NOz + N03 S. 121 0.39 0.02-0.74
(ppm) S. 122 0.07 0.01 .0.24
S - 123 0.44 0.02- 0.84
S. 124 0.62 0.2. 0.96
TKN S - 121 1.7 0.79-2.58
(ppm) S. 122 1.37 0.95-2.43
S. 123 139 0.79 .2.74
S. 124 1.65 1.13.2.14
Total S - 121 0.43 0.11. 1.03
Phosphorus S. 122 0.29 0.06 .0.83
(ppm) S - 123 0.38 0.07.0.80
S. 124 0.47 0.15 - 0.86
Pesiticides: organochlorine pesticide concentrations of about 0.5 ppm in fish tissue samples
10. MeteorologIc and Hydrogeologic Factors:
a. Mean Annual Precipitation: 48 inches
b. USLE ‘R’ Factor: 350
c. Geologic Factors: The project area is in the Arkansas River Alluvial Plain within the Southern
Mississippi Valley Alluvium Major Land Resource Area. Topography is nearly level to gently sloping.
Soils are highly erodible.
70
-------
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP, Louisiana
11. Water Quality Monitoring Program:
a. Timeframe: 1980- 1990
b. Sampling Scheme: conducted by Department of Natural Resources Water Pollution Control
Division
1. Location and Number of Monitoring Stations: 5 bayou stations
2. Sampling Frequency: monthly - water; bi-annual-fish tissue (no fish samples were taken
in 1986 and 1987)
3. Sample Type: grab
c. Pollutants Analyzed: 27 pesticides plus 26 conventional parameters
d. Flow Measurements: Instantaneous flow measurements are taken with each grab sample.
e. Other: Automatic stormwater monitoring sampling was unsuccessful due to weather and
equipment problems. No sampling has been done under the areawide stormwater
monitoring project.
12. CrItical Areas:
a. Criteria: First priority: three-quarter mile proximity to Bayou Bonne Idee, all cotton land.
b. Application of Criteria: No information available on how strictly criteria have been applied.
13. Best Management Practices:
a. General Scheme: Treatment emphasis on furrow irrigation improvements and field borders.
b. Quantified Implementation Goals: Goal is to treat 33,660 acres of cropland. This is 75% of
critical area.
c. Quantified Contracting/Implementation Achievements:
Critical Area
Pollutant Treatment Project S Needs / Goals S Needs / Goals
Sources Contracted Im plemented
Crop land 44,880 33,660 60/80 62/80
# Contracts 180 135 120/160 NA
a Includes contracts developed for original critical area a, well as revised critical area.
d. Cost of BMPs:
Ave. RCWP Ave. RCWP
Share (Si Share (SI
I Fencing 0.26/ft. II Field Border 17/ac.
4 Terraces 1.08/ft. 11 ilter Strip 55/ac.
7 Grassed Waterways 960/ac. 12 Grade Stabilization Struc. 440 ea.
8 Green Manure Crop 31/ac. 12 Heavy Use Struc. 1,430 Ca.
9 Land Smoothing 350/ac. 131mg. Land Leveling 170/ac.
9 Crop Residue Use 3/ac. 13 1mg. Water Conveyance 2.50/ft.
9 Conservation Tillage 33/ac. 15 Fert. Management 230/ft.
11 Critical Area Veg 44/ac. 16 Pest Management 1.30/ac.
e. Effectiveness of BMPs: The project reports that land leveling and smoothing has reduced the
amount of sheet erosion taking place on cropland draining to Bayou Bonne Idee. The project has
not reported quantification of this impact.
14. Water Quality Changes:
The project reports lower turbidity and TSS levels at the downstream monitoring station in comparison
with three upstream stations. Problems in data gathering and analysis suggest that the lower parameter
concentrations cannot be identified as a result of BMP installation and, in fact, may be due to
manipulation of bayou water levels. Toxaphene concentrations in fish tissue have dropped dramati-
cally since 1980. This appears to be due to the use of synthetic pyrethroids instead of toxaphene on
cotton. The estimated half-life of toxaphene in fish tissue is about one year.
71
-------
15. Changes in Water Resource Use:
An estimated 10,000 recreational fisherman use the project area water resources each year. Changes
in recreational use associated with RCWP activities are unknown.
16. Incentives:
a. Cost Share Rates: 75% for soil conservation practices, 50% for irrigation improvements and 90%
for farmers located adjacent to the Bayou Bonne Idee
b. $ Limitations: $50,000 maximum
17. Potential Economic Benefits:
a. On-farm: not evaluated
b. Off-farm:
1) Recreation: 0 - $40,000 per year.
2) Water supply: 0
3) Commercial fishing: 0
4) Wildlife habitat: unknown
5) Aesthetics: unknown but positive
6) Downstream impacts: 0
IV. Lessons Learned
The original 220,000 acre project area was much too large to achieve adequate BMP coverage.
Formation of project goals depends on accurate assessment of water resource impairment and identification
of critical pollutants. Without these elements it is difficult to identify critical areas and appropriate BMPs
for water quality benefits.
High participation levels can be achieved at fairly low cost share rates (50%) for practices which are perceived
to have significant productivity benefits.
Practices that have primarily off-site benefits can be tacked onto contracts that include practices with high
on-site benefits such as irrigation improvements.
Treating a large project area will not result in high off-farm benefits unless impaired water uses are
substantial.
V. Project Documents
1. Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP Annual Progress Report, 1982.
2. Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP Annual Progress Report, 1983.
3. Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP Annual Progress Report, 1984.
4. Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP Annual Progress Report, 1985.
5. Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP Annual Progress Report, 1986.
6. Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP Annual Progress Report, 1987.
72
-------
Bayou Bonne Idee RCWP, Louisiana
VI. NWQEP Project Contacts
Water Quality Monitoring Land Treatment/Technical Assistance
Kent Milton Bennett C. Landreneau
USDA - SCS USDA - SCS
3737 Government Street 3737 Government Street
Alexandria, LA 71302 Alexandria, LA 71302
tel. (318) 473-7808 tel. (318) 473-7759
and and
Lewis Johnson Harry Hawthorne
Louisiana Dept. of Env.Quality (same address as above)
Baton Rouge, LA
tel. (318) 342-6363
73
-------
Double Pipe Creek - RCWP 8
Carroll County, Maryland
MLRA: S-148
H.U.C. 020700-09
I. Major Contributions Toward Understanding the Effectiveness of NPS Control
Efforts
The critical area is very small and clearly designated, allowing efficient information & education and technical
assistance efforts. Also, there has been a significant shift in BMP emphasis to conservation tillage without
RCWP funding in the project area.
The project is showing increased participation in pesticide management, however, no environmental effects
are being evaluated. Increased participation is presumably due to significant cost savings to the farmer for
reduced pesticide use.
II. Water Quality Goals and Objectives
Water Quality Objectives:
1. To apply BMPs to address the most critical water quality problems in the project, specifically high fecal
coliform bacteria and potential sediment loads.
2. To show a measurable improvement in the degree of water quality.
Specific Goals:
1. Reduce the level of fecal coliform bacteria to below 200MPN/lOOml (state standard).
2. Meet the state standard for turbidity at all times for the streams as classified.
lii. Characteristics and Results
1. Project Type: RCWP
2.Timeframe: 1980-1994
3. Total Project Budget (for timeframe):
SOURCE: Federal Slate Farmer Other
SUM
4,803,750
ACTIVITY:
Cost-chars
3,576,137
0
1,227,613
Info. & Ed.
58,939
0
0
0
58,939
Tech. Met.
1,232,569
0
0
0
1,232,569
Waler Quality
MonItoring 0
SUM: 4,867,645
0
0
0
1,227,613
0
0
0
$6,095,258
74
-------
4. Area (acres):•
Watershed Project Critical
112,200 112,200 18,180
5. Project Land Use:
% Project Area % Critical Area
cropiand 65 NA
pasture/range 12 NA
woodland 15 NA
urban/roads 8 NA
6. Animal Operations in Project Area:
Oueratlpn # Sources Total # Animals Total A.U .
Dali 7 75 19,774 27,684
Beef N 6,958 6,958
Poultry 6 1,000,000 5,000
Hog NA 6,222 1,244
Horses NA 7,747 9,296
Many of the farmstead and barnyard areas are adjacent to streams.
7. Water Resource Type: streams
8. Water Uses and Impairments:
Project area streams and ponds provide public water supply for the city of Westminster and surround-
ing areas, approximately 18,000 people and several businesses. Secondary uses of water resources are
contact recreation and fishing.
Water quality impairments are caused by suspended sediment and bacteria. There is also concern
about nutrient export to the Chesapeake Bay.
9.Water Quality at Start of Project:
Maximum FC bacteria concentrations were 40,000/100 ml. Turbidity after runoff events was often
greater than 100 ntu.
10. Meteorologic and Hydrogeologic Factors:
a. Mean Annual Precipitation: 45 inches
b. USLE ‘R’ Factor: 200
c. Geologic Factors: The project area lies within the north central Piedmont Region and is charac-
terized by gently rolling to steep uplands with streams of average to steep gradient feeding into the
bottomlands. Predominant soils are moderately erodible. Ground water within the project area occurs
primarily in fractures and bedding-plane partings of rocks. It may also occur in solutional cavities in
limestone and marble.
11. Water Quality Monitoring Program:
a. Tinieframe: 1980 - 1990
b. Sampling Scheme: conducted by Maryland Dept. of the Environment
Maryland Dept. of the Environment re-instrumented the Big Pipe Creek in May 1987.
Monitoring conducted by Versar from 1982— 1985. Water quality data have been collected but
not analyzed.
1. Location and Number of Monitoring Stations: four on-farm sites; one station at
downstream terminus of project area.
2. Sampling Frequency: storm event
3. Sample Type: automated composite sampler
75
-------
Double Pipe Creek RCWP, Maryland
c. Pollutants Analyzed: suspended sediment, fecal coliform, NH3, N03, TKN, P-total, P-ortho
d. Flow Measurements: continuous
12. Critical Areas:
a. Criteria: distance from major streams, size of farm operation, present conservation status
b. Application of Criteria: no evidence that criteria have been rigorously applied
13. Best Management Practices:
a. General Scheme: Treat cropland with conservation tillage and install grassed waterways; build waste
storage structures for critical animal operations and spread manure based on soil tests.
b. Quantified Implementation Goals: 13,635 acres (12% of project area)
c. Quantified Contracting/Implementation Achievements:
Critical Area
Pollutant Treatment Project %Needs/Goals %Needs/Goals
Sources Contracted Imolem ented
Acres Needing Treatment 18,180 13,635 1591212 NA
Dairies 75 60 149/187 NA
Poultry 6 4 67/100 NA
Livestock 34 26 147/192 NA
Cash grains 125 90 33/46 NA
# Contracts 240 180 86/115 NA
d. Cost of BMPs: (from RCWP Table 4, Ref. 8)
Ave. Farmer Ave. RCWP
Share ($1 Share (S Total Cost (S
I perm. veg. cover 48/ac. 72/ac. 120/ac.
2 animal waste mgmt. 6,500 ea. 19,500 ca. 26,000 Ca.
3 stripcropping 5/ac. 15/ac. 20/ac.
5 diversions 0.55/ft. 1.70/ft. 2.25/ft.
6 grazing land prot. 625-5,850 ea. 1,875-5,850 ca. 2,500-11,700 ca.
7 waterways 1.50/ft. 4.50/ft. 6/ft.
8 cropland prot. 12.50/ac. 1250/ac. 25/ac.
9 conservation titlage 18/ac. 0/ac. 18/ac.
10 stream prot. 860/ca. 2,600 Ca. 3,460 Ca.
11 perm. veg. on crit. ac. 165/ac. 160/ac. 325/ac.
12 sediment retention,
erosion control struc. 875 Ca. 2,625 Ca. 3,500 ca.
15 fertilizer mgmt. 0.25/ac. 0.75Iac. 1/ac.
16 pesticide mgmt. 150/ac. 4.50/ac. 6/ac.
e. Effectiveness of BMPs: 18,427 tons of soil saved per year / 3,267,357 cu.ft. of animal waste stored
per year. In 1986, 80% of corn acreage was treated with pesticides. In 1987, pesticide management
practices resulted in no pesticides being applied on corn.
f. Non-RCWP Activities: A significant amount of conservation till age has been implemented without
RCWP funding.
14. Water Quality Changes:
No water quality changes have been documented to date. Three farm sites that had intensive pre-BMP
monitoring were discontinued because the farm operator withdrew his support.
76
-------
15. Changes in Water Resource Use:
There are no documented changes in water resource use. There is very little recreational use and the
cost of water treatment for the city of Westminster has not changed since RCWP began.
16. Incentives:
a. Cost Share Rates: 75% for most practices
b. $ Limitations: $50,000
c. Assistance Programs: Several landowners have been assisted through ACP.
17. Potential Economic Benefits: (ERS)
a. On-farm: (ref 9) Elimination of pesticide application on corn in 1987 is estimated to have saved
participating farmers between $56,000 and $85,000.
b. Off- farm:
1. Recreation: 0
2. Water Supply (cost saved in treatment): 0
3. Commercial Fishing: 0
4. Wildlife Habitat: unknown
5. Aesthetics: unknown
6. Downstream Impacts: unknown but positive. As part of a larger effort to improve water quality in
the Chesapeake Bay the project could generate off- site benefits.
IV. Lessons Learned
Project may be a good test of whether an observable pollutant reduction can be achieved by treating specified
critical areas that comprise only about 20% of the watershed.
Project personnel consciously directed recruitment efforts to the large producers. The level of treatment
indicates that this was an effective strategy.
The project shows that implementation of pesticide management practices can have an economic impact.
Several years and much money were spent monitoring three specific 17- 175 acre farm sites; however, all three
farmers decided not to implement BMPs. This illustrates the importance of developing a binding contract
with landowners whose participation is essential to the project even if it means providing crop insurance or
inconvenience payments to the landowner.
V. Project Documents
1. Rural Clean Water Project: Double Pipe Creek Water Quality Plan of Work 1980. 1995, 1980.
2. Double Pipe Creek Project: Carroll County Maryland, Annual Progress Report, 1983.
3. Non .Point Source Water Quality Assessment Of Monocacy River Basin With Special Attention to the Double Pipe Creek Watershed.
Versar Inc., 1983.
4. Rural Clean Water Project: Double Pipe Creek Water Quality Plan of Work 1980- 1995 (Revised), 1983.
5. Rural Clean Water Project: Double Pipe Creek Project, 1984 Progress Report, 1984.
6. Rural Clean Water Project: Double Pipe Creek Project, 1985 Progress Report, 1985.
7. Results of the Nonpoint Source Water Quality Program Conducted in the Monocacy River Basin With Special Attention to the Double
Pipe Creek Watershed. Versar Inc., February 1986.
8. Rural Clean Water Program: Double Pipe Creek Project, 1986 Plan of Work and Progress Report, 1986.
9. Rural Clean Water Project: Double Pipe Creek Project, 1987 Progress Report, 1987.
77
-------
Double Pipe Creek RCWP, Maryland
V I. NWQEP Project Contacts
Water Quality Monitoring
Karl Weaver
Water Management Administration
Maryland Department of the Environment
P.O. Box 13387
Baltimore, MD 21203
tel. (301) 225-6285
Land Treatment
Elizabeth Rutz
Carrot County ASCS
1004 Littlestown Pike, Suite C
Westminster, MD 21157
tel. (301) 848-2780
78
-------
Saline Valley — RCWP 9
Washtenaw County, Michigan
MLRA: M -111 and 1-99
H.U.C. 041000-01
I. Major Contributions Toward Understanding the Effectiveness of NPS Control
Efforts
The project’s ability to document basin level phosphorus reductions from cropland treatment has been
hampered by low BMP implementation. The project has been very successful in implementing animal waste
systems (BMP 2) and may yet measure phosphorus reductions related to improved management of dairy
waste.
II. Water Quality Goals and Objectives
The objective is to reduce phosphorus loading to project area waterbodies and Lake Erie. Reduction of P
loading to Lake Erie will contribute to meeting the objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(International Joint Commission, United States and Canada, 1978). The agreement calls for a goal of
reducing P input to the Great Lakes by 30%.
Ill. Characteristics and Results
1. Project Type: RCWP
2.Timeframe:198 0 -199 0
3. Total Project Budget (for timeframe):
SOURCES: Federal Stat. Farmer Other
ACTIVITY:
Cost-share
SUM:
2.517.492
Info. & Ed.
90,112
0
629,386
0
.
Tech. Asst.
758,887
0
0
0
90,112
Water Quality
0
10,000
768,887
MonItoring 0
SUM: 2,737,105
C
0
0
186,761
contributing to water quality monitoring budget
4. Area (acres):
Watershed Prok Cr itIe I
76,660 42,428
3 SaIrne River watershed 65680
Macon Creek watershed 1 6SO
b Project area revised in 1953 . reduced from 200,080
79
-------
Subbasir s Critical Cropland
Saline-Bridgewater Drain 3,%9 2,080
Upstream Saline.Bridgewatcr Drain 14,010 NA
Baucr Drain 4,900 1,425
Saline River at
Dell Road 6,240 2,651
Bear Creek 2,470 1,741
Wanty Drain 1,920 947
N. Macon Creek 9,728 4,900
5. Land Use:
% Prolect Area % Critical Area
cropland 67 100
grassland 10
forest 21
urban/roads 2
6. Animal Operations in Project Area: (ref. 7)
Operation # Farms Total # Animals Total A.U .
Daiiy NA 2,795 3,913
Young stock NA 2,795 2,376
Beef NA 960 816
Hogs NA 860 172
Horses NA 141 169
Sheep NA 1,925 192
7. Water Resource Type:
Streams and Saline River draining to Lake Erie.
8. Water Uses and Impairments:
Water resources in the project area are used for recreation and public water supply. Water quality
impairments are caused by high nutrient concentrations and sedimentation.
9. Water Quality at Start of Project:
Eutrophic streams. Ortho-P concentrations about 0.1 mg/I. Highest per acre P loading to Lake Erie
of any watershed in the area.
10. Meteorologic and Hydrogeologic Factors:
a. Mean Annual Precipitation: 32 inches
b. USLE ‘R’ Factor: 125
c. Geologic Factors: Project area soils vary from clay loam to organic deposits to sand. Glacial moraines
run through the center of the project area. Steep slopes and highly erodible soils occur on about 20%
of the farmland.
11. Water Quality Monitoring Program:
a. Timeframe: 1980 — 1990
b. Sampling Scheme: conducted by 1. Johengen, University of Michigan Sea Grant Laboratory
1. Location and Number of Monitoring Stations: 8 stations on Saline River and its tributaries plus
nine wells to monitor groundwater around three animal waste holding tanks
Subbacin Station # Subbasin Station #
Salinc-Bridgewater Drain 3 Wanty Drain 7
Upstream Saline- Bridgewater Drain 3A Saline River at mouth 8
Baucr Drain 4 N. Macon Creek 9
Dell Road 5
Bear Creek 6
80
-------
Saline Valley RCWP, Michigan
2. Sampling Frequency: Surface: weekly - adjusted for dry periods, periods around storms and times
of snowmelt. Ground water: 2-4 times per year
3. Sample Type: grab
c. Pollutants Analyzed: for each sampling date — suspended solids, Ortho-P, available P, Total P,
N03, NI-I 3 , silica, chloride / groundwater chemistry in wells near animal waste facilities
d. Flow Measurements: weekly
e. Other: biomonitoring using diatoms
12. Critical Areas:
a. Criteria: Defined as locations where phosphorus may easily enter waterbodies. Animal waste
critical areas vary by season: May to November field spreading within 300 feet of water bodies, in-
creased to 1,000 feet during winter months. Fertilizer and soil erosion critical areas: all cropland lo-
cated within 114 mile of streams.
b. Application of Criteria: Strict adherence to criteria.
13. Best Management Practices:
a. General Scheme: nutrient loading reduction from animal waste management, conservation
tillage, and fertilizer management
b. Quantified Implementation Goals: 26,400 acres, 27 animal operations (ref. 7, RCWP 3)
c. Quantified Contracting/Implementation Achievements:
Critical Area
Pollutant Treatment Project % Needs/Goals % Needs/Goals
Sources Contracted Installed
Crop land 42,428 26,400 32/NA 51/NA
Dairies(no.) 27 24 78/8.8 78/88
# Contracts 263 165 45 / 72 NA
Critical % Subbasin with
Subbasin CroDland(acres) BMPs (1985 dala’t ref. 8
Sa line-Bridgewater Drain 2,080 23
Upstream Saline.Bridgewater
Drain NA 14
I3auer Drain 1,425 17
Dell Road 2,651 13
Bear Creek 1,741 23
Waruy Drain 947 20
N. Macon Creek 4,900 70
d. Cost of BMPs: (1981 annual report)
Cost(s) Cost(S )
1. Perm. veg. cover 623/acre 9. Conservation tiliage 6.75/acre
2. Animal waste mgmt. syst. 22,500 each 10. Stream protection systems 1.50/ft.
3. Strip cropping 6/acre 11. Perm. veg. cover 93.72/acre
5. Diversions 3.75/ft. 12. Sediment retention structures 1,875 each
7. Waterway systems 150/acre 15. Fertilizer mgmt. 430/acre
8. Cropland protection systems 4/acre 16. Pesticide mgmt. 5.25/acre
e. Non-RCWP Activities: 32,902 acres in the project area have been planned for conservation
reserve systesm due to requirements of the Food Security Act.
81
-------
14. Water Quality Changes:
Seasonal trends in chemical parameters have been established, however, no trends in water quality at
the watershed level have been documented likely due to the fact that overall BMP installation is
generally low.
A reduction in phosphorus at station 8 (project outlet) coincides with implementation of a new sewage
treatment facility for the city of Milan. (ref. 8)
Notable increases in all forms of phosphorus were observed at half or more of the monitoring stations
during the three-year monitoring period between 1984 and 1986. This increase did not continue in
1987. The project suggests that increases in soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) concentrations at
stations 3, 4, 5,7 and 9 (all upstream from urban areas) could be explained by increased mean discharge
at these stations. (ref. 8)
15. Changes in Water Resource Use:
There has been no documented change in recreational use and there is no documented water supply
impairment. Recreational use of project area water resources continues to be low.
16. Incentives:
a. Cost Share Rates: 75% for most practices
b. $ Limitations: $50,000 maximum
c. Assistance Programs: conservation tillage demonstration fields
17. Potential Economic Benefits:
a. On-farm: not evaluated
b. Off-farm:
1) Recreation: 0
2) Water Supply: 0
3) Commercial Fishing: 0
4) Wildlife Habitat: unknown
5) Aesthetics: unknown but positive
6) Downstream Impacts: unknown but positive
IV. Lessons Learned
The original 200,000 acre project area was too large to achieve adequate BMP coverage with the available
cost share funding and technical assistance personnel.
BMP effects are best observed in the project if monitoring focuses on smaller subbasins with a high level of
BMP implementation.
V. Project Documents
1. Saline Valley Rural Clean Water Project, Michigan. Revised Plan of Work, July 1983.
2. Saline Valley Rural Clean Water Project, Michigan. Annual Progress Report, 1984.
3. Saline Valley Rural Clean Water Project, Michigan. Annual Progress Report, 1985.
4. Holland, R. E., A.M. Beeton and D. Conley. Saline Valley Rural Clean Water Project Interim Report on Monitoring. Great Lakes and
Marine Waters Center. October 1985,
5. Saline Valley Rural Clean Water Project, Michigan. Annual Progress Report, 1986.
6. Johengen, T. H., Documenting the Effectiveness of Best Management Practices to Reduce Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution.
University of Michigan, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. Ann Arbor, MI. 1987.
82
-------
Saline Valley RCWP, Michigan
7. Saline Valley Rural Clean Water Project, Michigan. Annual Progress Report, 1987.
8. Holland, RE., A.M. Beeton, and T. Johengen. Saline Valley Rural Clean Water Project Interim Report on Monitoring During 1986.
December 1987.
VI. NWQEP Project Contacts
Water Quality Monitoring Land Treatment/Technical Assistance
Thomas Johengen Robert Payne
Dept. of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences ASCS
University of Michigan 1405 S. Harrison Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Room 1116
tel (313) 747-2728 Fort Lansing, MI 48823
tel. (517) 337- 6671
and
Dennis Rice or Gary Rinkenberger
Soil Conservation Service
6101 Jackson Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
tel. (313) 761-6722
83
-------
Reelfoot Lake - RCWPIO
Obion and Lake Counties, Tennessee
and Fulton County, Kentucky
MLRA: 0-131 and P-134
H.U.C. 080102-02
I. Major Contributions Toward Understanding the Effectiveness of NPS Control
Efforts
The project is an example of interagency and interstate cooperation in a NPS project.
With the implementation of a PL-566 project in the RCWP project area, it is not possible to monitor the
effectiveness of the RCWP alone for erosion control.
II. Water Quality Goals and Objectives
To reduce sediment delivery to the lake and attain a desirable level of water quality.
Ill. Characteristics and Results
1.ProjectType: RCWP
2. Timeframe: 1980—1990
3. Total Project Budget (for timeframe): $ 4,198,026 estimated I budget breakdown not available
4. Area (acres):
Watershed Prolect Critical
153,600 153,600 52,072
5. Land Use: (ref. 2, p. 7)
LI % Project Area % Critical Area
cropiand 41 NA
pasture/range 19 NA
(grassland)
woodland 20 NA
urban/roads 1 NA
water and wetlands 12 NA
state park and
wildlife refuges 7 NA
6. AnImal Operations in Project Area: not applicable
7. Water Resource Type:
Reelfoot Lake and tributary streams.
84
-------
8. Water Use Impairment:
Reelfoot Lake is located in a popular state park in Tennessee used primarily for fishing, boating, and
waterfowl hunting. The park had over 850,000 visitors during fiscal year 1974 (ref. 2). Other water uses
within the project area are irrigation and livestock watering.
Impairments of Reelfoot Lake are: decreased lake volume, decreased fishery and wildlife habitat, and
impaired recreational use caused mainly by sediment loading and high nutrient concentrations. The
lake has a severe eutrophication problem. Pesticides are reported to be a cause of impairment, but
data do not support this claim (ref. 11).
9. Water Quality at Start of Project: (ref. 7, pp.39-42A)
Concentrations (mg/I). at Lake Sites (1977-1982)
Station 1 Station 2 Station 4
Parameter ( onen waler) ( near outflow) ( near creek confluence )
x_n x_n x_n
Suspended solids 33—8 27—7 26—7
Phosphates’ 0.16—8 0.20—8 0.12—8
TKN 153—5 2.02—6 0.97—6
N0-3 & NO-z 0.05—8 0.09—8 0.04 —8
‘Species not noted.
10. Meteorologic and Hydrogeologic Factors:
a. Mean Annual Precipitation: 48 inches
b. USLE ‘R’ Factor: — 260
c. Geologic Factors: The project area lies within the Mississippi embayment section of the Gulf
Coastal Plain. Uplands and bottomlands are divided by a distinct bluff running north-south through
the area. Substrate consists primarily of compact silt and clay mixtures. Bottomlands are covered by
deep alluvial deposits of silt, clay, sand and gravel. Uplands are covered by fluvial gravels topped
with silty bess. Predominant soils are moderately well-drained to somewhat poorly drained barns.
All soils in the area are highly susceptible to gully and sheet erosion. Topography is nearly level on
uplands to steeply sloped along bluffs adjacent to the lake.
11. Water Quality Monitoring Program:
a. Timeframe: September 1987 to December 1989
b. Sampling Scheme: storm runoff and ambient monitoring / conducted by Tennessee Department
of Health and Environment Nonpoint Source Program, and U.S.G.S.
1. Location and number of monitoring stations: 3 stations for tributary monitoring - North Reelfoot
Creek, South Reelfoot Creek
and Running Slough
2. Sampling Frequency: storm event, low and medium ambient flow
3. Sample Type: Flow activated automatic sampling and grab samples
c. Pollutants Analyzed: nutrients, pesticides
d. Flow Measurements:
1. Tributary monitoring: Continuous flow measurements
2. Ungaged stream sites: Instantaneous flow measurements at time of sampling
12. CritIcal Areas:
a. Criteria: 83% of the cropland is designated as critical and is prioritized in three classifications based
on cropping intensity, erosion rate, and proximity to the lake and streams.
b. Application of Criteria: Contracts obtained for critical areas but prioritization unknown.
85
-------
Reelfoot Lake RCWP, Tennessee & Kentucky
13. Best Management Practices:
a. General Scheme: Land treatment emphasized by this project includes erosion controls
(e.g. conservation tillage), stream protection, fertilizer and pesticide management.
b. Quantified Implementation Goals:
1. Treat 80% of critical area (41,658 acres)
2. Reduce sediment delivered to the lake by 75%, which is equivalent to sediment reduction of
638,019 tons/year.
c. Quantified Contracting/Implementation Achievements: as of September, 1986 (ref. 11, p. 15)
The table below reflects only RCWP implementation. The project also has a significant amount of
non-RCWP implementation under ACP and other programs.
Location % Unda Contract % 1mofrm nted
project area 22 NA
critical area 64 NA
The project has exceeded contracting goals on BMPs 3 (strip cropping), 6 (grazing land protection
systems), 11 (permanent vegetative cover on critical areas), 15 (nutrient management), and 16 (pes-
ticide management). However, sediment control practices, the major emphasis of the project, have
not achieved the same success.
d. Cost of BMPs: Not available by BMP.
e. Effectiveness of BMPs: positive effect - cumulative soil savings of 720,835 tons (reported for 1981-
1987)
14. Water Quality Changes:
None have been reported to date. With the ACP and extensive PL-566 project in addition to the RCWP
project area, the monitoring program will not document the water quality impacts of RCWP alone.
A preliminary open file report (#88-311) “Stream Flow and Water Quality Data for Three Major
Tributaries to Reelfoot Lake, West Tennessee October 1987 - March 1988” is available (ref. 13). A
final report is expected by December 1989.
15. Changes in Water Resource Use:
There are no documented changes in water use at Reelfoot Lake since RCWP began. However, if the
installed BMPs reduce sediment, then the loss of lake capacity and severity of recreational impairments
may be reduced.
16. Incentives:
a. Cost Share Rates: 75%
b. $ Limitations: $50,000 per landowner
c. Assistance Programs: TN will conditionally pay the other 25% cost share to establish alfalfa on
designated steep, erodible lands within the project area.
d. Other Incentives or Regulations: The Conservation Reserve Program provides additional
incentives to farmers to convert highly erodible lands to more permanent vegetation.
86
-------
17. Potential Economic Benefits:
a. On-farm: not evaluated
b. Off-farm:
1) Recreation: 0 - $30,000 per year
2) Water Supply: 0 - $2,000 per year
3) Commercial fishing: 0
4) Wildlife Habitat: unknown
5) Aesthetics: unknown but positive
6) Downstream Impacts: 0
IV. Lessons Learned
Project success requires a high quality advanced information and education program on project content,
policies, and those agencies and organizations responsible for the program. Local people need to take part
in decisions. A project will be successful if local people make the project their own. Local people need to
form an agreement and achievements may have little to do with federal money.
Interstate cooperation is an essential element for the success of this project. Not only is the apparent
cooperation between the two states good, but the cooperative efforts of several programs (local, state, and
federal) also appear worthy of examination as a model of how multiple agencies can coordinate to address
a common water quality goal.
V. Project Documents
1. Tennessee Department of Public Health, Division of Water Quality Control, 1978. Reelfoot Lake Pesticide Survey, Lake and Obion
Counties.
2. Application for RCWP Grant, Reelfoot Lake Drainage Area, 1979. 5 ’lpp.
3. USDA-Soil Conservation Service, 1979. Land Treatment Plan for Erosion Control and Water Quality Improvement, Reelfoot Lake
Drainage Area. 34pp.
4. Reelfoot Lake RCWP Project Plan of Work, 1980.
S. Tennessee Department of Public Health, Division of Water Quality Control, 1981. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan Reelfoot-Indian
Creek Watershed RCWP. 2lpp.
6. Smith, W.L. andT.D. Pitts, 1982. Reelfoot Lake: Summaiy Report. University of Tennessee, Martin, TN. l 2 spp.
7. Local Coordinating Committee Reelfoot Lake RCWP, 1982. Reelfoot Lake RCWP Annual Progress Report. Islpp.
8. Local Coordinating Committee Reelfoot Lake RCWP, 1983. Reelfoot Lake RCWP Annual Progress Report.
9. Local Coordinating Committee Reelfoot Lake RCWP, 1984. Reelfoot Lake RCWP Annual Progress Report.
10. Local Coordinating Committee Reelfoot Lake RCWP, 1985. Reelfoot Lake RCWP Annual Progress Report.
11. Local Coordinating Committee Reelfoot Lake RCWP, 1986. Reelfoot Lake RCWP Annual Progress Report.
12. Local Coordinating Committee Reelfoot Lake RCWP, 1987. Reelfoot Lake RCWP Annual Progress Report.
13. ‘Stream Flow and Water-Quality for Three Major Tributaries to Reelfoot Lake, West Tennessee, October 1987-March 1988,’ Tenn.
Dept. of Health and Environment and US Geological Survey.
VI. NWQEP Project Contacti
Water Quality Monitoring Land Treatment
Dr. Andrew Barrass Louis Godbey
Tenn. Dept. of Health & Environment Soil Conservation Service
NPS Program 801 Broadway
150 9th Ave. N., TERRA Bldg 675 Kefauver Federal Bldg.
Nashville, TN 37219-5404 Nashville, TN 37203
tel. (615)741-0638 tel. (615)736-7112
87
-------
Snake Creek - RCWP 11
Wasatch County, Utah
MLRA: E-47
H.U.C. 160202-03
I. Major Contributions Toward Understanding the Effectiveness of NPS Control
Eflorts
Reported monitoring results from Snake Creek indicate a 90% reduction in average P concentration and a
99% decrease in fecal coliform numbers after BMP installation. Results from Huffaker Ditch indicate about
83% reduction in average P concentrations and fecal coliform numbers have decreased by 94%. Other
non-RCWP BMP implementation in the watershed is due to the success of this project.
II. Water Quality Goals and Objectives
Objectives are to reduce the pollution entering Deer Creek Reservoir from agricultural NPS and to determine
effectiveness of selected BMPs achieving water quality improvement. The goal is to reduce the total
phosphorus in Snake Creek by 50% (650 kg), in Huffaker Ditch by 75% (597 kg), and in Bunnel Ditch by
75% (120 kg).
Ill. Characteristics and Results
1. Project Type: RCWP
2. Timeframe: 1980—1990
3. Total Project Budget (for timeframe):
4. Area (acres):
Watershed Protect CrHlcal
523,403 700 489
5. Project Land Use: (ref. 4, p. 16-17, and ref.6, p.5)
cropland
(mostly alfalfa)
pasture/range
urban/roads
ACTIVITY:
Cost-share
SOURCE: Federal State
Farmer
Other
161,000
0
64,850
0
Info. & Ed.
3,000
0
0
0
3,000
Tech. Asst.
76,800
0
1,600
0
78,400
Water Quality
MonItoring
143,422
0
0
47,808
191,230
SUM:
225,850
SUM: 384,222
0
66,450 47,808 $498,480
% Project Area
90
4
6
% CritIcal Area
91
9
0
88
-------
6. Animal Operations in Project Area:
Onerallon # Operations Total # AnimaLs Total AjJ
Daixy 2 216 302
Beef 5 230 1%
Horse 1 18 22
All Considcrcd critical sources.
7. Water Resource Type:
The water resources are irrigation canals draining into Snake Creek which flows into the Provo River
slightly upstream from the river’s discharge into Deer Creek Reservoir.
8. Water Uses and Impairments:
Water is stored in Deer Creek Reservoir, located just outside of the project area, primarily for
municipal, industrial and irrigation use in neighboring valleys. Recreational use of the reservoir is also
important (351,571 visitors during 1978- ref. 1). About 500,000 people in the Salt Lake Valley received
potable water from the reservoir when the project began in 1980.
The reservoir has a eutrophication problem which impairs its use for water supply and recreation. High
concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria and phosphorus occur frequently in Snake Creek; however,
Snake Creek is a relatively minor source of the total pollutants entering Deer Creek reservoir (ref. 10).
9. Water Quality at Start of Project: Nov. 1979 to Dec. 1981 (ref.4)
Station 14 (Snake Creek near base of project area)
mini ni & m nn n
TP (mg/i) 0.02 0.71 0.14 33
TKN (mg/i) 0.10 3.90 0.851 33
FC(#/lOOml) 30 7500 889 13
StatIon 6 (ditch downstream from dairy farm)
mm. mn& m nn 11
TP (mg/I) 0.04 0.56 0.19 31
TKN (mg/i) 0.10 4.60 1.08 31
FC (#/lOOnil) 13 12,800 1,762 10
Feb. 1981-Dec. 1981 only
10. Meteorologic and Hydrogeologic Factors:
a. Mean Annual Precipitation: 16.4 inches
b. USLE ‘R’ Factor: 30
c. Geologic Factors: The project area is in a valley which has a floor underlain by beds of unconsolidated
material from 40 to over 1,000 feet deep. Soils range from well drained deep soils formed in alluvium
and residium from sedimentary rocks on foothills and alluvial fans to moderately well drained and
poorly drained deep soils formed in mixed alluvium on flood plains, low stream terraces and valley
bottoms. Surface drainage patterns indicate that all surface water entering the valley runs in a direct
manner toward the reservoir adjacent to the project area.
11. Water Quality Monitoring Program:
a. Tiineframe: Nov. 1979 — 1990
b. Sampling Scheme: conducted by the Mountainland Association of Governments
1. Location and Number of Monitoring Stations: Initially, the project monitored water quality
at 20 stations along Snake Creek, Provo River and several irrigation ditches. As of 1986,
monitoring has been reduced to seven stations.
2. Sampling Frequency: monthly, with weekly samples taken during spring runoff.
3. Sample Type : grab
89
-------
Snake Creek RCWP, Utah
c. Pollutants Analyzed: TP, OP, TKN, N03, N02, NH3, BOD, TSS, TDS, conductivity,
temperature, and pH
d. Flow Measurements: instantaneous at time of sampling
12. Critical Areas:
a. Criteria: Since this is a small project area, all major animal operations were considered critical.
b. Application of Treatment According to Criteria: adequate
13. Best Management Practices:
a. General Scheme: Project proposed to install animal waste management systems (BMP 2)
on all farms in the project area.
b. Quantified Implementation Goals: Contracts were planned for all four dairies and two of the
beef operations in the project area; the other two beef operations had agreed to use
conservation methods without the aid of the RCWP project. The two horse operations
were not considered critical and were not included in the contracting plans.
c. Quantified Contracting/Implementation Achievements:
Critical Area Project
Pollutant Treatment Treatment % Needs / Goals % Needs/Goals
Sources Contracted Implemented
Acres Needing Treatment 489 456 93 / 100 NA
Dairies 4fl 4 1 ( 10/100 100/100
Feed lots 2 50/ 100 50 / 100
#Contracts 8 6 75/lOOC 75/100
Ai of 1967, 1 daity changed operation to beef feedlot. BMP management deemed sufflcient (or the new operation needs.
Two feedlot ewners decided to solve Cheir water quality problems without cost-share suistance.
As of 196
d. Cost of BMPs: Cost shares not available by BMP.
e. Effectiveness of BMPs: Examination of recent data indicates continued water quality
improvement.
14. Water Quality Charges:
Significant water quality improvements attributable to BMP implementation have been reported (ref.
9, p. 101). On the main reach of Snake Creek, analysis showed 43 to 90% reduction in TP, OP, TKN
and FC concentrations. Recent data (1985 and 1986) from stations 10 and 14 indicate continued water
quality improvement. Analysis of Huffaker Ditch (ref. 9, p. 101) shows a 48 to 66% reduction in TP,
OP, TKN, and FC concentrations attributable to BMP implementation. No significant water quality
impact on Deer Creek Reservoir is expected from this project, however, because the project area
constitutes less than 1% of the reservoir drainage. (For further discussion see appendix to NWQEP
Annual Report, 1985.)
15. Changes In Water Resource Use:
Actual visitation appears to have increased as a result of opening the park for year-round use. The
reservoir is still used as a primary water supply for several nearby towns and is considered to be of
good quality.
16. Incentives:
a. Cost Share Rates: 75%
b. $ Limitations: $50,000 per landowner
c. Assistance Programs: none reported
90
-------
17. Potential Economic Benefits:
a. On-farm: not evaluated
b. Off-farm:
1) Recreation: 0
2) Water Supply: $4,000 per year.
3) Commercial Fishing: 0
4) Wildlife Habitat: unknown
5) Aesthetics: unknown
6) Downstream impacts: 0
IV. Lesson Learned
This project has not only been successful in reducing nutrient and bacterial concentrations, but is also
exemplary for its region. Other dairies in the Heber Valley area now are considering installing similar
practices after seeing the success of the Snake Creek RCWP.
The impact of the project alone on Deer Creek reservoir would have been negligible because the project area
constitutes less than 1% of the reservoir drainage. However, the RCWP project, in combination with several
county-wide NPS control efforts, has contributed significantly to documented improvements in the water
quality of Deer Creek reservoir.
The small area of this project made it ideal for nearly complete implementation and ease of tracking. Water
quality data analyses by NWQEP identified two critical areas: one small reach of the Snake Creek and
Huffaker Ditch. These analyses also indicated that it may not have been necessary to install practices outside
of these two critical areas.
The federal Dairy Buy-Out program conflicted with RCWP objectives in this project. Considerable time and
money were spent to treat a problem dairy but this effort was nullified when the dairy entered the Buy-Out
program.
V. Project Documents
1. Mountainland Association of Governments, 1979. Application for Rural Clean Water Program Funds, Snake Creek, Wasatch County,
Utah. 34 pp.
2. Snake Creek Experimental Rural Clean Water Program, 1980. Plan of Work. 2 Spp.
3. Mountainland Association of Governments, 1980. Snake Creek RCWP Monitoring Study Progress Report. Provo, Utah. 53pp.
4. Snake Creek Local Coordinating Committee, 1982. Annual Progress Report on the Snake Creek Rural Clean Water Program. Wasatch
County, Utah.
5. Snake Creek Local Coordinating Committee, 1983. Annual Progress Report on the Snake Creek Rural Clean Water Program. Wasatch
County, Utah.
6. Snake Creek Local Coordinating Committee, 1984. Annual Progress Report on the Snake Creek Rural Clean Water Program. Wasatch
County, Utah.
7. Snake Creek L.ocal Coordinating Committee, 1985. Annual Progress Report on the Snake Creek Rural Clean Water Program. Wasatch
County, Utah.
8. Snake Creek L.ocal Coordinating Committee, 1986. Annual Progress Report on the Snake Creek Rural Clean Water Program. Wasatch
County, Utah.
9. Sowby and Berg Consultants. Deer Creek Reservoir and Proposed Jordanelle Reservoir Water Quality Management Plan. Prepared for
Wasatch and Summit Counties, Provo, Utah. (1984)
10. Snake Creek Local Coordinating Committee, 1987. Annual Progress Report on the Snake Creek Rural Clean Water Program.
Wasatch County, Utah.
91
-------
Snake Creek RCWP, Utah
V I. NWQEP Project Contacts
Water Quality Monitoring Land Treatment
Ray Loveless Jack Young
Utah Mountainland USDA - SCS
Association of Governments P.O. Box 87
2545 N. Canyon Rd. Heber City, UT 84032
Provo, UT 84604 tel. (801) 654-0242
tel. (801) 377-2262 J1.cL
Bryant Brady
USDA-SCS
Heber City, UT 84032
tel. (801) 377-5580
Land TreatmentiTechnical Assistance
Chairman
Local Coordinating Committee
Snake Creek RCWP
Wasatch County ASCS Office
P.O. Box 6
Heber City, Utah 84032
tel. (801) 377-5296 — Provo, Utah
92
-------
St. Albans Bay - RCWP 12
Franklin County, Vermont
MLRA: R-142
H.U.C. 0201 00-05,07
I. Major Contributions Toward Understanding the Effectiveness of NPS Control
Efforts:
This project has made substantial contributions in the following areas:
Water Quality Monitoring: The project has provided information on the level of monitoring needed to detect
changes in watershed nutrient loadings and concentrations and design of watershed monitoring programs.
Land Use Monitoring: The project is using GIS to examine what level of land use tracking is needed to tie
water quality changes to land use activities.
Effectiveness of BMPs: Modeling and monitoring by the project provide additional information about the
nutrient reductions from various animal waste management practices.
Contributions in each of these areas are discussed in detail in the 1985 NWQEP RCWP-CM&E Report.
II. Water Quality Goals and Objectives
The project’s goal is to improve the water quality in St. Albans Bay and restore beneficial uses by reducing
the amount of phosphorus, nitrogen and other nutrients entering the Bay.
Ill. Characteristics and Results
1. Project Type: RCWP, Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation
2. Timeframe: 1980—1991
3. Total Project Budget (for timeframe):
SOURCES: Federal State Farmer Other
ACTIVITY: SUM:
Cost-share 1,682,144 0 560,714 0 2,242,858
info. & Ed. 18,670 43,224 0 0 61.894
Tech. Asst. 961,552 0 0 0 961,552
Water Quality
Monitoring 1,682,102 456,712 0 0 2,138,814
SUM: 4,198,668 499,936 560,714 0 $5,405,118
4. Area (acres):
Watershed Prolect Critical
33,344 33,344 15,257
93
-------
Subwatershed Total Acres Critical Acres
Jewctt Brook 3,421 2,720
Stevens Brook 5,994 1,840
Rugg Brook 3,825 1,640
Mill River 14,358 5,980
Stevens Wetland 15,186 8,.540
Guayland Brook 1,236 380
Direct to Bay 1,383 357
5. Land Use: (ref. 22. 1986 data)
LLs % Project Area % Critical Area
corn 11 NA
hayland 33 NA
pasture 19 NA
woodland 21 NA
other 16 NA
8. Animal Operations in Project Area:
Operation Farms Total # Animals Total LU .
Dairy 98 6,500 est. 9,100
7.Water Resource Type:
St. Albans Bay and project area streams.
8. Water Uses and Impairments:
St. Albans Bay has been used heavily for recreation in the past. From 1960 to 1978, annual day use of
St. Albans State Park declined from 27,456 to 3,458 users due to worsening eutrophic conditions in the
Bay (ref. 1). Boating, swimming and aesthetic enjoyment of the Bay are impaired by excessive
macrophytes and algal growth.
9. Water Quality at Start of Project:
St. Albans Bay frequently had eutrophic conditions in summer.
10. Meteorologic and Hydrogeologic Factors:
a. Mean Annual Precipitation: 33 inches
b. USLE ‘R’ Factor: 100
c. Geologic Factors: Topography ranges from steep slopes in the eastern region of the project area to
fairly level terrain in the western region near Lake Champlain. Soils of the eastern region are largely
glacial tills.
11. Water Quality Monitoring Program:
a. Timeframe: 1980- 1990
b. Sampling Scheme: conducted by the Water Resources Research Center at the University of Ver-
mont
1. Location and Number of Monitoring Stations: 4 bay stations; S tributary stations.
Subwatershed Station #
Jewett Brook 21
Stevens Brook 22
Rugg Brook 23
Mill River 24a
Stevens Wetland
Guayland Brook 43
‘includes Rugg Brook
include Jewett Brook and Stevens Brook
94
-------
St. Albans Bay RCWP, Vermont
2. Sampling Frequency: bi weekly ba)r, tributaries- storm and ambient
3. Sample Type (e.g. grab, automatic): bay-grab; tributaries- automatic
c. Pollutants Analyzed: TSS, VSS, TP, OP. Turbidity, FC, N03, NI-I 3 , TKN
d. Flow Measurements: continuous
e. Other: biological monitoring
12. Critical Areas:
a. Criteria: Amount of manure, distance from watercourse, present manure management practices,
manure spreading rates.
b. Application of criteria: The project has applied criteria rigorously to cost share applications.
13. Best Management Practices:
a. General Scheme: Install waste storage systems, control barnyard runoff, spread manure at proper
rates
b. Quantified Implementation goals: treat 11,443 acres and 64 dairies
c. Quantified Contracting/Implementation Achievements: (ref. 22)
Critical Area
Pollutant Treatment Project % Needs / Goals % Needs / Goals
Sourcesa 2Aa1 Contracted Im plemented
Acres Needing Treatment 15,257 11,443 NA / 101 NA / 61
Dairies 98 64 NA / 98 NA / 59
#Contracts 98 64 64/98 63
Total Animal Units in Watershed — 73% contracted / 66% under best management
Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus in Manure — 73% contracted / 66% under best management
% Critical Acres % Manure % Goal
Subwatershed Contracted Contracted Installed
Jewett Brook 78 81 75
Stevens Brook 55 55 . .95a
Rugg Brook 55 48 bOa
Mill River 74 65 bOa
Stevens Wetland 79 78 75
a only a few practices left to be installed in these subwatersheds
d. Cost of BMPs: Installation costs of the two major types of manure storage systems (180 day storage)
for a 48 cow herd are:
Total Per cow
System Cost ($ Cost ( l
Earthen-pit 15,230 263
Above-ground 43,844 756
Of these costs, RCWP pays about 75%.
e. Effectiveness of BMPs: Model results indicate that implementation of BMPs will cause total
phosphorus to decline 47% overall (a 73% reduction in critical TP load) and sediment to decrease
12% (an 86% reduction in critical sediment load) (ref. 22).
f. Other: Animal waste management syatems (BMP 2) account for 77% of obligated cost-share funds.
BMP 12, water control structures used to treat barnyard runoff, account for 19% of obligated
cost-share funds (ref 22).
95
-------
14. Water Quality Changes:
Bay stations trend analysis: The project reports that total phosphorus concentrations in 1986-87 were
significantly greater than in 1982- 83, and this is presumed to be related to discharges during upgrading
of a sewage treatment plant. No improving trend in phosphorus concentrations has been documented.
(ref. 22)
Tributary mass export trends:. Total phosphorus and ortho-phosphorus exports have significantly
decreased in Stevens Brook. Mass exports of phosphorus at other tributary streams have been less
since 1983-84. (ref. 22)
15. Changes in Water Resource Use:
Recreational use of the bay could more than double if significant improvements in water quality are
perceived. Use of shoreline properties will also increase as water quality improves.
16. Incentives:
a. Cost Share Rates: 75% for animal waste management
b. $ Limitations:50,000 maximum
c. Assistance Programs: ACP funds are also being used
17. Economic Benefits:
a. On-farm: A farmer’s net income is likely to improve with installation of manure management systems
with RCWP cost-sharing of 75%. For the typical 48 cow herd and 180 day storage the increase in pre-tax
income ranges from $900 for an above-ground system to $2,000 for an earthen-pit system. In total,
farmers’ net income over 50 years is projected to be $800,000 higher (discounted to present value) as
a result of RCWP. This benefit comes primarily from labor, fertilizer and tax savings which exceed a
farmer’s share of costs.
b. Off-farm: Improving water quality inSt. Albans Bay to that found in Lake Champlain would produce
the following benefits (total over 50 years, discounted):
Benefit S Million
Recreation enhancement
(swimming and boating) 5.2
Property value increase
around bay 1.3
Reduced bay weed treatment minni
Total 6.5
Part of these benefits would be due to improvements in municipal wastewater treatment.
IV. Lessons Learned
Agricultural nonpoint source control projects can be designed so that benefits associated with water quality
improvement exceed the costs of the project, even when the cost of treatment is relatively high.
1. Even in expensive dairy waste management projects, a high level of farmer participation can be
obtained if there is:
— 75% cost share rates;
— a full-time coordinator who promotes participation;
— a high level of community and landowner awareness of the water quality problems; and
— substantial on-farm labor and fertilizer savings.
2. In project area with a history of over-application of nutrients, simply reducing nutrient application
rate to meet crop uptake demand may not be sufficient to achieve nutrient loading reductions in the
near term because of the large nutrient reservoir in the soil.
96
-------
St. Albans Bay RCWP, Vermont
The project has identified critical TP and sediment loads as the percentage of total loads that can be
controlled by BMPs. Evaluation based on critical loads provides a better understanding of actual pollutants
being addressed through BMP implementation.
Models developed by the Vermont SCS have been used effectively to assess sources of agricultural NI’S
phosphorus and sediment, critical and total pollutant loads, changes over time, and BMP selection. This
type of modeling effort at the beginning of a project would be useful for ranking farms and setting treatment
priorities.
V. Project Documents
1. An Application for Assistance for a Rural Clean Water Program . St. Albans Bay, Lake Carmi Watersheds, Vermont Agency of En-
vironmental Conservation,
2. Rural Clean Water Program-St. Albans Bay Project Plan of Work. 1980.
3. Technical Manual for the SNR Water Resource Research Center (WRRC) - Computerized Data Management System (COMS)
4. Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the St. Albans Bay, Vermont Rural Clean Water Program. February 1981. Vermont
Rural Clean Water Coordinating Committee.
5. St. Albans Bay Watershed RCWP Project Comprehensive Monitoring & Evaluation. June - November 1981. Progress Report
6. Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation - Progress Report for 1981 -St. Albans Bay, Vermont, Rural Clean Water Program. January
1982. Vermont Rural Clean Water Coordinating Committee.
7. Socioeconomic Evaluation - St. Albans Bay, Vermont - Annual Report. 1982. C. Edwin Young.
8. St. Albans Bay Rural Clean Water Program - Annual Report. November 1982. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Vermont Water Resour-
ces Research Center.
9. St. Albans Bay Rural Clean Water Program - Annual Progress Report. 1983. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Vermont Water Resour-
ces Research Center.
10. St. Albans Bay Rural Clean Water Program - Summary Report. 1984. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Vermont Water Resources Re-
search Center.
11. St. Albans Bay Watershed RCWP Project Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation - Progress Report. November1984.
12. St. Albans Bay Watershed RCWP Project Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation - Progress Report. February 1985.
13. St. Albans Bay Rural Clean Water Program - Annual Progress Report. 1985. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Vermont Water Resour-
ces Research Center.
14. St. Albans Bay Watershed RCWP Project Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation - Progress Report. November 1985.
15. St. Albans Bay Watershed RCWP Project Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation - Progress Report. May 1986.
16. St. Albans Bay Rural Clean Water Program. Annual Progress Report. 1986.
17. Ribaudo, Mark 0., C. E. Young and D. J. Epp. Recreation Benefits from Improvements in Water Quality at St. Albans Bay, Vermont.
Staff Report no. AGES840127, Economic Research Services, U.S.D.A., March 1984.
18. Young, C. Edwin. Perceived Water Quality and the Value of Seasonal Homes. Water Resources Bulletin, 20:153, April 1984.
19. Young, D. Edwin and Frank A. Teti. The Influence ol Water Quality on the Value of Recreational Property Adjacent to St. Albans
Bay, Vermont. Staff Report No. AGES83III6, Economic Research Service, U.S.D.A., January 1984.
20. Frevert, Kathleen and Bradley Crowder. Analysis of Agricultural Nonpoint Pollution Control Options in the St. Albans Bay Water-
shed, Staff Report No. AGES870423. Economic Research Service, U.S.D.A., June 1987.
21. Ribaudo, Mark, C. Edwin Young, and James S. Shortle. Impacts of Water Quality Improvement on Site Visitation: A Probabilistic
Modeling Approach. Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 22. No. 4. August 1986. pp. 559-563.
22. St. Albans Bay Rural Clean Water Program 1987 Annual Progress Report. Vermont RCWP Coordinating Committee, December, 1987.
23. St. Albans Bay Watershed RCWP Project Comprehensive Monitorng and Evaluation Progress Report — YearS, No. 1. September,
1987. November, 1987.
97
-------
VI. NWQEP Project Contacts
Water Quality Monitoring Land Treatment/Technical Assistance
Dr. Jack Clausen Jeff Mahood
University of Vermont USDA - Soil Conservation Service
Aiken Center 69 Union Street
Burlington, VT 05405 Winooski, Vi’ 05404
tel. (802) 656-4057 tel. (802) 655-9430
Economic Evaluation Information & Education
C. Edwin Young Bill Jokela
Economic Research Service/RTD University of Vermont
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Coop. Ext. Service
1301 New York Ave. NW, Rm. 508 Aiken Center
Washington, DC 20005-4788 Burlington, VT 05405
tel. (202) 786-1401 tel. (802) 656-4057
98
-------
Lower Manhtowoc River Watershed - RCWP 13
Manitowoc, Brown, and Calumet Counties, Wisconsin
MLRA: L-95 A & B
H.U.C. 040301 -01
I. Major Contributions Toward Understanding the Effectiveness of NPS Control
Efforts
Little information on the water quality effectiveness of BMPs will be determined by this project. Although
implemented practices may improve water quality, monitoring is not designed to detect it water quality
changes as a result of RCWP implementation.
ii. Water Quality Goals and Objectives
The project’s primary goal is to reduce phosphorus loads from agricultural nonpoint sources by 48%. Other
goals are to minimize further degradation of Bullhead Lake by reducing P loads, improve macroinvertebrate
community integrity in Lower and Little Manitowoc Rivers, and reduce fecal coliform Counts to below
200/100 ml in the watershed.
ill. Characteristics and Results
1. Project Type: RCWP
2. Timeframe: 1980—1990
3. Total Project Budget (for timeframe): (ref. 8, p. 17)
SOURCE: Federal State Farmer Other
ACTIVITY: SUM
Cost-char.
817,100
0
591,900
0
1,409,000
Info.&Ed.
1,000
900
0
0
1,900
Tech. Asst.
104,479
20,557
0
0
125,036
Water Quality
MonItoring
0
5,000
0
0
5,000
SUM: 922,579 26,457 591,900 0 $1,540,936
4. Area (acres):
Watershed Prolect Critical
352,000 102,000 23,598
5. Project Land Use:
% Project Ares % Critical Area
cropiand 67 NA
woodland 28 NA
urban/roads 5 NA
99
-------
6. Animal Operations in Project Area: (reported — ref.4 pp. 8, 13, and 15)
Operation # Fat-inc Total # Animals Total A.IL
daiiy 333 13,000 18,200
There are 333 operations with an average of 39 cows per operation: 83 small herds of less than 20 milk cows and 250
larger herds of more than 20 milk cows.
7. Water Resource Type:
A small lake, Manitowoc River, wetlands and streams, all draining to Lake Michigan.
8.Water Uses and Impairments:
The nearshore waters of Lake Michigan are used for recreation (swimming, fishing and boating),
shipping, and public water supply for the city of Manitowoc. These waters are impaired by algal growth
due to the excessive quantities of phosphorus and by high bacteria levels. The harbor capacity is
reduced by sedimentation which necessitates dredging to maintain shipping channels.
The river, streams and lakes within the project area are used primarily for fishing and other recreational
activities. The lake is eutrophic as a result of excess phosphorus which impairs the fishery. The fishery
in the river is also impaired by high phosphorus levels and high fecal coliform levels. Sedimentation of
the riverbed is also a problem. Project area water resources are used by about 40,000 people in and
adjacent to the watershed. This number does not include recreational visitors to the watershed.
9. Water Quality at Start of Project: (ref. 4, p.5)
Phosphorus Loadings Measured at the Mouth of the Manitowoc River
I iiz Pounds of P Per Year 1
1973 211,000
1974 196,000
1975 106,000
1976 103,000
1977 39,000
1978 182,000
Mean ..139,500
loads are from multiple point and nonpoint sources. The estimated P load from livestock waste and cropland
erosion from the project area is 55,080 pounds of P per year (ref.7 p.20).
10. Meteorologic and Hydrogeolog Ic Factors:
a. Mean Annual Precipitation: 29 inches
b. USLE ‘R’ Factor: — 100
c. Geologic Factors: Topography varies from rolling to moderately steep. Soils are generally fine-tex-
tured with clay barns predominant. Precipitation does not readily infiltrate into these heavy soils and
runoff is high.
11. Water Quality Monitoring Program:
a. Tirnefranie:
1. Mouth of river: 1973—1990 and could continue
2. Biological Monitoring: Mostly in the upper reaches and tributaries in the project area
from 1979 to 1982. One site on a tributary will continue to be biologically monitored
probably from 1985 to 1987.
b. Sampling Scheme: conducted by Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources
100
-------
Lower Manitowoc River Watershed RCWP, Wisconsin
1. Location and Number of Monitoring Stations:
Two water quality stations at the base of the project area are located above and within
the city of Manitowoc. These stations are influenced, however, by the backwash of
Lake Michigan, point sources, urban NFS, the RCWP project area, and areas upstream
from the project. Thirteen sites were biologically monitored, 4 are located on the lower
Manitowoc River and 9 are located on tributaries to the river.
2. Sampling Frequency: (ref.4, p.22)
Mouth of river: In the zone of influence of urban sources and Lake Michigan)
1973— 1979--monthly and high flow 1979— 1982--biweekly, 1982— 1990--monthly
Biological monitoring: Once in the fall and spring of 1979 and 1982. Fall and spring
sampling of one site will continue from 1985 to 1987. The continuing site, however, was
not selected to show impact of the project.
3. Sample Type:
Mouth of river: not reported, probably grab sample
Biological monitoring: sampling arthropods by grab samples with D-frame aquatic net
c. Pollutants Analyzed: Mouth of river: suspended solids, VSS, TP, soluble P, dissolved silica, total
lead, chloride, total zinc, total solids, conductivity, copper, cadmium, and nickel
d. Flow Measurements: mouth of river with automatic, continuous equipment
e. Other: The project reports that the monitoring program has failed. The primary reasons are:
1) The monitoring station at the mouth of the Manitowoc River is influenced by many
pollution sources in addition to agricultural NPS from the RCWP project area; and
2) Funds are not available to install monitoring stations in subbasins. In addition, subbasins
contain point sources and large wetlands which would mask the effects of BMPs.
12. Critical Areas:
a. Criteria:
1. all lands within 1/8 mile of water course
2. lands with slopes 6% or greater that are 1/4 mile from water course
3. livestock operations have been categorized as follows:
— need of barnyard runoff controls and manure storage-- 104 large operations
— need of manure storage--88 large operations
— small water quality impact--83 smaller operations
— no impact on water quality--58 large operations
b. Application of Criteria: procedures well established and consistent
13. Best Management Practices:
a. General Scheme:
Land treatment practices that deal with animal waste management and erosion control
have been emphasized by the project. BMPs approved for the project include RCWP
BMPs 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 7,9, 10, 11, and 12.
b. Quantified Implementation Goals:
The project’s treatment goals are to treat 75% of the critical areas, including dairies and
erosion sources other than livestock farms.
c. Quantified Contractingflmplementation Achievements as of September 1987 (ref. 9)
Critical Area Project
Pollutant Treatment Treatment % Needs I Goals % Needs / Goals
Sources Contracted Imolemented
Acres Needing Treatcmnt 23,598 15,936 57 / 85 31/45
Dairies 153 115 NA 27/37
Feedlots 0 0 0 0
Erosion 39 29 NA 15 / 21
# Contracts: 192 144 69 / 92 NA
101
-------
d. Cost of BMPs:
Ave. Farmer Ave. RCWP
Share (Si Share (Si Total Cost (S
1 Perm. veg. cover 35/ac. 35/ac. 70/ac.
2 Animal waste mgmt. 890-9,000 Ca. 2,075.11,860 ea. 2,965-16,940 Ca.
3 Stnpcropping 7/ac. 16.40/ac. 23.40/ac.
4 Terracing 3/ft. 7/ft. 10/ft.
5 Diversions 0.47/ft. 1.10/ft. 137/ft.
7 Waterways 865/ac. 2,015/ac. 2,880/ac.
9 Contour Farming 2.40/ac. 5.60/ac. 8/ac
9 Conservation Till. 8.25/ac. 19.30/ac. 2735/ac.
10 Stream Crossings 300 ea. 700 ca. 1,000 ca.
10 Fencing 0.27/ft. 0.62/ft. 0.89/ft.
11 Perm. veg. on crit. ac. 46/ac. 106/ac. 152/ac.
12 Sediment retention,
erosion, water control 128 ea. 300 Ca. 428 Ca.
e. Effectiveness of BMPs:
The model CREAMS has been used to estimate relative differences in nutrient losses under different
management practices. Results showed that storing manure for application just efore fall plowing
could reduce N and P losses (kg/ha/yr) by 8.3% and 54% compared to winter spreading.
The project estimates a cumulative soil savings of 22,357 tons/year.
Project estimates of P load reduction resulting from BMP implementation are: 51% from manure
spreading, 23% from barnyard runoff, 60% from steep sloped cropland, and 13% from shallow sloped
cropland.
14. Water Quality Changes:
The monitoring program is inadequate to document water quality changes related to RCWP efforts.
15. Changes in Water Resource Use:
The city of Manitowoc continues to pump water from the harbor for domestic use. About 10 days per
year high bacteria levels due to heavy rains preclude use of the harbor as a water supply and secondary
rain collector wells are used as a water supply. The secondary wells need to be maintained as long as
periods of high bacteria levels occur. There is no information indicating any change in recreational
use. The average amount of material dredged from the harbor since RCWP began has been 25,000
cubic yards per year, compared to 41,400 cubic yards per year prior to RCWP. However, there has
been a large amount of variation in dredging rates due to varying rainfall levels.
16. IncentIves:
a. Cost Share Rates: BMPs 1 and 3 are cost shared at 50%; BMP 2, animal waste transfer
components, are cost shared at 40%; all other BMP 2 components have 70% rate; BMPs
4,5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 have 70% rate.
b. $ Limitations: $50,000 per landowner
c. Assistance Programs: Within the project area a state cost sharing program is being used in
conjunction with the RCWP project.
d. Other Incentives or Regulations: none reported
102
-------
Lower Manitowoc River Watershed RCWP, Wisconsin
17. PotentIal Economic Benefits:
a. On-farm: not evaluated
b. Off-farm:
1) Recreation: 0
2) Water Supply: $40,000 per year.
3) Commercial Fishing: 0
4) Wildlife Habitat: unknown
5) Aesthetics: unknown
6) Downstream Impacts: unknown but positive
IV. Lessons Learned
If a majority of the practices under contract are installed, there could be an improvement in water quality
from reducing agricultural NPS in the project area. The biological monitoring was performed prior to
substantial BMP implementation and the two monitoring sites at the base of the watershed reflect the
influence of the total watershed including urban areas. Thus, the water quality monitoring design cannot
adequately document the sources of contamination (i.e., incoming waters from the upper portion of the
watershed, backwash from Lake Michigan, point sources, and urban and agricultural NPS) nor the cause of
any potential water quality improvement. Thus, any water quality benefit from this project will not be
documented.
V. Project Documents
1. Lower Manitowoc River Watershed Application for RCWP, 1979. Manitowoc, Browo, and Calumet Counties, Wisconsin, l7pp.
2. The Lower Manitowoc River Priority Watershed Plan, 1979. Wisconsin. 5Opp.
3. Lower Manitowoc River Watershed RCWP, (no date). 44 pp.
4. 1982 Annual Report of the Lower Manitowoc River Watershed RCWP, 1982. Wisconsin. 68 pp.
5. 1983 Annual Report of the Lower Manitowoc River Watershed RCWP, 1983. Wisconsin.
6. 1984 Annual Report of the Lower Manitowoc River Watershed RCWP, 1984. Wisconsin.
7. 1985 Annual Report of the Lower Manitowoc River Watershed RCWP, 1985. Wisconsin.
8. 1986 Annual Report of the Lower Manitowoc River Watershed RCWP, 1986. Wisconsin.
9. 1987 Annual Report of the Lower Manitowoc River Watersherd RCWP, 1987. Wisconsin.
VI. NWQEP Project Contacts
Water Quality Monitoring Land Treatment/Technical Assistance
Jim Baumann Robert L. Wenzel, Chairman
Dept. of Natural Resources Manitowoc County LCC
P.O. Box 7921 Route 2
Madison, WI 53707 Brillion, WI 54110
tel. (608)266-9278
103
-------
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough Basin — RCWP 14
Okeechobee and Martin Counties, Florida
MLRA: U-156A
H.U.C. 030901 -02
I. Major Contributions Toward Understanding the Effectiveness of NPS Control
Efforts
The effectiveness of reducing phosphorus levels in Lake Okeechobee by preventing dairy cows from lounging
in streams should be documented by this project. The combined effectiveness of stream protection, grazing
land management, fertilizer management, and animal waste management to improve water quality on the
subwatershed and watershed scales should be measured as well.
II. Water Quality Goals and Objectives
The project seeks to reduce phosphorus and nitrogen loading to Lake Okeechobee by 50% measured at the
watershed outlet. (ref. 15)
Ill. Project Characteristics and Results
1. Project Type: RCWP
2. Timeframe: 1981—1991
3. Total Project Budget (for timeframe): (ref. 15)
SOURCE: Federal State Farmer Other
ACTIVITY:
Cost-share
1,104,250
0
400,892
0
Info. & Ed.
13,000
0
0
0
13,000
Tech. Asst.
416,952
0
0
0
416,952
Water Quality
MonitorIng
0
400,000
0
0
400,000
SUM: 1,534,202 400,000 400,892 0 $2,335,094
4. Area (acres):
Watershed Prolect Critical
110,000 110,000 63,109
Sub.Wat ersh ed Critical
NW Taylor Creek 12203 a 11,865
Little Bimini 3,776a 4,050
Otter & E. Otter Creek 10,753a 10,753
Main Taylor Creek 11,031 6,464
Williamson Ditch 21,026 9,774
Mosquito Creek 12,836 4,101
Nubbin Slough ll 9 Mb 7,091
Heniy Creek 10,049 4,255
Lettuce Creek 16,247 4,756
SUM:
1,505,142
104
-------
Otter Creek, NW Taylor Creek, and Little Bimini are not perfectly defined hydrologically. There is an additional
8,077 acres in the Taylor Creek Headwaters defined by these 3 subwatersheds, but these are not critical.
b The total area my be larger by approximately 2800 acres with non-critical acreage east of Mosquito Creek.
5. Land Use:
I1s % Project Area % CritIcal Area
cropland 2 0
(mostly citrus groves)
pasture/range
a. dairy 30 52
b.beef 45 48
woodland and
wet prairies 18 0
urban/roads 5 0
6. Animal Operations in Project Area:
Oneratlon # Farmslotal # AnImals Total A.U .
Dairy 24 28,000 39,200
Beef 56 25,000 21,250
7.Water Resource Type:
Streams, canals, Lake Okeechobee
8. Water Uses and Impairments: (ref. 3,12, 15)
Lake Okeechobee is the source of public drinking water for five towns around the lake. It is also the
secondary source of water supply for the lower east coast from West Palm Beach to Miami. A
commercial fishery worth $6. million annually is supported by the lake. The lake’s sport fishing
industry is worth $22 million annually (ref. 15). In addition, a diverse wildlife habitat draws many
tourists to the lake area.
The Taylor Creek — Nubbin Slough Basin contributes a disproportionate amount of phosphorus to
Lake Okeechobee ( 30% of P load in only 4% of inflow to the lake). Use of lake waters is impaired
by eutrophic conditions.
9. Water Quality at Start of Project:
1980 mean annual concentrations at station S-191, the outlet of project area (ref.3, p.19).
Pollutant 1mg/fl
TP 0.99
OP 0.88
TN 3.33
N03 N}13 N02 1.01
10. MeteorologIc and Hydrogeologic Factors:
a. Mean Annual Precipitation: 50.0 inches
b. USLE ‘R’ Factor: 400
c. Geologic Factors: Topography is relatively flat. Soils are coarse textured, mostly poorly drained with
rapid permeability and medium drainage. An organic hard pan underlies much of the area with loam
or marl under the rest, all of a depth of less than 50 inches. The water table is very shallow. Seasonal
groundwater fluctuations are closely related to the seasonality of rainfall.
105
-------
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough RCWP, Florida
11. Water Quality Monitoring Program:
a. Timeframe: RCWP monitoring is from 1981 to 1991; some stations have been monitored for
water quality since 1978. Discharge at 5 reaches has been monitored since the early 1970’s.
b. Sampling Scheme:
1. Location and Number of Monitoring Stations:
There are 23 instream grab stations within the project area. These do not include Lake
Okeechobee, which is monitored by other programs. Monitoring is performed by the
South Florida Water Management District.
2. Sampling Frequency: biweekly
3. Sample Type: grab samples, with instantaneous flow measurements starting May, 1983
for those stations that had not been monitoring discharge. Continuous samplers were
installed in 1987 and 1988 in some locations (personal communications).
c. Pollutants Analyzed: TP, OP, N03, N02, NH3, TKN, pH, conductivity, turbidity, and color
d. Flow Measurements: Five stations have had flow monitored since the early 1970’s. The other
stations have had flow monitored since May, 1983.
e. Other: Precipitation and ground water levels have also been monitored within the project area.
12. Critical Areas:
a. Criteria: (1) all dairy farms in the project area, (2) beef cattle farms that have been extensively
drained (especially improved and fertilized pastures), and (3) areas within 1/4 mile of streams,
ditches, and channels that hold water year-round
b. Application: Application of criteria is exceptionally strict, with graphic reports of the critical
areas and contracted areas of the project on a subwatershed scale. There appears to be little con-
tracting of non-critical areas.
13. Best Management Practices:
a. General Scheme: The emphasis of BMP contracts is on grazing land management and protection,
animal waste management, and stream protection (i.e., RCWP BMPs 1, 2, 6, and 10). Other BMPs
include diversion systems, reduction of barn yard waste by improving water use efficiency, improved
irrigation and/or water management and sediment retention (RCWP BMPs 5, 13, and 12). The
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) has imposed a Dairy Rule. This requires
the dairies to collect and dispose of runoff from high intensity areas on their farms, so that all of the
phosphorus effluent would be assimilated by plants or absorbed by the soil.
b. Quantified Implementation Goals: The project has achieved its two implementation goals: (1)
contracting 75% of the critical area and (2) contracting all 24 dairy farms in the project area. Two
of these farmers elected not to participate after seeing their plans.
c. Quantified Contracting/Implementation Achievements: as of September 30, 1987. (ref.15)
Critical Area Project
Pollutant Treatment Treatment % Needs / Goals % Needs / Goals
Sources Contracted Implemented
Acres Needing Treatment 63,109 47,332 87/116 84 / 112
Pasture/range na na 80/na na
Dairies (# farms) 24 24 92 / 92 na
Cattle (# farms) 35 26 86 / 116 na
Flog (# farms) 5 5 4 O / 40 na
Citrus (# farms) 2 2 0 / 0 0
# Contracts 56 37 82 / 124 na
106
-------
Critical Acres and Farms Contracted per Subwatershed:
%Crltlcal acres % Farms
Subwatershed contracted contracted
NW. Taylor Creek 92 67
Little Bimini 100 100
Otter Creek 98 100
Main Taylor Creek 74 56
Williamson Ditch 99 83
Mosquito Creek 89 50
Nubbin Slough 98 100
Henry Creek 57 33
Lettuce 58 80
d. Cost of BMPs:
Ave. Farmer Ave. RCWP State
Share (5) Share (5) Share (SI Total Cost (51
2 animal waste mgmt. 51.35/ac. 45.75/ac. 13.60/ac. 110.70/ac.
5 diversions 6.80/ac. 1.40/ac. 16.70/ac. 24.90/ac.
6 grazing land prot. 2.65/ac. 8.20/ac. 1.70/ac. 1255/ac.
10 stream prot. 7.20/ac. 2850/ac. 9.80/ac. 45.50/ac.
12 sediment retention &
erosion control struc. 9.80/ac. 31/ac. 8.20/ac. 49/ac.
e. Effectiveness of BMPs: The project has a study to document the effectiveness of removing cows
from a stream. The preliminary results show that fencing cows away from the stream access, manure
management, and fertilizer management are effective in decreasing the P concentrations exiting the
project area.
14. Water Quality Changes:
This project has had a high rate of BMP implementation with most of the implementation occurring
in 1985 and 1986. This allows for a very nice pre-BMP water quality data base which can be quantified
more accurately in the next few years. There is strong evidence, however, that two dairy closures in the
Otter Creek subwatershed (Sept. 1981 and 1985) had a possible impact on the phosphorus level in
Otter Creek (Ref. 16). Mosquito Creek also shows a significant decrease in total phosphorus (Ref.
16).This subwatershed has an intensive BMP implementation program. In contrast, in northwest Taylor
Creek subwatershed (in the upper part of the project area), increased animal densities have had a
negative effect on water quality (Ref. 16).
There has been an overall decrease in total P concentration at station S191 (the main discharge to Lake
Okeechobee from this watershed) (Ref. 16). It is postulated that this decrease is largely a function of
the dairy closures in Otter Creek and the high number of BMPs installed in the Mosquito Creek
subwatershed. Fencing cows away from stream access, manure management, and fertilizer manage-
ment are thought to be significant contributors to the decreased total P concentrations.
107
-------
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough RCWP, Florida
15. Changes in Water Resource Use:
Lake Okeechobee continues to be used for commercial fishing and as a primary water supply for
approximately 27,000 people. Commercial fishing harvests have increased from 3.08 million pounds in
1981-1982 to 6.26 million pounds in 1984-1985. Water for domestic use continues to need treatment
for algae related problems. No recreational fishing use data is available to indicate user trends.
However, recreational fish harvests have increased from 660,300 fish in 1981-1982 to 1,248,100 fish in
1984-1985. Most of the variation in recreational fishing appears to be the result of low water levels in
the early 1980’s.
16. Incentives:
a. Cost Share Rates: (federal) 75% for structural BMPs
b. $ Limitations: (federal) $50,000 per landowner
c. Assistance Programs: include supplemental state funds for cost sharing BMPs in some parts of
the basin to raise cost share to 100%.
d. Other Incentives or Regulations: The landowners have two incentives for implementing BMPs
during this project period: cost- sharing is available for structural BMPs and technical assistance is
available for all contracted BMPs. The DER rule has been implemented which requires dairies,
whose drainage reach Lake Okeechobee, to address areas of high cattle intensity on their farms. It
has been estimated that on the larger farms it would cost $450,000 per barn to comply with this rule.
17. Potential Economic Benefits:
a. On-farm: not evaluated
b. Off-farm:
1) Recreation: 0 - $1,800,000 per year.
2) Water Supply: $80,000 per year.
3) Commercial Fishing: $250,000 - $1,000,000 per year.
4) Wildlife Habitat: unknown
5) Aesthetics: unknown but positive
6) Downstream Impacts: 0
IV. Lessons Learned
This project has used two tactics to attract farmer participation: the threat of regulation and the incentive of
higher cost share rates in some subwatersheds (with supplemental state funds). These methods appear to
have been successful in that the project has exceeded its contracting goal. This project is demonstrating that
a large project can be successful, if it is well organized, tightly managed and sufficiently funded
In a large project area with several impaired water uses the off-farm benefits are potentially very high. When
combined with low cost land treatment, positive benefits from nonpoint source control are being documented.
Fencing cows away from stream access, manure management, and fertilizer management are thought to be
sign ificant contributors to the decreased total P concentrations. The project believes that the low cost RCWP
BMPs when compared to the DER rule are a more cost effective method of treating nonpoint pollution (ref.
15).
The DER rule is very expensive (up to $200,000 per barn). The $50,000 per farm RCWP cost share funding
limit has been a constraint to addressing the waste disposal problems of the high cattle intensive dairies.
The impact of the DER Dairy rule will make it difficult to monitor the long term water quality effects
attributed to the RCWP BMPs. Fortunately, this project has one of the best pre-BMP data bases in the RCWP
and will have at least 2 to 3 years of post- treatment water quality data collected prior to most of the DER
effort. The monitoring should also be able to quantify the additional water quality effects of the DER
program.
108
-------
V. Project Documents
1. Allen, L.H. Jr., E.I-I. Stewart, W.G. Knisel, Jr., and R.A. Slack. 1976. Seasonal Variation in Runoff and Water Quality from the Taylor
Creek Watershed, Okeechobee County, Florida. Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida Proceedings, 35:126-138.
2. Stewart, El-I., Li-I. Allen, Jr., and DV. Calvert. 1978. Water Quality of Streams on the Upper Taylor Creek Watershed, Okeechobee
County, Florida. Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida Proceedings, 37:117-120.
3. Taylor Crcek-Nubbin Slough RCWP No. 14, November, 1981. Project Plan of Work. Okeechobee County, FL
4. Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough RCWP No. 14, November, 1982. Annual Progress Report. Okeechobee County, FL.
5. Ritter, (i.J. and L.H. Allen, Jr., 1982. Taylor Creek Headwaters Project Phase I Report - Water Quality. Tech. Pub. 82-8, South Florida
Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL 140 pp.
6. Allen, LI-I. Jr., J.M. Ruddell, G.J. Ritter, F.E. Davis, and P.Yates. 1982. Land Use Effects on Taylor Creek Water Quality. p. 67-77. IN:
Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on Environmentally Sound Water and Soil Management. American Society of Civil En-
gineers, New York, NY.
7. Yates, P., Li-I. Allen Jr., W.G. Knisel, M.ASCE, and J.M. Sheridan. 1982. Channel Modification Effects on Taylor Creek Watershed. p.
78.86. IN: Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on Environmentally Sound Water and Soil Management. American Society of
Civil Engineers, New York, NY.
8. Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough RCWP No. 14, November, 1983. Annual Progress Report. Okeechobee County, FL
9. Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough RCWP No. 14, November, 1984. Annual Progress Report. Okeechobee County, FL
10. Kratzer, CR. and FL. t3rezonik. 1984. Application of Nutrient Loading Models to the Analysis of Trophic Conditions in Lake
Okeechobee, Florida. Environmental Management, 8(2):109-120.
11. Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough RCWP No. 14, November, 1985. Annual Progress Report. Okeechobee County, FL.
12. Taylor Creck-Nubbin Slough RCWP No. 14, November, 1986. Annual Progress Report. Okeechobee County, FL.
13. Bowers, AR. and W.F. Brandes. 1986. Evaluation of Treatment Alternatives for the Removal of Phosphorous From Taylor Creek /
Nubbin Slough. Chemical and Environmental Services, Inc., 3200 West End Aye, Suite 405, Nashville, Tennessee 37203.
14. Bell, F.W. 1987. Economic Impact and Valuation of the Recreational and Commercial Fishing Industries of Lake Okeechobee, Florida.
Department of Economics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida.
15. Stanley, J., V. Hoge, L. Boggs, G. Ritter. November, 1987. Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough Project, Rural Clean Water Program Annual
Progress Report. Okeechobee County, FL
16. Ritter, G.J. and E.G. Flaig. 1987. Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Project Rural Clean Water Program Annual Progress Report: 1986
Water Quality monitoring and Water Quality Trend Analysis. South Florida Water Management District, Department of Resource
Planning - Water Quality Division.
17. Ilcatwole, CD., A.B. Bottcher, and LB. Baldwin. 1987. Modeling Cost-Effectiveness of Agricultural Nonpoint Pollution Abatement
Programs on Two Florida Basins. Water Resources Bulletin, 23(1):127-131.
18. llcatwole, C.D., A.B. Bottcher, K.L. Campbell. 1987. Basin Scale Water Quality Model for Coastal Plain Flatwoods. Transactions of
the ASAE, 30(4):1023-1030.
19. Canfield, D.E. Jr. and M.V.Hoyer. 1988. The Eutrophication of Lake Okeechobee. Lake and Reservoir Management, 4(2):91-99.
20. Spooner, J., S.L. Brich ford, D.A. Dickey, R.P. Maas, M.D. Smolen, Ritter ,G., and E. Flaig. 1988. Determining the Statistical Sensitivity
of the Water Quality Monitoring Program in the Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough, Florida Project.
21. Little, CE. 1988. Rural Clean Water The Okeechobec Story. J. Soil and Water Conservation, 43(5):386-390.
109
-------
Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough RCWP, Florida
VI. NWQEP Project Contacts
Water Quality Monitoring
Gary Ritter
South Florida Water Management District
P .O. Box 938
Okeechobee, FL 34973
tel. (813) 763-3776
and
Eric Flaig
South Florida Water Management District
P.O. Box 24680
3301 Gun Club Rd.
West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680
tel. (4.07) 686-8800
Information and Education
Vickie Hoge
CES
501 N.W. Fifth Ave.
Okeechobee, FL 34972
tel. (813) 763-6469
Land Treatment/TechnIcal Assistance
Lorin Boggs
USDA - SCS
611 S.W. Park St.
Okeechobee, FL 34972
tel. (813) 763-3617
and
Jack Stanley
USDA - ASCS
609 S. W. Park Street
Okeechobee, FL 34972
tel. (813) 763-3345
110
-------
Lower Kissimmee River — RCWP 14 A
Okeechobee, Highlands, and Glades Counties, Florida
MLRA: U-156A
H.U.C. 030901 -02
I. Major Contributions Toward Understanding the Effectiveness of NPS Control
Efforts
The effectiveness of reducing phosphorus levels in Lake Okeechobee by intensive BMP implementation
directed towards ‘nutrient mass balance’, (i.e. recycling all nutrients produced on large dairy farms) should
be documented by this project. The combined effectiveness of stream protection from cows lounging in
streams, grazing land management, fertilizer management, and animal waste management to improve water
quality on the subwatershed and watershed scales should also be measured as well. Efficiency and long-term
effectiveness of individual BMP practices should be demonstrated.
II. Water Quality Goals and Objectives
The project seeks to reduce phosphorus loadings to Lake Okeechobee by 90% measured at the watershed
outlet. (ref. 1)
Ill. Characteristics and Results
1. Project Type: RCWP (expansion project of the Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough Basin RCWP)
2. Timeframe: 1987—NA
3. Total Project Budget (for tlmetranie): (ref. 1)
SOURCE: Federal State Farmer Other
SUM:
4.006.870
ACTIVITY:
Cost-share
835,840
2,570,000
601,030
0
Info. & Ed.
110,000
0
0
0
110,000
Tech. Asst.
617,000
0
0
0
617,000
Water Quality
MonItoring
0
na
0
0
na
SUM: 1,562,840’ 2,570,000 601,030 0 $4,733,870
‘S1,249,840 of this is RCWP funds.
4. Area (acres):
Watershed Project Critical
223,700 223,700 15.500
111
-------
5. Land Use:
% ProJsct Area % Cr1tical Area
cropland (citrus groves) 0.1 0
pasture/range
a. dairy (milk barns/pastures) 7 100
b. beef grazing 91 0
woodland and
urban/roads 2 0
6. Animal Operations in Project Area:
Operation # Farmslotal # Animals Total A.U .
Dairy ISa 18,000 25,450
Beef 155 68,500 58,225
a There are 19 milking barns.
7.Water Resource Type:
Streams, canals, Lake Okeechobee
8. Water Uses and Impairments:
Lake Okeechobee is the source of public drinking water for five towns around the lake. It is also the
secondary source of water supply for the lower east coast from West Palm Beach to Miami. The lake
is a source of irrigation water for 500,000 acres of cropland on the south side of the lake. A commercial
fishery worth $6.3 million annually is supported by the lake. The lake’s sport fishing industry is worth
$22 million annually. In addition, a diverse wildlife habitat draws many tourists to the lake area.
The Lower Kissimmee River Basin delivers 20 percent of the total phosphorus and 25 percent of the
total nitrogen to Lake Okeechobee with 31 percent of inflow to the lake. Use of lake waters is impaired
by eutrophic conditions. The major sources of phosphorus are nutrient runoff from improved pastures
that receive animal and fertilizer applications and direct deposits by cattle in the streams and ditches.
Additionally, congregation of dairy cows in holding areas near the milking barns creates a diffuse point
source of water pollution.
9. Water Quality at Start of Project:
Phosphorus concentrations in discharges at the outlet from this project area may exceed 1.0 mg/I.
Baseline data is currently being evaluated.
10. Meteorologic and Hydrogeologic Factors:
a. Mean Annual Precipitation: 48.0 inches (primarily from June to October)
b. USLE ‘R’ Factor: 400
c. Geologic Factors: Topography is relatively flat. Soils are coarse textured, mostly poorly drained with
rapid permeability and medium drainage. An organic hard pan underlies much of the area with loam
or marl under the rest, all of a depth of less than 50 inches. The water table is very shallow. Seasonal
groundwater fluctuations are closely related to the seasonality of rainfall.
11. Water Quality Monitoring Program:
a. Timeframe: RCWP monitoring is from January, 1987 to unknown
b. Sampling Scheme:
1. Location and Number of Monitoring Stations:
There are several in-stream grab stations within the project area. In addition, individual
dairy and beef pasture sites will be instrumented and monitored with automatic samplers.
Lake Okeechobee is monitored by other programs. Monitoring is performed by the
South Florida Water Management District.
112
-------
Lower Kissimmee River RCWP, Florida
2. Sampling Frequency: weekly and event sampling. In addition, automated samplers
collecting time- or flow-proportional water samples will be conducted on major tributaries,
at water control structures along major canals, and at each of the dairies.
3. Sample Type: grab samples, with instantaneous stream and ground water stage
measurements and automated samplers at some sites. Baseline water quality data has
been collected since January, 1986 at selected sites.
c. Pollutants Analyzed: TP, OP, N03, N02, NH4, TKN, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen,
temperature, turbidity, and color
d. Flow Measurements: Stream stage and flow conditions recorded with water quality samples.
e. Other: Precipitation and ground water levels have also been monitored within the project area.
Flumes are being constructed for discharge measurements at selected dairies.
f. Water Quality Monitoring Objectives: (1) water quality assessment and provide baseline stream
water quality data; (2) phosphorus assessment and forecasting of P-reductions at key dairies,
specific beef cattle operations, tributaries, and structures. Selected stations will be used to
determine the level of uncertainty associated with the monitoring network. Modeling will be
used to forecast the P-reduction throughout the watershed. Investigations of P movement
and retention in soil will be performed on one or more dairies by monitoring and modeling;
(3) evaluation of specific BMPs, i.e. the efficiency and long-term effectiveness of individual
practices on typical soils and land drainage patterns to reduce phosphorus loads to Lake
Okeechobee; and (4) identify episodic high phosphorus loads and locate source areas.
12. CrItical Areas:
a. Criteria: (1) all dairy farms in the project area, (2) high cow/acre density, (3) proximity to flowing
water, (4) need for a lagoon system, (5) management potential, (6) farming practices, and (7) herd
size
b. Application: The areas with high animal concentrations will be treated first and pastures will be
treated second. Treatment will be only on critical areas.
13. Best Management Practices:
a. General Scheme: The BMPs are directed towards recycling all nutrients produced on the farm to
comply with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) Dairy Rule. This rule re-
quires the dairies to collect and dispose of runoff from high intensity areas on their farms, so that all
of the phosphorus effluent would be assimilated by plants or absorbed by the soil. This is known as
the nutrient mass balance concept. Specific BMPs will include the capture and diversion of runoff
from holding areas and milking barns, then apply it to a cropping system to meet plant needs (BMP-
5). Cattle will be fenced from streams (BMP -1O). Lagoons and waste disposal systems are installed
on dairies (BMP-2). Portable shades and watering facilities will be used to keep animals away from
streams and low areas. Other BMPs include: fertilizer management (BMP-15), water control struc
tures to collect run-off from fields (BMP-12), grazing land protection (BMP-6), permanent vegeta-
tive cover for pasture and hayland management (BMP-1), pesticide management (BMP-16), and
proper crop rotation to utilize waste effluent (BMP-8). The BMP emphasis is similar to the Taylor
Creek-Nubbin Slough Project, with the addition of Waste Management Systems (BMP-2) that will
be used to capture nutrients.
b. Quantified Implementation Goals: (1) contract 100% of the critical area and (2) contract all 15
dairy farms with their 19 milking barns in the project area. Implementation is planned to be over a
three year period.
113
-------
c. Quantified Contracting/Implementation Achievements: as of September 30, 1987. (ref.1)
Critical Area Project
Pollutant Treatment Treatment % Needs / Goals % Needs / Goals
Sources Contracted ImD lem ent ed
Acres Needing Treatment 15,500 15,500 68/68 NAa
Dairies(# farms) 15 15 NA NA
Milking Barns (3) 19 19 NA NA
# Contracts 14 14 NA NA
Contracts on 10,500 acres are scheduled for implementation in FY 1988.
d. Cost of BMPs: It is estimated that it will cost an average of $238,000 per dairy barn in the Lower
Kissimmee basin to comply with the implementation plan.
e. Effectiveness of BMPs: The project has a study to document the effectiveness of implementing an
expensive ‘nutrient mass balance’ set of animal waste management BMPs combined with removing
cows from a stream. Implementation initiated in 1988 and baseline data only is available at this time.
14. Water Quality Changes:
Not documented due to recent starting date of project.
15. Changes in Water Resource Use:
The RCWP did not start implementation until 1988. Therefore, no changes in phosphorus loading to
Lake Okeechobee from this watershed have been due to the RCWP to date. The Lake continues to
be used for commercial fishing and as a primary water supply for approximately 27,000 people.
Commercial fishing harvests have increased from 3.08 million pounds in 1981- 1982 to 6.26 million
pounds in 1984-1985. Water for domestic use continues to need treatment for algae related problems.
No recreational fishing use data is available to indicate user trends. However, recreational fish harvests
have increased from 660,300 fish in 1981-1982 to 1,248,100 fish in 1984-1985. Most of the variation in
recreational fishing appears to be the result of low water levels in the early 1980’s.
16. Incentives:
a. Cost Share Rates: (federal) 75% for structural BMPs
b. $ Limitations: (federal) $50,000 of RCWP funds per landowner
c. Assistance Programs: Supplemental state funds for cost sharing BMPs.
d. Other Incentives or Regulations: The landowners have two incentives for implementing BMPs
during this project period: cost-sharing is available for structural BMPs and technical assistance is
available for all contracted BMPs. The DER rule has been implemented which requires dairies,
whose drainage reach Lake Okeechobee, to address areas of high cattle intensity on their farms. It
has been estimated that on the larger farms it would cost over $450,000 per barn to comply with this
rule.
17. Potential Economic Benefits:
a. On-farm: not evaluated
b. Off-farm: not evaluated
IV. Lessons Learned
This project has used two tactics to attract farmer participation: the threat of regulation and the incentive of
higher cost share rates in some subwatersheds (with supplemental state funds). These methods appear to be
successful in that the project has contracted two- thirds of its critical area in the first year.
114
-------
Lower Kissimmee River RCWP, Florida
Compliance with the State Dairy Rule requires determination of nutrient mass balance at the farm level. Use
of this technique will result in better quantification of P loads associated with land use which in turn will lead
to more efficient land treatment. The type and extent of land treatment required for compliance with the
Dairy Rule will likely be more expensive than low cost BMPs for this watershed. The pollutant sources are
large dairy operations and will need intensive waste management systems at milking barns costing over
$200,000 per barn. The $50,000 per farm cost-share limit under RCWP has been a constraint to addressing
the waste disposal problems of these dairies and beef cattle operations.
Monitoring should also be to quantify the combined water quality effects of intensive waste management
systems and lower cost BMPs for stream protection.
V. Project Documents
1. Stanley, J., V. Hoge, U Bogga, G. Ritter, and E. Flaig. Januaiyl9SS. Lower Kissimmee River Project Rural Clean Water Program An-
nual Progress Report. Okeechobee, florida. (Addition to Taylor Creck-Nubbin Slough RCWP.)
VI. NWOEP Project Contacts
Water Quality Monitoring
Gary Ritter
South Florida Water Management District
P.O. Box 938
Okeechobee, FL 34973
tel. (813) 763-3776
and
Eric Flaig
South Florida Water Management District
P.O. Box 24680
3301 Gun Club Rd.
West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680
tel. (407) 686-8800
Information and Education
Vickie Hoge
CES
501 N.W. Fifth Ave.
Okeechobee, FL 34972
tel. (813) 763-6469
Land Treatmentfrechnical Assistance
Lorin Boggs
USDA - SCS
611 S.W. Park St.
Okeechobee, FL 34972
tel. (813) 763-3619
and
Jack Stanley
USDA - ASCS
609 S. W. Park Street
Okeechobee, FL 34972
tel. (813) 763-3345
115
-------
Westport River Watershed - RCWP 15
Bristol County, Massachusetts
MLRA: R-145
H.U.C. 010900-04
I.
II.
Major Contributions Toward Understanding the Effectiveness of NPS
Efforts
The project will make little contribution because it has a low level of implementation.
Water Quality Goals and Objectives
The goal of the project is to improve water quality so that shellfish beds can be reopened.
Control
Ill.
Characteristics and Results
1. Project Type: RCWP
2. Timeframe: 1981—1991
3. Total Project Budget (for timeframe): (1986 Project Progress Report, RCWP-5)
SOURCE: Federal Stat. Farmer Other
ACTIVITY:
Cost-share 518,401 0 172,799 0
SUM:
691,200
Info. & Ed. 10,350 0 0 500
10,850
Tech. Asst. 214,640 500 0 0
215,140
Water Quality
Monitor lnQ 0 0 0 0
SUM: 743,391 500 172,799 500
$917,190
4. Area (acres):
Watershed Protect Critical
47,000 47,000 473
Part of project area is in Rhode Island.
5. Project Land Use:
% ProJect Ares % Critical Area
cropiand 0.6 62
pasture/range 0.4 38
other 99
6. Animal Operations in Critical Area: (ref. 8, p. 5)
Oaeratlon # Farms Total # Animals Total AU .
Dairy 7 1,440 2,016
116
-------
7. Water Resource Type:
There are wetlands and lakes in the upper section of the watershed which drain into the West Branch
of the Westport River. Both the East and West Branches of the river discharge into an estuary.
8. Water Uses and Impairments:
Ponds in the project area are used for recreation (limited to local residents) and for municipal water
supply. The Westport River supports commercial shelifishing (average of $425,000 annually from
1980-1984, $2,671,000 in 1985 due to extremely high scallop harvest), and public recreation. The main
use impairment is the closure of sheilfishing beds in the estuary due to bacterial contamination. Other
reported impaired uses include boating, contact recreation, and fishery.
9. Water Quality at Start of Project:
1979 Coliform Bacteria Data for Station 6 at Hix Bridge, the impaired tidal area: (ref. 4, p.36, ref. 6,
pp. 34-36)
FC(9 TC( a
log mean (#/100m 1) 62 103 7
median (#/lOOml) 36 91 7
% exceedance 43/100 ml 28 .-. 7
% exceedance 23/100 ml .-- 43 7
U.S.EPA recommendations for shelifishing waters include: a) median FC value should not exceed a MPN of 14 per
100 ml and b) not more than 10% of the samples should exceed an MPN of 43 ( quality Criteria for Water. 1976) .
MA Water Quality Standards for shellfishing waters include: a) median TC shall not exceed 70 MPN per 100 ml
and b) not more than 10% of the samples shall exceed 230 MPN per 100 ml.
10. Meteorologic and Hydrogeologic Factors:
a. Mean Annual Precipitation: 39.8 inches
b. USLE ‘R’ Factor: — 150
c. Geologic Factors: The project is located in the central lowland section of the New England
Physiographic Province. Topography is gently rolling. Soils are loamy and moderately to well drained.
Substrata are compact and permeability is slow. The surface drainage pattern is a series of wetland
areas connected by a system of streams and the river.
11. Water Quality Monitoring Program:
a. Timeframe: 1982— 1990
b. Sampling Scheme: conducted by SCS and Massachusetts Public Health Service
1. Location and Number of Monitoring Stations: 10 sampling stations, 9 of which are along
the fresh water tributaries and streams and one is located in the tidal estuary.
2. Sampling Frequency: approximately 6 to 10 times per year
3. Sample Type: It appears that all stations except site 5 are monitored by grab samples.
Site 5 has an automatic sampler but grab samples are taken for bacterial analysts.
c. Pollutants Analyzed: temperature, pH, DO, TC, FC, FS, Chloride, TSS, TDS, NO3, N02, TKN,
TP, DP, conductivity, and alkalinity.
d. Flow Measurements: For freshwater stream stations, the stage is to be measured and converted
to flow after hydraulic analysis is completed. None of these values (stage or flow) has yet been
reported by the project.
e. Other: In 1986 the sampling scheme changed to an intensive survey (Sept. 20 - Oct. 10, 1986) with
a total of 7 samples taken and analyzed for salinity, fecal strep. and fecal coliform. Temperature
was measured (growing area) and £ coil was included in this list for the fresh water runoff.
After this survey sampling returned to the scheme outlined above.
117
-------
Westport River Watershed RCWP, Massachusetts
12. Critical Areas:
a. Criteria: The critical area was redefined to focus on dairy farms, which are the sources of bacterial
contamination. 8 dairy farms are in the critical area.
b. Application of Criteria: Practices are being implemented outside the critical area. Participation
within the critical area is poor. Cultural barriers between project personnel and most dairy farmers,
the USDA Dairy Buy-Out program, and uncertainty in the dairy industry are factors in this project.
13. Best Management Practices:
a. General Scheme: RCWP BMPs approved for this project are 1-12, 15, and 16. The main focus,
however, is on animal waste management.
b. Quantified Implementation Goals: To contract with all 8 dairies in critical area, and to treat all
agricultural land within the critical area. Four farms in the critical area have contracts.
c. Quantified Contracting/Implementation Achievements: As of Sept. 30, 1986 (ref. 7, p. 6,13)
Critical Area
Pollutant Treatment Project % Needs / Goals % Needs / Goals
Sources Q % Contracted % Imolemented
Acres Needing Treatment 473 473 110 NA
Dairies 8 8 5 NA
Feedlots 8 8 5 NA
# Contracts 8 8 14 NA
d. Cost of BMPs:
Ave. Farmer Ave. RCWP
Share (51 Share (51 Total Cost (S I
I perm. veg. cover 124/ac. 115/ac. 239/ac.
2 animal waste mgmt. 18,200 ea. 23,900 Ca. 42,100 Ca.
4 terraces 2.87/ac. 7.80/ac. 10.67/ac.
7 waterways 056/ac. 1.70/ac. 2.26/ac.
e. Effectiveness of BMPs: not reported to date
14. Water Quality Changes: no improvements have been reported
15. Changes in Water Resource Use:
Shellfish bed closures have continued in the Westport River area. The number of closed areas have
increased due to continued high bacteria levels, with the greatest impact on oyster production.
Commercial oyster harvests have decreased from 340 bushels in 1980 to 85 bushels in 1985. Harvests
of other shellfish have generally increased during the same time period despite high bacteria levels.
The amount of recreational shellfishing appears to be relatively steady, with 959 permits issued in 1985
compared to 814 permits in 1981.
16. IncentIves:
a. Cost share rates: 75%
b. $ Limitations: $50,000 per landowner
c. Assistance Programs: None have been reported as part of the RCWP project other than I&E and
technical assistance. ACP funds have been used to establish cover crops within the watershed.
118
-------
17. Potential Economic Benefits:
a. On-farm: not evaluated
b. Off-farm:
1) Recreation: 0
2) Water Supply: 0
3) Commercial Fishing: 0
4) Wildlife Habitat: unknown
5) Aesthetics: unknown
6) Downstream Impacts: 0
IV. Lessons Learned
Criteria for selecting critical areas were not well established at the beginning of the project and did not focus
on the main cause of impairment. However, in 1986 the project redefined the critical area, focusing on dairy
runoff. Although an adequate water quality monitoring design was employed, it will do little good if sufficient
and appropriate BMP implementation is not achieved.
There has been ajurisdictional problem on the Rhode Island state boundary concerning who should address
bacterial contamination which appeared downstream in the West Branch of the Westport River in Mas-
sachusetts. There has also been a communication problem concerning project activities because of cultural
differences between project personnel and Portuguese dairy owners within the project area.
V. Project Documents
1. Rose, D. and P. Fisher (ASCS), 1981. Westport River Watershed Application for USDA . RCWP Special Project. Bristol County, MA
47 pp.
2. Westport River RCWP Project Local Coordinating Committee, 1981. RCWP Westport River Watershed Project Plan of Work and An-
nual Progress Report. Westport, MA 50 pp.
3. Westport River RCWP Project Local Coordinating Committee, 1982. RCWP Westport River Watershed Project Plan of Work and An-
nual Progress Report. Westport, MA 26 pp.
4. Westport River RCWP Project Local Coordinating Committee, 1983. RCWP Westport River Watershed Project Plan of Work and An-
nual Progress Report. Westport, MA 108 pp.
5. Westport River RCWP Project Local Coordinating Committee, 1984. RCWP Westport River Watershed Project Plan of Work and An-
nual Progress Report. Westport, MA 42 pp.
6. Westport River RCWP Project Local Coordinating Committee, 1985. RCWP Westport River Watershed Project Plan of Work and An-
nual Progress Report. Westport, MA Slpp.
7. Westport River RCWP Project Local Coordinating Committee, 1986. RCWP Westport River Watershed Project Plan of Work and An-
nual Progress Report. Westport, MA 15 pp.
8. Westport River RCWP Project Local Coordinating Committee, 1987. RCWP Westport River Watershed Project Plan of Work and An-
nual Progress Report. Westport, MA
VI. NWQEP Project Contacts
Land Treatment!Technlcal Assistance Water Quality Monitoring
Bernadette Taber Larry Gil
District Conservationist Div. of Environmental Quality Eng.
scs Water Pollution Control
21 Spring St. Westboro Technical Services Branch
Taunton, MA 02780 Lyman School
tel. (508) 824-6668 Westboro, MA 02790
tel. (508) 792-7470
119
-------
Garvin Brook - RCWP 16
Winona County, Minnesota
MLRA: M-105
H.U.C.: 070400-03
I. Major Contributions Toward Understanding the Effectiveness of NPS Control
Efforts
The project has demonstrated the use of a computer model to identify and evaluate critical areas for surface
water problems. Critical areas for ground water problems were identified by extensive geologic mapping and
locating sinkholes and abandoned wells through which pollutants can easily enter the ground water.
Monitoring suggests that well contamination is due to poor construction of older wells and general contamina-
tion of the aquifer.
The project demonstrates the effectiveness of nutrient management based on a nitrogen budget utilizing data
on crop yields, commercial fertilizer use, retention of N in soils, and animal waste application. This is
important to illustrate to farmers the value of animal waste as a nutrient resource.
Continued project well tests and final analysis of these data may give important results in identifying and
characterizing groundwater contamination problems.
II. Goals and Objectives (ref. 13)
Surface Water:
Goal— Increase the recreation potential of Garvin Brook.
Objectives:
— Decrease sediment loading by 50%.
— Decrease turbidity violations from 100% to below 15%.
— Decrease fecal coliform bacteria violations from 79% to below 40%.
Groundwater
Goal— Decrease biological and chemical health related pollutants entering the groundwater aquifers.
Objective
— Reduce the nitrate-nitrogen load to the acceptable drinking water standard, which is below 10 mg(L.
Ill. Characteristics and Results
Background:
The project’s original objective was to treat nonpoint sources of pollutants entering Garvin Brook, a trout
stream. In 1985, after three years of work within the original surface watershed area, the project expanded
its emphasis to include ground water quality. The change was made after analysis of samples from 80 wells
within the surface watershed showed that 21% of the wells had levels of NOB-N exceeding the 10 mg/I drinking
water standard. In 1985, the Garvin Brook RCWP expanded its project area to include all of the ground water
watershed (approximately one-half is outside the surface watershed). Critical areas were redefined and the
total number needing treatment increased.
1. Project Type: RCWP
120
-------
2.Timeframe: 1982— 1994
3. Total Project Budget:
SOURCES: Federal Stats Farmer Other
ACTIVITY: SUM:
Cost-share 1,747,000 0 582,333 180,000 2,529,333
Info. & Ed. 112,220 7,500 0 0 119,720
Tech. Asst . 599,478 0 1,000 23,376 623,854
Water Quality
Monitoring 40,000 227,000 500 14,500 337,000
SUM: 2,498,698 234,500 583,833 217,876 $3,609,907
4. Area (acres):
Proleet Area Watershed Protect Critical Acres Needlne Treatment
Groundwater 15,796 NA 12,681 7,609
Surface Water 30,720 NA 7,574 3,105
Total 46,516 46,516 20,255 10,714
5. Land Use:
% orolect area % critical prep
cropland 67 NA
woodland 17 NA
pasture 9 NA
urban 2 NA
other (roads) 5 NA
There are 218 farms, mostly small dairies, in the project area. Daiiy and cash grain are the primary farm operations.
Surface Water area:
% nroiect area % critical area
cropland 58 NA
woodland 25 NA
pasture 12 NA
urban 2 NA
other (roads) 3 NA
Groundwater area:
% orolect area % critical area
cropland 85 NA
pasture/woods/other 10 NA
urban 5 NA
6. Animal Operations in Project Area:
Operation # Farme Total * Animak Total A.U .
Dai ly 54 5,100 5,100
Beef 9 1,530 1,3000
Swine 13 4,355 880
Other 8 NA 85
7. Water Resource Type:
Streams and ground water — Garvin Brook is designated a trout stream by the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources. The Prairie du Chien.Jordan aquifer is the impaired ground water resource.
121
-------
Garvin Brook RCWP, Minnesota
8. Water Use and Impairments:
Current project area population is estimated at 2,500; most rely on domestic wells for water supply.
Approximately 25,000 people use Garvin Brook for recreation, primarily swimming and fishing.
The primary ground water impairment is decreased drinking water quality from high nitrate concentra-
tion and pesticide contamination. Use of Garvin Brook for trout fishing is reportedly impaired,
however, fishing impairments are not well documented. The primary pollutants in Garvin Brook are
bacteria, sediment, and turbidity. Pollutant sources include nitrogen fertilizers, animal operations
(mostly dairy), and pesticides.
9.Water Quality at Start of Project:
Garvin Brook: Turbidity levels exceeded standards (10 and 25 FI’Us) 18-61 percent of the time. The
FC standard (200 counts per 100 ml) was also violated 45-89 percent of the time.
Ground waer Of the 80 wells in the original project area tested in 1983 and 1984, about 21% had
nitrate-N levels exceeding the drinking water standard of 10 mg/I. During the summer of 1985, 64
additional wells in the expanded ground water watershed were tested for N0 3 -N. Fifty-six percent of
these wells had N03-N levels exceeding the 10 mg/i standard. Measurable amounts of Alachior and/or
Atrazine were found in 6 of 10 wells tested. Levels were below health advisory level.
10. Meteorologic and Hydrogeologic Factors:
a. Mean Annual Precipitation: 33 inches (75% occurs April-Sept.)
b. USLE ‘R’ Factor: 160
c. Geologic Factors: The watershed is characterized by karst topography. The bedrock is near-surface
fractured and cavernous Dolomitic limestone and Paleozoic sandstone with sinkhole development.
Sinkholes and rock fissures are direct channels for contaminated agricultural runoff to gain access to
the Prairie du Chien aquifer.
11. Water Quality Monitoring Program:
a. Timeframe: surface water monitoring 1981-1990; ground water monitoring 1981-1990
b. Sampling Scheme: In FY1986, the monitoring program shifted its emphasis from surface water
to focus on groundwater. Available funding is used for monitoring of private farm wells, farm
fields, sinkholes, monthly sampling of one site on Garvin Brook, and limited storm event
sampling of Garvin Brook. The expanded ground water monitoring efort by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is intended to track long term effects of BMPs 15 and 16
as well as further define sources and pathways of nitrate and pesticides in ground water.
Surface Water Monitoring: Garvin Brook is sampled on a monthly basis for twelve different
parameters and flow rate at one site. During FY89 runoff event sampling is to take place at
two sites on Garvin Brook.
Ground Water Monitoring: The ground water related monitoring is conducted primarily by the
MPCA, Winona County Extension, and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. A total
of 160 wells are sampled at least once annually for nitrate. Twelve of these wells are sampled
for nitrate every five weeks. These same twelve wells are sampled quarterly for pesticides and
15 other parameters. An additional ten wells are sampled quarterly only for nitrates and
pesticides. Thirty-three sites for sampling soil moisture in farm fields and sinkholes have been
established and are sampled for nitrate, pesticdes, and several other parameters on a quarterly
basis.
12. Critical Areas:
a. Criteria: The Agricultural Non-point Source Pollution Model I (AGNPS I) computer simulation
model, which predicts runoff rate and volume, eroded and delivered sediment, total nitrogen, total
phosphorus, and chemical oxygen demand was used to evaluate the surface watershed and designate
122
-------
priority areas. Critical areas affecting ground water were determined by identifying excessive nitrogen
and herbicide application areas and the location of sinkholes and abandoned wells.
b. Application of Criteria: Critical areas were substantially redefined in 1985 using new information
about the ground water problems both within and outside of the original surface watershed project
area.
Redefinition of critical areas has resulted in expansion of critical acreage needing treatment. These
acres are now defined to be the cropland acres annually planted to row crops within the critical area
and any sinkholes and abandoned wells. Only 1,423 acres reported as treated in the previously defined
critical area meet the new definition of acres needing treatment. Animal units are known to be
significant contributors to the pollution problem. However, animal waste systems were not accepted
by farmers due to depressed economic conditions in the project area.
13. Best Management Practices:
a. General Scheme: BMPs 2,3,4,5,9,10,15,16 are considered important. This project has increased its
emphasis on BMPs 15 and 16, including split nitrogen application, improved manure storage and
improved calibration of manure and fertilizer spreading equipment.
b. Quantified Implementation Goals:
-treat 8,095 of 10,793 critical acres (75%)
-treat 33 of 44 dairies
-fill 59 of 79 sinkholes
-split N application on 8,036 of 10,714 acres
-pesticide management on 15,169 of 20,255 acres
-obtain 94 contracts
c. Quantified Contracting/Implementation Achievements:
The project has not reported the location of BMP activities with respect to critical areas.
Quantified achievements are as follows:
Critical Area
Pollutant Treatment Projrct %Needs/Goals %Needs/Goals
Sourcea t tla Q tala Contracted Implemented
Acres Need rng Treatment 10,793 8,095 59178 NA
Dairies 44 33 32/42 NA
Sinkholes 79 59 15/20 NA
Split-N 10,714 8036 116/155 NA
Pesticide 20,255 15,169 114/152 NA
# contracts NA NA NA NA
d. Cost of BMPs: (RCWP-4 data)
Ave. Farmer Ave. RCWP
Share (SI Share (S i Total Cost (S
1 perm. veg. cover 58/ac. 175/ac. 233/ac.
2 animal waste mgmt 15,000 ea. 45,000 ca. 60,000 Ca.
3 stripcropping 3.69/ac. 11.06/ac. 14.75/ac.
4. terraces 036 /ft 1.69 /ft 2.25 /ft
5 diversions 0.36/ft. 1.07/ft. 1.43/ft.
9 conservation tillage 3.35/ac. 10.05/ac. 1340/ac.
10 stream protection 1030/ft. 31.50 /ft 42/ft.
11 sinkhole protection 1,882.25/ca 5,646.75/ca 7,529/ca
12 sediment retention,
erosion control struc. 3,419/ca. 10,257/ca. 13,676/ca.
14 tree planting 50/ac 150/ac. 200/ac
15 fertilizer mgmt. (split N) 5/ac. 15/ac. 20/ac.
15. fertilizer mgmt. (waste util.) 1.33/ac 3.99/ac 5.32/ac
16 pesticide mgmt. N/C N/C * N/C
123
-------
Garvin Brook RCWP, Minnesota
e. Effectiveness of BMPs: Under BMP 15 (split N application), during the 1985-1987 growing seasons
the total early (fall or early spring) applied N decreased 50%. The total actual N applied also decreased
by 20%.
Effectiveness of BMPs for controlling sediment, phosphorus, nitrogen, and COD reduction in the
project area is being evaluated by AGNPS I. The model is also being used to illustrate how livestock
producers, many of whom grow corn, would benefit by managing their manure as a fertilizer resource.
14. Water Quality Changes:
No trends in surface water quality are reported by the project. The project does not intend to evaluate
surface water quality trends until 1990. The expected effects of land treatment on surface water quality
are currently being modeled with AGNPS I. There is evidence of increasing NO3-N levels over five
years of ground water data collected from the 80 original wells in the surface water watershed from
1983 to 1987.
Testing of 64 wells showed that 56% had NO3-N concentrations over standard levels. Ten of these
wells were tested for pesticides and 60% were shown to have detectable levels, but not high enough to
warrant a health advisory.
15. Changes in Water Resource Use:
Population growth in Winona County is slow, 2.1% from 1980 to 1984, therefore, ground water use has
probably changed little since RCWP began. Garvin Brook outlets to Pool 5A of the Upper Mississippi
River. Total recreational use of Pool 5A is about 159,000 users annually. However, the contribution
of sediment to Pool 5A from Garvin Brook is very small. Fishing use of the project area does not appear
to have changed since RCWP began.
16. Incentives:
a. Cost Share Rates: 90 percent (75 percent from RCWP and 15 percent from the Winona County
Board of Commissions)
b. $ Limitations: $50,000 RCWP funds plus $6,000 from Winona County per contract
c. Assistance programs: Extension service did nitrogen budgets for BMP-15 and included the use of
legumes and manure; public meetings; newsletter; split-N application demonstration farm; crop
scouting; free soil testing.
17. Potential Economic Benefits:
a. On-farm: not evaluated
b. Off-farm:
1) Recreation: 0
2) Water supply: $35,000 - $130,000 per year
3) Commercial fishing: 0
4) Wildlife habitat: unknown
5) Aesthetics: unknown but positive
6) Downstream impacts: unknown but positive
IV. Lessons Learned
Expensive structural BMPs (e.g. BMP-2) are difficult to sell in times of depressed economic conditions even
with cost sharing as high as 90%. Lower cost manure management alternatives should have been promoted
from the beginning of the project.
Critical area for treatment of surface water may differ from ground water critical area.
124
-------
Development of nitrogen budgets for farmers’ fields (accounting for N from manure and legumes) not only
keeps excess quantities of commercial fertilizer from being available for leaching, but also allows the farmer
to optimize the use of N from manure and legumes.
Off-farm benefits from improving or maintaining ground water quality are potentially large.
V. Project Documents
1. Garvin Brook Rural Clean Water Project Application. 12 p.
2. Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation Board. March 1982. Minnesota’s Soil and Water Conservation Program: A Process of Gaining
Ground. Box 19, Centennial Office Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155. 56 p.
3. Balaban, N.H. and B.M. Olsen. 1984. Geologic Atlas Winona County, Minnesota. County Atlas Series Atlas C-2. Minnesota Geologi-
cal Survey. University of Minnesota, St. Paul.
4. Annual Progress Report: Garvin Brook Rural Clean Water Project, Winona County, Minnesota. November 1982.
5. Payne, G.A.1983. Strcamflow and Suspended.Scdiment Transport in Garvin Brook, Winona County, Southeastern Minnesota--
I lydrologic Data for 1982. U.S. Geological Survey. Open-File Report 83-212. St. Paul, Minnesota. 22p.
6. Annual Progress Report: Garvin Brook Rural Clean Water Project, Winona County, Minnesota. December, 1984. 20 p.
Appendix A. Agreement Between the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service and the MN Pollution Control Agency.
Appendix B. Garvin Brook Watershed Water Quality. General Monitoring for the Rural Clean Water Program. 1984 Annual Report.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Appendix C. RCWP Garvin Brook Project Technical Report Update. September, 1984. 29 p.
Appendix D. BMP - Fertilizer Management - Split Application.
Appendix E. Forms: ACP-305, RC’,VP-3, RCWP-5, RCWP-7, Contract locations.
Appendix F. Questionnaire
Appendix G. Summary of Trout Stream Habitat Improvement. 2 p.
Appendix H. Project Coordinator- Position Description. 1 p.
7. Annual Progress Report: Garvin Brook Rural Clean Water Project PN16, Winona County, Minnesota. November 1985.
8. Garvin Brook Watershed Detailed Action Plan. April 1985. 4 p.
9. Supplement to Plan of Work. April 1985. 3 p.
10. Method Used to Determine Nitrate Loading. April 1985. 2 p.
11. Annual Progress Report: Garvin Brook Rural Clean Water Project PN16, Winona County, Minnesota. November1986.
12. Annual Progress Report. Gaivin Brook Rural Clean Water Project PNI6, Winona County, Minnesota. 1987.
VI. NWQEP Project Contacts:
Water Quality Monitoring Land Treatment [ Technical Assistance
David Wall Mark Kunz or Stanley Musielewicz
520 Lafayette Road USDA - SCS
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Box 38
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Lewiston, Minnesota 55952
Telephone (612) 296.7360 Telephone (507)523-2171
125
-------
Long Pine Creek — RCWP 17
Brown and Rock Counties, Nebraska
MLRA: G-66
H.U.C. 101500-04
I. Major Contributions Toward Understanding the Effectiveness of NPS Control
Efforts
The Nebraska RCWP combines an approach to both ground water and surface water problems. This project
has potential to demonstrate effects of nutrient and pesticide management, irrigation water management,
and stream bank stabilization as BMPs for surface and ground water quality protection.
II. Water Quality Goals and Objectives
General Water Quality Objectives:
1. Improve water quality in the project area in the most cost-effective manner possible taking into considera-
tion the need for adequate supplies of food, fiber, and a quality environment.
2. Help agriculturalists reduce nonpoint agricultural pollution to improve water quality in rural areas and
meet water quality standards or water quality goals.
3. Develop and test programs, policies, and procedures for controlling nonpoint water pollution from
agricultural sources.
4. Improve the beneficial uses of ground and surface waters in the project area. These uses include domestic,
agricultural, industrial, recreational, and cold-water fisheries.
5. Develop new and innovative solutions to problems.
Specific Objectives to Achieve these Water Quality Goals:
1. Reduce stream bank erosion.
2. Reduce the delivery of sediment from agricultural lands.
3. Reduce the deep percolation of irrigation water contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides.
4. Reduce excess irrigation water runoff.
5. Reduce nonpoint source agricultural pollution from feedlots.
6. Educate the general public about the importance of water quality.
ill. Characteristics and Results
1. Project Type: RCWP
2.Timeframe:J981 — 1995
126
-------
3. Total Project Budget: (ref. 18, RCWP-5)
1,101,143
1,500
302,542
3.3,106
- -
Info, and Ed.
260,374
0
0
0
260,374
Tech. Asst.
562,416
0
0
30,777
593,193
Water Quality
MonitorIng
0
297,850
0
0
297,850
SUM: 1,923,933 299,350 302,543 63,883 $2,589,708
4. Area (acres):
Watershed Frolect Critical
293,100 80,000 54,212
5. Land Use:
%Proiect Area % Crltkal Area
cropland NA 23
irrigated corn NA (21)
irrigated alfalfa NA (2)
pasture/range NA 72
woodland NA 0
urban/roads NA 1
other NA 4
There are 130 farm or ranch units in the project area. Approximately 90 are thought to be critical.
6. Animal Operations in Project Area:
Operation # Farms Total # AnimaLs Total A.U .
Dairy 3 120 170
Beef 9 27,400 19,800
Hog 1 500 150
7. Water Resource Type:
Surface streams and ground water. Surface water: Long Pine Creek (drainage = 293,100 acres,
average aggregate flow = 150 cfs at mouth); major tributaries are Bone Creek, Sand Draw, and Willow
Creek.
8. Water Uses and Impairments:
Surface water:
The Long Pine Creek Recreation Area, a state park, is used by over 8,500 people each season. The
primary water use impairments are to recreation and fishing. Long Pine Creek is the longest self-sus-
taining trout stream in the state. Relic populations of three species of fish, threatened in Nebraska,
can be found in the streams in this area. The primary pollutants are: sediment, bacteria, and nutrients.
Streambank erosion is the primary source of sediment. Excessive erosion occurs in the headwaters of
Long Pine Creek due to intensive grazing in riparian areas, stream bank erosion, and head cutting at
the stream’s source. Sand Draw and Bone Creek deliver excessive sediment load, warmer water, high
fecal coliform, and fluctuating flow to the lower Long Pine Creek. The sediment from Sand Draw is
primarily from irrigation wasteway discharges and irrigation return flows. Excessive erosion occurs
along unprotected stream banks and adjacent gullies at the midreaches of Bone Creek. Point source
feedlots and the Ainsworth sewage treatment plant contribute to high bacteria and nutrient loadings
in these tributaries.
SOURCE: F.d.rai Stat. Farm.r Oth.r
ACTiVITY:
Cost-shari
SUM:
1 ,438 291
127
-------
Long Pine Creek RCWP, Nebraska
Ground water:
Ground water is used for irrigation, stock watering and domestic and municipal water supply
throughout the project area. A stable population of about 3,200 people live within the project area.
There is potential for degradation of the drinking water supply from high nitrate and pesticide
contamination from commercial fertilizers and pesticides.
9. Water Quality at Start of Project:
See Reference #15 for a complete baseline documentation (1979-1985). Suspended solids data from
9 sample dates from July, 1979 to July, 1980 show that two tributaries, Bone Creek and Sand Draw,
contributed greatly to the turbidity problems in Lower Pine Creek (LP8). Station LP7 is located
upstream of the confluence of Sand Draw and Bone Creek with Long Pine Creek. Station LP8 is below
this confluence. Total suspended solids (TSS) at LP8 were fairly high, but were less at up stream LP1,
LP5, or LP7.
Surface monitoring, April, 1980 to September 23, 1981 (n = 13):
Tot. Sus. Solids (mg/i) Fecal Coliform (#/IOOml)
Station Ranse Geometric Mean
Long Pine (LP1) 13 1.32 315
LongPine(LPS) 11 1-40 35
LongPine(LP7) 20 1-50 90
Long Pine (LP8) 70 9-220 400
Bone Creek (BN) 1 1- 1 670
Bone Creek (BN1) 95 1-620 4550
Bone Creek (BN2) 330 1-3590 1680
Bone Creek(BN3) 640 1.4360 1180
Sand Draw (SN1) 10 1-30 410
Sand Draw (SN2) 130 1-1000 500
* LP1, LP5, and LP7 are above confluences with tributaries. LP8 is below confluences.
Ground water: 23 domestic wells monitored in 1977-1978 show that 17 percent exceeded 10 mg/I
nitrate-N
10. Meteorologic and Hydrogeologic Factors:
a. Mean Annual Precipitation: 21.5 inches; about 14.5 inches of irrigation water are needed to sup-
plement precipitation to grow corn
b. USLE ‘R’ Factor: 100
c. Geologic Factors: The watershed is underlain by shale and sand stone. Topography is diverse,
ranging from nearly level to steep. Most of the watershed is covered by a blanket of eolian sand
material. Soils in the range area are predominantly silts and sands.
11. Water Quality Monitoring Program:
a. Tiineframe: Surface -- July 1979 - September 1984 - 1995; Groundwater -- 1979- 1995
b. Sampling Scheme:
1. Location and Number of Monitoring Stations:
Baseline surface monitoring at 11 sites was collected from July 1979 to September 1984
by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Control (ref. 15). This is considered the
pre-impleinentation phase. Except for station LP8 (which will be sampled once per
month after September 1984), surface water monitoring has been discontinued until the
last two years of the project (1994-1995). Fish were collected between April 1981 and
June 1984. Channel transects have been measured once per year since 1985 at the 11
water quality stations. Streambank erosion is monitored at 4 sites to evaluate the
magnitude of erosion reduction effectiveness of cedar revetments. Upstream movement
of the head cut is measured annually.
Irrigation and domestic wells are sampled once per year in July or August when the
aquifer is used for irrigation.
128
-------
2. Sampling Frequency: Surface water: monthly for baseline samples, composite samples during
runoff events, fish were collected 2-3 times per year. Ground water: Once per year in July
or August (1982- 1985)
3. Sample Type: grab
c. Pollutants Analyzed: (1) Surface water: all 11 sites are sampled for TSS, FC, DO, and
conductivity. Seven of the sites include macroinvertebrate and periphyton sampling. Diurnal
water temperatures are also recorded. (2) Ground water: nitrite and nitrate as N, total
phosphorus, chloride, calcium, magnesium, pesticides, and total organic carbon.
d. Flow Measurements: Runoff event data is collected at six surface sites. Stream discharge is
recorded.
12. Critical Areas:
a. Criteria: high erosion rates and proximity to waterways
b. Application of Criteria: consistent -- Contracts are primarily being applied to the critical areas.
13. Best Management Practices:
a. General Scheme: The project is currently emphasizing on-site components such as irrigation
water management (BMP-13). One major emphasis for this BMP is to install irrigation tailwater
recovery (re-use) systems to minimize the total water usage, thereby reducing infiltration to ground
water with ultimate release in the creek. A secondary storage reservoir (BMP-13) is being con-
structed using pooled funds from 10 RCWP cooperators within the Ainsworth irrigation district
and was completed in September, 1987. The reservoir will save 2,000 acre feet of water annually for
8,000 acres of cropland and reduce the amount of irrigation waste water delivered to the creeks
with an associated reduction in sediment delivered. Other BMPs include fertilizer and pesticide
management (BMP..15, BMP.16), diversion systems (BMP- 5), grazing land protection systems
(BMP-6), stream protection (e.g. cedar revetments and reduction of riparian grazing) (BMP-10),
permanent vegetative cover on critical acres (BMP-11), Permanent vegetative cover (BMP .1),
waterway system (BMP-7), Cropland protective system (BMP-8), conservation tillage (BMP-9),
and tree planting (BMP-14).
b. Quantified Implementation Goals: 75 percent of the critical areas.
c. Quantified Contracting/Implementation Achievements as of Sept. 30 FY87: (ref. 18, RCWP-3)
Critical Area
Pollutant Treatment Project %Needs/Goais %Needs/Goals
Sources Contracted Implemented
Acres Needing Treatment 54,212 40,659 78/105 NA
Dairies (# farms) 2 0 0 0
Feedlots (# farms) 1 0 0 0
#Contracts 130 98 65,V NA
129
-------
Long Pine Creek RCWP, Nebraska
d. Cost of BMPs: (from RCWP Table 4, Ref. 16)
Ave. Farmer Ave. RCWP
Share (SI Share (SI Total Cost (51
I perm. veg. cover 20/ac. 60/ac. 80/ac.
2 animal waste mgmt. 3,750 ca 11,250 ea. 15,000 ea.
5 diversions 0.30/ft. 1/ft. 1.30/ft.
6 grazing land prot. 0.75/ac. 2.25/ac. 1.50/ft.
7 waterways 0.30/ft. 1/ft. 1.30/ft.
8 cropland prot. 5/ac. 0 5/ac.
9 conservation till. 3.25/ac. 9.75/ac. 13/ac.
10 stream protection 0.40/ft. 1.10/ft. 1.50/ft.
11 perm. veg. on crit. area 125/ac. 375/ac. 500/ac.
12 sediment retention 300 Ca. 900 ea. 1,200 ea.
13 irrigationlwater mgmt. 2,500 ea. 7,500 ea. 10,000 ea.
14 tree planting 75/ac. 225/ac. 300/ac.
15 fertilizer mgmt. 0.33/ac. 1/ac. 1.33/ac.
16 pesticide mgmt. 0.33/ac. 1/ac. 1.33/ac.
e. Effectiveness of BMPs: not documented
14. Water Quality Changes:
The surface and ground water samples reported for 1979 to 1984 are considered pre-implementation
(ref. 15). However, an increasing trend in nitrate concentrations in some of the irrigation wells has
been identified but no change has been observed in the domestic wells.
NWQEP analyzed a select group of 23 wells to further investigate any evidence of trends in the nitrate
levels over time using the raw data from Appendix N (ref. 15). These wells were chosen because they
had at least 3 years of data and monitoring started, on or before, 1984. Although still not perfect, the
comparison of geometric means (anti log of the mean of the log values) over years form this subgroup
of wells may be meaningful for a trend detection (Table 1).
Table 1. The geometric mean value of nitrate.N concentration for wells in which at least 3 years of nitrate data is
available from 1982 to 1987 and monitoring started prior to 1985 (raw data from Appendix N). There were a total of
10 irrigation wells, 12 domestic wells, and 1 municipal well sampled, but not all wells were sampled in every year.
Irr Igation Wells Domestic Wells MunlciDai Well
Ave. Nltrate Ave. Nitrate Ave. Nitrate ’
N Conc. (malfl N Conc. (ma/fl N Conc. (ma/fl
1982 4 0.8 - . 1 5.4
1983 7 1.8 4 4.5 - -
1984 6 2.2 8 3.6 1 0.2
1985 9 5.0 12 4.6 -
1986 6 5.1 11 3.6 1 1.8
1987 6 3.4 9 2.9
Comparison of these means across years should be done with caution because the same wells are not sampled each
year, and the variability of the data is large but can be used to document a problem.
Table 1 documents a problem with high nitrates, but visual inspection does not show a strong trend.
There may be some indication of an increasing trend in the nitrate concentrations in the irrigation
wells. It should be noted that the geometric mean values are lower than the mean values of the raw
concentration data because they are more closely related to the median values.
Further analyses were performed by NWQEP to investigate if any trends were statistically significant
for any well type or individual well. There was no statistical evidence of a change over time for the
irrigation, domestic, or municipal wells. There was some evidence that not all the domestic wells
130
-------
exhibited the same trends over the years. The nitrate levels in two of the domestic wells appear to have
increased over time, but the remainder have had no change or a decreasing trend. For the irrigation
wells, the direction of change is increasing levels of nitrate over all the wells. This increase is not
significant at the 10 percent level due to the large variability between years. There is good possibility
that a trend may be statistically documented in the next few years if the monitoring continues for the
irrigation wells.
15. Changes in Water Resource Use:
Domestic groundwater well samples in the project area showed 5-10% of the wells sampled in 1986
and 1987 have nitrate levels above federal standards. As a result of high nitrate levels, some well water
is blended with lower nitrate level water to reduce health risks. Total domestic groundwater use has
not changed since RCWP began. Recreational use of the project area has been steady since 1976 and
fishing continues to be’impaired in the project area by high sediment levels.
16. Incentives:
a. Cost Share Rates: 75% (90% cost share is being requested for a critical subarea of the Sand
Draw (ref. 18)
b. $ Limitations: $50,000 per farmer
c. Assistance Programs: SCS develops water quality plans and provides technical assistance. The
Extension Service has a 50 acre demonstration farm to display conservation tillage. There are
1PM meetings and 4,519 acres were scouted in 1985.
d. Other Incentives or Regulations: RCWP cost share improvements to the feedlots have not been
approved in the past because they are considered point sources under state regulation.
17. Potential Economic Benefits:
a. On-farm: not evaluated
b. Off-farm:
1) Recreation: $5,000 - $50,000 per year.
2) Water Supply: $15,000 - $50,000 per year.
3) Commercial Fishing: 0
4) Wildlife Habitat: unknown
5) Aesthetics4 unknown but positive
6) Downstream Impacts: unknown
IV. Lessons Learned
The ground and surface water monitoring program used in this project aids in prioritizing portions of the
watershed for critical area definition. Emphasis on fertilizer and pesticide management is a key factor in
dealing with ground and surface water problems simultaneously.
This project has the potential to document BMP effectiveness of irrigation water management and stream-
bank stabilization by cedar revetments and reduced riparian grazing over a 10 year time frame.
Lack of surface water monitoring throughout the project greatly reduces the chance of showing water quality
and water use improvements because of limited data for estimating within-site variance.
Opportunities exist to reduce fertilizer use by transferring manure from large feedlots (defmed by the state
as point sources) to RCWP participating farms. Cost-shared improvement of feedlots has not been approved,
however, in the past because of their legal designation as point sources.
V. Project Documents
1. Long Pine Creek Nebraska: A Rural Clean Water Program Application. 1981.
2. Plan of Work - Long Pine Creek RCWP Project. October 1981.
3. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. 1981. 11 + p.
1 1
-------
Long Pine Creek RCWP, Nebraska
4. Report to Local Coordinating Committee Long Pine Creek Rural Clean Water Program. October 23, 1981. Program Planning Section,
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control. 30 p.
5. NDEC Long Pine Intensive Survey Water Quality Update. Januaty 22, 1982.
6. Jensen, D. Januaiy 1982. An Index for Assessing the Water Quality of Nebraska Streams. Program Plans Section, Water and Waste
Management Division, Department of Environmental Control, State of Nebraska. 57 p.
7. Long Pine Creek Rural Clean Water Program Annual Report:FY 1982.
8. Long Pine Creek RCWP Plan of Work (FY 1983).
9. Long Pine Creek Rural Clean Water Program Annual Report:FY 1983.
10. Long Pine Creek RCWP Plan of Work (FY 1984).
11. Long Pine Creek Rural Clean Water Program Annual Report:FY 1984.
12. Long Pine Creek RCWP Plan of Work (FY 1985).
13. Long Pine Creek Rural Clean Water Program Annual Report: FY 1985.
14. Long Pine Creek Rural Clean Water Program: Plan of Work (FY 1986), revised November 1985.32 p.
15. Maret, T. December 1985. Water Quality in the Long Pine Rural Clean Water Project 1979-1985. Nebraska Department of Environ-
mental Control, P.O. Box 94877 - Statehouse Station, Lincoln, NE 68509-4877. 194 p.
16. Long Pine Creek Rural Clean Water Program Annual Report: FY1986.
17. Long Pine Creek RCWP: Plan of Work (FY1987), revised November 1986. 3Opp.
18. Long Pine Creed Rural Clean Water Program Annual Report: FY 1987.
19. Best Management Practices: Long Pine Creek Rural Clean Water Program. Revised November 1987.
20. Plan of Work (FY 1988). Long Pine Creek Rural Clean Water Program.
V I. Project Contacts:
Water Quality Monitoring
Don Zaroban - Surface Water
Marty Link - Ground Water
Nebraska Dept. of Environmental Control
301 Centennial Mall South
P.O. Box 94877
State House Station
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-4877
tel. (402) 471-4700(Zaroban)/4230(Link)
Information and Education
Bud Stolzenburg
Extension Agent
Long Pine Creek RCWP
BKR Cooperative Extension Service
Brown County Courthouse
Ainsworth, NE 69210
tel. (402) 387-2213
Land Treatment
Ray Stenka
ASCS Office
Ainsworth Field Office
RR2
Ainsworth, Nebraska 69210
tel. (402)387-2242
Land Treatment
Jerry Hardy or Diego Ayala
Soil Conservationist
USDA - SCS
Ainsworth Field Office
Ainsworth, Nebraska 69210
tel. (402) 387-2242
132
-------
Tillamook Bay - RCWP 18
Tlllamook County, Oregon
MLRA: A-i
H.U.C. 171002-03
I. Major Contributions Toward Understanding the Effectiveness of NPS Control
Efforts
This project has made important contributions concerning the effectiveness of animal waste management for
improving water quality at the watershed level. To date, the water quality monitoring shows a 40-50%
reduction in mean fecal coliform concentration, attributed to bringing approximately 60% of the animal waste
produced in the project area under best management. A more thorough knowledge of the marginal water
quality benefits of increased manure management should be gained from this project as the total treatment
approaches the expected 90% level. The project appears to be cost-effective on a water quality basis. Results
from this project indicate that projects that address clearly defined impairments to high-valued recreational
resources are most likely to be cost-effective.
II. Water Quality Goals and Objectives
Original Project Goals (ref. 4)
— 30% reduction in sediment delivery from agricultural land in the critical area.
— 70% reduction in fecal coliform bacteria entering the water courses.
Revision of Goals (ref. 6)
A national interagency team reviewed the project in 1983 and reported that 87% of the sediment reaching
the bay originated from forest land. This made the 30% reduction goal on agricultural land insignificant and
it was dropped as a project goal.
Ill. Characteristics and Results
1. Project Type: RCWP
2. Timeframe:1981 — 1996
3. Total Project Budget (for timeframe):
SOURCES: Federal State Farmer Other
ACTIVITY: SUM:
Cost-share 8.742.710
4,540,278 0 2,202,432 0
Info. & Ed.
41,158
0
0
2,806
43,964
Tech. Asst.
812,415
0
0
122,375
934,790
Water Quality
MonitorIng
9,821
83,090
0
51,825
144.536
SUM: 5,403,672 83,090 2,202,432 176,806 $7,866,000
133
-------
4. Area (acres):
Watershed Projeet Critical
363,520 23,540 8,723
5. Land Use: (ref. 3)
LL % Prolect Are . % Crltkal Ar e .
pasture 100 NA
Watershed Land Use:
% Watershed Area
forestiand 889
agriculture 6.5
bay 3.0
urban 1.6
6. Animal Operations in Project Area:
Operation # Farm. Total # Animala Total LU .
Dai!y 126 22,000 22,000
7. Water Resource Type:
streams, estuary, Tillamook Bay
8. Water Uses and Impairments:
Water resources in the project area are used primarily for domestic consumption, recreation and
commercial shelifishing. Sport fishing throughout the watershed is a popular activity. Recreational
clamming and angling in Tillamook Bay account for approximately 70,000 user-days. Commercial
sheilfishing in the Bay is a $1.5 million industry (annual gross sales).
The shellfish industry is impaired by excessive fecal coliform levels in the bay. Shellfish harvesting has
been closed down frequently during periods of high FC contamination and health hazards exist in
tributaries where water contact recreation is popular.
9. Water Quality at Start of Project:
The FC concentration standard for commercial shelifishing waters is a log mean of 14/lOOml with no
more that 10% of samples allowed greater than 431100ml. The standards were consistently violated in
Tillamook Bay following moderate to large runoff periods.
10. Meteorologic and llydrogeologic Factors:
a. Mean Annual Precipitation: 90 - 140 inches
b. USLE’R’ Factor: 50
c. Geologic Factors: The watershed topography is extremely diverse, from the Coast Range in the east
followed by gently to steeply sloping rocky uplands, deeply incised canyons to flat to gently rolling
floodplains. The coastline is largely sand dunes, beaches and sedimentary rock outcrops alternating
with occasional rugged headlands of volcanic rock. Slopes range from 0 to 90%. Soils are varied,
ranging from deep, well-drained coarse-textured bottomland soils with high permeability and slow
runoff to well-drained, fine-textured upland soils with moderate permeability and medium to rapid
runoff.
134
-------
Tillamook Bay RCWP, Oregon
11. Water Quality Monitoring Program:
a. Tiineframe: 1975 - 1990
b. Sampling Scheme: conducted by Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality
1. Location and Number of Monitoring Stations: five small tributary stations; five major
river stations, fourteen bay stations.
2. Sampling Frequency: varies, usually monthly, some intensive wet weather samplings
3. Sample Type: grab
c. Pollutants Analyzed: fecal coliform bacteria
d. Flow Measurements: Flow measurements accompany all samples since 7/83. Before then
only 2 stations have relatively complete flow records.
e. Other: salinity and turbidity measurements taken in Bay
12. Critical Areas:
a. Criteria: distance to watercourse, present manure management practices; designated subbasins
b. Application of Criteria: Criteria used to prioritize dairy farms for cost sharing.
13. Best Management Practices:
a. General Scheme: All RCWP cost share funds have been focused on BMP-2, Animal Waste
Management. Unique BMP components are used in the animal waste systems such as: roofing and
guttering of manure storage areas, tidal dikes to prevent high tides from spilling into pastures, and
pasture drainage systems to prevent water from standing in pastures where manure is applied.
b. Quantified Implementation Goals: 109 dairies; 8,723 acres
c. Quantified Contracting/Implementation Achievements:
Critical Area
Pollutant Treatment Project %Needs/Goals %NeedslGoals
sources Contracted Imniem ented
Acres Needing Treatment 8,723 8,582 98.4/100 69a17 0
Dairies 109 109 94
# Contracts 109 109 94 20 (22 of 109)
a Estimated as waste uulization and pasture ve 5 etauve cover treatments under BPM, 1& IS
b Completly installed/ balance has some components but not completed.
d. Cost of BMPs:
Ave. Farmer Ave. RCWP
Share ( Share ( Total Cost (S
2 Animal waste mgmt. 5,450-6,300 ea. 16,300-18,900 ea. 21,750.25,200 ea.
2 Subsurface drainage 140/ac. 420/ac. 560/ac.
2 curbing/guttering/
diversion 030-2.00/ft. 1.44-5.90/ft. 1.94-7.90/ft.
10 fencing 0.13/ft. 0.40/ft. 033/ft.
e. Non-RCWP Activities: Some treatment through ACP and individual farmer resources.
14.Water Quality Changes:
NWQEP analysis indicates that annual log-mean fecal coliform concentrations in both the streams and
Bay have decreased significantly since BMP implementation, especially when variations in streamfiow
and Bay salinity are accounted for. See Tables 1 and 2 below.
135
-------
Table 1. Tillamook Log Mean Fecal Coliform Concentrations 1975- 1981 vs. 1982-1985.
Sampling Log Mean Log Mean
1975-1981 1982-1985 % Reduction
Bay 1 49.3 22.4 55’
Bay2 553 43.2 22 +
Bay3 82.8 463 44
Bay4 111.0 53.3 52 +
Bay5a 131.0 31.8 76’
Bay6 36.7 20.6 44
Bay7 33.1 143 56 +
Bay8 20.8 11.6 44
Bay9 33.3 12.7 62 *
Bay 10 19.8 16.1 19
Bay 11 24.5 13.5 45 +
Bay 12 153.0 123.0 20
Bay 13 233 11.7 SO +
Bay 14 49:3 20.0 59 +
Kilchis River 87.0 61.0 30
Miami River 276.0 60.7 78
Track River 168.0 63.4 62
Tillamook River 387.0 162.0 58’
Wilson River 147.0 68.6 53
* Statistically significant at p 0.05
+ Statistically significant at p = 0.10
A 12 day sampling of the bay and lower tributaries by the FDA in December 1986 showed significant
water quality improvements, but not yet up to an acceptable standard; howevere less than 50% of
construction on BMPs was completed at this time (ref. 11).
15. Changes in Water Resource Use:
Due to the nonpoint source control project and associated changes in criteria for closing the hay to
commercial shellfishing, permanent closure does not appear likely. Commercial oyster production has
been steady after low production in 1979 and 1980. Recreational clamming is also likely to be affected
by reduced bacteria levels. However, no recreational use figures are currently available to indicate
changes attributable to RCWP.
16. Incentives:
a. Cost Share Rates: 75% on BMP-2
b. $ Limitations: $50,000 per landowner. Many animal waste management systems cost more than
$66,670. Farmers’ share may, therefore, exceed 33%.
c. Assistance Programs: ACP cost sharing has also been used to treat some problems. ACP has a
limit of $3,500/yr. for animal waste management systems.
d. Other Incentives or Regulations: Oregon allows a 50% tax credit for conservation measures
which can be spread over 10 years. Oregon also has regulations which allow the state to fine
agricultural operations that are obvious pollution sources.
17. Potential Economic Benefits:
a. On-farm: (project lists the following on-farm benefits)
- water quality improvement
- more nutrients in manure preserved for use as fertilizer
- decreased commercial fertilizer needs
- improved manure handling
- decreased labor requirements
• cleaner facilities resulting in higher quality dairy products
- cleaner and healthier livestock
- reduced fuel or electricity consumption
b. Off-farm: (USDA-ERS quantification)
1) Recreation: $40,000 - $530,000 per year.
136
-------
Tillamook Bay RCWP, Oregon
2) Water Supply: 0
3) Commercial Fishing: $20,000 - $50,000 per year.
4) Wildlife Habitat: unknown
5) Aesthetics: unknown
6) Downstream Impacts: 0
IV. Lessons Learned
1. Animal waste management can improve water quality (reduced mean fecal coliform concentrations) when
implemented for the critical sources in a 23,000 acre project area.
2. Some measurable indicator of hydrologic state such as precipitation, stream flow, or salinity should be
included in water quality sampling programs to identify water quality trends.
3. Thorough records of land treatment accomplishments are essential to attribute water quality, trends to
BMP implementation.
4. A pre-BMP water quality data base of at least 2 years duration greatly facilitates documenting water quality
effects of BMPs.
5. A high level of farmer participation can be achieved when agricultural and water quality agency personnel
work together closely on designing and publicizing the program.
6. The combination of financial incentive and environmental regulation is effective in achieving high rates of
participation.
7. Agricultural NPS control projects can be very cost-effective if they reduce an impairment to a water
resource with high recreational value.
8. Recreational benefits from improved water quality are likely to outweigh commercial fishing benefits even
in a region where impaired commercial fishing is the primary concern.
V. Project Documents:
1. Jackson, J. E. and E. A. Glendening. Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality. Tillamook Bay Bacteria Study Fecal Source Summary
Report. January1982.
2. TiHamook County SWCP and Tillamook Bay Water Quality Committee. January 1981. Tillamook Bay Drainage Basin Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Plan.
3. Tillamook Bay RCWP Application. Tillamook County, Oregon. January1981.
4. Tillamook Bay RCWP. Plan of Work. Tillamook County, Oregon. 1982.
5. Tillamook Bay RCWP Annual Report 1982.
6. Tillamook Bay RCWP Annual Report 1983.
7. Tiuamook Bay RCWP Annual Report 1984.
8. Tillamook Bay RCWP Annual Report 1985.
9. Tillamook Bay RCWP Annual Report 1986.
10. Maas, R.P., M.D. Smolen, J. Spooner and A. Patchek. 1987. Benefit/cost analysis of nonpoint source control in the Tillamook Bay,
Oregon watershed. Lake and Reservoir Management .1., Vol. I II, pp. 157.162.
11. Tillamook Bay RCWP Annual Report 1987.
137
-------
VI. NWQEP Project Contacts
Water Quality Monitoring Land Treatment/Technical Assistance
Andy Schaedel Elizabeth L. Lissman
Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality ASCS
1712 S.W. 11th St. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Portland, Oregon 97201 Portland, Oregon 97204
tel. (503) 229-5983 tel.(503) 326-2741
138
-------
Conestoga Headwaters - RCWP 19
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
MLRA: S-148
H.U.C. 020503-06
I. Major Contributions Toward Understanding the Effectiveness of NPS Control
Eftorts
Project results come from two, intensively monitored field sites and one stream site. Results are summarized
below:
Terraces may reduce sediment loadings to surface water, but in permeable soils with excess manure, terraces
may increase nitrate transport to ground water and dissolved nutrient concentrations in surface runoff.
In this project manurial nitrogen generally exceeds crop needs. Thus, water quality benefits from animal
waste storage are partially offset because nitrogen that could have been volatilized in storage is conserved
and applied as a sludge to the soil.
Nutrient management BMPs (soil and manure testing, proper matching of application rates, and timing to
match plant needs) can reduce both ground and surface water nitrogen losses.
II. Water Quality Goals and Objectives
The stated goal of the project is to reduce pollutants to levels that are consistent with the water quality
standards of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (ref. 1)
Specific Objectives:
— Reduce the amount of animal waste entering receiving streams and lakes by applying waste management
systems on 80 livestock operations.
— Reduce amounts of nitrates, phosphates,and pesticides entering receiving streams and lakes by applying
the fertilizer management BMP and the integrated pest management BMP on 3600 acres.
— Reduce the amount of se4iment and sediment-related pollutants entering receiving streams by applying
BMPs on 12,000 acres in 300 RCWP contracts to bring the annual erosion rate to the alllowable rate (‘T’).
this goal has been revised twice by the project as follows:(ref. 20)
1984 --- 80 contracts on 6,000 acres
1989 --- 90 contracts on 7,000 acres
Ill. Characteristics and Results
1. Project Type: RCWP, Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation
2. Timeframe: 1981— 1991
139
-------
3. Total Project Budget (for timeframe):
SOURCES: Federal State Firmer Other
ACTIVITY: SUM:
Cost-share 1,292,371 0 2,318,000 0 3.61 ,37I
info. & Ed.
35,000
20,000
0
50,000
Tech. AssI.
880,343
0
0
0
105,000
Water Quality
880,343
Monitoring 979,200
SUM: 3,186,914
1,000,000
1,020,000
0
2,318,000
10,000
1
4. Area (acres):
Watershed Prolect Critical
110,000 110,000 16,000
Mpnitorlnp: Small Watershed Site Field Site I Field Site 2
3,712 23.1 473
5. Land Use:
% Project
cropland 44
pasture/range 16.4
woodland 25
urban/roads 14
other 14
6. Animal Operations in Project Area: (1981 data)
Operation # Farms Total # Animals Total A.U .
Daiiy 445 39,542 30,820
Beef 1,009 53,945 45,853
Swine NI 33,914 7,461
Poultiy NI 3,462,425 15,314
7. Water Resource Type:
streams, groundwater
8. Water Use and Impairments:
Public water supplies originate in the project area for approximately 175,000 people pIus 2,000
commercial industries within and downstream from the Conestoga Headwaters (ref. 8). Water
resources also support fisheries and contact recreation. Streams used for these activities are impaired
by bacteria and sediment. Nitrates and pesticides impair potable ground water supplies.
9. Water Quality at Start of Project:
Forty three monitoring sites (42 wells and 1 spring) were sampled 4 times. The sites were grouped two
ways — according to geology and land use. In one of the sampling periods, 56% (22 of 33) of the wells
in carbonate geology and 20% (2 of 10) of the wells in noncarbon ate geology had nitrate concentrations
above 10 mgIL as nitrogen.
140
-------
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP, Pennsylvania
10. Meteorologic and Hydrogeolog Ic Factors:
a. Mean annual precipitation: 42 inches
b. USLE ‘R’ factor: 175
c. Geologic Factors: The northeastern two-thirds of the project area lies in the Triassic Lowlands
underlain by conglomerate, shale, sandstone and diabase. Average depth to the water table in this area
is 15 to 35 feet. The southwestern one-third of the project area is in the Conestoga Valley underlain
by carbonate and shale rocks, where average depth to the water table is 20 to 50 feet. Throughout the
project area soils are mainly well drained, deep or moderately deep silty barns that provide ample
penetration of surface runoff to groundwater supplies.
11. Water Quality Monitoring Program:
a. Timeframe: 1981-1991
b. Sampling Scheme: conducted by: U.S.G.S. & PA Dept. of Environmental Resources
1. Monitoring Stations: One 3,700 acre watershed with 2 stream gauge sites and 3 additional
baseflow sampling sites as well as 6 ground water sites and 2 springs. Two field sites: field
site #1 with 1 surface outlet gauged site and 6 ground water sites (5 wells, 1 spring), and
field site #2 with 1 surface outlet gauged site and 8 ground water sites (7 wells, 1 spring).
2. Sampling Frequency:
— Gauged sites: all major storms
— Baseflow sites: every 4 weeks
— Ground water sites: quarterly (small watershed) monthly (field sites)
3. Sample Type: Grab and automatic
c. Pollutants Analyzed: TSS, nutrients, pesticides
d. Flow Measurements: continuously at gauged sites
12. Critical Areas:
a. Criteria: Small watershed experimental area, and land within carbonate area
b. Application of Criteria: Adherence to the criteria has been undermined by the lack of farmer
participation; however, I&E efforts have been focused to the identified critical areas.
13. Best Management Practices:
a. General Scheme Revised implementation goals include securing 90 contracts to treat about 7,000
acres. New emphasis is on educational programs and nutrient management plans to encourage better
nutrient management instead of contracts with cost sharing.
b. Quantified Implementation Goals: emphasis on management of animal waste and reduction of
commercial fertilizer use.
c. Quantified Contracting/Implementation Achievements (as of September 30, 1987):
Critical Areas
Pollutant Treatment Project %Needs I Goals %Needs I Goals
Sources Q 1 Contracted Implemented
Acres Needing Treatment 16,000 6,000 36.4/97 23/61*
Dairies 110 45 32/78 b
Feedlots 100 20 9/45
Poulny Farms 90 10 4.4/40 _b
Hog Operations 60 5 20/240 b
Other 10 0 130/NA NA
No Livestock 30 0 20/NA NA
# Contracts 400 SO 20/99 NA
Estimated as conservation tillage practices applied.
b Estimated as all animal waste management practices applied (daines,feedlots,poultry and hogs)
141
-------
d. Cost of BMPs: (for continuous corn silage with daily spread on a 5% slope - total 20 tons manure
per acre) ref. 12
Averaae 1ncI l1atjpn Cost of BMPs :
Earthen basin
(6 month, manure storage structure) $12, 000
Steel tank - sluny store
(6-month manure storage structure) $39,000
Estimated Annual Cost per Acre
Contour strip cropping No Cost
Winter cover and residue mgmt. SO to $20/acre
Terrace systems $56/acre
Diversion systems
(with 20 ft. wide filter strip) $10/acre
Sod waterway systems $7/acre
e. Effectiveness of BMPs: Results of CREAMS model on continuous corn silage daily spread on 5%
slope, total 30 tons manure per acre (ref. 12):
NIos Nlos
Soil Ground Surface
erosion water water P loss
Condition tons/acre lbs/acre
NoE3MPs 11 50 68 31
Terraces 3 52 29 12
Reduced-till 6 50 45 20
No-till 3 45 33 14
Multiple BMPs 1 54 14 5
In general, the project believes that nutrient loading reductions will be achieved by reducing nutrient
application rates.
f. Cost-effectiveness of BMPs: Results of modeling continuous corn-grain on a 5 % slope (ref.12):
S/ton of S/lb. of S/lb. of
soil saved N saved P saved
Terraces 4.87 1.10 2.12
Animal waste systems NA 0.67 130
Diversions 2.06 0.41 0.78
Contouring 1.66 0.33 0.76
Grass waterways 0.99 0.24 0.45
Conservation tillage .76 0.17 0.34
g. Non-RCWP Activities: Annual implementation of BMPs (primarily nutrient management) on
non-RCWP farms is exceeding RCWP contracts. S S reported 213 contacts in 1987 with 166 of these
having at least one BMP implemented. Results of the overall nutrient management program (1986 -
1988) are as follows: 19,000 acres planned, 49% reduction in excess nitrogen applied, 42% reduction
in excess phosphorus applied.
14. Water Quality Changes:
At the small watershed level, analysis of monitoring data pre- and post- BMP implementation shows
a small but statistically significant reducton in kjeldahl-nitrogen in base flow. Field site 1 has shown
an increase in nitrates at 4 wells, and no change in the other 2 wells. This may be due to water ponding
on terraces. Nitrate concentrations in wells at field site 2 are decreasing in 1 well, increasing in 2 wells
and 1 spring, and showing no change in 2 other wells.
15.Changes In Water Resource Use:
Only minor changes in water resource use are anticipated since the number of BMPs installed is small
relative to the large area affected by the nonpoint source pollution. Localized improvements in
142
-------
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP, Pennsylvania
individual drinking water wells may occur, however, these improvements will be isolated and may
require the export of manure out of the watershed to be realized.
16. Incentives:
a. Cost Share Rates: 50% on animal waste management and soil/manure testing
b. $ Limitations: $ 50,000 maximum
c. Assistance Programs: Project has two nutrient management specialists.
17. Potential Economic Benefits:
The educational gains associated with nutrient management practices have enhanced the work of the
Chesapeake Bay and other regional water quality programs. In the long run this may be the greatest
benefit from this project. Some on-site benefits are possible from practices that reduce runoff and
conserve nutrients for crop production. Off-site benefits associated with expected minor water quality
improvement include (discounted 50 year):
Surface water improvements -- $65,000 to $200,000
Groundwater improvements -- $0 to $85,000
Total improvements -- $65,000 to $285,000
IV. Lessons Learned:
High cost share rates are needed to gain farmer participation when manure nutrients exceed crop needs and
manure has no value to the farmer.
There may be trade-offs between BMPs designed to improve surface and groundwater, complicating
treatment of impaired uses if both surface water and groundwater are impaired. Water quality monitoring
indicates that terraces may be ponding water and increasing nitrate infiltration.
Conservation tillage, nutrient management, and contour stripcropping are the lowest cost alternatives.
Extensive implementation of these over other practices is expected to produce the most water quality results
for a given expenditure.
1. Where manure nutrients exceed crop requirements, waste management systems must be designed to
reduce the burden on surface and ground waters. Volatilization may be desirable.
2. When on-farm manure nutrients exceed crop needs, manure is a waste product not a resource. High cost
share rates, regulations, and export markets for manure should be considered.
3. Targeting is not effective in projects where farmer participation and interest are low.
4. Credit should be extended to all who participate in a project including those farmers who establish BMPs
with technical assistance but do not use cost share money.
V. Project Documents
1. Conestoga Headwaters RCWP. 1982 Plan of Work. Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
2. Conestoga Headwaters RCWP. Comprehensive Monitoring Program. Revised, October1982.
3. Conestoga Headwaters RCWP. 1983 Progress Report.
4. Conestoga Headwaters Rural Oean Waler Program. 1983 Progress Report. Appendix B, Water Quality Data.
5. Conestoga Hcadwatcrs RCWP. 1984 Progress Report.
6. Conestoga Headwaters RCWP. 1985 Progress Report.
7. Crowder, B.M., and CE. Young. 1986. An Economic Analysis of the Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Project. Draft. Proposed ERS Tech-
rncal Bulletin.
8. Conestoga Headwaters RCWP. Project Application. Februazy, 1981. Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
143
-------
9. Conestoga Headwaters RCWP. 1986 Progress Report.
10. Anderson, R., and J. Graybill. Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Nutrient Management Special Report, 1986.
11. Young, C. Edwin, Bradley M. Crowder, James S. Shortle, and Jeffciy R. Aiwang. “Nutrient Management on Daiiy Farms in
Southeastern Pennsylvania.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 40, No. 6, Sept.-Oct., 1985. pp. 443-445.
12. Crowder, Bradley M., and C. Edwin Young. Modeling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution for Economic Evaluation of the Cones-
toga Headwaters RCWP Project. Staff Report No. AGES850614. Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, D.C., 1985, 7 Opp.
13. Crowder, Bradley M., and C. Edwin Young. “Evaluating BMPs in Pennsylvania’s Conestoga Headwaters Rural Clean Water Program.”
Proceedings: Nonpoint Pollution Abatement Symposium. Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wi, 1985, pp. P-Ill-A-i - P-Il l-A-i l.
14. Alwang, Jeffery, R. “An Economic Evaluation of Alternative Manure Management Systems and Manure Hauling.” Unpublished
Master of Science thesis, Department of Agricultural Economic and Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania State University, 1985.
15. Young, C. Edwin, Eugene Lengerich, James G. Beierlcin, “The Feasibility of Using a Centralized Collection and Digestion System for
Manure: The Case of Lancaster County.” (In) Proceedings of Conference on Poultry Waste Conversion, (H. C. Jordan and R. E.
Graves, eds.), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (1984), pp. 19-26.
16. Young, C. Edwin, Jeffery R. Alwang, and Bradley M. Crowder. Alternatives for Dairy Manure Management. Staff Report No.
AGES860422, Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, D.C., 1986, 3 Spp.
17. Crowder, Bradley M. and C.Edwin Young. “Evaluating BMPs in Pennsylvania’s Conestoga Headwaters Rural Clean Water Program.”
Paper presented at Nonpoint Pollution Abatement Symposium, Milwaukee, WI., April 23-25, 1985.
18. Crowder, Bradley M. and C. Edwin Young. “Modeling the Cost Effectiveness of Soil Conservation Practices for Stream Protection.”
Selected paper presented during the annual meetings, Amherst, MA, June 24-25, 1985.
19. Crowder, Bradley M. and C. Edwin Young. Managing Nutrient Losses: Some Empirical Results on the Potential Water Quality Ef-
fects.” Northeast Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Oct. 1986. pp 130-136.
20. Conestoga Headwaters RCWP. 1987 Progress Report.
21. Crowder, Bradley and C. Edwin Young. Managing Farm Nutrients — Tradeoffs for Surface and Groundwater Quality. Agricultural
Economic Report Number 583, Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC. Jan. 1988. 22 pp.
22. Fishel, D.K., and P.L. Lietman, 1986. Occurrence of Nitrate and Herbicides in Ground Water in the Upper Conestoga River Basin,
Pennsylvania: Water-Quality Study of the Conestoga River Headwaters, Pennsylvania. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources In-
vestigations Report 85-4202, 8p.
23. Gerhart, J.M., 1986. Ground Water Recharge and its Effect on Nitrate Concentration Beneath a Mnaured Field Site in Pennsylvania.
Ground Water 24(4):483-489.
24. Fishel, D.K., and P.L. Lietman, 1988. Occurrence of Nitrate and Herbicides in Ground Water in the Upper Conestoga River Basin,
Pennsylvania. Proceedings: Agricultural Impacts on Ground Water - A Conference, Association of Ground Water Scientists and En.
gineers. Des Moines, Iowa. pp. 317-323.
25. Chichestei-, D.C., 1987. Conestoga Headwaters Rural Clean Water Program in Pennsylvania. U.S. Geological Survey pamphlet, 6p.
26. Chichester, D.C., 1989. Evaluation of Agricultural Best-management Practices in the Conestoga River Headwaters, Pennsylvania:
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis, and Description of Study Areas. Water-Quality Study of the Conestoga River l-Ieadwatcrs,
Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Open- File Report 88-96.
27. Lietman, P.L., J.M. Gerhart, and K.L Wetzel, 1989. Comparison of Methods for Sampling Dissolved Nitrogen in a Fractured Car-
bonate-Rock Aquifer. Ground Water Monitoring Review 9(1):197-202.
28. Brown, Mi., 1988. Conestoga Headwaters RCWP Project. Clean WaDER 3(2).
Vi. NWQEP Project Contacts
Water Quality Monitoring Land Treatment/Technical Assistance
Patricia Lietman Warren Archibald, District Conservationist
US. Geological Survey Lancaster Soil Conservation Service
Water Resources Division Room 4, Farm & Home Center
P.O. Box 1107 1383 Arcadia Road
Harrisburg, PA 17108 Lancaster, PA 17601
tel. (717) 782-3831 tel. (717) 299-1563
and
144
-------
Conestoga Headwaters RCWP, Pennsylvania
Maryio Brown
PA Dept. of Environmental Resources
Bureau of Water Quality Management
One Ararat Blvd.
Harrisburg, PA 17110
tel. (717) 657-4590
Information & Education
Leon Ressler I Jeff Stolzfuss
Pennsylvania State Univ. Coop. Extension
Nutrient Management Office
745-D East Main Street
New Holland, PA 17557
tel. (717) 354-8116
Administration
Ray Brubaker, County Exec. Director
Lancaster County ASCS Office
Room 3, Farm & Home Center
Lancaster, PA 17601
tel. (717) 397-6235
Economic Evaluation
C. Edwin Young
Economic Research Service
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
1301 New York Ave. NW, Rm. 508
Washington, DC 20005-4788
tel. (202) 786-1401
145
-------
Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett - RCWP 20
Brookings, Kingsbury and Hamlin Counties, South Dakota
MLRA 102-A
___________________ H.U.C. 101702-01,02
I. Major Contributions Toward Understanding the Effectiveness of NPS Control
Efforts
The Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation project is contributing information in the following areas:
— transport of nitrates and pesticides from the soil surface to ground water
— ground water monitoring strategy design
— calibration of AGNPS and NRTM models
— determination of water and nutrient budgets for a group of small lakes
Installation of monitoring wells was completed in the fall of 1987, therefore, it may be difficult for the project
to document water quality changes in the short period before RCWP ends. Preliminary analysis suggests
that application of agricultural fertilizer contributes nitrate to the soil profile from which nitrate is leached
to ground water on a continual basis. Results from the field site ground water monitoring study show:
— N03-N concentrations are statistically higher at three geozones: shallow sand and gravel with thin soil
cover; alternating sand and silt layers with thin soil cover; and shallow weathered glacial till.
— N03-N concentrations under farmed sites are statistically higher than under non-farmed.
— No differences in water quality have been detected that can be attributed solely to BMPs.
— 44 out of 508 ground water samples scanned for pesticides have detectable levels. 22 of the 44 samples
with detections were collected at sites with no recorded history of on-site pesticide use.
— Macropores appear to be a pathway for pesticide infiltration in the glacial till geozone. (ref. 10)
II. Water Quality Goals and Objectives
The goal of this project is to improve and protect surface and ground water quality by reducing the amount
of total nitrogen, pesticides, animal waste and other pollutants entering these waters.
Ill. Project Characteristics and Results
1. Project Type: RCWP, Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Project
2. Timeframe: 1981—1991
3. Total Project Budget (for timeframe):
SOURCES: Federal State Farmer Other
ACTIVITY: SUM:
Cost-share 1,240,886 0 203,338 -— 0 1.444.224
Info. & Ed.
125,752
0
Tech. Asst.
76,464
0
0
0
125,752
Water Quality
0
0
76,464
Monitoring 1,502,000
SUM: 2,654,349
0
0
0
0
1,502,000
146
-------
4. Area (acres):
Watershed Prolect Critical
NA 106,163 79,450
5. Land Use: (ref. 7)
% Project Area % Critical Area
cropland 61 60
grassland 13 40
water 11
other 15
6. Animal Operations in Project Area: (Oct. 1985, ref. 7)
(in the Priority 1 Critical Area)
Operation # Farms Total # Animate Total AU .
Dairy 8 830 1,162
Beef 20 2,550 2,168
Flogs 8 4,500 900
Sheep 3 375 37.5
7. Water Resource Type:
Lake Poinsett, Lake Albert, Oakwood Lakes, ground water (portions of the Big Sioux aquifer).
8. Water Uses and Impairments:
The project area has several lakes, sloughs and shallow ground water aquifers bordering on the Big
Sioux aquifer. The lakes are heavily used for recreation (e.g., fishing, boating, swimming, water-skiing)
and stock watering. Over the past five years, recreational visitations to the lakes numbered 240,000 to
300,000 annually. Ground water is relied upon for drinking water and stock watering. Approximately
174,000 people live within fifty miles of the lakes.
Recreational activities are impaired by hypereutrophic conditions in the lakes. Algal blooms, excessive
aquatic weed growth, and DO depletion are common. Pesticides and excessive nitrates in ground water
are also of primary concern.
9. Water Quality at Start of Project: (ref. 7)
Groundwater: Water quality data (19’77-1978 study) from 861 private wells in the project area showed
nitrate levels exceeding the federal drinking water standard (lOmg/l) in 27% of the wells tested.
TolaIP Tot aiN
( mg ) (mg
Lake Poinsett: 0.12 4.0
Oakwood Lakes: 0.15 9.0
Tributaries: 0.50 3.2
10. Meteorologic and Hydrogeologic Factors:
a. Mean Annual Precipitation: 22 inches
b. USLE ‘R’ Factor: — 100
c. Geologic Factors: The project area has typical glacial Pleistocene morphology with many alluvial
outwash deposits, lakes, potholes and shallow ground water resources. Soils are deep, silty, loamy and
well drained on rolling slopes. Generally, the water table is about 10 feet below ground level. Ground
water flow is active and a large aquifer, the Big Sioux, underlies a portion of the project area.
147
-------
Oakwood Lakes RCWP, South Dakota
11. Water Quality Monitoring Program:
a. Timeframe: 1984 - ending dates below a
— ground water monitoring ends at end of 1990
— ag. chemical leaching study ends at end of 1989
— Oakwood Lakes study monitoring ended December 1988
a Request has been made for funds to extend all of above studies for three years.
b. Sampling Scheme: conducted by South Dakota Dept of Water and Natural Resources and South
Dakota State University Water Resources Institute
The Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation project is conducting three water quality
monitoring studies: 1) ground water; 2) surface water; and 3) agricultural chemcial leaching
through the soil profile.
1. Location and number of monitoring stations:
Ground water:
7 field sites (10-80 acres in size): 6 farmed fields (1 is control) and 1 unfarmed field with
nests of wells at each site. The sites are located in different parts of the project area
at locations selected to represent predominant cropping practices on glacial till or
outwash soils. A control site is located on non-agricultural land.
Master site:
1 field site for intensive study of agricultural chemical leaching and soil profile monitoring
pesticide & nitrate soil water extraction / leaching-event-actuated automatic sampling
Suiface water: Oakwood Lakes System Study
6 stations on tributaries, 3 sites between lake basins, and 1 site at the lakes’ outlet. Base
flow measured biweekly to monthly at tributary stations and water quality samples are
taken automatically after storm events. Parameters sampled are TP, ortho P, N03-N &
N0 2 -N, NH3, TKN and SS. At in-lake sites, integrated samples are taken every two
weeks from May to October and every month from November to April. Parameters
sampled are TP, ortho P, N03-N & N02-N, NH3, TKN, pH, chl a, algal density, DO,
temperature, and secchi disk transparency. Biological sampling of fish populations
and zooplankton also takes place.
2. Sampling frequency: ground water - monthly / surface runoff - storm event based
3. Sample type: automatic and grab
c. Parameters Analyzed:
ground water - N02-N & N0 3 -N, NH3, organic N, TP, CL, SO 4 , pesticides, pH, conductivity,
DO, TKN
surface runoff - ground water parameters plus ortho P, TDS and SS
Ekiw is measured with surface runoff samples. Ground water levels are measured on a weekly
to monthly basis.
12. Critical Areas:
a. Criteria: The entire 79,450 acres of cropland and grassland are considered critical. The project
area was divided into three priority areas based on sediment delivery levels and the impact on ground
water (e.g., regional ground water movement, distance from lakes or streams, drainage characteristics,
and thickness of overburden). The first priority area covers 59,500 acres. The second and third priority
areas cover 19,950 acres combined.
b. Application of criteria: The first priority area includes most of the livestock operations and encircles
the lakes.
148
-------
13. Best Management Practices:
a. General Scheme:
— reduce nutrients and pesticides entering ground water using fertilizer and pesticide
management (BMP 15 & 16)
— reduce sediment related pollutants entering waterways and lakes using conservation
tillage (BMP 9)
— reduce amount of animal waste entering waterways, lakes and ground water by
applying waste management systems
b. Quantified Implementation Goals:
— fertilizer management on 70,000 acres (66% of project area)
— pesticide management on 65,000 acres (61% of project area)
— conservation tillage for erosion control on 65,000 acres
— waste management systems on 10 livestock operations
c. Quantified Contracting/Implementation Achievements:
Critical Area Project
Pollutant Treatment Treatment % Needs / Goals % Needs I Goals
Sources Contracted Imolemented
Acres Needing Treatment 79,540 59,590 56 / 74 NA
Conservation Tillage 65,000 52,000 42 / 57 46 / 57
Fertilizer Mgmt. 70,000 56,000 39 / 49 27/34
Pesticide Mgmt. 60,000 52,000 47 / 54 34/40
Feedlots 16 8 31/63 19/38
# contracts 220 165 70 / 93 NA
d. Cost of BMPs: Estimated cost of the three major BMPs being implemented are:
Govt. Tech. Assi. Total Gov. Years
BMP cost share
per acre -
Conservation tillage 22.50 1.09 23.59 3+
Fertilizer management 3.00 72.00 3.72 4+
Pesticide management .0- 4.29 4.29 3
e. Effectiveness of BMPs:
soil savings
( tonal annlled anita
Penn. veg.cover 5,935 1,025 ac.
Strip cropping 125 132 ac.
Terrace systems 215 7,491 ft.
Wateiways 6 3 ac.
Shelterbelt 620 1,489 rod rows
Cons. tillage 160,700 24,677 ac.
14. Water Quality Changes:
No water quality changes associated with BMP implementation have been documented.
Simulation with the AGNPS model indicates that all contracted BMPs implemented as of July 1986,
should reduce sediment and phosphorus loadings to the four major lakes by 5 to 12 percent compared
with pre-RCWP loadings. However, the model also indicates that water soluble nitrogen Ioadmgs
should increase 2 to 3 percent. The model provides no estimates of changes in nitrogen infiltration.
149
-------
Oakwood Lakes RCWP, South Dakota
15. Changes In Water Resource Use:
The projected reductions in loadings to the lakes as a result of RCWP do not appear sufficient to affect
water quality and water use. No findings are yet available on ground water use.
16. Incentives:
a. Cost Share Rates: 75%
b. $ Limitations: $50,000 maximum per farm
c. Other Incentives: I & E program to support BMP 15 & 16 offers assistance with interpreting soil
test results and pest scouting service.
17. Economic Benefits:
a. On-farm:
Participating farmers appear to benefit economically from reduced tillage costs, reduced fertilizer
costs, and perhaps slightly lower pesticide costs. Also there may be some short and long.term yield
improvement attributable to soil and moisture retention by conservation tillage.
b. Off-farm:
Recreational values are so high that reducing algae blooms could generate benefits as high as $3.5
to $5.9 million annually. Actual recreational benefits attributable to RCWP will likely be much less,
however, because reductions in nutrient loadings to lakes will probably be small. Domestic water
supply benefits could reach $100,000 annually if groundwater quality is maintained above public
health standards.
IV. Lessons Learned
The AGNPS model is being used to predict the effect of BMP implementation on sediment, P and N loadings
to surface waters, and the project is documenting the effect of fertilizer management on the quality of ground
water.
A clear statement of project goals and objectives is important for an effective ground water monitoring
program.
A thorough understanding of project area geology is essential for accurate interpretation of ground water
monitoring results. A geologic investigation can be time-consuming and expensive, especially in a project
with complex hydrogeology.
The project area covers many geologic settings. A method was developed to aggregate ground water data
for statistical analysis. The project characterized each monitoring well by the geologic stratum, or geozone,
in which it is screened and the depth of the well screen. These geozones are site specific, however the method
of characterization is transferable to other ground water monitoring projects. (ref. 10)
Interviews with farmers still participating in pest management indicate that the program improved their pest
management practices. Many farmers believe that fertilizer management is beneficial but others consider
the work involved to be greater than the benefits. (ref. 9)
An active Information and Education program using news letters, radio programs and other mass media on
a regular basis keeps project participants, the general public, and agency personnel informed of project status.
(ref. 9)
V. Project Documents
1. Application for RCWP Funds, Februaiy 1981.
2. Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the Oakwood Lakes - Poinseit RCWP, South Dakota State Coordinating Commit-
tee, July 1982.
3. 1982 Annual RCWP Progress Report - Project 20, Oakwood Lakes. Poinsett, South Dakota.
150
-------
VI. NWQEP Project Contacts:
Water Quality Monitoring
Al Bender
Water Resources Institute
South Dakota State University
Box 2120
Brookings, SD 57007
tel. (605) 688-5025
and
Jeanne Goodman
Office of Water Quality
SD Dept. of Water & Natural Resources
Joe Foss Bldg., Rm. 217
523 E. Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-3181
te. (605) 773-3296
Information and EducatIon
Charles H. Ullery
Water & Natural Res. Specialist
CES
229 Agricultural Engineering
South Dakota State University
Box 2120
Brookings, SD 57007
tel. (605) 688-5141
Land Treatment/Technical Assistance
Dwayne Breyer
USDA - SCS
Huron, SD
tel. (605) 353-1878
and
Dale Cundy
USDA - ASCS
tel. (605) 353-1840
Economic Evaluation
Richard Magleby
Economic Research ServicefRTD
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
1301 New York Ave. NW, Rm. 532
Washington, DC 20005-4788
tel. (202) 786- 1435
4. 1983 Annual RCWP Progress Report - Project 20, Oakwood Lakes. Poinsctt, South Dakota.
5. 1984 Annual RCWP Progress Report - Project 20, Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett, South Dakota.
6. 1985 Annual RCWP Progress Report - Project 20, Oakwood Lakes - Poinsctt, South Dakota.
7. 1986 Annual RCWP Progress Report - Project 20, Oakwood Lakes. Poinsctt, South Dakota.
8. Piper, Steve, Mark Ribaudo, and A. Lundeen. ‘The Recreational Benefits from an Improvement in Water Quality of Oakwood Lakes
and Lake Poinscu South Dakota.’ North Central Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 9, no. 2, 1987. pp. 279.288.
9. 1987 Annual RCWP Progress Report - Project 20, Oakwood Lakes- Poinsett Project, South Dakota.
10. CM&E Technical Report (Water Quality Land Use Data Analysis), Oakwood Lakes- Poinsett RCWP, 1987 Annual Progress Report-
Project 20,
151
-------
Nansemond-Chuckatuck - RCWP 21
City of Suffolk and Isle of Wight County, Virginia
MLRA: T-153A
H.U.C. 020802-08
I. Major Contribution Toward Understanding the Effectiveness of NPS Control
Efforts
The project provides information about the level of NPS pollution control attainable through voluntary
agricultural cost sharing programs.
The project is not evaluating the effectiveness of individual BMPs but the water quality data and detailed
land treatment records should make possible the analysis of the project’s impact on water quality.
II. Water Quality Goals and Objectives
The project’s goals are stated as:(ref. 24)
1. To reduce the fecal coliform organisms in the water supply reservoirs, Nansemond River, and Chuckatuck
Creek to within tolerable limits.
2. To reduce the total soil loss by 87,000 tons per year.
3. To reduce the turbidity and sediment loading of the 195 miles of streams and 4,850 acres of water supply
reservoirs.
4. To reduce the amount of plant nutrients and pesticides being discharged into local streams and reservoirs.
III. Characteristics and Results
1. Project Type: RCWP
2. Timeframe: 1981-1991
3. Total Project Budget (for timeframe):
SOURCE: Federal Stale Farmr Other
ACTIVITY:
Cost-share
SUM:
5.963,00
info.&Ed.
63,900
0
0
2,000
-
65,900
Tech. Asst.
448,595
0
0
48,000
496,595
Water Quality
MonItorIng
72,000
23,400
0
25,000
SUM: 2,305,495 23,400 4,242,000 75,000 $6,645,895
4. Area:
Watershed Protect CritIcal
161,365 161,365 23,908
Subwatershed Total Acres CritIcpl Acres
Norfolk 42,000 NA
Portsmouth 37,000 NA
TOTAL 161365 23,908
152
-------
5. Project Land Use:
% Project % Critical
cropiand 27.3 32.0
pasture/range 2.8 NA
woodland 62.9 NA
urban 1.2 NA
wetland 3.8 NA
other 4.2 NA
There are 825 farms in the project area.
Subwatershed Data:
Subwatershed Cronland Pasture Forest
Chuckatuck 1,896 528 1,960
Nansemond 2,267 137 2,301
Norfolk 5,557 856 6,098
Portsmouth 3,170 351 3,941
6. AnImal Operations in Critical Area: (ref. 15)
Operation # Farms Total # Animals Total AJL
daily 1 125 163
beef 24 2,724 2,724
hog 40 24,000 3,600
pouitiy 8 448,000 1,792
7. Water Resource Type:
2 estuaries and 7 drinking water reservoirs
8. Water Uses and Impairments:
Reservoirs in the project area are sources of public water supply for the cities of Norfolk, Chesapeake
and Virginia Beach, Virginia. Chuckatuck Creek is a successful shellfish growing area and a tidal
tributary to the James River. Commercial and recreational fishing and sheilfishing are important water
uses. The reservoirs are becoming eutrophic due to sediment and nutrients. Tidal waters are impaired
by high fecal coliform levels.
9. Water Quality at Start of Project:
Estuary: 3,000 acres of shellfish beds have been condemned, c l ii a concentrations exceed 40 ugh, and
DO is frequently depleted.
Reservoirs: Phosphate-P concentrations range from 0.05 to 0.20 mg(l in fall and winter samples. Higher
concentrations have been associated with high fecal coliform densities in some tributaries to the
reservoirs.
10. Meteorologic and Hydrogeologic Factors:
a. Mean Annual Precipitation: 48 inches
b. USLE ‘R’ Factor: 300
c. Geologic Factors: The project area is characterized by nearly level to gently rolling topography with
steep slopes adjacent to small tributary streams. Most soils have moderately low erodibility factors.
Depth to groundwater is generally 25 feet or more.
153
-------
Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP, Virginia
11. Water Quality Monitoring Program:
a. Timeframe: sampling of reservoirs was initiated October 1982; regular sampling of estuary sta-
tions initiated in June 1983.
b. Sampling Scheme: conducted by: The Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency, the cities of Nor-
folk and Portsmouth, VA Institute of Marine Science and the State Water Quality Control Board
1. Location and Number of Monitoring Stations: 19 sampling stations — 4 in the Nansemond
River estuary, 3 in the Chuckatuck Creek estuary, and 12 stations in the upstream
impoundments of the Nansemond River system
2. Sampling Frequency: at each station is conducted monthly.
3. Sample Type: grab
c. Pollutants Analyzed:
estuary: DO, salinity, TSS, NO 3 , dissolved 0?, FC, BUD
impoundments: TS, TP, pH, FC, DO, BOD, algal species
d. Other: There are no flow measurements.
12. Critical Areas:
a. Criteria: The boundary was originally specified to include the area one mile from the Nansemond
River or its impoundments and one mile from Chuckatuck Creek. This was expanded during 1985 to
include most of the remaining project area (new boundary includes 1 mile radius from all tributaries).
In treating the expanded critical area, the project established a priority checklist for ranking. Weights
are based primarily on distance to live stream and less than optimal soil or animal waste management.
Animal waste operations are given twice the priority of croplands, and erosion problems are given the
same priority as pesticide and fertilizer management problems. Farms with animal operations and no
cropland treatment needs do not qualify.
b. Application of Criteria: Project reports do not contain appropriate detail to evaluate this.
13. Best Management Practices:
a. General Scheme: The project has concentrated primarily on animal waste management, for hog and
dairy operations, and conservation tillage with fertilizer and pesticide management.
b. Quantified Implementation Goals: The project seeks to treat 17,931 acres and 115 animal operations.
These goals expanded from 14,055 acres and 51 animal operations in 1985, when the critical area was
expanded.
c. Quantified Contracting/Implementation Achievements: (ref. 24)
Critical Area
Pollutant Treatment Project %Needs/Goals %NeedWGoa
Sources Contracted Imolemented
Acres Needing Treatment 116,710a NA NA NA
Dairies i 1 100/100
Feedlots 50 38 70/92 34/444C
Poultiy 8 6 373/50
Crops 23,90&’ 16,655 62.9/90.3 11872 d
# Contracts 184 132 58.2/81 NA
a The project area is 161,365 acres, critical area has been defined to be 116,710 acres or 72% of the project area (ref.
24)
b There are 37,358 cropland acres in the critical area, project states that only 23,908 acres neeed treatment.
Estimated from BMP 2, animal waste control system (dairies,fcedlots and poultiy)
Estimated from BMPs 15 & 16 applied. BMP 9: 7,870 acres applied (33%/47%).
154
-------
d. Cost of BMPs:
Ave. Farmer Ave. RCWP
Share ( Share ( 1 Total Cost (S
1 Perm. Veg. Cover 33/ac. 100/ac. 133/ac.
2 Animal Waste Mgmt. 6,670 ea. 20,000 Ca. 26,670 ca.
5 Diversion System 0.33/ft. 1/ft. 1.33/ft.
6 Grazing Land Protection 1,670 Ca. 5,000 ea. 6,670 ca
7 Waterway System 83/ac. 250/ac. 333/ac.
8 Cropland Protection 5/ac. 5/ac. 10/ac.
9 Conservation Tillage 7,30/ac. 22/ac. 29.30/ac.
11 Perm. Veg. on Cnt. Areas 35/ac. 105/ac. 140/ac.
12 Sediment Retention Struc. 750 ea. 2,250 Ca. 3,000 ea.
e. Effectiveness of BMPs: The project estimates that 45,108 tons of soil have been protected from
erosion annually, and 56,546 tons of manure produced annually (65% of production) have been put
under management. The project also states that fertilizer management on 14,536 acres will improve
utilization of nitrogen phosphorus and potassium, improving crop production and preventing stream
pollution.
14. Water Quality Changes:
Water quality data have not yet been analyzed. Improving trends in TSS and orthophosphorus have
been observed for Nansemond River when compared with reports from the 1960s. An improving trend
in N03-N has been observed for Chuckatuck Creek. However, these trends may not be attributable to
RCWP work because they emerged in the late 1960s after point sources were removed from the project
area. Analysis of water supply lakes in the project area indicates high variability in water quality data
and little evidence of trends.
15. Changes in Water Resource Use:
Oyster production has decreased from a total of 214,000 pounds in 1980 to 95,400 pounds in 1985.
Lowest production was in 1984 with 57,800 pounds. Three reservoirs in the project area are used for
domestic water supply, and water treatment has not changed since RCWP began. Fishing is the primary
recreational activity in the area, with approximately 30,100 user days per year, unchanged since 1980.
Of 7,200 total shellfishing acres, 2,100 acres are condemned and 2,700 acres have been conditionally
approved.
16. Incentives:
a. Cost Share Rates: 75% for most practices except cover crops and some waste application equipment
cost shared at 50%. Fertilizer and pesticide management are not cost-shared.
b. $ Limitations: $50,000 per contract (some contracts cover multiple tracts)
17. PotentIal Economic Benefits:
a. On-farm: not evaluated
b. Off-farm:
1) Recreation: 0
2) Water Supply: $10,000 - $130,000 per year
3) Commercial Fishing: $30,000 per year
4) Wildlife Habitat: unknown
5) Aesthetics: unknown
6) Downstream Impacts: unknown but positive
155
-------
Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP, Virginia
IV. Lessons Learned
This project shows a high degree of coordination among agencies concerned with water quality and resources.
The land treatment program is implemented by SCS. SCS keeps appropriate records to identify each contract
with respect to the water resource that it affects. Several water resource agencies are conducting monitoring
programs that are used to assess the effectiveness of the land treatment program. The monitoring agencies
interface with the land treatment program through a coordinator at the Hampton Roads Water Quality
Agency. The agencies appear to maintain effective communication.
V. Project Documents
1. RCWP Local Coordinating Committee, County of Isle of Wight and the City of Suffolk, Southeastern Virginia. Nansemond-Chuckatuck
Rural Clean Water Project, City of Suffolk and Isle of Wight County, Project Proposal. 1980. (includes the following Appendices:
a. Presncll-Kidd Assoc., Inc. (for City of Norfolk, Va. Dept. of Utilities) Phase I Water Quality Management Study Norfolk-Western
Lakes Reservoir Systems. (no date)
b. Virginia State Water Control Board. Chuckatuck Creek Non-point Source Bacteriological Study. April 24, 1980.
c. Virginia Department of Health. Notices of Shellfish Area Condemnation for Chuckatuck Creek dated: 28 June 1979; Nansemond River
dated 16 August 1976, 9 March 1972, and 6 November 1963.
d. Virginia State Water Control Board. State Water Quality Management Plan for the Hampton Roads Planning Area. Adopted March 23-
25, 1980.
e. Kilch, L.R. and BR. Neilson. Field and Modeling Studies of Water Quality in the Nansemond River. A report to the Hampton Roads
Water Quality Agency. Special Report No. 133 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering. Virginia Institute of Marine
Science. Gloucester Point, Va. December 1977.
f. I Iampton Roads Water Quality Agency. Hampton Roads Water Quality Management Plan. Executive Summary. (Draft, no date)
g. City of Norfolk, Department of Utilities. Summary Report. Western Reservoir System Water Quality Management Plan-Phase II. June
1980.
2. USDA-SCS and VPI&SU. Soil Survey of City of Suffolk, Va. June 1981.
3. RCWP Local Coordinating Committee. Nansemond-Chuckatuck Rural Clean Water Project Plan of Work. October 1981.
4. Cox, C.B. Nonpoint Pollution Control: Best Management Practices Recommended for Virginia. Special Report No. 9. Virginia Water
Research Center, Blacksburg, VA. November 1979.
S. VPI&SU Extension Division. Best Management Practices in Agriculture and Forestry. Publication 4 WC I3 1. Blacksburg, Va. January
1980.
6. VPI&SU Extension Division. Best Management Practices for the Urban Dweller. Publication 4 WCB 2. Blacksburg, Va. April 1980.
7. VPI&SU Extension Division. Best Management Practices for Row-Crop Agriculture. Publication 4 WCB 3. Hlacksburg, Va. June 1980.
8. VPI&SU Extension Division. Best Management Practices for Beef and Dairy Production. Publication 4 WCB 4. Blacksburg, Va. July
1980.
9. VP [ &SU Extension Division. Best Management Practices for Swine Operations. Publication 4 WCB 5. Blacksburg, Va. November 1980.
10. VPI&SU Extension Division. Best Management Practices for Tobacco Production. Publication 4 WCB 6. Blacksburg, Va. January 1981.
11. VPI&SU Extension Division. Conservation Tillage a Best Management Practice. Publication 4 WCB 7. Blacksburg, VA. January1981.
12. VPI&SU Extension Division. Integrated Pest Management - a Best Management Practice Publication 390-409. Blacksburg, VA.
November 1980.
13. Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP Best Management Practices, as approved by EPA in letter from Peter Wise to Orin Hanson, May 14,
14. RCWP Local Coordinating Committee. Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP 1982 Progress Rep. Nov. 1982.
15. RCWP Local Coordinating Committee. Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP 1983 Progress Rep. Nov. 1983.
16. RCWP L.ocal Coordinating Committee. Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP 1984 Progress Rep. Nov. 1984.
17. RCWP Local Coordinating Committee. Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP 1985 Progress Rep. Nov. 1985.
18. RCWP Local Coordinating Committee. Nansemond.Chuckatuck RCWP 1986 Progress Rep. Nov. 1986.
19. Neilson, B.J. Nonpoint Source Sampling in the Hampton Roads Area. A report to the Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency. Special
Report No. 128 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering. Virginia Inst. of Marine Sciences. March 1977.
156
-------
20. Neilson, BJ. Summaiy of the Hampton Roads 208 Water Quality Modeling Studies. A report to the Hampton Roads Water Quality
Agency. Special Report No. 170 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering. Virginia Inst. of Marine Sciences. Januaiy 1978.
21. I3osco, C. and Neilson, BJ. Interpretation of Water Quality Data from the Nansemond and Chuckatuck Estuaries with respect to Point
and Nonpoint Sources of Pollution. A report to the Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency. Virginia Inst. of Marine Sciences. May
1983.
22. Kerns, W.R. R.A. Kramer, W.T. McSweeney, R. Greenough, and R.W. Stavros. Nonpoint Source Management: A Case STudy of
Farmers’ Opinions and Policy Analysis. Unpublished Report. Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State University. Blacksburg, Va. Novem-
ber 1982.
23. Kramer, R.A. and D.L. Faulkner. Income Tax Provisions Related to Agricultural BMPs. (Working Draft) Agricultural Economics
Department. Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State University. Blacksburg, Va. (no date)
24. RCWP Local Coordinating Committee. Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP 1987 Progress Rep. Nov. 1987.
VI. NWQEP Project Contacts:
Water Quality Monitoring Land Treatment/Technical Assistance
Paul Fisher Jim Wright
Hampton Roads WQ Agency SCS
The Regional Bldg. 1548 Holland Rd.
723 Woodlake Drive Suffolk, VA 23434
Chesapeake. VA 23320 tel. (804) 539-9270
tel (804) 420-5364
Information and Education
Charlie Perkins
Virginia Coop. Ext. Service
P.O. Box 364
Windsor, VA 23487
tel. (804) 242-6195
157
-------
APPENDIX A
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM MIP AND 108A NPS PROGRAMS
Model Implementation Program: USDA & EPA - 1978-1 982
This program sponsored watershed projects in seven states to demonstrate soil conservation
and water quality related to agricultural land management practices. State agencies monitored
water quality to evaluate project results. Project goals were to reduce sediment yield from
irrigation tracts, reduce animal waste pollution from barnyards, reduce cropland and pasture
land erosion, and attempt to prevent groundwater contamination or stream bed erosion.
MIP Recommendations 1
MIP Projects
Name/State SIZE (acres) Water Quality Problem
Indiana Heartland, watersheds: algae blooms, nutrient &
Indiana Stotts Creek 39,000 sediment loads
Eagle Creek 103,000
Maple Creek, watershed 245,645 sediment & nutrient loads,
Nebraska prOl. area 33,088 fecal coliform & ag. chemicals
Delaware River watershed 287,224 severe algal blooms,
W. Basin, eutrophication - P load,
New York plankton, Chi a
Little Washita River, watershed 154,270 sediment load, salts,
Oklahoma nutrients (N & P) and
oil field contaminants
Broadway Lake, project area 25,183 sIltation, sediment
South Carolina potential N & P
Lake Herman, watershed 42,948 sediment and nutrient
South Dakota loading to lake
South Yaklma, 2 subbaslns: sediment and high N & P
Washington 26,500 concentrations
Sulfer Creek
1 National Water Quality Evaluation Project and Harbridge House. Model Implementation Program, Lesaons Learned from
Agricultural Water Quality Projects. Februazy 23, 1983.
159
-------
• Agricultural NPS control programs should state goals and objectives clearly and in precise
terms.
• Agricultural NPS control programs should clearly state tasks and responsibilities for all
involved agencies, and progress reports should be submitted.
• Programs should designate a program director with authority to act on behalf of all agencies
in directing the project activities.
• Programs should develop a uniform criteria for the assessment of potential projects.
• Programs should limit projects to manageable project areas where quality problems are
caused primarily by agricultural non-point sources. (RCWP took this simplified ap-
proach).
• A logical and detailed plan of action should be reviewed and approved before implemen-
tation begins.
• Mechanisms should be included by programs to ensure that adequate resources are
allocated by or given to each agency to complete assigned tasks.
• Programs should establish a means to identify critical areas within the watershed. Critical
areas are those lands that are disproportionately responsible for water use impairments.
• All agencies involved should work together to better rate and select appropriate BMPs to
address problems in the project area.
• For MIP projects, the timeframe was not long enough to document water quality benefits
to receiving bodies.
• In installing BMPs, many practices were not selected and applied to directly promote water
quality results. This problem led to better recognition and training RCWP.
• Five of the MIP projects did demonstrate in field and plot studies that BMPs produce water
quality benefits.
• Within the agencies involved in MIPs, a need was shown for increased water quality
expertise. (RCWP implemented workshops and training sessions for this purpose.)
• MIP projects showed the need for one-on-one contact, cost sharing and improved infor-
mation and education practices to stimulate farmer participation.
• The South Carolina MIP found that emphasis on farm ponds below pastures and
pasture improvements are not cost-effective means of increasing water quality.
• The Washington MIP showed that significant sediment reductions in return flows
can be accomplished with irrigation BMPs.
160
-------
Appendix A
• The New .York MIP showed that barnyard management practices can result in 50-
90% reduction of manure P.
Great Lakes Demonstration Program 108a: U.S. EPA
The 108a program of the 1972 to the Clean Water Act funded 31 demonstration projects to
eliminate or control pollution in the Great Lakes Basin. The program objective was to reduce
phosphorus pollution from point and nonpoint sources, both rural and urban. Agricultural
BMP evaluations were made mainly through conservation tillage implementation in 12
projects.
1 08a Recommendations 2
2 Newell, A.D., LC. Stanley, M.D. Smolen, and RP. Maas. OvervIew and Evaluation ot Section lOSe Great Lakes Demonstration
Program, U.S. EPA-905/9-86-OO1, July1986.
Great Lakes Demonstration Projects - 1 08a
Name/State Type* Project Dates
Black Creek, Indiana. Multi-dim. 1972 - 1980
Washington County, Wisconsin Multi-dIm. 1974- 1981
Red Clay, Wisconsin & Minnesota Multi-dim. 1974- 1978
Allen County, Ohio ACT 1980- 1985
Defiance County, Ohio ACT 1980 - 1985
Lake Erie Basin, Ohio ACT 1981 - 1985
Six Counties in Indiana ACT 1981 - 1985
Bean Creek, Michigan ACT 1981 - 1985
Otter Creek, Michigan ACT 1982- 1986
Tuscola County, Michigan ACT 1980- 1983
Oswego County, New York ACT 1982- 1985
Wayne County, New York ACT 1982- 1985
Multi-dimensional projects demonstrated a variety of practices; agricultural and urban BMPs,
education programs and analysis through water quality monitoring procedures. Accelerated
Conservation Tillage (ACT) projects demonstrated no-till and conservation tillage practices and
assisted farmers in implementing these procedures
161
-------
• Conservation tillage practices, while effective at reducing erosion and total nutrient load
concentrations, many increase the dissolved P and N loading concentrations in surface
waters. This demonstrates a need for fertilizer management along with conservation tillage
practices.
• Found conservation tillage and fertilizer management BMPs the most cost effective
methods for phosphorus control.
• High degrees of public support and landowner participation were obtained through: 1)
Education and Awareness programs (including development of grade school and high
school curriculums - Washington County project in Wisconsin), 2) public input on technical
solutions, 3) cost sharing and 4) technical support for participating landowners.
• Effective use of project funds can be enhanced through targeting of critical areas which
contribute most to water quality problems in the project area.
The Black Creek Project developed ANSWERS (Areal NPS Watershed Environmental Response
Simulation) computer model to identify critical areas. The model was designed to estimate the amount
of pollution from a given area and then simulate the effects of various BMPs.
• Differences in pollution sources do exist between individual project areas.
The Black Creek project found that implementation of conservation tillage BMPs, tile drainage and
sediment control basins could improve water quality, while streambank erosion control structures
showed little improvement to water quality.
In contrast, the Red Clay project in Wisconsin and Minnesota showed streambank erosion as the major
source of their pollution problems, with agricultural BMPs addressing a very small portion of the
erosion problem.
162
-------
APPENDIX B
RCWP Best Management Practices
BMP 1 Permanent Vegetative Cover
Purpose: To improve water quality by establishing permanent vegetative cover on farms or ranchiand to prevent
excessive runoff of water or soil loss contributing to water pollution.
Lifespan: minimum of 5 years
Components:
1 Fencing 5 Proper grazing use
2 Grasses and legumes in rotation 6 Range seeding
3 Pasture and hayland management 7 Planned grazing systems
4 Pasture and hayland planting
BMP 2 Animal Waste Management System
Purpose: To improve water quality by providing facilities for the storage and handling of livestock and poultry
waste to abate pollution that may otherwise result from livestock or poultry operations.
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
1 Waste management system 9 Grassed waterway or outlet
2 Waste storage structure 10 Waste storage pond
3 Critical area planting 11 Irrigation system, sprinkler
4 Dike 12 Irrigation system, surface, and subsurface
5 Waste treatment lagoon 13 Subsurface drain
6 Diversion 14 Subsurface drain, field ditch
7 Fencing 15 Surface drain, main or lateral
8 Filter Strips 16 Waste utilization
BMP 3 Strlpcropplng Systems
Purpose: To improve water qualityby providing enduring protection to cropland causing pollution by establishment
of contour or field stripcropping systems.
Lifespan: minimum of 5 years
Components:
1 Obstruction removal
2 Stripcropping, contour
3 Stripcropping, field
4 Stripcropping, wind
163
-------
BMP 4 Terrace System
Purpose: To improve water quality through the installation of terrace systems on farmland to prevent excessive
runoff of water or soil loss contributing to water pollution.
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
1 Obstruction removal
2 Terrace
3 Subsurface drain
4 Underground outlet
BMP 5 DIversion System
Purpose: To improve water quality by installing diversion on farm or ranchiand where excess
surface or subsurface water runoff contributes to a water pollution problem.
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
iDike 4Subsurface drain
2Diversion SUnderground outlet
3Obstruction removal
BMP 6 Grazing Land Protection System
Purpose: To improve water quality through better grazing distribution and better grassland management by
developing springs, seeps, wells, ponds, or dugouts and installing pipelines and storage facilities. This practice is
applicable only when needed to correct an existing problem causing water pollution due to over concentration of
livestock.
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
1 Pond 5 Spring trails and waterways
2 Fencing 6 Stock trails and waterways
3 Pipeline 7 Trough or tank
4 Pond sealing or lining 8 Well
164
-------
Appendix B
BMP 7 Waterway System
Purpose: To improve water quality by installing a waterway to safely convey excess surface runoff water across
fields at non-erosion velocities into watercourses or impoundments. The waterway is protected from erosion and
reduces pollution through filtering out silt with the establishment of sod cover of perennial grasses or legumes, or
both.
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
1 Fencing
2 Grassed waterway or outlet
3 Lined waterway or outlet
4 Subsurface drain
BMP 8 Crop and Protection System
Purpose: To improve water quality by providing needed protection from severe erosion on cropland between crops
or pending establishment of enduring protective vegetative cover.
Lifespan: recommended by COC and STC and approved by Administrator, ASCS, if less than 5 years
Components:
1 Conservation cropping system
2 Cover and green manure crop
3 Field windbreaks
BMP 9 Conservation Tillage Systems
Purpose: Improving water quality by use of reduced tillage operations in producing a crop. The reduced tillage
operations and crop residue management need to be performed annually.
Lifespan: recommended by COC and STC and approved by Administrator, ASCS, if less than 5 years
Components:
1 Conservation cropping system 4 Crop residue use
2 Conservation tillage system S Land smoothing
3 Contour farming 6 Stubble mulching
165
-------
BMP 10 Stream Protection System
Purpose: To improve water quality by protecting streams from sediment or chemicals through the installation of
vegetative filter strips, protective fencing, livestock crossings, livestock water facilities, or other similar measures.
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
1 Channel vegetation 4 Streambank protection
2 Fencing 5 Tree planting
3 Filter strip
BMP 11 Permanent Vegetative Cover On Critical Areas
Purpose: To improve water quality by installing measures to stabilize source of sediment such as gullies, banks,
privately owned roadsides, field borders, or similar problem areas contributing to water pollution.
Lifespan: minimum of 5 years
Components:
1 Critical area planting 6 Mulching
2 Fencing 7 Sinkhole treatment
3 Field borders 8 Spoilbank spreading
4 Filter strip 9 Tree planting
S Livestock exclusion 10 Well plugging
BMP 12 Sediment Retention, Erosion, Or Water Control Structures
Purpose: To improve water quality through the control or erosion, including sediment and chemical runoff from
a specific problem area.
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
1 Sediment basin 4 Grade stabilization structure
2 Dike 5 Structure for water control
3 Fencing 6 Water and sediment control basin
166
-------
Appendix B
BMP 13 Improving An Irrigation And Or Water Management System
Purpose: To improve water quality on farmland that is currently under irrigation for which an adequate supply of
suitable water is available, on which irrigation will be continued, and on farmland with a critical area or source that
significantly contributes to the water quality problem by:
1. Installation of tailwater return systems.
2. Conversion to a different system to reduce pollutants.
3. Reorganization of an existing system to reduce pollutants.
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
1 Irrigation water conveyance 6 Irrigation system, tailwater recovery
2 Pipeline 7 Irrigation water management
3 Irrigation system, drip 8 Irrigation land leveling
4 Irrigation system, sprinkler 9 Structure for water control
5 Irrigation system, surface and subsurface
BMP 14 Tree Planting
Purpose: To improve water quality by planting trees to treat critical areas or sources contributing to water pollution.
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
1 Cover and green manure crop
2 Fencing
3 Proper woodland grazing
4 Tree planting
BMP 15 Fertilizer Management
Purpose: To improve water quality through needed changes in the fertilizer rate, time, or method of application
to achieve the desired degree of control of nutrient movement in critical areas contributing to water pollution.
Lifespan: recommended by COC and STC and approved by the Administrator, ASCS, if less than 5 years.
Components:
1 Fertilizer management
2 Waste utilization
BMP 16 PestIcide Management
Purpose: To improve water quality by reducing pesticides use to a minimum and manage pests in critical areas to
achieve the desired level of chemicals contributing to water pollution.
Lifespan: recommended by COC and STC and approved by the Administrator, ASCS, if less than 5 years.
Components:
1 Pesticide management
167
-------
List of Abbreviations (rerms, Agencies, Programs)
ACP Agricultural Conservation Program
ACR Acres Conservation Reserve (Federal Commodity Program)
AGNPS Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Model
ANSWERS Areal Nonpoint Source Watershed Environment Response Simulation (Model)
ARS Agricultural Research Service, USDA
ASCS Agricultural Stabilization Conservation Service, USDA
A.U Animal Unit
BMP(s) Best Management Practice(s)
BOD Biological Oxygen Demand
CES Cooperative Extension Service
Clii a hla
CL Chloride
CLP Clean Lakes Program, Section 314 of PL92-500
CM&E Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
CRP Conservation Reserve Program
CREAMS ChemicaiRunoffandErosion from Agricultural Management Systems (Model)
DO Dissolved Oxygen
DP Dissolved Phosphorous
ERS Economic Research Service, USDA
FC FecalColjform
FS Fecal Streptococci
HUC Hydrologic Unit Code (and Cataloging Unit)
I&E Information and Education Programs
IN Inorganic Nitrogen
JTU Jackson Turbidity Unit
MLRA Major Land Resource Areas
MPN Most Probable Number/100 ml
NWQEP National Water Quality Evaluation Project
N03 Nitrate Nitrogen
NH 3 Ammonia Nitrogen
NPS Nonpoint Source
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
OP Orthophosphate
PL-566 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (PL83-566)
PLUARG Pollution of the Great Lakes from Land Use Activities, Reference Group
RCWP Rural Clean Water Program
SCS Soil Conservation Service, USDA
Section lOSa Section 108a PL92-500; USEPA Pollution Control Demonstration - Great Lakes Basin
Section 208 Section 208 PL92-S0O; Planning for Wastewater Management
Section 319 Section 319 Water Quality Act of 1987
STORET EPA Storage and Retrieval Data Base for Water Quality
STP Sewage Treatment Plant
TC Total Coliform
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TN Total Nitrogen
TP Total Phosphorus
TSS Total Suspended Solids
168
-------
TVS .Tot Volatile Solids
USLE Universal Soil Loss Equation, Wischmeier & Smith, 1965.
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geologic Survey
VSS Volatile Suspended Solids
WATSTORE USGS Water Data Storage System
169
------- |