SEPA
-------
Highlighted Projects
-------
Linking the Land and Water -
Nonpoint Source Management
Prepared by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5
Water Division
Chicago, Illinois
In cooperation with
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
1998
-------
FOREWORD
The most recent National Water Quality Report (1994) indicates that nonpoint sources are the
leading causes of water pollution in the Nation. Utilizing Section 319 of the Clean Water Act
and other State and Federal programs, Region 5 States have been aggressively promoting
nonpoint source control on a watershed basis. This document reports, in detail, on a few of the
accomplishments of the State nonpoint source programs in Region 5. It also focuses on
accomplishments associated with land treatment; hence, the title Linking the Land and Water.
When looking at these success stories, several themes stand out:
A key to success is a strong local/State/Federal partnership;
The watershed approach works, regardless of scale;
Sometimes it takes more than pollution control to improve water quality;
Nonpoint source pollution can be controlled and water quality protected and/or
improved; and
It takes time and commitment to do the job.
Recently, the Clean Water Action Plan was released. This is a blueprint for restoring and
protecting the Nation's water resources. A key element in the Action Plan is a new cooperative
approach to watershed protection in which States, tribal, Federal and local governments, and the
public first identify the watersheds and the most critical problems. These groups then work
together to focus resources and implement effective strategies to solve the problems. The
examples in Linking the Land and Water show that this can be done and is being done. The
Clean Water Action Plan offers us the opportunity to take what we have learned with these few
examples and apply it over a much broader scale. Region 5 is committed to learning from our
mistakes and accomplishments and sharing these with our local, State and Federal partners, as
well as the public. In die future, Region 5 staff will continue to work with our partners to
document the effectiveness of ongoing efforts to control nonpoint source pollution and to restore
and protect the public's use of our water resources.
I look forward to providing you with future reports on other aspects of our efforts to control
nonpoint source pollution.
Jo Lynn Traub
Director, Water Division
Region 5
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
STATE PROJECTS
ILLINOIS
Watershed Management Works
The Lake Le-Aqua-Na Project 6
Restoration of the Waukegan River 11
INDIANA
A Success Story in Indiana -
Friends of the Limberlost 15
MICHIGAN
Donnell Lake Project -
Reducing Nutrients on a Watershed Basis 17
MINNESOTA
Cleaning Up the Minnesota River 20
The Beauford Drainage Ditch
Septic Management Demonstration 23
OHIO
Building on Success -
Maumee River Nonpoint Source Project 25
WISCONSIN
Effectiveness of Barnyard
Best Management Practices 29
APPENDIX
Figure 1 Sediment Concentrations - Minnesota River
Figure 2 Beauford Bacteria Geometric Mean - Annual Sampling
Figure 3 Beauford Bacteria Geometric Mean - August 1995 - 1996
Figure 4 Beauford Bacteria Geometric Mean - Flow Basis
INDEX OF WATERSHED INDICATORS
Back Cover
-------
Linking the Land and Water -
Nonpoint Source Management
Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution is so
named because the pollutants do not
originate at single point sources (that is, a
specific location or discharge point) such as
industrial and municipal waste discharge
pipes. In general, NPS pollution is a
compilation of land runoff, precipitation,
percolation and atmospheric deposition.
While some NPS pollution occurs naturally,
most NPS problems are the result of
inappropriate land use or management.
Types of human activities that contribute to
NPS pollution include land development,
forestry, road construction, agriculture,
silviculture, hydrologic modification (which
includes the installation of dams and/or
channels) and land disposal of waste.
Nonpoint sources cause the majority of
water pollution problems in the United
States today. Pollutants, including metals,
nutrients, sediment and organic matter, can
infiltrate to the groundwater and be
deposited to other waterbodies through
runoff from nonpoint sources. The United
States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), through the Clean Water Act, has
established technical and financial assistance
programs to support State programs and to
finance projects to combat NPS pollution.
Since NPS pollution is not confined to one
small area, most pollution control projects
focus their activities around small, distinct
units of land called watersheds. Over the
long term, the water quality of a particular
waterbody is usually a reflection of its
watershed's condition and use.
Projects at the watershed level are more
manageable because individual components
that affect water quality, such as land use,
hydrology, drainage and vegetation, can be
linked to specific water quality problems.
Using the watershed approach for NPS
projects also allows individuals living within
the watershed the opportunity to learn about
the water resource that they affect and how
they can protect that resource. Once linked,
the local owners can install measures to
correct the problem. This publication will
help you understand Section 319 of the
Clean Water Act, which addresses NPS
pollution, and provides some examples on
how NPS pollution has been successfully
addressed on a watershed basis.
WHAT IS IT?
Congress enacted Section 319 of the
Clean Water Act (the Act) In 1987,
establishing the first national program to
control nonpoint sources of water pollution.
Section 319 of the Act requires that each
State addresses NPS pollution by developing
a NPS Assessment Report and Management
Programs. The purpose of a State
Assessment Report was to provide a
foundation for the restoration, management
and protection of a state's surface waters
and groundwater, through the identification
of waterbodies threatened or impaired by
NPS pollution. Once the problems were
identified, each State was to develop and
adopt a comprehensive management
program. The State Management Program
describes how the State intends to control,
correct and prevent NPS pollution problems
that were identified during the
1
-------
aforementioned State Assessment Report.
State programs are largely voluntary in
nature and rely on the watershed
management approach to address site-
specific problems. For the latest
information on the condition of a State's
water resource, including water quality data,
sediment contamination and other
environmental conditions, please consult the
Index of Watersheds Indicators website at
www.ep a.gov/su rf/i wi.
REGION 5fs CONCERNS ...
Region 5 covers six States: Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,
and Wisconsin. The main causes of NPS
pollution in Region 5 are agriculture, urban
runoff and hydrologic modification.
Agriculture is the predominant land use in
Region 5 and it is also the largest source of
nonpoint source pollution. However, in
terms of unit area loading, agriculture ranks
second to urban runoff. The back cover of
this document has maps showing watershed
estimates of agricultural and urban runoff
potential.
The Water Division is the regional lead for
assisting the States in their efforts to reduce
nonpoint source pollution. Within the
Water Division, the Watersheds and
Nonpoint Source Programs Branch is
responsible for working with the States to
implement their approved State NPS
programs. In addition to providing funding
assistance under Section 319 of the Act, the
Region provides technical and program
assistance to the approved State Programs.
The Regional Office works closely with its
Federal partners to tailor the assistance it
offers to meet each State's individual needs.
The Regional Office also provides technical
and management assistance to local projects
via the State program. Region S is
particularly supportive of State, Tribal and
local efforts to comprehensively address
NPS pollution on a watershed basis within
priority geographic areas such as the Great
Lakes and the Upper Mississippi River
Basin. For more information, please consult
the website located at
www.epa.gov/regSogis/miss_top.htin.
Contents of a State Assessment Report
* Identification of navigable waters within
the State which cannot attain or maintain
water quality standards;
* Identification of categories and
subcategories of nonpoint sources which
add significant pollution to the waters
described above;
* Description of the process, including
partnerships, for identifying BMPs; and
* Identification of State and local programs
for controlling pollution from nonpoint
sources to the waters identified above.
Contents of State Management Programs
* Identification of BMPs and measures that
will be undertaken to reduce pollutant
loading resulting from each category of
nonpoint sources;
* Identification of programs to achieve
implementation of BMPs;
* A schedule containing annual milestones
* Certification of delegation of authority to
implement the management programs to the
appropriate agency or agencies;
* Sources of Federal and other assistance and
funding; and
* Identification of Federal financial assistance
programs and Federal development projects.
2
-------
STATES' CONCERNS ...
Each State has designated a lead agency
for its NPS program. State NPS
Programs are a mixture of statewide and
watershed-specific projects. (Each State
approaches NPS pollution differently and
therefore each State program is unique.
Please consult the websites listed on the
back page of this document for Region 5
State-specific activities). Projects range
from informational and educational
programs to the demonstration of NPS
control technology. In the past, States have
given priority to urban runoff projects,
innovative cost-share programs, and wetland
restoration demonstrations. All of the State
Programs promote the management of NPS
pollution in the context of watershed
management. This approach focuses on
priority watersheds within each State.
SECTION 319 FUNDING BY BASIN
9,023,515.00
~ Ohio River B Red River
0 Mississippi River ¦ Great Lakes
SECTION 319 REGION 5 GRANT AWARDS
FY 1992-1993 = $17,299,520
Since 1990, the USEPA regional offices
have distributed funding for State programs
under Section 319 through a national budget
formula. The formula is based upon
population and other factors related to NPS
pollution. For FY 1998, the national budget
for 319 programs is $105 million with
approximately 18 percent of that amount
allocated to Region 5. The following
figures reflect Section 319 funding in
Region 5.
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL 319 GRANT MONEY TO
REGION 5 BASED ON 18% OF NATIONAL AVERAGE
Most Statewide (general assistance) efforts
are related to informational and educational
programs, monitoring and technical
assistance. Since many nonpoint source
problems are related to human behavior,
GENERAL
ASSISTANCE
$8,776,916
AGRICULTURE
$4,801,127
RESOURCE
EXT$75AoooON ZZ2ZZ25
URBAN RUNOFF
$1,823,143
SILVICULTURE
$77,500
OTHER
$1,395,500
-------
education is the most effective statewide
pollution prevention approach and a key to
controlling NPS pollution on a watershed
basis.
The NPS program involves State and other
agencies' funding as well. Section 319 of
the CWA requires a 40 percent nonfederal
match in funds. While the State designated
lead agencies receive the funds, these
agencies generally contract the funds to
other State and local agencies, such as
conservation districts, to ensure that projects
are being done using the watershed
approach. However, while progress is being
made, it is still inadequate relative to the
scope of the problem.
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
One of the most important aspects of all
State NPS Management Programs is
the emphasis on the watershed approach.
Region 5 supports watershed approaches
that aim to prevent pollution, achieve and
sustain environmental improvements, and
meet other goals important to the
community. Although watershed
approaches may vary from State to State in
terms of specific objectives, priorities,
elements, timing and resources, all should
be based on the following guiding
principles:
1. Partnerships Those people most
affected by management decisions are
involved throughout the watershed process
and shape key decisions. This ensures that
environmental objectives are well integrated
with those for economic stability and other
social and cultural goals. It also ensures that
people who depend upon the natural
resources within the watersheds are well
informed and participate in planning and
implementation activities;
2. Geographic Focus Activities are
directed within specific geographic areas,
typically the areas that drain to surface
waterbodies or that recharge or overlay
ground waters or a combination of both; and
3. Sound Management Techniques Based
on Strong Science and Data Collectively,
watershed stakeholders employ sound
scientific data, tools, and techniques in an
iterative decision-making process. This
includes:
- assessment and characterization of
the natural resources and the
communities that depend upon
them;
- goal setting and identification of
environmental objectives based on
the condition of resources and the
needs of the aquatic ecosystem
and the people within the
community;
- identification of priority problems;
- development of specific
management options and action
plans;
- implementation; and
- evaluation of effectiveness and
revision of plans, as needed.
Because stakeholders work together, actions
are based upon shared information and a
common understanding of the roles,
priorities, and responsibilities of all involved
parties. Concerns about environmental
justice are addressed and, when possible,
pollution prevention techniques are adopted.
The iterative nature of the watershed
4
-------
approach encourages partners to set goals
and targets and to make maximum progress
based on available information while
continuing analysis and verification in areas
where information is incomplete.
The work highlighted here is a result of
Federal, State and local agencies working
together with individual landowners/
operators at the watershed level to solve
local water quality problems. The
landowners/operators who change their land
management efforts and/or install control
measures to reduce pollutant loading
deserve special recognition for the success
highlighted in this document. For more
detailed information on the individual
projects, including the project reports,
please contact the individual(s) referenced at
the end of each project summary.
5
-------
Watershed Management Works
The Lake Le-Aqua-Na Project
A partnership was formed in the 1980s to
improve Lake Le-Aqua-Na. One of the first
Lake Le-Aqua-Na is a publicly-owned lake
in Stephenson County, Illinois. The lake
was formed in 1956 by impounding
Waddams Creek and has a surface area of
43.4 acres with a maximum depth of about
23 feet. Lake Le-Aqua-Na is at the
southeast corner of the approximately 3.7
square mile watershed. The lake and
surrounding park are managed by the Illinois
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)
for summer outdoor recreational activities
such as fishing, boating/canoeing,
swimming, camping, picnicking, hiking, and
horseback riding. Winter activities include
ice fishing, sledding, cross-country skiing,
and ice skating. Land use in the watershed
is primarily cropland (1,570 acres, 67%);
along the floodplain and drainage ways are
areas of woodland (415 acres, 18%) and
grasslands (183 acres, 8%). The
composition of land uses in the watershed
has not changed appreciatively since 1981.
The predominant crop rotations in the
watershed are continuous corn, corn-
soybeans, and corn-corn-oats-meadow-
meadow. The average farm size is
approximately 250 acres. During the course
of this project, the single dairy operation
closed and the landowner switched to raising
Scimitar cattle (approximately 100 head).
The beef operation usually pastured its
animals in fields away from the stream,
while the dairy operation was confined to a
small area near the main tributary. The
close proximity of the farm to the stream
had originally intensified the physical and
water quality degradation of the stream.
Clean Lakes (CWA Section 314)
Establishes three financial assistance programs
Phase I - Diagnostic/Feasibility
Identification of problems, causes, sources
and possible solutions. With public
involvement, recommends alternatives;
Phase II - Implementation of Phase I; and
Phase III - Post Restoration Evaluation
Three to five years after Phase II.
actions was for the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA) to look at the in-
lake water quality problems. IEPA obtained
Clean Lakes Phase I funding from the
USEPA, Region 5 to complete a
diagnostic/feasibility study on the lake and
watershed. The Illinois State Water Survey
(now the Illinois Department of Natural
Resources-State Water Survey {IDNR-
SWS}) was contracted to conduct the 1981 -
1983 study. IDNR-SWS received
considerable assistance from the partners
especially the United States Department of
Agriculture-Natural Resource Conservation
Service (formerly the Soil Conservation
Service) and the Stephenson County Soil
and Water Conservation District on the
watershed aspects of the study. The 1983
Phase I Diagnostic/Feasibility Study by
Kothandaraman and Evans identified the
following problems:
(1) High nutrient levels from storm
event loading and internal regeneration;
(2) Nuisance algal blooms
dominated by blue-greens;
(3) Excessive aquatic macrophytes
covering at least one-third of the lake
6
-------
surface area;
(4) Dissolved oxygen depletion
indicated by large anoxic zones and winter
fish kills;
(5) High turbidity from high algal
production and sediment; and
(6) Sedimentation.
From the Phase I results and with public
involvement, the partners identified the
following water goals:
(1) Year-round dissolved oxygen
concentrations of at least 5 milligrams per
liter (mg/L) throughout the lake;
(2) Secchi transparencies of not less
than 4 feet, during the summer months, to
support swimming;
(3) Total phosphorus concentrations
of less than 0.05 mg/L at the time of the
lake spring turnover;
(4) Reduction of soil erosion in the
watershed to the maximum extent
practicable;
(5) Reduction of nutrient loading
(internally and externally) to the maximum
extent practicable;
(6) Reduction in the number and
severity of algal blooms; and
(7) Increase of the recreational
opportunities through the reduction of the
coverage of aquatic macrophytes.
In order to achieve the goals identified in the
diagnostic component of the Phase I Study,
a combination of in-lake and watershed
management measures was recommended to
address the symptoms and sources of the
identified problems. The implementation
plan was based upon a feasibility analysis
that considered technical, environmental and
economic aspects of the various possible
solutions. Local support and involvement
were crucial during these efforts; long-term
success of the recommended solutions
depended on the acceptance and support by
the lake users, watershed landowners, and
agricultural operators. Local acceptance and
support usually ensure implementation of
necessary practices and measures and the
maintenance of these measures over time.
Through the Phase I effort, the following
comprehensive management program was
recommended:
(1) Aeration/destratification of the
lake to improve dissolved oxygen
concentrations and reduce internal loading
of nutrients (to address goals 1, 3 and 5);
(2) Weed harvesting twice a year to
control aquatic macrophytes (to address
goals 5 and 7);
(3) Periodic applications of chelated
copper sulfate followed by potassium
permanganate for algae control (to address
goal 6);
(4) Implement best management
practices to reduce nutrients and sediment
loading to the lake (to address goals 3,4 and
5); and
(5) Stabilize the shoreline to reduce
nutrient and sediment loading directly to the
lake (to address goals 3,4 and 5).
Components 1, 3,4 and 5 were designed to
address the Secchi Transparency
impairment.
7
-------
Illustration of an aerator used to improve dissolved
oxygen concentrations.
It must be noted that the primary purpose of
weed harvesting is to control the distribution
and extent of aquatic macrophytes in the
lake. However, a 1988 EPA study found
that when the harvested material is removed
from the lake and properly disposed of, it
reduces the amount of nutrients available
through decomposition. The overlap of
control measures to achieve several goals is
beneficial due to the multiple sources that
are linked to the identified lake water
quality problems. Each control and
restoration technique has a unique control
mechanism, so techniques will vary in
effectiveness, duration, and cost.
The Lake Le-Aqua-Na Implementation
Project (Phase II) was an excellent example
of several agencies coming together in
response to local concerns to solve a
problem. The work of the project sponsors
and local staff to provide whatever services
a^d funding they could secure from the
various partners was significant. For
example, the United States Department of
Agriculture (Cooperative Extension Service,
Soil Conservation Service and Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service)
contributed educational/informational,
technical and financial (National and State
Agricultural Conservation Programs)
assistance. The USEPA provided technical
and financial (Clean Lakes) assistance. The
Illinois Department of Conservation (now
IDNR) provided technical and financial
assistance, and the IEPA provided
monitoring, technical and additional
financial assistance. The Stephenson
County Soil and Water Conservation
District provided educational/informational
and technical assistance, and individual
landowners provided the desire and financial
match contributions. Integrating the various
funding sources (Federal $157,446; State
$88,146 and Local $24,150 - Total
$269,742) was not a problem; as progress
was made and needs arose, funding and
technical assistance was secured to continue
the implementation of control practices and
measures. The land treatment
implementation strategy was premised on
source reduction as the first priority. The
installation of practices and measures to
disrupt the transport of pollutants off-site
and/or treat runoff was the last resort. The
implementation effort was initiated with a
special tillage project: applying
conservation tillage on most of the cropland
acres in the watershed. Supplementing the
conservation tillage in the upper parts of the
watershed was a series of low-cost
management practices such as contour strip
cropping, contour planting, crop rotation
and enrollment in the Conservation Reserve
Program. Mechanical practices such as
terraces, grassed waterways, water and
sediment control basins, and streambank
stabilization were carried out in areas of
high sediment delivery to the stream and
lake. Conservation tillage and other
management practices were usually
combined with terraces and grassed
8
-------
waterways as part of a resource management
system in the high sediment delivery areas.
The land treatment activities (cropland best
management practices and shoreline
stabilization) successfully reduced sediment
and phosphorus loading to the lake. By
1986, sediment (in the form of total
suspended solids) had been reduced by
88.8% from pre-project levels. Erosion and
sediment yield from cropland were reduced
by 57% from pre- to post-implementation
periods. Streambank erosion was reduced
by 600 to 1,000 tons annually according to a
1990IEPA study. The net sediment loading
to the lake in 1993 was only 11.8% of the
1981 loading. The 1995 lake sedimentation,
survey showed no measurable reduction in
lake volume since 1981. As noted by Lin
and Raman (1997), follow-up field
inspections during the 1993 study found that
most of the land treatment practices were
still in place and functioning as designed.
The stream protection practice (livestock
exclusion-fencing) was still in place and
functioning despite high maintenance
requirements. Some other measures
required maintenance and there were a few
new localized problems that needed to be
addressed.
Long-term success of this watershed
management program is also supported by
reductions in total phosphorus loads
transported to the lake. By 1986, total
phosphorous loads were reduced by 86.4%,
as compared to 1981 conditions
(IEPA, 1990). In comparison to the 1981
total phosphorus loading, the 1992 and 1994
loads were reduced by 91.3% and 97.9%,
respectively. By 1986, implementation of
the BMPs and measures did not reduce total
nitrogen loading to the lake, when compared
to 1981 loads. However, by 1992, there was
a measurable reduction in total nitrogen
loading to the lake. These loads during the
three years 1992 to 1994, respectively, were
35%, 60%, and 18% of those measured
during 1981. From 1981 to 1986, there was
a shift in the form of nitrogen. In 1981, the
majority of nitrogen entering the lake was in
the form of total Kjeldahl nitrogen, while in
1986 it was nitrate. This could have
resulted from the reduction of surface runoff
and an increase in subsurface outlet drainage
associated with terraces, sediment control
structures and conservation tillage. The
1993 field inspection (Lin and Raman,
1997) found a source of steady loads of
nutrients and sediment to the stream. The
inspection revealed a landowner-designed
cattle watering device constructed at the
spring. This cattle watering device differed
from the standard design because it lacked a
concrete pad and its water outlet was not
tiled. The lack of a concrete pad, coupled
with disturbance typically associated with
livestock use and overland flow from the
spring-fed tank, supplied a continuous
source of nutrients, fecal matter and
sediments to the stream.
In-lake quality, as measured by dissolved
oxygen, turbidity, transparency and aquatic
macrophyte coverage, did not show
sustained documented improvement after
the 1986 monitoring effort. In 1986, the
goal of maintaining dissolved oxygen
concentrations of at least 5.0 mg/L
throughout the lake had been achieved. In
the follow-up 1992 to 1994 study, the
dissolved oxygen concentrations were below
0.05 mg/L during spring turnover.
However, the bottom-water total phosphorus
concentration at the deepest station during
the summer months was several fold higher
9
-------
than the standard for all the years of the
study. Ammonia-nitrogen and total
Kjeldahl nitrogen values exhibited trends
similar to total phosphorus in the
hypolimnetic strata during the summer
months as reported by Lin and Raman in
1997. One measure of improvement in the
lake was the shift in algae species. Diatoms
and green algae were the dominant species
from 1992 - 1994, rather than the problem-
causing blue-green algae dominant during
the summer of 1981.
Conclusions
The watershed management program
was highly successful as demonstrated by
the reductions in sediment and
phosphorus loading to the lake. Pollution
control is not enough in some cases to
restore water quality. Although significant
improvements in watershed management
were made from 1981 to 1994, it is unlikely
that an improvement in hypolimnetic
oxygen resources would have occurred
without in-lake installation of an aeration
system.
For further information on this project,
contact Greg Good, of IEPA, at
(217) 782-3362.
10
-------
Restoration of the Waukegan River
Introduction
The purpose of this project was to reduce the
sediment load discharge to Lake Michigan
from streambank erosion of the Waukegan
River. Erosion was caused by increased
urban runoff and channelization, problems
common in many urban streams. In 1991, a
partnership was formed between the
Waukegan Park District, USEPA, and the
Illinois EPA, Illinois State Water Survey,
and the Waukegan Park District utilizing
Section 319 funds. Innovative streambank
restoration techniques were implemented to
demonstrate how water quality can be
improved by stabilizing eroding
streambanks and creating stable stream
habitat. These biotechnical streambank
stabilization techniques (structure added to
vegetation) were a more cost-effective and
environmentally sensitive means to reduce
nonpoint source pollution than the
traditional approaches (i.e., rip rap, concrete
lining). Total project funding was over
$200,000 of Federal, State and local
funds.
The Waukegan River is located
approximately 35 miles northwest of
Chicago. It is 12.5 miles long and drains
approximately 10.6 square miles. Land uses
are residential, agricultural, commercial and
industrial. The watershed is highly
urbanized with most of the urbanized
portions of the Waukegan River represented
in the reaches that flow through Washington
Park and Powell Park in the lower portion of
the watershed. In addition to sediment,
water quality concerns are related to
turbidity (high) and fecal contamination
(high). Both of these parks are located in
the older portion of the city where few or no
stormwater detention facilities were
constructed. Therefore, little mitigation of
stormwater quantity or quality occurs,
resulting in high runoff rates. Sources of
water quality impairments also include
cross-connections between sanitary and
storm sewers, sanitary sewer overflows
during wet weather events, and a degraded
stream habitat. Historic fishery data
indicates a degraded condition.
The first phase of the project focused on
protecting the city's sanitary sewers and
restoring the environmental and aesthetic
benefits to the park lands. The stabilization
techniques selected combined riparian
vegetation (grasses, willows, etc.) with
structures. The structural elements that were
tested in this project included lunkers and
interlocking concrete a-jacks structures.
These streambank restoration techniques
were chosen for their ability to withstand
high velocity flow while increasing riparian
habitat and in-stream habitats for the
fisheries' community.
Project Designs
The first installation of techniques occurred
on the North Branch of the Waukegan River
in Powell Park and Washington Park during
the Fall of 1991 and 1992. Lunkers and
a-jacks were installed in Powell Park while
lunkers with stone were installed in
Washington Park. On the two lunker
installations, vegetation (willows,
dogwoods, grasses, and other wetland
plants) was placed into the lower, middle,
and upper zones of the lunker structures.
The structures utilized were chosen to
enhance in-stream habitats and to provide a
11
-------
structural base for riparian revegetation of
the bank.
Next, similar techniques were utilized on the
South Branch of the Waukegan River in the
Fall of 1994 to control severely eroded
streambanks in Washington Park. The
techniques selected were lunkers, stone,
dogwoods, willows, and grasses. Specific
small streambank erosion sites on the South
Branch were also stabilized with coir
coconut fiber rolls, willows, and grasses. In
the winter of 1996, seven low stone weirs
formed by granite boulders were installed to
create a series of pool/riffle sequences in
order to enhance in-stream habitats on the
Waukegan River. These weirs were
constructed to help resolve the lack of water
depths, limited cobble substrates, and
limited stream aeration.
Preinstallation stream bank erosion conditions on the
South Branch of the Waukegan River in Washington
Park.
Monitoring
The USEPA's National Nonpoint Source
Monitoring Program is being used to
document the effectiveness of the techniques
implemented in the Waukegan River
watershed. This effort incorporates three
biological elements. These elements are
fisheries, benthos, and in-stream habitats.
Monitoring stations (S1 & S2) on the South
Branch of the Waukegan River were located
in the downstream treatment reach and on
the upstream control reaches, respectively.
Monitoring station S2 is located upstream as
a reference. Since 1994, seasonal sampling
(Spring, Summer, and Fall cycles) has
occurred three times. The monitoring
strategy requires that a survey of the
fisheries and stream habitat be conducted
before and after implementation of
techniques. Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index
(MBI), Potential Index of Biotic Integrity
(PIBI), and Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)
are indices calculated from the data
collected. The monitoring activities are
performed by the Illinois EPA and Illinois
Department of National Resources.
Additional monitoring sites (N1 & N2) are
utilized for background data collection on
the North Branch of the Waukegan River.
At these two stations, the chosen techniques
were wooden lunker/weir structures in
Washington Park (Nl) and recycled plastic
lunker and a-jack structures in Powell Park
(N2).
A Geographic Information System (GIS) is
being used in the Waukegan River to
spatially characterize many of the physical
and hydrologic features of the watershed.
GIS has made it possible to construct a high
resolution spatial data base which
establishes a physical benchmark in time.
The physical changes occurring are being
correlated with the water quality and
biological changes taking place within the
watershed.
12
-------
Post installation of the stream bank erosion
control techniques on the North Branch of the
Waukegan River in Powell Park
Results
Implementation of the various techniques
has been successful in reducing streambank
erosion, creating and reestablishing a
vegetative riparian zone, and protecting the
community's public works sanitary sewer
infrastructure. The biological sampling
indicates that the number of fish species
and their abundance has more than
doubled with the implementation of
lunkers and the establishment of the
pool/riffle morphology.
Grandfather with grandchildren on a stone weir on the
North Branch of the Waukegan River in Washington
Park
The table below shows considerable
improvement over the three-year period
regarding both treatments, as measured by
abundance and species, while the IBI value
is significantly improved for only the
combination treatment. The Index of
Biological Integrity rose sharply from a
degraded to a moderate rating.
Waukegan River, Mean Sample Values of the 1994 -1996 Fishery Data
(all stations)
No Treatment
Lunkers
Riffles & Lunkers
IBI
25.5
27
35.7
Species
1.8
3.7
8.2
Abundance
12
28
118
For 1996, the values are more pronounced sites with any type of treatment,
when comparing the control (no treatment)
13
-------
Waukegan River, Mean Station Values of the 1996 Fishery Data
Riffle & Lunker
Control
Riffle & Lunker
Lunker Only
SI
S2
N1
N2
IBI
34.7
28.0
36.7
32.0
Species
8.7
0.7
7.7
4.7
Number
75.0
5.3
161.3
22.7
For more information on this project, contact Scott Tomkins, of IEPA, at (217) 782-3362.
-------
A Success Story in Indiana -
Friends of the Limberlost
On the upper reaches of the Wabash River
in eastern Indiana, the legacy of the
naturalist, Gene Stratton-Porter, lives on
through the Friends of the Limberlost. This
nonprofit organization is working to restore
the natural resource quality of the
Limberlost and Loblolly subwatersheds
made famous by the 1912 writings of Ms.
Stratton-Porter: "Pity of pities it is, but man
can change and is changing the forces of
nature...In utter disregard or ignorance of
what he will do to himself, his children, and
his country, he persists in doing it wherever
he can see a few cents in the sacrifice." The
Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) awarded two Section
319 grants totaling $68,782 to aid this work
from 1994 through 1997. The Friends of
the Limberlost matched this amount with
$42,125.
Contained in four counties, (Adams, Jay,
and Wells in Indiana, and Mercer County,
Ohio), the combined 75,840 acre watershed
is nearly 80 percent row crop agriculture.
Drainage of the original 25,000 acre
Limberlost Swamp began in 1880, and by
1913 the swamp had virtually vanished.
However, areas where the swamp was
located continued to experience flooding
each year.
In order to both restore the lost swampland
and prevent flooding, the Friends of the
Limberlost began surveying critical water
quality areas being offered for sale in
addition to securing available areas by
outright donation or purchase (with donated
funds). Other groups also helped with the
land acquisition and wetland restoration. As
a result, in June of 1997, a 428 acre section
of the historic Limberlost Swamp was
dedicated as the Loblolly Marsh Wetland
Preserve in addition to other smaller,
restored areas.
LV I'Vr ' iiM.
Restored wetland
Through the use of Section 319 funds, four
permanent demonstration sites have been
established in the area highlighting restored
wetlands, filter strips, riparian corridors, and
livestock exclusion fencing. A self-guided
tour map of the watershed includes these
demonstration sites. One of the permanent
demonstration sites is a restored wetland
located across the street from a middle
school and adjacent to a little league ball
park, making it an ideal site for a self-
guided educational walking path.
Friends of the Limberlost also developed a
cost-share program with the use of Section
319 funds for the installation of BMPs. The
program required landowners to provide at
least 30 percent of the funding needed for
15
-------
the installation of filter strips, riparian forest
buffer areas, and fencing (to exclude
livestock from critical water quality areas).
As a result of this program, twenty-one
acres of critical area have been protected.
Assistance has also been provided for
manure management and for water and
sediment control basins.
As a component of these Section 319
projects, the Friends of the Limberlost
developed a preliminary watershed
management plan. This plan reviews the
history of watershed initiatives, provides a
physical overview of the watershed and
correlating maps, and includes a framework
for implementing water quality management
measures in high priority areas.
The Limberlost State Historic Site in
Geneva, Indiana, operated by the Indiana
Department of Natural Resources, provides
an excellent opportunity to publicize these
projects. This site provides its nearly
20,000 annual visitors with information
about the watershed including the self-
guided tour maps. This site has also been
the home base for annual field days
highlighting the projects.
The Project Coordinator for the Friends of
the Limberlost works closely with the four
affected counties and develops strong
partnerships in order to preserve land and
restore natural habitats. Success can be
attributed to his leadership and that of others
in the Friends of the Limberlost
organization. Their dedication has resulted
in the coordination which exists among
local, state and federal agencies, nonprofit
organizations, and local citizens in their
effort to move together toward restoration of
the historic Limberlost Swamp.
For more information on this project, please
contact Jill Reinhart, of IDEM, at
(317) 233-8803.
16
-------
Donnell Lake Project -
Reducing Nutrients on a Watershed Basis
Donnell Lake is a 4,657 acre watershed
located in the southwest corner of Michigan.
Donnell Lake itself is surrounded by about
300 homes, each with its own well and
recently installed sanitary sewers. Cass
County, where the watershed is located,
ranks first in swine production in the State.
There are four times as many pigs produced
every year (200,000) as there are people in
the entire county (50,000). In some years,
500,000 hogs have been produced!
The majority of the pigs spend their lives in
a pasture, resulting in the loss of cover in
those pastures and compaction of the soil.
Those fields have serious runoff and soil
erosion problems. The compaction of soil
has also led to the formation of several small
ponds and wetlands throughout the
watershed. Some of these wetlands are
heavily loaded with pig manure from land
runoff and direct runoff from confinement
facilities. Often, surface water runoff from
hog pastures has been purposely diverted
into wetlands to control off-site impacts.
The impacts of field-pastured hogs are very
evident. Concerns of the Donnell Lake
property owners were driven by the visual
evidence in addition to several residents
who discovered that their drinking water
contained very high nitrate concentrations.
These concerns led to a three-year Section
319 monitoring study conducted by the
Michigan State University (MSU) Institute
of Water Research. Due to a high level of
existing local concern for drinking water
safety, 121 residential wells were sampled
The photograph above shows the impacts of hog
production: soil compaction, increased runoff and
serious soil erosion.
Field pasturing of hogs to market weight has been
practiced in Cass County for more than 30 years, with
little or no manure management.
during the study. The lake homeowner
group wanted to prove that agriculture was
at fault, while the agricultural community
wanted to know what their role was in the
problem. Their common connection was the
groundwater that they drank.
17
-------
Most producers are moving to confinement systems
which allow manure management, resulting in less
environmental impact and recycling of the nutrients in
manure to help produce field crops.
Results of the data collection showed a very
heavily contaminated shallow aquifer.
Nitrate levels greater than 10 mg/L were
found in 21% of the wells, while herbicides
and their metabolites were found in 20% of
the wells. The data demonstrated that it was
a watershed-wide problem, and not just one
or two "bad actors". Enough data was
collected on Donnell Lake to demonstrate
that the 300+ septic systems around the lake
were likely contributors to the phosphorus
loading of the lake. Thirty-one monitoring
wells were installed to characterize
groundwater flow, determine the role of the
wetlands on the hydrology, and track nitrate
levels. The cooperation of the biggest
producer in the watershed was crucial, as
others felt safer about cooperating when
they knew that this family-owned and
operated farm was supportive of the study.
One of the findings was that a large wetland
which received surface runoff, contaminated
groundwater, and direct discharge from an
animal holding facility showed no detectable
This photo is the site shown on the previous page with
hogs removed and permanent cover established.
nitrate concentration, despite the inputs
containing as much as 40 mg/L nitrate.
Monitoring work done by Western Michigan
University demonstrated that this wetland
was a flow-through system, recharging
groundwater at one end and receiving inputs
at the other. It is thought that other area
wetlands may be flow-through systems as
well.
As a parallel effort with the 319 project,
MSU pulled together the financial resources
and technical expertise of several agencies,
including Natural Resource Conservation
Service, Cass County Conservation District,
Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ), Western Michigan
University, Michigan Department of Public
Health, University of Michigan, Van
Buren/Cass County Health Department, the
MSU Extension, and Penn Township, as
well as the agricultural community and
homeowners. The adopted approach
provided for soil testing, pest scouting,
integrated cropping plans and manure
management plans. Other activities
18
-------
included moving pigs off of sensitive lands,
building manure management facilities,
providing erosion control, establishing
permanent cover and buffering wetland and
other waterbodies.
To date, contact has been made with all 19
producers and only one has refused to
participate. Public participation has pulled
together homeowners and farmers
throughout the watershed. While fanners
are installing BMPs, homeowners have
installed sanitary sewers around the lake.
Ongoing monitoring has already shown
reduced nitrate concentrations in one area of
the watershed. Studies on and downstream
of a hog facility which went out of business
after the 319 project began have
demonstrated a steady and continuing
decrease in groundwater nitrate
concentrations extending about Vi mile to
Donnell Lake.
Lessons learned
The most important lesson is that a lasting
resolution of issues will be more likely if the
community is given the opportunity to be
involved from the beginning, have some
power to make decisions and work together,
and be given the chance to learn and
understand the issues. The capacity of the
community to receive and react to
information is critical, as is the time and
space they need to consider change. Real
change can't be forced, but must be
encouraged with information, interactions,
and sufficient time for people to think and
act.
The project began with an emphasis on data
acquisition to "solve" the problem. Lots of
data was "dumped" on the community and
was met with less than enthusiastic
responses. Even though data was important
to define the problem, it was not the key to
resolution of these issues. The key was
numerous public meetings to provide
updates and let people talk about their issues
and fears. Hundreds of one-on-one visits to
listen to what was important to people were
also critical. The support of local agencies
such as the township and county and the
support of the major producers in the
community has been crucial to the project's
success.
For more information on this project,
contact Karol Smith, of the MDEQ,
at (517) 241-7733.
19
-------
Cleaning Up the Minnesota River
The Minnesota River Basin drains 16,700
miles of land and includes all or parts of 37
counties in southern Minnesota. The River
flows 335 miles through some of
Minnesota's richest agricultural land - from
its source at the state border with South
Dakota to its confluence with the
Mississippi River at Fort Snelling in the
Twin Cities. The basin includes 12 major
watersheds and about 700,000 residents.
The Minnesota River is one of the state's
most highly polluted waters, particularly
from NPS pollution. Some of the most
common nonpoint sources of pollution
include storm water discharges, septic tank
failures, and runoff from roads, parking lots,
construction sites, lawns, agricultural fields,
feedlots, and gravel pits. NPS pollution
entering the Minnesota River contributes to
water-quality degradation throughout the
basin. The largest source of nonpoint source
pollutants, particularly sediment, is
agricultural activities. It is estimated that
more than 73% of the basin is used for row
crop agriculture.
The volume of suspended sediment carried
by the Minnesota River is greater than most
other rivers in the state. Approximately
90 percent of the sediment carried by the
Minnesota River is silt size or smaller. Fine
sediments, which can be transported long
distances, cause an increase in turbidity, or
cloudiness of the water. They also carry
nutrients and other pollutants that cause low
levels of dissolved oxygen in the river.
Much of the sediment carried by the
Minnesota River is transported to the
Mississippi River, increasing the
Mississippi's sediment load by 2,700 tons
per day.
In 1989, several federal, state and local
agencies began a four-year comprehensive
study of the Minnesota River basin. Over
the life of the project more than 30 different
agencies participated in the study. This
cooperative effort, the Minnesota River
Assessment Project, was designed to
evaluate how pollution is entering the
Minnesota River and how the river is
affected by the pollution. Land treatment
agencies in the basin accelerated the
promotion of BMPs for cropland. In
addition, the agencies promoted
opportunities in the Farm Bill to retire
cropland under the Conservation Reserve
Program and control erosion on highly
erodible lands.
The goals of the four-year assessment
project were to:
Assess water quality and set water
quality improvement objectives for
individual tributaries and sites along
the main stem of the river; and
Develop assessment techniques that
are transferable to other large basin
studies in the state.
The findings indicate that the majority of
pollution problems come from the area near
Mankato extending to the river's confluence
with the Mississippi River. About 65
percent of the total phosphorous in the river
comes from three watersheds near Mankato
to Fort Snelling. About 64 percent of the
nitrate-nitrogen and 66 percent of the
sediment load comes from the same area.
These watersheds drain just 25 percent of
the land in the river basin. This partially
20
-------
reflects the increase in annual precipitation,
almost 10 inches, as the river flows across
the state.
The Assessment Report generated a number
of recommendations related to reducing
sediment loadings to the Minnesota River.
The initiative called for a 40 percent
reduction in agricultural sediment entering
the river. These recommendations were:
Implement soil erosion control
practices on all land, which includes
measures for transportation,
construction, agricultural and urban
areas.
Help people recognize that fine-
textured soil lost from gentle slopes
contributes to water quality
problems.
Control erosion of cropland where
soil management practices are not
used. Follow a three-phased
targeting approach to bring cropland
to a protection equivalent to
maintaining 30 percent residue after
planting (conservation tillage):
1. Treat cropland that currently
exceeds soil loss tolerance levels;
2. Treat cropland in riparian areas
(where sediment delivery ratios are
higher); then
3. Treat the remaining cropland
acres.
Wetland restoration is needed in
carefully selected locations to settle
solids, remove nutrients and reduce
peak flows, thereby protecting
against stream bank erosion.
In 1992, Governor Carlson announced a
major initiative to make the Minnesota
River swimmable and fishable within a
decade.
Through the assessment process, it was
estimated that leaving at least 30 percent
residue on 16 percent of the cropland acres
would result in a 25 percent reduction in
deliverable sediment. Further adoption of
residue practices on cropland, to 79 percent
of the basin, would result in a 45 percent
reduction in sediment loads. Based upon
these results and the need to be reasonable
and cost-effective, the land treatment
strategy for the basin cropland was to
accelerate residue tillage adoption on
suitable cropland. All conservation tillage
systems such as no-till, ridge till and chisel
plowing, as well as strip-till or zone-till, rely
on less tillage or less soil disturbance when
farming. Farmers who use these systems
leave plant materials - stems, stalks and
leaves - on the surface of fields after
Conservation tillage in progress
(Courtesy of Deere & Company)
harvest. The plant materials, also called
crop residue, slowly decompose to add
organic matter to the soil, much like
mulching or composting adds organic matter
to gardens. Scientific research and practical
application show that these systems not only
replenish and build organic matter in the soil
for improved future food productivity, but
that they also protect water quality and the
21
-------
environment for future generations.
Conservation tillage systems offer farmers a
more economical way of growing crops.
Such systems reduce the number of trips
through the field for planting and
cultivation, saving the producer's labor,
time, fuel and machinery wear, while also
building the soil.
Since 1985, in response to Farm Bill
Programs and changes in farming
technology, more farmers have been
adopting conservation tillage and soil-
conservation practices, besides enrolling
highly erodible land in the Conservation
Reserve Program. With the focus on using
conservation tillage in the Minnesota River
basin since 1994, the adoption rate of the
practice is much greater in the Minnesota
River basin than it is in the State as a whole.
Two recent studies, completed before and
after the Farm Bill's cropland management
practices were implemented, indicate that
the water quality of the Minnesota River is
improving as a result of conservation
efforts. Both studies used the monitoring
data gathered in Mankato, Minnesota. This
data was collected by the United States
Geological Survey for the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. The first study documented
sediment loading reductions, by removing
the effect of climate and flow, for May,
June, July and August. Using daily
sediment data collected from 1968 to 1995,
the sediment reductions with flow and
climate removed were 0.2 percent per year
for May, 1.0 percent per year for June, 0.3
percent per year for July and an increase in
August of 0.2 percent per year. The
reduction in June alone, if extrapolated,
would be 24,000 tons over 10 years. The
second study compared the 1971 to 1980
period with the period from 1986 to 1995,
using a regression of flow versus
concentration. This study concludes that
there was a reduction in concentrations for
the second period, which is statistically
significantly different than the first period's
concentrations. The estimate of the
sediment reduction is 25 percent during a
typical flow condition as shown in
Figure 1.
Both of these studies used monitoring
periods that weigh heavily on data gathered
before the Minnesota River initiative, so
they do include information covering the
residue tillage initiative; however, the data
coincides nicely with the Farm Bill initiative
(1985). Future water quality monitoring
will be able to compare changes in water
quality with documented adoptions of BMPs
in the River initiative. Current adoption of
BMPs are being tracked for the Minnesota
River initiative by the Local Governmental
Unit Annual Reporting System (LARS) for
the wetland and critical area stabilization
programs, as well as the transect survey
which tracks adoption of high residue tillage
practices in Minnesota in use since 1995. In
1998, the Minnesota River was selected as a
priority area under the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program which will accelerate
efforts to retire land from agricultural
production and restore riparian floodplain
corridors and wetland areas.
Did you know... Two different studies
have documented a 25% reduction in
sediment loads from the recent decade
(1986 -1995) in comparison to the 1970s.
This is approximately 13 twenty-ton
dumptruck loads of sediment kept out of
the Minnesota river on a daily basis.
22
-------
The Beauford Drainage Ditch
Septic Management Demonstration
Introduction
The 5,600 acre Beauford Watershed is a
headwater watershed located in the LeSuere
Basin in Blue Earth County, Minnesota.
The upper portion of this agricultural
watershed is drained by two constructed
ditches which flow into a natural channel in
the lower mile. The northeast tributary ditch
has a 10-foot/mile (0.2 percent) grade, while
the southeast tributary ditch contains large
tile mains which are used to convey water
from both subsurface and surface drainage
systems to the main ditches. About 30
percent of this watershed includes surface
inlets for supplemental drainage; these inlets
feed directly into tile mains.
The predominant soil association within this
watershed is a Waldorf-Collinwood-Lura
association. These soils are made up of fine
textured lacustrine material (silty clay loam)
ranging from 4 to more than 5 feet in
thickness. They are formed under prairie
grasses or mixed deciduous trees and prairie
grasses. Clay content ranges from 35 to 60
percent. Natural fertility, organic-matter
content, and available water capacity are
high. Approximately 69 percent of the
watershed's soils are classified as hydric, or
poorly drained in their natural state. Almost
all have been converted to a productive
cropland through the practice of artificial
drainage.
Demonstration
In 1993, this watershed was selected to
demonstrate BMPs for septic systems
through the Blue Earth County Soil and
Water Conservation District (SWCD).
The control of fecal coliform bacteria in the
ditches and channel flowing through this
watershed was one of the project's goals.
Possible sources of fecal coliform bacteria
included individual dwellings serviced by
septic systems. In addition, approximately
10 to 15 heads of cattle were pastured near
the monitoring station during this project. It
is important to note that at least two large
feedlots were established within this
watershed since the beginning of the project.
There may have been land spreading of
manure within this watershed associated
with these operations.
Septics
The BMPs included upgrading individual
sewage treatment systems (ISTS) - Septics.
There was a total of 28 homes with septic
systems in this watershed. At the beginning
of this project, all of these were
nonconforming systems. A common
practice has been to run the discharge from a
home's septic tank directly to a field tile.
These tile lines are discharged through
progressively larger diameter tiles and
eventually to a drainage ditch or stream.
As part of the demonstration project five
experimental ISTSs were installed and
monitored for their effectiveness by the
University of Minnesota. An additional
thirteen ISTSs were installed when
homeowners took advantage of the cost
share assistance available through this
project. Therefore, eighteen out of twenty-
eight households installed upgraded
systems. The cost share was $2,400 or 50%
of the cost of an upgraded system or
whichever was less. All septic systems
upgraded as part of this project were
23
-------
installed in the Fall of 1995.
A monitoring site was set up in 1994 at the
road crossing closest to the Beauford
watershed outlet. The site is located just
north of the village of Beauford and
downgradient of all but one dwelling. The
list of monitored parameters included fecal
coliform bacteria. The monitoring began in
October of 1994 and continued as of Fall of
1997.
Discussion
Figures 2 and 3 show the geometric mean
values of fecal coliform bacteria for four
six-week periods each starting in mid-March
and ending in the month of August for
during 1994 and 1995 (before upgrades) and
1996 and 1997 (after upgrades). For both
1996 and 1997, the 12-week period from
mid-March through mid-June showed strong
declines. For these time periods during both
years, the geometric mean values fell to
within the standard of200 coliform fecal
units per 100 milliliters (cfu/ 100ml), after
upgrading the septics. The 12-week period
from mid-June through August did not show
a decline in 1996, but there was a small
decline for this time period in 1997.
Figure 4 shows the geometric mean values
of fecal coliform bacteria sorted by flow
regime. The period of record for 1994 and
1995 before the septic systems were
upgraded was compared to 1996 and 1997
(after the upgrades). Three separate flow
ranges were compared; 0 to 3 cubic feet per
second (cfs), 3.01 to 12 cfs, and 12.01 to
121 cfs, before and after upgrades. All flow
ranges showed strong declines in geometric
mean fecal coliform levels after the septic
systems were upgraded.
The lowest flow range, 0 to 3 cfs, showed
the largest decline in geometric mean
values, from approximately 1416 cfu/100 ml
to about 557 cfii/lOOml. While this flow
range showed the largest overall decrease,
the levels remained well above the standard
of 200 cfu/lOOml. It should be remembered
that only 18 of the 28 septic systems were
upgraded. Ten systems continue to
discharge partially treated wastewater to this
system.
The 3.01 to 12 cfs flow range showed a
decline in geometric mean values from
approximately 408 cfii/lOOml before
upgrades to about 142 cfu/lOOml after
upgrades. The geometric mean bacteria
levels for the mid-range flows were lower
than the low-flow range values. This was
true both before and after septic system
upgrades. Dilution with bacteria-free
shallow ground water, entering the system
during the mid-range flows via the field
drain tiles, may be the explanation. For the
higher flow range, 12.01 to 121 cfs, the
decline in geometric mean fecal coliform
bacteria levels were from approximately
1255 cfu/lOOml to about 907 cfu/lOOml.
Contamination associated with the land
application of manure is possible during
these higher flows due to the likelihood of
overland runoff.
The analysis of fecal coliform
concentrations by flow regimes and
before and after the implementation of
septic system improvements indicates that
overall water quality has improved and
that the septic systems upgrades had a
positive impact on water quality.
For more information on both Minnesota
projects, please contact Wayne Anderson or
Tim Larson, of MPCA, at (612) 296-7323
and (612) 282-5559, respectively.
24
-------
Building on Success -
Maumee River Nonpoint Source Project
Background
A general framework for reducing
phosphorus loadings to the Great Lakes was
set forth in Annex 3 of the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement of 1978. This
document established both base and targeted
phosphorus loads for each of the Great
Lakes, presenting a general plan for
decreasing eutrophication and improving
water quality in the lake system. The
governments of the United States and
Canada confirmed these target loads within
18 months of signing the agreement. In
1983, a Supplement to Annex 3 was
developed and approved. The Supplement
provided a more detailed plan for reducing
phosphorus by determining that further
reductions would be needed after municipal
treatment plants had achieved their required
phosphorous load reductions. The
Supplement also recommended annual load
reductions for several key embayments for a
five-year period ending in 1990. Target
Conservation tillage with significant residue
(Courtesy of Deere & Company)
loads and necessary phosphorus load
reductions were set by waterbody and
county.
The Supplement placed special emphasis on
reducing phosphorous loadings to the
Saginaw Bay and the Lower Great Lakes,
specifically Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. In
order to achieve these target loads, each
State and Province was required to develop
and implement a detailed phosphorus load
reduction plan for each waterbody in
question. Plans were completed within 18
months of signing the agreement. The State
plans were designed to achieve full
compliance with point source discharge
limits, while nonpoint phosphorous loads
would be reduced through the
implementation of BMPs. The allocation of
load reductions among States reflects
primarily the potential in each State for
reducing agricultural phosphorus loading to
each waterbody in question. The State
Phosphorous Reduction Plans were later
consolidated in the overall national Plan.
Ohio Phosphorus Reduction Plan
The major focus of the Ohio Plan was the
acceleration of conservation tillage.
Information and education efforts along
with technical assistance were the principal
tools utilized to increase the amount of
conservation tillage in targeted watersheds
such as the Maumee and Black. However, it
is important to note a major element of the
phosphorus reduction plan was the
implementation of restrictions on the sale of
high phosphorus detergents.
25
-------
Maumee River
The Maumee River watershed is the single
largest contributor of phosphorus and
sediment to Lake Erie. The watershed
contributes 46 percent of the phosphorus
and 37 percent of the sediment entering
Lake Erie, while providing only 3 percent of
water inflow. The Ohio portion of this
watershed drains 4,850 square miles
(3,104,000 acres) and covers portions of 17
northwest Ohio counties. Approximately 80
percent of the land surface in the watershed
is cropland. While erosion rates are
relatively low (less than 5 tons per acre), the
soils are high in clay content. The clay
particles easily suspend in water and have
chemical and physical properties that
strongly absorb phosphorus, thus creating a
major water quality problem for Lake Erie.
Phosphorus Reduction Project
Goals and Objectives
The project goal was to reduce phosphorus
transported to Lake Erie by 131,300 pounds
per year (393,900 pounds over three years).
The corresponding soil loss reduction goal
was 99,028 tons per year (297,084 tons over
three years). Using a conservative 10
percent sediment delivery ratio, this level of
soil savings was projected to result in an
annual reduction of 9,903 tons per year of
sediment transported to Lake Erie.
Project Implementation
The USEPA awarded the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA)
$641,000 in Section 319 funds, with local
organizations providing $5,600,000 in
matching funds. To obtain "buy-in" from
local implementors and increase landowner
participation, the OEPA, the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources, other
State and Federal agencies, and the Soil and
Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) in
the Lake Erie basin worked with local
county phosphorus reduction committees to
develop local phosphorus reduction
strategies based upon their specific
phosphorus reduction target.
Since available funding was limited, there
was a need to target the funds to the most
critical areas within the watershed. The
project area was divided into three phases.
Phase I consisted of areas directly adjacent
to the Maumee mainstem. It was deemed
the highest priority/targeted as critical and
feceived 68 percent of the available funding.
Phase II concerned secondary drainage of
the Maumee and received 32 percent of the
funding. Phase III did not receive any
implementation funding due to the lack of
resources.
Based upon the county strategies, and in
order to increase efficiency and
effectiveness of the implementation efforts,
Federal funds were used to support three
components of the project:
1. Equipment Cost Share Component - the
purchase of conservation farming
equipment, which leaves more residues on
the land;
2. Tax Rebate Component - the adoption of
cultural practices (winter cover crop and
filter strips) that provide more land cover,
and the institution of permanent land-use
changes; and
3. Animal Waste Component - the
construction of facilities to prevent
discharge of animal waste into streams.
The 15 SWCDs in the Maumee River
26
-------
Watershed were the primary implementors
of the project. The NRCS provided
technical assistance to cooperators within
the Maumee Watershed to develop and
implement resource management systems
(RMSs). An RMS is a site-specific
combination of practice and management
treatments for a designated land area. An
RMS usually included rotation, conservation
tillage (residue management), pest
management, and fertility management.
Each SWCD was allocated an amount of the
Federal funds based on the number of Phase
I and II county cropland acres in the District.
Within broad project guidelines, SWCDs
were given latitude to design their own
county programs. This local empowerment
helped to create the essential element of
local project ownership.
Project Accomplishments
The project exceeded expectations and
enjoyed widespread acceptance by the
agricultural community. Ninety-five percent
of the Federal grant funds were obligated
during the first two-month sign-up period.
A total of 525 farmers cooperated in the
project. On average, these cooperators
tended to operate farms that were nearly
three times larger than the average farm size
located in their county. They were required
to use the equipment on a specific number of
acres depending on the amount of cost-share
they received. Several cooperators used the
equipment to custom-farm additional acres;
thus, the actual number of acres treated was
almost twice the required amount. RMS
plans were developed for the minimum
number of acres (131,691) requiring
treatment through the project. The RMS
planning effort was entirely supported with
existing NRCS staff. Residue management
will continue to maintain a visible presence
in the watershed because of two reasons:
(1) Conservation tillage equipment will last
many years; and (2) more than 500 "on-farm
demonstation" sites were established.
Because "farmers learn from farmers first,"
the adoption rate of conservation tillage will
continue to increase.
The amount of phosphorus and soil saved
was nearly double the initial objectives. The
table below shows the proposed and
estimated reductions for phosphorus and
sediment resulting from cropland
management.
Project Achievements
Parameter
Proposed Reduction
Estimated Reduction
Phosphorous (pounds)
301,100
545,736
Sediment (tons)
22,947
43,168
For every Federal dollar allocated to this own money in the form of pollution control
project, farmers contributed $7 - $10 of their equipment. Consequently, local match, in
27
-------
most cases the difference between the
purchase price and the cost-share amount,
was more than $5.6 million.
Project Strengths
The overriding factor which accounted for
project success was the fact that the farmers
felt that it was in their best interest to
participate in the project. The project had a
high degree of cooperation, trust, and
communication among all parties involved.
The key principles that made this a highly
successful project:
{1) All stakeholders were involved
Local, State and Federal agencies, bankers,
machinery dealers and farmers were
involved in designing and implementing the
project.
(2) A common purpose was identified
Every group and individual involved with
this project was committed to the common
goal of reducing phosphorus.
(3) Clear and attainable goals were
established
Everyone had clearly defined roles and
responsibilities.
(4) Leadership was shared
The project did not "belong" to one entity.
(5) The project was flexible
The project did not have a rigid structure for
making decisions. Exceptions to particular
situations were considered.
(6) Local ownership was established
Local officials were asked to help design the
project and were entrusted with the day-to-
day responsibilities of implementing the
project.
Dredging Reduction Project
Based upon the success of the phosphorus
reduction effort and the continued interest in
improving water quality, a dredging
reduction project was developed under the
leadership of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Coordinator. The Port of Toledo spends
about $4 million anually to remove about
800,000 cubic yards of soil from the
shipping channel in order to maintain
navigable depth. Approximately 400,000
cubic yards of soil come from farm fields.
Working with the Port of Toledo and the
Army Corps of Engineers, a pollution
prevention project was developed to keep
the soil on the farmers' fields and reduce
dredging costs for the shipping channels.
The Corps supported the one-year
demonstration project by allocating
$700,000 for incentive payments to farmers.
The overall goal is a 15 percent reduction in
dredging as result of the conservation
practices. It is estimated that an additional
$7,300,000 for incentives is required. The
demonstration program focused on changing
the tillage management for one million acres
of com and soybeans by using no-till or
other residue management techniques. If
these techniques are adopted for 80 percent
of the corn and soybeans planted, it will
reduce cropland erosion by 2.46 million tons
and sediment to the shipping channel by
nearly 150,000 cubic yards annually.
For more information on this project,
contact Gail Hesse, of OEPA, at
(614)644-2146.
28
-------
Effectiveness of Barnyard
Best Management Practices
Barnyard- runoff study site
Otter Creek
Introduction
The Nonpoint Source Water Pollution
Abatement Program was created in 1978 by
the Wisconsin Legislature. The Program
goal is to improve and protect the water
quality of lakes, streams, wetlands, and
ground water within selected priority
watersheds by controlling sources of NPS
pollution. For each selected watershed, the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) and county Land Conservation
Departments draft management plans that
guide the implementation of BMPs. These
plans summarize land-use inventories,
describe the results of pollution source
modeling, and suggest pollution reduction
goals. The U.S. Geological Survey, through
a cooperative effort with the WDNR, is
studying changes in water quality that result
from the implementation of BMPs. State
and county officials are then comparing the
results to the watershed plans to assess
progress and determine whether goals are
being realized. Information gained from
these studies will help managers make
Barnyard-runoff study site
Halfway Prairie Creek
informed decisions regarding BMP
implementation in other priority watersheds.
Study Areas and Data Collection
Two sampling stations were established on
Otter Creek and Halfway Prairie Creek.
One station is upstream from a single
barnyard-runoff source, and the other is
downstream from that same source. Station
locations were chosen to minimize inflows
other than runoff from each barnyard. The
barnyards investigated were identified in
each watershed plan as critical nonpoint
sources based on herd size, lot size,
proximity to the stream, and down slope
overland flow characteristics.
Otter Creek, one of the Section 319 National
Monitoring Program projects, is within the
Sheboygan River Priority Watershed, 15
miles west of Lake Michigan, in east-central
Wisconsin. The drainage area of Otter
Creek is 9.2 square miles at the downstream
sampling station, and land use in the
29
-------
watershed is 67 percent agricultural. The
stream is typified by reduced aquatic habitat
due to excessive sediment and nutrient
loading from nonpoint sources mainly
cropland and dairy operations ~ and
recreation is limited by degraded fisheries
and high fecal coliform counts. The
investigated barnyard on Otter Creek is a
dairy operation with approximately 50 cows.
Halfway Prairie Creek is within the Black
Earth Creek Priority Watershed, 20 miles
northwest of Madison. The drainage area of
Halfway Prairie Creek is 16.1 square miles
at the downstream sampling station, and
land use in the watershed is 60 percent
agricultural. Like Otter Creek, this stream is
typified by reduced aquatic habitat due to
excessive sediment and nutrient loading and
by high fecal coliform counts. The
investigated barnyard on Halfway Prairie
Creek is also a dairy operation, with
approximately 100 cows on site.
The types of barnyard BMPs implemented
at Otter Creek and Halfway Prairie Creek
are similar. Clean rainwater is diverted
away from the concrete areas of each
barnyard to minimize the amount of water
flushing through the system. Direct
precipitation is conveyed by a sloped
concrete surface and retaining wall to a
screened collection box where most of the
large solids are trapped. The remaining
liquid is then gravity piped to a concrete
pad, which evenly distributes the liquid to a
grass filter strip. The filter strip at Otter
Creek gently slopes downwards toward the
stream, whereas the filter strip at Halfway
Prairie Creek is a substantial distance from
the stream. Cows, which were previously
allowed to roam the stream and banks at
each site, have been fenced in, and a gravel-
lined channel crossing now allows them
access to the stream. Although sampling
sites were chosen to minimize inflows other
than that from the barnyard, a field near the
investigated barnyard at Otter Creek could
have potentially contributed to the stream
loading between the upstream and
downstream stations in the pre-BMP phase,
especially during periods of heavy storm
runoff. As part of the barnyard BMP, a
grassed swale was installed to help minimize
runoff from this field.
All the barnyard BMP components at
Halfway Prairie Creek were implemented by
October 1995. All samples from both
streams were analyzed for suspended solids,
total phosphorus, and ammonia nitrogen.
Due to holding time and budget constraints,
samples from some storms were not
analyzed for biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) and fecal coliform bacteria.
Results and Discussion
Initial sampling indicates that the barnyard-
runoff sources are important contributors to
the loading of total phosphorus, ammonia
nitrogen, BOD, and fecal coliform bacteria
for the storms monitored; in addition, the
barnyard on Otter Creek is also an important
source of suspended solids.
Analysis indicates any decrease in load
contributed by each barnyard is most likely
due to the implementation of the barnyard
BMPs and not to changes in meteorological
variables.
Differences between Pre- and Post-BMP
Barnyard Loads
The difference between upstream and
downstream loads was computed for each
constituent and each runoff period for pre-
30
-------
and post-BMP conditions. These
differences are considered to be the loads
contributed by each barnyard.
At Otter Creek, post-BMP loads of
suspended solids, total phosphorus,
ammonia nitrogen, BOD, and microbial
loads of fecal coliform bacteria contributed
by the barnyard were significantly less than
the pre-BMP loads (at the 95-percent
confidence level). At Halfway Prairie
Creek, post-BMP loads of total phosphorus,
ammonia nitrogen and BOD contributed by
the barnyard were also significantly less
than pre-BMP loads. Comparing the pre-
and post-BMP data at HalfWay Prairie
Creek, there was no significant decrease in
post-BMP suspended solids. Although
statistical significant differences were
observed between upstream and downstream
microbial loads of fecal coliform bacteria
for the pre-BMP period at Halfway Prairie
Creek, high variability in the available data
have made it difficult to observe significant
differences between pre-and post-BMP
periods.
Effectiveness of Barnyard Best
Management Practices
At Otter Creek, implementation of the
barnyard BMP has reduced the loads of
suspended solids by 81 percent, total
phosphorus by 88 percent, ammonia
nitrogen by 97 percent, BOD by 80 percent,
and microbial loads of fecal coliform
bacteria by 84 percent; the barnyard BMP at
Halfway Prairie Creek has resulted in 67-,
89-, 94-, 91-, and 24-percent reductions,
respectively.
Halfway Prairie Creek ol the Barnyard BMP*
Reduced Percentage of Load*
24K
0% 20% 40% 60% B0% 100%
^ Microbial loads of fecal coliform bacteria
¦ BOD
Ammonia nitrogen
|j§j| Total Phosporou*
Suspended solid*
Otter Creek Implementation of the Barnyard BMPs
Reduced Percentage of Load*
to*
*7%
68*
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Microbial load* of fecal coliform bacteria
¦ BOD
§|j Ammonia nitrogen
§§ Total phoephorua
Suspended solids
For more information on this project, please
contact Mike Miller, of WDNR, at
(608) 267-2753.
31
-------
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Water Quality Division
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194
http://www.pca,8tatff.mn.y&
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Bureau of Water, Planning Section
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, Illinois 62706
http://www.apa.stata.il.ua
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
101 South Webster Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us
httn://www.dnr,state,vYl.ua/M/Yyg/nw/lndffXJltol
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Surface Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 30473
Lansing, Michigan 48909-7973
http://www.deq.state.mi.us
http://www.d9q.8tat9.mi.u8/8vyq/nP8/nwhPmfl.htm
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Surface Water
P.O. Box 1049
1800 WaterMark Drive
Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049
http://www.BDq,Qhto.gpy
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Office of Water Management
P.O. Box 6015 (SHADE)
100 North Senate Avenue
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015
http://www.dnr.atata.ln.ua
32
-------
APPENDIX
-------
Figure I
Minnesota River at Mankato
Sediment Concentrations
Piecewise Linear Regression
m sm 3
;
wwt-'vm-
9 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9
Logarithmic Flow Rate (cubic feet per second)
-------
IMS
Year
» l»lhditni»t
¦ WjBroMiJg
Md JmIoMT
1W7
-------
Figure 3
- Beauford Bacteria Geometric Mean
August 1995 - 1997
-------
Figure 4 - Beauford Bacteria Geometric Mean
Flow Basis
two ¦
1400
1200
COO-
200
1994-1995
1996-1997
t 0to3d»
'iOHoWeJi
-ft-tzmituidk
-------
1. Urban Runoff Potential
1990
Watershed Estimates
< 1% Land Area Above 25% Imperviousness
I - 4% Land Area Above 25% Imperviousness
>4% Land Ansa Above 25% Imperviousness
Insufficient Data to Nfeke Estimates
Index of Watershed
Indicators 6EFA
Sources: U.S. Can** Biicau
US. Geologicd Survey
Map 1
Importance of Urban Runoff Potential
Imperv iousness is a useful indicator to predict impacts of land development
on aquatic ecosystems. Studies have linked the amount of imperviousness to
changes in the hydrology, habitat structure, water quality and biodiversity
of aquatic ecosystems (Watershed Protection Techniques. Vol. I. No. 3. Fall
1994). Increased imperviousness can change the hydrology of a receiving
stream, increasing runoff volume and rate and decreasing the receiving
streams capacity to handle floods
Access to Detailed Data
Access to detailed data for each data layer is available through "Surf Your
Watershed" at: . Click on the data layer of
interest to find documentation and FTP (File Transfer Protocol) addresses.
Description of the Data Layer
This indicator was developed based on the block group, a geographic area
defined by the U.S. Census Bureau for purposes of reporting demographic
data. A database of urban area was developed based on the 1978 U.S.
Geological Survey (USOS) land use data and estimated population growth
from 1978 to 1990. A relationship between population growth and
expansion of urban area was established for each block group to estimate the
1990 urban area and imperviousness area for each block group. An urban
runoff potential was then calculated for each block group using a simple
runoff estimation method based on regional rainfall characteristics and the
amount of urban and imperviousness area. This urban runoff potential was
then aggregated at the 8-digit watershed level to determine an urban runoff
potential indicator for the Index of Watershed Indicators.
Data Sufficiency Thresholds
All block group data were used.
Notes on Interpreting this Information
Data Somewhat Consuteni/Additional Data Needed
See "Plans to Improve this Data Layer"for details.
Indicator represents 1990 urban conditions Changes since 1990
are not reflected.
The relationship developed to estimate 1990 urban area and
imperviousness area may not accurately reflect current conditions
Stormwater management practices are not included in the
determination of the indicator These practices, if properly
designed and maintained, can mitigate impacts caused by
imperviousness
Plans to Improve this Data Layer
Plans to be determined.
For More Information Contact:
Patabase Owner:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Individual Contact;
John Kosco
E-mail: Kosco.John@epamail.epa.gov
Phone: 202 260-6385
Data Source;
U.S. Census Bureau - 1990 population and housing. 1980 population
U.S. Geological Survey GIRAS Land Use. 1978
-------
2. Index of Agricultural Runoff Potential
(Based Upon Nitrogen, Sediment and Pesticide)
1990 -1995
Index of Watershed
Indicators
Source: Natural Resources Comcrvrtian S«v*k
Watershed Classification
Low Level of Potential Impact
Moderate Level of Potential Impact
High Level of Potential Impact
Insufficient IWI Data
Anohsn U Aloaka and
tfauaii reserved far Phase 2.
Map >2
Importance of Index of Agricultural Runoff Potential
A composite index was constructed to show which watersheds had the
greatest potential for possible water quality problems from combinations of
pesticides, nitrogen, and sediment. Watersheds with the highest composite
score have a greater risk nf water quality impairment from agricultural
sources than watersheds with low scores. Watersheds could be ranked high
because of a very high ranking of a single component, or moderately high
rankings from two or more components.
Access to Detailed Data
Access to detailed data for each data layer is available through "Surf Your
Watershed" at: . Click on the data
layer of interest lo find documentation and FTP (File Transfer Protocol)
addresses.
Description of the Data Layer
The composite indicator was constructed by ranking watersheds for each of
the three components -- potential pesticide runoff, potential nitrogen runoff,
and potential in-stream sediment loads -- and then summing the rankings
for each watershed. This procedure weighted each of the three components
equally Individual maps for the three components are shown in
"Supplemental Maps" following
Data Sufficiency Thresholds
No data sufficiency threshold was applied.
Notes on Interpreting this Information
Data Consistent/Sufficient Data Collected
See "Plana to Improve this Data Layer" for details
The composite Indicator primarily represents sources of pollutants
from cropland It does not include any components for range/and.
pasiureland. or privately managed forest land
This composite map combines three disparate agricultural
vulnerability indicators - pesticide runoff, nitrogen runoff, and in-
stream sediment loads See the individual data layer maps in
"Supplemental Maps "for additional information and caveats for
each of these component indicators.
Plans to Improve Ibis Data Layer
Efforts will be made lo include additional vulnerability components for
rangeland, pastureland, and forest land.
For More Information Contact:
Database Qwncr
U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS
^dividual Cflntici
Robert Kellogg, NRCS/USDA
E-mail: robert.kellogg@usda.gov
Phone: (202) 690-0341
Data Source.
National Resources Inventory
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service
------- |