FOURTH NATIONAL NONPOINT-SOURCE WATERSHED PROJECTS WORKSHOP Harrisourg, Pennsylvania i^Pffember 16-20, 1996 SUMMARIES OF PRESENTATIONS ------- INTRODUCTION The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Section 319 National Monitoring Program is designed to provide information on pollution-control efforts by documenting water-quality changes asso- ciated with land treatment. The National Monitoring Program projects comprise a small subset of nonpoint-source (NPS) pollution control projects funded under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act as amended in 1987. Currently, projects art; focused on stream systems, but USEPA intends to expand into ground water, lakes, and estuaries as suitable project criteria are developed. The goal of the program is to support 20-30 watershed projects nationwide that meet a minimum set of project planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation requirements designed to lead to successful documentation of project effectiveness with respect to water- quality protection or improvement. The projects are nominated by their respective USEPA Regional Offices, in cooperation with state lead agencies for Section 319 funds. USEPA Headquarters reviews all proposals, negotiates with the regions and states regarding project detail, and recommends acceptable projects for Section 319 funding. Eighteen Section 319 National Monitoring Program projects and one ground-water pilot project have been approved as of October 31,1996. The seventeen surface-water monitoring projects selected as Section 319 National Monitoring Program projects are: Lightwood Know Creek (Alabama), Jordan Cove Urban Water- shed (Connecticut), Walnut Creek (Iowa), Upper Grande Ronde Basin (Oregon), Peacheater Creek (Okla- homa), Warner Creek (Maryland), Totten and Eld Inlet (Washington), Elm Creek (Nebraska), Lake Champlain (Vermont), Lake Pittsfield (Illinois), Long Creek (North Carolina), Morro Bay (California), Oak Creek Canyon (Arizona), Otter Creek (Wisconsin), Pequea and Mill Creek (Pennsylvania), Sny Magill (Iowa), and Sycamore Creek (Michigan). The eighteenth project, Eastern Snake River Plain (Idaho) is a pilot ground-water project. Eac h year, the National Monitoring Program sponsors a conference for nonpoint-source watershed projects. Implementation & Monitoring - An Alliance for Clean Water was the Fourth National Nonpoint- Source Watershed Projects Workshop which was held in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania from September 16-20, 1996. The workshop was comprised of plenary and breakout sessions with a one-day field trip to Lan- caster County, Pennsylvania where water-quality efforts in the Pequea-Mill Creeks basins were show- case. The workshop focused on providing technical and scientific support to nonpoint-source watershed projects having long-term land-treatment and water-quality monitoring components; highlighting imple- mentation and monitoring of ground-water protection and pasture-management practices; integrating teclinical and scientific information from small scale NPS projects into regional watershed programs; and demonstrating relevance and transferability of lessons learned in implementing NPS control and monitor- ing programs to large regional ecosystems. This year's workshop was hosted by the Pequea-Mill Creeks Project and cosponsored by U.S. Geological Survey, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Department of Agri- culture-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Penn State Cooperative Extension, and Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. The proceedings from each of the breakout sessions includes an abstract written by the presenter, a brief synopsis of the discussion within the session, and a list of selected references. Presentations based on National Monitoring Program (NMP) projects are denoted materials distributed by presenters during the breakout sessions and field tours are also incorporated within the proceedings. ------- ATTENDEES FOR THE FOURTH NONPOINT-SOURCE WATERHED PROJECT WORKSHOP (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) 'First number listed is phone - Second number is fax Steve D. Aberegg, NPS Specialist WV Soil Conservation Agency 1450-1 Edwin Miller Blvd. Martinsburg, WV, 25401 (304) 263-4376 (304) 263-4786 Rajendra Adhikari U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III 841 Chestnut St Philadelphia, PA 19107 Eugene Akazawa, Supervisor Monitoring Program Hawaii Department of Health Clean Water Branch 919 Ala Moana Blvd. Suite 301 Honolulu, HI 96814 (808) 586-4309 (808) 586-4352 akazawa.eugene@epamail.epa.gov Marc Aveni, Extension Agent VA Cooperative Extension 8033 Ash ton Ave., Suite 105 Manassas, VA 22110-8202 (703) 792-6285 (703) 792-4630 (Speaker) Roger Bannerman, Environmental Specialist Wl DNR P.O. Box 7921 Madison, Wl 53707 (608) 266-9278 (608) 267-2800 banner@dnr.state.wi.us (Speaker) Roger Banting, Team Coord. For Trib Strategies MD Department of Natural Resources Tawes Office Bldg. E-2, 580 Taylor Ave. Annapolis, MD 21401 (410) 974-2784 (410) 974-2833 rbanting@dnr.state.md.us (Speaker) David Baumgarten, Student Boise State University 477 Rossi Boise, ID 83706 (208) 385-1308 (208) 385-4061 dbaumgar@trex.idbsu.edu (Speaker) David Bingaman, Environmental Specialist PA Department of Environmental Protection Department of Agriculture Bureau of Plant Industry 2301 N Cameron St Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 787-4843 (717) 783-3275 Steven Blackburn, Environmental Scientist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 100 Alabama St. Atlanta, GA 30303 (404) 562-9397 blackburn.steven@epamail.epa.gov Jim Blose, Environmental Modeler NC Division of Water Quality P.O. Box 29535 Raleigh, NC 27626 (919) 733-5083 X 514 (919) 733-9919 jim@dem.ehnr.state.ncus Peter Bohn Penn State University Agronomy Department, 116 ASI Bldg. University Park, PA 16802 (814) 865-3774 (814) 863-7043 pjb8@psu.edu (Speaker) 2 ------- Sandy Bowen, Biologist MD Department of Natural Resources 580 Taylor Ave. E-2 Annapolis, MD 21401 (410) 974-3016 (410) 974-2833 John Brakebill, Geographer U.S. Geological Survey 208 Carroll Bldg. 8600 LaSalle Rd. Towson, MD 21286 (410) 512-4800 (410) 512-4810 jwbrakeb@usgs.gov Gary Bryant U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 841 Chestnut St Philadelphia, PA 19107 (304) 234-0230 (304) 234-0257 bryanLgary@epamail.epa.gov (Speaker) Kenneth E. Burks, Hydrologic Technician U.S. Geological Survey 308 S Airport Rd. Pearl, MS 39208-6649 1601) 965-4600 (601) 965-5782 keburks@usgs.gov Robert Burris, Great Lakes Water Quality Coordinator USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service One Maritime Plaza, Fourth Floor Toledo, OH 43604-1866 (419) 245-2514 (419) 245-2519 bob.burris@oh.nrcs.usda.gov (Speaker) Martha A. Burris, County Extension Director NC Cooperative Extension Service P.O. Box 476, Dallas, NC 28034-0476 (704) 922-0303 (704) 922-3416 mburris@gaston.ces.ncsu.edu Jim Butler New Business Development Geotech Environmental Equipment 1441 W 46th Ave., #17 Denver, CO 80211 (303) 433-7101 (303)477-1230 geotech@ix.netcom.com (Vendor) Marty Campfield, Director of Agronomic Services Nutrient Solutions in Agriculture 281 Farmland Rd. Leola, PA 17540 1-800-270-0047 (717) 656-2465 www.nutrient-solutions.com (Speaker) Jack Clausen, Associate Professor University of Connecticut Department of Nat Resources 1396 Storrs Rd., U-87 Storrs, CT 06269 (860) 486-2840 (860) 486-5408 jdausen@canr1 .caf.uconn.edu (Speaker) Betty Conner, Natural Resources Director League of Women Voters of PA 2 East High St. Lebanon, PA 17042 (717) 274-3826 (717) 228-2403 Compuserve: 102162.1022 Marlon Cook, Hydrogeologist Geological Survey of Alabama P.O. Box O Tuscaloosa, AL 35486-9780 (205) 349-2852 (205) 349-2861 Melville Cote, Jr., Watershed Specialist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 Office of Ecosystem Protection JFK Federal Bldg. (CCD Boston, MA 02203 (617) 565-3537 (617) 565-4940 cote.mel@epamail.epa.gov 3 ------- Charles Cravotta, Hydrologist U.S. Geological Survey 840 Market St. Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 730-6963 (717) 730-6997 cravotta@usgs.gov (Speaker) Sean Cronin Natural Resources Extension Agent NC Cooperative Extension Service P.O. Box 476 Dallas, NC 28034-0476 (704) 922-0303 (704) 922-3416 scronin@gaston.ces.ncsu.edu (Speaker) Larry Dare, Auditor U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General 17519 E Kenyon Dr. Aurora, CO 80122 303-312-6969 303-312-6063 Tracy Weber Davidson, Applications Engineer Campbell Scientific, Inc 815 West 1800 North Logan, UT 84321-1784 (801) 753-2342 (801) 750-9540 tracy@csius.com (Vendor) Roger Dean, Range Mgmt Specialist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 999 18th St (EPR-EP) Denver, CO 80202-2466 (303) 312-6947 (303) 312-6071 dean.roger@epamail.epa.gov (Speaker) Bob Deffenbaugh Horizon Systems Corporation 423 Carlisle Dr. Herndon, VA 22070 (703) 471-0480 (703) 471-5524 rmd@hscnet.com (Speaker) George Derksen, Pollution Abatement Coordinator Environment Canada 224 West Esplanade North Vancouver BC Canada, V7m 3h7 (604) 666-3220 (604) 666-7294 Brian C. Dietterick, Assistant Professor Cal Poly State University 4920 El Pomar Dr. Templeton, CA 93465 (805) 756-6155 (805) 756-1402 bdietter@drseuss.calpoly.edu (Speaker) Michele Dobson, Natural Resources Biologist MD Department of Natural Resources 580 Taylor Ave., E-2 Annapolis, MD 21401 (410) 974-3016 (410) 974-2833 mdobson@dnr.state.md.us Steve Dressing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M St., SW (4503f) Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260-7110 (202) 260-1977 dressin g.steven@epamail.epa.gov (Moderator) Bryan Dubose, Research Assistant TX Institute For Applied Environmental Research 521 Main St, #212 Box 9 Sulphur Springs, TX 75482 (903) 439-1899 (903) 439-1899 4 ------- Holly Dugan, Nutrient Technician Westmoreland Conservation District RR 12, Box 202-B Creensburg, PA 15601 (412) 837-5271 (412) 837-4127 Bradley Durst NPS Training Center WV Soil Conservation Agency Cedar Lakes Conference Center Ripley, WV 25271 (304) 372-7880 (304) 372-7887 Aniiree A. Duvarney, Env. Protection Specialist USDA-FSA-CEPD P.O. Box 2415, Stop 0513 Washington, DC 20013 (202) 690-1164 (202) 720-4619 Cheryl Eddy Miller, Hydrologist U.S. Geological Survey 2617 E Lincolnway, Suite B Cheyenne, WY 82001-5662 (307) 778-2931 (307) 778-2764 cemillei@usgs.gov Julie Elfving, NPS Program Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7 726 Minnesota Ave. Kansas City, KS 66101 (913) 551-7475 (913) 551-7765 elfving.julie@epamail.epa.gov Patricia Engler, Resource Conservationist USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service 9025 Chevrolet Dr. Ellicott City, MD 21042 (410) 465-3180 (410) 465-7403 pengler@nrcs.usda.gov Peggy Fantozzi, Senior Environmental Scientist Daylor Consulting Croup 10 Forbes Rd. Braintree, MA 02184 (508) 759-4363 (508) 759-4363 Richard L. Farmer, Water Quality Technician NC Cooperative Extension Service P.O. Box 476 Dallas, NC 28034-0476 (704) 922-0303 (704) 922-3416 rfarmei@gaston.ces.ncsu.edu Steve Figley, Consultant For Training PA Department of Environmental Protection P.O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, PA 17105-2357 (717) 787-8784 (717) 787-2938 figley.steve@a1 .dep.state.pa.us (Speaker) Reed Findlay, Extension Educator University of Idaho 1369 East 16th St. Burley, ID 83318 (208) 678-7946 (208) 678-5750 cassiawq@ag.uidaho.edu (Speaker) Mack T. Finley, Assoc. Prof. Biology Austin Peay State University P.O. Box 47180, Biology Department Clarksville, TN 37044 (615) 648-7772 (615) 648-5996 Fran Flanigan, Executive Director Alliance For The Chesapeake Bay 6600 York Rd. Baltimore, MD 21212 (410) 377-6270 (410) 377-7144 (Speaker) Michael Foster, Professor Pennsylvania State University 501 ASI Bldg. University Park, PA 16802 (814) 865-3375 (814) 865-3048 mi ke.f oster@agcs.cas.psu .ed u (Speaker) 5 ------- Janie French Headwaters RC & D 650 Leonard St Clearfield, PA 16830 (814) 765-4612 (814) 765-1336 (Speaker) Tim Fritz Montgomery County Cooperative Extension 1015 Bridge Rd., Suite H Collegeville, PA 19426-1179 (610) 489-4315 (610) 489-9277 tfritz@a1 .psupen.psu.edu (Speaker) Dan Galeone, Hydrologist U.S. Geological Survey 840 Market St. Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 730-6952 (717) 730-6997 dgaleone@usgs.gov (Speaker) Gary Goay, Environmental Specialist Louisiana DEQ, Office of Water P.O. Box 82215 Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2215 (504) 765-0550 (504) 765-0635 garyg@deq.state.la.us Jeanne Goodman, Natural Resources Engineer SD Department of Environmental and Natural Resources 523 E Capitol Pierre, SD 57501 (605) 773-5047 (605) 773-6035 jeanne@denr.state.sd.us (Speaker) David Grason, Regional Hydrologist U.S. Geological Survey 433 National Center Reston, VA 20192 (703) 648-5293 (703) 648-4850 dgrason@u sgs.gov Cynthia Kranz Greene, Environmental Scientist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 Office of Watersheds (3WP11) 841 Chestnut ST. Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 566-5721 (215) 566-2301 greene.cynthiak@epamail.epa.gov (Speaker) Karl Guillard, Associate Professor University of Connecticut 1376 Storrs Rd. U-67 Storrs, CT 06269 (860) 486-6309 (860) 486-0682 kguillard@canr1 .cag.uconn.edu (Speaker) David Harding, Environmental Engineer North Carolina Division of Water Quality P.O. Box 29535 Raleigh, NC 27626-0535 (919) 733-5083 (919) 715-5637 david@dem.ehnr.state.ncus (Speaker) Will Harman North Carolina State University Box 7637 Raleigh, NC 27965-7637 (919) 515-8245 (919) 515-7448 wharman@gaston.ces.ncsu.edu (Speaker) Tom Hartline Hartco Environmental P.O. Box 678 Kennett Square, PA 19348 (610) 444-4980 (610) 444-4983 (Vendor) 6 ------- Joe Hatton, Grasslands Specialist \W Soil Conservation Agency 301 Scott Ave. Morgantown, WV 26505 (304) 285-3150 (304) 291-4139 Robert T. Heidecker, Jr., Retired USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service Siuite 340, One Credit Union Place Harrisburg, PA 17110-2993 (717) 782-3446 (717) 782-4469 Joseph E. Hoffman, Director of Env. Mgmt. Elerks County Conservancy 960 Old Mill Rd. Wyomissing, PA 19610 (610) 372-4992 (610) 372-2917 joseph8901 @aol.com Mary Hull University of Connecticut, NBME 1376 Storrs Rd., U-87 Storrs, CT 06269 (360) 486-0138 (860) 486-5408 meh95003@uconnvm.uconn.edu" William Hunt, State Conservationist USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service 375 Jackson St., Suite 600 St. Paul, MN 55101 (612) 290-3675 (612) 290-3375 L. Reed Hupman, Consultant ERM-UK 1915 I Street, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 785-0329 (202) 785-1175 ermdc@aol.com (Speaker) Greg Jennings, Associate Professor North Carolina State University Box 7625 Raleigh, NC 27695-7625 (919) 515-6795 (919) 515-6772 greg.jennings@ncsu.edu (Speaker) Greg Johnson, Hydrologist MN Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Rd. St. Paul, MN 55155 (612) 296-6938 (612) 297-8683 gregory.johnson@pca.state.mn.us Kimberly Kane, Project Manager New York Department of Environmental Protection 465 Columbus Ave. Valhalla, NY 10595 (914) 773-4473 (914) 773-0365 kkane@valgis.dep.nyc.ny.us (Speaker) Veronica Kasi PA Department of Environmental Protection P.O. Box 8555 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555 (717) 787-5259 (Moderator) Hans Kefauver, NPS Technician WV Soil Conservation Agency 7008 Mt. Park Dr. White Hall, WV 26554 (304) 367-2770 (304) 367-2785 John M. Kennel, Jr., Resources Planner State of DE, Water Resources Division 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401 Dover, DE 19903 (302) 739-5726 (302) 739-3491 7 ------- Rashid Khan, Project Engineer MD Department of the Environment Water Quality Infrastructure Program 2500 Broening Highway Baltimore, MD 21224 (410) 651-3757 (4T0) 631-9718 Rod Kime PA Department of Environmental Protection P.O. Box 8465 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8465 (717) 787-9633 (717) 787-9549 kime.rod@a1 .pader.gov (Speaker) Jack Kliever, Hydrologist U.S. Geological Survey 275 Promenade St., Suite 150 Providence, Rl 02908 (401) 331-9050 X 13 (401)331-9062 jkliever@usgs.gov Chris Kocher, Environmental Scientist Wildlands Conservancy 3701 Orchid Place Emmaus, PA 18049 (610) 965-4397 (610) 965-7223 Ed Koerkle, Hydrologist U.S. Geological Survey 840 Market St. Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 730-6956 (717) 730-6997 ekoerkle@u sgs. gov (Speaker) John Kosco, Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters 401 M SL SW (4503-F) Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260-6385 (202) 260-1977 kosco.john@epamail.epa.gov (Moderator) Susan Lance, Program Associate Rutgers Cooperative Extension DNR, ENRS Bldg. P.O. Box 231ct New Brunswick, NJ 08903 (908) 932-9634 (908) 932-8746 lance@aesop.rutgers.edu Jurate Landwehr, Hydrologist U.S. Geological Survey 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive 431 National Center Reston, VA 20192 (703) 648-5893 (703) 648-5274 imlandwe@usgs.gov Ronald B. Landy, Regional Scientist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III ORD, ORSE (8105) 401 M St., SW Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260-0650 (202) 260-0507 landy.ronald@epamail.epa.gov Jerry Laveck, Chief Watershed Modeling Section EPA Office of Science & Technology 401 M St., SW Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260-7771 (202) 260-9830 laveck.jerry@epamail.epa.gov (Speaker) Michael Lee, NPS Specialist WV Soil Conservation Agency 251 Carskadon Lane Keyser, WV 26726 (304) 788-8025 (304) 788-0956 Pat Lietman, Hydrologist U.S. Geological Survey 840 Market St. Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 730-6960 (717) 730-6997 plietman@usgs.gov 8 ------- Bruce Lindsey, Hydrologist U.S. Geological Survey 840 Market St. Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 730-6964 (717) 730-6997 blindsey@usgs.gov (Speaker) Dan Line, Extension Specialist NCSU Water Quality Group Box 7637 Raleigh, NC 27695-7637 (919) 515-8243 (919) 515-7448 dari_line@ncsu.edu (Speaker) Joy Lizarraga, Hydrologist U.S. Geological Survey 8600 LaSalle Rd. 208 Carroll Bldg. Towson, MD 21045 (410) 512-4902 (410) 512-4810 jslizar@usgs.gov Bill Long SaUss Design Analysis Assoc, Inc 75 W 100 South Logan, UT 84321 (801) 753-2212 (801) 753-7669 (Vendor) Patricia Longabucco, Env. Program Specialist NY State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Rd., Rm. 398 Albany, NY 12233-3508 (518) 485-5822 (518) 485-7786 patricia.longabucco@decmailnet.state.ny.us (Speaker) Mike Lovegreen, District Manager Bradford County Conservation District RR 5, Box 5030C Towanda, PA 18848 (717) 265-5539 (717) 265-7435 bradford.conservat@a1.dep.state.pa.us (Speaker) Rebecca Macleod USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service 92 Thomas Johnson Dr., Suite 230 Frederick, MD 21702-4300 (301) 695-2803 (301) 698-5469 (Speaker) Jeff Mahood, Environmental Planning Specialist USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service One Credit Union Place, Suite 340 Harrisburg, PA 17110-2993 (717) 782-4429 (717) 782-4469 Rick Malmstrom, Director Allegheny Watershed Network PA Environmental Council 239 4th Ave., Suite 1808 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 471-1770 (412) 471-1661 Jerry Martin, Project Assistant Pequea-Mill Creek Project P.O. Box 211 Smoketown, PA 17576 (717) 396-9423 (717) 396-9427 (Speaker) John McCoy, Chief of Watersheds Evaluations MD Department of Natural Resources 580 Taylor Ave. E-2 Annapolis, MD 21401 (410) 974-3016 (410) 974-2833 jmccoy@dnr.state.md.us E. Randolph Mcfariand, Hydrologist U.S. Geological Survey 3600 W Broad St., Rm. 606 Richmond, VA 23230 (800) 684-1592 E 267 (804) 278-4759 ermcfarl@usgs.gov (Speaker) 9 ------- Don Meals, Research Associate University of Vermont UVM-Aiken Center Burlington, VT 05405 (802) 656-4057 (802) 656-8683 dmeals@mooseuvm.edu (Speaker) lames Meek 708 A St. SE Washington, DC 20003 (202) 544-5980 (Moderator) Linda Meola, Marketing Exec Environmental Intelligence 142 Buffalo Rd. Lewisburg, PA 17837 (717) 523-0030 (717) 523-0067 environi@environmental.intel.com vendor Phillip Moershel, Aquatic Biologist OK Conservation Commission 1000 WWilshire# 123 Oklahoma City, OK 73116 (405) 858-2005 (405) 858-2012 pmoershel@occwq.state.ok.us Rick Mollahan, Manager NPS Programs IL Environmental Protection Agency Division of Water Pollution Control 2200 Churchill Rd., P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 (217) 782-3362 epal 184@epa.state.il.us (Speaker) Timothy Murphy, Conservation Engineer USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service Suite 340, One Credit Union Place Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 782-2268 (717) 782-4469 Georgette Myers, Team Chief Water Quality US Army En v. Center, ADIM-AEC-ECC Bids- E4435 Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD 21010-5401 (410) 612-7072 (410) 612-7110 gdmyers@aec1 .apgea.army.mil Bruce Newton USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service 101 SW Main St., Suite 1600 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 414-3055 (503) 414-3101 bnewton@sotme.nccnrcs.usda.gov Jen Novak, Project Manager PA Environmental Council 239 4th Ave., Suite 1808 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 471-1770 (412) 471-1661 Pete Nowak University of Wisconsin-Madison 212-A Ag Hall Madison, Wl 53706 (608) 265-3581 (608) 262-6022 (Speaker) Michael T. Olohan, Program Associate Rutgers Cooperative Extension, DNR ENRS Bldg., P.O. Box 231 New Brunswick, NJ 08903 (908) 932-9634 (908) 932-8746 olohan@aesop.rutgers.edu Deanna L. Osmond, WQ Extension Specialist NCSU Water Quality Group Box 7637 Raleigh, NC 27695-7637 (919) 515-8241 (919) 515-7448 deanna.osmond@ncsu.edu 10 ------- 'Glenn Page Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay 6600 York Rd. Baltimore, MD 21212 1410) 377-6270 1410) 377-7144 acb@ari.net (Speaker) David Paradies, Director Morro Bay Nat'ional Estuary Program 1400 Third St. l.os Osos, CA 93402 (80S) 528-7746 (805) 528-3138 davep@laotsu.larccalpdy.edu (Speaker) Kimberly Parker Eaton, District Manager Clinton County Conservation District 2 State Route 150 Mill Hall, PA 17751 (717) 726-3798 (717) 726-7977 c:onserve@oak.kcsd.k12.pa.us Ken Pfeiffer, Agronomist USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service 101 SW Main St., Suite 1600 Portland, OR 97203-3224 (503) 414-3061 (.503) 414-3101 kpfeiffer@storm.wccnrcs.usda.gov John Phillips, Auditor U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General 8801 W 71st St. Merriam, KS 66204-1120 (913) 551-7014 (913) 551-7837 Patricia Pingel, Environmental Planner PA Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Land & Water Conservation P.O. Box 8555 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555 (717) 787-5259 (717) 787-9549 L Niel Plummer U.S. Geological Survey 432 ' Natiopal Center 12201 Sunrise Valley Dr. Reston, VA 20192 (703) 648-5841 (703) 648-5832 nplummer@usgs.gov (Speaker) Steve Preston U.S. Geological Survey 8600 LaSalle Rd. 208 Carroll Bldg. Towson, MD 21286 (410) 512-4838 (410) 512-4810 spreston@usgs.gov (Speaker) Garry Price, Hydrogeologist PA Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Land & Water Conservation P.O. Box 8555 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555 (717) 787-5259 (717) 787-9549 Niles L. Primrose, Benthic Ecologist MD Department of Natural Resources 416 Chinquapin Rd. Annapolis, MD 21401 (410) 974-3238 (410) 974-5600 Mike Rafferty, Environmental Engineer NY State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Rd., Room 338 Albany, NY 12233-3505 (518) 457-5853 (518) 485-7786 David Rathke, NPS Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 999 18th St. (8EPR-EP) Denver, CO 80202-2466 (303) 312-6223 (303) 312-6071 11 ------- Leon Ressler, Extension Agent Penn State Cooperative Extension 1383 Arcadia Rd., Room 1 Lancaster, PA 17601-3184 (717) 394-6851 (717) 394-3962 (Speaker) Peter Richards, Research Associate Heidelberg College Water Quality Lab 310 E Market St. Tiffin, OH 44883 (419) 448-2226 (419) 448-2124 prichard@nikeheidelberg.edu Dennis Risser, Hydrologist U.S. Geological Survey 840 Market St. Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 730-6911 (717) 730-6990 dwrisser@usgs.gov (Speaker) Paul D Robillard, Professor Pennsylvania State University 501 ASI Bldg. University Park, PA 16802 (814) 867-4709 (814) 865-3048 (Speaker) Jennifer Robinson, Director Stream Conservation Program Wildlands Conservancy 3701 Orchid Place Emmaus, PA 18049 (610) 965-4397 (610) 965-7223 Don Roseboom, Director NPS Pollution Control Program IL Department of Natural Resources Box 697 Peoria, IL 61652 (309) 671-3196 (309) 671-3106 roseboom.dnr.state.il.usa (Speaker) Randy Rushin, NPS Specialist IX Nat Resources Conservation Commission 2916 Teague Dr. Tyler, TX 75701 (903) 595-5466 (903) 593-2542 jrushin@smtpgate.tnrcc.state.tx.us Nancy Rybicki, Hydrologist U.S. Geological Survey 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 430 Reston, VA 20192 (703) 648-5728 (703) 648-5484 nrybicki@usgs.gov (Speaker) Walid Saffouri, Project Engineer MD Department of the Environment Water Quality Infrastructure Program 2500 Broening Highway Baltimore, MD, 21224 (410) 651-3757 (410) 631-9718 Jill Saligoe-Simmel Oregon State University 3069 Agricultural & Life Sciences Corvallis, OR 97331 (541) 737-5843 (541) 737-5725 saligoej@css.orst.edu Bemie Samoski U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 841 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 566-5756 (215) 566-2301 samoski.bernie@epamail.epa.gov (Speaker) Ron Schnabel, Soil Scientist USDA-Agricultural Research Service US Pasture Lab Curtin Rd. University Park, PA 16802 (814) 863-8760 (814) 863-0935 rrs7@psu.edu 12 ------- John Schneider, Program Manager DNREC/Division of Water Resources 89 Kings Highway P.O. Box 1401 Dover, DE 19903 (302) 739-4950 (302) 739-6140 jschneider@dnrec.state.de.us Joe Schueck PA Department of Environmental Protection P.O. Box 846 T Harrisburg, PA 17105-8461 (717) 787-7846 (717) 783-4675 (Speaker) Billy Ray Scott CWA/Water Quality US Army Env Center, SFIM-REC-ECC Bldg. E4435 Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD 21010-5401 (410) 612-7073 (410) 612-7110, 1675 brscott@aec1 .apgea.army.mil Many Searing, Water Resource Engineer MD Department of Natural Resources 580 Taylor Ave., E-2 Annapolis, MD 21401 (410) 974-2985 (410)974-2573 Keiith R. Seiders, Water Quality Specialist State of Washington Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47710 300 Desmond Dr. Olympia, WA 98504-7710 (360) 407-6689 (360) 407-6884 kese461 @mailgate.ecy. wa.gov (Speaker) Lynette Seigley, Geologist IDNR-GSB, 109 Trowbridge Hall Iowa City, IA 52242-1319 (319) 335-1598 (319) 335-2754 lseigley@gsbth-po.igsb.uiowa.edu (Speaker/Moderator) Lisa Senior, Hydrologist U.S. Geological Survey 111 Great Valley Parkway Malvern, PA 19355 (610) 647-9008 X 209 (610) 647-4594 lasenior@usgs.gov Leslie L. Shoemaker Tetra Tech, Inc 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 (703) 385-6000 (703) 385-6007 llshoemy@planetcom.com (Speaker) Roy Simon, Policy Analyst U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street SW (#4606) Washington, DC 20460 (202) 250-7777 (202) 260-0732 simon.roy@epamail.epa.gov (Speaker) Robert Sinclair, Sr., Professional Scientist IL State Water Survey 2204 Griffith Dr. Champaign, IL 61820-7495 (217) 333-4952 (217) 333-6540 sinclair@sun.sws.vivc.edu Daniel Smith, National Conservation Programs Team Leader USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service P.O. Box 2890 Rm 6031 - South Bldg. Washington, DC 20013 (202) 720-3524, (202) 720-4265 (Moderator) Sean Smith, Environmental Specialist MD Department of Natural Resources Tawes State Office Bldg., E-2 Annapolis, MD 21122 (410) 974-3016 (410) 974-2833 ssmith@dnr.state.md.us (Speaker) 13 ------- Robin Sorrell, Manager Oak Creek Canyon National Water Monitoring Program Project Box 15007 Flagstaff, AZ 86011 (520) 523-6377 (520) 523-1075 rls23@pineuccnau.edu Josh Spencer, Soil Conservationist USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service P.O. Box 277 Kenansville, NC 28349 (910) 296-2121 (910) 296-2122 Jean Spooner, Associate Professor NCSU Water Quality Group Box 7637 Raleigh, NC 27695-7637 (919) 515-8240 (919) 515-7448 jean-spooner@ncsu.edu (Moderator) David Steele, District Manager Somerset County Conservation District 1590 N Center Ave., Suite 103 Somerset, PA 15501 (814) 445-4652 (814) 443-1592 (Speaker) Edith Stevens, Water Quality Specialist League of Women Voters of PA-WREN RD 1, Box 444 Cresco, PA 18326 (717) 839-8130 (717) 839-7016 estevens@postoffice.ptd.net Bill Stewart, Environmental Senior Scientist SD DENR 523 East Capitol Pierre, SD 57501-3181 (605) 773-4254 (605) 773-4068 Paul Sturm, Environmental Specialist MD Department of Natural Resources 580 Taylor Ave. E-2 Annapolis, MD 21401 (410) 974-3016 (410) 974-2833 psturm@dnr.state.md.us Fred Suffian, NRCS Liaison At EPA Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 841 Chestnut Bldg. (3WP14) Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 566-5753 (215) 566-2301 suffian.fred@epamail.epa.gov (Speaker) John Suppnick, EQA Michigan DEQ, Surface Water Quality Division Box 30273 Lansing, Ml 48808 (517) 335-4192 (517) 373-9958 (Speaker) Alan Tamm Gannett-Fleming 337 Black Latch Lane Camp Hill, PA 17011 Tom Tapley Technical and Regulatory Services Administration Maryland Department of the Environment 2500 Broening Highway Baltimore, Maryland 21224 (410) 631-3611 (410) 631-3873 tapley@mde.state.md.us (Speaker) Fred Theurer Annagnps-NRCS 7413 Cinnabar Terrace Gaithersburg, MD 20879 (301) 504-8642 (301) 504-8931 ftheurei@hydrolab.arsusda.gov (Speaker) 14 ------- Carol Thompson, Geologist Iowa DNR-GEO Survey Bureau 109 Trowbridge Hall Iowa City, IA 52242 (319) 335-1575 (319) 335-2754 cthompson@gsbth-po.igsb.uiowa.edu (Speaker) Jeff Tisl, Sny Magill Hua Project Coordinator USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service 117 Cunder Rd., NE Elkader, IA 52043-0547 (319) 245-1048 (319) 245-2634 jtisl@trxinc.com (Speaker) David Toth U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 841 Chestnut St. Philadelphia, PA 19107 Brooks Tramell, Water Quality Specialist Cherokee County Conservation District 1009 South Muskogee Ave. Tahlequah, OK 74464-4733 (918) 456-1919 (918) 456-3147 Patricia Tyrrell USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service 1606 Santa Rosa Rd.( Suite 209 Richmond, VA 23229-5014 (804) 287-1675 (804) 287-1736 Kevin Wagner, Technical Writer Oklahoma Conservation Commission 1000 W Wilshire, Suite 123 Oklahoma City, OK 7316-7026 (405) 858-2000 (405) 858-2012 kwagnei@occwq.state.ok.us Ian Waite, Biologist U.S. Geological Survey 10615 SE Cherry Blossom Dr. Portland, OR 97216 (503) 251-3463 (503) 251-3470 iwaite@usgs.gov (Speaker) Michael Walker, Nutrient Mgmt Technician Clinton County Conservation District 2 State Rt. 150 Mill Hall, PA 17751 (717) 726-3798 (717) 726-7977 Gary Wall, Research Assistant U.S. Geological Survey 425 Jordan Rd. Troy, NY 12180 (518) 285-5621 (518) 285-5601 grwall@usgs.gov Charles Watts, Auditor EPA Office of Inspector General 7622 Oak Hill School Rd. Oak Grove, MO 64075 (913) 551-7831 (913) 551-7837 Pete Weber U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 841 Chestnut St. (3WP13) Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 566-5749 (215) 566-2301 weber.peter@epamail.epa.gov (Speaker) Diane Wilson, Monitoring Coordinator Department of Environmental Protection Office of Water Management P.O. Box 8555 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555 (717) 787-5259 (717) 787-9549 15 ------- Roger Windschitl, Environmental Specialist MD Department of Natural Resources 580 Taylor Ave. E-2 Annapolis, MD 21401 (410) 974-3016 (410) 974-2833 Karen Worcester, Scientific Director Morro Bay Nat'l Estuary Program 1400 Third St Los Osos, PA 93402 (805) 528-7746 (805) 528-3138 (Speaker) Tess Wynn, Field Coordinator University of MD Cooperative Extension Service 198 Thomas Johnson Dr., Suite 200 Frederick, MD 21702 (301)898-0133 (301)898-0155 tw89@umail.umd.edu Dean Yashan Water Quality Analyst SR, ID DEQ 1410 N Hilton, Statehouse Mail Boise, ID 83720-9000 (208) 373-0319 (208) 373-0576 yashand@dhw.state.id.us (Moderator) Henry, Zygmunt, Asst Assoc Director Office of Watersheds U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 841 Chestnut St. Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 566-5750 (215) 566-2301 (Speaker) 16 ------- LOCAL PLANNING COMMITTEE AND CO-SPONSORING AGENCIES Pat Lietman, U.S. Geological Survey - Water Resources Division Dan Galeone, U.S. Geological Survey - Water Resources Division Garry Price, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Rebecca Wertime, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay Cindy Adams Dunn, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay John McCoy, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Bob Heidecker, U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service Hank Zygmunt, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 Leon Ressler, Penn State Cooperative Extension John Pari, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture 17 ------- NATIONAL STEERING COMMITTEE Steve Dressing, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters Jeff Bohr, U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service John Cardwell, State of Idaho, Department of Environmental Quality Jack Clausen, University of Connecticut Tom Davenport, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 Jeanne Goodman, South Dakota Department of the Environment and Natural Resources Will Harman, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Lyn Kirschner, Conservation Technology Information Center Kevin Magerr, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 Don Meals, University of Vermont Pete Richards, Heidelberg College Keith Seiders, Washington State, Department of Ecology Lynette Seigley, Iowa Department of Natural Resources Dan Smith, U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service Jean Spooner, North Carolina State University Water Quality Group 18 ------- Table of Contents Monday, September 16,1996 Plenary Session: Welcome and Workshop Overview 25 Moderator: Hank Zygmunt, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III Chesapeake Bay Program Overview 25 Presenter Francis Flanigan, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay The National Monitoring Program Status 26 Presenter Steve Dressing, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters Plenary Session: The Role of Watershed Projects in Regional Programs 28 Moderator: Jim Meek, (Retired from USEPA) A Regional Approach: Maryland's Tributary Strategies Program 28 Presenter: Roger Banting, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Md. (co-authored by Lauren Wenzel and Danielle Lucid, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Using Offsite Damages to Justify Upland Treatment 30 Presenter: Robert L. Burris, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service Jordan Cove, Long Island Sound 31 Presenter John C. Clausen, University of Connecticut Lake Pittsfield National Monitoring Project 32 Presenter. Richard J. Mollahan, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Tuesday, September 17,1996 Plenary Session: Building Partnerships 34 Moderator: Veronica Kasi, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Panelists: Hank Zygmunt, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Steve Figley, Department of Environmental Protection; Mike Lovegreen, Bradford County Conservation District; Dave Steele, Somerset County Conservation District (9:10 a.m. -12:15 p.m.) Session 1: Appropriate Levels of Watershed Model Complexity in the Evaluation and Management of Nonpoint-Source Loading 35 Moderator: Stephen D. Preston, U.S. Geological Survey, Towson, Md. Use of Comprehensive Watershed Models for Management Decisions 35 Presenter Thomas Tapley, Maryland Department of the Environment Use of Watershed Simulation Models for Watershed-Based Loading and Management Analysis 36 Presenter Leslie L. Shoemaker, Tetra Tech, Inc. (co-authored by Mohammed Lahlou, Tetra Tech, Inc. Application of a Simple Land Use Model to Address Nonpoint Source Loading of Phosphorus in the New York City Watershed 37 Presenter: Kimberlee A. Kane, New York City Department of Environmental Protection Session 2: Source-water protection strategies 38 Moderator: Jeanne Goodman, South Dakota Department of Environmental and Natural Resources Drinking Water Protection 38 Presenter Roy Simon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters 19 ------- Table of Contents—continued Protecting Underground Water Supplies: A County-Wide Wellhead Protection Program 39 Presenter William Hannan, North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension Service; Sean Cronin, North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension Service Source Water Protection Results from the Idaho Home-A-Syst Program 41 Presenter J. Reed Findlay, University of Idaho Extension Educator, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project BMPs to Address Groundwater Quality Concerns in Agricultural Drainage Well Areas in Iowa ' 43 Presenter. Lynette Seigley, Iowa Department of Natural Resources-Geological Survey Bureau Session 3: Statistics to Analyze Water-Quality and Land-Treatment Data Using NMP 45 Moderator: Jean Spooner, North Carolina University; Don Meals, University of Vermont Hydrogeologic Investigations and Baseline Nitrate Monitoring in a Shallow Aquifer in South Central Idaho 45 Presenters: David J. Baumgarten, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho (co-authored by James L. Osiensky, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho Results From Five Years of BMP Effectiveness Monitoring in Sycamore Creek 47 Presenter John D. Suppnick, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Lansing, Mich. The Paired Watershed Approach; Application in the Totten and Eld Inlets Clean Water Projects 48 Presenter Keigh Seiders, State of Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington Chumash and Walters Creek Stormwater and Even-Interval Paired Watershed Design Data Analysis, Morro Bay Watershed, California 50 Presenters: Karen Worcester, Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Luis Obispo, California; Dave Paradies, Morro Bay National Estuary Program, Los Osos, California (1:30 - 3.-00 p.m.) Session 1: Citizen Monitoring as a Useful Tool in Watershed Studies 52 Moderator: Pete Weber, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Volunteer Monitors: Symbiosis 52 Presenter Pete Weber, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Citizen Monitoring of Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Habitat Requirements 54 Presenters: Glenn Page, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay Revegetation and Propagule Transport in the Tidal Potomac River 56 Presenter Nancy Rybicki, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va. (co-authored by Virginia Carter, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va.) Session 2: "Beneath the Bottom Line" - BMPs for Protecting Groundwater 57 Moderator: Lynette Seigley, Iowa Department of Natural Resources BMPs Used at the Idaho Snake River Demonstration Project 57 Presenter J. Reed Findlay, University of Idaho Extension Educator, U.S. Department of Agriculture Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project Sinkhole Treatment as a Solution for Ground Water Protection 59 Presenter Rebecca MacLeod, USDA-Natural Resource Conservation Service How Do You Know if a BMP is a "Best" Management Practice? 60 Presenter Pete Nowak, Professor, Department of Rural Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison 20 ------- Table of Contents—continued Session 3: Ground-Water Concepts Moderator: Dennis Risser, U.S. Geological Survey, Lemoyne, Pa. Ground-Water Concepts for Project Design Presenters: Dennis W. Risser, U.S. Geological Survey, Lemoyne, Pa.; E. Randolph McFarland, U.S. Geological Survey, Richmond, Va. Session 4: One-on-One Statistical Assistance Presenters: Jean Spooner, North Caroline State University Water Quality Group,Don Meals, University of Vermont, Pete Richards, Heidelberg College, John McCoy, Maryland Department of Natural Resources (3:30 - 4:30 p.m.) Session 1: Riparian Restoration as a Program Element of Watershed Management Moderator: Greg Jennings, NC State University Riparian and Uplands Assessment, Monitoring, and Restoration on Western Rangelands Presenter Roger Dean, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII Riparian Buffer A Mandatory Measure for Nonpoint Sources in the Neuse River Basin, North Carolina Presenter David Harding, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, DEHNR Session 2: Riparian Land-Dreatment Issues Moderator: Will Harman, North Carolina University, Cooperative Extension Service Riparian Buffers Role in Pasture Management Presenter Dan Line, North Carolina State University Addressing Recreational Needs in Riparian Best Management Practice Designs Presenter Jeff Tisl, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Project Coordinator, Syn Magill Watershed Project, Clayton County, Iowa Session 3: Pasture Management: Ground-Water Monitoring Designs Moderator: Jack Clausen, university of Connecticut Ground Water Monitoring Designs for Saturated Conditions—Lessons Learned Presenter Jeanne Goodman, South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources Nitrate Leaching from Intensively Grazed Pastures in Connecticut Presenter. Karl Guillard, Department of Plant Science, University of Connecticut Session 4: One-on-One Statistical Assistance Presenters: Jean Spooner, North Caroline State University Water Quality Group, Don Meals, University of Vermont, Pete Richards, Heidelberg College, John McCoy, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Plenary Session: The Pequea/Mill Creeks Basin: Past and Present Water-Quality Programs Moderator: Robert Heidecker, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service Presenter Robert T. Heidecker, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Chairman of the Pequea/Mill Creeks State Coordinating Committee 61 61 64 64 66 68 68 69 70 70 72 74 21 ------- Table of Contents—continued Wednesday, September 18,1996 Tour 1: Walking Tour of Small Subbasin to observe Effects of Agricultural BMPs 75 Tour 2: NMP Monitoring Site 75 Tour 3: Stream Restoration 75 Tour 4: Intensive Rotational Grazing 75 Thursday, September 19,1996 Plenary Session: What Constitutes Success of a Water-Quality Project or Program? 76 Moderator: Dean Yashan, Idaho Division of Environmental Quality Panelists: Dean Yashan, Idaho Division of Environmental Quality; David Baumgarten, Boise State University; Reed Find lay, University of Idaho Cooperative Extension; Greg Jennings, North Carolina State University (10:15 -11.45 a.m.) Session 1: Nutrient Management—Alternatives for Implementation 78 Moderator: Leon Ressler, Penn State Cooperative Extension Public to Private: A Transfer of Nutrient Management Planning Roles 78 Presenter: Jerry Martin, Penn State Cooperative Extension Nutrient Management Alternatives for Livestock 80 Presenter Leon Ressler, Extension Agent, Penn State Cooperative Extension Urban Nutrient Management Getting the Homeowner Involved 82 Presenter Marc Aveni, Area Extension Agent for Water Quality, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Prince William County, Va. Farmer-Friendly "Nutrient Management Planner" Software 83 Presenter Marty Campfield, Nutrient Solutions in Agriculture, Leola, PA Nutrient Management Program—A Computer Program for On-Farm Manure and Fertilizer Management 84 Presenter Peter J. Bohn, Penn State Department of Agronomy Session 2: Linking Physical, Chemical, and Biological Data in Water-Quality Assessments: The Value of Multivariate Techniques 85 Moderator: Rod Kime, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Multivariate Techniques to Link Physical, Chemical, and Biological Indicators of Water Quality 85 Presenter: Ian Waite, U.S. Geological Survey, Portland, OR Linkage of Biological and Chemical Data to Develop Protocols for Field Evaluation of Streams 88 Presenter Rod Kime, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Session 3: Ground-Water Sampling Procedures 89 Field Demonstrator: Bruce Lindsey, U.S. Geological Survey Sampling a Monitoring Well for Inorganic and Organic Constituents 89 Presenter Bruce Lindsey, U.S. Geological Survey, Lemoyne, PA (l.OO - 2:30 p.m.) Session 1: Using Data to Develop and Target Implementation Watershed 22 ------- Table of Contents—continued (1H)0 - 2:30 p.m.) Session 1: Using Data to Develop and Target Implementation Watershed Projects 90 Moderator: Steve Dressing, U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters GIS Based Critical Area Definition and Targeting with the AgNPS Model in Agricultural Watersheds 90 Presenters: Michael A. Foster and Paul D. Robillard, Center for AI Applications in Water Quality Control Processes, Environmental Resources Research Institute, Penn State University Identification of Critical Barnyards in Wisconsin 92 Presenter: Roger Bannerman, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Water Quality Monitoring to Quantify Effectiveness of an Agricultural Management Program in New York City Watersheds 94 Presenter: Patricia Longabucco, Environmental Program Specialist, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (co-investigated by Michael Rafferty, Environmental Engineer, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation) Session 2: Residence Times of Ground-Water Seepage to Streams: 97 Moderator: Niel Plummer, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va. Residence Times of Ground-Water Seepage to Streams: Applications of Reservoir Models, Flow Models, and Ground-Water Age Dating 97 Presenter Niel Plummer, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va. Session 3: Hacking BMPs and Land-Use Changes Using GIS 101 Moderator: John Kosco, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters The Long Creek Watershed Project 101 Presenter William A. Harman, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State University Racking BMPs and Land Use Changes Using GIS 102 Presenters: Cynthia Greene, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III; Fred Suffian, Natural Resources Conservation Service liaison to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III (3.HO - 5.HO p.m.) Session 1: Using Data to Develop and Target Implementation of Watershed Projects (continuation of the 1:00 - 230 pjn. Session 1) 106 Moderator Steve Dressing, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters Implementing Control Systems in Agricultural Watersheds 106 Presenters: Michael Foster and Paul Robillard, Penn State University, University Park, Pa. Walnut Creek Watershed Restoration and Water Quality Monitoring Project 108 Presenter: Carol Thompson, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau Watershed Sources of Sediment and the Effectiveness of Watershed BMPs 110 Presenter: Don Roseboom, Illinois Department of Natural Resources Session 2: NPS Pollution from Abandoned Mine Lands and Its Relation to the National Monitoring Program 112 Moderator: Bernie Sarnoski, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 23 ------- Table of Contents—continued Developing Abatement Strategies Through Monitoring 112 Presenter: Janie French, Program Associate Headquarters Council Research Conservation and Development Monitoring for Indicators of Acid Mine Drainage and Establishing Monitoring Needs to Assess the Impact of Mine Closures in the Monongahela River Basin 114 Presenter: Gary Bryant, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III Hydrogeochemical Considerations for Ground-Water Monitoring and Remediation at Surface Coal Mines 115 Presenter Charles A. Cravotta III, U.S. Geological Survey, Lemoyne, PA Water Quality Improvements Resulting From Ash Grouting of Buried Piles of Pyritic Materials on a Surface Coal Mine 118 Presenter. Joseph Schueck, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Mining and Reclamation Session 3: GIS for Data Analysis 120 Moderator: John Kosco, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters Basins: A Cost-Effective Tool for Watershed Assessment and Management 120 Presenter: Jerry Laveck, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology AnnAGNPS (Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollutant Loading Computer Model) 121 Presenter Fred D. Theurer, AnnAGNPS Recreating Missing Streamflow Records Using TOPMODEL 122 Presenter Brian C. Dietterick, Cal Poly State University (co-authored by David Paradies, Morro Bay National Estuary Program) Friday, September 20,1996 Plenary Session: The 1996 Farm Bill - Overview and Discussion 123 Moderator: Dan Smith, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill 123 Presenter John Burt, USDA-Natural Resource Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Appendix A: Handouts distributed during field tours on September 18,1996 128 24 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop '^PLE^ARY-. ^ SESSM:MWEL^^E$cNL A' 'vMksH^i0^Ei^tEWmMffMM :M 10DE RAT OR:&¦ Ha n l( j Zy •; m li n £ E P^Res">n^ Chesapeake Bay Program Overview Presenter: Frances Flanigan, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay The Chesapeake Bay Program has become a worldwide model of intergovernmental cooperation and public/private partnerships focused on the restoration of the Bay. Over the past 20 years, a great deal has been learned about how the Bay system functions ecologically, what the sources of a variety of problems are, and how governments and the private sector can organize themselves to address these issues. The Bay Program has built a world-class database, developed policy guidelines on a wide array of issues, and mounted an extensive public education campaign. The results are beginning to be measured in restored grasses, higher numbers of fish, and sounder land management practices. This talk will focus on the goals of the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort, some of the lessons learned, and the challenges that remain to be addressed in the future. 25 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop PLENARY SESSION: WELCOME AND Continued WORKSHOP OVERVIEW The National Monitoring Program Status Presenter Steve Dressing, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Headquarters The National Monitoring Program (NMP) was established in 1991 under section 319 of the Clean Water Act The purposes of the NMP is to provide credible documentation of the feasibility of controlling nonpoint sources, and to improve the technical understanding of nonpoint source pollution and the effectiveness of nonpoint source control technology and approaches. These objectives are to be achieved through intensive monitoring and evaluation of a subset of watershed projects funded under section 319 (EPA, 1991). The NMP has been funded to date through a set-aside of 5 percent of EPA Regional section 319 allocations. The development of NMP projects has largely been accomplished through negotiations among States, EPA Regions, and EPA Headquarters. This approach has been time- consuming in several cases, yet most projects forwarded to EPA Headquarters for consideration have ultimately joined the NMP. Over the past year or so, EPA and the States jointly developed a new approach to section 319 that reflects progress made in State nonpoint-source programs. EPA's new guidance for section 319 removes all set-asides of allocated funds, including the 5 percent set-aside for the NMP (EPA, 1996b). Previously approved NMP projects are, however, expected to continue, and new projects can still be added to the NMP. In fact, EPA is currently working with the States on up to six new NMP projects. Currently, there are 18 approved NMP projects. One of the projects focuses on urban sources, while the others primarily address agricultural sources. Nearly all of the projects address river or stream problems, while seven projects are intended to directly benefit a lake, estuary, or bay. One of the projects is focused on ground-water protection. Most projects are still in the pre-implementation phase, but a few have begun to implement nonpoint-source controls. The progress made by these projects will be showcased this week. North Carolina State University (NCSU) and Oregon State University have provided technical assistance to NMP and other watershed projects over the past few year under EPA grants for watershed project studies. Project summaries have been developed under these grants (EPA, 1994; Osmond, et al., 1995), and some of these reports are currently accessible through EPA's Office of Water Homepage (http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/Section319/) and NCSU's Homepage (http://h2osparcwq.ncsu.edu/95rept319/northcar.html). EPA developed the NonPoint Source Management System (NPSMS) software to help NMP projects track and report land management and water quality information (Dressing and Hill, 1996). NPSMS has three data files: (1) a Management File for information regarding water quality problems within the project area and plans to address those problems; (2) a Monitoring Plan File for the monitoring designs, stations, and parameters; and (3) an Annual Report File for annual implementation and water-quality data. NPSMS version 3.01 currently is used by NMP projects, operating in a DOSTM environment EPA now has a beta- version 4.0 that runs under MS WindowsTM Version 3.1 or better (EPA, 1996a). Version 4.0 will be tested by NMP projects over the next several weeks. The most significant enhancements in version 4.0 include the improved capabilities associated with a WindowsTM environment, and the new capability to handle storm-event data. Users have two options for entering storm-event data The simplest approach is to record the data in quartile format as is done in version 3.01 with grab-sampled chemical/physical data. Weekly load estimates derived from composite samples would be converted to quartile counts with this approach. The more detailed option is to enter discharge, weather, and water-quality data for each sampled storm event. Sample collector, composite method and medium, and the time and discharge represented by the composite sample are recorded. Weather information includes precipitation sampling method, sample collection date and time, time represented by the sample, total precipitation amount, five- day precipitation (for antecedent moisture), average snow cover, and air temperature. 26 ------- 4th National Monpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop PLENARY SESSION: WELCOME AND Continued WORKSHOP OVERVIEW The storm-event option allows NPSMS to support a much broader range of watershed projects since it is no longer explicitly linked to the quartile approach used in the NMP. By altering the composite method specified (for example, grab sampling or weekly flow weighted), users can apply NPSMS to a wide range of sampling scenarios. References Dressing S.A., and J. Hill. 1996. Nonpoint Source Management System Software: A Tool for Tracking Water Quality and Land Treatment. IN: Proceedings Watershed '96 Moving Ahead Together Technical Conference & Exposition. Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA, p. 560-562. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991. Watershed monitoring and reporting for the section 319 national monitoring program projects. Office of Water, Washington, DC. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994. Section 319 national monitoring program projects. EPA- 841-S-94-006, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996a NonPoint Source Management System - NPSMS Version 4.0 User's Guide. Office of Water, Washington, DC. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996b. Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance for Fiscal Year 1997 and Future Years. Office of Water, Washington, DC. Osmond, D.L, D.E. Line, and J. Spooner. 1995. Section 319 national monitoring program: an overview. NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 27 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop PLENARY SESSION: THE ROLE OF WATERSHED Monday PROJECTS IN REGIONAL PROGRAMS September 16, 1996 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. MODERATOR: Jim Meek (Retired from EPA) A 4-member panel presented project examples from the Maumee River, Ohio; Lake Pittsfield, Illinois; Jordan Cove, Long Island Sound, New York; and the Potomac River Basin, Maryland, Chesapeake Bay Basin. The panel then discussed the value and limitations of integrating data from small watershed projects to regional mod- els and programs used to select and target management practices. A Regional Approach: Maryland's Tributary Strategies Program Presenter: Roger Banting, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland (co-authored by Lauren Wenzel and Danielle Lucid, Maryland Department of Natural Resources) Origins of the Program Maryland's Tributary Strategies are a recent addition to the historic Chesapeake Bay Agreement, signed in 1987 to address the problem of overenrichment in the nation's largest and most productive estuary. In 1987, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission (the Executive Council of the Chesapeake Bay Program) formally agreed to work together to achieve a 40 percent reduction in the controllable load of nitrogen and phosphorus reaching the Bay by the year 2000 (using 1985 as a base year). In 1991, the Chesapeake Bay Program conducted a scientific re-evaluation to assess progress toward the 40 percent goal. It concluded that, although significant progress had been made through a ban on phosphorus in laundry detergent, and upgrades at wastewater treatment plants, more needed to be done to control nonpoint sources. As a result of this finding, in 1992, the Executive Council directed all the Bay partners to develop "tributary strategies" - watershed-based plans to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus entering the Bay's rivers. The Approach In Maryland, the goal of the Tributary Strategies was to introduce a new working relationship between the federal, state, and local governments, business, the agricultural community, and citizens to improve water quality, and enhance habitat for living resources. Just as the Chesapeake Bay Agreement is a model for interjurisdictional cooperation, the state recognized a need to extend this partnership to those responsible for making local land-use decisions. To initiate and manage this process, State agencies involved in natural resources management formed a steering committee on the Tributary Strategies. Because over 95 percent of Maryland's land area is in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, meeting the 40 percent goal demanded a comprehensive, statewide approach. In order to address regional land-use and water-quality issues as part of its nutrient reduction strategy, Maryland divided its Chesapeake Bay watershed into ten tributary basins. The state then conducted a 2-year, three stage effort incorporating technical analysis, document production, formal and informal meetings with local governments, public meetings at every stage, and setting numeric targets for implementing the most promising nutrient reduction options. The product of this planning effort was a set of Tributary Strategies" tailored to each of Maryland's ten tributary basins. Moving Toward Implementation: The Tributary Teams To help implement these Strategies, "Tributary Teams" were formed in each of the ten watersheds. These teams are made up of representatives of state and local agencies, farmers, business, environmental organizations, federal facilities, and citizens. They meet monthly, providing local knowledge essential for implementing best management practice, and helping state and local governments target their programs to improve efficiency and participation. The 28 ------- 41th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop PLENARY SESSION: THE ROLE OF WATERSHED Continued PROJECTS IN REGIONAL PROGRAMS Teams were charged with: ensuring that implementation proceeds on schedule in a fair and flexible manner; coordinating participation among citizens, government agencies, and other interested parties; and promoting an understanding of Tributary Strategy goals and the actions needed to achieve them through public education. The Role of Targeted Watershed Programs Maryland's Tributary Strategies Program has just begun to utilize the results of four targeted watershed projects throughout the State. The targeted watershed projects were initiated prior to the Tributary Strategies Program and focus their efforts on basins that are much smaller that the Tributary basins. The focussed efforts of the targeted watershed projects have allowed those involved in the projects to understand the responses of the natural resources to the implementation of best management practices and programs. Some of the issues to be considered as the Tributary Strategies program moves forward and attempts to disseminate the results of the targeted waters studies to the Tributary Teams to help guide them in their mission are: education of Tributary Team members to the sometimes complex results, and the applicability of the targeted programs to statewide programs. 29 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop PLENARY SESSION: THE ROLE OF WATERSHED Continued PROJECTS IN REGIONAL PROGRAMS Using Offsite Damages to lustify Upland Treatment Presenter: Robert L Burris, USD A, Natural Resources Conservation Service Nearly 1 million cubic yards of sediment are dredged from the Toledo Harbor and ship channel annually to keep the port open for lake carriers. A special study team was convened in 1992 to look at innovative ways to use the dredged sediment as well as ways to reduce the amount of sediment being delivered. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) showed that treating agricultural cropland in the Maumee River Basin could reduce sedimentation at the harbor. Agricultural cropland dominates the landscape covering 3.1 million acres of the 4.34 million acres that drain towards Toledo from Ohio, Michigan and Indiana. A plan was conceived to reduce erosion by reducing or eliminating tillage and leaving more crop residue on the surface. Advances in equipment and weed-control technology allow farmers to plant into last years' residue. Many have already adopted the practice. The plan is to convince the majority of the rest to convert to the new technology. The Army Corps of Engineers has made $700,000 available from their harbor maintenance fund to NRCS to accelerate this conversion. The plan builds on previous programs in the Basin supported by EPA Region V, the Ohio EPA and USDA. An estimated 8 million dollars over 5 years will be needed for the program which would reduce the sediment reaching the harbor by 150 thousand cubic yards annually. 30 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop PLENARY SESSION: THE ROLE OF WATERSHED Continued PROJECTS IN REGIONAL PROGRAMS ^ NMP ^ lordan Cove, Long Island Sound Presenter: John C. Clausen, University of Connecticut Long Island Sound is an estuary that is impaired due to hypoxia, toxic substances, pathogens, and floatable debris. Hypoxic conditions are caused by the decay of excess algae which are fueled by nitrogen loading. The Sound has a watershed of 16,000 square miles and contains over 8 million residents. Fishing, swimming, and boating in the Sound are estimated to have a $5 billion annual value. Nonpoint sources of pollution are estimated to contribute 21 percent of the tributary and coastal sources of nitrogen to the Sound. A comprehensive conservation and management plan has been developed with goals to reduce nitrogen loading to the Sound by 19 percent The Jordan Cove Urban Watershed project is a Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project. Jordan Cove is a small estuary fed by Jordan Brook that empties into Long Island Sound. A project site is located in a residential portion of the watershed. The water quality of runoff from an 11-acre traditional subdivision will be compared to that from a 7-acre best management practice subdivision. An existing subdivision is also being monitored as a control site. The Jordan Cove project is an example of a nested monitoring design where hydrologic and water-quality monitoring is conducted at different scales within the basin. The purpose of such nested monitoring is to account for the different responses expected from implementing BMPs at different scales. Monitoring at the field or plot scale can show more immediate changes than at the larger watershed scale. However, it is important to integrate smaller watershed projects within regional programs to be able to track and explain observed changes in water quality. 31 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop PLENARY SESSION: THE ROLE OF WATERSHED Continued PROJECTS IN REGIONAL PROGRAMS ( NMP Lake Pittsfield National Monitoring Project Presenter: Richard J. Mollahan, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency The Lake Pittsfield project began in November of 1992 with the watershed stream sampling program which samples water and sediment runoff. Construction of the watershed sampling station network was completed in December of 1993. Four ISCO automatic stream sampling stations have been installed on the main stream channel. One of the ISCO samplers has a Doppler flow meter to measure stream flow during lake backwater episodes. Another ISCO station has been installed on a large lake bluff ravine. The data gathered from this monitoring network are entered into EPA's STORET system. Another specific monitoring sequence was established to satisfy the National Monitoring Program guidelines, and the data from this are submitted and entered into the NPSMS software in accordance with the Section 319 Monitoring Guidance. The monitoring program is expected to continue through 1999. Three lake sampling stations have been established at which samples are taken monthly from April through October. Water chemistry samples are taken from the surface at all three lake stations, as well as the lowest depth at the deepest station. Three variables are measured in the field at two feet depth intervals: Secchi disk transparency, water temperature, and dissolved oxygen. The following variables are analytically measured: Orthophosphorus Total phosphorus Ammonia nitrogen + ammonium nitrogen Ammonia nitrogen Total Kjeldahl nitrogen Nitrite (N02-N) + Nitrate Total suspended solids Volatile suspended solids PH Total alkalinity Phenolphthalein alkalinity Specific conductivity Water temperature Air temperature Dissolved oxygen Atrazine (only at the deepest station by the water-supply intake) The collection of monitored data and installation of best management practices on a project site such as the Lake Pittsfield Watershed immediately provides some local awareness and appreciation of the benefits to the local watershed. How this learning experience is packaged and presented to others is crucial to effective transfer of management strategies on a regional scale. Illinois EPA has had the opportunity to provide site visits to numerous county soil and water conservation districts, municipal officials having similar site conditions, and to international representatives from the United Kingdoms, Newfoundland, and China. Site visits are good, but are just one of many ways to transfer data and experiences. As cited above, extensive data acquisition is generating a data base which is available through the EPA. This information, available in the future through the Internet on home pages such as Surf Your Watershed, will provide easy access to data for use by the general public This also places a demand on the generating agency to "QA/QC" this information, and provide as much interpretive assistance as possible. 32 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop PLENARY SESSION: THE ROLE OF WATERSHED Continued PROJECTS IN REGIONAL PROGRAMS Modeling is another tool used to apply information gathered on one site to similar sites in different geographic regions. The Lake Pittsfield Watershed data has been put into CIS databases and coverages for an ARC/INFO GIS interface for the AGNPS nonpoint-source pollution model. Other models such as STEWARD and CROPS will be utilized to evaluate the transferability of the Lake Pittsfield Watershed experience. On a broader scale, the effectiveness of the practices in achieving reductions in nonpoint-source pollution to levels which will allow the streams and Lake to meet their designated uses is paramount to the program purposes. If the technologies applied are effective, then these practices will be identified for future projects in other regions. Failure to obtain effective results will impact the transferability of this technology to other areas. Ultimately, the project's ability to achieve measurable results will have a significant impact on the use of the data on a regional scale. The logistics of project implementation, cooperative working relationships, and troubleshooting experiences will be of use regardless of results. 33 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop ^0L-BNAR-y;:SFSSIO.N:'\i';-BUJkD'lNG:fPA'RT.NERSHiRSi-. ^ '!.%- ; ;:7t/es(/ay;. A panel discussion on how partnerships were developed to address a specific issue or issues was given. Panel- ists described the problems they had building successful partnerships, and the benefits they see in their program now that these partnerships are in place. Panelists will discuss their experiences building partnerships, relative to their program. After a brief description of their program, panelists will answer the following questions: Why did your group decide to form a partnership? How did you achieve the framework you developed for your partnership? When building your program, what did you find worked? What didn't work? How did data collection fit into the process of developing your partnership, and how is it utilized now to support your program? Panelists include: Hank Zygmunt - Hank works with the Water Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3. He will be describing how EPA develops partnerships with other agencies and how these partnerships have benefited the agencies involved. Steve Figley - Steve works with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Human Resources. He will be describing the Department's Facilitation and Mediation Program and how this program has benefited the Department and the other agencies involved. Mike Lovegreen - Mike is the District Manager of the Bradford County Conservation District in Pennsylvania. He will be describing the activities of the Upper Susquehanna Coalition, and how this "partnership" was created. Dave Steele - Dave is the District Manager of the Somerset County Conservation District in Pennsylvania. He will be describing how the Stoney Creek/Conemaugh River Improvement Project was created and their activities. 34 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: APPROPRIATE LEVELS OF WATERSHED MODEL COMPLEXITY IN THE EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT OF NONPOINT-SOURCE LOADING MODERATOR: Stephen D. Preston, USGS, Towson, Md. Tuesday September 17, 1996 9:10 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. This session was designed to examine the types of models that are being used for nonpoint-source assessment and to discuss the types of models that can provide a reasonable level of accuracy based on the objective of the evaluation. Use of Comprehensive Watershed Models for Management Decisions Presenter: Thomas Tapley, Maryland Department of the Environment The Maryland Department of the Environment has extensive experience with the use of large scale watershed models in addressing a number of point source and nonpoint source issues. Hydrologically simulation Program-Fortran (HSPF) models of both the Patuxent River Watershed and Patapsco/Back River Watershed have been developed to assist the Department in its regulatory mission. Based on the experience with these two efforts, a number of relevant issues will be discussed including: 1. Why comprehensive simulation models were chosen 2. Costs for model development 3. Which modeling components were the most costly and time consuming 4. What trade-offs would be made if we chose simpler methods. Discussion: • Comprehensive watershed models such as HSPF can simulate stream and reservoir hydraulics - a feature which sets this model apart from others. ¦ HSPF can relate dynamics of watersheds to estuary waters. • Limitations of the model are that both stream and reservoirs are considered completely mixed, and that there is no flow reversal. • HSPF has been used to guide nonpoint-source management decisions. It is particularly useful for point-source decisions. • Initial model construction is the most costly and time consuming part of the modeling effort • The use of HSPF is cost efficient if there is a long-term commitment (years) to continued use. Use of post- processors can reduce development time if limitations of the model are kept in mind. • Although important, verification of the model is not usually done. Verification may indicate a time-lag problem between data collection and processing through the model. 35 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: APPROPRIATE LEVELS OF Continued WATERSHED MODEL COMPLEXITY IN THE EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT OF NONPOINT-SOURCE LOADING Use of Watershed Simulation Models for Watershed-Based Loading and Management Analysis Presenter: Leslie L Shoemaker; Tetra Tech, Inc. (co-authored by Mohammed Lahlou, Tetra Tech; Inc.) Watershed simulation models have been used in the support of watershed-based decision making. Typical applications include determination of pollutant loadings, identification of contributing source areas, examination of variability in loadings, and alternative management scenarios. Often the application of models to a watershed is limited by the availability of comprehensive monitoring data for model calibration and validation. Simplified model applications have been used, with some success, in the absence of monitored records. Although simplified models require little calibration, understanding of the model assumptions and default values are essential to proper interpretation of the modeling results. Even in these cases simple verification tests can be used to evaluate the representation of local conditions. As model formulations become more sophisticated and include consideration of time varying conditions, data requirements for input files increase and calibration/validation limitations are of greater concern. This paper will discuss the use of models under limited data conditions for watershed-based decision making. The use of mid-range models or screening level applications of time variable models will be discussed as well. Issues related to the incorporation of distributed management techniques will be described. Discussion: • Scale decisions are critical for selection of appropriate models and design of applications. • Screening models require minimal data preparations. They rely primarily on land use, soil, and slope information. • Screening models can be used for management decisions if limitations are understood, and time and data are limited. • Screening models are limited in their representation of chemical and biological processes and meteorological variability. • With these models, there is no process to determine simulations or input an estimated flow porosity. • Calibration is typically done at a downstream point (the mouth of the watershed). Some automatic calibrations are in existence, although the user must still provide significant information to ensure that the model set up is representative of local conditions. Hundreds of parameters can be changed in a detailed model. Very good monitoring information is necessary to ensure the accuracy of the model. • Accuracy of the model is dependent on the amount of data collected and on calibration and validation. The accuracy required is dependent on the financial importance of the decision. • The hydrology portion of the model must be accurate. Nutrient and sediment simulation is highly variable. Sediment predictions may vary as much as 50 percent. • Monitoring should be used to verify model output. 36 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: APPROPRIATE LEVELS OF Continued WATERSHED MODEL COMPLEXITY IN THE EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT OF NONPOINT-SOURCE LOADING Application of a Simple Land Use Model to Address Nonpoint Source Loading of Phosphorus in the New York City Watershed Presenter: Kimberlee A. Kane, New York City Department of Environmental Protection The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is modeling the input of phosphorus into all of the upstate New York City (NYC) reservoirs to assist the state in developing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for total phosphorus. TMDLs are mandated under the Clean Water Act for water-quality limited segments, and are one way to implement the state's water-quality standards. The watershed model utilized is the Reckhow Land Use Model, which applies an export coefficient to each type of generalized land-use category to estimate the amount of phosphorus loading from point sources, septic systems (within 100 feet of a water course), and upstream reservoirs (if present). The phosphorus concentration in the reservoir is predicted using the Vollenweider model, and simple "black box" reservoir model, and compared to observed phosphorous concentrations to assess model performance (Vollenweider, 1968). This simple watershed modeling approach is sufficient to address a range of management concerns for less of an investment in time, equipment, and data than more detailed modeling would require. The primary model output is the total phosphorus load from the different types of land use for each reservoir basin. The predicted phosphorus concentrations agree well with observed in-reservoir concentrations. This analytical framework can be used to identify the land areas contributing the majority of the nonpoint-source phosphorus load, quantify the amount of nonpoint- source reductions required to meet the state regulations, and identify subbasins where more data collection or detailed investigations may be needed. Discussion: • A rapid assessment of 19 NYC reservoirs was made in 1 year. Phase I modeled 1 year of data, Phase II will model 4 years of data. TMDLs were based on 5 years of monitoring efforts. • The New York State Department of Conservation is trying to decide how to transfer the modeling results into management decisions. 37 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: SOURCE-WATER PROTECTION STRATEGIES MODERATOR: Jeanne Goodman, South Dakota DENR Tuesday September 17, 1996 9:10 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. Protection of water resources used for drinking water, with emphasis on ground-water resources, was the focus of the presentation and discussion. Prinking Water Protection Presenter: Roy Simon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters Discussion will focus on components of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Because the regulations are currently being updated and changed, no summary was available for this workshop. Discussion: • The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was signed into law by President Clinton on August 6, 1996. The SDWA establishes a new federal grant program of $1 billion a year through the year 2003 to capitalize State Revolving Funds for drinking-water systems. Loans or grants to finance projects of local systems needed to comply with the SDWA or to further its health objectives will be made by the state. • Across the nation, drinking-water systems are predominantly ground water based. These include: 200,000 public water systems 60,000 community systems 20,000 systems of facilities (schools, etc) 120,000 transit systems (eg. campgrounds) • Source-water protection programs will probably be based on the same four elements as Wellhead Protection (WHP) programs. Most WHP programs have four similar elements: (1) they are team created; (2) the WHP area is delineated; (3) the pollution sources are determined; and (4) contingency plans are developed. • Components of SDWA are: (1) states need to assess and delineate areas that are water sources; (2) source- water partition program is a locally-based option of the act; and (3) EPA is authorized to make ground-water protection grants to states that follow accepted WHP strategies. • State-revolving funds available through the SDWA include: (1) funds to assess source waters and (2) conservation easements for riparian areas. • Other potential sources of funds for source-water protection are: (1) state monies available through the 319 program; (2) League of Women Voters; (3) technical funding through the National Rural Water Association; (4) grants to local governments; and (5) implementation of the mentor project by training retired senior citizens as technicians to help local governments implement programs. 38 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: SOURCE-WATER PROTECTION Continued STRATEGIES Protecting Underground Water Supplies: A County-Wide Wellhead Protection Program Presenters: William Harman, North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension Service Sean Cronin, North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension Service Introduction: Gaston County is located in the southwestern piedmont province of North Carolina, just west of Charlotte. There are 15 municipalities with a total county population of 175,000. The eastern half of the county moving into Mecklenburg County (Charlotte) has become quite urbanized. The western half, however, has remained fairly rural and many residents rely on ground water as their source of drinking water. Ground water from private wells, wells serving rural subdivisions and mobile home parks, and wells serving schools, churches, and businesses provide drinking water to over 90,000 Gaston County residents. The 200 public community water-supply wells in the county's rural areas supply over 30,000 Gaston County residents with about 3 million gallons of ground water per day. Public community wells are those that supply water to at least 15 connections or 25 people on a regular basis. Typically, these wells serve municipalities, rural subdivisions, and mobile home parks. In addition, over 50 public non-community wells supply water to schools, churches, businesses and parks throughout the county. Delineation Methodology: The University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNCC) was contracted to perform the delineations using a geographic information system (GIS). Two state approved delineation methods (variable shape or ellipse and the calculated fixed radius) were drawn for comparison. The variable shaped method or ellipse determines the size, shape and location of the wellhead protection area in respect to the water-supply well. The resulting shape is an ellipse oriented in the direction of ground-water movement with a 2:1 ratio between the long and short axis. This method is recommended for Piedmont and Mountain aquifers where ground water moves through fractures in bedrock. The variable shaped method requires knowledge of average daily pumping rates, average recharge rates, direction of foliation and transmissivity. Gaston County Wellhead Protection Program: The lead organization for developing a wellhead protection program in Gaston County is the Quality of Natural Resources Commission (QNRC). QNRC is an organization of 54 volunteer members appointed by the Gaston Board of County Commissioners. Members represent municipalities, county government, business/industry, homebuilders, doctors, environmental activists, retired citizens, etc The purpose of QNRC is to advise County Commissioners on environmental issues and policy options, evaluate the quality of the county's natural resources and provide educational programs to Gaston County citizens. It is the intent of the proposed wellhead protection program to reduce the risks imposed on community-water supplies by facilities that manufacture, process, use, store, or produce specific hazardous substances. This program imposes no new regulations on the people of Gaston County, but instead, focuses existing county operations in building inspection, site plan review, and well site approval toward a effective way of preventing pollution. The program consists of three main components: (1) education, (2) identification of protection areas and (3) pollution prevention. The pollution prevention aspect is comprised of identification hazardous substances, inventory of potential contamination sites, pollution source management, approval of new wells and household hazardous waste collection. Discussion: • The quality of the wellhead-protection delineation is dependent on financial resources and the quality of the data used for the delineation. 39 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: SOURCE-WATER PROTECTION Continued STRATEGIES • In Gaston County, North Carolina, wellhead protection areas (WHPAs) have been delineated. The elements of WHPA are wellheads, geological units, land cover, calculated ground-water flow, and recharge grid. One problem associated with the initial delineations were the overlapping of WHPAs. WHPAs were recalculated after determining the areas of interference. • From 1983 to 1993, 51 contaminant sources were reported in the county. • Gaston County has a certified well-drilling program. • The wellhead protection program in the county is a voluntary approach that uses existing laws, not new regulation or enforcement. 40 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: SOURCE-WATER PROTECTION Continued STRATEGIES Source Water Protection Results from the Idaho Home-A-Syst Program Presenter: J. Reed Findlay, University of Idaho Extension Educator, USDA Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project The Farm-A-Syst Program was started jointly through the University of Wisconsin, and Michigan Extension Services. This program is an awareness and educational program for the homeowner, farmer, or rancher who have private wells. The program uses 13 fact sheets and worksheets to privately evaluate the landowner's property for preventable surface or ground-water contamination hazards. Source-water protection is a major component of the assessments. Most states have adopted this program in order to protect source water from contamination. Idaho has also begun to implement the program. A planning committee was formed in Idaho in 1993. This committee included representatives from a large number of state and local agencies. This committee modified Washington's Farm-A-Syst materials to fit Idaho's regulations and laws. Additionally the Department of Environmental Quality along with the Idaho Association of Soil Conservation Districts signed contracts to utilize Section 319 National Monitoring Program grant moneys to manage and implement a Home-A-Syst Program. The name was changed in order to include nonfarm rural residences. This spring the program was implemented using Natural Resource Conservation Service moneys to fund Americorps personnel. The Americorps have assisted in 470 assessments of private residences. All findings have been kept confidential. Participation goals for the first year have been surpassed (see table). Acceptance has been better than expected; however, it was difficult to initiate awareness of the program, and calm peoples' fears concerning liability and confidentiality, if a problem were found. Worksheets which were highly accepted and completed by the public included: Improving Household Waste Water Treatment, Drinking Water Well Condition, Farm and Home Waste Management, and Lawn and Garden Management. Other worksheets were designed for specific operations and were used less frequently. These included: Animal Manure Storage, Silage Storage, and Pasture and Riparian Management. Progress towards program goals in first year. Action Total to Date Target People aware of program 123,651 600 Participating in program 860 400 Worksheets disseminated 637 360 Assessments begun 470 180 Corrective actions taken 150 145 Volunteers recruited 1,069 N/A 41 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: SOURCE-WATER PROTECTION Continued STRATEGIES Discussion: • Assessments done through the program include well-location and well-construction criteria. • Meetings with homeowners were used to review a list of water-quality issues and discuss ways to reduce detrimental impacts on their water system. Meetings with homeowners also indicated that about one half of agricultural producers did not get their drinking water tested. • Program obstacles are time constraints on clients and clients that have misconceptions on the specific water- quality system. • Most effective methods to develop a good relation with client included: (1) a willingness to conduct free nitrate testing; (2) focusing on worksheets pertinent to that client; (3) listening to dients's questions; and (4) explaining program as an educational tool. • Program successes include increased client awareness and awareness that tactics can be inexpensive and simple. 42 ------- 4tth National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: SOURCE-WATER PROTECTION Continued STRATEGIES BMPs to Address Groundwater Quality Concerns in Agricultural Drainage Well Areas in Iowa Presenter: Lynette Seigley, Iowa Department of Natural Resources-Geological Survey Bureau Many of Iowa's rich agricultural soils, particularly those in north-central Iowa, are partly drained and at times contain excess water that can hinder field operations or ruin crops. In these areas, farm fields are often artificially drained by buried tiles leading to drainage ditches or streams. Another, but less commonly used method is the agricultural drainage well (ADW), a drilled shaft that funnels excess drainage water into underlying bedrock. The upper parts of these wells are often cistem-like structures that form the discharge point for tile-drainage lines; some wells are also designed to take surface runoff. ADWs are generally 5 to 10 inches in diameter and are cased from the land surface into the underlying bedrock. Construction of new drainage wells has been illegal since 1957. Virtually all ADWs in Iowa discharge into fractured carbonate aquifers; these strata can accept large quantities of drainage water without clogging. These aquifers are also excellent sources of groundwater for domestic, industrial, and municipal water supplies. There are an estimated 350 ADWs in Iowa. Reported areas drained by individual ADWs range from 2 to 720 acres, and reported depths range from 12 to 400 feet. From a statewide perspective, these wells are relatively minor features. However, over 80 percent of the registered ADWs are concentrated within only four counties: Pocahontas, Humboldt, Wright, and Floyd. The significantly greater number of ADWs and area drained within the main counties obviously suggest a significant potential to affect ground-water quality. Previous investigations of ADWs in Iowa show that while ADWs do negatively impact ground water of drinking water within 0.5 to 1.5 miles of numerous ADWs, not all wells within this distance show ADW impacts, and the apparent impacts vary with time. ADW impacts were most noticeable following runoff and/or infiltration generating conditions, when surface and/(or) tile drainage water is delivered to the groundwater via ADWs. During extended dry periods, drainage inputs are insignificant, and ADW impacts are less, or not noticeable. These investigations also showed that ADW effects were difficult to identify in the areas where the receiving aquifer is naturally susceptible to contamination. Water entering ADWs from tile drainage typically contains 15-50 milligrams per liter (mg/L) nitrate-N and 1-10 micrograms per liter (ug/L) of commonly used herbicides. Direct surface runoff into ADWs may contain herbicides in the 10-100 ug/L range, while nitrate-N concentrations are commonly less than 10 mg/L Influent surface water could contain bacteria and potentially pathogenic organisms that are less likely to occur in tile effluent. Beyond the routine delivery of drainage water with typical agricultural contaminants to aquifers, ADWs pose other risks to ground-water quality. Some ADWs are connected to drainage systems that accept water from road ditches. Therefore, spills or leaks of harmful substances into these ditches could quickly and directly impact ground-water supplies. In addition, large-scale hog confinement facilities are being built in ADW areas. A variety of BMPs have been proposed and some implemented to mitigate the water-quality impact of ADWs. Because of the variability in the geologic setting surrounding these ADWs, not all of the proposed BMPs are suitable for all ADW areas. A study by the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship evaluated four management alternatives for ADWs: (1) Closure of the ADWs and development of alternative drainage outlets to surface water, at an estimated cost of $22 million. The Floyd County Groundwater Protection Project implemented this management alternative for ADWs in Floyd County. Cost share was provided for ADW closure and alternate outlets for tile water were developed. Many of the ADWs were closed and ground-water monitoring has shown improvements in water quality of bedrock aquifers previously impacted by several of the ADWs; (2) ADW closure and conversion of cropland to wetlands, with an estimated loss of 33 percent of the cropland currently drained by ADWs; (3) Continued ADW use with adoption of land management methods to decrease water-quality impacts. Iowa State University Extension inlroduced refined chemical management to selected "clusters" of agricultural drainage well owners and users. This program worked with enrolled cooperators in refining their nitrogen and pesticide use on acres drained by ADWs; (41 Continued ADW use with closure of surface intakes, thereby decreasing the inputs of herbicides, biological contaminants, and sediment to ADWs. Although specific management practices addressing acres drained by ADWs are yet to be promulgated by state administrative rules, it is known that nitrogen and pesticide management will be emphasized. 43 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: SOURCE-WATER PROTECTION Continued STRATEGIES Discussion: • ADWs are costly to close and it is also difficult to find alternative drainage outlets for surface water. Mandatory closure of ADWs is not (economically) feasible. Instead, management of pesticides and fertilizers will be emphasized. References: Baker, J.S., Melvin, S.W., and Lemke, D.W., 1996, Possible groundwater contamination from use of agricultural drainage wells: Proceedings of the Agriculture and Environment: Building Local Partnerships conference, January 16-18, 1996, Ames, IA, p. 2-33 to 2-41 Libra, R.D., Quade, D.J., and Rieck-Hinz, A., 1996, Agricultural drainage wells and groundwater quality, in Bettis III, E.A., Quade, D.J., and Kemmis, T.J. (eds.), Hogs, Bogs, & Logs: Quaternary deposits and environmental geology of the Des Moines Lobe, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau Guidebook Series No. 18, 170 p. Moore, F. L, 1996, Floyd County groundwater protection project WPF-034-1, 1991-1996: Water Protection Fund Project final report, 53 p. Rieck-Hinz, A., 1996, Implementation of an Integrated Crop Management Program to address water quality concerns in agricultural drainage well areas: Proceedings of the Agriculture and Environment: Building Local Partnerships conference, January 16-18, 1996, Ames, IA, p. 4-29-4-31. Agricultural drainage will research and demonstration project annual report and project summary, 1994, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship and Iowa State University, 63 p. Libra, R.D., Quade, D.J., Hallberg, G.R., and Littke, J.P., 1994, Groundwater quality, hydrogeology, and agricultural drainage wells: Floyd and Mitchell counties, Iowa: Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau Technical Information Series 29, 64 p. Libra, R.D., and Hallberg, G.R., 1993, Agricultural drainage wells in Iowa: hydrogeologic settings and water-quality implications: Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau Technical Information Series 24, 39 p. Baker, J.L, Kanwar, R.S., and Austin, T.A., 1985, Impact of agricultural drainage wells on groundwater quality: Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, v. 40, p. 516-520. 44 ------- 4tJii National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop Tuesday September 17,1996 9:10 - 12:15 p.m. SESSION 3: STATISTICS TO ANALYZE WATER QUALITY AND LAND-TREATMENT DATA USING SMP PROJECT EXAMPLES ODERATORS: Jean Spooner, NC Univ.; Don Meals, Univ. of Vermont Speakers shared results of paired-watershed studies and baseline-monitoring projects and noted how the com- plexities of watershed behaviors complicate the relations between control and treatment watersheds. The proper paiiing of sites and the length of calibration periods was examined. Presenter: David J. Baumgarten, Boise State University,; Boise, Idaho (co-authored by James L Osiensky, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho) Large portions of southern Idaho consist of irrigated agriculture land. Shallow ground water is common in irrigated areas and supplies many domestic wells. The shallow nature of the ground water makes it vulnerable to contamination from agriculture practices. The Eastern Snake River Plain Section 319 National Monitoring Project is being conducted in cooperation with the USDA Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. The objective is to demonstrate to farmers that implementation of USDA recommended best management practices (BMPs) will maintain current crop yields while reducing existing and/or potential ground-water contamination. Two demonstration fields, each consisting of paired 5-acre plots, are located within the most vulnerable area for ground water contamination. One test field will implement an irrigation water BMP and one will implement a nutrient management BMP through crop rotation. Monitoring wells, ground-water point samplers, and vadose zone water sampling devices (lysimeters) have been installed in the two fields. Data collected from these sampling devices are being used to assess the effects of the USDA recommended BMPs on ground water nitrate concentrations. The depth to ground water in each of the fields is approximately 5 feet during the growing season and 7 feet in the winter. A short response time exists for land application practices to affect ground-water nitrate concentrations in the shallow ground water. Initial analysis of a bromide tracer test indicates the movement from land surface to ground water to be on the order of 1 to 3 months. This is further supported by increases in nitrate concentrations measured in the ground water within several months after the cultivation of crops which require large amounts of fertilizer. Monthly ground-water monitoring began in May 1992. Current efforts are focused on establishing baseline nitrate concentrations for each of the fields. The median nitrate concentrations for each of the 12 wells in the two test fields varies by up to a factor of 10. Soil heterogeneity most likely have a significant influence on the variability in nitrate concentrations between wells. Box plots of nitrate concentrations versus crop indicate a relation between certain crops and nitrate concentrations. This analysis has also shown that some crops have more of an influence on nitrate concentrations at some sampling points than others. It will be important to understand the distribution and magnitude of this variability in assessing the impacts of the BMP implementation. The establishment of a baseline nitrate concentration is also complicated by trends. The majority of ground water samples collected from the monitoring wells in one test field exhibit an upward trend in nitrate concentrations. The opposite trend is present in the other test field, where the majority of ground-water samples collected from the monitoring wells exhibit decreasing nitrate concentrations. The magnitudes of these trends tend to vary with well location. Hydrogeologic Investigations and Baseline Nitrate Monitoring in a Shallow Aquifer in South Central- Idaho NMP 45 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 3: STATISTICS TO ANALYZE WATER Continued QUALITY AND LAND-TREATMENT DATA USING NMP PROJECT EXAMPLES Discussion: • The purpose of the irrigation BMP is to determine the effects of 24-hour versus 12-hour sets. • The purpose of the crop rotation BMP is to determine the effects of following a nitrogen fixing crop (for example, alfalfa) with grain versus another nitrogen fixing crop (for example, beans). • Preliminary results from the Monour Demonstration Field suggest a greater decrease in soil water nitrate concentrations from baseline in the paired field irrigated under 24-hour irrigation sets versus the paired field irrigated under 12 hour irrigation sets. • Explanatory variables such as the amount of irrigation and the amount of fertilizer applied are needed for statistical analysis. • Factors confounding the experimental design include different crop rotations and different soil types. • Some changes may be needed to the experimental design such as monitoring for a longer time period than planned or more controls to ensure the paired study design. 46 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 3: STATISTICS TO ANALYZE WATER Continued QUALITY AND LAND-TREATMENT DATA USING NMP PROJECT EXAMPLES ^ NMP ^ Results From 5 Years of BMP Effectiveness Monitoring in Sycamore Creek Presenter: John D. Suppnick, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality; Lansing, Mich. Sycamore Creek drains 106 square miles of mostly agricultural land in Central Michigan. The Creek has sedimentation and low dissolved oxygen problems due to agricultural erosion, stream bank erosion, and urban runoff. The Watershed is receiving Section 319 implementation grant money from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to control stream bank erosion and cost-share assistance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to control agricultural erosion. A paired watershed monitoring program is being conducted in two small (422 acres and 1087acres) sub-watersheds to evaluate the effectiveness of land treatment activities. A control watershed outside of Sycamore Creek (947 acres) is also sampled. Weekly grab samples are collected manually and storm samples are collected using automatic sam- plers from after snow melt until crop canopy closure occurs sometime in July. Flow and rain intensity are also recorded automatically. An additional monitoring station was added in 1995 at a location that drains a watershed area of 81 square miles to measure annual loads of suspended solids and nutrients and compare with model estimates. Some preliminary analysis of correlations between the target and control watersheds has yielded mixed results. Cor- relations are confounded by fundamental differences in watershed behavior despite similarities in soils, land use, and slope. For example, the control watershed has demonstrated higher flows and pollutant loads than the target water- sheds despite similar soils, lower slope, and better erosion control. Using storm loads as the water quality variant should reduce variability over individual grab samples but also introduces new complexities to the data analysis and interpretations. Discussion: • The control site on Haines Drain is not ground water dominated, and does have large scatter in nitrate concentrations. • Marshall Drain has similar flow and nitrate characteristics as the control on Haines Drain. • Willow Creek is ground water dominated; nitrate concentrations are less variable than in Haines or Willow Creeks. • Relations between the control and treatment watersheds were established for measured key variables. The stronger statistical relations were found for event mean suspended-solid concentrations. • Variability of sediment transport is greater during small storms. Data only from medium and large storms will be reanalyzed to determine the relation between the treatment and control basis. • Plans are to examine storm data to determine how the data are affected by antecedent conditions such as soil moisture and preceding storm characteristics such as intensity and duration. A suggestion was made that rainfall in the previous 24 hours and type of storm could be useful covariates. • A confounding factor could be of suspended solids delivery from drain tiles to the stream. • Additional explanatory variables could be helpful in determining relations between basins. Time trend analysis for each site may be useful. • A preliminary estimate of annual loads at the station which is the drainage outlet for 81 square miles indicates that actual loads are less than 10 percent of loads predicted by erosion and delivery-ratio methods. 47 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 3: STATISTICS TO ANALYZE WATER QUALITY AND LAND-TREATMENT DATA USING NMP PROJECT EXAMPLES Continued The Paired Watershed Approach: Application in the Totten and Eld Inlets Clean Water Projects ( NMP ^ Presenter Keith Seiders, State of Washington Department of Ecology; Olympia, Wash. Water quality and pollution control data from the Totten and Eld Inlets Clean Water Projects are examined and use of the paired watershed approach is explored as the following questions are addressed: 1. What is the nature and quality of the relation between the control and treatment watersheds? 2. Has the calibration period continued for a sufficient length of time? Washington's NMP project has completed four of nine planned years of monitoring. The goal of the monitoring project is to determine the effectiveness of nonpoint-source pollution control programs at improving water quality. Failing on- site sewage systems and poor animal keeping practices are a major cause of bacterial contamination of shellfish growing waters in Totten and Eld Inlets located in southern Puget Sound. Water-quality parameters (primarily fecal coliform and flow) are collected weekly for 23 consecutive weeks each year during the wet season (November through April). Six basins which drain to the shellfish growing areas are monitored. The paired watershed approach is being applied to 2 basins while the single-site-over-time approach is being applied to 4 basins. For the paired basins, over 40 individual BMPs have been installed on 5 farms in the treatment basin while no BMPs have been installed in the control basin. • Criteria used to select paired watersheds were hydrology, water quality, land use, and remedial activities. Kennedy and Schneider basins were selected as a pair. • Regression analyses for the paired basins showed good correlation for flow, weaker correlations were found for fecal coliform, fecal coliform load, and total suspended solids and turbidity were poorly correlated. • A project goal is to reduce median fecal coliform counts in Schneider Creek from 25 to 100 colonies per 100 ml. Although normally distributed, the large variability in the data is of concern in statistically documenting changes. Most residuals from regression analysis fall within 2 standard deviations and do not increase with increasing values. • Based on data variability during the pre-BMP period and statistical methods described in the EPA Paired- Watershed Factsheet, the 1-year calibration period was long enough to determine a 30 percent reduction in fecal coliform, but not long enough to document a 10-15 percent reduction. This method assumes the full range of hydrologic conditions were sampled the first year. Treatment began too soon to have a longer calibration period. • Differences in the animal densities between the paired watersheds may not be problematic if a relation in fecal coliform exist between the control and treatment watersheds prior to treatment. • The paired-watershed approach will be pursued while recognizing this and other differences between the watersheds. • Practical applications of the paired-watershed approach in the real world presents challenges whose impacts may not be realized until monitoring is complete and the final analyses performed. Discussion: 48 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 3: STATISTICS TO ANALYZE WATER Continued QUALITY AND LAND-TREATMENT DATA USING NMP PROJECT EXAMPLES References: Clausen, J.C., Spooner, J., 1993, Paired Watershed Study Design: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 20460, Fact Sheet 841-F-93-009 Seiders, K.R., 1995, Totten and Eld Inlet Clean Water Projects, Screening Study Results and Final Quality Assurance Project Plan: Washington State Dept. of Ecology, Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services Program Seiders, K.R., Cusimano, R.F., 1996, Totten and Eld Inlets, Clean Water Projects: Annual Report: Washington State Dept. of Ecology, Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services Program, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, Washington 98504-7600, Publication no. 96-342 49 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 3: STATISTICS TO ANALYZE WATER Continued QUALITY AND LAND-TREATMENT DATA USING NMP PROJECT EXAMPLES Chumash and Walters Creek Stormwater arid Even-Interval Paired Watershed Design Data Analysis, Morro Bay Watershed, California ^ NMP ) Presenters: Karen Worcester; Regional Water Quality Control Board\ San Luis Obispo, Calif. Dave Paradies, Morro Bay National Estuary Program; Los Osos, Calif. Storm-water and even-interval data have been collected by Cal Poly State University and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board over a three year period (1993-96) at Chumash and Walters Creeks in the Morro Bay watershed, San Luis Obispo County, California. Establishing baseline flow and water-quality relations between the two creeks is a critical component of the paired watershed study design. In this presentation, we examine the relations between the two creeks defined by these two data sets, compare the information each provides, and attempt to determine the minimum detectable water-quality change required to measure the effects of implementation of Best Management Practices. Storm-water samples are collected at 30-minute intervals when flow levels rise high enough to trigger activation of automated sampling devices. Samples are analyzed for total filterable solids (TFS), turbidity, and conductivity. Even- interval grab samples are collected weekly during 20 consecutive winter months, then biweekly throughout the remainder of the year. Even-interval samples are analyzed for TFS, turbidity, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, bacteria, nitrate, and phosphate. Flows and precipitation data are collected at 5-minute intervals during events. In the last three years, data has been collected from 20 storms. These have varied in size significantly. In spite of collection of several thousand 30-minute interval data records, many fewer paired data points are available to work with because of lost data points or otherwise unpairable data. Linear regressions of Chumash on Walters flow data result in high R2-values (0.8 - 0.9), but the data show indications of nonlinearity. A flow model which predicts Chumash flow based on Walters flow has been developed. This model is able to predict Chumash flows with a relatively high degree of accuracy, and is being used to recover a number of lost data pairs in some of the analyses. A variety of statistical and modeling techniques are being used to examine variability in the data, compare performance of storm- event and even-interval data, and determine minimum detectable change. Discussion: • The paired watersheds correspond very closely for most of the parameters measured. There is not much lag in response between the two watersheds. ¦ Implementation started during the second year. If the physical evidence doesn't indicate changes due to BMPs, you might be able to use data collected during the second as calibration data. • Sediment is more variable than turbidity, therefore, turbidity data were primarily used in data analysis. Turbidity drops dramatically 2 days after a storm. • To figure out when to use event versus even-interval sampling, the two types of data were plotted. Minimum detectable change for even-interval, event, and combined data was also examined. Event and even-interval data can not be combined statistically. • Cumulative log means were used to determine if sufficient background data has been collected. Even interval data shows no smoothing of the cumulative curve whereas the event data does. 50 ------- 4tlh National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 3: STATISTICS TO ANALYZE WATER Continued QUALITY AND LAND-TREATMENT DATA USING NMP PROJECT EXAMPLES • Principal component analysis of 1996 data was used to isolate independent patterns. The first component represents the general/positive relation between flow and sediment Use of just the rising or just the trailing limbs of the hydrograph will be examined in an attempt to reduce variability in the data. References: Baker, D.B., K.A. Krieger, R.P. Richards, and J.W. Kramer. 1995. Effects of Intensive Agricultural Land Use on Regional Water Quality in Northwestern Ohio. Water Quality Laboratory, Heidelberg College, Tiffin, Ohio. In: Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution. EPA 44015-85-001. Bunte, K. & LH. MacDonald. 1995. Detecting change in sediment loads: where and how is it possible? Effects of Scale on Interpretation and Management of Sediment and Water Quality. Proceedings of a Boulder Symposium, July, 1995. IAHS Publication no. 226. Clausen, J.C., J. Spooner. 1993. "Paired Watershed Study Design". U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington D.C. 841-F-93-009 Spooner, J., D.A. Dickey, and J.W. Gilliam. Determining and Increasing the Statistical Sensitivity of Nonpoint Source Control Grab Sample Monitoring Programs. In: Proceedings: Design of Water Quality Information Systems. Information series No. 61, Colorado Water Resources Research Institute, Fort Collins, Co. 51 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: CITIZEN MONITORING AS A USEFUL TOOL IN WATERSHED STUDIES MODERATOR: Pete Weher, EPA. Region III Tuesday September 17, 1996 1:30 - 3:00 p.m. Examples of citizen monitoring were provided. A pilot demonstration project conducted by the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay was used to discuss if a citizen based approach to monitoring habitat requirements for sub- merged aquatic vegetation can generate quality assured data. A USGS citizen-monitoring study was used to examine factors that aid in the revegetation of sites along the tidal Potomac River. EPA partnerships with volun- teers were also highlighted. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Volunteer Monitors: Symbiosis Presenter Pete Weber, Environmental Protection Agency The Federal EPA has developed an active, symbiotic partnership with numerous volunteers throughout the US. The national EPA coordinator and the ten regional offices deliver technical assistance, such as monitoring methods manuals and conferences, directly to citizens. Another mechanism is working with the States, even at times using EPA resources to fund State coordinators. Other ways include: incorporating volunteer monitoring in government watershed protection projects, and linking EPA program staff to citizens on specific water-quality issues. Many lessons can be shared by using a case study of an EPA and citizens partnership now in its seventh year. Finally, EPA will report on Earth Day 1996 monitoring activities in the Delaware-River Basin, in the Mid-Atlantic region. Discussion: • Shenandoah Well Testing Program is a long-term EPA ground-water program that involves citizens and university partners in monitoring wells in a karst terrain. The project, now in its third year, consists of water- quality field tests using pesticide immunoassays, nitrate testing, and other parameters. • For Earth Day 1996, 70 government agencies, local citizen groups, and water utilities participated in a week long effort to monitor 300 stations in an effort to provide a snapshot of water quality in the Delaware River Basin. • What does EPA have at the national level? Surf your watershed on the Internet (EPA posting) Home page on volunteer watershed (http://www.epa.gov/OW/volunteer/index.html) Methods manuals for citizens (planning methods for lakes, estuaries, and streams) Fact sheets Citizens guide to watershed management - "Clean Water in your Watershed: A Citizen's Guide to Watershed Protection" Water-quality standards handbook The Volunteer Monitor's Guide to Quality Assurance Project Plans • EPA Regional Activities: Earth Day is everyday Long-term partners - CRUM/RIDLEY watersheds, 1990-now Schools - Edison High School in Philadelphia 52 ------- 4thi National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: CITIZEN MONITORING AS A Continued USEFUL TOOL IN WATERSHED STUDIES " Future Directions: Holistic monitoring (precipitation, all types of surface water, and ground water) Daily earth days Further partnering Monitoring, assessment, protection continuum References: National Directory of Citizen Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs, Fourth Edition. EPA 841-B-94-001, January 1994. Contains information on 519 volunteer monitoring programs across the nation. Proceedings of the Third National Citizen's Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference. EPA 841/R-92-004, September 1992. Presents proceedings from the third national conference held in Annapolis in 1992. Proceedings of the Fourth National Citizen's Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference. EPA 841-R-94-003, February 1995. Presents proceedings from the fourth national conference held in Portland, Oregon in 1994. Starting Out in Volunteer Water Monitoring. EPA 841-B-92-002, August 1992. A brief fact sheet on how to become involved in volunteer monitoring. The Volunteer Monitor. A national newsletter, published twice yearly, which provides information for the volunteer monitoring movement. Produced through and EPA grant The Water Monitor. A monthly newsletter published by EPA to exchange surface water assessment information among states and other interested parties. Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A Methods Manual. EPA 842-B-93-004, December 1993. Presents information and methods for the volunteer monitoring of estuarine waters. Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A Methods Manual. EPA 440/4-91-002, December 1991. Discusses lake water quality issues and presents methods for the volunteer monitoring of lakes. Volunteer Monitoring. EPA 800-F-93-008, September 1993. A brief fact sheet on volunteer monitoring, including examples of how volunteer monitors have improved the environment. Volunteer Monitoring on the Nonpoint Source Electronic Bulletin Board System. A 2-page fact sheet on EPA's electronic forum for volunteer monitors. Volunteer Water Monitoring: A guide for State Managers. EPA 440/4-90-010, August 1990. Discusses the importance of volunteer monitoring, quality assurance considerations, and how to plan and implement a volunteer program. 53 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: CITIZEN MONITORING AS A Continued USEFUL TOOL IN WATERSHED STUDIES Citizen Monitoring of Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Habitat Requirements Presenters: Glenn Page, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay In 1994, a pilot demonstration project was conducted by the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay to determine if citizens could prepare samples and collect data for defining habitat requirements for submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV). SAV, a vital source of primary productivity in the estuarine food web, has been shown to provide habitat for living resources, improve water quality by uptaking nutrients and baffles currents that suspend sediment. A variety of largely anthropogenic factors have made conditions difficult for light to reach SAV through the water column causing widespread loss of the resource. Citizen monitoring of water quality has been conducted by the Alliance for over ten years. Recently, citizen monitoring efforts have been redirected to target habitat requirements of indicator species to support effective long-term restoration opportunities. Light, the major factor controlling the growth and distribution of SAV, becomes less available with declining water quality as it is attenuated in the water column and on the leaf surface. For example, in the water column, excess phytoplankton will absorb light and suspended sediment will scatter light On the leaf surface, nutrient enrichment can generate algal epiphyses on the SAV leaf surface which also blocks light inhibiting SAV growth. A conceptual model, developed by Batiuk and others defines the interaction and interdependence of five environmental parameters and their effect on light and SAV growth. Based on four salinity regimes in the Chesapeake Bay, the following five factors have been identified as the primary environmental factors that contribute to the attenuation of light: chlorophyll a (Chl-a); dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN); dissolved inorganic phosphorus (DIP); total suspended solids (TSS); and light attenuation coefficient (Kd). The minimum levels of each of the 5 water-quality parameters necessary for SAV survival are collectively called habitat requirements. The pilot demonstration project was designed to determine if citizens are willing and able to conduct bi-weeldy sampling under stria quality control and quality-assurance guidelines. The results indicate that citizens are able to collect quality assured data on SAV habitat requirements. In 1996, several more tributaries have been added to the program to expand on the number of sites and use the data to help target potential-restoration sites where water quality is suitable for SAV colonization but no SAV currently exist. Through a partnership with USGS, NMFS and EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program, a demonstration transplanting project will occur in the fall of 1996 and the spring of 1997. Volunteers undergo a four hour laboratory training session covering sampling procedures, safety, and quality assurance. Training continues at a field sampling station where volunteers conduct the sampling procedures under careful review. Oversight and support is provided throughout the monitoring period with periodic visits by the Alliance staff and continual communication with volunteers. Results are reported to volunteers to enhance quality control, provide an educational experience, and to reinforce the partnership. During each monitoring session, citizens record Secchi depth within 2 hours of solar noon as well as date, time, and water depth. Citizen volunteers also collect water from each section to prepare samples for the analysis of TSS, Chl- a, DIN and DIP. Sample preparation involves the careful use of a filtering apparatus and a hand vacuum pump to draw water through glass-fiber filters. The samples are frozen and shipped to the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory within 30 days and analyzed to determine the concentration of nitrate, nitrite, ammonium, and orthophosphate using an AutoAnalyzer system. 54 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: CITIZEN MONITORING AS A Continued USEFUL TOOL IN WATERSHED STUDIES The lab results are sent to the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay for interpretation. The Alliance, in turn, generates median values for each parameter over the annual critical life period, plots the results against minimum habitats requirements and disseminates the data. The use of the quality assured data is intended to identify how water quality trends relate to SAV trends. Direct on-the-ground habitat restoration may be justified if water quality is shown to improve while the SAV resource is either the same or declining. Furthermore, the results will be given to local governments to possibly assist in targeting point and nonpoint-source pollution reduction. The results of the pilot demonstration project indicate that a citizen based approach to monitoring habitat requirements of SAV can generate quality assured data that is useful to develop trends and target restoration opportunities. The protocol is useful for other estuary programs who seek to increase stakeholder involvement, have significant SAV resource, and value cost effective solutions to long term monitoring programs. Discussion: • The goal of the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay is to get people involved directly in the process of keeping the Bay Clean. • In using volunteers for monitoring the Alliance has a QA-QC plan certified through EPA. • Citizen monitoring programs involve estuarine habitat monitoring as well as monitoring of water quality of the Bay tributaries. 55 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: CITIZEN MONITORING AS A Continued USEFUL TOOL IN WATERSHED STUDIES Revegetation and Propagule Transport in the Tidal Potomac River Presenter: Nancy Rybicki, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va. (co-authored by Virginia Carter; U.S. Geological Survey,; Reston, Va.) Revegetation of sites, even under the best conditions, will not occur unless macrophyte propagules are available. In the tidal Potomac River, flux of macrophyte propagules (plant fragments and whole plants) was measured on hardware-cloth traps at unvegetated sites (April through November) to determine if adequate plant material was moving through unvegetated sites to result in revegetation if water clarity and other factors were favorable. Three sites were chosen in the upper Potomac (1994 and 1995) and two in the lower Potomac (1996). Water quality and propagule biomass flux was measured nearshore. In the upper Potomac sites, deposition of viable propagules occurred throughout the season but revegetation was likely inhibited by poor water clarity. In the lower Potomac, deposition of viable propagules did not occur and lack of propagule transport may be preventing revegetation despite good water clarity in this area. A combination of water quality and propagule biomass flux provides information to determine locations in the Chesapeake Bay where transplant efforts would be most profitable and will help to refine SAV habitat requirements. Discussion: • Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) serves as a nursery for shell fish and smaller fish and food for waterfowl. SAV also stabilizes sediment. • The optimal schedule for retrieving the propagule traps is at low tide and at 1 or 2 week intervals. • Because of the fetch, the sandy substrates were unstable nearshore in the lower Potomac sites and this may inhibit transplant efforts at depths of 0.5 meters. Sediment stability was determined qualitatively, no measurements were made. • Citizens could participate in most aspects of this kind of study. References: Rybicki, N. B. and Carter, Virginia, 1995, Revegetation and propagule transport in the tidal Potomac River in Proceedings, 29th Annual Meeting Aquatic Plant Control Program,: U.S. Army Corps, of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi, Misc Paper A-95-3, p. 201-218. 56 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: "BENEATH THE BOTTOM LINE".- BMPS FOR PROTECTING GROUND WATER f V MODERATOR: Lyrielle Seigley, Iowa DNRv-, 1, -; . Tuesday ¦' September 17, 1996, : V 1:30 - 3:i)0 p.m. Regarding BMPs, do you know your target population? This session discussed current and innovative ground- water BMPs. The Eastern Snake River Plain project in Idaho is the only current ground-water project in the National Monitoring Program. An innovative sinkhole capping project is attempting to reduce nitrate contamina- tion to the aquifer supplying water to Waikersville, Maryland. This interactive session also focused on what socio- logical surveys evaluating BMPs tell us. Are appropriate BMPs being applied to your target population? BMPs Used at the Idaho Snake River Demonstration Project Presenter J. Reed Find lay, University of Idaho Extension Educator; USD A Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project The Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project, located in South Central Idaho, is one of 16 demonstration projects funded nationally by the USDA under the Water Quality Initiative of 1990. In addition, the EPA initiated water quality monitoring through Section 319. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) received Section 319 funds from the EPA to monitor ground water vulnerability through the "Agricultural Chemicals in Groundwater" project In Southern Idaho, this project was implemented jointly with this Demonstration Project One purpose of these federally funded projects is to demonstrate Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will minimize the effects of agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution. Major pollutants in the area include fertilizers, pesticides, and sediment from runoff. Demonstration and implementation of BMPs are funded by various agency programs including: 1) cost share moneys for BMP implementation by Farm Service Agency (FSA) through the NRCS, 2) on farm demonstration of BMPs and educational programs by the Extension Service, and 3) water-quality monitoring moneys by Idaho Department of Agriculture and DEQ. Generally the acceptance of a BMP depends on the crop grown. Soil moisture monitoring for better irrigation management had a high acceptance on potato fields, moderate acceptance on beet fields, and low acceptance where small grains were grown. Riparian BMPs showed wide variation in adoption rates. Channel revegetation and cross fencing for better grazing management were highly adopted. Construction type BMPs such as bank barbs and drop structures were moderately adopted. Stream corridor livestock exclusions had low adoption rates. Record keeping, scouting, and monitoring were both readily adopted BMPs for nutrient and pest management Nutrient management ElMPs were more accepted by agricultural consultants than by farmers. [valuation of BMPs consists of monitoring the water under 2 paired fields in conjunction with the 319 initiative. Injection wells have also been monitored for nutrients and some pesticides. One major hurdle regarding evaluation of BMPs is that when cost share moneys become available they are earmarked for a short period of time. This short time period has made it difficult to gather baseline data before the BMP has to be implemented. The only conclusive way to analyze the benefits of a BMP is to implement the BMP over an entire closed basin. This has been done in one basin. All land owners in the basin converted from gravity (flood) to sprinkler irrigation. This is a common and highly adopted BMP in the area. Since the conversion occurred this growing season, no data are available as of yet. Future implementation and evaluation of agricultural BMPs need to be accomplished basin wide in order to account for external variability and aquifer dilution. Discussion: • Objectives of the project are to evaluate BMP effects on ground water, demonstrate new and innovative BMPs, develop cooperation and working relationships between agencies, and increase public awareness of land uses and potential impacts on ground-water quality. r nmp ^ 57 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: "BENEATH THE BOTTOM LINE" Continued - BMPS FOR PROTECTING GROUND WATER • BMPs implemented in study area include: (1) nutrient and pest management assisted by consultants and industry representatives; (2) polyacromid (PAM) on headland to stop erosion; (3) composting of manure; and (4) riparian improvements such as willows, bank barbs, and drop structures. Fencing for exclusion was not as accepted as other practices. • One obstacle to the project was that cooperating agencies (especially soil conservation districts) did not have enough time to understand the project and buy in to it. Some cooperating agencies were not released from stria guidelines for cost-share; therefore, new and innovative BMPs were not given first priority. • Project successes include improved cooperation between landowners and agencies, acceptance of a new BMP (driptape irrigation) within the project area, and extensive educational programs. 58 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: "BENEATH THE BOTTOM LINE" Continued - BMPS FOR PROTECTING GROUND WATER Sinkhole Treatment as a Solution for Ground Water Protection Presenter: Rebecca MacLeod, USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service Frederick County, Maryland, has a rapidly growing urban population but still retains about 65 percent of its land in agriculture The mix of land use sets up a scenario of widespread use of agricultural chemical and wastes in areas where public and private wells supply a large percentage of drinking water. About one-third of the 429,000 acre county is underlain by limestone and other carbonate rocks. One Frederick County community, Walkersville, is located on the Grove Limestone formation, and has a current population of 5,000 with expansion to 9,800 projected by the year 2010. Wells with casings depths under 50 feet provide over 700,000 gallons of water per day to residents. Typical nitrate levels are just slightly below safe drinking water standards. Sinkholes and a losing stream, Glade Creek, are features of the 4,000 acre watershed which serves the town's wells. A wellhead protection study completed in 1993 indicated that surface water moves to the public drinking water supply in a matter of days. Sinkholes provide a direct link between the wells and surface contaminants. These findings prompted a joint effort between federal, state, and local agencies to provide solutions to control some of the potential areas of contamination found in the Glade Creek watershed. One BMP that appears to have some success is a sinkhole treatment system has been implemented in the watershed. A simple, economical method of bridging solution voids associated with the Grove formation sinkholes is currently being used for remediation. Education of residents, county officials, and developers is also seen as critical to the success of sinkhole treatment, and is being carried out in a number of ways. Discussion: • A 319 project that is studying problems associated with sinkholes and treatment of sinkholes is being conducted in Maryland. • Increased development of the watershed accelerates the formation of sinkholes by altering natural water courses and concentrating flows. • One problem in Maryland is that city or town water supplies have elevated nitrate concentrations due to surface runoff entering sinkholes. • Suggested NRCS sinkhole treatment is to excavate to bedrock and plug with large rip-rap and geotextile fabric as a filter cap. If excavation to bedrock is not possible, then geomembrane should be applied to the hole and the hole refilled with rip-rap and capped with soil. • Mapping of sinkholes and better promotion of appropriate BMPs by local governments would help to alleviate sinkhole problems. • The planting of riparian buffers around a sinkhole is not an accepted practice by some fanners, probably due to insufficient land area where sinkhole is located. Qnmpj 59 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: "BENEATH THE BOTTOM LINE" Continued - BMPS FOR PROTECTING GROUND WATER How Do You Know if a BMP is a "Best" Management Practice? Presenter Pete Nowak, Professor, Department of Rural Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison Is the concept of a BMP an oxymoron, or is it a useful tool for designing and implementing water quality programs? This audience-interactive session will explore answers to this question while arguing that both responses can be valid. A "technical fix" and a BMP are two different concepts. A well-designed technical solution does not automatically become a best management practice. A management practice can become the "best" when it is designed in response to: (1) a clear understanding of the distribution of current behaviors and their relation to water quality problems; (2) understanding the rationale underlying current behaviors, and the extent the remedial practice compliments or detracts from this justification of current behavior; (3) the ability to express the efficacy of the remedial practice relative to the water quality problems in a simple yet factual fashion on a site-specific basis; (4) being able to calculate on an individual basis the requirements (transition costs) associated with changing this behavioral pattern. Following a short presentation, the audience will discuss a series of questions that will be distributed in advance. The objective of the workshop is to gain a fuller appreciation of the term "best management practice" with special attention to the behavioral or human dimensions of this concept. Data from a number of surface- and ground-water studies will be shared with the audience to illustrate various discussion points. Discussion: • BMPs should be economical and socially acceptable. • BMPs can give environmental benefits without economic returns. • The effectiveness of some BMPs is not evident for 10-15 years. If you can't wait this long to show improvement, it may be better to work in non-critical areas than to force cooperation in critical areas. 60 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 3: GROUND-WATER CONCEPTS MODERATOR: Dennis Risser, USGS, Lemoyne, Pa. Tuesday September 171996 1:30 - 3:00 p.m. This session focused on the use of conceptual models of ground-water flow to guide the installation of monitoring wells and to aid in the interpretation of water-quality data. These topics were applied on Wednesday's field trip to the Fritzglen farm. Ground-Water Concepts for Project Design Presenters: Dennis W. Risser; U.S. Geological Survey, Lemoyne; Pa. E. Randolph McFarland, U.S. Geological Survey, Richmond, Va. An understanding of basic concepts concerning the occurrence and movement of ground water can greatly aid in the design of projects to monitor the effects of n on point-source pollution on ground-water quality. In this session we discuss some ground-water concepts related to the monitoring of contamination at the field and watershed scale using a framework for conducting studies of solute transport in ground water outlined by Reilly and others (1987). Workshop participants will apply these concepts to a field site in southeastern Pennsylvania that was proposed as a pilot ground- water project in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Monitoring Program. In studies of ground-water quality, the importance of understanding the ground-water flow system and physical mechanisms of solute transport at a field scale cannot be overemphasized. A conceptual model of ground-water flow can provide a guide for thinking about the ground-water system and its relation to agricultural activities. A conceptual model, developed early in an investigation can guide the installation of monitoring sites, focus the acquisition of additional hydrologic data, and provide a framework for construction of quantitative flow and transport models. As any study progresses, the conceptual model of ground-water flow needs to be refined by: 1) defining boundary conditions and the hydrogeologic framework, 2) quantifying the water budget, 3) quantifying hydraulic properties, and 4) defining ground-water flow paths and travel times. A discussion of conceptual models and approaches to quantify elements of the ground-water flow system will be illustrated by project examples from agricultural field-site investigations in Pennsylvania and Maryland and from the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water-Quality Assessment study units. Presenter: E. Randolph McFarland\ U.S. Geological Survey, Richmond, Va. Discussion: • A project was reviewed for which the objective was to assess ground-water flow and ground-water quality to determine nutrient loads in an agricultural setting. • To estimate ground-water flow direction, you must first understand head differences within the system. There are vertical and horizontal flow components in thick aquifers. • Once flow direction is estimated, other factors such as recharge sources and ground-water sinks need to be determined, losing and gainirfg stretches of streams need to be identified, and the location of pumping wells in the aquifer need to be identified. • The physical properties of a system need to be defined prior to studying water-quality aspects such as subsurface geochemistry. • Chemistry changes in a ground-water system along a flow path are important. Load of chemicals can be determined if ground-water flow can be quantified and chemical concentration data are available. 61 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 3: GROUND-WATER CONCEPTS Continued • If the velocity of ground water can be estimated by quantifying physical properties of the system such as rock porosity, the length of time required to see a change in water quality due to the implementation of a BMP can be calculated. Equations to determine velocity are: j = <7 , and velocity = - n where Q = discharge A = area q = specific discharge n = porosity • Particle-tracking models can be used to estimate time required to see changes due to a BMP. This model can be calibrated by age dating the water being sampled. Particle-tracking models typically don't account for dispersive properties of a system. • Particle-tracking model and age dating were used to study a coastal-plain site, where it was found that older water was found deeper in the aquifer and more recently recharged water was found near the surface. • At a site in the Piedmont physiographic province, the porosity of different lithologies affected linear velocity. High porosities and low velocities were evident in saprolite; low porosites and high velocities were evident in schist. Presenter Dennis W. Risser, U.S. Geological Survey, Lemoyne, Pa. Discussion: • In ground water, the study of solute transport needs to focus more on the physical parameters of the system, not the solute distribution within the system. • A conceptual model of the ground-water system is needed to provide an idea where recharge and discharge areas are and which direction water moves. Conceptual models should be used to guide installation of monitoring network, formulate hypothesis, and to construct theoretical quantitative models of the system. • Data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin indicated the usefulness of conceptual models to explain differences between nitrate concentrations in surface and ground water across several physiographic settings. • Within a study area, there is a need to understand ground- and surface-water interactions. Part of this is identifying gaining and losing reaches of stream. • Ground-water withdrawals near boundaries can shift the position of the boundaries as flow is captured. 62 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 3: GROUND-WATER CONCEPTS Continued Reference: Reilly, T. L, Franke, O. L, Buxton, H. T., and Bennett, G. D., 1987, A conceptual framework for ground-water solute- transport studies with emphasis on physical mechanisms of solute movement: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Resources Investigations Report 87-4191, 44 p. McFarland, E. R., 1995, Ground-Water Flow, Geochemistry, and Effects of Agricultural Practices on Nitrogen Transport at Study Sites in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain Physiographic Provinces, Patuxent River Basin, Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-507, 78 p. —, 1995, Relation of Land Use to Nitrogen Concentration in Ground Water in the Patuxent River Basin, Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 94-4170, 20 p. Schnabel, R.R., Urban, J.B., and Gburek, W.J., 1993, Hydrologic controls in nitrate, sulfate, and chloride concentrations: Journal of Environmental Quality, vol. 22, p. 589-596. Gburek, W.J., Flomar, G.J., and Schnabel, R.R., 1994, Ground water controls on hydrology and water quality within rural upland watersheds of the Chesapeake Bay Basin: Chesapeake Research Consortium Publication no. 149, Proceedings of a Conference, Toward a Sustainable Coastal Watershed, June 1-3, 1994, p. 665-677. Anderson, M.P., 1984, Movement of contaminants in groundwater: groundwater transport - advection and dispersion: in Studies in Geophysics, Ground Water Contamination, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 63 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: "RIPARIAN RESTORATION AS A PROGRAM ELEMENT OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT" MODERATOR: Greg Jennings, NC Slate University Tuesday September 171996 3:30 - 4:30 p.m. Interactive discussions focused on: 1) incorporating small-scale riparian restoration projects into basinwide man- agement programs; 2) using partnerships to develop and implement riparian-restoration programs; and 3) envi- ronmental, economic, and social advantages of riparian-restoration programs to the farmer and community. Riparian and Uplands Assessment, Monitoring, and Restoration on Western Rangelands Presenter Roger Dean, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII Rangeland restoration projects being implemented in the 17 western states generally involve remediation efforts in both riparian and upland areas. Utilization of the ecosystem approach is an essential component in designing a successful project plan. Western rangeland riparian zones represent only 2 percent of most watershed acreage, however these zones provide eighty percent of the wildlife habitat. Historically, many riparian areas became sacrifice areas due to lack of attention to their special needs when developing grazing plans. Grazing plans typically focused on providing forage without adequate consideration of riparian impacts related to grazing intensity, season of use, or proper livestock distribution. Season-long grazing and overstocking led to serious rangeland degradation before the turn of the century. Season-long grazing continues to create riparian and aquatic habitat problems, even where stocking rates have been established. Habitat and water-quality problems can result from livestock concentrating in the riparian areas during the summer months or being turned out too soon while streambanks are wet and fragile. Grazed ecosystems can be impacted if livestock are left in an area too long for the upland and riparian forage plants to recover growth and vigor. In some western ecosystems, even a few days extra grazing by livestock or subsequent use by wildlife can seriously damage years of vegetative restoration gains. Western rangeland/riparian restoration projects require special attention to: climatic conditions; intermix of private and public ownership; operator attitudes; patchiness in the ecosystem landscape; and noxious weed invasions. It can take decades to restore the rangeland ecosystem health in areas with limited annual rainfall. EPA Region 8 consists of 77 percent rangelands and therefore has evolved as the lead EPA Region in working with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Forest Service (USFS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Cooperative Extension Service, Agricultural Research Service, National Cattlemen's Association and individual ranchers. Our goal is to support the development of: common rangeland ecosystem assessments (indicators of riparian and uplands health and trends); planning approaches that are comparable at the fence line; and common monitoring methods that could be used by all agencies and ranchers. Documents to be discussed include: Managing Change/Livestock Grazing in Western Riparian Areas Monitoring Primer for Rangeland Watersheds Monitoring Protocols to Evaluate Water Quality Effects of Grazing Management on Western Rangeland Streams Monitoring Handbook for Ranchers Caring for the Green Zone - Riparian Areas and Grazing Management Riparian Area Management - Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Conditions Discussion: • In the Western United States, cattle have over-grazed on millions of acres before the turn of the century. Subsequently, rangelands have become very degraded in the west and recovery is slow. • Cattle tend to stay near streams in hot weather and all stream lengths can not be fenced. One way to keep cattle out of streams is to keep cowboys with cattle. BMPs along with total ecosystem management are critical to keeping western rangelands viable. 64 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: "RIPARIAN RESTORATION AS A Continued PROGRAM ELEMENT OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT" • Ecosystem evaluation in the west is tending toward biological monitoring of uplands, riparian areas and in- stream. • For the Federal Lands Program, it was found to be more cost effective to preserve threatened watersheds than to fix damaged ones. In-stream protocols and range-management documents are available from EPA. • EPA will publish (draft - Feb. 1997) a monitoring handbook for Rancher Self-Monitoring. This handbook will: (1) give them self-teaching tools; (2) give them more incentive to attend meetings due to their added information base; and (3) allow ranchers to supply data. The handbook will include discussion of willows and cottonwoods as bank stabilizers and the biological aspects of a healthy stream. Videos will also be available to ranchers for in-house training. ¦ A regional EMAP data base is being developed to identify healthy rangelands. • Part of self monitoring involves photo documentation of rangeland health. • NRCS, EPA, BLM, and USPS are all working on public education programs and reworking the suggested grazing practices for rangelands. USFS is reissuing grazing permits with a trend towards self-monitoring guidelines within the new permit. 65 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: "RIPARIAN RESTORATION AS A Continued PROGRAM ELEMENT OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT" Riparian Buffer; A Mandatory Measure for Nonpoint Sources in the Neuse River Basin, North Carolina Presenter: David Harding, North Carolina Division of Water Quality; DEHNR The Neuse River originates in the Piedmont section of North Carolina and flows through the Coastal Plain into Pamlico Sound. As part of the State's Basinwide Planning process, a management plan was drafted for the Neuse River in March, 1993, including a variety of voluntary measures for nonpoint sources (NPS). However, persistent algal blooms and fish kills in the lower river have prompted the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) to propose a number of mandatory measures to address NPS nutrients. On February 6, 1996, NCDWQ presented a draft plan for the Neuse River nutrient sensitive waters management strategy. This plan addresses reducing the nutrient impacts from both point and nonpoint sources of nutrient pollution. Based on research completed by NCDWQ and university scientists, the goal for the Neuse River is to reduce N loading to the Neuse River estuary by 30 percent. Riparian buffers are one of the mandatory measures proposed for NPS under the draft plan. Riparian buffers along surface waters have been identified as an effective NPS pollution control tool. Under the draft plan, a riparian buffer system of 50 feet is required along all "blue line" water bodies, including those indicated as perennial streams, intermittent streams, lakes, and estuaries on the most recent version of USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps within the basin. One of the proposed riparian buffer options would be composed of three distinct zones that are specifically designed to optimize pollutant removal efficiency while minimizing restrictions on land use. A Geographic Information System was utilized to provide baseline estimates of affected stream length and existing land covers in the proposed 50-ft buffer zone. The results suggested that up to approximately 26,000 acres of agricultural land in the basin would require conversion to riparian buffers. Approximately 6,500 miles of streams would require maintenance and/or enhancement of the existing buffers under the draft plan. It is estimated that total cost to land owners for the first 5 years after the effective date of the proposed rule is approximately $12 million. The following conservative assumptions have been made in a preliminary attempt to quantify the potential nutrient reduction benefits of the mandatory riparian buffer system. The N removal efficiency of one half of existing buffers would increase 30 percent due to mandatory buffer requirements for operation and maintenance. Establishment of buffers where they did not previously exist would result in 60 and 30 percent increases in N removal efficiency along those streams with forested buffers and grass buffers, respectively. Based on these assumptions, an export coefficient method and fate/transport modeling, nitrogen loading to the Neuse River estuary from nonpoint sources could be reduced by approximately 450,000 pounds per year (about 5 percent of current loading) through the establishment of riparian buffers in the basin. Discussion: • Vegetative buffers provide treatment of water entering streams. By reducing nutrient loads with buffers, an added safety factor is added if water-treatment facilities fail to provide adequate nutrient reduction from point sources. This is actually a form of risk management • Options for voluntary compliance of vegetative buffer strips are: (1) Mandatory Minimal, the easiest to administer; (2) Mandatory Variable Width which is difficult to administer and enforce although this provides the best protection; and (3) a combination of Mandatory Minimal and Mandatory Variable Width, the best option. 66 ------- 4lth National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: "RIPARIAN RESTORATION AS A Continued PROGRAM ELEMENT OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT" • Existing regulations regarding buffers in North Carolina include: (1) setbacks for development such as coastal stormwater rules to protect shellfish and sensitive waters; (2) sediment control act, which was enacted to trap visible sediment near trout waters; (3) HQW - to preserve high-quality waters and involves minimum setback for development; (4) water-supply watershed rules; and (5) required buffers for animal-waste management • The newest initiative in the Neuse River Basin was a proposed Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) Management Strategy. • The Neuse River proposal was in response to massive fish kills. A nutrient-management plan for whole basin was mandated. • Mandatory Measures for point sources are wastewater treatment For NPS, riparian buffer (forest and grass) strips are being proposed. An interagency committee was established at the local level to help resolve technical questions and to help determine site-specific issues. • Specialists in the forest buffer area suggest that moving downgradient from crop to stream, there should be a grassed runoff zone, then a managed forest strip, followed by an unmanaged forest zone adjacent to the stream. • The goal in North Carolina is to provide incentives to use other controls (which would eliminate need for buffer, or allow narrower buffer) to help with source reduction. • Agricultural Cost Share Program provides funding that can be used for buffers. • Clean Water Trust Fund provides funding for voluntary establishment of riparian buffers. • Part of the Wetlands Restoration Program addresses riparian-buffer issues. 67 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop Tuesday September 17, 1996 3:30 - 4:30 p.m. SESSION 2: RIPARIAN LAND-TREATMENT ISSUES MODERATOR: Will Harman, NC Univ., Coop. Extension Service This session provided workshop participants with the "nitty-gritty" of riparian restoration, including step-by-step guidance in implementing a riparian zone adjacent to pastures and heavy-use areas and making those tough decisions about buffer width, alternative water systems, type of fence, etc. In addition, initial water-quality responses from an EPA 319 riparian-restoration project were discussed. Presenter: Dan Line, North Carolina State University Riparian buffer establishment is an integral component of the ecosystem management plan for the Long Creek projects's Kiser dairy management area Prior to this past February, dairy cows had unlimited access to the 1,200-foot section of the Kiser Branch between upstream and downstream monitoring stations. The cows cropped most vegetation and trampled the streambeds resulting in accelerated bank erosion and high levels of sediment, nutrients, and bacteria in the Branch, particularly at the downstream monitoring site. In February, a fence was installed on both sides of the steam channel. While several initial designs called for a wider riparian corridor of up to 100 feet, ultimately ,the landowner's concern for loss of pasture determined the actual width if the riparian area. Prior to the fencing, a watering system was installed in three pastures to provide drinking water for the cows and replacement heifers. A mixture of soft and hardwood trees were planted and severely eroding streambanks were seeded in the riparian corridor. Trees were spaced 10 feet apart in rows 10 feet apart and offset by 5 feet for alternating rows. In addition, the planting of willows along the base of the streambank is planned where currently native plants have revegetated the streambank and channel. In the four months since fencing was installed, water quality has improved at the downstream monitoring site according to nutrient and solids analyses of weekly grab samples. Tadpoles, minnows, and other aquatic life have returned to pools in the Branch. Thus, initial observations indicate that the installation of the riparian area has significantly improved water quality. • At the North Carolina dairy farm, a VCR tape was made to document agricultural and project activities such as animal populations near streams, fenced areas, repair of riparian area by planting banks with trees, etc • The forest buffer is 40-100 feet wide and 1,200 feet long. The owner planted 2,000 trees in the riparian area. • Where fencing was used for animal exclusion, no planting occurred except on severely eroded banks; many volunteer plants grew in this area. • A watering tank was installed and fed by a well. The animals prefer the tank over the stream. • Downstream of the practices, stream concentrations of total kjeldahl nitrogen were reduced from 10-15 mg/L to 2-3 mg/L Phosphorus and sediment concentrations were also reduced following implementation of • Problems still exist with erosion downslope from feed lot areas where concentrated runoff flows through the Riparian Buffers Role in Pasture Management Discussion: practices. ripanan area. 68 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: RIPARIAN LAND-TREATMENT ISSUES Continued Addressing Recreational Needs in Riparian Best Management Practice Designs Presenter: Jeff TislUSDA-NRCS Project Coordinator, Syn Magill Watershed Project "Hie next time you are planning a trout fishing trip you may want to consider Iowa. Say what? Iowa? Yes, Iowa does have several top quality cold water trout streams along it's northeastern border with the Mississippi River. Unfortunately, many of these streams are in watersheds dominated by agriculture which results in many of these streams being impaired by high levels of sediment, animal waste, pesticides and nutrients. In addition, many of these streams have narrow riparian zones that are maintained for trout fishing and other forms of public recreation. The growing popularity of trout fishing creates heavy pedestrian traffic patterns within the riparian zone and has created additional streambank stabilization problems. In 1991, the Syn Magill Watershed Project was initiated to address these nonpoint-source water-quality concerns and provide a case study on the effectiveness of various Best Management Practices (BMP's) on a watershed scale over a 10-year period. This interagency-partnership effort was designed to first reduce the impact of the underlying water- quality problems, then take steps to prevent them from recurring. Rather than simply review what was done on Syn Magill, it would be better to understand the decision making process we used to meet our goals. The proper organization of the overall project provided the opportunity, expertise, and funding to install these innovative practices. The partners involved in this project gave first priority to install as many BMP's on the uplands as possible. This would reduce many of the before mentioned nonpoint-source problems, as well as retard the runoff from storm events in the 22,000-acre watershed. By reducing the frequency and magnitude of the high discharge events, the erosional problems associated with the riparian zone becomes more manageable. As a result, a wider selection of more cost- effective riparian BMP's is now acceptable due to the more stable conditions. Because the riparian zone is used for recreation, the partners had to ensure that access concerns were addressed in all riparian BMP designs. Also, all BMP's had to be designed to withstand heavy recreational traffic When the traditional list or BMP's failed to meet these criteria, the partners chose to adapt existing BMP's to fit the special needs imposed by the site conditions. What has been learned by the partners through our experiences? First and foremost, there are many advantages to forming a broad and diverse group of partnerships. A diverse group can provide a wider range of innovative ideas and a broader pool of experiences in which to build on. Finally, avoid solving only water-quality "symptoms." If you fail to solve the underlying "problem" first, your "symptoms" may soon reappear. Clayton County, Iowa 69 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 3: PASTURE MANAGEMENT: GROUND WATER MONITORING DESIGNS MODERATOR: Jack Clausen, University of Connecticut Tuesday September 17, 1996 3:30 - 4:30 p.m. Appropriate ground-water quality and quantity monitoring designs appropriate for determining the effects of alter- native pasture-management systems were presented. Subsessions included saturated ground-water designs and vadose-zone designs. Other topics include instrumentation, data analysis, and results from ongoing studies. Ground-Water Monitoring Designs for Saturated Conditions—Lessons Learned Presenter: Jeanne Goodman; South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources The need to monitor ground water in nonpoint-source pollution studies will vary with project type and water-quality problem. Ground-water monitoring in studies to determine the impacts of land-use management practices on ground water can be done in combination with vadose zone and surface water monitoring, depending on the study objectives. Ground-water monitoring should be included in studies intended to define the entire hydrologic system. The challenges in designing ground-water monitoring systems are the three dimensional nature of the hydrologic system and subsurface heterogeneity. Several monitoring designs typically used in surface-water studies can be used for ground-water monitoring, with modifications as needed to accommodate these challenges of ground-water hydrology. The 10-year U.S. Department of Agriculture's South Dakota Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) Project focused on monitoring the impacts to ground water from the implementation of agricultural best management practices. The ground water, surface water, and vadose zone were monitored using several monitoring designs and scales. Ground- water monitoring included "reconnaissance" monitoring at an aquifer scale, "above and below" (upgradient and downgradient) monitoring at plot and field scales, and "before and after" best management practice implementation monitoring at a plot scale. "Before and after" monitoring was not an option at the field scale because the best management practices were implemented prior to installing monitoring wells. "Control sites", sites where land-use practices were not changed, were used in an attempt to compare water quality between sites with and without best management practices. This design was not successful because the differences in management practices were not distinct enough to detect changes in the ground water-quality. The glacial geology of the field sites was also very complex, making evaluation of the water-quality data difficult. Considering the experiences of ground water monitoring in the South Dakota RCWP project, a combination of water- quality monitoring designs is recommended for ground-water monitoring of nonpoint-source pollution control projects. Monitoring wells should be used "above and below" (upgradient and downgradient) changes in management practices; wells should also be located within the site and along the ground-water flow paths across the site. Nested wells screened at different intervals within water-bearing materials are needed to identify any vertical changes in water quality and vertical gradients. The wells should be sampled "before" management practice implementation to define the baseline ground-water quality. Ground-water monitoring "after" implementation is also needed to define the impacts of land-use changes. This design can be used on a number of field sites, or two sites can be equipped for a "paired watershed" study. The difficulty in this, however, is finding two field sites with similar land use and geology for comparison of water-quality impacts. If there are no sites in the project area that can meet the paired watershed criteria for similarity, one site may be used. If one site is used, management practices should be implemented following the calibration period only on the farthest downgradient portion of the monitored field site. The management practices on the upgradient portion of the field should remain unchanged. Complex geologies create challenges in ground-water monitoring. These challenges can be met with the appropriate monitoring system design or design combinations. 70 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 3: PASTURE MANAGEMENT: Continued GROUNtX-WATER MONITORING DESIGNS Discussion: • Ground-water monitoring designs are not unlike surface-water monitoring designs - they depend on objectives, depend on scale, and depend on geology of the study area. • "Above and Below" is a good study design if: geology is the same nested wells are used area upgradient of the wells is controlled • "Before and After" is a good study design if: "before" monitoring is adequate upgradient the management practice is a significant change from existing practices geology is homogeneous • "Paired Watershed" is a good study design if: two sites have similar geology land use can be controlled upgradient of upgradient edges of the study area planned changes in land use or land-management activities are significant • The best design may be a combination of all three designs. References: Goodman, J.M. Kuck, R. Larsen, D. Clayton, K. Cameron Howell, A. Bender, L Holtdaw, D. German, J. Bischoff, J. Davis, C.G. Kimball, T. Lemme, C. Berry, C. Ullery, and G. Carlson. 1991 Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett Project 20. Rural Clean Water Program Ten Year Report. South Dakota Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, 523 E Capitol, Dierre, SD 57501. Goodman, J., D. German, J. Bischoff, and C.G. Kimball. 1996. Ground Water Monitoring; A guide to Monitoring For Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Projects. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, 200 Fourth Street, Southwest, Huron, South Dakota. 71 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 3: PASTURE MANAGEMENT: Continued GROUND-WATER MONITORING DESIGNS Nitrate Leaching from Intensively Grazed Pastures in Connecticut Presenter: Karl Guillard, Department of Plant Science, University of Connecticut Two experiments are being conducted with pastures to determine the effects of management intensive grazing on nitrate leaching. The first study is set out as a paired-watershed experiment and was established in 1992 to compare the concentrations and mass of NO3-N in soil water collected under pasture that is intensively grazed with beef cattle with that collected under corn land managed with BMPs. Leachate collection is accomplished with suction plate lysimeters that were installed below undisturbed soil profiles during the autumn of 1991. At present, four lysimeters are located in the pasture side and four lysimeters are located in the corn side. Pasture and corn lysimeters are paired by location in the field. Water samples are collected on a weekly basis. At the start of the sampling week a tension of 50 centibars is applied to the collection-samplers and the units left to draw water, with a falling tension, over the following week. The collected water is then drawn off and the tension reapplied. Water samples are analyzed for N03+N02 using a colorimetric method with Cd-reduction. The calibration period of the study was initiated in 1992 and continued until May 1994, during which time an 8-acre pasture was intensively grazed by beef cattle. In May 1994, the treatment phase of the experiment was established. Corn was sown into one side of the pasture; the other side remained as intensively-grazed pasture. Corn was established and managed in the designated watershed side by using no-tillage with herbicides for weed control. Nitrogen fertilization rates for corn were determined by recommendations from the pre-sidedress soil NO3 test (PSNT). Based on PSNT recommendations, 50 lbs N/ac was applied to corn in 1994 and 59 lbs N/ac was applied to corn in 1995. No N was applied to pasture because the clover composition was 30 to 40 percent of the sward. After corn harvest, a winter-rye cover crop was sown. Best management practices were followed during all phases of corn production. Results indicated that flow-weighted NO3-N concentration in leachate collected from corn, across the 2-yr treatment phase, was higher than pasture (11.52 vs 3.86 mg/L). Total cumulative mass of NO3-N collected in leachate from corn is more than 3 times greater than mass collected from pasture. Loss of NO3 is seasonal under both land uses with greatest losses occurring in the fall and winter. Paired-watershed analysis indicated significant differences between corn land and pasture for soil water NO3-N concentrations and mass. The percentage increase in soil water NO3-N concentration and mass due to corn production instead of intensive pasturing was over 800 percent and 1000 percent, respectively. The second experiment consists of a 4 x 4 Latin square design set out in a sheep pasture with four fertilizer regimes as treatments (no fertilizer, PK, N, NPK). Zero-tension, funnel lysimeters were installed beneath undisturbed soil profiles in each plot during the fall of 1992. Percolate captured from the lysimeters was drained into 4-inch diameter pvc pipes that were capped and placed vertically into the soil so that a large reservoir capacity was below the funnel outlet When sufficient rainfall occurred to induce water flow into the lysimeters, samples were collected from the reservoirs by using a vacuum pump. Percolate was collected from 1993 through 1995. Across three years of sampling, the overall mean, flow-weighted NO3-N concentration in the percolate was higher where N fertilizer was applied (6.06 mg/L) than where N fertilizer was not applied (4.41 mg/L). Cumulative distribution functions for mean flow-weighted NO3-N concentration at individual sampling dates indicated that where N was not applied, 93.5 percent of the observations were below 10 mg/L Where N was applied, however, 80.4 percent of the observations were below 10 mg/L Seasonal effects seemed to be more influential than treatment effects on NO3-N concentrations. Most N03 loss occurred during the fall through early spring period in all treatments. The choice of the Latin square design for this site seems to be well founded since significant row and column effects were frequently observed in the ANOVA. Discussion: • There are huge seasonal trends in nitrogen loss from both corn cropped land and pasture land. After corn harvest, there was a large release of nitrogen into the system, which peaked in December. There also was significant release of nitrate from pasture land in the fall and winter. However, land in corn production has greater potential for nitrogen leaching losses than pasture. • A paired-watershed design is appropriate in experiment 1 based on the funding situation. 72 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 3: PASTURE MANAGEMENT: Continued GROUND-WATER MONITORING DESIGNS Reference: J. Clausen, J. Spooner, 1993, "Paired Watershed Study Design": Environmental Protection Agency Fact Sheet 841-F- 93-009 73 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop PLENARY SESSION: THE PEQUEA/MILL CREEKS BASIN: PAST AND PRESENT WATER-QUALITY PROGRAMS MODERATOR: Robert Hcidecker, USDA - NRCS Tuesday September 171996 4:30 - 5:15 p.m. Over the past 8 years, many agencies have been involved in activities in the Pequea and Mill Creek basins. Syn- optic and intensive studies have documented concentrations of inorganic and organic substances in ground and surface water. Biological studies have quantified populations of biota in surface waters. Wellhead-protection areas have been mapped and potential contaminant sources to ground-water have been documented. Much of this data and physical attributes of the basins are being compiled in Geographic Information System (GIS) data bases for further analyses and interpretation. Presenter: Robert T. Heidecker, USDA-NRCS, and Chairman of the Pequea/Mill Creeks State Coordinating Committee The Pequea/Mill Creeks Project began in 1991 as part of the USDA Water Quality Initiative to coordinate and increase a voluntary approach to reduce agricultural n on point-source pollution. The Pequea and Mill Creek watersheds are located in central Lancaster County in south central Pennsylvania. The project area is 135,000 acres, approximately 22 percent of the county. There are 55,000 dairy cows distributed on 1,000 small farms. There are more farms here than in 50 other counties in Pennsylvania. The project is focused on resolving potential nutrient, sediment, and bacteria contamination from concentrated livestock areas around farmsteads and nutrient and pesticide management in crop fields. Barnyard management, streambank fencing and grazing management have been emphasized to reduce contamination from farmsteads. Integrated crop management is being promoted through fertilizer vendors and crop consultants. The Natural Resources Conservation Service is providing technical assistance and the Farms Service Agency provided financial assistance. The project's educational activities are being coordinated by Penn State Cooperative Extension. A joint USDA office is operational within the watershed. Water-quality monitoring is being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey to evaluate the effectiveness of BMP installations. This monitoring is being carried out in two tributaries where a combination of BMPs are being installed, and, as part of the National Monitoring Program, in small paired watersheds of the Mill Creek Basin where streambank fencing of pasture land is the primary BMP. Biological assessments have been conducted by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Other partner agencies with significant activities in the project area are the Pennsylvania Game Commission, Lancaster County Conservation District, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. ( NMP J) 74 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop Field Tours HANDOUTS FROM FIELD TOURS ARE PROVIDED IN APPENDIX A Wednesday September 18, 1996 Tour 1: Walking Tour of Small Subbasin to observe Effects of Agricultural BMPs Led by local Natural Resources Conservation Service and Cooperative Extension personnel (Jerry Martin and Shelly Ogline, Penn State Cooperative Extension and Kevin Seibert, (NRCS), this tour follows part of a 3.5 mile stretch of the Muddy Run creek where more than 700 cows and 90 horses are fenced out of the s tream and other BMPs have been installed and monitored. Rick Skubish, Pennsylvania Game Commis- sion, will show examples of streambank fencing of pasture land, stream crossings for dairy cows, pasture watering systems, barnyard management using rotational grazing, and cow lanes. Fish analysis results and demonstration of the techniques used for data collection will be presented by Lance McDowell, Penn- sylvania Fish & Boat Commission. A water-Quality monitoring station will be discussed by Mike Lang- land, U.S. Geological Survey. Tour 2: NMP Monitoring Site 1?he paired-watershed design of the Pequea/Mill Creeks National Monitoring Program project near Lam- p>eter, PA, will be reviewed by USGS personnel (Ed Koerkle, Dan Galeone, and John Rote). The project is designed to evaluate the surface-water quality and near-stream ground-water quality of streambank fenc- ing of pasture land. Instrumentation to monitor water quantity and quality in stream and ground-water will be displayed. The use of continuous water-quality and quantity monitors will be demonstrated with data retrieval and display in the field. The use of automatic samplers at surface-water sites will also be demonstrated. Leon Ressler, Penn State Cooperative Extension, will provide a tour of Harlan Keener's on- farm methane generator plant used to convert farm waste to electric power. Tour 3: Stream Restoration Two concurrent activities will be offered: ci) Monitoring Stream Channel and Habitat Restoration Projects - This session led by Sean Smith, Mary- land Department of Natural Resources, will provide hands-on experience in measuring stream geometry, mapping longitudinal characteristics, measuring substrate and bank characteristics and assessing habitat. b) Applying Stream Classification and Analysis in Stream Restoration Projects - This session will provide hands-on experience in stream classification and application of natural streambank stability techniques. L. Reed Hupman, Environmental Resources Management, will lead the group in collecting stream-geometry data, classifying a stream reach and using the classification as a basis for developing a restoration plan. Tour 4: Intensive Rotational Grazing irhe group, led by Tim Fritz of Penn State Cooperative Extension, will tour the Fritzglen farm, a 70-acre grazing system that supplies significant forage to a 160-head dairy operation for nine months of the year, located in an urban area, this high-production farm converted 60 acres of field crops to pasture in 1993. A 10-year old exercise lot, half of which was mud and manure, is now a productive part of the system. Other features include streambank fencing and composting. Attendees will have the opportunity to design a j^ound-water monitoring plan from this farm site using some of the ideas discussed during the breakout sessions on Tuesday. Topics of discussion, led by Dennis Risser, USGS, will include types of monitoring devices needed, location of these devices (horizontal and vertical), testing of aquifer hydraulic properties, cind sampling frequency. 75 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop Thursday September 19, 199 6 8:30 - 9:30 a.m. MODERATOR: Dean Yashan, Idaho Div. of Environmental Quality You helped design this session by filling out the questionnaire on Monday. Are implemented management mea- sures themselves a measure of success where improvements to water quality are not documented? When is it necessary to document water-quality improvements? How do you measure success for short-term studies and small projects? Panelists: Dean YashanIdaho Division of Environmental Quality David Baumgarten, Boise State University Reed Find lay, University of Idaho Cooperative Extension Greg Jennings, North Carolina State University Ground-water and surface-water quality project and program personnel provided insight into what they consider a success for their work. Presenters discussed aspects of the Idaho Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project, surface-water quality projects underway in North Carolina, and other relevant ground-water projects or programs. Results from a participant survey on what constitutes success of a water-quality project or program were presented. Discussion: David Baumgarten; Boise State University NMP ^ • In the Idaho project, water-quality data are important in ground-water projects because the water is not visible. Reed Find lay, University of Idaho Cooperative Extension • In the Snake River Project, success has been important in the realm of interagency cooperation. Cost-share dollars are also important in getting stakeholders educated on existing water-quality problems and involved in solutions. Greg Jennings, North Carolina State University • In North Carolina water-quality projects, success is defined as from the three areas knowing what the problem is and how to solve it, and demonstrating how the problem is solved so that the information is transferable, and implementing field research. No projects have achieved all three measures of success. PLENARY SESSION: WHAT CONSTITUTES SUCCESS OF A WATER QUALITY PROJECT OR PROGRAM? ^ NMP ) ( NMP ) 76 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop PLENARY SESSION: WHAT CONSTITUTES Continued SUCCESS OF A WATER QUALITY PROJECT OR PROGRAM? RESULTS OF WORKSHOP PARTICIPANT SURVEY What Constitutes Success of a Water-Quality Project or Program? Responses: 59 Number Who Chose a Most Important Measure: 24 (41 percent) Percent Who Chose as One of Top 3 Choices Percent Who Chose as Most Important Success Measure 59 14 Community acceptance, support, involvement, and/or awareness of project goals and implementation methods. 41 2 Creation of successful working partnerships and/or community teams. 58 10 Documented improvements to water quality resulting from project/program imple- mentation (through BMPs, etc.). 14 0 Implementation of a desired number of BMPs or other indicators that do not directly show improved water quality, but should improve water quality based on profes- sional knowledge. 44 3 Continued application of BMPs and other water-quality protection measures after project funding runs out (self-sustaining implementation). 20 5 Resource now meeting water-quality objectives/goals. 20 2 Ability to relate a specific BMP or new technology to water-quality improvements. 29 2 Transferable, cost effective, and easy to implement approach to other watersheds/ communities. 5 0 Multi-agency/professional recognition of project/program success. 7 0 Community recognition of project/program success. 5 3 Other Do most water quality projects/programs need to document improvements to (surface or ground) water quality from project/program implementation? 71 percent Yes 19 percent No 10 percent Not Sure Are multiple measures of success (such as the examples above) a good idea for most water- quality projects/programs? 100 percent Yes 77 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT— Thursday ALTERNATIVES FOR IMPLEMENTATION September 19, 1996 10:15 - 11:45 a.m. MODERATOR: Leon Ressler, Penn Stale Coop Extension Privatization of nutrient-management planning were presented. Discussion of methods available to land owners for implementation of nutrient management focused on on-site options such as redistribution of livestock and use of feed with different nutritional values and off-site options such as manure composting and marketing. Public to Private: A Transfer of Nutrient Management Planning Roles Presenter: Jerry Martin, Penn State Cooperative Extension The nutrient management focus in the Pequea-Mill Creek Project has emphasized the development of nutrient management plans for crop production and environmental protection. A Nutrient Management Planner Training program was conducted by Penn State Cooperative Extension through the Pequea-Mill Creek Project for private fertilizer and agricultural chemical dealers and crop consultants. Previously, nutrient management plans had been developed primarily by agency personnel. Because farmers currently rely on the dealers and consultants for crop production information and soil testing services, these private vendors are a focus of this project activity. If it is feasible for these vendors to add nutrient-management planning for environmental protection to their existing services, they will bring a diverse clientele base with them into the nutrient management effort Further, they will provide a nutrient-management planning capacity in the area after the project concludes. During 1992 to 1993, 80 individuals participated in three separate training sessions. An examination was also part of the process. Forty-nine individuals satisfactorily completed the training and examination and received preliminary approval from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to write nutrient management plans in the Pequea- Mill Creek Project area. Final approval by NRCS depends on the satisfactory review of five nutrient-management plans developed by each planner. To date, at least 20 planners have been involved in developing nutrient-management plans. Over 200 nutrient management plans have been developed by these planners. During the winter of 1994-95, a Nutrient Management Planner Survey was sent to the 49 private vendors who successfully completed the training provided by the Pequea-Mill Creek Project. The purposes of the survey were to learn about the experiences of the planners and the value of the training. The information gained was helpful in better understanding the potential involvement of the private sector in nutrient-management planning. The survey results provided suggestions for removing obstacles to private industry involvement in nutrient-management planning and suggestions for increasing the implementation of nutrient-management planning. Under the provisions of Pennsylvania's Nutrient Management Act the private sector will play a key role providing nutrient-management planning services. The Pequea-Mill Creek Project Nutrient Management Planner Training program has been a successful model for transition of the private industry into this role. Discussion: • A lot of work is going on to transition nutrient-management planning from agencies into the private sector. Obstacles for the private sector designing nutrient-management plans are: (1) increased time involved - 71 percent of the private sector nutrient-management planners spent more time on farms and 8-12 hours are required to complete the plan; (2) reduction in fertilizer sales - at least 50 percent of time, fertilizer calculations were changed and 46 percent of the nutrient-management planners realized reduced fertilizer sales; (3) limited financial return; and (4) competition from public sector. 78 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT— Continued ALTERNATIVES FOR IMPLEMENTATION • Transition strategies: Assist private industry to transition from selling products to marketing services Educate farm community Consider cost-share options for nutrient-management planning services Reduce "free" planning competition References: Nutrient Management Planning, Pequea-Mill Creek Information Series 7, Pequea-Mill Creek Project, Les E. Lanyon and Jeff H. Stoltzfus, 1992, 2 p. Nutrient Management Planners Approved, Pequea-Mill Creek Information Series 8, Pequea-Mill Creek Project, Les E. Lanyon and Jeff H. Stoltzfus, 1992, 2 p. Nutrient Management Planner Training, Pequea-Mill Creek Information Series 17, Pequea-Mill Creek Project, Les E. Lanyon, 1993, 54 p. Sample Nutrient Management Plan and Guidelines, Pequea-Mill Creek Information Series 21, Pequea-Mill Creek Project, Jerry L Martin and Les E. Lanyon, 1994, 14 p. Nutrient Management Planner Survey, Pequea-Mill Creek Information Series 25, Pequea-Mill Creek Project, Jerry L Martin and Les E. Lanyon, 1995, 6 p. Reviewing Nutrient Management Plans, Pequea-Mill Creek Information Series 31, Pequea-Mill Creek Project, Jerry L Martin and Les E Lanyon, 1997, 5 p. 79 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT— Continued ALTERNATIVES FOR IMPLEMENTATION Nutrient Management Alternatives for Livestock Presenter: Leon Ressler, Extension Agent, Penn State Cooperative Extension Nutrient-management legislation was signed into law in Pennsylvania in May of 1993. This bill requires that all animal operations with more than two animal units per acre (1,000 pounds of live weight equals one animal unit) prepare and submit a nutrient-management plan to their local conservation district for approval. A key part of the nutrient- management plan for operations with surplus manure nutrients is determining how to utilize the excess manure. There are several options which can help solve the surplus problem for many livestock farms. One of the options is marketing of the manure to other agricultural operations which need crop nutrients. Other options include composting, alternative cropping systems to utilize more nutrients, and feeding changes to reduce total nutrient output in the manure. In order to promote redistribution of surplus manure nutrients, Penn State Cooperative Extension has developed a manure marketing program. This effort is focused in Lancaster County which is noted for intense poultry and livestock operations on small farms. To participate in the extension manure marketing program, farmers completed a survey form indicating whether they were potential suppliers or potential receivers. Almost three times as many farmers have signed up to receive manure as to supply it This does indicate a real marketing opportunity exists for those with excess manure nutrients. In a 1993 survey, farmers on the lists reported supplying or receiving 19,040 tons of manure annually. Three Lancaster County firms are currently marketing a total of 55,000 tons of poultry manure per year, most of it out of the county. Numerous other livestock producers are marketing their manure surplus directly without the assistance of outside commercial firms. Some is trucked as far as 350 miles and still sold at a profit Custom application of layer manure to buyers fields is a growing service that is increasing market opportunities. Approximately 5,000 tons of compost is produced on Lancaster County farms annually. Different levels of technology are being used to produce the compost The systems range from an in-vessel system in a building to using a manure spreader and front end loader outdoors. The technology choice is determined by cost, labor availability and end use of the product A significant portion of the total production is sold to fertilizer companies who market the product for the producers. Another strategy that can be used is changing livestock feed to reduce nutrient output in the manure. These strategies include improving feed formulation by refining amino acid content, reducing total protein in feed, and using feed additives to improve the efficiency of feed utilization. Phase feeding where feed formulations are adjusted based on the development stage of the livestock is another strategy which is used to reduce nutrient output. A final strategy involves changing the crop rotation to a system where the crops consume more total nutrients than the ones currently grown. For example, growing corn silage with a rye double crop instead of corn for grain will increase nitrogen utilization by 70 pounds per acre, phosphate utilization by 60 pounds per acre, and potash utilization by 105 pounds per acre. A six-ton crop of orchardgrass will consume 90 pounds more nitrogen per acre than a corn grain crop of 150 bushels. While orchardgrass will consume 20 pounds less of phosphorus than corn, potash consumption would increase by 205 pounds. Discussion: • There are significant quantities of manure sold out of state. Success is dependent on: (1) good advertizing; (2) understanding your product and competition; (3) supplying manure test information to customers; and (4) customer application systems. 80 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT— Continued ALTERNATIVES FOR IMPLEMENTATION ¦ Manure composting has problems remaining economically viable because of the high cost of the product, lack of uniformity, and lack of guidelines for rates useful for speciality crops. It is important to find niche markets for composted manure. • Three composting methods are indoor in-vessel system, which can be costly; windrow method, which can be in the middle of the cost range, and the static pile system utilizing aeration pipes. • Ten percent replacement of horticultural potting mixes would use 1.3 million tons of compost or 3.9 million tons of fresh manure. Research is needed to develop standards in order to penetrate bulk markets such as landscape contractors and highway departments. • To use layer manure as feed, layer manure requires a bulking agent and there is need to ensile before feeding. • To use boiler litter as feed, one needs to exclude the lower portion of the manure pack which can be contaminated with soil. References: Ressler, Leon 1994. Manure Marketing: A Tool for Nutrient Management on Poultry Farms. Proceedings, 1994 National Poultry Waste Management Symposium, pp. 149-151. J.P. Blake and P.H. Patterson, editors. Auburn University, AL 36849 81 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT— Continued ALTERNATIVES FOR IMPLEMENTATION Urban Nutrient Management: Getting the Homeowner Involved Presenter Marc Aveni, Area Extension Agent for Water Quality; Virginia Cooperative Extension, Prince William County, Va. Most natural-resource professionals are familiar with the concept of nutrient management in the agricultural arena. Similar to agricultural nutrient management, urban nutrient management attempts to reduce and minimize nutrients entering waterways. In contrast to agricultural areas, urban nutrient management must address a varied audience that includes: homeowners, grounds maintenance, and lawn care professionals, retailers, sod producers, golf courses, nurseries, as well as parks and public works departments. Probably the least amount of effort has been directed at the homeowner and what can be done to get him or her involved with nutrient management. Whenever one does nutrient management work with a homeowner audience, questions arise relative to what extent nutrients from homeowners and their lawns are a problem. In answering this question, consider that a suburban area like Fairfax County, Virginia, has over 840,000 residents and 68,000 acres in home lawns. Consider also that homeowner surveys conducted in Prince William County, Virginia, show approximately 80 percent of suburban residents applied fertilizer in the past year. These two factors alone indicate that the potential for nutrient loadings from suburban lawn and landscape situations is sufficient to warrant action of some type. In addition, meeting the year 2,000 nutrient goals of the Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategies will require expanded efforts with this increasing segment of our population. Practical strategies to bring the homeowner audience "on board" will require more than just handing out brochures and developing catchy slogans. A list of six simple ideas localities and organizations can use to get homeowners more involved in a voluntary nutrient-management program follows: * Market a good looking lawn without killing yourself * Avoid the "lawns are bad" approach * Get information out at the local level * Point out other incentives to nutrient management * Link nutrient management to topics such as IPM and recycling * Use nutrient-management efforts to comply with other requirements, such as NPDES Use of these ideas in Prince William County, Virginia has allowed citizens, business, homeowners associations, and local government to form community partnerships that promote voluntary nutrient management. The program has been so successful that a program guide entitled The Water-Wise Gardener was developed by Virginia Cooperative Extension and the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Program is currently being transferred to other Virginia localities through the local Cooperative Extension office. Discussion: • There is a lot of diversity in urban landscape practices and needs. It's important to tailor education to the needs of the audience. • The Center for Watershed Protection has good data on urban practices for protecting water quality. References: 'The Water-Wise Gardener Program and Handbook": Virginia Cooperative Extension and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service 82 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT— Continued ALTERNATIVES FOR IMPLEMENTATION Farmer-Friendly "Nutrient Management Planner" Software Piresenten Marty Campfield, Nutrient Solutions in Agriculture, Leola, PA With the recent reductions in personal computer (PC) prices and the subsequent increase in the number of farmers now using a PC in their homes and farming operations, a new window of opportunity is opening. The ability of modern computers to actually turn the mundane tasks of record keeping and financial analysis into easier and more enjoyable experiences is improving the farmer's willingness to keep records. Farmers can now share electronic data more readily with farm planners and information providers (through the modem, e-mail, etc) "Nutrient Management" is perceived by most farmers to simply involve the spreading of fertilizer and manure on the fields that need it most (based on crop rotations and soil-test data). Few realize the intricacies and variables involved in planning the details that maximize nutrient availability and minimize water pollution. Farm planners are challenged as to the best way to present the "Big Nutrient Picture" to farmers in a way that will motivate them to change and improve farming practices where needed. A software package now on the market allows farmers and farm planners to use the PC to complete a Nutrient Management Plan for their farm, while automatically inventorying their animal numbers, manure-production totals, and recording crop rotations, soil-test data, etc This program, designed by Marty Campfield of Nutrient Solutions in Agriculture runs in Windows, and is called "Nutrient Management Planner." It also incorporates learning tools that activate as the farmer is inputting data. For example, if the farmer clicks on the button indicating he will be side- dressing nitrogen, a note-box pops up explaining the efficiency factor involved in this practice, and how it will result in a reduction in fertilizer usel Data are entered into the program primarily by use of the mouse, with very little typing required. Pull down menus and radio buttons allow the user to quickly and easily move through the program, and when complete, print out a certificate, written plan, complete with data tables, charts, and text (completed through "auto-notation" programming). Information on this program can be obtained by contacting Mr. Campfield at 1-800- 322-0047. Discussion: • Firm has complete plans covering 10,000 acres, all paid with a charge of $3.95/acre. • Services include marketing planning programs to farmers, fertilizer dealers, and agricultural schools. • Cash-crop farms find program as worthwhile as livestock farms. • 25-50 percent of farmers in presenter's area are using computers. • Future web site: www.nutrient-solutions.com 83 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT— Continued ALTERNATIVES FOR IMPLEMENTATION Nutrient Management Program—A Computer Program for On-Farm Manure and Fertilizer Management Presenter Peter J. Bohn, Penn State Department of Agronomy (co-authored by Douglas B. Beegle, Penn State Department of Agronomy) The Nutrient Management Program (NMP) is a tool for the development of individualized manure and fertilizer nutrient plans for farms. The software organizes and calculates the manure/soil/crop information needed to help a farmer develop an environmentally sound nutrient-management plan. Specifically, the program allows the user to accomplish a variety of tasks: (1) to calculate the quantity of available nutrients in the manure collected on a farm for the planning period, (2) to prioritize fields for manure application based on the crop-nutrient requirements and soil-test levels, (3) to allocate manure based on matching available nutrients in manure and nutrient requirements of crops as adjusted for previous manure and starter fertilizer applications, (4) to allocate manure in amounts practical for the individual farmer by allowing application rate limits and rate increments to be entered, (5) to calculate the net nutrient amounts (requirements or excess) for each field after the recommended manure has been applied, (6) to compare nutrient buildup in each field relative to the phosphorus and potassium needs of the typical crop rotation on the farm and indicate fields which will have excessive soil levels of those nutrients, (7) to summarize net fertilizer nutrient needs for each field after manure application, and (8) to allow for the re-allocation of manure to fields which still have net nutrient needs. The program was developed by Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences in conjunction with the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Discussion: • Information needed for the FOXPRO database program to enter farm-level information and planning information include: spreader information fertilizers rotations, which reveals build-up and removal of N-P-K over time manure groups information animal and field information 84 ------- 41h National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: linking physical, chemical, and Thursday BIOLOGICAL DATA IN WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENTS: Senfpmher 19 1996 THE VALUE OF MULTIVARIATE TECHNIQUES ' 10:15 - 11:45 a.m. MODERATORS: Thomas Cuffncy, USGS; Rod Kime, PaDEP Provide an overview of the use of multivariate techniques as a tool for identifying factors that control water-qual- ity conditions using examples from the literature and the USGS's National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program. The identification of habitat and water-quality degradation through the application of multivariate analy- ses and biological indices will be linked to assessment and regulation of field activities using a case study. Multivariate Techniques to Link Physical, Chemical, and Biological Indicators of Water Quality Presenter Ian Waite, U.S. Geological Survey; Portland, OR (Abstract below was written by Thomas Cuffney, U.S. Geological Survey, Raleigh, N.C. - Tom could not attend due to hurricane damage to his home) M jltivariate analysis can play an important role in linking physical, chemical, and biological indicators of water quality. The objective in making this linkage is to elicit the underlying relations between the biological conditions and the driving physical and chemical factors so that managers can maintain or improve overall water quality by manipulating "key" driving factors. The amount of information generated by an integrated physical, chemical, and biological assessment can be truly overwhelming. For example, the data set generated by the USGS's National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program's Yakima River Pilot Study included 152 chemical constituents, 10 land-use parameters, 19 habitat variables, and over 300 taxa of fish, algae, and benthic invertebrates. Ordination techniques are a particularly useful tool for eliciting the relations within such a massive data set because they simplify and condense this mass of raw data while maintaining the relations among the species and between them and the environmental variables. There are many possible methods of ordination. The most commonly used methods are Principal Components Analysis (PCA) and Correspondence Analysis (CA). PCA is appropriate when dependent variables exhibit a linear monotonic response to the independent variables as is typical for physical and chemical variables. CA is appropriate when dependent variables exhibit a unimodal response to the independent variables which is typically the response displayed by biota, provided that a sufficiently large portion of the environmental gradient has been sampled. The primary product of these ordination techniques is an ordination diagram that locates species and sites in a two- or three-dimensional representation of the much larger space defined by the multiple species and environmental variables. Sites with similar communities and/or physical and chemical characteristics are located close together in the ordination diagram while dissimilar sites are located far apart The axes in the ordination plots represent theoretical environmental variables or underlying gradients. The linkages among physical, chemical, and biological indicators may be made either indirectly or directly. Common techniques for indirect analysis include comparing ordinations of the biological and the physical and chemical variables and/or correlating (Spearman's Rho) the physical and chemical variables with the ordination axes derived from the species data. The later method is particularly useful when the number of environmental variables exceeds the number of sampling sites. Direct linkage is done using constrained (canonical) ordination techniques (Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) in which the ordination axes are constrained to be linear combinations of supplied environmental variables. CCA can only be used when the number of environmental variables is less than (usually much less than) the number of sites. Data used for ordination analyses should be collected using objective and standardized methods. In general, it is recommended that outliers be deleted, distinct sample sets separated, rare species omitted, sample totals standardized, and abundance values be expressed logarithmically using an integer range of 0 to 9 prior to analysis. Data editing (for example, combining of taxa, weighting of taxa, deletion of outliers and rare taxa) determines what features of the data are emphasized and typically has a larger influence on the outcome of multivariate analysis than 85 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: UNKING PHYSICAL,, CHEMICAL, Continued AND BIOLOGICAL DATA IN WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENTS: THE VALUE OF MULTIVARIATE TECHNIQUES does the choice of multivariate procedure. Editing can include summarizations that parallel those used for the construction of a multimetric index and represents the portion of the analysis where the biologist can emphasize ecologically important aspects of the data set. Ordination techniques were very useful in linking physical, chemical, and biological data from the Yakima River NAWQA pilot study. Ordination diagrams of physical and chemical data (PCA) and fish, algae, and benthic invertebrate communities (CA) clearly showed the influence of land use and ecoregions and helped to identify reference sites (for example, least impacted) sites for use in subsequent multimetric analyses. Correlation of physical and chemical variables with the community ordinations showed that physical and chemical factors associated with agriculture, particularly nutrients, were the primary factors driving the distribution of algae and benthic invertebrates. Total nitrogen proved to be a more cost-effective indicator of the biological affects of agriculture than were the more expensive pesticide analyses. Discussion: • Plot of species versus total nitrogen (TN) indicated a bell-shaped curve for Yakima River data. The dependent variables, in this case, species, showed a unimodel response to TN. • Different species may have different curves for same continuum. Depending on how we sample, we may sample only a portion of the continuum/distribution. That is, it may look monotonic, when actually it's not. • Prior to multivariate analysis, there may be a need to transform data by standardizing to relative abundance or using Gaussian octaves. • Rare taxa can really drive results, because they are usually sensitive species. You can reduce influence of rare taxa by down-weighing them, or removing them. You could decide to remove all taxa from database that occur at less than 10 percent of sites. • Ordination techniques are used to reduce data complexity. Species data for each site are used to separate sites along an axis. The first ordination axis derived from the eigenvalue generated from the environmental variable matrix explains some of the variability in the data. The second axis explains less variability than axis one. Using both axes, variability in a number of environmental variables is reduced to two dimensions. • Ordination methods depend on weighted averaging. Relative relation of sites (clusters) on ordination are important • It's important to first plot your data to learn as much as possible about data prior to multivariate analysis. • Detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) is used on environmental data that has an "arch effect". This aberration in data is removed by DCA. • When doing a CCA plot of macroinvertebrate densities, assume unimodal distribution until you know otherwise. This is the appropriate technique if you have a large gradient. However, CCA may not be the best tool to use for management decisions because of the complexity. With CCA you can relate sites to the species and to the environmental variables all at once, for example, you can relate a lot in one diagram. • You can't have more environmental variables than you do sites. You could run the program, but it will bomb. One option is to look at environmental variables, and remove some using factor analysis. This allows you to determine which variables are most important 86 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: UNKING PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, Continued AND BIOLOGICAL DATA IN WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENTS: THE VALUE OF MULTIVARIATE TECHNIQUES • TWNSPAN, a software package used for ordination analysis, is a relatively good tool to show to managers - it tells you what species are important, and also the abundance level. It is a visual tool, and can be easily explained. Tree structure, that is available on the screen, must be created manually because the program does not have good graphics output. • Eigenvalues can help determine which variables that you used are most powerful, but, they will not tell you which variables you have missed. That is, there may be other physical or chemical parameters that are more important but were not used or measured. References: Multivariate Analysis and Community Ecology by Hugh Gough and Data Analysis in Communities and Landscape Ecology 87 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: LINKING PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL Continued AND BIOLOGICAL DATA IN WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENTS: THE VALUE OF MULTIVARIATE TECHNIQUES Linkage of Biological and Chemical Data to Develop Protocols for Field Evaluation of Streams Presenter: Rod Kime, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PaDEP) maintains a system of over 150 fixed surface-water quality network stations. The Department samples these stations monthly for chemistry and yearly in August or September for macroinvertebrates. Using multivariate techniques, we explored the relation between the macroinvertebrates and the water chemistry and habitat. The analysis looked at both individual taxa and at various macroinvertebrate indices related to the EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols. The results were used to develop protocols for field evaluations of unassessed waters and for more detailed evaluations when the field assessment finds an impaired macroinvertebrate community. Discussion: • PaDEP wants to standardize biological methods used to evaluate antidegradation, temporal trends, compliance, and identify impaired waters. • To evaluate stream quality, select a set of biological indices for evaluation, use available data to score the stream, and compare to a reference stream. Results will indicate whether the stream is impaired and to what extent If a reference stream is not available, "best professional judgement" must be used to evaluate the data. • Multivariate techniques are used to evaluate data beyond biological indices. Old forms of multivariate analysis include indirect gradient analysis such as PCA and multivariate regression. A new form of multivariate analysis is direct gradient analysis, such as CCA. • Data were presented for 86 water-quality sites from statewide network. At these sites, chemistry data were collected once per month; macroinvertebrate and habitat data once per year. • Plot of environmental variables, such as pH, and biological metrics did not show good relations because some metrics do not respond to environmental gradients. • Plot of environmental variables versus species did show that some species were only found in low pH waters. The example displayed were data collected from acid-mine drainage (AMD) surface-water sites. The ordination of the data indicated that the first eigenvalue was related to AMD effect on water quality. Thus, the first axis on the ordination plot was related to AMD, and the positioning of sites along this axis could be used to determine which sites are impaired and which could be used for "reference" sites. Thus, one can determine reference sites for a stream by quantitative methods instead of strictly basing a decision on "best professional judgment". 88 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop session 3: Ground-Water Sampling Procedures : j Thursday . Septeriiber 19, 1996 ;;/'/.¦ ¦' 10:15 - 11:45 a.m IELD DEMONSTRATION: Bruce Lindsoy, USGS /. r: ' I This session demonstrated procedures tor collecting a sample from a shallow monitoring well. The protocols developed for the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program were used to purge and sample the well for selected inorganic and organic constituents. Sampling a Monitoring Well for Inorganic and Organic Constituents Presenter Bruce Lindsey, U.S. Geological Survey, Lemoyne, PA This demonstration is of procedures developed for and used by the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program to characterize the quality of ground water in the United States. These procedures have been developed to ensure that data are collected in a consistent manner nationwide. Consistent procedures allow for regional and national synthesis of results for the NAWQA program. Protocols will be introduced and sampling conducted to illustrate the equipment and quality-control requirements. The demonstration will include four elements of the sampling protocol: • equipment cleaning and preparation • well purging • sample collection • sample processing and preservation The equipment cleaning protocols will be reviewed as the first element of the sampling procedures. The purging procedure, including water-level measurements, purging volume calculations, pump placement in the well, and recording of selected field water characteristics, will be shown. When purging is complete, sample collection begins. Unfiltered samples are collected, then filtered pesticide samples and filtered inorganic samples are collected. The demonstration will include examples of how samples are treated, processed, or chilled for nutrients and various other constituents. Quality-assurance measures associated with ground-water sampling will be explained. 89 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop fuj$ mm STEWARD, a knowledge-based software system for selecting agricultural nonpoint-source controls was intro- duced. Presenters then highlighted two monitoring projects: 1) a Wisconsin Otter Creek National Monitoring Pro- gram project in which various data and modeling results were used to identify critical sources of pollution caused by dairy operations, and 2) a New York City water-supply watershed study in which whole farm planning is being tested to solve agricultural pollution problems. CIS Based Critical Area Definition and Targeting with the AgNPS Model in Agricultural Watersheds Presenters: Michael A. Foster and Paul D. Robillard, Center for Al Applications in Water Quality Control Processes, Environmental Resources Research Institute, Pennsylvania State University Water-quality conservation can be costly and funding for watershed projects is typically limited. Technical expertise and cost-sharing dollars should therefore be targeted in a manner which optimizes water-quality benefits. A key concept in targeting is the application of the critical area concept. From a water-resource perspective, critical areas are pollutant-source areas in which the greatest improvement in the water resource can be obtained for the least investment in BMPs (control practices) (Maas and others, 1985). Hydrologic models are one potentially useful set of computer based tools to assist in targeting in agricultural watersheds. However, typical problems with the use of models for decision support are (1) overly intensive data needs, and (2) non-intuitive interfaces for data and modei-input preparation and model-output interpretation. Recent related efforts at Purdue University, Pennsylvania State University, North Carolina State University, and Iowa State University in linking the Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution (AGNPS) hydrologic model with geographic information systems (GIS) reduce some of these potential problems in model use for decision support The AGNPS model is a distributed parameter, single storm event-based model developed by U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) which estimates runoff, sedimentation, and nutrient yields in surface runoff within agricultural watersheds (Young and others, 1989). Outputs can be examined either at the watershed outlet or at the individual cell level to identify critical areas, and to site and evaluate the effectiveness of nonpoint-source (NPS) control systems. Because the AGNPS model operates at a cell level, it is ideal for linkage to a cell based (raster) GIS for intuitive assistance in model-input preparation and output display and interpretation. One such GIS-AGNPS linkage is with the GRASS GIS, originated by Srinivasan and Engel (1994) at Purdue and enhanced recently by Line and others, (1996) jointly at North Carolina State University and Pennsylvania State University. Another example is an AGNPS linkage with the ARC/INFO GIS by Tim and others (1995). At the Center for Al in Water Quality at Pennsylvania State, we are currently enhancing Laio and Tim's ARC/INFO version of this model-GIS linkage and incorporating it into the STEWARD decision-support systems for implementing control systems in agricultural watersheds. Our work is funded jointly by the EPA Office of Watersheds, Oceans, and Wetlands and by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. The STEWARD decision support system is described in more detail in our presentation on implementing control systems also at this conference. GIS-map data required for model input are the watershed boundary, stream network, elevation contours, land uses, agricultural management practices, and soils data The software system derives or generates 22 standard AGNPS input parameters for each cell in the watershed and creates a single file of parameters for AGNPS model input Pennsylvania State University enhancements to the Iowa State interface focus on critical threshold definition, map display and interpretation. Model output consists of a single file of runoff, sedimentation and nutrient yields within each cell, from which the GIS (ARCVIEW) interface generates corresponding map coverages for display to the user. The user specifies critical thresholds for each type of output (sediment and nutrients) and maps will display either (1) 90 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: USING DATA TO DEVELOP AND Continued TARGET IMPLEMENTATION OF WATERSHED PROJECTS all cells above the threshold in red, or (2) quintiles of threshold in five different colors (0- 49 percent) of threshold, 50-99 percent, 100-149 percent, 150-199 percent, >=200 percent). We are currently devising scientific definitions for thresholds so that the system can suggest a reasonable range of thresholds to the user for each type of pollutant under different scenarios. Once incorporated into the STEWARD decision support system, the Critical Area Definition module is ideally used first to delimit problem areas in the watershed, followed by expert system analysis in the problem areas for site-specific recommendation of control systems. The Critical Areas module will be evaluated at select Pennsylvania and Illinois watersheds beginning in late 1996/early 1997. Discussion: • The GIS-AGNPS linkage is currently working on an annual basis. It has been well documented for P and COD associated with sediment. • The GRASS AGNPS interface enables map based entry for pesticides, nutrients, fertilizers, and channel data, it allows the user to: utilize any cell size adapts output to ARC/INFO treat areas such as feedlots as point sources within the model identify "hot spots" for pollutants and loadings in model output ¦¦ You need scientific basis for the critical thresholds for taking action. " An example of critical area definition using these tools is on the world wide web. A test case example of the Long Creek Watershed NMP project area is available. Sometimes it works well and sometimes not. 91 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: USING DATA TO DEVELOP AND TARGET IMPLEMENTATION OF WATERSHED PROJECTS Continued Identification of Critical Barnyards in Wisconsin ^ NMP ^ Presenter Roger Bannerman, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Barnyards are an important source of nutrients, bacteria, and organic loading degrading the quality of Wisconsin streams, lakes, and ground water. Runoff from barnyards has seriously lowered dissolved oxygen levels in streams, contributed to the excessive plant growth in lakes, and made water from some wells unfit to drink. Control of the barnyard runoff is essential to Wisconsin's Nonpoint-Source Water Pollution Abatement Program goal of improving and protecting the water quality of streams, lakes, wetlands, and ground water by reducing pollutants from rural nonpoint sources. A typical large Nonpoint Source watershed project will have over 150 barnyards. Providing state cost share dollars to all these barnyard would not only be prohibitively expensive, but controlling all the barnyards would include some barnyards whose runoff has little chance of impairing the quality of the receiving waters. To make the implementation of the Nonpoint Source Program as cost effective as possible, Wisconsin has developed a procedure for identifying which barnyards are the most significant sources of pollutants. This procedure includes selecting the most cost effective barnyard BMPs to use. This procedure has three major parts. One part is an appraisal of the receiving waters to see not only if the barnyards are a factor in the condition of these waters, but also to recommend a level of control needed to achieve the water- resource objectives. This level of control is described as high, medium or low. A second part is to develop total P and COD loads for each barnyard using the Wisconsin Barnyard Runoff Model (BARNY). Model results are used to rank the barnyards and determine the level of pollutant control achieved with different barnyard BMPs. The third part is the development of a rural management strategy that will describe the criteria for controlling barnyard runoff. Without the results from parts one and two the criteria for part three could not be developed. Between 50 and 75 percent reduction in total P and COD loadings is considered a high pollution reduction goal for barnyards. To complete part three this type of reduction goal is compared to the pollution reduction achieved with BMPs installed at all the barnyards whose controls would accomplish the greatest reduction of pollutants to the receiving waters. Cutoffs are selected to divide the barnyards into three categories based on annual pollutant loadings and the level of pollutant reduction needed. Critical barnyards have the highest potential to have a significant benefit to the receiving waters. The next category is eligible barnyards whose combined loading is important to achieve the reduction goal but individually they are not as important as the critical barnyards. These barnyards are usually targeted for less expensive BMPs. A third category includes all those barnyards with loadings too low to be considered eligible for cost share dollars. Water-quality data of runoff collected above and below a barnyard as part of Wisconsin's 319 monitoring project supports the procedure used to select critical barnyards. The barnyard selected for monitoring was identified as critical with the second highest level of total P loading for the six barnyards in the Otter Creek watershed. Before the BMPs were installed the annual total P loading from the barnyard was about 50 percent of all the loading from the 10 square miles of watershed above the barnyard. In the spring this value dropped to about 30 percent and increased to about 75 percent in the summer months. Although these numbers are probably high because some of the BMPs were already installed up-stream and it was a relatively dry 12-month period, the results support the importance of controlling this barnyard. Total-P loadings (13 pounds) estimated by BARNY for the 10 yr/24 hour storm at this barnyard was in the range of those measured for individual storms at the barnyard (5 to 31 pounds). 92 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: USING DATA TO DEVELOP AND Continued TARGET IMPLEMENTATION OF WATERSHED PROJECTS Discussion: • In Wisconsin, the basic components of a nonpoint-source inventory conducted by county-land conservation districts over 18-month process were: quantifying and analyzing NPS loading setting reduction goals identifying critical sources identifying management strategy • Inventories were very expensive, often costing over $150,000. • To develop a watershed plan: (1) critical sites need to be chosen by conducting a nonpoint -source inventory; (2) sources of pollutants such as upland erosion, gullies, streambanks, manure spreading, or barnyards, need to be identified; and (3) biological inventory of habitat, macroinvertebrate, and DO concentrations in streams and lakes need to be conducted. • The biology will say whether reduction should be high, moderate, or low - a qualitative judgement for streams. Lakes are qualified using the trophic status model. • Example analysis: One lake has a problem with sediment and COD which is coming primarily from uplands and barnyards. A decision was made to control sediment and COD by 50 percent (high pollution reduction). Analysis showed that 3 barnyards were critical and 37 were eligible. Analysis also showed that 7 fields in the upland area were critical and 959 were eligible. • Wisconsin Barnyard Runoff Model (BARNY): is simple to use and data collection is easy is done on an annual basis has a 10-year simulator which gets closer to comparing models, files all the barnyard information (with one source) has a worksheet on the screen • BARNY model did a good job of predicting total-P storm loading for one barnyard site in the NMP Otter Creek Watershed. • Access to farmers is based on long-term relationships with a county agent There is no regulation that requires access. • All barnyard practices have now been installed in the Otter Creek Watershed. The approach seemed to get the job done. Based on monitoring, BARNY seemed credible to the other 319 site results. 93 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: USING DATA TO DEVELOP AND Continued TARGET IMPLEMENTATION OF WATERSHED PROJECTS Water-Quality Monitoring to Quantify Effectiveness of an Agricultural Management Program in New York City Watersheds Presenter: Patricia Longabucco, Environmental Program Specialist, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (co-investigated by Michael Rafferty, Environmental Engineer, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation) An intensive water-quality monitoring study is being conducted in Delaware County, New York to help determine the effects of an agricultural BMP planning and implementation program on improving and protecting New York City's drinking-water supplies. New York City operates a water-supply system of 19 reservoirs that collectively drain a total watershed area of 1,950 square miles covering nine different counties in New York State. The City has opted to institute a funded program of nonpoint-source management measures and more stringent point-source controls in its watersheds as an alternative to constructing and operating a filtration system as called for in the federal Safe Drinking Water Act Whole Farm Planning (WFP) was adopted under the Watershed Agricultural Program as the primary means of protecting the City's water supplies from the nonpoint-source impacts of farming as well as maintaining a viable agricultural community in the watershed. Whole Farm Planning is conducted by teams of county and state agricultural specialists. They diagnose potential sources of pollutants by conducting a systematic audit of each farm's physical and operating conditions. From this audit, water-quality priorities are established and solutions to deal with the problems are developed. Teams then work with the farmers to review technical and financial options for improving both the environmental and economic health of the farm. After approval of the plan by the farmer, NRCS, and the Watershed Agricultural Council, the plan is implemented with funds provided by New York City. The major purpose of the monitoring study is to test the ability of the WFP process to correctly identify significant sources of on-farm pollution and then recommend and implement cost effective management practices that will substantially reduce pollutant losses from those sources. The study utilizes a paired watershed design consisting of one dairy farm and one non-agricultural control site close to one another and of similar size, shape, elevation, and soils. The agricultural watershed is 160 ha and consists almost entirely of the farm itself. It is the headwaters of a small tributary that arises on the farm. Land use in the watershed is approximately two-thirds forested, the remaining acreage consists of rotated cropland, permanent bayland and pasture, and the farmstead area. The control site is also a headwater watershed, drains 90 (hectares (ha), and is composed of forest land, abandoned field returning to forest, and shrub land. There is one permanent residence and several weekend residences in the watershed. The paired watershed design will produce data that can be compared regardless of the annual variations in weather and stream flow that will occur over the life of the study due to differences in precipitation intensity, runoff volumes, timing of snowmelt and spring thaw, and other factors. In order to distinguish these variations from those changes attributable to installation of BMPs, loading rates will be compared after taking into account amount and intensity of precipitation, runoff volume, and watershed area. In this way, the effects of BMPs on pollutant loads can be estimated, after first determining what portion of the difference is the result of climatological and site variations. Both sites have been monitored for 2 years prior to any management practice installation on the farm in order to establish an accurate relation between the hydrologic responses of the agricultural watershed and the control watershed. The farm is now being treated with all practices recommended in its Whole Farm Plan. These include a 9- month capacity manure storage, a rotational grazing system, bamyard-water management, manure spreading schedules, farm road improvement, milkhouse waste diversion to the manure storage, tile drainage, and upland diversion installations. Monitoring will begin again in the fall and continue for a minimum of three years. Water quality before and after implementation will be compared to determine to what degree Whole Farm Planning and 94 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: USING DATA TO DEVELOP AND Continued TARGET IMPLEMENTATION OF WATERSHED PROJECTS implementation of practices improved agricultural runoff from the monitored farm. Detailed records of farm activities, such as location and amount of manure spreading, fertilizer used, and so on, are being kept in order to relate changes in water quality to changes in farm practices. Stream discharge and precipitation are measured continuously at the sites. A total of 1,423 water samples were collected during the 2 years of pre-implementation monitoring; 1,068 represented runoff-event periods. Samples were analyzed for three forms of phosphorus, three forms of nitrogen, organic carbon and suspended sediment Runoff volumes, and nutrient and sediment loads were calculated for both sites and compared. Unit-runoff volumes at the study sites were comparable. However, unit loading rates of nutrients and sediment were much greater at the farm than at the control site, as much as 40 times for some parameters. Comparison of event mean concentrations showed elevated concentrations for all measured parameters at the farm site. The two years of pre-implementation monitoring show considerable differences in nonpoint-source pollutant loadings between the control and farm sites. These findings were expected. The intent of the study design was to elucidate how close to background water quality farm runoff could come after treatment with recommended BMPs. Due to the intensity of the sampling, we are confident that if significant changes do occur, they will be observable in the data. Discussion: • The primary focus of the New York Watershed project is on pathogens, but sediment, nutrient, and toxins are also being monitored. Whole farm planning is utilized and the program is being tested. • The project consists of a paired design - whole farm (treatment) vs forested watershed (reference). Samples were collected weekly for base-flow monitoring and all events were sampled. Event sample frequency was based on precipitation and change in stage height. Chemical analysis is standard inorganic constituents. In addition, samples are collected every two weeks and analyzed for the pathogens Cryptosporidium and giardia. • The sites are hydrologically similar based on a good relation between streamflow discharge at the two watersheds. There is large pollution loading from a dairy farm in the agricultural watershed as opposed to the reference site. For the farm watershed, which was more than half forested, it was estimated that about 94 percent of the total-phosphorus load was derived from land devoted to agricultural activities. Sixty percent of the annual sediment load from the farm watershed was delivered in just 7 of the biggest event days. • Limited biological monitoring was also performed. Biological monitoring should show a change in benthic macroinvertebrates from the treatment site relative to the reference site after BMPs are implemented in the treatment basin. Few desirable benthic macroinvertebrates were found at the farm site. It was only rated "fair" for species richness. It is hoped that monitoring after BMPs were implemented on the farm will show a change in benthic macroinvertebrates from the treatment site relative to the reference site. • DEC brought macroinvertabrate folk in to see if they reached that same conclusions as reached with chemical monitoring in a less intensive manner. The macroinvertabrate-data conclusion paralleled the chemistry-data conclusions. • The total cost of monitoring is about $500,000 plus for 5 years. Stations cost $50,000 each to install. Analytical costs are $60,000 per year. 95 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: USING DATA TO DEVELOP AND Continued TARGET IMPLEMENTATION OF WATERSHED PROJECTS • Incentives for farmers to adopt management practices include: local governments draft rules and regulations following a long negotiation process, management practices are funded by NYC, including maintenance • NYS DEC is looking for a surrogate (particularly count, monitor herds and wildlife) for Cryptosporidium. NYC has never found Cryptosporidium at the intake. • The farmers had no problem with monitoring. Not everything went according to plan, but they were generally pleased. References: Project materials on Whole Farm Planning and the NYC Watershed Agricultural Program are available through: The Watershed Agricultural Council RR #1, Box 74 NYS Route 10 Walton, NY 13856 (607) 865-7790 Reports on the first two years of the monitoring project will be available by written request in Fall 1997 from: Patricia Longabucco NYSDEC - Rm. 398 50 Wolf Road Albany, NY 12333-3508 96 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: RESIDENCE TIMES OF GROUND- WATER SEEPAGE Thursday TO STREAMS September 19, 1996 1:00 - 2:30 p.m. MODERATOR: Niel Plummer, USCS, Reston, Va. Methods of estimating the residence times (lag times) of ground-water discharge to streams using reservoir mod- els, flow models and direct observations were reviewed in terms of conceptual approach, data requirements, field applications, and limitations. Dated chemical signatures in ground water can be used as inputs to reservoir models and to ground-water flow models to predict chemical responses in streams. Residence Times of Ground-Water Seepage to Streams: Applications of Reservoir Models. Flow Models, and Ground-Water Age Dating Presenter: Niel Plummer, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va. Dating of ground water can provide insight into important questions related to NPS monitoring. For example, how long would it take for a BMP to affect the quality of ground water and its receiving stream? Methods of estimating the residence times (lag times) of ground-water discharge to streams using reservoir models, flow models and direct observations are reviewed in terms of conceptual approach, data requirements, field applications, and limitations. In each case, ground-water age dating plays an integral role in reconstruction of the history of inputs of agricultural chemicals to ground water, and refinement of ground-water flow models. Dated chemical signatures in ground water can be used as inputs to reservoir models and ground-water flow models to predict chemical responses in streams. Ground-water age refers to the time elapsed since the ground water was recharged. Ground-water age dating on the 0-50 year time scale, such as through CFC or tritium/helium-3 dating, provides information that can be used in predicting ground-water discharge of nitrate and other contaminants to streams. Dated ground-water profiles can be used to reconstruct historical inputs of nitrate and other solutes to ground water. These reconstructions define transient inputs to ground water that are needed to predict solute concentrations in streams originating as ground- water discharge Ground-water flow models and reservoir (box) models can be used to predict flux of nitrate and other solutes to streams. In ground-water flow modeling, the ground-water ages are included as a part of the calibration procedure. The historical input function is then used as transient input to the model. In reservoir models, the reconstructed input of nitrate (or other transient tracers) is used with historical data on the tracer concentrations in the stream to determine the average ground-water residence time. The reservoir model can then be used to predict future stream concentrations. Reservoir models integrate total discharge of solute to the stream from all upstream locations above the stream sampling point In cross section, ground-water discharge to streams represents a collection of flow lines. Older water is discharged to the middle portions of streams and younger water discharges towards the stream banks. The average age of ground- water discharging over a cross section of a stream is the average age of the ground water in the part of the flow system that actually discharges to the stream. In idealized shallow, unconfined ground water, the average ground- water age occurs at the depth above the bottom of the aquifer, H/e, where H is the total thickness of the aquifer (Vogel model). The Vogel model is probably too simple for our purposes, but provides useful initial guesses of ground- water age relations. The average age of ground water and the concentration of nitrate discharging to a stream in cross section can be determined, in principle, from detailed measurements along stream cross sections of ground-water discharge, ground-water age and nitrate concentration. Such detailed sampling and dating in stream cross section (such as with mini-piezometers) can provide input to reservoir models to predict release of nitrate and other solutes to streams. Seasonal measurements of ground-water discharge to streams can provide information on the variation of average age of ground-water discharge as a function of recharge rate and streamflow. Consideration needs to be given to variations in age and solute concentration of discharge to streams as a function of distance downstream. Higher 97 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: RESIDENCE TIMES OF Continued GROUND-WATER SEEPAGE TO STREAMS concentrations of anthropogenic ground-water contaminants will discharge to stream headwaters where greater proportions of young water discharge to streams. Nutrients and other contaminants from ground water will tend to be diluted downstream by discharge of older water. Several examples are given of uses of reservoir models with tritium, nitrate, magnesium and carbon-14 to determine average age of ground-water discharge to streams. Tritium and C-14 data indicate a 25-year residence time for ground water discharge to the Withlacoochee River in southern Georgia. Bohlke and Denver (1995) used CFC dating to reconstruct nitrate and magnesium input to ground water in a small watershed on the Delmarva Peninsula. Application of a reservoir model suggests a 20-year residence time of ground water in the watershed. The model indicates nitrate concentrations in Chesterville Branch, which discharges to Chesapeake Bay, will continue to increase. Michel (1992) used long-term river tritium records to determine the average age of ground water discharge to the Potomac River (20 years) and Susquehanna River (10 years). Nitrate and ground-water ages are presented for ground-water discharge to a cross section in a shallow tributary to the Cohansey River in southern New Jersey, showing seasonal behavior. Discussion: • Several approaches can be taken to estimate ground-water residence time with the use of ground-water age- dating techniques. • The exponential model of Vogel (Vogel, J.C., 1967, 1970) shows age relations of water with depth in a homogeneous unconfined aquifer of constant thickness with uniform recharge and steady-state flow. • Vogel's equation is /.x a , H t(h) = W W where h is a point in the aquifer (height above base of aquifer) t is equal to the travel time of water from surface to point h a is equal to porosity H is equal to aquifer thickness, and w is equal to the recharge rate. • From the Vogel model we see that (1) ground-water velocity increases down gradient; and (2) ground-water age increases logarithmically with depth. • If we know the age of ground water at some point in the aquifer t(h) (through dating with CFCs, for example), we can solve for recharge (w) using Vogel's equation. By solving for recharge rate (w), we can solve for the average residence time in the aquifer: residence (t) = ^ W where residence (t) is equal to the average age of water discharging to the stream. 98 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: RESIDENCE TIMES OF GROUND-WATER SEEPAGE TO STREAMS Continued • One way to use the model is to sample nitrate or some other soluble contaminant at each depth that an age date was determined, and then reconstruct the nitrate (or other contaminant) input function to the aquifer by using concentration and age data. If the contaminant input function can be made, a box model (reservoir-mixing model) can be constructed to explain age of discharge to streams using average ground-water age and contaminant input • Problems with using this approach are: (1) few systems are ideal; (2) recharge is seasonal (not uniform); and (3) aquifers are usually heterogeneous/anisotropic • An example of this approach can be found in Solomon and others, (1995). They used 3H/3He dating to estimate ground-water age with depth. This dating method works well in contaminated waters. They used Vogel's equation to estimate recharge and they also dated the position of the contaminant plume over time. • A second approach is the use of exponential models, also called mixing models, box models or reservoir models. Use of these models for ground-water problems is discussed by Zuber (1986), and the general form of a mixing where c is equal to the contaminant concentration in the reservoir and t(ave) is equal to the average residence time of water in the aquifer. Michel (1992) used this approach with historical tritium data to estimate the average residence time of ground water discharging to the Potomac River (20 years) and Susquehanna River (10 years). • A third approach is conducting detailed measurements of ground-water discharges and ages contributing to the stream. The approach involves: (1) sampling ground water beneath the streambed using minipiezometers to collect samples for dating water; (2) computing ground-water flux to stream using Darcy's law; (3) integrating flux and age dates to compute average residence time in aquifer; and (4) repetition on a seasonal basis. This approach is being used by Ed Modica at the USGS office in West Trenton, NJ. • For any of the approaches discussed: (1) multiple ground-water dating techniques are recommended; (2) be . aware of potential for denitrification; and (3) check results with a ground-water flow model. Bohlke, J.K. and Denver, J.M., 1995, Combined use of groundwater dating, chemical, and isotopic analyses to resolve the history and fate of nitrate contamination in two agricultural watersheds, Atlantic coastal plain, Maryland. Water Resour. Res., v. 31, p. 2319-2339. Busenberg, E., and Plummer, L Niel, 1992, Use of chlorofluorocarbons (CCI3Fand CCI2F2) as hydrologic tracers and age-dating tools: Example - The alluvium and terrace system of central Oklahoma. Water Resources Research, v. 28, p. 2257-2283. Campana, M.E., and Mahin, D.A., 1985, Model-derived estimates of groundwater mean ages, recharge rates, effective porosities and storage in a limestone aquifer. Jour. Hydrol., v. 76, p. 247-264. Dunkle, S.A., Plummer, LN., Busenberg, E., Phillips, P.J., Denver, J.M., Hamilton, P.A., Michel, R.L, and Coplen, T.B., 1993, Chlorofluorocarbons (CCI*3*F and CCI*2*F*2*) as dating tools and hydrologic tracers in shallow ground water of the Delmarva Peninsula, Atlantic Coastal Plain, United States: Water Resources Research, v. 29, no. 12, p. 3837- 3860. model is c(out)) t(ave) References: 99 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: RESIDENCE TIMES OF Continued GROUND-WATER SEEPAGE TO STREAMS Ekwurzel, B., Schlosser, P., Smethie, Jr., Plummer, LN., Busenberg, E, Michel, R.L, Weppernig, R., and, Stute, M., 1994, Dating of shallow groundwater Comparison of the transient tracers 3H/3He, chlorofluorocarbons and 85Kr. Water Resources Research, v. 30, No. 6, p. 1693-1708. Haitjema, H.M., 1995, On the residence time distribution in idealized groundwatersheds. Jour. Hydrol., v. 172, p. 127- 146. Maloszenwski, P., and Zuber, A., 1982, Determining the turnover time of groundwater systems with the aid of environmental tracers. 1. Models and their applicability. Jour. Hydrol., v. 57, p. 207-231. Michel, R.L, 1992, Residence times in river basins as determined by analysis of long-term tritium records. Jour. Hydrol., v. 130, p. 367-378. Plummer, LN., Michel, R.L, Thurman, E.M., and Glynn, P.D., 1993, Environmental Tracers for age-dating young ground water, in Alley, W.M., ed., Regional Ground-water Quality, Chap. 9, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, p. 255-294. Reilly, T.E., Plummer, LN., Phillips, P.J., and Busenberg, E. 1994, Estimation and corroboration of shallow ground-water flow paths and travel times by environmental tracer and hydraulic analyses - A case study near Locust Grove, Maryland. Water Resources Research, v. 30, No. 2, p. 421-433. Rose, S.; 1993, Environmental tritium systematics of baseflow in Piedmont Province watersheds, Georgia (USA). Jour. Hydrol., v. 143, p. 191-216. Solomon, D.K., Poreda, R.J., Cook, P.G., and Hunt, A., 1995, Site Characterization using 3H/3He ground-water ages, Cape Cod, MA. Ground Water, v. 33 no. 6, p. 988-996. Szabo, Z., Rice, D.E, Plummer, LN., Busenberg, E., Drenkard, S., and Schlosser, P., 1994, Age-dating of ground water using chlorofluorocarbons (CCI*3*F, CCI*2*F*2*, and C*2*CI*3*F*3*), tritium/*3*He, and flow-path analysis in an unconfined aquifer of the New Jersey Coastal Plain. (Water Resour. Res., submitted). Vogel, J.C., 1967, Investigation of groundwater flow with radiocarbon. In Isotopes in Hydrology, Proceedings, IAEA, Vienna, 1967, p. 355-369. —1970, Carbon-14 dating of groundwater. In Isotope Hydrology 1970, Proceedings, IAEA, Vienna, 1970, p. 225-239. Winter, T.C., LaBaugh, J.W., and Rosenberry, D.O., 1988, The design and use of a hydraulic potentiometer for direct measurement of differences in hydraulic head between groundwater and surface water. Limnol. Oceanogr., v. 33, p. 1209-1214. 100 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop Thursday September 19, 1996 1:00 - 2:30 p.m. SESSION 3: TRACKING BMPS AND LAND-USE CHANGES USING GIS ODERATOR: John Kosco, EPA, Headquarters This session covered the tracking of BMPs and land-use changes using GIS. Presentations and discussions focused on specific examples from NMP projects. The Long Creek Watershed Project uses GIS for watershed characterization, BMP targeting, water-quality modeling and BMP tracking. This presentation will provide an overview of how project personnell use GIS and GPS technology to track land-use changes and BMP implementation at the Kiser Dairy. The Kiser Dairy is one of several study areas within the Long Creek Watershed that is part of the EPA 319 National Monitoring Program. Pre-BMP Kiser Dairy land use was digitized into Atlas GIS and Arc Info from 1:24,000 orthoquads. These orthoquads were provided by the Gaston County planning department and contained 1985 land use and topography (five foot' contour interval). Land use was verified through field visits by project personnel. Land-use changes including BMPs are updated in the GIS by field surveys and GPS technology. A Trimble Geotracker is used to locate new sampling points, fence lines, watering systems, buildings, heavy use areas, etc Data from the GPS are differentially corrected and imported into Arclnfo and ArcView. This procedure will be explained in detail during the presentation. In addition to land-use tracking, the Kiser Dairy watershed was used as a case study to integrate GRASS and the AGNPS water-quality model. Examples of this work will be provided in the presentation. • When using GPS technology, there is selective availability of the satellites used to determine latitude, longitude, and altitude. The satellites make one revolution around earth every 12 hours. • The largest error associated with GPS technology involves anti-spoofing safeguards. This error can be converted by differential correction. Differential correction requires two receivers (one stationary and one moving). ¦ When using GPS technology, it is best to use four satellites and triangulate to pinpoint location. • If topography is steep, it may be difficult to receive signals from the satellites. • Data collected using GPS technology is needed when no areal or surface survey is available. • The cost of a GPS system that interfaces with a personal computer is $10,000 - $12,000. The Long Creek Watershed Project Presenter William A. Harman, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State University Discussion: 101 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 3: TRACKING BMPS AND Continued LAND-USE CHANGES USING GIS Tracking BMPs and Land Use Changes Using CIS Presenters: Cynthia Greene; EPA, Region III Fred Suffian, NRCS liaison to EPA, Region III Background: The Pequea and Mill Creeks watershed, located in southeastern Pennsylvania, contains 135,000 acres of predominantly agricultural land. Sixty-three percent of the land is devoted to cropland and thirteen percent to pasture. The watersheds are home to approximately 55,000 dairy cattle, 5,500,000 poultry, and 122,000 swine. One million tons of manure are produced annually in the watershed, and livestock populations and associated nutrients generated by these animals continues to increase. The watersheds are recognized as priorities by State, Federal, and local agencies. According to Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PaDEP), 58.5 stream miles within the watershed have been degraded by agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution. The primary pollutants are nutrients and suspended solids. Nitrate-nitrogen was detected above 10 mg/L in 43 percent of the water samples in the Pequea Creek. High nitrate concentrations of 21 mg/L have been documented in base flow of streams in small intensively farmed subwatersheds. A random sampling of 183 wells in the watershed in May 1991 revealed 50 percent of the wells had nitrate-nitrogen concentrations greater than 10 mg/L, and 50 percent of the wells had triazine pesticide detections. Twenty-two different pesticides have been detected in ground and surface waters in the watershed. Watershed Initiative Overall goal: Implement comprehensive surface- and ground-water restoration and protection activities to support multiple EPA and State programs including Nonpoint Source, Pesticide and Ground Water State Management Plans, Wellhead Protection, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Allocations, Safe Drinking Water Act Monitoring Waivers, USDA Hydrologic Unit Project The Pequea and Mill Creeks watershed initiative is a cooperative State, local and federal effort to use CIS to integrate soils, geology, hydrology, land-cover, land-use and water-quality monitoring data to target areas for BMP implementation. Criteria used to rank the vulnerability of ground water to nitrate and pesticide contamination include: carbonate versus noncarbonate geology, thickness of the unsaturated zone, depth to bedrock, soil leaching loss rating (based on GLEAMS), pesticide application rates, and animal manure nutrient factors. Criteria used to rank subbasins according to the susceptibility of surface water to nutrient and pesticide contamination include: stream density, stream-bank erosion, row-crop intensity, soil erodibility, soil-pesticide loss potential (based on GLEAMS) and animal manure nutrient factors. Formulas were developed to weight and rate the criteria and derive final rankings for ground-water vulnerability classes and subbasins. The final ranked areas were compared with water-quality monitoring data collected over the past six years. Based on a combination of the ranking technique and water-quality data, recommendations will be made to local decision makers regarding targeting of BMPs within the watershed. A comparison will be made of the type and location of existing BMPs with those areas ranked as priorities by the GIS analyses. 102 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 3: TRACKING BMPS AND Continued LAND-USE CHANGES USING GIS Discussion: Fred Suffian, NRCS liaison to EPA, Region III • In the Pequea-Mill Creek Basin, basin characterization and BMP targeting has been conducted using CIS technology since 1990. • Some existing data layers used include geology (depth to bedrock), land use, people population, nutrient and pesticide use, and number of farm animals. These data were collected by numerous local, state, and federal agencies. • Subbasins within the Pequea-Mill Creek Basin were ranked according to the following equations: H/n SD ^ RCI ^ HEL . WD = — + —— + —— , where MAX MAX H EL max where WD = watershed delivery factor SD = stream density SDmax = maximum stream density RCI = row crop intensity RCImax - maximum row crop intensity HEL = highly erodible soil index HELMAx = maximum highly erodible soil index and MAX J MAX' MAX' where Rf - rating factor WDmax - maximum watershed delivery factor AN = animal nutrient factor = sum of (animals unity x nutrient factor) AN max = maximum animal nutrient factor SLP - soil pesticide loss potential = sum of area in crop, hay, and pasture land SLPmax = maximum soil pesticide loss potential These rankings of subbasins were used to determine priority areas. The formulas are currently being adjusted with new weightings that reflect the relative importance of each factor in influencing water quality. 103 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 3: TRACKING BMPS AND Continued LAND-USE CHANGES USING GIS Discussion: Cynthia Greene, EPA, Region HI • In 1991 approximately 185 wells (66 percent in carbonate rock) were sampled for pesticide and nitrate in the Pequea-Mill Creek Basin. One objective of the sampling was to determine the relation of ground-water vulnerability to unsaturated zone thickness in carbonate terrain. • .Aquifer sensitivity classes (ASC) were based on carbonate versus non carbonate geology, depth to bedrock, and depth of ground water below land surface. The following chart shows the relation: Aquifer Sensitivity Classes - Definitions Aquifer Sensitivity Class Carbonate Geology? Depth to Bedrock and Depth to Ground Water Depth to Bedrock <20 ft. and Depth to GW >20 ft. Depth to Bedrock >20 ft and Depth to GW <20 ft. 1 HIGH Y <20 2 MODERATE Y >20 X X 3 LOW N <20 X X 4 VERY LOW N >20 The distribution by aquifer sensitivity class of land, land use and the wells sampled in 1991: ASC percent of land percent within each percent of wells high moderate low very low 24 percent 41 percent 24 percent 11 percent percent within each ASC that is AG land 81 percent 78 percent 43 percent 43 percent 24 percent 42 percent 19 percent 15 percent Pesticide sampling of ground water was also conducted in 1995. These data showed that detection of triazine pesticides increased from 70 percent in 1991 to 76 percent in 1995 in wells sampled. Pesticides most commonly detected in the 185 wells sampled in 1995 were atrazine, alachlor, cyanazine, and metoachlor. Pesticides which showed an increase in percent detection from pre to post application were: atrazine, metolachlor, and chlorpyrifos. These three pesticides were also used in the highest quantity in the watershed. The greatest percent increase was for atrazine which increased from 60 percent detects during the pre- application period to 78 percent detects following application. 104 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 3: TRACKING BMPS AND Continued L\ND- USE CHANGES USING GIS • Triazine detection and high concentrations of nitrates in wells was related to ASC (as class went from low to high triazine detections and nitrate concentrations increased) and was positively correlated with corn production. " The distribution of triazine detections and nitrates above 10 mg/L was similar among ASCs for the 1991 sampling event, even though nitrate loading estimates showed only a 40 percent decline from high to low ASC compared to an 85 percent decline in estimated triazine herbicide loadings from high to low vulnerability ASC. A preliminary indication from this analysis is that, although nitrates are detected in the noncarbonate areas, geology appears to be playing a significant role in reducing the frequency of nitrate concentrations above 10 mg/L in noncarbonate areas (ASCs 2 and 4). Regarding triazines, it was more difficult to distinguish the influence of corn production (for example, triazine loading) versus geology on triazine detects in ASCs 1 through 3, although in Class 4 (lowest vulnerability) the correlation between geology and water quality was the strongest. The relation between land use, geology and water quality will be further evaluated through a factor analysis. ¦¦ Activities that will continue in the Pequea-Mill Creek Basin in the future include: relating surface-water monitoring to ASC (ground-water ranking) and subbasin ranking biological monitoring ground-water monitoring - evaluation of pesticide persistence, spatial variability, and quality control education through the farm-a-syst program; educating people about potential health concerns and potential positive impacts of BMPs on water quality unit loading estimates, factor analysis, and dye tracing, development of a TMDL volunteer monitoring References: Pesticide Use Practices in the Pequea-Mill Creek Watersheds, Lancaster, Co., PA, November 1994, Bingaman, Heist and Greene. GIS Data Sets of Hydrogeologic Conditions in Pequea and Mill Creek Watersheds, PA: Part I Basic Data and Part II Hydrogeologic Interpretations, USGS Open File Report, 1994. Mapping of Agricultural Land Use within the Pequea and Mill Creeks Watershed, Penn State University, Office for Remote Sensing of Earth Resources, December 1995. 105 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: USING DATA TO DEVELOP AND TARGET IMPLEMENTATION OF WATERSHED PROJECTS MODERATOR: Steve Dressing, EPA, Headquarters Thursday September 19, 1996 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. The use of STEWARD to refine problem assessments and target implementation of pollution-control measures in a GIS environment was described. A unique NMP project designed to determine the water-quality benefits of converting cropland to native prairie and savanna was also presented, including discussion on how to determine the appropriate methods to restore riparian zones based upon analysis of sediment sources. A third, interactive session addressed how to measure streambank and streambed sediment contributions within the context of overall watershed sediment loads. Implementing Control Systems in Agricultural Watersheds Presenters: Michael Foster and Paul Robillard, Penn State University, University Park, Pa. Effective and feasible management of agricultural nonpoint-source pollution requires complex decision making skills, diverse expertise, timely information, and well maintained site data Knowledge based software systems have proven themselves in many decision making domains as effective technology transfer systems and are ideal for water-quality management Our presentation focuses on two knowledge (expertise) based software applications for nonpoint- source pollution control: STEWARD and XGSTEWARD. Both decision support systems were developed at Penn State University by the center for Al Applications in Water Quality with funding from the EPA Office of Watersheds, Oceans, and Wetlands. STEWARD (Support Technology for Environmental, Water and Agricultural Resource Decisions) is a single-site, World Wide Web accessible decision support system for expert site-specific selection, evaluation, and design of water-quality control systems in agricultural watersheds. Control systems are complementary sets of control practices which collectively focus on multiple contaminant transport paths simultaneously: source, transfer, field, and delivery. STEWARD (1) recommends control practices based on site characteristics, (2) offers several alternative combinations or control systems, and (3) has a relational database of control practice effectiveness literature for evaluating the alternative control systems. Additional reference material is available to users through hypertext modules on water- quality monitoring, contaminant transport properties, contaminant environmental fate, and a list of water-quality databases. STEWARD is entirely accessible to remote users on the World Wide Web. STEWARD'S expert rules are based on lessons learned from the Rural Clean Water Program watershed projects. The user enters site specific information on the contaminant of concern (choice of 20, such as total nitrogen), the relative leaching potential of the soil (high, medium, low), the soil hydrologic group, the nutrient application rate (high, medium, low), the season (growing or non-growing), and the agricultural land use (cropland, animal waste application, or high source such as feedlot). Based on the site characteristics and the contaminant of concern, 25 expert rules provide the basis for recommending one or more water-control practices. The recommended water-quality control practices typically belong to two or more categories according to the contaminant transport path they affect: source (for example, manure application) transfer (for example, manure collection and storage), field (for example, strip cropping), and delivery (for example, grassed waterways). Additional expert system logic combines the recommended control practices into two or more alternative groups called control systems or practice sets. The user can then evaluate the potential effectiveness of each recommended control system by querying published literature on control practice effectiveness in STEWARD'S relational database. XGSTEWARD (Expert GIS STEWARD) is a GRASS GIS based version of STEWARD with an X Windows interface which operates at multiple spatial scales from field to watershed. XGSTEWARD facilitates the automated entry of quantitative site specific data from GRASS GIS and Informix databases in contrast to the user entry of qualitative data in STEWARD. Based on data inputs, XGSTEWARD calculates quantitative indices for leaching potential and nutrient loading, then applies the same expert rules as STEWARD to recommend site specific control systems at multiple sites in a watershed. 106 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: USING DATA TO DEVELOP AND Continued TARGET IMPLEMENTATION OF WATERSHED PROJECTS The relational database and hypertext reference modules of STEWARD are also available to XGSTEWARD users. In contrast to STEWARD, XGSTEWARD also incorporates the USDA-ARS AGNPS water-quality model for critical area definition (targeting). XGSTEWARD is currently undergoing conversion from the GRASS to ARC/INFO GIS. Evaluation at select test sites in Pennsylvania and Illinois will begin in late 1996/early 1997. Discussion: • XGSTEWARD helps the user make recommendations on a watershed basis. XGSTEWARD can calculate loads from soil and other sources; it can also calculate leaching potential from soils. • Input and output from XGSTEWARD is more complex than STEWARD. • STEWARD can be accessed from a World Wide Web site, as can the associated reference modules. • STEWARD has information available on BMP effectiveness; the problem is that studies which quantify BMP effectiveness are presently lacking. • Site specific selection control practices within STEWARD are: It can ask what should be done for the watershed It can link to database of information It can recommend subsite of feasible practices in chain of pollution transport It can look up database for each stage • STEWARD database will be upgraded by the EPA through a literature search of recent studies. Background information for the 6217(g) guidance doctrine will be updated and expanded. • Before data are entered into databases available to STEWARD, data quality must be checked. 107 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: USING DATA TO DEVELOP AND Continued TARGET IMPLEMENTATION OF WATERSHED PROJECTS ^ NMP ) Walnut Creek Watershed Restoration and Water Quality Monitoring Project Presenter: Carol Thompson, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau The Walnut Creek (WNT) Watershed Restoration and Water-Quality Monitoring Project began in April 1995 as a n on point-source monitoring program (NPS) in relation to the watershed habitat restoration and agricultural management changes implemented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) at Walnut Creek National Wildlife Refuge and Prairie Learning Center. The WNT watershed is being restored to native prairie and/or savanna; riparian zones and wetlands will be restored in context, with riparian zones grading from prairie waterways, to savanna, to timbered stream borders. This project is different from most 319 projects. Rather than identifying a water-quality problem and then changing land use or agricultural practices in response, it was designed to take advantage of a large- scale land-use change already underway and to study the resultant changes in water quality. It is not expected that large-scale restoration will ever be used as an NPS management practice. However, the conversion will allow analysis of the effects of emplacement of non-agricultural fields within the landscape on the water quality of a watershed, an assessment of the amount of non-agricultural land that is needed to reach a given water-quality objective, and an analysis of the length of time needed to see changes in water-quality data. Walnut and Squaw Creeks are warm-water streams located in Jasper County, Iowa The Walnut Creek study area is 12,860 acres, while that of Squaw Creek is 11,710 acres. Both watersheds are located in the Southern Iowa Drift Plain, an area characterized by steeply rolling hills and well-developed drainage. Most of the soils are silty clay loams, silt loams, or clay loams formed in loess and till and are characterized by moderate to high erosion potential. Both watersheds are agricultural with no industry or urban areas. Prior to the establishment of the refuge, about 80 percent of the WNT watershed was cropland (predominantly corn and soybeans), 13 percent grassland or pasture, 3 percent forest, and 4 percent roads, farmsteads, and other uses. Most farms include small livestock operations. Neither stream is listed as supporting its designated uses in the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) water- quality assessments. Walnut Creek is affected by many agricultural NPS water pollutants, including sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and animal waste. Water quality in the stream is typical for many of Iowa's small warm water streams; water quality varies significantly with changes in discharge and runoff. Pre-implementation data were available from the background water-quality and limnological assessments conducted by the IDNR and The University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory for the USFWS in 1991 as part of the environmental impact analysis. Data were also available from a three state research project which collected data in the Walnut Creek basin from 1992 to 1994. It is unusual to have this much pre-implementation data available in most projects. One concern was that land-use changes in the refuge may have already affected water quality in the stream. Analysis of the three data sets show that no statistically significant changes have yet occurred. This conclusion then allowed water quality from the paired basins to be compared in order to test that the paired basins were a good match. The graphs show almost identical patterns and concentrations and again there are not statistical differences in water quality between the basins. Thus the data verified that the basins are a good match and that landscape changes have not yet affected water quality in the streams. One significant aspect of using data to target changes on the landscape may occur with the sediment data for this project Typically sediment is controlled in the uplands by terraces, tillage patterns, and grassed waterways. Riparian zones are established to control direct runoff into streams. Certainly large-scale conversion to non-tilled acres should reduce the amount of sediment. However, it is also necessary to identify sediment source areas. This is being done 108 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: USING DATA TO DEVELOP AND Continued TARGET IMPLEMENTATION OF WATERSHED PROJECTS by analysis of streambank stability including erosion potential and measurements of post-settlement deposition. This data will then be used to identify areas where streambank stabilization and reworking may produce significant decreases in sediment loads. Discussion: • Ninety-four percent of land in Iowa is cropland. Over 50 percent of the cropland is harvested for corn and soybeans. Problems caused by this are (1) no streams that fully support designated areas and (2) sediment and streambank erosion. • There has been an increase in both the manure and commercial-fertilizer nitrogen applied to cropland in Iowa since the 1960s. • BMPs such as minimum till, grassy waterways, are regularly used. • The Walnut Creek National Monitoring Program is a paired basin design. Sites where data are collected in the basins includes three surface-water gaging stations, 10 sampling sites used to monitor storm events, four bio- monitoring sites, and some ground-water wells used to determine ground-water transport of contaminants. • The project area is located within a National Wildlife Refuge, so public exposure to the project is high. Demonstrations and other education events have been conducted. • Data collected to date indicates nitrate loads have decreased downstream in both basins. It is unclear why this reduction occurred. It may be due to in-stream reduction. It may be possible to use a conservative tracer such as chloride to determine cause. The ratio (or the change in the ratio) of nitrate to chloride may help identify process(es) involved. 109 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: USING DATA TO DEVELOP AND Continued TARGET IMPLEMENTATION OF WATERSHED PROJECTS ^ NMP ^ Watershed Sources of Sediment and the Effectiveness of Watershed BMPs Presenter: Don Roseboom, Illinois Department of Natural Resources Storm-event sampling allows the rapid determination of sediment yields from subwatersheds of differing land use and topography. Seasonal variations of sediment yield determine the maximum effectiveness of vegetative cover in rowcrop fields. When sediment yields are based upon the quantity of floodwater discharge, structural BMPs such as sediment retention basins can be evaluated during the project These techniques are illustrated in the Lake Pittsfield National Watershed Monitoring efforts. The Lake Pittsfield watershed is clearly divided between the flat prairies of the most recent Wisconsin glaciation and the steeper woodland hills of the older lllinoian Glacier period. The relatively flat former prairies are now 60-70 percent rowcrop with geologically young stream systems. The steeper woodland hills are only 30-35 percent rowcrop with well developed stream systems with wooded riparian areas. During the floodyears of 1993-94, sediment yields from the rowcropped lands in the former prairies were only half of the sediment yields from woodlands and pastures of steeper hills (2.1 versus 4.0 tons/acre/year). Under maximum vegetative cover, sediment yields of the most intense rain events were 60 percent of the largest spring flood events when compared to tons of sediment per acre-ft of floodwater discharge (6.1 versus 10.3 tons/acre-ft). Therefore the maximum effectiveness of vegetative cover in rowcrops can be formulated by early fall storm events. After seven sediment retention basins were constructed below 40 percent of the subwatershed with maximum sediment yield, sediment discharge per acre-ft of floodwater dropped 39 percent—from 10.3 to 6.3 tons per acre-ft. When sediment yield is based upon a tons per acre basis, the sediment yield will normally decrease as watershed acreage increases. Sedimentation of the floodplains during overbank flooding will normally compensate for any channel erosion. When the watershed and its stream system have dynamic balance, channel erosion will be balanced by floodplain deposition so that stream channels do not widen or deepen significantly. Where stream systems are geologically young, watershed increases in stormwater discharge and stream channelization cause the channel erosion processes of incision and lateral migration to accelerate rapidly. Channel incision of small steep streams and ravines is difficult to measure or model in glaciated landscapes where stream channels are composed of widely varied materials from sands to hardpan clay. Bank erosion amounts are relatively easy to monitor in meandering stream channels of larger stream valleys. When comparing amounts of eroded bank materials to the watershed sediment yields of storm events, eroded bank soils can equal 40 to 65 percent of watershed sediment yields. In the Lake Pittsfield watershed, sediment yield per acre increased (2.1 to 3.4 tons/acre) as watershed size increased from 1756 to 3323 acres. When sediment yields are increasing as watershed size increases and channel erosion is prevalent within the watershed floodplain, channel erosion monitoring should be instigated. In the Lake Pittsfield watershed, the rate of channel incision will be monitored over the study period. Discussion: • Large sediment loads were carried by some rivers even before 1700; thus, it may be beneficial to find out how system acted prior to anthropogenic influence. • The soils, slope, geology, precipitation intensity and duration, land use, and vegetative cover of a watershed affect sediment loss. 110 ------- 4th National ^ Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 1: USING DATA TO DEVELOP AND Continued TARGET IMPLEMENTATION OF WATERSHED PROJECTS • There are differences in sediment yields from different parts of the Pittsfield Lake Basin. Measured annual sediment yields range from 2.1 tons/acre to 5.2 tons/acre. • Vegetative cover in the basin was found to reduce sediment loss. • Gradient controls may be needed downstream of sediment and water control basins. If the "sediment hungry" water discharged from impoundments creates channel incision downstream, areas of major bank erosion will increase sediment delivery downstream and mask BMP effectiveness. • Bioengineering (and the pool riffle reformation) can be used to promote assimilative processes that are typically part of a natural stream system. 111 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: NPS POLLUTION FROM ABANDONED MINE LANDS AND ITS RELATION TO THE NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM . \ ¦ MODERATOR: Berhio Sarnoski, EPA Thursday September 79, 79% - ; 3:Q0 The causes and the extent of acid-mine draining from abandoned coal-mine lands and areas where other min- eral resources are being extracted, was discussed along with the available treatment systems and land-reclama- tion practices. A number of case studies were described to serve as models of proper monitoring and acid-mine drainage abatement. Developing Abatement Strategies Through Monitoring Presenter Janie French<, Program Associate Fieadquarters Council Research Conservation and Development Monitoring of abandoned mine drainage (AMD) in the Clarion River Basin and West Branch Susquehanna River Watershed in Pennsylvania were highlighted during this presentation. It has been said that monitoring a watershed is analogous to a person getting a physical exam. If the doctor finds certain tests off scale, a diagnosis for treatment is recommended. Formulating objectives for implementing a treatment strategy based on monitoring results, is fundamental in remediating AMD. Parameters as they pertain to ascertaining which type of treatment is appropriate for specific discharge characteristics will be discussed. Once BMPs are installed, standards that determine success will be reviewed. Three separate watershed initiatives will be used to show monitoring similarities and differences. Discussion: • Water-quality monitoring of basins can be used to set goals, plan, and educate. Monitoring can also be used as a tool for implementing and designing new projects. • Goals of a successful monitoring program are to: evaluate changes in water quality determine discharge characteristics determine overall impact on streams determine treatment strategy access treatment effectiveness • Prior to monitoring, all existing data for the water body in question should be gathered. Field assessment of water body should follow historical data review. • Similarities for three land initiatives in varying stages of monitoring are: watershed-based use of existing data creation of watershed associations to direct goals and objectives willingness to use a variety of options • Differences between initiatives are that each developed a different watershed approach based on monitoring results. • Treatment options for water bodies affected by AMD are based on: physical characteristics chemical composition biological or natural stream integrity 112 ------- 4tlii National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: NPS POLLUTION FROM Continued ABANDONED MINE LANDS AND ITS RELATION TO THE NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM • Passive treatment of sites affected by AMD is based on whether the system is acidic or alkaline. Alkaline systems can buffer some of acidity entering a system by AMD. • Problems encountered within monitoring programs include: size of watershed voluminous background data competence of people collecting water-quality samples lack of consistency in personnel and/or analytical techniques lack of funding to support comprehensive assessment ¦ Recommendations for the future are: set goals and stick to them develop local support provide training be realistic have fun 113 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: NPS POLLUTION FROM Continued ABANDONED MINE LANDS AND ITS RELATION TO THE NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM Monitoring for Indicators of Acid Mine Drainage and Establishing Monitoring Needs to Assess the Impact of Mine Closures in the Monongahela River Basin Presenter. Gary Bryant\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III EPA and the Office of Surface Mining collaboratively conducted a survey of the impact of AMD using fish data as the indicator. Discussion focused on the survey protocol, the results and what future monitoring would be necessary to keep this survey data current. The second part of this presentation related to the effect recent and future mine closures will have on the water quality in the Monongahela River Basin and what monitoring is necessary to assess the impact. The quality of the river has significantly improved since the 1970s; will closures of active mines and the potential shut down of their pumping and treatment (added buffering) negate the gains seen since the 1970s? Discussion: • Information from the fish survey in areas affected by AMD was input to a GIS data base. This gave a large picture of the composition of fish communities in ADM-affected water bodies. Fish data indicated that miles of streams impacted by AMD were higher than estimates available from 305(b) reports. Data from the fish survey are probably more accurate • Review of Monongahela River Basin: In 1967 the mines were closed, pH was between 3.5-4.0, there were no fish, and river had a green color. Big AMD treatment plants were installed in the 1970's in West Virginia. Mining of coal outcrops along the river was terminated when it was no longer economical. They reverted to deep longwall mining. When mines were closed, AMD treatment facilities were also closed. The impact of the lack of treatment after facility closure is still unclear. • The USGS has about six surface-water stations along the Monongahela and Ohio Rivers. They are presently reviewing data sources and needs. Mine inspectors will be approached to get needed information. 114 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: NPS POLLUTION FROM Continued ABANDONED MINE LANDS AND ITS RELATION TO THE NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM Hydrogeochemical Considerations for Ground-Water Monitoring and Remediation at Surface Coal Mines Presenter: Charles A. Cravotta III, U.S. Geological Survey, Lemoyne, PA Monitoring designs to evaluate effects of mining and remediation on the chemistry of ground water at coal mines need to consider and produce site-specific information on (1) the hydrology at the mine, (2) the chemistry of water from unsaturated and saturated zones, and (3) the relative abundances and distributions of acid-forming and alkaline- producing minerals along flow paths. Information on the mine history and data for subsurface gas composition and temperature profiles and bacteria abundances also can be helpful. Surface mining commonly produces spoil that is inverted stratigraphically and that has higher permeability and porosity than the unmined rock. Because of the increased porosity and permeability of the spoil, inflow rates of oxygenated air and water are higher and the water table within spoil tends to be deeper than in unmined rock. Because the previously deep-lying unweathered strata are now at the surface and shallow-lying weathered materials are now at depth, oxidation and reductive-dissolution of the materials, respectively, commonly result. These processes can be rapid and produce significant and prolonged effects ori the water quality at a mine and downgradient locations. Ground water and drainage from coal mines commonly are acidic and contain elevated concentrations of dissolved sulfate, iron, and other metals that result from the oxidation of pyrite (FeS2) and the subsequent transport of oxidation products. Pyrite oxidation takes place primarily in the unsaturated zone, where oxygen (02) is relatively available and where products tend to accumulate during dry periods. Then during wet periods, the secondary mineral products can be dissolved by recharge and the stored acid, sulfate, and iron can be transported along nearly vertical paths to the saturated zone. Calcareous minerals, if present in sufficient quantities along downgradient paths, can neutralize the acid or, if present upgradient from pyrite, can buffer the initial pH to be near neutral, which can slow or inhibit pyrite oxidation. In addition to standard reclamation practices, a wide variety of mining and spoil handling methods have been practiced to control the generation of acidic mine drainage (AMD). Recent studies by the U.S. Geological Survey at several reclaimed surface coal mines in the bituminous field of western Pennsylvania have evaluated some of these practices. These studies evaluated effects on ground-water chemistry from (1) surficial additions of alkaline waste materials, (2) surficial additions of sewage sludge, and (3) selective handling of pyritic materials. At the mines studied, limestone and other calcareous materials were applied too late or in insufficient amounts to abate or neutralize AMD. Required quantities of the calcareous additives probably were underestimated by acid-base accounting methods. Mixing and burial of the limestone with selectively handled pyritic material during mining were more effective than surficial applications, because moist conditions and elevated partial pressure of carbon dioxide (C02) within the backfill promoted calcite (CaCO^) dissolution. However, even that approach failed to prevent AMD, because pyrite oxidation was not abated. Although inundating pyritic material with stagnant water could significantly reduce pyrite oxidation, the studies showed that saturating spoil with stagnant water also can mobilize trace metals by the decomposition of soluble sulfate and carbonate minerals and the reduction of iron and manganese oxides. Alternatively, 02 transport and pyrite oxidation may be reduced by compaction of the spoil or by capping the spoil with impermeable barriers or 02-consumptive layers, such as wood chips, animal manure, or municipal sewage sludge. The use of sewage sludge as a topical amendment is effective for increasing soil moisture and fertility. However, vadose-zone 02 and ground- water-quality data for a surface mine in Pennsylvania indicated that a one-time surficial addition of sludge to pyritic spoil was not effective as an 02-consumptive barrier. Concentrations of dissolved metals and nitrate and abundances of iron-oxidizing bacteria in ground water downgradient from the sludge-treated spoil were elevated above background levels. Nitrogen leached from the sludge may have exacerbated the formation of acidic ground water and AMD by nourishing bacteria involved in the catalysis of pyrite oxidation and by coupled reduction of nitrate and oxidation of pyrite. 115 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: NPS POLLUTION FROM Continued ABANDONED MINE LANDS AND ITS RELATION TO THE NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM Considering the above factors, information on rock, water, and gas composition and distribution are needed to characterize background conditions and remedial effects at a mine. Nested monitoring networks that include unsaturated- and saturated-zone sampling devices generally can provide the information needed to characterize spatial and temporal variations at coal mines. Drill cuttings from monitoring boreholes can be logged and characterized for major minerals and sulfur and carbonate contents. Samples of pore water and pore gas from the unsaturated zone, along with temperature, can indicate geochemically active zones, because the oxidation of pyrite generates heat and consumes oxygen, even when solutes are stored as secondary solids. Pressure-vacuum lysimeters and open tubing installed to various depths in the spoil are useful for collection of unsaturated-zone water and gas (02, C02) data, respectively. Ground water measurements from properly constructed wells into spoil and underlying bedrock can indicate hydrodynamic potential for and effects from contaminant transport. Samples of ground water at the base of spoil generally represent an integration of the recharge water from the unsaturated zone and of relatively stagnant water standing in the backfill. By deepening the spoil wells slightly into the underclay, a sump is created which facilitates water sampling. Field measurements of pH, Eh, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, alkalinity, and temperature and laboratory measurements of acidity, major ions, metals, and nutrients are required for thorough characterization of water samples. Discussion: • A network of wells or piezometers screened at discrete depth intervals is needed to estimate subsurface-flow directions. • Temperature can be used to identify "hot spots" in spoil since temperatures are usually higher in actively oxidizing, pyritic zones of mine spoils. Remediation at the source instead of the discharge point may be the most efficient way to deal with the problem. • Some ways to remediate acidic mine drainage include: addition of limestone or lime into the spoil (data are presently being gathered on usefulness of this approach) fly-ash injections into spoil to neutralize acid and decrease permeability References: Brady, K.B.C., Smith, M.W., Beam, R.L, and Cravotta, C.A., III, 1990, Effectiveness of the addition of alkaline materials at surface coal mines in preventing or abating add mine drainage—Part 2. Mine site case studies, in Proceedings of the 1990 Mining and Reclamation Conference and Exhibition: Morgantown, West Virginia University, v. 1, p. 226-241 Cravotta, CA, III, 1994, Secondary iron-sulfate minerals as sources of sulfate and acidity: The geochemical evolution of acidic ground water at a reclaimed surface coal mine in Pennsylvania, in Alpers, C.N., and Blowes, D.W., eds., Environmental geochemistry of sulfide oxidation: Washington, D.C., American Chemical Society Symposium Series 550, p. 345-364. Cravotta, CA, III, [in press], Effect of sewage sludge on formation of acidic ground water at a reclaimed surface coal mine in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania: Ground Water (submitted May 1996). Cravotta, C.A., III, and Bird, P.H., 1995, Effects of water saturation and microbial activity on acid production and metals transport from pyritic shale (abs.): EOS, v. 76, no. 17, p. S149. Cravotta, CA, III, Brady, K.B.C., Gustafson-Minnich, LC., and DiMatteo, M.R., 1994, Geochemical and geohydrological characteristics of bedrock and mine spoil from two methods of mining at a reclaimed surface coal mine in Clarion County, PA, USA: U.S. Bureau of Mines Special Publication SP 06B, p. 242-249. 116 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: SIPS POLLUTION FROM Continued ABANDONED MINE LANDS AND ITS RELATION TO THE NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM Cravotta, CA, III, Brady, K.B.C., Smith, M.W., and Beam, R.L, 1990, Effectiveness of the addition of alkaline materials at surface coal mines in preventing or abating add mine drainage—Part 1. Geochemical considerations, in Proceedings of the 1990 Mining and Reclamation Conference and Exhibition: Morgantown, West Virginia University, v. 1, p. 221-225. Cravotta, CA., Ill, Dugas, D.L, Brady, K.B.C., and Kovalchuk, T.E., 1994, Effects of selective handling of pyritic, acid- forming materials on the chemistry of pore gas and ground water at a reclaimed surface coal mine in Clarion County, PA, USA; U.S. Bureau of Mines Special Publication SP 06A, p. 365-374. Guo, W., and Cravotta, C.A., III, 1996, Oxygen transport and pyrite oxidation in unsaturated coal-mine spoil, in Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation, Knoxville, TN, May 19-25, 1996, p. 3-14. Rose, A.W., and Cravotta, C.A., III, [in review], Geochemistry of coal-mine drainage, in Smith, M.W., ed., The prediction and prevention of acid drainage from surface coal mines in Pennsylvania: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Schueck, J.H., 1990, Using a magnetometer for investigating underground coal mine fires, burning coal refuse banks, and for locating AMD source areas on surface mines, in Proceedings of the 1990 Mining and Reclamation Conference and Exhibition: Morgantown, West Virginia University, v. 1, p. 493-501. Schueck, J.H., Ackman, T., and Scheetz, B., 1994, Add mine drainage abatement using fluidized bed combustion ash grout after geophysical site characterization: U.S. Bureau of Mines Special Publication SP 06A, p. 218-227. Schueck, J.H., DiMatteo, M.R., Scheetz, B., and Silsbee, M., 1996, Water-quality improvements from FBC ash grouting of buried piles of pyritic materials on a surface coal mine, in Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Surface Mining and Redamation, Knoxville, TN, May 19-25, 1996. p. 308-320. 117 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: NPS POLLUTION FROM Continued ABANDONED MINE LANDS AND ITS RELATION TO THE NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM Water-Quality Improvements Resulting From Ash Grouting of Buried Piles of Pyritic Materials on a Surface Coal Mine Presenter: Joseph Schueck, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Mining and Reclamation Abstract from the proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation. Abstract by Joseph Schueck, Mike DiMattco, Barry Sheetz, and Mike Silsbee A 37 acre surface coal mine in Clinton County, Pennsylvania, was mined and reclaimed between 1974 and 1977. Buried pyrite-rich pit cleanings and tipple refuse were found to be producing severe acid mine drainage (AMD). The pyrite material is located in discrete piles or pods in the backfill. The pods and the resulting contaminant plumes were initially defined using geophysical techniques and confirmed by drilling. Isolating the pyrite material from water and oxygen will prevent AMD production. A grout, composed of fluidized bed combustion (FBC) ash and water, was used in two different approaches that attempted pyrite isolation. Pressure injecting grout directly into the buried pods to fill the void spaces within the pods and coat the pyrite materials with a cementitious layer was the first approach. In the second approach, pods that would not accept grout because of a clay matrix were capped with the grout to isolate the pyrite from percolating water. The grout was also used to in certain areas to blanket or pave the pit floor to prevent dissolution of clays, which are a suspected primary source of aluminum (Al) concentrations at this site. Monitoring wells have been sampled since 1990 to monitor changes in the water quality resulting from grouting efforts. Grouting occurred during the summers of 1992 and 1993. Statistically significant water quality improvements have been noted as a result of grouting, although results varied. Any water quality improvement resulting from the grouting are expected to be permanent because of the nature of the cementitious grout Discussion: ¦ Water-quality monitoring is conducted to help define the system, and to: detect changes in water quality over time define geochemical interactions in the system tell us whether or not research effort produced meaningful results characterize background conditions determine how water quality varies with time and precipitation • Prior to monitoring, it is important to determine what parameters to collect All major cations and anions should be analyzed so that mass balance can be calculated and geochemical modeling (if necessary) can be conducted. • When well locations were selected to monitor the effects of grouting the pyrite-rich pit cleanings, it was necessary to construct up- and down-gradient wells. • The incorporation of tracer elements into the backfill can be used to verify geochemical and flow conceptual models for the specific site. • The subsurface characteristics of backfill areas in coal regions are not usually homogeneous. This necessitates the use of geophysical tools for backfill characterization. 118 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 2: NPS POLLUTION FROM Continued ABANDONED MINE LANDS AND ITS RELATION TO THE NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM • Some geophysical tools are: electromagnetic terrain conductivity to determine flow paths through site and indicate impounded water magnetics to determine locations of buried toxics electromagnetic surveys to determine locations of fractures • The incorporation of tracer elements into the backfill can be used to verify geochemical and flow models for the specific site. 119 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 3: GIS FOR DATA ANALYSIS MODERATOR: John Kosco, EPA Headquarters Thursday September 79, 1996 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. This session covered the use of GIS for analysis of water-quality monitoring data (beyond simple map making), including statistical analysis and modeling. Basins: A Cost-Effective Tool for Watershed Assessment and Management Presenter: Jerry Laveck, EPA, Office of Science and Technology Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS) integrates a GIS national watershed data, and state-of-the-art environmental assessment and modeling tools into one convenient package. This package allows a user to move easily though various watershed and water-quality study components. BASINS addresses three objectives: (1) to facilitate examination of environmental information; (2) to support analysis of environmental systems; and (3) to provide a framework for examining management alternatives. It was also conceived as a system for supporting the development of TMDLs. Developing TMDLs requires a watershed-based approach that integrates both point and nonpoint sources, and BASINS can support this type of approach for the analysis of variety of pollutants. It can also support analysis at a variety of scales, using tools that range from simple to sophisticated. Overcoming the lack of integration, limited coordination, and time-intensive execution typical of more traditional assessment tools, BASINS makes watershed and water-quality studies easier by bringing key data and analytical components together "under one roof." The heart of BASINS is its suite of interrelated components essential for performing watershed and water-quality analysis. These components are grouped into three categories: (1) national databases with Data Extraction tool and dynamic Project Builder tool; (2) assessment tools (TARGET, ASSESS, and Data Mining) that address needs ranging from large-scale to small-scale; and (3) watershed and water quality models, including NPSM_HSPF (ver.10), TOXIROUTE, and QUAL2E (ver. 3.2). BASIN databases and assessment tools are directly integrated within an ArcView 2.1 GIS environment. By using GIS, a user can fully visualize, explore, and query to bring a watershed to life. The simulation models run in a Windows environment, using data input files generated in ArcView. 120 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 3: CIS FOR DATA ANALYSIS Continued AnnAGNPS (Agricultural NonPoint-Source Pollutant Loading Computer Model) Presenter. Fred D. Theurer, AnnAGNPS AnnAGNPS (Agricultural NonPoint-Source Pollutant Loading computer model) is the continuous simulation version of ACiNPS (Agricultural Non-Point Source computer model) which is a single-event model. The important difference belween the two computer models is that AnnAGNPS keeps track of the in-situ soil moisture and chemical mass balance on a daily basis for an unlimited number of years whereas AGNPS requires user input of all in-situ conditions (for example, curve number and the universal soil loss equation (USLE) parameters) and can analyze only one day at a time. AnnAGNPS is intended for pollutant loading (PL) analysis for watershed drainage areas from a few hundred acres to a maximum of 640,000 acres. It is designed specifically: (1) for risk analysis of pollutant loadings at any location in the stream system; and (2) to determine the point of origin of any PL and its respective contribution to any downstream location. Many features in AnnAGNPS have been updated or added from AGNPS. They included: (1) soil moisture mass balance; (2) snowmelt and soil profile temperature (frozen soil); (3) RUSLE in lieu of USLE; (4) fate and transport of pesticides; (5) expanded hydrograph development; and (6) amorphous cells (terrain following for better hydrologic and field boundary resolution). AnnAGNPS simulates the fate and transport of the following PL92s: (1) sediment by particle class (clay, silt, sand, and small and large aggregates) and source (sheet and rill, gullies, point sources, and bed and bank material); (2) nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus); (3) pesticides (individual types); and (4) organic carbon. The input for square grids require that cell sizes remain relatively small (4 to 10 acres) to control input resolution errors. The median-sized drainage area for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) water-quality initiative is slightly less than 200,000 acres. This translates to approximately 20,000 cells if a square grid were chosen. Amorphous cells can be larger, maybe as much as matching the individual fields (contiguous land-use areas such as a farm field under a single management), but there is a upper bound, but it remains to be determined. Each cell, regardless of size, requires the same basic input. Any cells with special features such as feedlots, gullies, and point sources have additional requirements. Obtaining and generating the minimum required input for applications of even several hundred acres suggest a need for a GIS. GIS assisted input is included in the design and development of AnnAGNPS. This presentation covered the features, uses, strengths, and limitations of AnnAGNPS with special emphasis on quantifying BMPs in terms of how much PL is contributed to a particular location in the stream system from a specified field under a given set of conservation practices. 121 ------- 4th National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop SESSION 3: CIS FOR DATA ANALYSIS Continued Recreating Missing Streamflow Records Using TOPMOPEL ( NMP ^ Presenter Brian C Dietterick, Cal Poly State University v J (co-authored by David Paradies, Morro Bay National Estuary Program) A paired watershed study is currently underway as part of the project, Water Quality Monitoring and Treatment Evaluation for the Morro Bay Watershed. Continuous streamflow data and event-based water-quality data are being monitored on Chumash and Walters Creeks. To estimate sediment loads from measured concentration data, accurate streamflow data are needed. Streamflow is being monitored on both watersheds using Parshall flumes that were sized using a 25 year design storm. Peakflow discharges on both creeks have frequently exceeded flume capacity due likely to the imprecise method for computing the design discharges. The result is a loss of crucial streamflow data from both watersheds during the larger events precluding the ability to calculate sediment loads and draw comparisons between the two watersheds. TOPMODEL, a physically-based hydrologic model, was selected to create a time series of discharge for both watersheds using available meteorological, topographic and soil-hydraulic data. The model was calibrated using the available streamflow data from both watersheds excluding the periods of mission record. Discussion: More information on TOPMODEL can be accessed from the web page: http://www.es.lancs.acuk/es/freeware/topmodel 122 ------- 4lth National Nonpoint-Source Watershed Projects Workshop PLENARY SESSION: THE FARM BILL - Friday OVERVIEW AND DISCUSSION September 20, 1996 V: ^ 8:30 -10:15 a.m. MODERATOR: Dan Smith, USDA - NRCS , USDA experts provided an overview of the conservation provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill, including the Conser- vation Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program (ECARP), and the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP). Open discussion followed the presenta- tions. Conservation Provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill Presenter: John Burt, USDA - Natural Resource Conservation Service> Washington; D.C. The 1996 Farm Bill creates simplified versions of existing conservation programs, and establishes new programs aimed at environmental protection. Some of the provisions that will be reviewed are the Conservation Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives, and the Wetland provisions. Highlights of the Farm Bill are provided on the following pages. 123 ------- USDA April 1996 Summary Conservation Provisions United States Department of Agriculture Conservation Provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill |HE conservation provisions of the 1996 farm bill simplify existing conservation programs and improve their flexibility and efficiency. The bill also creates new programs to address high priority environmental protection goals. The farm bill authorizes more than $2.2 billion in additional funding for conservation programs, extends the Conservation Reserve Program and Wetland Reserve Program, and creates new initiatives to improve natural resources on America's private lands. To qualify for market transition payments under basic commodity programs which replace traditional farm subsidies, farm operators must agree to abide by Conservation Compliance and Wetlands Conservation (Swampbuster) provisions in the 1996 farm bill. Umbrella Program Reform The bill reforms an existing program, the Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program (ECARP), which encompasses the existing Conservation Reserve Program, the new Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and the Wetland Reserve Program. Conservation Reserve Program The CRP protects highly erodible and environmentally sensitive lands with grass, trees, and other long-term cover. The farm bill: • Allows up to 36.4 million acres to be enrolled at any one time. New enrollments can replace expired or terminated contracts. • Allows owners or operators who entered into a con- tract before 1995 to terminate contracts on certain acres after giving written notice. Contracts must have been in effect for at least five years. Lands with high environmental values are not eligible for early release. • Gives the Secretary discretionary authority to offer future early outs for CRP acres. Environmental Quality Incentives The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is a new program which combines the functions of the Agricultural Conservation Program, Water Quality Incentives Program, Great Plains Conservation Program, and the Colorado River Basin Saiinily Control Program. EQIP is funded at $130 million in fiscal year 1996 and $200 million annually thereafter. Livestock-related conservation practices will receive 50 percent of pro- gram funding. The farm bill: • Establishes conservation priority areas where signifi- cant water, soil, and related natural resource prob- lems exist, in cooperation with state and federal agencies and with the state technical committees. • Gives higher priority to areas where state or local governments offer financial or technical assistance, or where agricultural improvements will help meet water quality objectives. • Establishes 5-to 10-year contracts to provide technical assistance and pay up to 75 percent of the costs of. conservation practices such as manure management systems, pest management, and erosion control. • Defines land eligible tor EQIP contracts as agricultur- al land that poses a serious problem to soil, water, or related resources. • Does not allow large livestock operations (to be defined through a public rule-making process) to be eligible for cost-share assistance for animal waste management facilities, but they do remain eligible for technical assistance. • Requires activities under the contract to be carried out according to a conservation plan. • Limits total cost-share and incentive payments to any person to $10,000 annually, and to $50,000 for the life of the contract. • Phases in EQIP over the next six months, and then ends the Agricultural Conservation Program, 125 ------- Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, Water Quality Incentives Program, and the Great Plains Conservation Program. Wetland Reserve Program The WRP will have an enrollment cap of 975,000 acres. Program changes provide more flexibility and help landowners work toward a goal of no net loss of wetlands. The revised WRP: • Requires that, beginning October 1. 1996, one-third of total program acres be enrolled in permanent ease- ments, one-third in 30-year easements, and one-third in restoration only cost-share agreements. Individuals may choose the category tor their eligible land. • Stipulates that effective October 1,1996, no new permanent easements may be enrolled until at least 75,000 acres of temporary easements have entered the program. • Provides landowners with 75 percent to 100 percent cost-sharing for permanent easements, 50 percent to 75 percent for 30-year easements, and 50 percent to 75 percent for restoration cost-share agreements. Cost-sharing will help pay for restoration. Wetland Conservation (Swampbuster) The 1996 farm bill makes several policy changes to existing Swampbuster provisions to give farmers more flexibility in complying with wetland conservation requirements while protecting natural resources: • Expands areas where mitigation can be used. This allows individuals to work with producers, conserva- tion districts or other relevant entities to select the best area for mitigating wetlands. • Provides more options for mitigation, including restoration, enhancement, or creation as long as wetland functions and values are maintained. • Encourages effective and timely use of "minimal effect" determinations. This change allows the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), working with state technical committees, to identify practices that have a minimal effect on the environ- ment and put them on a "fast track." • Stipulates that wetland conversion activities, autho- rized by a permit issued under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which make agriculture production possible, will be accepted for farm bill purposes if they were adequately mitigated. • Revises the concept of "abandonment" to ensure that as long as land is used for agriculture, a certified Prior Converted cropland designation remains in effect. When done under an approved plan, landown- ers with Farmed Wetlands (FW) and Farmed Wetlands Pasture (FWP) may allow an area to revert to wetland status, and convert it back to an FW or FWP for agricultural purposes without violating the Swampbuster provision. • Requires wetland determinations to be certified by NRCS. Previous wetland determinations will be certi- fied to verify their accuracy. A certified wetland deter- mination will remain in effect as long as the land is used for agricultural purposes or until the owner or operator requests a review from the Secretary. • Provides the Secretary with the discretion to waive penalties for ineligibility and to grant time to restore converted wetlands. • Provides the Secretary with authority to identify for individual producers which programs are affected by Swampbuster violations and how much the penalty is. • Establishes a pilot program for wetland mitigation banking in order to allow USDA to assess how well mitigation banking works for agriculture. Wetlands Memorandum of Agreement The farm bill expands the definition of agricultural land contained in the interagency Wetlands MOA to include not only cropland and pasture land, but also tree farms, rangeland, native pasture land, and other land used for livestock production. Conservation Research and Education The farm bill creates the National Natural Resources Conservation Foundation as a charitable nonprofit cor- poration to fund research and educational activities relating to conservation on private lands. The foundation will promote innovative solutions to conservation problems through public-private part- nerships. It will also accept private gifts of money or property to be used for conservation activities. Congress has authorized $1 million annually from 1997 through 1999. The new foundation will offer grants for research, education, and demonstration projects. Grants will also assist conservation districts in building resources to carry out local conservation programs. The foundation will be administered by a nine-mem- ber board of trustees appointed by the Secretary. 126 ------- Conservation Compliance The farm bill makes several policy changes in the operation of Conservation Compliance: • Directs USDA employees who are providing on-site technical assistance to work with landowners to cor- rect an observed potential compliance problem. Landowners will have up to one year to take correc- tive action before a violation is reported. • Encourages farmers to maintain records of residue measurement, including those provided by a third party. Where appropriate, USDA will use these mea- surements when conducting annual status reviews to determine erosion levels. • Authorizes county committees to provide relief in cases of undue economic hardship. • Revises "good faith" to ensure penalties are com- mensurate with violations. NRGS Technical Guide The farm bill requires public notice at the state level of future changes in the NRCS technical guide that affect Swampbuster and Conservation Compliance. Conservation of Private Grazing Land The grazing lands provision is a new program to ensure technical, educational, and related assistance is provided to landowners on the nation's 642 million acres of pnvate grazing lands. In fiscal year 1996, $20 million is authorized. This amount increases 10 $60 mil- lion by the third year. Farmland Protection Program The Farmland Protection Program is a new program under which the Secretary will join with state or local governments to purchase conservation easements. Based on voluntary participation, it only applies to land which farmers want to preserve in agriculture. The program: • Protects between 170,000 and 340,000 acres of farmland. • Authorizes up to $35 million in total federal funding. • Requires land to be subject to a pending offer from a state or local farmland conservation program in order to participate. Task Force on Agricultural Air Quality The 1996 farm bill establishes a task force on agricul- tural air quality. The Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service will chair the task force. Flood Risk Reduction This provision authorizes voluntary contracts that pro- vide one lump sum payment to producers who farm land with high flood potential. The payment will equal 95 percent of the seven-year market transition pay- ments, and other payments to offset estimated federal outlays on frequently flooded land. In return, the producer agrees to comply with applic- able wetlands and highly erodible land requirements and to forego commodity loans, crop insurance, con- servation program payments, and disaster payments. Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program This new provision will help landowners improve wildlife habitat on private lands. The program will have $50 million in CRP funds for wildlife habitat improvement. The program: • Provides cost-sharing to landowners for developing habitat for upland wildlife, wetland wildlife, endan- gered species, fisheries and other wildlife. • Provides for consulting with state technical commit- tees to set priorities for cost-share measures and habitat development projects. Emergency Watershed Protection Program Floodplain Easements The farm bill authorizes the Secretary to purchase floodplain easements under the Emergency Watershed Protection Program. State Technical Committees State technical committees help develop technical standards for conservation programs. The farm bill requires public notice of meetings and expands com- mittee membership to include representatives of non government organizations such as agricultural producers, non-profit conservation organizations, agribusiness, and experts on the economic and envi- ronmental impacts of conservation techniques. Conservation Farm Option This is a pilot program for producers of wheat, feed grains, upland cotton, and rice who are eligible for Agriculture Market Transition Contracts. Under this pro- gram, landowners may consolidate their CRP, WRP, and EQIP payments into one annual payment. The par- ticipants enter into a 10-year contract and adopt a con- servation farm plan approved by the Secretary. Initially, $7.5 million is authorized, increasing to $62.5 million in 2002. Total authorized funding is $197.5 million. 127 ------- Resource Conservation and Development Program This program is reauthorized as is until 2002. Forestry Incentives Program This program is reauthorized as is until 2002. Soil Survey The farm bill provides flexibility in determining how soil survey information is communicated to the public. Everglades The farm bill supports ongoing efforts to protect the Everglades ecosystem. This provision authorizes $200 million for restoration activities, including land acquisi- tion. Authority is also provided to sell or exchange an additional $100 million in federal land to help protect the Everglades. Bypass Flows on Forest Service Lands A task force will be appointed to study the issue of bypass flows and related water rights on national for- est land. In the interim, there will be an 18-month moratorium on bypass flow requirements during the renewal of Forest Service permits for water supply facilities. The United Stales Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in tts programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sax, religion, age. disability, political beliefs and marrtaJ or familial status. (Not all prohibrted bases appty to all programs.) Persons with disabilities wto require alternative means tor communication of program information (Braille, large pruu, audiotape, etc ) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at (202) 720-2791. To Tile a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U S Department of Agriculture, Washington, O C 20250 or call (202) 720-7327 (voice) or (202) 720-1 \ 27 (TDD) USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer 128 ------- Appendix A: Handouts distributed during field tours on September 18,1996 129 ------- Tour 1: Pequea/Mill Creek Walking Tour to Observe Effects of Agricultural BMPs 131 ------- Pequea-Mill Creek Project Leaflet Series Barnyard Runoff Management Introduction Barnyards can be a major source of water pollution when rains wash animal wastes off the yard and into nearby streams and drainage ways. Once in the water, nutrients, organic matter and bacteria from animal wastes can cause fish kills and excessive weed and algae growth. Pollution can also create a health hazard for farm livestock. Controlling Runoff There are two major objectives to controlling water pollution from barnyards. • Keep clean water clean. Runoff water from upslope should be diverted around the barnyard and runoff from bam and shed roofs collected and directed away from the yard. The less water entering the yard, the less polluted runoff that must be collected and treated. • Collect all polluted water. Any water that flows across or through manure is contaminated and must be collected. This polluted runoff must be stored until it can be disposed of safely. Runoff can be controlled by paving, curbing, roof gutters and downspouts, fencing, and filter strips. Preventing water pollution from barnyard runoff can be simple or complex depending on the conditions at a specific site. Complex problems may require a combination of practices working together to form a "system" for runoff management. Management Barnyard runoff systems require good management. Their success IN COOPERATION US DA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE USDA CONSOLIDATED FARM SERVICES AGENCY PENN STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES COOPERATIVE EXTENSION LANCASTER COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT does not depend on cost or complexity. Success depends primarily on your willingness to make it work. Benefits Managing barnyard runoff can protect and enhance our water resources. But a well-designed and maintained runoff system can also do much more. By keeping the barnyard and exercise area drier,you could benefit directly through: 1. Less cleanup time during milking. 2. Less risk of mastitis. 3. Less risk of hoof and leg injuries. 4. Lower somatic cell counts. 5. Easier barnyard cleanup. 6. Better use of manure nutrients captured by the system. 7. Better public relations from a nicer looking barnyard. Getting Started on Your Barnyard Some barnyard runoff problems are easy to recognize. Others require a trained eye and careful investigation. Staff from the Pequea-Mill Creek Project can help you determine if barnyard runoff from your farm poses a water quality threat. They may be able to arrange visits to other local farms where barnyard management systems have been installed. They can make recommendations and assist in designing and installing any needed prac- tices. They also can help you find out if you are eligible for cost-sharing programs. For More Information For more information contact the Pequea-Mill Creek Project, 307B Airport Drive, P.O. Box 211, Smoketown, PA 17576-0211. Telephone (717) 396-9423, FAX (717) 396-9427. Prepared by: G. L. Martin and L. E. Lanyon from Penn State Cooperative Extension and B. F. Lucas from Natural Resources Conservation Service, Pequea-Mill Creek Project, Smoketown, PA. April 1995. Where trade names appear, do discrimination is intended, and no endorsement by Penn State Cooperative Extension and cooperating agencies is implied. Support of this publication is from Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Special Project No. 91-EHUA- I-OQ61. Penn State is an affirmative action, equal opportunity university. ------- O UJt Pequea-Mill Creek Project Leaflet Series Streambank Fencing Introduction Streambank fencing keeps livestock out of pasture streams. It is an important part of effective livestock, and pasture management for many Pequea-Mill Creek Project farms. This management practice provides many benefits because as one local expert says: "There is nothing in the stream that is good for livestock, and there is nothing the livestock do that is good for the stream." yf Fencing Protects Herd Health Streambank fencing reduces livestock contact with waterborne bacteria. In dairy cattle these bacteria can cause mastitis, foot rot, and leptospirosis. Stream water can be a poor source of drinking water since it may be high in coliform bacteria and nitrates. Fencing also reduces the risk of foot and leg injuries as livestock go in and out of streams. In addition, keeping dairy cattle away from wet, muddy areas results in cleaner udders and reduced milking time. Fencing Promotes Effective Pasture Management Streambank fencing can be easily combined with rotational lot management and intensively grazed pastures. Fencing Supports Good Neighbor Policy Water is a shared resource. Bacteria entering the stream can result in disease transmission between livestock herds. Improving conditions on your farm will improve the waterquality for your neighbors downstream. Setting a good example will also encourage fanners upstream. A fenced stream is often an attractive part of a farmstead to those passing by. Fencing Stabilizes Streambanks and Reduces Soil Erosion Streambank fencing eliminates livestock trampling that destroys vegetative IN COOPERATION USDA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE US DA CONSOLIDATED FARM SERVICES AGENCY PENN STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES COOPERATIVE EXTENSION LANCASTER COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT cover and collapses banks into the stream. Natural vegetation binds soil and resists erosion during high stream flow. Fencing Provides Wilrtlifp Habitat o "" ------- — The vegetation between the fence and the stream is an excellent source of food, cover, and nesting sites for rabbits, pheasants, ducks and other birds and small mammals. Fenced streams create travel corridors between islands of cover replacing fencerows in today's fragmented farmland habitat. Fencing Improves Fish Habitat Streambank fencing provides protective cover and increased food supplies for fish. Shade from vegetation cools slow moving stream water and benefits most native fish species. In addition, warm water promotes the growth of bacteria and other organisms that reduce water quality. Fencing Improves Water Quality Streambank fencing reduces stream pollution caused by livestock depositing manure in the water and breaking down streambanks. Vegetative growth on streambanks helps to filter sediment and absorb pesticides and nutrients from runoff before it enters the stream. Getting Started on Your Stream Streambank fencing doesn't need to be a complicated or expensive project. Staff from the Pequea-Mill Creek Project can help you determine where to place the fence and what fencing materials to use. They can discuss with you the financial assistance available through a variety of sources. In addition they can make recommendations and assist in designing and installing related practices such as stream crossings and pasture watering systems. For More Information For more information contact the Pequea-Mill Creek Project, 307B Airport Drive, P.O. Box 211, Smoketown, PA 17576-0211. Telephone (717) 396-9423, FAX (717) 396-9427. Prepared by: G. L. Martin and L. E. Lanyon from Penn State Cooperative Extension and B. F. Lucas from Natural Resources Conservation Service, Pequea- Mili Creek Project, Smoketown. PA. May 1995. Where trade names appear, do discrimination is intended, and no endoreemcnt by Perm State Cooperative Extension and cooperating agencies is implied. Support of this publication is from Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Special Project No. 91-EHUA-1-0061. Penn State is an affirmative action, equal opportunity university. ------- Pequea-Mill Creek Project Leaflet Series Stream and Waterway Crossings Introduction Streambank fencing and rotationally managed pasture systems often restrict cattle and equipment traffic to crossing streams and waterways at specific locations. The concentration of traffic across areas can create a muddy mess. In addition to being unsightly, these crossings can be a source of herd health problems, soil loss, and pollution. Stabilized Crossings Stabilized crossings provide gradually sloping banks covered with a material that resists the wear and tear of cattle and/or machinery traffic. Stabilized crossings protect livestock health and reduce water pollution from bacteria, nutrients, and sediment. Several types of crossings have proven to be effective on farms in the Pequea-Mill Creek Project area. Planning a Crossing There are several factors to consider when planning a stream or waterway crossing. • Purpose - Will the crossing be used for cattle and/or equipment? • Type of Water Flow - Is the crossing for a small stream, large stream, or waterway? • Bank Slope and Height - Are the banks steep or gently sloping; well- defined or simply a swale. • Watershed Size - How many acres drain through the crossing location? • Water Source - Will the crossing be used as an access to water by livestock? • Cost - Can the crossing be installed economically? • Permits - Will the crossing and construction meet all applicable Pennsyl- vania Department of Environmental Resources regulations? IN COOPERATION US DA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE USDA CONSOLIDATED FARM SERVICES AGENCY PENN STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES COOPERATIVE EXTENSION LANCASTER COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT Crossing Options • Parallel Concrete Slat Crossing - The 4' x 12' "waffle slats", commonly used in cattle or hog housing are placed side by side, parallel to the flow of water and the streambank. They are lined up beginning on the stream bed and extending up to the top edge of each bank. • Concrete Slat Bridge - Where streams are narrow, the ends of the concrete slats can be laid on the banks to form a bridge across the stream. • Crushed Stone Crossing - There are several crossing designs that utilize crushed stone to stabilize streambanks. The most common uses two different stone sizes to form a stone-covered access ramp on each bank. Installation and Maintenance Site preparation usually involves grading the banks of the stream to provide an even surface for placement of materials and aslope that insures firm footing for livestock. Common farm machinery, such as a skid-steer, can be used or a backhoe may be needed in some situations. A delivery truck boom can be used to place the concrete slats. Electric fence with drop wires is often required to keep cattle from entering the stream from the crossing. Mainte- nance involves periodic clearing of debris from the crossing and fence, mending fence, and replacing stone that disappears with use and high water. Getting Started Staff from the Pequea-Mill Creek Projectcan help you determine where to site the crossing, what materials are best suited to your situation, and what is required to install the crossing. They can help you obtain a free general permit for agricultural crossings. In addition, they can discuss with you the cost of the crossing and the financial assistance available. For More Information For more information contact the Pequea-Mill Creek Project, 307B Air- port Drive, P.O. Box 211, Smoketown, PA 17576-0211. Telephone (717) 396- 9423, FAX (717) 396-9427. Prepared by: G. L. Martin and L. E. Lanyon from Penn State Cooperative Extension and B. F. Lucas from Natural Resources Conservation Service, Pequea-Mill Creek Project, Smoketown, PA. May 1995. Where trade names appear, do discrimination is intended, and no endorsement by Penn State Cooperative Extension and cooperating agencies is implied. Support of this publication is from Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Special Project No. 91-EHUA-1-0061. Penn State is an affirmative action, equal opportunity university. ------- Pequea-Mill Creek Project Leaflet Series Pasture Watering Systems Introduction Streambank fencing and rotationally managed pastures frequently keep live- stock away from previous water sources. While this can protect water quality, it often means that alternate watersourcesmust be provided. Several different pasture watering systems have been used by farmers in the Pequea-Mill Creek Project area to meet this need. Benefits of Pasture Watering Adequate quantities of quality water are increasingly recognized as critical to efficient livestock maintenance and production. Unlike a single trough at the bam, a well-designed pasture watering system will deliver water to wherever the livestock spend time. It provides several important benefits. Increased Water Consumption - livestock drink more if the water source is clean and easily accessible. Increased Forage Intake - cattle spend more time in the pasture and use less energy getting to and from the water. Reduced Health Problems - stream water can be high in coliform bacteria which can cause mastitis problems in dairy cattle. In addition, extended exposure to water and mud increases the occurrence of foot problems. Improved Water Quality - keeping livestock out of the water reduces the chances for them to deposit nutrients and bacteria directly into the water. Getting Started A watering system should be adapted to the specific needs of the pasturing system and the farm. The first step is to identify a reliable, quality water source. This may include taking a water sample for testing and estimating the capacity of the source. IN COOPERATION USDA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE USDA CONSOLIDATED FARM SERVICES AGENCY PENN STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES COOPERATIVE EXTENSION LANCASTER COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT The next step is to become familiar with the various components and options available. Basic components include a water distribution system pump, pipe, and anti-siphon device to carry the water, a watercror trough for drinking, and a valve or float assembly to control water flow and level. Those who have first hand experience with the components and systems that have been installed are the most reliable sources of information. A start-up watering system should be flexible, easy to manage, and inexpen- sive. When getting started everyone should expect to do some experimenting. For this reason it is best not start with a fixed system. Finally and most importantly, a pasture watering system does not need to be expensive. By using a "mix and match" approach, watering system components can be combined to design a system that is durable, efficient and economical. Portable and Flexible A very simple system can distribute water to portable troughs in each pasture area with flexible plastic pipe. This approach allows forexperimenting, responding to changing needs or conditions, and moving areas where livestock gather to drink around the pasture area to avoid bare, muddy spots. Water Pump Options There are several types of pumps available. Some of these do not use electricity. The most common non-electric pumps are water powered ram pumps, mechanical nose pumps, and solar-powered pumps. Assistance Available Staff from the Pequea-Mill Creek Project can help plan and design a pasture watering system. They can assist in locating sources for system components. For More Information For more information contact the Pequea-Mill Creek Project, 307B Airport Drive, P.O. Box 211, Smoketown, PA 17576-0211. Telephone (717) 396- 9423, FAX (717) 396-9427. Prepared by: G. L. Martin and L. E. Lanyon from Penn State Coopera- tive Extension and B. F. Lucas from Natural Resources Conservation Service, Pequea-Mill Creek Project, Smoketown, PA. June 1995. Where trade names appear, do discrimination is intended, and no endorsement by Penn State Cooperative Extension and cooperating agencies is implied. Support of this publication is from Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Special Project No. 91-EHUA-1-0G61. Penn State is an affiimative action, equal opportunity univosity. ------- O UJt Pequea-Mill Creek Project Leaflet Series Farmstead Evaluation Project Introduction Many dairy farmers have taken steps to protect the water resources that are so vital to the productivity of their herd, the health of their families, and the weU-being of their neighbors and surrounding wildlife. These efforts often go unnoticed by the general public. It is important to increase the public's aware- ness of the practices that farmers currently use. It is equally important to have a way to identify farmers that are maintaining an environmentally friendly dairy operation. As part of a Penn State research project, Pequea-Mill Creek Project personnel will visit various farms within the Pequea Creek and Mill Creek watersheds to: 1) survey dairy farmers about water quality issues, and 2) evaluate the status of farmstead areas that can affect surface and ground water quality on some of the farms surveyed. Project Goals and Procedures The project goals are to learn how dairy farmers perceive the impact of their farmstead management on water quality, to develop a method to evaluate dairy farmsteads that identifies environmentally friendly conditions, and to deter- mine what incentives are effective for initiating a change in farmstead manage- ment. These goals will be accomplished by surveying a sample of dairy farmers from the Pequea-Mill Creek Project area and by conducting environmental evaluations on some of the farmsteads. The six farmstead areas that will be evaluated include barnyards, streams and drainageways, milkhouse wastes, pesticide handling, sewage systems, and water wells. What Can Participants Expert? 1) All of the participating farmers will be interviewed to leam their percep- tions of the impact of farmstead management on water quality. After 9 to IN COOPERATION USDA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE USDA CONSOLIDATED FARM SERVICES AGENCY PENN STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES COOPERATIVE EXTENSION LANCASTER COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT 12 months, a second interview will be conducted to leam about effective incentives for changes in farmstead management. 2) About one-half of the farmers will participate in an environmental farmstead evaluation at both the beginning and end of the project. 3) Each of the interview sessions will take approximately 30 minutes. 4) For farms selected for an environmental farmstead evaluation, an addi- tional 45 minutes will be needed. 5) Participating fanners will be compensated for their time and efforts. 6) Information sheets that list people and the services related to each of the evaluation categories will be provided to assist in planning future improve- ments. 7) Interview responses and the results of the environmental farmstead evalu- ation will remain anonymous, and they will only be reported in combination with the other participants. Why is This Important to Dairy Farmers? We believe that a positive experience with the farmstead evaluation re- search project could lead to programs that will increase the public's awareness of the good things farmers are doing to address water quality issues and create incentives for future actions. For More Information For more information contact Glen Jones, Department of Agronomy, 116 ASI Building, University Park, PA 16802-3504. Telephone (814) 865-7607, FAX (814) 863-7043. Prepared by: G.A. Jones, L.E. Lanyon and G.L. Martin from Penn State Cooperative Extension, Department of Agronomy and Pequea-Mill Creek Project, Smoketown, PA. November 1995. Where trade names appear, no discrimination is intended, and no endorsement by Penn State Cooperative Extension and cooperating agencies is implied. Support of this publication is from Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Special Project No. 91-EHUA-1-0061. Penn State is an affirmative action, equal opportunity univercity. ------- 76" 13' UJ 7ff 30 4C? 15: LANCASTER COUNTY ^STUDYAREA SAFE HARBOR 39° 4S LANCASTER COUNTY x: ^TU^-AfiEA 4 6 8 10 MILES MMI 1 1 0 2 4 6 B 10 KILOMETERS *0 .A e n £ h © 2 ^0.. ------- Table 1: MEDIAN VALUES FOR SURFACE-WATER SITES, UNITS-MG/L, DATA THROUGH 1995 FIXED STORM PARAMETER C-l T-l T-2 T-3 T-4 C-l T-l T-2 T-4 DISSOLVED OXYGEN 10.3 10.9 10.6 8.65 9.1 TOTALP 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.77 0.90 0.65 0.54 DISSOLVED P 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.30 0.49 0.26 0.23 SEDIMENT 42.5 14 36.5 16 6 488 376 293 320 N03-N 10 11 11 12 14 3 4.2 2.75 1.9 TOTAL N 10.2 11.6 11.35 12.1 14.35 5.45 6.95 4.6 3.8 ------- Table 1: median values through 1995 WELL LOCATION AND DEPTH Alkalinity, mg/l CaC03 Nitrate, mg/ 1 as N Dissolved P, mg/L as P NH3, mg/l as N T-1, 6 ft 336 0.52 0.01 0.58 T-l, 12 ft 271 0.19 <0.01 0.35 T-1, 8 ft 300 0.51 <0.01 0.36 T-l, 100 ft 342 2.2 <0.01 0.18 T-2, 6 ft 261 13.5 <0.01 0.06 T-2, 7 ft 234 15 <0.01 0.1 T-2, 8 ft 274 16.5 <0.01 0.03 T-2, 63 ft 242 26 <0.01 0.02 140 ------- PAGE NOT AVAILABLE DIGITALLY ------- Tour 3: Stream Restoration Monitoring Stream Channel And Habitat Restoration Projects Sean Smith Maryland Department of Natural Resources Watershed Restoration Division Tawes State Office Bldg., E-2 Annapolis, MD 21401 Phone: 410.974.3016 EMAIL: ssmith@dnr.state.md.us Applying Stream Classification and Analysis in Stream Restoration Projects Reed Huppman Environmental Resources Management, Inc. 1915 I Street, Suite 500 Washington D.C. 20006 Phone: 202.785.0329 143 ------- SELECTED REFERENCES Chow, V.T. 1959. Open Channel Hydraulics. McGraw Hill Bood Company. New York, Toronto, London. Dunne, T. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and Company. New York, New York. Gordon, N.D. McMahon, T.A., B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology: An Introduction for Ecologists. Wiley and Sons. New York, New York. Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: an illustrated guide to field technique. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-245. Jacobson, R.B. and D.J. Coleman. 1986. Stratigraphy and recent evolution of Maryland piedmont flood plains. American Journal of Science, Vol. 286, pp.617-637. Montgomery, D.R. And J.M. Buffington. 1993. Channel classification, prediction of channel response, and assessment of channel condition. Department of Geological Sciences and Quaternary Research Center, University of Washington. Report prepared for the SHAMW committee of the Washington State Timber/Fish/Wildlife Agreement. Pfankuch, D.J. 1975. Stream reach inventory and channel stability evaluation. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region. Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena, Vol. 22, 169- 199. Wolman, M.G. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Vo. 35, pp.951-956. 144 ------- Tour 4 Intensive Rotational Grazing September 18,1996 Description of Tour The group led by Tim Fritz, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Con- servation District, will tour the Fritzglen Farm, a 70-acre grazing sys- tem that supplies significant forage to a 160-head dairy operation for nine months of the year. This high-production farm converted 60 acres of field crops to pasture in 1993. A 10-year old exercise lot, half of which was mud and manure, is now a productive part of the system. Other features include streambed fencing and composting. Attendees will have the opportunity to design a ground-water moni- toring plan from this farm site using some of the ideas discussed during the breakout-sessions on Tuesday. Topics of discussion, led by Dennis Risser, USGS, will include types of monitoring devices available, location of these devices, testing of aquifer hydraulic properties, and sampling frequency. 145 ------- OLD ¦¦ '¦ v n '-r-'• *. 'V'- '• FRITZGLEN FARM WATERSHED DIVIDE SerfTa'ad^ Al © UNNAMED WATERSHED LOCATION OF FRITZGLEN FARM ^ ------- FRITZGLEN FARM - MANAGEMENT PRIOR TO GRAZING Housing Development Housing Development Houses Houses House I ALFALFA ALFALFA, CORN SILAGE, RYE SILAGE v:vXv>:>Xv:-x-v -K-x-y-w-xc »> w-; g.rnM^ * Manure?)/" s\^v?Ws ^»:««MC0WWyX w»»x we4k BLUEGRASS arid CLOVER I I I i E & OQ o Manure Tank CORN SILAGE RYE SILAGE MILPORT ROAD 147 ------- FRITZGLEN FARM - CURRENT MANAGEMENT WITH INTENSIVE ROTATIONAL GRAZING Housing Development Housing Development Houses Houses House TALL FESCUE AND WHITE CLOVER E a OQ ~ 0 Manure Tank ORCHARDGRASS, RYEGRASS, AND WHITE CLOVER 13 12 11 1 8 ~ 4 TALL FESCUE AND CLOVER RYEGRASS AND CLOVER RYEGRASS AND CLOVER RYEGRASS / AND ~ 6 WHITE >' CLOVER / « RYEGRASS • AND I WHITE 1 CLOVER 1 ' 1 \ 9 \ « 1 7.: I 1 BLUEGRASS 1 WHITE ' CLOVER BLUE , AND GRASS, 1 OTHERS WHITE , CLOVER^ AND * OTHERS \ ¦ • t RED CANARYGRASS, RYEGRASS, AND WHITE CLOVER RYEGRASS AND WHITE CLOVER ORCHARQ GRASS, RYE GRASS, AND WHITE CLOVER TALL FESCUE, ALFALFA, AND WHITE CLOVER MILPORT ROAD 148 ------- Grazing on Fritzglen Farm Jack & Tim Fritz, Fritzglen Farm, Lancaster, PA Tour hosted by Tint Fritz, Penrt State Cooperative Extension, Montgomery County Background Parents Doris & Harold Fritz started renting this 95-acre farm in 1962. The farm at this time had 2 pastures, a 10-acre milking-cow pasture and an 8-acre dry-cow pasture. At that time, the barn had 39 stalls and one 14X55 silo. In 1969, a major addition to the barn was added, bringing the stall number up to 92, and a 24X70 silo was also built. Cow numbers increased to slightly over 100. Ten years later, in 1979, our parents purchased the farm and, over a 3-year period, added additional infrastructure to accommodate the growing herd. Two sealed silos were added includ- ing one 24X90 and one 20X60 for high moisture grain. In addition, a 64X16 manure-storage sys- tem was built. Our herd size is maxed out at 160 plus cows. As cow numbers increased over time on our farm, the once fairly productive 10-acrc milking cow pasture eventually turned into a big exercise lot providing very little forage. Five of the 10 acres turned into a dirt/mud/manure area with a small spring fed stream running through the middle of it. In 1992 several decisions were made to change our farm. Although our herd average has been high for several years, profits were not. High debt load incurred by purchasing the farm and add- ing structures was taking its financial toll. In 1992 our family decided to sell 23 acres to both housing development and park land. We also decided at that time to convert the remaining 72 acres to a grazing system. Rented land would continue to be managed in cropland. With the graz- ing system we hoped to lower production costs and improve the "housing" of our herd. In 1993 the conversion process was started. 45 acres of the farm which was in a corn silage / ryclage pro- gram was converted to pasture by growing a sorghum/soybean mix for silage. After rcgrowth was killed by a Roundup application, we no-tilled various clover/grass and alfalfa/grass mixtures in mid-August. We originally planned back in 1992 to actually start the actual grazing in 1994; how- ever, weather was extremely favorable and the planting was very well established by late fall. We had an experienced fence contractor build our fence in November of 1993 and grazing started in mid-November and continued into early January when ice storms stopped all grazing. Unfortunately, the winter of '94 took its toll on our barn in mid-February. The 1969 addition collapsed under snow load and about half our herd was dispersed on several farms for about 50 days until we started grazing again. From Fcbruary'94 to December '94 we milked out of 39 small tie stalls in the old barn. In '94, the cows spent about 10 to 12 hours a day on concrete. The rest of the day they were housed in the pasture system. In mid -to-late December we finished the '94 grazing season and were milking in our improved bam. We limped through'94 with poor facilities and looked forward to the 1995 grazing season. 1995 proved to be a very successful year despite the heat and dry months of April, August and first half of September. We did not run out of pasture during any period until the snow stopped us a third of the way through December. Our herd average is now over 23,000 with 160 cows and climbing. In addition to using management-intensive grazing, we have decided to move our herd to a fall freshening program and arc well into implementing this strategy. With a fall freshening program we hope to avoid grazing high producing cows during the heat of the summer and hope- fully receive a seasonally higher milk price. 149 ------- Feeding Program A one-group partial TMR is used and cows above 70 lbs. of milk of topdrcssed additional corn and supplement. Forages include pasture (clover, alfalfa, ryegrass, orchardgrass, bluegrass, endophyte free tall fescue, reed canarygrass, and puna chicory), haylagc (pasture surplus and some rented fields), and com silage. We like to add a little dry hay to TMR but has caused some equipment problems. Concentrates include: corn, barley, cottonseed, cooked soybeans. We also use wet brewers grain during the non-grazing season. Full grazing is considered to be at 16 lbs. of dry matter intake per day. When pasture growth slows, we cither add more paddocks and/or decrease pasture dry matter intake by increasing TMR portion of ration. Minimum grazing is considered to be 8 to 10 lbs. of dry matter intake. Fritz Comments on Grazing Advantages: •Higher quality forages both fresh and stored. Lower amounts of concentrates needed to balance ration. •Higher total dry matter intake when compared to tie stall/exercise lot system. •Cleaner cows. •"Happier" cows. •Reduce feet and leg problems. •Reduced stress of harvesting stored feed. •Easier to detect heats. •Easier to bring cows in then a large exercise lot since cows are in small paddock. •Better distribution of manure. Disadvantages: •Need to develop a new set of skills which takes time to learn. •Moving fence during bad weather may not be fun. •Grazing during the heat of the summer is difficult. •Some cows in your herd may not be good grazers. Other Comments: •Constant adjustments of the feeding program arc required. BUN's and MUN's should be monitored and controlled. Reproduction can be negatively affected by high BUN's because degradable protein is high in pasture and high quality haylagc. •To achieve high production you should work closely with a nutritionist and vet that are willing to work with you. •The system requires flexibility and more thinking than a stored feed system. •Not sure we would still be in business if we have not adopted grazing. It seems like most grazers are optimistic about the future of dairy industiy whereas most dairy farmers arc pessimistic about the future of dairy. •Watching and listening to cows grazing is a pleasurable experience. •We plan to relocate our farm sometime. The future farm will be built around a grazing system. 150 ------- |