Region  6
Agriculture Committee
               2008
    Highlights
   Region 6's Agriculture Committee is made up
   of representatives from various Divisions and
   Branches that have a role in environmental man-
   agement of the agriculture sector. This annual
   report is meant to capture regional highlights and
   successes. This report is developed from input
   by Agriculture Committee members.

                     January 2009


-------
                         AIR QUALITY.
EPA Region 6
Agriculture Committee
2008 Highlights
                         The  National Air Emissions
                         Monitoring Study
                                  The  National  Air Emissions  Monitoring Study (NAEMS) is  being
                                  conducted to  update and provide more accurate  emissions factors
                                  for confined animal feeding operations.  The study will take place at
                                  a  number of AFOs (animal feeding operations) in the  swine,  dairy,
                                  broiler chicken, and egg industries nationwide.  EPA Region 6 staff and
                                  personnel from the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
                                  travelled to Guymon, Oklahoma during September 2008 to accompany
                                  the Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards (OAQPS) on an audit of
                                  a swine farrowing facility for the NAEMS. A walk-through of the facility
                                  was conducted to verify locations of air sampling inlets followed by an
                                  interview to discuss daily data collection operations. OAQPS and ODEQ
                                  may have further discussions on  PM10 TEOM (continuous non-filter
                                  based  monitoring  via Tapered  Element Oscillating Microbalance)
                                  monitoring maintenance feasibility.  OAQPS' primary concern  is the
                                  lack of VOC  monitoring at all sites audited to date.  However, there
                                  were no site-specific shortcomings and OAQPS stated that operation of
                                  this site was better than at the majority of sites audited.

                                  Contact Person: Regina Krystyn, 214-665-7128
                         CAFO General Permit
                                   Region 6 is currently in the process off developing National Pollutant
                                   Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permits for Concen-
                                   trated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)  in New Mexico and
                                   Oklahoma.

                                   The Region 6 NPDES  Permits and TMDL Branch proposed for public
                                   comment the issuance of an NPDES general permit for discharges from
                                   CAFOs in New Mexico on January 20, 2009. This is the first NPDES
                                   permit in the nation to incorporate the 2008 Final CAFO Rule. The Branch
                                   plans to propose the NPDES general permit for discharges from CAFOs
                                   in Oklahoma by March 2009.  The proposed permits can be found at
                                   http://www.epa.gov/region6/water/npdes/genpermit/index.htm.

                                   Contact person: Scott Stine, 214-665-7182

-------
                                                              ENFORCEMENT
                             Real-Time  Enforcement
                                                    Pilot  Project
The Water Resources section has added a new tool to the enforcement tool
box.  The new tool termed "Real-time Enforcement" was approved as a pilot
project for use in FY 08.

This  tool is designed to instantaneously address obvious  problems with
obvious solutions when the problems are identified. The traditional method
of inspect, return to the office, write the inspection report, route the report to
enforcement,  enforcement takes action, is becoming a way of the past.

Key aspects of the pilot project are:
   Inspections are  conducted by senior technical staff, which  have
   experience as enforcement officers and inspectors, and have extensive
   knowledge of the sector being inspected;
  The Inspector/Enforcement Officer must be able to identify violations,
   know how to solve the problems and prepare the proper enforcement
   order;
  Administrative Orders are prepared in  the field, the same day of the
   inspection, sent electronically to the program office and to legal for
   review, and then they are sent to the Division Director for signature;
  The signed Order is returned  electronically  (as  a  pdf) to the
   inspector/enforcement officer, the Order is printed out in the field
   and delivered to the facility, and reviewed with the facility operator,
   if possible; and
  When inspector/enforcement officer returns to the office, the Order
   is sent to  file, entered into ICIS, and copies are sent to  program
   and appropriate state agency.  Inspection report is written within
   30 days and sent to the program, facility and the appropriate state
   agency.

Problems that can be addressed include:  unauthorized  discharges;
improper operation and  maintenance;  poor  record  keeping;  and
sampling problems.  Problems  that cannot be addressed include:
complex problems that cannot be clearly identified;  complex problems
with no obvious  solutions; and problems that take more than 90 to
180 days to resolve.

Original agreements were for the pilot study to include 10 site inspec-
tions,  but 11 were actually completed. Of the 11 completed, 5 resulted
in Cease  &  Desist  Administrative Orders (AO)  for unauthorized
discharges to waters of the United States; 5 resulted in AO's for permit
violations; and 1 facility had closed operations (nothing issued).

Turn-Around Time from Inspection to Issuing an AO Fluctuated From
Less Than 24 hrs to a Few Days. Benefits of Real-Time Enforcement
Include: timely enforcement actions; immediate correction of identified
problems (identify violations and address them on-the-spot, brainstorm
and suggest solutions and educate); clear communication of outcome  of the
inspection to  regulated facility (no questions or uncertainty); and improved
protection of human health and the environment.

Contact person: Jeremy Seiger, 214-665-8044
       Case Study #1
       Inspected on 3/13/08, identi-
       fied unauthorized discharge.
       Administrative Order issued
       on 3/14/08. Verified clean-up
       on the 3/17/08.
Case Study #2
The facility was composting mortalities in
rows of poultry manure and runoff from the
site was flowing to an unapproved pond
then overflowing and discharging to a
creek. Following the receipt of the Order,
the facility removed the compost material,
reseeded the area and is currently com-
posting dead animals in a compost barn.
Runoff from mortality compost pile to a
pond and then to a creek. Inspected on
7/7/08, Administrative  Order issued on
7/23/08 after receipt of analytical results
              (Left) Sample
              from Discharge
              (Right) Sample
              from Water Well
                             EPA Region 6
                    Agriculture Committee
                           2008 Highlights

-------
                         ENFORCEMENT.
            ^X.

                   r?  I DiKharge P.lh
                         Dairy Outreach  Program Area  (DOPA)

                         Training  in  Sulphur  Springs,  Texas
                         EPA Region 6 was invited to participate in the annual training of operators of dairy
                         concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) located in environmentally
                         sensitive areas in Texas. All CAFO operators in environmentally sensitive areas
                         of the state, which are known as Dairy  Outreach  Program Areas (DOPA), are
                         required to complete an 8-hour training course on best management practices for
                         animal waste management. The training is organized by the Texas Cooperative
                         Extension Service, Texas A&M University. The DOPA training for dairy operators
                         in Hopkins County was held on Tuesday October 28, 2008, at the Southwest
                         Dairy Center in Sulphur Springs, Texas.  One of  the issues discussed during
                         this training is what to expect when EPA inspects a facility.  EPA and the Texas
                         Commission  on Environmental  Quality (TCEQ) have recently conducted joint
                         inspections in Hopkins County in response to citizen complaints.

                         Technical Contact:  Abu Senkayi, 214-665-8403
                          EPA  Region 6  CAFO  Inspection
                          and  Enforcement Activities
In 2008, the Region inspected 43 CAFOs in Oklahoma and
New Mexico where EPA Region 6 is the CAFO permitting and
enforcement authority.   The Region  also conducted/partici-
pated in 7 joint/oversight inspections with Arkansas and Texas
which  are  delegated  states authorized  to implement their
CAFO  permitting  and
enforcement programs.
EPA Region 6
Agriculture Committee
2008 Highlights

During one of these joint
inspections,    EPA  and
state inspectors observed
a  discharge  of  process
wastewater to a water of
the U.S.  The inspectors
collected  water samples
(WS) along the discharge
route (see Figure 1). The
results (shown in Figure 2) indicate that ammonium nitrogen
(NH4-N) and dissolved phosphorus are initially the major pollutant
species in the discharged wastewater (see photo). Further away
from the discharge point, nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N) becomes the
                       major species.  Sampling results,
                       such as shown in Figure 2,  are
                       routinely used to prove discharge
                       to waters of the U.S. and to support
                       EPA's enforcement actions against
                       any CAFOs found to be discharging
                       pollutants to waters of the U.S.
                       Contact persons:
                       Abu Senkayi, 214-665-8403
                       Jerry Saunders, 214-665-6471
                       Jeremy Seiger 214-665-8044
                               Figure 2 - Nutrient Concentration Along the
                                     Discharge Flowpath
                                   4300  6300  8300  10300

                                     Distance from Source (It)

-------
                                                      PESTICIDES
            Container-Containment  Rule

                                       for Pesticides

The Container-Containment (CC) rule was  published in August 2006. The
Container-Containment rule affects the following agricultural entities: retailers,
commercial  applicators,  custom  blenders,  refillers  and  registrants. The
Container rule portion seeks to minimize human exposure during container
handling; facilitate container disposal and recycling; and  encourage use of
refillable containers.  Under the Container rule,  refillers/retailers will have to:
(1) Obtain cleaning procedures,  keep records, (2) Clean refillables containers
before filling with pesticide, if cleaning is necessary and (3) the pesticides users
will have to follow rinsing instructions on label.   Compliance by August 2011.
The Containment rule seeks to protect the environment from releases at bulk
storage sites; and protect the environment from spills and leaks at refilling &
dispensing operations. Under the containment rule, need to consider 3 things
to determine whether you must comply with the containment regulations: (1) Is
my facility included?, (2) Do I need secondary containment?, and (3) Do I need
a containment pad? Compliance by August 17, 2009.

Technical Contact: Elizabeth Reyes, 214-665-3163


Pesticides  Program  Bi-annual  Meeting

            with State  Lead Agencies  (SLAs)
Pesticides program staff met with our five State Lead Agencies
(SLAs) on October 28th & 29th.  The Agriculture Division
Director (Richard Colbert) from  the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance also attended  the meeting.  Agenda
items of particular interest included Spray Drift Label Language,
Federal Inspection Credentials  Renewal, High  Visibility State
Enforcement Cases, and  Certification &  Training Turning
Point Demonstration. Additionally, a site visit to the Lewisville
Aquatic Ecosystem Research Facility  (operated by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers) was conducted to observe research
into chemical and biological control of invasive aquatic plants,
as well as aquatic habitat restoration techniques.

Technical Contact:  David W. McQuiddy and Pesticide Staff, 214-665-6722



        Pesticides  Program End  of Year

Assessments of State  Lead  Agencies

Pesticide Program staff members conducted an End-of-Year program assessment
with Arkansas State Plant Board (ASPB), Louisiana Department of Agriculture
and Forestry (LDAF), New Mexico Department of Agriculture (NMDA), Oklahoma
Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry (ODAFF), and Texas Department of
Agriculture (TDA) from December 2nd-4th. All aspects of the pesticides program
were reviewed. This included Enforcement, Worker Safety, Certification & Training,
Endangered Species, Container/Containment, Imports, and Water Quality.

Technical Contacts: State Lead Agencies Project Officers (Jerry Oglesby-ASPB,
Jerry Collins-ODAFF, Eugene Thilsted-LDAF & TDA, Greg Weiler-NMDA)

Technical Contact: David W. McQuiddy, 214-665-6722
Lewisville Aquatic
   Ecosystem
Research Facility
                       EPA Region 6
               Agriculture Committee
                     2008 Highlights


-------
                        PESTICIDES
EPA Region 6
Agriculture Committee
2008 Highlights
Pesticide  Environmental  Stewardship

Program Awards  Grants  for 2008
The EPA Region 6 Pesticide Program awarded 1 grant related to Agriculture to the
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry titled: "Reducing Pesticide
Risk Exposure to Commercial Peach and Pecan Orchards, Watermelon Farms and
Plant Nursery Operations with Oklahoma's Pesticide Sensitive Location Viewer, and
Innovative Communication Tool".
Technical Contact: Eugene Thilsted, 214-665-7282


Strategic  Agriculture  Initiative (SAI)

Program  Awards  Grants for 2008
   ^  The Region 6 SAI Program awarded 3 grants during FY2008. These included:
       "Hands-on Experience in Integrated Pest Management for Farmers' Market
       Growers in Oklahoma and Arkansas" (Principle Investigator-Anita Poole
       with Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture);  "Integrated Farm Management
       Education Program" (Principle  Investigator-Dr. C. Allan Jones with Texas
       AgriLife Extension Service) and "Development of Web-based Helicoverpazea
       (Cotton Bollworm)  Pyrethroid Insecticide Resistance Monitoring Database
       and Real-Time Information Delivery System (Principle Investigator-Dr. Patricia
       Pietrantonio with Texas A&M University AgriLife Experiment Station).
       Technical Contact:  Eugene Thilsted, 214-665-7282


WATER QUALITY	

Improvement  of Surface  and

Ground Water Quality

Lake  Creek, Oklahoma

Lake Creek, in Caddo County, is located in one
of the most intensive agricultural areas of the
state.   Education and implementation of best
management practices, including reduced tillage,
integrated pest management, and proper riparian
zone  management, have  led  to  decreased
loading of pesticides, nutrients, and sediment to
the creek.  As a result, fish communities  have
improved enough to allow removal of Lake Creek
from Oklahoma's 303(d) list for unknown toxicity
and pesticides.   Further water quality  improve-
ments are ongoing in this  region as part of the
Fort Cobb Watershed Based Plan.
Lake Creek is a 16 mile long gaining stream fed by shallow ground water that seeps
out continuously along the  stream banks. Approximately 92%  of the Lake Creek
watershed is used for the production of peanuts, cotton, wheat, alfalfa, and other
small grain and row crops.  Excessive and improper fertilization  and pesticide use,
coupled with very permeable, sandy, and highly erodible soils  and very shallow
ground water (< 40 inches below the soil surface),  led to high levels of nutrients
both in  the surface water and shallow ground  water  and unknown toxicity thought
to be related to pesticides.  Fish collections at two sites along Lake Creek in 1990
revealed very poor biological conditions relative to area reference streams, with IBI
                                                                 Lake Creek, shown before BMP implementa-
                                                                 tion, is in an area of intensive agricultural
                                                                 land use. It has highly erodible soils and very
                                                                 shallow groundwater which seeps into the
                                                                 surface water, carrying high levels of nutrients
                                                                 and pesticides. Education and demonstration
                                                                 focused on reducing pesticide and fertilizer
                                                                 usage, as well as establishing riparian zones
                                                                 and excluding livestock from the stream, in
                                                                 order to improve the biological community.

-------
                                                        .WATER QUALITY
(Index of Biological Integrity) scores that resulted in a "not supporting" designation
for the stream. Approximately 12 pesticides were detected in surface water and
streamside seepage  samples.  Significant levels of the fungicide Botran were
tentatively identified as well.  Based on these results, Lake Creek was placed on
the 303(d) list in 1998 as not supporting its fish and wildlife designated use due to
unknown toxicity and pesticide impairment.

An  educational  effort  was  directed toward  the implementation of  a farm
management program for use in areas of shallow ground water where land uses
directly affect ground water and,  subsequently, surface water quality.  A major
focus of this program was the dissemination of information regarding potential
cost savings for landowners through reduction of fertilizer and  other chemical
usage. Both one-on-one meetings and public sessions were held with the intent
of reducing pesticide use by teaching peanut and alfalfa growers integrated pest
management techniques,  including proper weed  and insect scouting, deter-
mining pest thresholds, and interpreting soil test reports. In addition, producers
were educated on proper fungicide use.  Demonstration plots were established
to illustrate best management practices (BMPs) for crop production to reduce
nutrient,  pesticide, and sediment loading, and  riparian  area demonstration
projects  exhibited  appropriate vegetation management and cattle exclusion
devices.   BMPs which were implemented in the Lake Creek watershed from
1995-2002 include reduced tillage planting in peanut fields, riparian zone fencing,
alternative livestock water source construction, grade stabilization structures,
diversion terraces, deferred grazing, rotational grazing, and planting trees and
other vegetation in riparian zones.

Over 200 people attended the various  educational presentations.
Over 400 acres of pasture were converted to either deferred or ro-
tational grazing, grade stabilization and diversion terrace structures
were constructed, approximately 20,000 feet of stream exclusion
fencing was erected,  and vegetation was planted in critical riparian
areas.  As a result of these practices and the accompanying educa-
tion  of producers concerning proper pesticide and fungicide  use,
the fish community improved significantly.
The  median  number of species caught in 1998  was  13.5, as
compared to 6 in  1990, and the median number  of fish caught
was  637 versus 299 in  1990.  The increase in these parameters
improved the IBI scores for Lake Creek to the degree necessary to
fulfill the state biological criteria in support of the Fish and Wildlife
Propagation beneficial use.  Additionally, samples of Lake Creek
water and sediment failed to exhibit any toxicity using the same
tests that had demonstrated toxicity in  1990.   Based on these
results,  Lake Creek was removed from the 303(d) list for unknown
toxicity and pesticides in 2002 and is in partial attainment of its Fish
and Wildlife Propagation designated use.
Lake Creek Fish Bioassessment
24
23
22
I"
go
19
18
17

Fully Supporting
^
*
Undetermined
*
+
Not Supporting








16
1990 1998
Many groups contributed to the success of this project, including
the Oklahoma Conservation Commission, Oklahoma Department
of Agriculture-Forestry Division, West Caddo County Conservation District,
North Caddo Conservation District, Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service,
Master  Conservancy District,  Natural  Resource  Conservation Service,  and
the Caddo County Soil Conservation Service.  The crucial educational efforts
were led by the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service and the Oklahoma
Department of Agriculture (now Oklahoma  Department of Agriculture, Food
and Forestry) with the participation of the other agencies. EPA Clean Water Act
319 funds provided $280,441, while the State of Oklahoma supplied $186,961
toward the Lake Creek project.

Contact: Randall Rush, 214-665-7107
Fish bioassessment  results  from 1990
and 1998.   Circles  represent the  IBI
scores of fish collections at two sites in
Lake Creek;  diamonds indicate the  av-
erage  IBI score of the two sites.  The
improvement in these parameters  re-
sulted  in an average IBI score which
justified delisting (Oklahoma  biocriteria
allows  pooling of data from multiple sites
when they lie within the same reach).
                            EPA Region 6
                              Agriculture
                              Committee
                                Highlights

                                      6
2008

-------
                          WATER QUALITY.
                                                         Potential sources of sediment and nutrients in the Salt Fork
                                                         watershed before BMP implementation: fields were often culti-
                                                         vated or grazed to the edge of the stream; riparian buffers were
                                                         nonexistent or rare.
14
I2
1
I4"
2














0
2002 2004 2006
Assessment Year


14
1
f-
24
2













0
2002 2004 2006
Assessment Year

EPA Region 6
Agriculture Committee
2008 Highlights
Education  and  Demonstration  Efforts

Result in  Turbidity  Improvements

Sandy and Yellowstone Creeks (Salt Fork Watershed),

Oklahoma

Sandy and Yellowstone  Creeks,
both located in  the Salt  Fork of
the Arkansas  River  watershed
in North Central  Oklahoma  (in
Alfalfa  and  Woods   Counties,
respectively),  were impaired  for
turbidity due in  part to practices
associated  with crop  and  cattle
production.  Agricultural producer
education   and  implementation
of best  management practices
(BMPs)  to  promote   conser-
vation  tillage,  proper   fertilizer
application,    integrated   pest
management, and riparian  buffer
establishment helped to decrease  sediment  and nutrients  going  into both
creeks.  As a result, Sandy Creek was removed from Oklahoma's 2004 303(d)
list for turbidity  impairment, and Yellowstone Creek  has  been nominated  for
                    removal from  the state's 2006 303(d)  list for turbidity.

                    The Salt Fork is an agriculture-intensive watershed where
                    wheat and alfalfa are the primary crops. Fields were often
                    plowed to the edge of streams, and cattle often grazed
                    at stream edges, both  of which contributed to bank
                    erosion. Consequently, streams in this watershed had
                    high turbidity problems. Both Sandy Creek, 18mileslong,
                    and Yellowstone Creek, 22 miles long, were placed on the
                    1998 303(d) list for not attaining their designated use of Fish
                    and Wildlife Propagation (FWP) due to turbidity impairment.

                    Educating agricultural  producers was a top priority  for
                    the Salt Fork  watershed program.  Better  management
                    techniques for sediment,  nutrient,  and pest  control, such
                    as  no-till and  reduced till planting,  proper  fertilizer and
                    chemical (pesticide,  herbicide,  fungicide) application,  the
                    use of crop varieties which require fewer chemicals, and
                    riparian  buffer zone establishment,  were taught through
                    multiple  channels.  Ten   BMP  demonstration  projects
                    showed producers that BMP implementation need not af-
                    fect production volumes or their bottom  line.  Numerous
                    educational meetings, tours, and field days, in combination
                    with a website and newsletters also  promoted the BMPs.
                    During the project period, from  1999-2002,  conservation
                    tillage use within the Salt Fork watershed increased by 21%
                    (to  88% of producers), soil test-based fertilizer application
                    increased by 29% (to 67% of producers), and 78% of pro-
                    ducers recognized the benefits of using vegetative buffers
                    along streams. As a result, turbidity has decreased in the
                    Salt Fork watershed.  In the 2002 assessment, 13% of sea-
                    sonal  base flow water samples from Sandy Creek exceeded
                    the turbidity criteria; in the 2004 assessment it was reduced
A  stream  is  considered
impaired due to turbidity if
10% or more of the seasonal
base flow water  samples
exceed 50 NTUs (based on
five years of data proceeding
the assessment year).  The
FWP designation  is  now
fully attained in both creeks.

-------
                                                  .WATER QUALITY
to 8%, and in 2006, it was further reduced to 4%. Similarly, in 2002 Yellowstone
Creek had a 10% exceedance of turbidity criteria, which by 2006 was down to
only 6% exceedance.  Both creeks now meet the requirements of their FWP use
designation. Sandy Creek was removed from Oklahoma's 303(d) list in 2004, and
Yellowstone Creek is expected to be removed from the state's 2006 303(d) list.

EPA Section 319 funds provided  $90,000 for the implementation of this project.
The Oklahoma Conservation Commission supplied $60,000,  which was  used
to subcontract with the Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension to
conduct education and demonstration tasks.

Contact: Randall  Rush, 214-665-7107
    Demonstration  of Reduced  Pollutant

 Loads, Decreased  Streambank Erosion,

  and Improved Biological  Communities

Peacheater Creek, Illinois River Watershed, Oklahoma

 Peacheater  Creek,  a 10.3 mile long stream in Northeast
 Oklahoma,  and  Tyner Creek,  an adjacent stream 15
 miles long, are subwatersheds in the larger Illinois River
 watershed.  BMPs implemented in this project focused on
 riparian  management and  improvement,  in addition to
 proper animal waste management and education in the
 Peacheater  Creek watershed. Expected nutrient loading
 to Peacheater Creek, where BMPs were implemented
 through  the 319 program, was significantly reduced as
 compared  to Tyner Creek,  the  control  watershed
 with no  project-specific BMP  implementation.  In
 addition, measured streambank erosion was lower and
 biological communities showed greater improvement in the
 Peacheater watershed relative to the Tyner watershed.

 Peacheater  and Tyner Creeks are tributaries to the Illinois
 River and Lake Tenkiller, waterbodies which have been
 impaired by excessive phosphorus, turbidity, and bacteria since at least the early
 1990s and have been included on Oklahoma's 303(d) list since 1998.  Both
 Peacheater  and Tyner are impaired by Enterococcus (listed in 2006) and have
 been shown to contribute to the impairments present in the larger, receiving water-
 bodies. Due to their proximity to each other and their location in the Illinois River
 watershed, these two streams were chosen to demonstrate the effectiveness of
 BMPs to reduce delivery of nutrients, sediment, and bacteria to the Illinois River
 and Lake Tenkiller, using a paired watershed design to assess improvements.

 BMPs were implemented through  a  319 project  in  the Peacheater Creek
 watershed from 1998 through 2002, and water quality was compared to that of the
 Tyner Creek watershed, a similar, adjacent watershed which received  no project-
 specific BMPs.  BMPs installed by 11 landowners in  the Peacheater  watershed
 included establishment of riparian buffers,  alternative water supplies for cattle,
 construction of heavy use areas for feeding livestock and storing wastes, poultry
 litter transport out of the watershed, pasture management, and septic tank instal-
 lation or repair.  Pre-implementation monitoring in both watersheds occurred
 from 1995-1998,  with post-implementation  monitoring from 2003 to 2005.

 The observed and predicted water quality improvements that resulted from

                                                         continued..
Peacheater Creek
(treatment) and Tyner
Creek  (control) wa-
tersheds. Monitoring
sites and locations of
BMP implementation
are depicted here.
               Agriculture
               Committee
           2008 Highlights

-------
                               WATER QUALITY.
                               Peacheater Creek, Illinois River Watershed, Oklahoma continued...
Treatment and Calibration Period Regressions

K 12
s '
a-S
1 =
I 
E ~" 4
K

. y^
. .^5^^-
^j " -
^j
^r

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Control (Tyner) TP Load (In kg/yr)
* calibration  calibration line  Treatment  treatment line
Treatment and Calibration Period Regressions
 14-

St12
<" l in
1= 8-
Q.  "
1 
E 4
Is n
f

* ^t*^**^^ *
^P*-'*
^^^_



*
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Control (Tyner) TN Load (In kg/yr)
* calibration  calibration line  treatment  treatment line
30
25
_
1 -
|o
ii
5
0

)

_. ,
' E
i i

*

[i "
d


Pre Post Pre Post
                               Treatment (post-implementation) versus calibration (pre-implementation) regressionsfortotal phosphorus
                               (TP) and total nitrogen (TN) loads. The lower values and decreased slopes for the treatment period indicate
                               improved conditions over what was expected.

                               implementation  of  BMPs  in the
                               Peacheater    Creek   watershed
                               indicate that  practices implemented
                               at a similar intensity throughout the
                               larger Illinois  River watershed  could
                               provide   significant   reductions  in
                               loading both to the Illinois River and
                               to downstream Lake  Tenkiller.  It is
                               hoped  that further  implementation
                               will allow the  Illinois River to achieve
                               the in-stream phosphorus standard
                               of  0.037 mg/L  (30  day geometric
                               mean) by 2012.

                               Funding  for  the  project was  a
                               combination of federal monies from
                               the  EPA 319  program and  state
                               monies. The  total cost of this project
                               was approximately $800,000.  This
                               included  $477,000 in  federal dollars
                               from EPA Section 319 and $318,000
                               in  state  dollars  and  cost-share
                               funds from  landowners. This project
                               demonstrated that, in small agricul-
                               tural  watersheds,  significant  water
                               quality improvement is possible with a relatively low investment in implementation
                               of BMPs.  Many different  groups participated in  the  Peacheater Creek project,
                               including the Oklahoma Conservation Commission, Adair County  Conservation
                               District,   Cherokee County  Conservation District,  Oklahoma  Department  of
                               Agriculture, Adair County Extension Service, Oklahoma State University Cooper-
                               ative Extension Service, NRCS, Farm Services Agency, local producers, poultry
                               integrators, and animal waste marketers.

                               Contact:  Randall Rush, 214-665-7107
Comparison of pre-implementation and post-implemen-
tation streambank erosion in the Peacheater and Tyner
Creek watersheds.  Boxplots indicate the interquartile
range (25th-75th percentile) and median of the data
in the two periods.  The Peacheater sites exhibited a
statistically significant reduction in erosional area.
Stream
I't'iichcater
Tyner
Prc-
Ini pic mental ion
n
3
3
Median
89
293
Post-
Implcmcntntion
n
10
9
Median
275
349
Median total number of individuals collected in fish surveys
(over 400 m  reaches) during the pre-implementation
versus post-implementation period,  "n"  represents the
number of fish surveys.
EPA Region 6
Agriculture Committee
2008 Highlights

9


-------
     '*i PRO^
  U.S. EPA Region 6
   1445 Ross Ave.
Dallas, TX 75202-2733

   1-800-887-6063
www.epa.gov/region6

-------