•
Section 319
NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM SOCCESS STORY
Implementation of Conservation Practices Improves Bacteria Levels in
Commission Creek
Waterbodv I m Droved H'9h leve'S °f Escherichia coli(E- co//) bacteria, caused in
''"' v " part by cattle production, led to Commission Creek being
added to Oklahoma's 2002 Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) list of impaired waters.
Implementing a system of conservation practices (CPs) to improve grazingland and
exclude livestock from riparian areas resulted in decreased bacteria in the creek. As a
result. Commission Creek was removed from Oklahoma's 2008 CWA section 303(d) list
for E. co/i impairment and is in partial attainment of its primary body contact recreation
designated use.
Problem
Twelve-mile-long Commission Creek
(OK520620050160 _ 00) flows through Ellis County
on the western Oklahoma border with Texas (Figure
1). The majority of the land in the 31,543-acre area is
used for wheat and cattle production. A small amount
of cotton and sorghum is also produced. Erosion of
grazingland, coupled with improper management
of livestock wastes and direct livestock access to
streams, was potentially the largest nonpoint source
(NPS) problem in the watershed, contributing to high
levels of fecal bacteria in the stream. In the 2002
water quality assessment, E. co/i levels exceeded the
state criterion, with a geometric mean of 146 colony
forming units/100 milliliters (CFU). The primary body
contact recreation designated use is considered
impaired if the geometric mean exceeds 126 CFU
for E. co/i. A TMDL for E. co/i and Enterococcus was
implemented by Oklahoma in 2006.
Commission Creek Watershed
Project Highlights
Landowners implemented CPs with support from
the Oklahoma Conservation Commission's (OCC's)
Locally Led Cost Share Program (LLCS), and
funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Environmental Quality Incentives Program,
Conservation Reserve Program and Wildlife Habitat
Incentive Program. The focus of most CPs in this
watershed was to improve rangeland quality and
restore natural habitat. Improved water quality was
expected from decreased runoff from poor quality
land that can carry both sediment and fecal bacteria
Figure 1. The Commission Creek watershed flows through
Ellis County in western Oklahoma.
into waterbodies. From 2006 to 2014, landowners
installed eight alternative water supplies and imple-
mented 2,784 acres of prescribed grazing. Brush
management on 660 acres also helped improve
range quality. In addition, upland wildlife habitat man-
agement occurred on 2,466 acres, which produced
high quality, diverse, natural vegetation which is less
susceptible to erosion.
The OCC NPS education program, Blue Thumb, had
an active presence in Ellis County from 2004 to 2010.
In 2002, staff from the Ellis County Conservation
-------
Bacteria Data, Commission Creek
800-
600-
3
LJ_
y
I400'
Uj
200-
0-
Ge
me
ometr c
an =146 Geometric *
mean = 142
H K
Geometric
mean = 93
*
Geometric
mean = 50
2002
D
2004 2008
AssessmentYear
— ' —
2014
Figure 2. Boxplots indicate the interquartile range
(25th-75th percentile) and median of the data for
assessment years 2002, 2004, 2008 and 2014. A
stream meets criteria for E. coli if the geometric
mean, based on no more than five years of data
preceding the assessment year, is less than
126 colony forming units/100 ml (CPU).
District and local NRCS participated in a Blue Thumb
training session. In addition, a local high school
teacher and her students monitored a stream in the
county and submitted reports on the results to the
local newspaper to inform local citizens about poten-
tial problems and options to improve water quality.
The high school students participated in an annual
training about NPS pollution and used an Enviroscape
watershed model to teach younger students about
NPS dynamics and solutions.
Results
The OCC Rotating Basin Monitoring Program, a state-
wide nonpoint source ambient monitoring program,
documented improved water quality in Commission
Creek due to the conservation efforts (Figure 2). The
grazingland and nutrient management CPs decreased
erosion and bacteria loading, and the CPs designed
to improve rangeland and wildlife habitat resulted
in denser vegetation and fewer bare spots, which
equated to less runoff of soil, nutrients and bacteria
from animal wastes into waterbodies. Monitoring
data showed that the geometric mean of E. coli in
the 2008 assessment was 93 CFU, below the state
standard of 126 CFU. Hence, Commission Creek was
removed from the 2008 CWA section 303(d) list for
E. coli impairment. The geometric mean in the 2014
Figure 3. The OCC Rotating Basin Monitoring
Program documented improved water quality in
Commission Creek, seen here in 2015.
assessment was even lower, at 50 CFU, indicating
that E. coli in Commission Creek has remained low,
and the creek is in partial attainment of the primary
body contact recreation use. With continued good
management, the waterbody is expected to fully
attain its primary recreation designated use.
Partners and Funding
The improvement in water quality in Commission
Creek was documented by OCC's statewide N PS
ambient monitoring effort known as the Rotating
Basin Monitoring Program (RBMP). The RBMP is
funded in part with U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) CWA section 319 funds at a total annual
cost of $1 million. This funding supports personnel,
supplies, lab analyses and other associated costs.
Sampling efforts comprise 20 water quality collec-
tions at approximately 100 sites every five weeks
per five-year cycle. Instream habitat, fish and macro-
invertebrate samples are also collected during this
period. Statewide educational efforts through OCC's
Blue Thumb are also funded by EPA section 319 at
a cost of approximately $600,000 annually. The Ellis
County Conservation District and landowners in the
watershed contributed approximately $5,000 through
the LLCS program. NRCS spent a little over $1 million
through its programs for implementation of CPs in Ellis
County from 2006 through 2014, and implementation
continues in the area through various programs.
I
3
s
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC
EPA841-F-15-001II
August 2015
For additional information contact:
Shanon Phillips
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
shanon.phillips@conservation.ok.gov
405-522-4500
------- |