• 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 ------- |