^tDS%
o
PRO^°
36 JNONPOINT source success stury
oMfckomfc
urbidity Levels in Winter Camp Creek are Reduced hrough
Voluntary Agricultural Conservation Programs
u l , |	,/p^| Elevated turbidity levels resulted in the impairment of Winter
Camp Creek and placement on Oklahoma's Clean Water Act (CWA)
section 303(d) list of impaired waters in 2006, Grazing and crop production contributed to these
impairments, and implementation of conservation practice systems (CPs) to promote better-quality
grazing lands and croplands decreased turbidity levels in the creek. As a result, Winter Camp Creek
was removed from Oklahoma's 2010 CWA section 303(d) list for turbidity. Winter Camp Creek now
partially supports its fish and wildlife protection (FWP) beneficial use.
Problem
Winter Camp Creek is a 24.23-mile stream that flows
through Kingfisher and Canadian counties in Oklahoma
before discharging to Kingfisher Creek near the town
of Kingfisher (Figure 1). Land use in the 74,000-acre
watershed is primarily cropland (59 percent of total) for
dryland winter wheat production which is concentrated
in the lower end of the watershed. About 35 percent
of the watershed is grassland and pasture for grazing
and hay production, and 1 percent is forested, primarily
along stream channels. Portions of the stream have been
channelized and impounded in a series of ponds and
small reservoirs for livestock watering and more recently
to provide water for oil and natural gas extraction. The
channel is deeply incised and unstable in some areas.
Cropland and grazing management and hydromodifica-
tion contributed to excess turbidity in Winter Camp
Creek. It was listed as impaired for turbidity in 2006
when 11 percent of assessed baseflow turbidity sam-
ples violated Oklahoma water quality standards. An
Oklahoma stream is considered to violate the turbid-
ity standard when more than 10 percent of baseflow
samples are higher than 50 nephelometric turbidity
units (NTU). On the basis of these results, Oklahoma
added Winter Camp Creek (OK620910050080_00) to
the 2006 CWA section 303(d) list for nonattalnment of
the FWP beneficial use.
Project Highlights
Landowners in the watershed worked with the
Kingfisher County and Central North Canadian
River conservation districts, the U.S. Department of
Figure 1. The Winter Camp Creek watershed is in
central Oklahoma.
Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), and the Oklahoma Conservation
Commission (OCC) to implement conservation prac-
tices (CPs) through Oklahoma NRCS's Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation
Stewardship Program (CStwP), Grazing Lands
Conservation Initiative (GLCI) conservation technical
assistance, and the general conservation technical
assistance program, as well as through the OCC's
Locally Led Cost-Share Program (LLCP).
From 2006 to 2010, landowners installed CPs to
improve many acres of croplands and grazing lands,
which reduced runoff of sediment and other pollut-
ants by decreasing erosion. Landowners continued to
implement CPs after 2010, which has helped maintain
water quality improvements (Table 1).
Winter Camp Creek also benefits from the forested
and grassed riparian buffers that most landowners
have set aside in the lower watershed. Some areas
Altona ^
Legend
© Winter Camp Monitoring Sites
	Winter Camp Streams
~ Winter Camp Watershed
~ Towns
County Boundaries

-------
Table 1. Conservation practices installed in the Winter
Camp Creek watershed during two time periods.

Amount

2006-
2010-
Practice type installed
2010
2017
Prescribed grazing (ac)
2,594
957
Nutrient management (ac)
762
439
Ponds
5
-
Cross fencing (feet)
3,872
6,195
Upland wildlife management
443
76
Well
-
1
Terrace (ft)
26,740
2,985
Grade stabilization structures
2
-
No-till (ac)
1,030
984
Integrated pest management (ac)
622
744
Rotation of supplement/feeding areas (ac)
-
588
Using controlled-release nitrogen
fertilizer (ac)
-
1,367
Solar pumping plant for livestock


watering


Forage and biomass planting (ac)
333
143
Brush management (ac)
268
42
Critical area planting (ac)
39
8
Contour farming (ac)
265
265
Conservation crop rotation (ac)
1,199
-
Diversion (feet)
669
1,774
Field border (feet)
2,760
-
Grassed waterways (ac)
60
15
Reduced tillage (ac)
1,776
-
Seasonal residue management (ac)
500
288
Using technology to reduce pesticide drift
(ac)
-
1,370
Incorporating native plants and legumes

64
into pasture plantings (ac)

Forage harvest management (ac)
155
-
Notes: ac = acres; ft = feet
are grazed, but many are not farmed—likely because
the areas along the incised creek channel are difficult
to access. Although the upper watershed does not
have as much protected buffer, the lower end of the
watershed has significant buffers of trees, shrubs, and
grasses between tilled fields and the stream. These
buffers continue to mature and protect the stream.
Results
Through its statewide nonpoint source Rotating Basin
Ambient Monitoring Program, the OCC documented
improved water quality in Winter Camp Creek due to
landowners implementing CPs. The installed practices
worked to decrease erosion and reduce turbidity.
Winter Camp Creek Turbidity
%exceedance: 11%	0%	0% 7%
80.0
70.0	~
_60.0
| 50.0
.*40.0
jsO.O
20.0
10.0
0.0
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Figure 2. Turbidity decreased in Winter Camp Creek as
agricultural producers implemented CPs.
Monitoring data compiled from the upstream site (see
Figure 1) for the 2006 integrated report showed exces-
sive turbidity in Winter Camp Creek when 11 percent
of baseflow samples exceeded the state standard of
50 NTU. However, by 2010, turbidity values at the
upstream site had decreased such that 0 percent of
samples exceeded 50 NTU. In 2012 the monitoring
site was moved further downstream to capture the
influence of a major tributary, and the water quality
improvement continues at this site through the 2016
assessment (Figure 2). On the basis of these data,
Winter Camp Creek was removed from the Oklahoma
CWA section 303(d) list for turbidity in 2010. This
change resulted in partial support of its FWP beneficial
use. Monitoring in Winter Camp Creek will continue
in order to track progress towards full support of
beneficial uses.
Partners and Funding
The OCC monitoring program is supported by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) CWA sec-
tion 319 funds at an average annual statewide cost of
$1 million. Approximately $500,000 in EPA 319 funds
support statewide water quality educational efforts
through Blue Thumb. Working in partnership with local
conservation districts, NRCS supplied approximately
$90,000 for implementation of CPs in the watershed
through NRCS EQIP. Additional dollars supported con-
servation practices installed and maintained through
NRCS CStwP and the GLCI. The LLCP provided $14,361
matched by $6,641 from landowners. Finally, many
practices were funded by landowners based on recom-
mendations through NRCS general technical assistance
and conservation planning.
^edsj^ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
0** Office of Water
^ Washington, DC
WJ
EPA 841-F-17-001L
pR0*t^° August 2017
For additional information contact:
Shanon Phillips
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
405-522-4728 • shanon.phillips@conservation.ok.gov

-------