' O "
PRO^°
NONPOINT SOURCE SUCCESS STORY

Conservation Reserve Program Supports Improved Water Quality in
Buffalo Creek Watershed (Harper County)
Waterbodies Improved High bacteria levels resulted in impairment of Buffalo Creek
and placement on Oklahoma's Clean Water Act (CWA) section
303(d) list of impaired waters in 2002. Pollution from grazing and crop lands contributed to
these impairments. Implementing conservation practice systems (CPs) to promote better land
management decreased Escherichia coli (E. coli) levels in the watershed. As a result, Oklahoma
removed the E. coli impairment from its 2016 CWA section 303(d) list. Buffalo Creek now partially
supports its primary body contact (PBC) designated beneficial use.
Problem
The Buffalo Creek Watershed extends over 170,395
acres (ac) in Harper County in northwest Oklahoma
(Figure 1). The creek flows southeast through the
arid Rolling Red Hills Ecoregion and empties into the
Cimarron River. Land use in the watershed is about 72
percent hay and grazing lands and 23 percent crop-
land. The small town of Buffalo lies in the center of the
watershed (population 1,302). Oil and gas activity has
increased in recent years in the western portion of the
watershed. The watershed also contains a large cattle
feeding operation near the town of Buffalo.
Challenges with grazing and crop land management
contributed to listing a 49.75-mile segment of the
stream as impaired by E. coli when at least 17 percent
of samples exceeded the individual sample maximum
of 406 colony-forming units per 100 milliliters
(CFU/100 m!_) during the recreation season (May
1 - September 30). In 2002, the PBC designated use
was considered impaired if more than 10 percent of
samples exceeded individual sample maximum. The
assessment method changed in 2008 and streams
were considered to violate the standard if the recre-
ation season geometric mean exceeded 126 CFU/100
mL for E. coli. Based on these results, the Oklahoma
Conservation Commission (OCC) added segment
OK620920050010_00 to the 2002 CWA section 303(d)
list of impaired waters for nonattainment of the PBC
designated beneficial use.
.egend
Buffalo Monitoring Site)
3uffalo Creek Waterbodiesj
-	Other Streams
-	Delisted Segment
Figure 1. Buffalo Creek is in northwestern Oklahoma.
Story Highlights
Landowners in the watershed worked with the Harper
County Conservation District, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) and Farm Services Agency (FSA), and the
OCC to implement CPs through Oklahoma NRCS's
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and
general conservation technical assistance program,
FSA's Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and OCC's
Locally Led Cost Share Program (LLCP). From 1991 to
2018, landowners Improved thousands of acres of
pasture, hay meadows, and cropland, which reduced
runoff of bacteria and other pollutants by decreasing

-------
erosion and better utilizing available grazing lands.
Much of this implementation was focused on limiting
livestock grazing access to vulnerable grass and former
croplands through the enrollment of over 11,000
acres in the CRP program. Additional practices focused
on reducing pollutant runoff from cropland through
terraces (1,058,647 feet [ft]), diversions (41,160 ft),
reduced tillage (no-till: 6,105 ac; reduced-till: 4,438 ac)
operations and other improvements.
Landowners implemented other CPs, including
pest management (4,142 ac), nutrient management
(2,463 ac), forage harvest management (733 ac),
brush management (2,863 ac), and upland wildlife
habitat management (19,912 ac). Landowners also
implemented livestock access control (11,666 ac) and
installed pipeline (50,980 ft), a pumping plant, water
wells (23), watering tanks (25), and ponds (17). They
adopted irrigation water management across 208 ac,
including adding a sprinkler system and pipeline (634
ft). They installed five grade stabilization structures
and three animal waste treatment lagoons. Additional
CPs include cover crops (3,694 ac), conservation cover
(11,781 ac), conservation crop rotation (534 ac), pre-
scribed grazing (6,947 ac), critical area planting (94 ac),
forage/biomass planting (1,370 ac), deep tillage (1,088
ac), prescribed burning (934 ac), animal waste recy-
cling (233 ac), field border (76,266 ft), fencing (48,041
ft), riparian planting (31 ac), range planting (4,566 ac),
grassed waterways (115 ac), and windbreak/shelter
belts (3,165 ft).
Results
The OCC documented improved water quality in
Buffalo Creek due to installation of CPs through its
statewide nonpoint source Rotating Basin Ambient
Monitoring Program. Data compiled for the 2002
integrated report showed that E. coli levels exceeded
the individual sample maximum of 406 CFU/100 mL at
least 17 percent of the time (Figure 2). The standard
changed in 2008 such that streams were considered
to violate the criteria if the geomean of recreation
Buffalo Creek E. coli
maximum:	3,920 3,920 3,920 2,000 2,000	360 2,200
% exceeds: 17% 30% 16%
geomean:	128 168 159 261	17	61
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012	2016 2020
Figure 2. E. coli concentrations in Buffalo Creek declined
as CPs were installed.
season samples exceeded 126 CFU/100 mL. As shown
in Figure 2, Buffalo Creek continued to exceed the
applicable standard through 2012. However by 2016,
the geomean had dropped to 17 CFU/100 mL. Based
on these data, Oklahoma removed Buffalo Creek from
the CWA section 303(d) list for E. coli in 2016. Buffalo
Creek now partially supports its PBC beneficial use.
Partners and Funding
The OCC monitoring program is supported by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) CWA section
319 funding at an average annual statewide cost of
$1 million. Approximately $500,000 in EPA section 319
funds support statewide water quality educational
efforts through Blue Thumb. Approximately $289,870
of these federal and state matching funds have
been devoted to Buffalo Creek. From 1991 to 2018,
NRCS and FSA supplied more than $2.2 million for CP
implementation in Oklahoma through EQIP and CRP. In
addition, many practices were funded by landowners
based on recommendations through NRCS general
technical assistance. Finally, the OCC, Harper County
Conservation District, and landowners funded more
than $624,908 worth of conservation practices, at
least $313,475 of which was funded by landowners
through the LLCP.
^£DSrX
PRO^°
ro
s
o
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC
EPA 841-F-19-001Z
October 2019
For additional information contact:
Shanon Phillips
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
405-522-4728 • shanon.phillips@conservation.ok.gov

-------