Totten and Eld Inlet Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project Location
Number 73 September 1995 ISSN 1062-9149
Monitoring of both land treatment and water quality is necessary to document the effectiveness of nonpoint source pollution controls in restoring water quality. The Section 319 National Monitoring Program , administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is designed to support watershed projects throughout the country that meet a minimum set of project planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation requirements. The requirements are designed to lead to successful documentation of project effectiveness with respect to water quality protection or improvement. The National Monitoring Program projects are a small subset of the nonpoint source control projects funded under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987. The following article continues a series describing these projects.
Keith Seiders, Washington Dept. of Ecology and
Jo Beth Mullens, Oregon State University
Project Synopsis
Totten and Eld Inlets are estuaries separated by peninsulas in southern Puget Sound. The inlets are characterized by enriched marine waters that make them exceptional shellfish production areas. The total drainage basin for the two inlets is approximately 67,200 acres.
Totten and Eld Inlet Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project Location
The topography of the project area includes the rugged Black Hills area southwest of the city of Olympia, upland prairies, freshwater and estuarine wetlands, high and low gradient stream reaches, and rolling hills. Land use in the project area is primarily forest (63-82%). The rural nature of the area makes it an attractive place to live. Consequently, stream corridors and shoreline areas have experienced considerable urban, suburban, and rural growth in the past decade. Many non-commercial farms keeping large animals (primarily horses) are located in the area.
The most significant nonpoint source (NPS) pollution problem in the inlets is bacterial contamination of shellfish harvesting areas. Totten Inlet, classified as an approved shellfish harvest area, is threatened due to bacterial pollution. The southern portion of Eld Inlet is classified as conditional for shellfish harvesting (shellfish may not be harvested for 3 days following rain events greater than 1.25 inches in 24 hours). Major sources of fecal coliform bacteria are failing on-site sewage systems and livestock-keeping practices along stream corridors and marine shorelines.
The Totten and Eld Inlet Clean Water Projects have evolved from the combined efforts and resources of local and state government. Watershed action plans were completed in 1989 for both areas (Eld Inlet Watershed Management Committee, 1989;Totten-Little Skookum Watershed Management Committee, 1989). While a significant level of public involvement and planning has occurred, financial resources to implement best management practices (BMPs) have been scarce. In 1993, substantial funding from property assessments and grants, particularly the Shellfish Protection Initiative (SPI), provided funds to implement remedial actions in targeted areas within these watersheds. The goal of the remedial efforts is to minimize the water quality impacts of NPS pollution by implementing farm plans on priority farm sites and identifying and repairing failing on-site sewage systems. These focused efforts are expected to last into 1999.
In 1993, a water quality monitoring program was started to evaluate the effectiveness of remedial land treatment practices on water quality. In 1995, the monitoring program, which targets six sub-basins within the Totten and Eld Inlet watersheds, was approved as a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Section 319 National Monitoring Program project.
The water quality monitoring goals are to: 1) detect, over time, trends in water quality and implementation of land treatment practices, and 2) associate changes in water quality with changes in land treatment practices. A paired watershed design is being used for two basins and a single site approach for four basins. Best management practices are being tracked.
Project Time Frame
The major sources of fecal coliform bacteria are failing on-site sewage systems and livestock-keeping practices along stream corridors and marine shorelines. Wet season soil saturation hampers proper operation of many on-site systems. Saturated soils and stormwater runoff also contribute to water quality problems associated with over-grazed pastures, manure-contaminated runoff, and livestock access to streams. The major source of pollution in the sub-basins being monitored is animal operations.
Three of the six project streams (Burns, Pierre and Schneider) failed to meet water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria for the 1992-93 and 1993-94 monitoring seasons. The water quality standard for fecal coliform bacteria for these streams requires that the geometric mean value not exceed 50 cfu/100 mL and that not more than 10% of samples exceed 100 cfu/100 mL.
Project Water Quality Objectives
The nonpoint source pollution treatment plan in the Section 319 National Monitoring Program project area is designed to minimize the impacts of NPS pollution by repairing failing on-site sewage systems and implementing farm plans on priority farm sites. Priority farm sites are those farms that potentially threaten the quality of a receiving water due to a variety of physical and managerial properties such as closeness to stream, numbers of animals, and lack of pollution prevention practices. The NPS control strategy involves surveying all potential pollution sources in critical areas, estimating the water quality impact, and then planning and implementing corrective actions.
Resource management plans (farm plans) are developed cooperatively by the landowner and local Conservation District staff. The planning process identifies potential water quality impacts and recommends BMPs to mitigate those impacts. District staff and the landowner discuss implementation costs and schedules of BMPs, and cost-share opportunities. The landowner then chooses what he or she is willing to implement, and agrees to implement the plan as funding allows. BMPs emphasized include: pasture and grazing management, stream fencing, stream buffer zones, rainwater and runoff management, livestock density reduction, and animal waste management. Funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, State Revolving Fund, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other sources may be available for cost-share or low interest loan contracts.
Project team members anticipate that education and outreach activities and local ordinances are likely to be the main factors in motivating implementation of farm plans. Farm owners whose operations have negative impacts on water quality and who do not comply with local ordinances become involved in a formal compliance procedure under the jurisdiction of the state's Ecology Water Quality Program. Legal recourse is seldom required.
Water Quality Monitoring Design
A paired watershed approach will be used to document changes in water quality resulting from BMP implementation the Kennedy (control) and Schneider (treatment) sub-basins (Ecology, 1995). A single site approach will be used in four other sub-basins (Burns, Pierre, Perry and McLane).
The primary variable being measured is fecal coliform. Explanatory variables include conductivity, daily precipitation, flow, temperature, total suspended solids, and turbidity.
Water quality monitoring is conducted from early November through mid-April, with grab samples collected on a weekly schedule. Additional samples will be collected each season during runoff events. Sampling sites are located at the mouth of each stream.
Totten and Eld Inlet Section 319 National Monitoring Porgram Project Watershed
Boundary and Monitoring Sites.
Water Quality Data Management and Analysis
Water quality data will be stored and managed in spreadsheet formats and later transferred to EPA's STORET and NonPoint Source Management System data bases. Data evaluation and analysis strategies include:
Numerous educational and informational activities addressing land and water stewardship are conducted within the project area. Local and state initiatives over the past six years include awareness, learning, experience, and personal action programs. Educators share ideas, resources, and programs through a stewardship-focused Regional Education Team. The objective of the project's public involvement and education program is to support established relevant public information and education activities in the project area.
A survey of residents in selected watersheds, conducted in 1994, assessed public awareness of and opinions about water quality and environmental issues. Totten and Eld Inlet watersheds were among those targeted by the survey. Approximately 1,300 residents responded to the mail survey, which was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of educational programs and to determine where future efforts should be directed (Elway Research, 1994).
For Further Information Contact
Keith Seiders (water quality monitoring)
Watershed Assessments Section
Washington Dept. of Ecology
P.O. Box 47710, Olympia, WA 98504-7710
Tel: 360-407-6689, Fax: 360-407-6884
Internet: kese461@ecy.wa.gov
Thurston County Conservation District (land treatment)
6128 Capitol Blvd.
Tumwater, WA 98501
Tel: 360-754-3588 Fax: 360-753-8085
Linda Hofstad and Jane Hedges (land treatment)
Thurston Co. Environmental Health Services
2000 Lakeridge Drive SW Olympia, WA 98502-6045
Tel: 360-754-4111, Fax: 360-754-2954
Marilou Pivirotto/Jeannette Barreca (administration)
Southwest Region Office, Washington Dept. of Ecology
PO Box 47775 Olympia, WA 98594-7775
Tel: 360-407-6787, Fax: 360-407-6305
References
Ecology. 1995. Totten and Eld Inlet Clean Water Projects: Screening Study Results and Final Quality Assurance Project Plan. Department of Ecology - Watershed Assessments Section. Olympia, WA.
Eld Inlet Watershed Management Committee. 1989. Eld Inlet Watershed Action Plan. Thurston County Planning Department, Olympia, WA
Elway Research. 1994 (Draft). Watershed Resident Survey. Prepared for Washington State Dept. of Ecology by Elway Research Inc., Seattle, WA.
Totten-Little Skookum Watershed Management Committee. 1989. Totten-Little Skookum Watershed Action Plan. Mason and Thurston County Planning Departments, Shelton and Olympia (respectively), WA.
The following article is based on one fact sheet in a series of 10 technical fact sheets designed to share with water quality and other natural resource professionals the lessons learned from the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) (Gale et al., 1993) about nonpoint source pollution control projects. Each fact sheet includes examples from RCWP projects to illustrate the concepts discussed. The fact sheets are available free of charge (see enclosed publications list: WQ-89).
Planning and Managing a Successful Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Project
NCSU Water Quality Group, Department of Biological and Agricultural
Engineering, North Carolina State University
Significant progress has been made in reducing water pollution caused by point sources since the Clean Water Act was passed. However, much work remains to be done to reduce nonpoint source (NPS) pollutants that impair the quality of streams, rivers, lakes, ground water, and other bodies of water throughout the United States.
Many local government officials, as well as citizens, are becoming increasingly interested in taking action to address local water quality problems caused primarily by nonpoint source pollutants. There is also a heightened awareness that water quality problems do not occur in isolation; many activities within a watershed affect the quality of water resources. Surface and ground waters are frequently connected, so management strategies aimed at protecting water quality must often be designed to address the impacts of land uses on a watershed basis for both surface water and ground water.
Designing a Successful Voluntary Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Project
If the source of the water quality problem is not clear, or if the source is one that cannot be affected by changes in project participants' behavior (for example, if the source is a point source versus agricultural runoff), there may be dissension within the community about the cause of the problem, how best to resolve it, or the value of a NPS pollution control project. Documentation of the problem and its source can help a community come together to support a project designed to address a water quality problem (see next section). If, however, consensus about the existence of a problem cannot be reached, or agencies cannot work effectively together, a project is unlikely to be successful. In such cases, limited resources for addressing water quality problems may be better spent on a different project or program.
If project funds are restricted to one source of nonpoint source pollutants, such as agricultural sources, avoid choosing a watershed that contains major point sources or other nonpoint sources. Pollutants from point sources can mask improvements in water quality brought about by implementation of best management practices (BMPs) aimed at reducing NPS pollution, thus making it difficult to document the benefits of a nonpoint source pollution control project. Other approaches designed to reduce both point and nonpoint source pollutants, such as total watershed management, can be very effective if adequate technical and financial resources are available.
Select a watershed of a size that matches the level of available funding for the project; if funds for installing BMPs are limited, treating most or all of a small watershed (or a subwatershed within a large watershed) will likely result in greater water quality improvements than treating a small land area in a large watershed.
Existing water quality and other relevant data, such as soils, geology, land use, and weather (and assistance in interpreting data), should be requested from appropriate agencies, for example, the state water quality agency; U.S. Geological Survey; local health department; county planning department; and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), USDA - Consolidated Farm Services Agency, USDA - Extension Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD).
If adequate information about the problem and its source(s) has not already been collected, seek technical and financial assistance in designing a water quality monitoring program. Relevant state and federal programs are discussed in the section entitled Obtain Funding.
An effective approach to identifying the exact nature of the problem and its sources is to implement a 6-18-month problem identification and assessment monitoring program. Monitor sites suspected of contributing pollutants or stressors during both baseflow and storm conditions, especially during seasons when the highest amount of the pollutant enters the water and during seasons when water quality problems have been noticed. For example, in winter and spring there is often a great deal of runoff which carries pollutants. A walk through the watershed may help identify problem areas with regard to habitat. Creel surveys can identify fishery problems.
Before initiating a project, write a problem statement that 1) states the impaired water use, 2) identifies the location of the problem, 3) specifies the pollutant(s) or stressor(s), and 4) identifies the major or suspected source(s). A written problem statement documents the problem for future reference and clearly conveys the problem and source to participants and community members, thereby contributing to consensus about the problem and the approach being taken to resolve it.
Objectives define the overall direction or purpose of the project. Establish objectives that focus the project on achieving water quality changes or meeting water quality standards. Be sure that objectives are measurable and achievable. For example, a workable objective might be "re-opening shellfish beds in Green Creek estuary by 1998."
Goals provide milestones to be met during the course of a project. Establish quantitative goals that provide a way to measure progress. For example, progress toward the goal "reduce fecal coliform counts in Green Creek Estuary by 60%" can be measured, while achievement of the goal "reduce pollution in the estuary" is more difficult to evaluate. Set specific goals early with assistance from local agencies, project participants, and community representatives.
Objectives and goals must be tailored to available resources and to the nature of the problem. For example, expecting to reduce eutrophication in a reservoir when the project watershed supplies only 10% of the phosphorus load is unrealistic, as is a goal of reducing nutrient loss from a 500,00-acre watershed with 1,200 producers when resources consist of a $50,000 budget and two staff members.
State cost-share funds may be available to support implementation of agricultural or forestry BMPs for nonpoint source pollution control. Federal programs offering cost-share funds for forestry or agricultural BMPs may be available through the USDA - Consolidated Farm Services Agency. Section 319 funds allocated to each state by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may be available from a state's water quality agency (nonpoint source program) to support nonpoint source pollution control projects.
Several Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publications provide information on federal watershed protection programs (EPA, 1993) and how state and local governments have funded nonpoint source pollution control programs (EPA, 1992).
Designate a project manager to coordinate the project and assess progress. Ideally, the project manager should have a background in water resources and project management.
Establish a local coordinating committee, consisting of project participants, agency personnel, and community leaders, to support the project. The committee should set direction, establish objectives and goals, assure adequate public involvement, enlist agency assistance, oversee information and education activities, determine priorities for water quality monitoring, and develop plans for critical area selection, choice of BMP systems, and linkage of land treatment and water quality data.
When limited resources are available for monitoring BMP effectiveness, visual observations such as fewer algal blooms, clearer water, or increased recreational use can be helpful in assessing the effectiveness of the project. Monthly monitoring of a few key factors (such as dissolved oxygen or chlorophyll a) can provide useful information.
When funds are available for more extensive water quality monitoring, essential tasks and elements include:
Evaluate data with project objectives and goals clearly in mind. A consistently improving trend in water quality after BMP system implementation may provide evidence needed to attribute water quality improvements to land treatment.
Consider interviewing (pre- and post-project) participants and people who were eligible but chose not to participate in the project to assess the effectiveness of educational efforts.
Report successes and failures periodically to provide feedback to project participants and agency staff on the results of their efforts. Make results available to the community to enhance public education and contribute to more effective management of water quality problems in the future.
References
EPA. 1993. Watershed Protection: Catalog of Federal Programs. Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-841-B-93-002.
EPA. 1992. State and Local Funding of Nonpoint Source Control Programs. Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA 841-R-92-003.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J. Spooner, J.A. Arnold, T.J. Hoban, and R.C. Wimberley. 1993. Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Program. NCSU Water Quality Group, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, EPA-841-R-93-005, 559p.
The goal of the WQIP program is to achieve source reduction of nonpoint source agricultural pollutants in an environmentally and economically sound manner. To meet these goals, USDA provides financial, educational, and technical assistance to help producers voluntarily implement management systems that will enhance water quality.
Applications must be prepared by inter-agency teams of federal, state, and conservation district agencies; must be submitted by a state's Consolidated Farm Service Agency (CFSA); and must be received at the USDA-CFSA office in Washington, DC, by October 20, 1995. Each state may submit three WQIP proposals. The guidelines specify land eligibility criteria, project selection priorities, maximum project size, practice guidelines, and application requirements. The maximum allocation for each WQIP is $300,000.
Copies of the guidelines may be obtained from state CFSA offices. Information about how to contact state CFSA offices may be requested from Olen Sharron, USDA-CFSA, Tel: 202-720-7604.
I welcome your views, findings, information, and suggestions for articles. Please feel free to contact me.
Judith A. Gale, Editor
Water Quality Extension Specialist
North Carolina State University Water Quality Group
Campus Box 7637
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695
Tel: 919-515-3723
Fax: 919-515-7448