Figure 1: Location of Peacheater Creek Project
Number 78 July 1996 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 comprise a small subset of 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.
Phillip Moershel, Oklahoma Conservation Commission
Steven W. Coffey, NCSU Water Quality Group
Figure 1: Location of Peacheater Creek Project
Cattle traffic and forestry activities are thought to be major contributors to streambank erosion. Baseflow monitoring shows intermittent nutrient levels that contribute to creek eutrophication. Primary sources of nutrients include poultry houses and dairies. Another source of nutrients may be septic systems of private residences. Eutrophication impacts downstream of Peacheater Creek include nuisance periphyton growth in the Illinois River and phytoplankton blooms in Lake Tenkiller.
The project team has completed an extensive natural resource and stream corridor inventory. Data from the inventory have been digitized and mapped using a geographic information system. A distributed parameter watershed model has been used for determining critical areas for treatment. Critical areas include pasturelands, riparian areas, and dairies. Nutrient management to improve poultry and dairy waste utilization on pastureland and cropland is under way. A paired watershed study is planned.
Nitrate-nitrogen concentrations for Peacheater Creek range from 0.82 mg/l to 5.66 mg/l. Some older data collected by the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture show some Peacheater Creek storm flow values near 15 mg/l. Nitrate in Tyner Creek ranges from 0.92 to 5.12 mg/l. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) levels range from the detection limit of 0.2 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l. Eleven of 30 TKN observations were equal to or greater than 0.3 mg/l, which is sufficient organic nitrogen to promote eutrophication. Generally, TKN concentrations for Tyner Creek were lower than for Peacheater Creek.
Three of 25 baseflow samples of total phosphorus (TP) taken in Peacheater Creek had values greater than 0.05 mg/l, which may be considered a minimum level for eutrophication. Total phosphorus levels in Tyner Creek were lower. Both streams have elevated high flow TP.
Both Peacheater and Tyner Creeks have poor instream habitat. Large chert gravel bars cover expansive portions of the streambed in Peacheater Creek. These gravel bars continue to grow and shift after major runoff events. The gravel covers natural geologic and vegetative substrates, reducing habitat quality for macroinvertebrates and fish. Both creeks have extensive streambank degradation and erosion due to cattle traffic and clearing of riparian areas. The streambank erosion also seems to be a result of the bedload of gravel and an unstable streambed.
Seven of the nine dairies in the Peacheater Creek watershed have animal waste management plans. Seven waste management systems, including waste storage structures, and eight planned grazing systems have been recommended. These grazing systems are production-oriented systems designed to maximize grass production and utilization. The systems will help prevent over-grazing in some areas, but need to be used in concert with nutrient management plans and reduction of cattle access to streams.
There are 59 poultry houses in the watershed containing approximately 1.3 million birds. Poultry raised include broilers, layers, pullets, and breeder hens. Seventy-five percent of the poultry producers have current Conservation Plans of Operation. Fifteen mortality composters have been recommended; five of these were installed under earlier projects. Buffer zones along streams have been recommended to reduce nutrient runoff from land-applied poultry and cow manure used as fertilizer. For the one layer operation, a waste holding pond has been recommended. Short-term storage for litter is recommended when poultry house cleaning occurs during wet weather or outside the crop growth season.
Best management practices recommended for beef cattle operations include planned grazing systems, cell grazing systems, buffer zones adjacent to streams, watering facilities, critical area vegetation, and soil testing to support nutrient management planning for pastures receiving land-applied litter.
Twelve critical riparian areas have been identified. Streambank erosion has been caused by riparian area forestry practices, cattle traffic, and cattle grazing in riparian areas. Best management practices recommended include fencing, no land application of litter in riparian areas, off-site watering systems, and establishment of vegetation.
Figure 2: Water quality monitoring stations for Peacheater Creek Project
Biological monitoring in tributaries and the main stem of both creeks will be used to assess subwatershed impact and recovery. Biological variables being assessed include periphyton productivity, fisheries, macroinvertebrates, habitat, bank erosion, and bank soil. Biological monitoring varies considerably with assemblage being sampled. Periphyton productivity will be measured in the summer and the winter. Macroinvertebrates will be monitored twice per year; once in the summer and once in the winter. Fish will be sampled once a year. Instream habitat is being monitored monthly during the first year of the project in order to establish the level of variability.
Bank erosion and bank soil will be evaluated. Bank erosion will be monitored on the entire length of each stream every other year initially, and later on an annual basis. Bank soil will be sampled every other year.
Rainfall simulator demonstrations have been held to show the effect of cropland BMPs on water quality. The effects of nutrient application rates and filter strips were demonstrated during a summer field day in 1994. Future rainfall simulator demonstrations are planned.
Newsletters published by the Adair County Extension Service and Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service provide general information on agriculture and water quality.
An annual, three-day, summer youth camp is planned to provide water quality education. In 1994, an inner tubing excursion was used to show the extent and effect of streambank erosion on stream habitat quality. Youth camp participants also tested the chemical water quality of Peacheater Creek using portable kits.
Land Treatment
Otis Bennett, Cherokee County Conservation District
1009 S. Muskogee Avenue, Tahlequah, OK 74464-4733
Tel: 918-456-1919; Fax: 918-456-3147
Ann Colyer, USDA-NRCS 102 W. Pine St. , Stilwell, OK 74960-2652 Tel: 918-696-7612; Fax: 918-696-6114
Andy Inman, USDA-NRCS Sequoyah County Conservation District, 101 McGee Drive Sallisaw, OK 74955-5258 Tel: 918-775-3045
Water Quality Monitoring
Phillip Moershel, Oklahoma Conservation Commission
1000 W. Wishire St. Suite 123, Oklahoma City
OK 73116-7026 Tel: 405-858-2008; Fax: 405-858-2012
email: phmoersh@ionet.net
Dan Butler, Oklahoma Conservation Commission 1000 W. Wishire St. Suite 123, Oklahoma City OK 73116-7026 Tel: 405-858-2006; Fax: 405-858-2012
Information and Education
Dean Jackson, Adair County Extension Service
Box 702, Stilwell, OK 74960
Tel: 918-696-2253; Fax: 918-696-6718
Mike Smolen, Oklahoma State University 218 Agricultural Hall, Box 702, Stillwater, OK 74078-0469 Tel: 405-744-5653; Fax: 405-744-6059 email: smolen@agen.okstate.edu
Changes in water quality resulting from the implementation of nonpoint source (NPS)
pollution controls can be determined by monitoring the target water resource. Water quality
monitoring, along with a simple inventory of land use and land treatment (implementation of
best management practices), is usually adequate in most agricultural NPS projects, especially
if the intent of a water quality project is merely to document water quality improvements.
However, monitoring the water resource alone is insufficient to document a cause-and-effect
relationship between changes in water quality and changes in land treatment or land use. To
ascribe changes in water quality to land treatment and land use, it is often necessary to
intensively monitor (track) and document both changes in water quality and changes in land
use and land treatment over an extended period of time (at least four to eight years).
Land-based data requirements include detailed, timely, site-specific information about land
treatment practices and land use changes.
Few agricultural NPS pollution control programs before the Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP) attempted to correlate water quality changes with the installation of land treatment
practices and land use changes on a watershed scale (Gale et al., 1993). In several of the 21
RCWP projects, efforts were made to correlate land treatment with water quality changes.
During the RCWP, most of the land-based data were collected by the U.S Department of
Agriculture (USDA) - Natural Resource Conservation Service, Farm Services Agency, and
Extension Service as part of the agencies' annual reporting. These aggregated data included
information on the types of crops produced, number of acres grown, number and types of
animals in the watershed, and soil and water conservation practices installed under federal
cost-share programs. Additional data on best management practices (BMPs) installed or
utilized were collected for each RCWP project by agency personnel. Although this
information provided an overall perspective on land treatment activities and land utilization,
by itself the data were not sufficient to correlate changes in land-based activities and water
quality.
Farm Services Agency (FSA) reporting formats allow description of annual, aggregate,
agricultural information by county, but are simply not detailed enough to support reliable
correlations between land-based activities and water quality changes that occur on a seasonal
basis. The Idaho RCWP project enhanced the use of FSA data by compiling the information
contained in FSA annual reports on a drainage basis by season. However, the drawback of
this system was that detailed land use and management data were not available for
landowners who did not accept cost share payments for BMPs (landowners who did not
participate in FSA-administered programs).
Producer log books, called field logs, are useful tools for data collection. Using field logs for
data collection increases the precision of the land treatment information. The quality of data
collected through field logs, however, is dependent on each individual's ability and desire to
use the field log. The Vermont RCWP project (one of only two RCWP projects that collected
detailed land treatment data using log books) distributed field logs to all producers in a
selected watershed, regardless of their project participation status. Although frequently
difficult to obtain, land use data from non-cooperators within the watershed can provide
valuable data to explain water quality trends as well as sociological information from farm
operators who have decided not to participate in a project. An added advantage of using field
logs is that further information can be obtained by project personnel who talk directly with
farmers when collecting the field logs.
Land-based data can also be collected through personal interviews. Although the necessary
data may be difficult to obtain through interviews with producers, the effort should be made.
In the Vermont RCWP project, researchers found that two visits per year, timed during less
busy seasons, were more effective than one annual visit at eliciting detailed land treatment
information from farm operators. If a project is small enough, detailed land-based activity
data can be collected by project personnel. All eight dairy farmers located in the lower Snake
Creek drainage basin participated in the Utah RCWP project. Because it was feasible for
project staff to visit this small number of farms frequently, project personnel remained well
informed about land-based activities on all of the farms.
Aerial photography can be used to collect data about land use. Photography must be
supplemented with additional information about land-based activities, such as fertilizer
placement.
Sometimes direct observation is necessary. In the Alabama RCWP project, a spike occurred
in the fecal coliform data for one of the tributaries to Lake Tholocco. Project personnel could
not account for the spike on the basis of the land uses that surrounded the tributary. After
walking along the tributary, project personnel discovered that the source of the fecal coliform
was a new beaver colony. Without direct observation, project personnel would not have been
able to identify the source of the pollutant.
Computerized data bases and systems that synthesize spatially referenced data (geographic
information systems) facilitate representation of land use practices and tracking of BMP
implementation; data accessibility, analysis, and presentation; and aggregation of land
treatment and land use data. Geographic information systems are useful tools for data display,
analysis, and reporting. The Idaho and Vermont RCWP projects digitized project data to
make possible spatial representation of land treatment and land use practices over time.
For smaller projects, such as the Utah RCWP project, which included only eight dairy farms,
spatially and temporally referenced data can be obtained manually. Large-scale maps can be
utilized and updated regularly for spatial and temporal referencing of BMPs.
Martin, G.L. and L.E. Lanyon. 1995. Pequea-Mill Creek Information Series: Nutrient
Management Planner Survey. Penn State Cooperative Extension, Pequea-Mill Creek Project,
Smoketown, PA. 6p.
Two fact sheets related to nutrient management have been published by Penn State
Cooperative Extension. Nutrient Management Legislation in Pennsylvania: A Summary
highlights the main points of the state's Nutrient Management Act and describes the proposed
regulations developed to implement the Act, including the nutrient management specialist
certification program and the process for plan approval and implementation. The law requires
regulatory oversight of nutrient plans on certain farms that produce or use manure. It also
calls for educational programs, financial assistance, training and involvement of the private
sector, alternative uses for manure, and encouragement of voluntary implementation of
nutrient management planning by all landowners.
The Pequea-Mill Creek Information Series: Nutrient Management Planner Survey (fact sheet
25) is one of a series of fact sheets produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Pequea-Mill Creek Hydrologic Unit Area Project (see
NWQEP NOTES No. 65, May 1994). The project team conducted a Nutrient Management Planner Training Program for private
fertilizer and agricultural chemical dealers to introduce principles and procedures of nutrient
management. The fact sheet presents results of a survey that was sent to 49 private vendors
who successfully completed the training program and have been preparing nutrient
management plans for project area farmers.
Copies of the fact sheets may be requested from Jerry Martin, Pequea-Mill Creek Project,
307B Airport Drive, P.O. Box 211, Smoketown, PA 17576, Tel: 717-396-9423, Fax:
717-396-9427.
Constructed Wetlands for Treatment of Landfill Leachate (23 min/1992) describes an
innovative technique for landfill leachate treatment. Cost: $19.95.
Watersheds and Nonpoint Source Pollution Control (9 minutes/1995) is available. Cost: $18
rent/$24 purchase.
Watershed Hydrology (13 minutes/1995) introduces basic concepts and describes runoff as a
primary factor in nonpoint source pollution control. Cost: $18 rent/$24 purchase.
Targeting and Prioritizing Water Quality Problems for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
introduces concepts of targeting and prioritizing to maximize community resources. (80
minutes/1995). Cost: $25 rent/$35 purchase.
Life's Hidden Treasure: Protecting Our Groundwater (18 minutes/1995) describes
groundwater characteristics and vulnerability to contamination. Cost: $18 rent/$24 purchase.
Targeting and prioritizing water quality problems for effective watershed management and
water quality protection in one agricultural and two urban watersheds are described in
Watershed Management in Virginia (27 min/1995). Cost: $18 rent/$24 purchase.
Management and protection of a sole-source aquifer is described in Groundwater
Management in Nassau County (15 minutes/1995). Cost: $18 rent/$24 purchase.
Soils and Their Role in Protecting Water Quality (23 min/1996) is available. Cost: $18
rent/$24 purchase.
To order: Cornell University Resource Center, 7 Business/ Technology Park, Ithaca, NY
14886, Tel: 607-255-2090, Fax: 607-255-9946, email: dist_center@cce.cornell.edu.
7th National Conference on Drinking Water -- Balancing Risks and Reason: Aug 11-13,
Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada. Contact: T. Duncan Ellison, Tel:
613-241-5692
International Conference on Buffer Zones: Their Processes and Potential in Water
Protection. Aug 30 - Sept 2, Heythrop Park, Oxford, England. Contact: Nick Haycock,
Quest Environmental, PO Box 45, Harpenden, Herts, AL5 5JL, UK, Tel: 0-1727 852665,
Fax: 0-1727 866181, email: nehaycock@qest.demon.co.uk
Symposium on Microbes in Groundwater: Sept 5-6, Boston, MA. Contact: Groundwater
Foundation, P.O. Box 22558, Lincoln, NE 68542-2558, Tel: 800-858-4844, Fax:
402-434-2743, email: info@groundwater.org
1st Annual Texas Water Monitoring Congress: Sept 9-11, Austin, TX. Contact: Cindy
Billington, USGS, 230 La Branch St., Rm 1112, Houston, TX 77004, 713-718-3655, ext 10,
email: ccbillin@usgs.gov
4th National Nonpoint Source Watershed Projects Workshop: Sept 16-20, Harrisburg, PA.
Contact: Patricia Lietman, USGS-WRD, Tel: 717-730-6960, email:
plietman@wrdmail.er.usgs.gov
RIVERTECH '96: Sept 22-25, Chicago, IL. Contact: International Water Res Assn, Univ of
Illinois, 1101 West Peabody Dr, Urbana, IL 61801-4273
AWRA 32nd Conference: Sept 22-26, Ft Lauderdale, FL. Contact: Robert Moresi, King
Engineering, 5010 W Kennedy Blvd, Tampa, FL 33609, Tel: 813-282-0111
3rd USA/CIS Joint Conference on Environmental Hydrology & Hydrogeology : Sept 22-27,
Tashkent, Uzbekistan. Contact: American Institute of Hydrology, 2499 Rice Street, Ste 135,
St. Paul, MN 55113, Tel: 612-484-8169, email: AlHydro@aol.com
National Symposium on Effectiveness of Erosion and Sediment Control Practices: Sept 23-25,
Raleigh, NC. Contact: Joseph Kleiss, Soil Science, Box 7619, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7619
Water Environment Federation - 69th Annual Conference: Oct 5-9, Dallas, TX. Contact:
WEF, 601 Wythe St, Alexandria, VA 22314-1994, Tel: 1-800-666-0206
National Nonpoint Source Pollution Information/Education Conference: Oct 22-24, Chicago,
IL. Contact: Christy Trutter, Illinois EPA, Bureau of Water, 2200 Churchill Road, P.O. Box
19276, Springfield, IL 62794-9276, Tel: 217-782-3362, Fax: 217-785-1225
Eco-Informa '96, Nov 4-7, Lake Buena Vista, Florida. Contact: ERIM/Eco-Informa,
P.O.Box 134001, Ann Arbor, MI, 48113-4001, Tel: 313-994-1200 ext 3234, Fax:
313-994-5123, email: rrogers@erim.org
North American Lake Management Society - 16th Annual International Symposium: Nov
13-16, Minneapolis, MN. Contact: Steven Heiskary, Water Quality Division, MN Pollution
Control, 520 Lafayette Rd, St. Paul, MN 55155, Fax: 612-297-8683, email:
steven.heiskary@pca.state.mn.us
- Provide technical and scientific support for nonpoint source (NPS) watershed projects with
long-term land treatment and monitoring components.
Objectives
- Highlight monitoring of ground water and pasture-grazing practices. Equipment will be
demonstrated.
- Present innovative grazing and nutrient management and ground water protection practices.
- Evaluate the use of data to target land-treatment in small-scale to large-scale ecosystems.
- Transfer local knowledge to the regional perspective, highlighting watershed projects in the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
- Demonstrate how partnerships can be built among the agricultural community, program
coordinators, technical service purveyors, and scientists.
- Discuss program implementation and evaluation challenges faced by the Chesapeake Bay
Program and compare to other regional programs.
Audience
Local, state, and federal personnel involved in implementing and evaluating NPS watershed
projects. Highly recommended for personnel involved in land treatment and monitoring of
Section 319 National Monitoring Program and other watershed projects.
Structure
Plenary and concurrent presentations and discussions, field trips, and training sessions
focusing on project needs. Informal atmosphere supporting discussion and interaction.
Registration is limited to 150.
Further Information
Patricia Lietman, U.S. Geological Survey, Tel: 717-730-6960, Fax: 717-730-6997, email:
plietman@wrdmail.er.usgs.gov
I welcome your views, findings, information, and suggestions for articles. Please feel free to
contact me.
Judith A. Gale, Editor
Deanna L. Osmond, Jean Spooner, and Daniel E. Line
NCSU Water Quality Group
Land Treatment Monitoring in the Rural Clean Water Program
One of the objectives of the RCWP was to document that NPS controls can reduce pollutant
loss from agricultural land. Only a few RCWP projects participated in land treatment
monitoring at a level sufficiently detailed to correlate land-based activities with water quality
changes. Personnel in these projects had to design experimental protocols for correlating
land treatment practices with water quality data. In addition, many of the technical tools
(personal computers, geographic information systems, database software) that facilitate
detailed land treatment and land use data analysis only became commercially available or
affordable during the period of the RCWP (1980-1995). Many of the lessons that were
learned about land treatment and land use monitoring during the RCWP are presented here.
However, the science of land treatment monitoring is in its infancy and can be expected to
continue to evolve for the foreseeable future.
Land Treatment Monitoring Strategy
A land treatment and land use monitoring strategy should specify the variables to be
monitored, the monitoring frequency for each variable, and the landscape scale of each
monitored variable.
The land-based variables selected for monitoring should correspond to the identified water
quality problem and should include static, temporal, and spatial variables. For example, if
sediment deposition caused by cropland erosion is the water quality problem, the variables
should include position of the field relative to the water resource, soil type, field slope, acres
under various cropping systems, soil conservation practices, and timing of tillage activities.
When the water quality problem is caused by runoff of nitrogen, rates and timing of
commercial fertilizer and manure applications should be tracked.
The frequency with which a variable should be monitored depends on the specific variable
and its characteristics. In general, monitoring should take place at the same time that land use
or land management changes occur. For example, each fertilizer application during a given
production season should be recorded by field. The number of applications will depend on
management decisions made by the individual farm operator. Crop type should be tracked on
a yearly basis.
The appropriate landscape scale for each variable will be determined by the pollutant being
monitored and its source. Land-based activities located within the delineated critical area (the
land area contributing most to the problem) should be closely monitored for both project
participants and non-participants. For example, since the Oregon RCWP project watershed
was very large (363,520 acres), and the pollutant of concern was fecal coliform, the scope of
the land treatment monitoring focused exclusively on the dairy farm operations that
constituted 6% of the watershed and 100% of the critical area. Data should be collected by
subwatershed in order to match land use and land-based information with the water resource
of concern.
Careful data collection is essential to ensure accuracy. There are several ways to collect
land-based data and the collection method should be determined based on the intended use of
the data, as well as the extent of financial and human resources available.
Data Storage, Analysis, and Reporting
In the early 1980's, most land-based data were stored on paper and in files. The majority of
data analyses and reporting was done manually. Personal computers have now simplified data
storage, analysis, and reporting. A computerized spreadsheet or data base facilitates effective
storage of data on a farm field and watershed or subwatershed basis. However, handwritten
file sheets should be kept as back-up. Summaries of important land-based information, such
as acres under conservation tillage within one-half mile of a stream, can be readily computed
and reported using data base software. During the later stages of the RCWP, the Natural
Resource Conservation Service introduced CAMPS, its computerized data base system, which
significantly reduced the work associated with data storage, retrieval, and reporting.
Reference
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.
National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC,
(published by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) EPA-841- R-93-005, 559p
Beegle, D., L.E. Lanyon, and D.D. Lingenfelter. 1996. Nutrient Management Legislation in
Pennsylvania: A Summary. Penn State Cooperative Extension, University Park, PA. 7p.
Agricultural Wetlands (38 min/1995) describes values and losses of agricultural wetlands and
management strategies to enhance and create wetlands on farms. Cost: $25.
4th International Conference - WATER POLLUTION 97 - Modeling, Measuring and
Prediction: June 18 - 20, 1997, Bled, Slovenia. Abstracts (300 words) due by Aug 30, 1996,
to Liz Kerr, WATER POLLUTION '97 Secretariat, Wessex Institute of Technology, Ashurst
Lodge, Ashurst, Southampton SO4O 7AA, UK, Tel: 44-1703-293-223, Fax:
44-1703-292-853, email: wit@wessex.witcmi.ac.uk
5th National Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Conference: Aug 3-7, Madison, WI.
Contact: Celeste Moen, Wisconsin Self-Help Lake Monitoring Program, Tel: 608-264-8878
Purpose
September 16 - 20, 1996 Harrisburg, PA
NWQEP NOTES is issued bimonthly. Subscriptions are free (contact: Publications
Coordinator at the address below or via email: wq_puborder@ncsu.edu). A publications order
form listing all publications on nonpoint source pollution distributed by the NCSU Water
Quality Group is also available with each issue of the newsletter.
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
Internet: notes_editor@ncsu.edu
Production of NWQEP NOTES, the NCSU Water Quality Group Newsletter, is funded
through U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Grant No. X818397. Project Officer: Steven A. Dressing, Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control Program, Office of Water, USEPA (4503F), 499 South Capitol St. SE,
Washington, DC 20460, Tel: 202-260-7110, Fax: 202-260-1977, email:
dressing.steven@epamail.epa.gov, Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS