Section 319 National Monitoring Program:
An Overview
March 1995
Clean water is one of our Nation's most vital resources. Since 1972, the
Clean Water Act has successfully reduced many threats to our water resources by
identifying and controlling distinct, or "point," sources of pollution.
But what about pollutants from everyday activities like agriculture,
residential development, and forestry? These pollutants are much harder to
control because they come from not-so-easily identified, or "nonpoint,"
sources. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), nonpoint sources include atmospheric deposition, contaminated
sediments, and certain land use activities that generate polluted runoff, such
as agriculture, logging, small construction sites, and on-site sewage
disposal.
Nonpoint sources are reported to cause the majority of water pollution
problems in the United States today. Nutrients, sediment, metals, pesticides,
salts, pathogens, and organic matter are deposited into our rivers, lakes, and
estuaries from nonpoint sources. Most of these pollutants also reach ground
water. Without a clear understanding of how to control these nonpoint pollution
sources, communities will be unable to change land use practices and develop
strategies to protect their water resources.
Section 319 National Monitoring Program: An Overview
Under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, the USEPA has developed the
Section 319 National Monitoring Program to specifically address nonpoint source
pollution. Its objectives are twofold:
- to scientifically evaluate the effectiveness of watershed technologies
designed to control nonpoint source pollution; and
- to improve our understanding of nonpoint source pollution.
To achieve these objectives, the Section 319 National Monitoring Program has
selected watersheds across the country to be monitored over a 6- to 10-year
period to evaluate how improved land management reduces water pollution.
National Monitoring Program projects will help communities and citizens protect
their local water resources by providing information on the effectiveness of
tools and techniques for solving nonpoint source problems.
(Photo)
Sediment in stream from agricultural runoff and streambank losses.
Nonpoint Source Water Pollution: An Emerging Threat
As the Clean Water Act brings point source pollution from municipalities and
industries under control, the magnitude of nonpoint source pollution throughout
the United States has become more apparent. Based upon waters assessed by
States in 1992, nonpoint sources are prominent among the Nation's five leading
water pollution sources. Table 1 lists the top five sources by water resource
type.
Table 1. Five Leading Sources of Water Pollution in United States.
Rank Rivers Lakes Estuaries
---- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------------
1 Agriculture Agriculture Municipal Point Source
2 Municipal Point Urban Runoff/ Urban Runoff/
Source Storm Sewers Storm Sewers
3 Urban Runoff/ Hydrologic/Habitat Agriculture
Storm Sewers Modification
4 Resource Extraction Municipal Point Industrial Point
Source Source
5 Industrial Point On-site Wastewater Resource
Sources Disposal Extraction
Source: The Quality of Our Nationþs Water: 1992. 1994. United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), USEPA 841-S-94-002, Washington, D.C.
The Watershed Approach to Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Watersheds are areas of land that drain to a stream or other water body.
Most nonpoint pollution control projects focus their activities around
watersheds, because watersheds integrate the effects that land use, climate,
hydrology, drainage, and vegetation have on water quality. Focusing pollution
control project activities around a watershed allows individuals living in that
area to learn about the water resource they affect, and how to participate in
its protection.
(Photo)
Stripcropping and contouring best management practices.
Monitoring the water resource(s) in a watershed is essential to detect and
document pollution. Monitoring is also necessary to continually assess water
quality and the health of the water resource. The most reliable way to
determine if changes in land-based activities have affected water quality is to
monitor the land and the water resource before, during, and after a change in
land management or restoration occurs.
At a watershed scale, this relationship between changes inland management
and water quality can only be determined by following a strict experimental
plan, or monitoring protocol. Although not affordable in all cases, detailed
tracking of both land management and water quality is essential to provide
information to decision makers about the effectiveness of nonpoint source
pollution control efforts.
Section 319 National Monitoring Program: Improving Our Understanding of
Pollution Control
The Section 319 National Monitoring Program was established in 1991 to
intensively monitor water quality and nonpoint source pollution controls in
designated watershed projects. The projects are supported by USEPA funds
authorized by Section 319 of the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act, where
Section 319 is the nonpoint source section of this legislation. While the USEPA
funding for these projects is used primarily for monitoring and evaluation,
support from other funding sources and programs is leveraged to provide the
needed land treatment. Coordination with other land management funding sources
and programs is expected within the watershed project.
The monitoring program aims to scientifically evaluate the effectiveness of
control technologies and to improve our understanding of nonpoint source
pollution in these selected watersheds. To facilitate comparisons, each project
follows a nationally consistent set of guidelines, including the use of an
appropriate experimental design and water quality monitoring requirements. The
National Monitoring Program can then use the information collected from the
projects to develop a national monitoring database, and to provide information
for adjusting nonpoint source pollution controls to improve water quality. The
States and USEPA's Regions will use the findings from the National Monitoring
Program to develop and select projects for future funding. Participating States
will fine-tune their own monitoring efforts and programs based upon the results
from this program.
(Photo)
Technician sampling water quality in Long Creek (North Carolina).
While the National Monitoring Program may require a different monitoring
design than other water quality assessment programs, the data collected are
frequently complementary. In addition, sampling and analysis requirements are
similar to those of other programs and agencies. For example, to assess the
diversity of aquatic life, projects use USEPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
and follow quality assurance plans approved by the USEPA for physical and
chemical analyses of water samples. The raw monitoring data are entered into
the national databases, BIOS and STORET, to supplement data collected from
other monitoring programs. To develop monitoring protocols for lakes, the
National Monitoring Program intends to build from those developed under the
Clean Lakes Program.
Five National Monitoring Program projects are closely cooperating with the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); USGS gauging stations monitor discharge and, in
some cases, suspended sediment. At least two of these five projects are located
within drainage areas being intensively monitored by USGS as part of the
National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA). Personnel from the USGS manage one
of the National Monitoring Program projects. This coordination enhances the
value of the water quality data and adds expertise in analyzing water quality
trends.
(Photo)
Buffer strips protecting a Wisconsin stream.
Several of the projects are closely linked to, and dependent on, U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) projects and personnel. All projects rely, to
some extent, on USDA personnel for technical assistance, implementation, and
cost share of nonpoint source controls; however, the four projects that are
coincident with USDA Hydrologic Unit Area and Water Quality Demonstration
projects are particularly dependent on USDA personnel. Because the USDA
projects are primarily concerned with implementing best management practices
(BMPs), they make an excellent complement to the National Monitoring Program
projects when the timing and placement of BMPs can be coordinated with water
quality monitoring.
Section 319 National Monitoring Program: Project Selection
USEPA's regional offices nominate projects for the National Monitoring
Program by forwarding State proposals to USEPA headquarters for review and
concurrence. Section 319 National Monitoring Program projects are selected on a
competitive basis from within each of the USEPA Regions. USEPA works with
project sponsors to develop approvable, 6- to 10-year projects. The project
sponsors then work through the State/EPA Section 319 grant process to obtain
approval and funding. Proposed projects are assessed based on many factors
including:
- Identification of water quality threats or problems, along with a listing
of major pollutant(s) causing the problems, substantiated by previous water
quality monitoring data;
- Nonpoint source control objectives, including the probability of adequately
treating pollutant sources with the proposed best management practices;
- Watershed characterization, including project area size and a summary of
existing land uses;
- Delineation of þcritical areasþ for pollutant(s);
- Land treatment implementation plan (including planned BMP location, amount
of critical pollutant areas, and timing of implementation);
- Institutional roles and responsibilities for agency coordination;
- Land treatment and land use monitoring design;
- Water quality monitoring design (including sampling locations, sample
frequency, pollutants monitored, other variables monitored, such as stream flow
and antecedent precipitation); and
- Evaluation and reporting plan.
Critical areas are areas of nonpoint source pollution within a watershed
that are most likely to impair or threaten the designated beneficial use of the
water. Designated beneficial uses are the desirable uses that water quality
should support, such as drinking water supply, swimming, or fishing. Inherent
in this determination is the identification of pollutants and pollutant
transport. There is a higher probability of improving water quality if critical
areas are clearly defined, and a large percent (usually greater than 75
percent) of the critical area is treated with nonpoint source controls or
BMPs.
USEPA has reviewed proposals for approximately 50 projects under the
National Monitoring Program, approving 11 to date (see above map). Ten of these
involve monitoring surface water, particularly streams; one is a pilot ground
water project. However, the National Monitoring Program intends to include
other ground water sites, lakes, and estuaries as soon as suitable project
criteria are developed and proposals submitted.
The major pollutants of concern in the projects approved to date are
sediment, nutrients, and fecal coliform. The pollutants are listed by project
in Table 2.
Table 2. Primary and Secondary Pollutants.
Projects Nutrients Bacter Sediment Organics
----------- --------- ------ -------- --------
Arizona o * o
California *
Idaho 1 * o
Illinois o * o
Iowa o o * o
Michigan o * o
Nebraska *
North Carolina * * *
Pennsylvania * * *
Vermont * *
Wisconsin * *
1 Pilot ground water monitoring project
* Primary pollutant
o Secondary pollutant
Projects can employ one of three study designs: paired-watershed,
upstream-downstream, or single-downstream station (Table 3). Overall, the 11
projects currently in the Section 319 National Monitoring Program are
conducting 24 separate monitoring efforts.
The paired-watershed design involves monitoring the outflow from two similar
watersheds during a calibration period of two to three years within which both
are managed the same (ideally). The calibration period is followed by a period
when one of the watersheds is treated with BMPs. The watersheds continue to be
monitored for two to three years after treatment is completed. The
paired-watershed design accounts for hydrologic variations so that the effect
of the BMPs can be isolated.
In the upstream-downstream design, a monitoring station is installed
directly upstream and downstream of an area where significant nonpoint source
pollution controls will be implemented. Water quality and land management
monitoring should occur before, during, and after implementing controls.
The single-downstream station study design involves monitoring downstream of
the entire study area. The quality of the water is compared between the initial
project conditions and the conditions at project's end. This design is not
recommended because of the difficulty in isolating the effects of nonpoint
pollution controls from other variables, such as rainfall.
In each of the designs, monitoring data are analyzed to document that
nonpoint pollution controls have significantly reduced pollutant delivery to
the sampling station. The water quality monitoring designs of the current
National Monitoring Program projects are listed in Table 3.
Table 3. Water Quality Monitoring Design of Section 319 National Monitoring Program
Projects.
Paired Upstream/ Single
Project Watershed Downstream Downstream
---------- --------- ---------- ----------
Arizona * *
California * * *
Idaho 1 *
Illinois * *
Iowa * *
Michigan *
Nebraska * *
North Carolina * * *
Pennsylvania *
Vermont *
Wisconsin * * *
1 Pilot ground water monitoring project
Monitoring requirements for National Monitoring Program projects include
pre-project sampling to establish baseline water quality, land management
tracking, and options to collect at least 20 evenly spaced (in time) water
chemistry samples during a season, sample the aquatic community at least once
per year, or evaluate habitat conditions annually. The aquatic community
includes habitat and aquatic organisms (such as fish and insects) that indicate
the health of water resources. Monitoring results are reported in a standard
format using USEPA's NonPoint Source Management System (NPSMS) software to
facilitate comparisons between projects and the development of a national
database.
Most projects are cooperative efforts between federal, state, and local
agencies, and often between two or more federal water quality programs (Table
4). Projects with a strong local interest and highly valued water resources
tend to be selected because participants in these projects often have greater
incentive to improve water quality.
Table 4. The Types and Number of Different Agencies Involved in the Section 319 National
Monitoring Program Projects.
Government Agencies
State Federal State Regional Local University Industry Private
--------- ------- ----- -------- ----- ---------- -------- -------
Arizona 5 10 1 4 4 4 9
California 2 2 1 4 2
Idaho * 6 5 4 4 1
Illinois 2 4 2 3
Iowa 7 3 1 2
Michigan 2 1 3 1
Nebraska 4 3 2 1 1
N. Carolina 4 3 8 2 2
Pennsylvania 3 1 1 1
Vermont 1 1 1
Wisconsin 3 2 1 1 2
* Pilot ground water monitoring project
Funding for the different components of the National Monitoring Program
comes from many cooperating state, federal, and local government agencies, as
well as the private sector. Section 319 funds provided by USEPA for water
quality monitoring activities are shown in Table 5. Funds provided to projects
typically support both the basic monitoring requirements for National
Monitoring Program projects, as well as monitoring activities that states
include for their own purposes. For example, storm-event monitoring is not
required, yet nine of the projects include such monitoring, which typically
requires the purchase of automated sampling equipment. For this reason, the
funding levels shown in Table 5 significantly exceed the true cost of required
monitoring under the National Monitoring Program. The average funding levels
are also skewed by the focus on the first few years of monitoring.
Table 5. Section 319 Funding for Monitoring and Related Costs. 1
S319 Fiscal Total No. Average S319
Funds Years of Years Funds per Fiscal
Project Provided 2 Funded Planned Year Funded 3
------------------- ---------- -------- --------- ----------------
Oak Creek, AZ $150,000 1994-95 6 $75,000
Morro Bay, CA 300,000 1993-95 10 100,000
Eastern Snake 278,291 1992-95 6 69,573
River Plain, ID
Lake Pittsfield, IL 234,840 1992-93 10 117,420
Sny Magill Creek, IA 630,254 1991-97 8-10 90,036
Sycamore Creek, MI 261,000 1994-97 6+ 65,250
Elm Creek, NE 83,150 1992-96 5+ 16,630
Long Creek, NC 313,306 1993-95 8 104,435
Mill Creek, PA 516,728 1991-95 6-10 103,345
Lake Champlain, VT 273,354 1993-95 5 91,118
Otter Creek, WI 120,000 1994-1995 8 60,000
------------ ---------- -------
TOTAL NMP $3,160,923 $79,023
1 Costs cover staff, equipment, supplies, and monitoring beyond the
requirements for National Monitoring Program projects.
2 Actual $319 funds provided for the fiscal years funded to date.
3 Costs for early years are typically higher than for later years, due
primarily to costs of establishing stations and purchasing equipment,
including computers.
Section 319 National Monitoring Program: Projects
ARIZONA
Analysis of water flowing through Oak Creek Canyon, a 13-mile segment of
water located in the steep-walled canyon portion of Oak Creek, shows that
recreational activities in the Canyon are causing fecal coliform contamination
and excess nutrient loads (Table 6). Over one-quarter of a million visitors
swim in Oak Creek and camp at several campsites that are maintained by the
Arizona Park Service.
Table 6. Fecal Coliform and Phosphorus Concentration in Oak Creek (Arizona Project).
Fecal Coliform Phosphorus *
Date #/100 ml) (mg/l)
------ --------------- ------------
Feb. --- 0.12
March --- 0.20
April --- 0.12
June 61.2 0.14
July 463.7 0.28
August 392.5 0.41
Sept. 54.3 ---
* The average annual standard for phosphorus is 0.10 mg/l
The BMPs to be implemented at Slide Rock State Park (swimming hole) and Pine
Flats Campground include enhancing the restroom facilities, better litter
control using State Park officials to monitor park visitors more effectively,
and the promotion of visitor compliance with park and campground regulations on
facility use, littering, and waste disposal.
(Photo)
Swimmers at play in Oak Creek (Arizona).
The existing detention basin at Slide Rock parking lot is not removing
pollutants adequately due to poor maintenance and perhaps an inadequate design.
Because it was not cleaned routinely, sediment and attached heavy metals
accumulated. Data from a single storm indicate that the sediment and zinc were
flushed out of the basin and into Oak Creek (Table 7). The project team
proposes to solve this problem by cleaning the existing detention basin on a
regular schedule, promoting an aerobic environment within the basin,
periodically sweeping the parking lot, and if necessary, retrofitting the
detention basin.
Table 7. Water Quality of Detention Basin In Parking
Lot at Slide Rock State Park (Arizona Project).
Dissolved
Time Oxygen (mg/l) pH Zn (ug/l)
----------- ------------- ----- ---------
Before rain 0.0 4.79 222
After rain 4.5 6.6 38
A paired-site, upstream-downstream water quality monitoring design is being
used at two swimming holes and two campgrounds (treatment and control sites) to
determine the effectiveness of BMPs. Weekly grab samples will be taken on
Saturday afternoons (peak tourist time) from May 15 through September 15 for
seven years starting in 1994. Automatic samplers, triggered by rainfall and
runoff will be installed at inflow and outflow points of the Slide Rock parking
lot detention basin to collect grab samples during runoff events.
CALIFORNIA
Morro Bay, one of the few intact natural estuaries on the Pacific coast of
North America, is being negatively impacted by sediment, and to a lesser extent
by bacteria, metals, nutrients and organic chemicals. Brushland and rangeland
contribute the largest portion of the sediment that is deposited in the
Bay.
(Photo)
Scientist and technician analyzing water quality samples
(California).
The Morro Bay Watershed Section 319 National Monitoring Program project is
evaluating the effectiveness of four sediment-reducing BMP systems. A paired
watershed study on tributaries of Chorro Creek (Chumash and Walters creeks) is
evaluating the effectiveness of a rangeland BMP system -- fencing the entire
riparian corridor; creation of smaller pastures; installation of accessible
water in each pasture; stabilization and revegetation of streambanks; and
installation of water bars and culverts on farm roads. Three additional water
quality monitoring sites have been established to evaluate the effectiveness of
other BMP systems: sediment retention, cattle exclusion, and managed grazing.
Water quality samples will also be taken throughout the watershed to document
the changes in water quality during the life of the project.
IDAHO
The Idaho Eastern Snake River Plain is located in southcentral Idaho in an
area dominated by irrigated agricultural land. The Eastern Snake River Plain
aquifer system provides much of the drinking water for approximately 40,000
people living in the project area. The aquifer also serves as an important
source of water for irrigation.
Excessive irrigation, a common practice in the area, creates the potential
for nitrate and pesticide leaching into the aquifer below. Ground water
monitoring has shown that nitrate levels in the shallow aquifer underlying the
project area frequently exceed the drinking water standard of 10 mg/l (Table
8).
(Photo)
Installation of ground water sampling wells (Idaho).
The Eastern Snake River Plain project is the only Section 319 National
Monitoring Program project that is evaluating the effects of agricultural BMPs
on ground water quality. Twenty-four monitoring wells and soil water samplers
have been installed in two paired fields (six wells per field; four fields).
Ground water quality will be monitored monthly. The effects of irrigation water
application rates on nitrogen, conductivity, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen,
and pesticides will be evaluated for one paired field (Moncur); the effects of
crop type on these same parameters will be evaluated for the other pair
(Forgeon). In addition, soil cores will be obtained monthly to track the
movement of nitrate-nitrogen over time and space.
Table 8. Ground Water Nitrate Concentrations for 1993-1994 in the Eastern Snake River
Plain Project Area (Idaho).
Field Range of the
(each pair of Mean Maximum Range of the Mean Minimum Minimum
fields contains Nitrate Conc. Max. Nitrate Nitrate Conc. Nitrate Conc.
12 sample wells) (mg/l) Conc. (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l)
---------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------- -------------
Moncur (2 paired fields) 16.9 37-1.7 6.3 17-0.2
Forgeon (2 paired fields) 13.8 48-2.6 4.7 22-BDL *
* BDL = Below Detection Limit
ILLINOIS
Lake Pittsfield was constructed in 1961 to serve as a flood control
structure and as a public water supply for the city of Pittsfield, a western
Illinois community of approximately 4,000 people. The 7,000-acre watershed
(Blue Creek Watershed) that drains into Lake Pittsfield is agricultural,
consisting primarily of corn and soybean cropland.
(Photo)
Aerial photography of Lake Pittsfield (Illinois).
Sedimentation is the major water quality problem in Lake Pittsfield.
Sediment from farming operations, gullies, and shoreline erosion has decreased
the capacity of Lake Pittsfield by 25 percent in the last 33 years.
Based on a thorough analysis of lake problems and pollution control needs
conducted under the Clean Lakes Program, project coordinators developed a
strategy to reduce sediment transport into Lake Pittsfield. The keystone of the
land management strategy is the construction of settling basins throughout the
watershed, including a large basin at the upper end of Lake Pittsfield. USDA
Water Quality Incentive Project funds will provide for installation of
additional sediment-reducing practices such as conservation tillage, integrated
crop management, livestock exclusion, filter strips, and wildlife habitat
management. Land-based data and a geographical information system (GIS) are
being used to develop watershed maps of sediment sources and sediment
yields.
The objective of the Lake Pittsfield Section 319 National Monitoring Program
project is to evaluate the effectiveness of the settling basins in reducing
sedimentation into the lake. Water quality monitoring consists of tributary
sampling after rainstorms (to determine sediment loads); monthly water quality
monitoring at three lake sites (to determine trends in water quality); and lake
sedimentation rate monitoring (to determine changes in sediment deposition
rates and patterns).
IOWA
Sny Magill Creek, located in northeastern Iowa, is one of the more widely
used streams for recreational trout fishing in the State. Sny Magill Creek
drains a 22,780-acre agricultural watershed consisting of land used for row
crops, pasture, forest and forested pasture, and farmsteads. There are
approximately 140 dairy, beef, and swine producers in the watershed, with farm
sizes averaging 275 acres.
Excess sediment deposition in the Creek is harming the trout fishery.
Consequently, a long-term goal is to reduce sediment delivery to Sny Magill by
one-half. To meet this goal, sediment control basins, streambank stabilization,
and other erosion and sediment control measures are planned. Because nitrogen,
phosphorus, and pesticide levels are also concerns, planned land management
includes reducing nutrient and pesticide use and implementing animal waste
management systems.
The adjacent 24,064-acre Bloody Run Creek watershed serves as the paired
comparison watershed for water quality monitoring. Monitoring sites at the
outlets of each watershed are documenting discharge and suspended sediment
(Table 9).
Table 9. Water Quality at Outlets of Sny Magill and Bloody Run Watersheds (Iowa) for
1992.
Total Suspended Fecal
Phosphorus Sediment Bacteria
Station mg/l mg/l mpn/100ml
---------- ---------- --------- ---------
Bloody Run 0.1 17.0 85
Sny Magill <0.1 27.5 110
Note: All values are the median for the year.
The water quality of areas within the Sny Magill watershed will be compared
by sampling the Creek at stations upstream and downstream of probable nonpoint
source areas. Annual aquatic habitat assessments are conducted along stretches
of both stream corridors. Monitoring of macroinvertebrates will occur on a
bimonthly basis and an annual fisheries survey will also be conducted.
(Photo)
Water quality sampling in Sny Magill Creek (Iowa).
MICHIGAN
Sycamore Creek is located in southcentral Michigan (Ingham County). The
creek has a drainage area of 67,740 acres, which includes the towns of Holt and
Mason and part of the city of Lansing. The major commodities produced in this
primarily agricultural county are corn, wheat, soybeans, and some livestock.
Sycamore Creek is a tributary to the Red Cedar River, which flows into the
Grand River. The Grand River discharges into Lake Michigan.
The major pollutants of Sycamore Creek are sediment, phosphorus, nitrogen,
and agricultural pesticides. Sediment deposition is adversely affecting fish
and macroinvertebrate habitat and the decay of organic soils is depleting
oxygen in the water column. Sycamore Creek has been selected for monitoring,
not because of any unique characteristics; rather, it is representative of
creeks throughout lower Michigan.
Land management will consist primarily of sediment- and nutrient-reducing
BMPs on cropland, pastureland, and hayland. These practices will be funded as
part of the USDA Sycamore Creek Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA) project. Water
quality monitoring is being conducted in three subwatersheds: Haines Drain,
Willow Creek, and Marshall Drain. The Haines subwatershed, where BMPs have
already been installed, serves as the control and is outside the Sycamore Creek
watershed. Stormflow and baseflow water quality samples from each watershed are
taken from March through July of each project year. Water is sampled for
turbidity, total suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand, nitrogen, and
phosphorus.
(Photo)
Grassed waterways protecting water quality (Michigan).
NEBRASKA
Elm Creek drains 35,800 acres of rural land in southcentral Nebraska, near
the Kansas border. Wheat and sorghum, pasture, range, and irrigated corn cover
most of the land.
Trout productivity in Elm Creek is currently limited by inadequate in-stream
habitat, elevated water temperatures, and deposition of fine sediments onto the
stream substrate, mostly during runoff events. The project objectives are to
reduce the maximum summer water temperature, reduce in-stream sedimentation,
reduce peak flows, and improve in-stream aquatic habitat.
Modeling and field surveys were conducted to identify areas in need of BMPs
such as sediment barriers, fencing, low-head dams, tree planting, and
vegetative filter strips. Many of these BMPs are being funded as part of the
Elm Creek Hydrologic Unit Area Project, which is under the direction of the
USDA.
(Photo)
Sampling for trout egg survivability in Elm Creek (Nebraska).
Physical, chemical, biological, and land management monitoring are being
conducted to determine if project water quality objectives are achieved. Both
an upstream-downstream design as well as a single-downstream station study
design are employed. Weekly monitoring of stream chemistry is conducted from
March through September since nonpoint source impacts are greatest during this
period. Biological and habitat data are typically collected in both spring and
fall.
NORTH CAROLINA
The Long Creek Watershed, situated in the southwestern Piedmont of North
Carolina, is a 28,480-acre area of mixed agricultural and urban land uses. Long
Creek is the primary water supply for Bessemer City, a small municipality with
a population of about 4,900 people.
Water quality problems include high sediment, bacteria, and nutrient levels
as shown in Table 10. The stream channel near the Bessemer City water supply
intake in the headwaters area has historically required frequent dredging due
to sediment accumulation. Downstream of the intake, Long Creek is listed as
support-threatened by the North Carolina Nonpoint Source Management Program.
Aquatic habitat is degraded in this section due to high levels of fecal
coliform and excessive sediment and nutrient loading from agricultural and
urban nonpoint sources.
Land management upstream of the water supply intake will focus on reducing
erosion from cropland and streambanks. Downstream of the intake, land
management will include fencing to exclude cows from streams, animal waste
management, and implementation of sediment and rainwater runoff controls.
Water quality monitoring includes weekly grab sampling just upstream of the
water supply intake before and after implementing erosion controls, monitoring
water quality upstream and downstream of a dairy feeding and holding area on a
tributary to Long Creek, and sampling the runoff from two paired drainage areas
on a cropland field. Water samples are being analyzed to provide the chemical,
biological, and hydrologic data needed to assess the effectiveness of the
nonpoint source controls.
Table 10. Water Quality at Selected Long Creek Sampling Stations for the First Year
(North Carolina).
Total Fecal Suspended
Phosphorus Bacteria Sediment
Station mg/l mpn/100ml mg/l
------------------- ---------- --------- ----------
Water Supply Intake NA 630 5.0
Upstream of Dairy 0.20 870 7.0
Downstream of Dairy 0.22 1350 7.0
Watershed Outlet 0.22 1300 7.5
Note: All values are the median for the year.
(Photo)
Long Creek technician checking paired-watershed monitoring equipment (North
Carolina).
PENNSYLVANIA
The Big Spring Run is a spring-fed stream located in the Mill Creek
Watershed of southcentral Pennsylvania. Its primary uses are livestock
watering, aquatic life support, and fish and wildlife support. In addition,
receiving streams drain to the Chesapeake Bay, which has well-documented water
quality problems.
The main source of pollutants in the area is cows lounging in the streams;
therefore, the primary treatment will be to fence cows out of streams. This
should allow grasses and shrubs to stabilize streambanks and potentially filter
pollutants from pasture runoff.
(Photo)
Cows lounging in a degraded stream (Pennsylvania).
The water quality monitoring effort will employ a paired watershed study
design which requires that the proposed nonpoint source control, fencing to
exclude livestock from 100 percent of the stream miles, be implemented in a
896-acre watershed while leaving the other 1152-acre watershed untreated. Grab
samples will be collected every 10 days at the outlet of each paired watershed
from April through November. The monitoring plan also includes sampling the
streams during rainstorms, and monitoring ground water.
VERMONT
Lake Champlain fails to meet Vermont water quality standards for phosphorus,
largely due to excessive nonpoint source loads. The Missisquoi River
contributes the greatest share of phosphorus to Lake Champlain, and is itself
impacted by phosphorus, bacteria, and organic matter from agricultural sources,
primarily animal wastes from dairies, cropland, and livestock activity within
streams and riparian areas.
The Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds National Monitoring Program project is
designed to implement and evaluate the effectiveness of livestock exclusion,
riparian revegetation, and grazing management in reducing the concentrations
and loads of nutrients, bacteria, and sediment from agricultural sources. One
control watershed (Berry Brook) and two treatment watersheds will be monitored.
Samsonville Brook watershed will be used to evaluate the water quality benefits
of streambank protection and revegetation, combined with reduced and controlled
livestock access to streams. Godin Brook watershed will be used to assess the
benefits of intensive grazing management.
Water quality data from May through September, 1994, are summarized in Table
11. Since these monitoring data do not include the very significant spring
runoff and fall storm events, it is premature to make meaningful inferences
from the data. It is clear, however, that average bacteria counts far exceed
Vermont water quality standards. Fish and macro-invertebrate data indicate
moderate to severe impacts due to nutrients and organic matter.
Table 11. Mean values for seven measured variables in three Lake Champlain Basin
Watersheds (Vermont).
Watersheds
Variable Samsonville Godin Berry
-------------------------------- ----------- ------- -------
Total Phosphorus (mg/l) 0.124 * 0.181 * 0.138 *
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/l) 0.75 0.72 0.65
Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) 35 30.4 29.7
E. Coli Bacteria (#/100 ml) 278 7863 5022
Fecal Coliform Bacteria (#/100 ml) 250 7388 4688
Fecal Strep Bacteria (#/100 ml) 1200 1916 1877
* Anti-log of log mean
Monitoring will continue for at least six years, including a two-year
calibration period prior to BMP implementation, one year during land management
implementation, and at least three years after BMP implementation. Streamflow
is recorded continuously at all sites, and weekly composite samples are
collected for analysis of nutrients and suspended solids. Bacterial analyses
are performed twice weekly, macroinvertebrates are sampled annually at each
site and at an additional reference site, while fish are evaluated twice each
year by electroshocking. Land use, agricultural activity, and BMP
implementation are monitored primarily through farmer records and
interviews.
(Photo)
Technician recording sampling results (Vermont).
WISCONSIN
Biological monitoring within the Otter Creek Watershed has shown that the
fish community lacks fishable numbers of warmwater sport fish, largely due to
inadequate fish habitat and polluted water. In addition, bacteria levels exceed
Wisconsin's recreational standard of 400 fecal coliforms per 100 ml in many
samples.
(Photo)
Stream depth sampling in Otter Creek (Wisconsin).
This largely agricultural, 7,040-acre watershed drains to Lake Michigan via
the Sheboygan River. Modeling and field inventories have identified critical
areas needing treatment to achieve the National Monitoring Program project
goals of improving the fishery, restring the endangered striped shiner in Otter
Creek, improving recreational uses by reducing bacteria levels, reducing
pollutant loadings to the Sheboygan River and Lake Michigan, and restoring
riparian vegetation.
Improved management of barnyard runoff and manure, nutrient management and
reduced tillage on cropland, and shoreline and streambank stabilization will
all be implemented to control sources of phosphorus, sediment, bacteria, and
streambank erosion in the watershed. State cost share funds are being used to
install these BMPs.
Paired-watershed, upstream-downstream, and single-downstream station
monitoring studies covering eight monitoring sites are employed to evaluate the
benefits of the BMPs. The Meme and Pigeon Creek Watershed serves as the control
site and Otter Creek is the treatment site in the paired-watershed study.
Monitoring sites will also be placed above and below a dairy that will receive
barnyard and streambank stabilization BMPs.
Habitat, fish, and macroinvertebrates are being sampled each year during the
summer. Water chemistry will be tracked through analysis of 30 weekly samples
collected each year from April to October at the paired-watershed and
upstream-downstream sites. Runoff events will also be sampled at the
upstream-downstream sites and at the single-downstream station site at the
outlet of Otter Creek.
Future Directions of the Section 319 National Monitoring Program
Landowners, taxpayers, and regulators need to be confident that land control
practices, installed to combat nonpoint source pollution, will protect or
improve water quality. Through the Section 319 National Monitoring Program,
USEPA expects to gather data sufficient to demonstrate the types and extent of
water quality improvements that can result from the installation of nonpoint
source pollution control practices. The USEPA intends to have 20 - 30 projects
included in the Section 319 National Monitoring Program that should provide
approximately 40 to 100 separate evaluations of watershed-level and
site-specific pollution control efforts. The current mix of projects is highly
skewed to agricultural sources, but USEPA continues to seek projects focused on
other nonpoint source categories such as forestry and urban runoff.
States should benefit from the Section 319 National Monitoring Program, both
because of the documentation of findings in the project areas, and due to the
opportunity to transfer lessons learned into improved State monitoring efforts
and more successful projects in other watersheds. Nonpoint source monitoring
projects will be increasingly embodied within the integrated State monitoring
assessments which USEPA and the States are working toward.
Local, state, and federal governments, as well as private organizations, are
working to educate citizens about nonpoint source pollution. Reducing it will
require the concerted action of farmers and ranchers, homeowners, urban
managers, construction and mining officials, and citizens -- in other words,
all of us. Each of us will have to learn how what we do affects water quality
and how we can change our actions to protect one of our Nation's most vital
resources: water. The National Monitoring Program is just one way in which
these important lessons can be learned, demonstrated, and documented.
Glossary
Animal waste management system - A BMP designed to minimize pollution
originating from livestock and poultry operations by providing facilities for
the storage and handling of animal wastes.
Baseflow water quality sample - Water quality sample obtained during
non-storm conditions.
Beneficial uses - Desirable uses of a water resource such as
recreation (fishing, boating, swimming) and water supply.
Best management practices (BMPs) - Practices or structures designed
to reduce the quantities of pollutants -- such as sediment, nitrogen,
phosphorus, and animal wastes -- that are washed by rain and snow melt from
farms into surface or ground waters.
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) - Quantitative measure of the strength
of contamination by organic and inorganic carbon materials.
Conservation tillage - Any tillage and planting system that maintains
at least 30% of the soil surface covered by residue after planting to reduce
soil erosion by water.
Control watershed - The watershed in which land management practices
are not changed during the course of the paired-watershed study.
Cost share - The practice of allocating project funds to pay a
percentage of the cost of constructing or implementing a BMP. The remainder of
the costs are paid by the producer.
Critical area - Area or source of nonpoint source pollutants
identified in the project area as having the most significant impact on the
impaired use of the receiving waters.
Culvert - Either a metal or concrete pipe or a constructed box-type
conduit through which water is carried under roads.
Designated uses - Uses specified in terms of water quality standards
for each water body or segment.
Detention basin - A pit that accepts and retains stormwater runoff in
order to protect water resources from nonpoint source pollution.
Drainage area - An area of land that drains to one point.
Fecal coliform bacteria (FC) - Colon bacteria that are released in
fecal material. Specifically, this group comprises all of the aerobic and
facultative anaerobic, gram-negative, nonspore-forming, rod-shaped bacteria
that ferment lactose with gas formation with 48 hours at 35 degrees
Celsius.
Filter strip - A strip of varying width, left in permanent vegetation
between waterways and land uses, to intercept and filter out pollutants before
they run into the water resource.
Grab samples - A discrete volume of water collected, by hand or
machine, during one short sampling period.
Geographic information systems (GIS) - Computer programs linking
features commonly seen on maps (such as roads, town boundaries, water bodies)
with related information not usually presented on maps, such as type of road
surface, population, type of agriculture, type f vegetation, or water quality
information. A GIS is a unique information system in which individual
observations can be spatially referenced to each other.
Integrated crop management - A BMP system that combines a wide array
of crop production practices so that agricultural nonpoint source pollution is
minimized.
Land management - The management of land through the use of BMPs in
order to reduce nonpoint source runoff.
Land management monitoring - The recording or tracking of land
management activities.
Macroinvertebrate - Any non-vertebrate organism that is large enough
to been seen without the aid of a microscope and lives in or on the bottom of a
body of water.
National Water Quality Assessment - An ongoing U.S. Geologic Survey
project designed to assess historical, current, and future water quality
conditions in representative river basins and aquifers nationwide. Consistent
and comparable water quality information is collected in 60 major river basins
that drain 50% of the U.S. landbase.
Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution - Pollution originating from diffuse
areas (land surface or atmosphere) having no well-defined source.
Nonpoint source pollution controls - General phrase used to refer to
all methods employed to control or reduce nonpoint source pollution.
NonPoint Source Management System (NPSMS) - A software system
designed to facilitate information tracking and reporting for the USEPA 319
National Monitoring Program projects.
Nutrient management - A BMP designed to minimize the contamination of
surface and ground water by limiting the amount of nutrients (usually nitrogen)
applied to the soil to no more than the crop is expected to use. This may
involve changing fertilizer application techniques, placement, rate, or
timing.
Paired-watershed design - In this design, two watersheds with similar
physical characteristics and, ideally, land use are monitored for one to two
years to establish pollutant-runoff response relationships for each watershed.
Following this initial calibration period, one of the watersheds receives land
treatment while the other (control) watershed does not. Monitoring of both
watersheds continues for one to three years.
Peak flow - The maximum flow or maximum rate at which water runs off
a site during a storm event.
Pesticide management - A BMP designed to minimize contamination of
soil, water, air, and nontarget organisms by controlling the amount, type,
placement, method, and timing of pesticide application necessary for crop
production.
Point source pollution - Water pollution that is discharged from a
discrete location such as a pipe, tank, pit, or ditch.
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol - A standard method developed by USEPA
to assess aquatic health through fish and macroinvertebrate diversity.
Riparian corridor - The area of land along the bank or shoreline of a
body of water.
Riparian vegetation - Vegetation that grows within the riparian
corridor
Single-downstream station design - A water quality monitoring design
that utilizes one station at a point downstream from the area of BMP
implementation to monitor changes in water quality.
Stormflow water quality samples - Samples of water collected during
runoff caused by storm events.
Treatment watershed - The watershed that receives land management
under the paired-watershed monitoring design.
Turbidity - The measurement of the degree to which light travelling
through a water column is scattered by the suspended organic (including algae)
and inorganic particles.
USDA Hydrologic Unit Area and Demo Projects -Water quality projects,
funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, that provide education and
technical assistance to producers and conduct research with the goal of
avoiding water quality degradation from agricultural practices.
Upstream-downstream design - A water quality monitoring design that
utilizes two water quality monitoring sites. One station is placed directly
upstream from the area where BMP implementation will occur and the second is
placed directly downstream from that area.
Water quality variables - A water quality constituent (for example,
total phosphorus pollutant concentration) or other measured factors (such as
streamflow, rainfall).
Watershed - The area of land from which rainfall (and/or snow melt)
drains into a stream or other water body. Watersheds are also sometimes
referred to as drainage basins or drainage areas. Ridges of higher ground
generally form the boundaries between watersheds. At these boundaries, rain
falling on one side flows toward the low point of one watershed, while rain
falling on the other side of the boundary flows toward the low point of a
different watershed.
NCSU Water Quality Group
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service
North Carolina State University
Campus Box 7637
Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7637
Phone: 919/515-3723
Fax: 919/515-7448
AUTHORS:
Deanna L. Osmond
Daniel E. Line
Jean Spooner
EDITOR:
Dorothy Zimmerman
LAYOUT & DESIGN:
Janet M. Young
|
