Maryland Double Pipe Creek (RCWP 8)

Carroll County, located in the north central part of the state, is one of the leading dairy counties in Maryland. In 1980, there were approximately 18,000 dairy cattle in the county; by 1990, the number of dairy cattle had dropped to 12,900 (Sanders et al., 1991). Geographically, the area is characterized by rolling hills and lush valleys. Land use in the watershed/RCWP project area (112,200 acres) consists of 65% cropland, 15% woodland, 12% pasture, and 8% urban/roads. High fecal coliform counts, an indicator of pathogenic bacteria, in Little Pipe and Big Pipe Creeks threaten domestic water supplies, aquatic life, and contact recreation. Sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and herbicides are other water quality concerns. Sources of pollutants besides agricultural operations include two wastewater treatment plants and two quarries, all located on Little Pipe Creek.

The primary goal of the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) project was to improve water quality in the Double Pipe Creek basin through the application of best management practices (BMPs), particularly animal waste management. Emphasis was placed on treating cropland with conservation tillage and installing grassed waterways, building waste storage structures for critical animal operations, and spreading manure based on soil tests.

The project critical area included 18,180 acres. The first priority critical area included farms where livestock and the waste management situation presented a water quality problem and where severe gully erosion existed. Farms with erosion control problems due primarily to sheet and rill erosion were the second priority critical area.

Analysis of baseline monitoring data showed the project area to be a substantial source of nonpoint source (NPS) pollutants entering the Monocacy River. During the baseline monitoring period, a problem was encountered with BMP installation at three farm sites chosen as monitoring stations. Two landowners did not implement BMPs and the other landowner installed practices during the pre-treatment monitoring period. Monitoring at these sites was discontinued shortly thereafter. A new site (Lease farm) was established with the objective of estimating the effectiveness of BMPs for animal waste runoff control. These disruptions in the water quality monitoring program, as well as funding limitations, made it difficult for the project team to demonstrate definitive links between land treatment initiated through the project and water quality changes.

Water quality monitoring results through 1990 suggest that BMPs implemented under the RCWP in the project area improved water quality in Big Pipe Creek. Concentrations of ammonia and total organic carbon decreased in Big Pipe Creek. Total nitrogen and nitrate-nitrite nitrogen concentrations increased during the project period. The specific water quality goals of meeting the state standards for turbidity and fecal coliform were not met. (Sanders et al., 1991; McCoy and Summers, 1992)

Inter-agency coordination, communication, and cooperation in this project were outstanding. The Local Coordinating Committee (LCC) functioned effectively and smoothly, with support, but without interference, from the state level. The agencies' existing relationships with the producers were strong and positive and thus set the stage for a successful project in terms of producer participation. The timing of the project, which coincided with increasing regional concern and activity related to improving the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay, served to enhance the success of the RCWP project. Technical assistance was effective and embodied the experimental nature of the RCWP with the result that much was learned about the best designs for animal waste storage BMPs in the area. RCWP funds were used to hire a nutrient management specialist. This approach was so successful that when RCWP funds for the position ran out, the Maryland Department of Agriculture allotted funds to the Cooperative Extension Service to continue the position.

The one weak link in the project was the water quality monitoring program, which was handled sequentially by two different agencies and for which funding was insufficient. The loss of the original monitoring sites resulted in a lack of baseline data on which to base a water quality analysis. Although improvements in water quality appear to have occurred in Big Pipe Creek, the project has not been able to clearly link these changes to land treatment.

4.2 Project Findings, Recommendations, and Successes

4.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals

4.2.2 Project Management and Administration

4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes

The roles of the agencies must be clearly defined and accepted by agency personnel. The Double Pipe Creek RCWP project responsibilities and work were well balanced among the three agencies. All felt important and no agency overshadowed any other agency.

Inter-agency coordination, communication, and cooperation were major keys to the success of the project.

The team building that resulted from RCWP activities strengthened the cooperative working relationships among the agencies on the local level and now makes their work together even more effective than pre-RCWP.

The State Coordinating Committee (SCC) recognized that the LCC was doing its job well and did not try to control the project from the state level. The SCC tried to support the LCC as requested. For example, the SCC requested and obtained additional funding to enable the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) to hire an agent to work on nutrient and pesticide management within the RCWP project.

The structure of the LCC and SCC provided a coordinated approach to solving water quality problems. This team approach was highly successful.

Giving administrative decision making responsibilities to the local personnel actually implementing the project was important. The structure of the RCWP worked well in that both responsibility and credit for good work done lay at the local level. Top-down administration would have been a severe deterrent to effective working relationships at the local level and to the success of the Maryland RCWP project.

A city official in charge of the Westminster Wastewater Treatment Plant was an active member of the LCC. This was very important, since the plant had a big impact on the water quality of Little Pipe Creek. The official's involvement in the project also made the farmers feel that they were not being singled out as the sole source of pollution, but that other contributors were also playing a part in the project.

Having the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) administer the project was a tremendous advantage, since the agency already had experience administering cost sharing programs.

Excellent cooperation existed among all the agencies involved in the Double Pipe Creek Project. The LCC and information and education subcommittee had good participation from local farm organizations and public officials.

The Carroll County ASCS set up its own system for tracking cost share and BMP implementation. Clearer direction from the National Coordinating Committee (NCC) and/or more communication among projects on approaches to program administration would have been helpful.

BMPs already being practiced in the project area, especially conservation tillage, were not cost shared under RCWP. In this way, the LCC ensured that the funds were used to implement new practices that would probably not have been installed without RCWP cost share funds.

Although agency roles and personnel changed throughout the project, these changes seemed to have minimal impact on the successful reaching of project goals and objectives, probably as a result of the strong on-going working relationships among the agencies.

4.2.2.2 Recommendations

It is important to invite all potential players with an interest in the project to participate in the initial LCC meetings. In this way, the whole community has been tied into the project at the initial stages and all parties feel that they are part of the project (such as mayors, other local agencies).

For water quality demonstration projects of this type, management staff at the national, state, and local levels need to insure that adequate staffing is available to carry out the special project without negatively affecting the ongoing local program.

A separate budget line should be added to provide for the printing of the annual and 10-year reports.

The initial guidelines for the project should clearly outline the expected contents of the yearly, 10-year, and end-of-project reports.

Eligibility rules should be clearly thought through and established, perhaps on the national level, in order to avoid conflicts. Lack of clearly stated rules sometimes led to conflicts and unfair treatment of producers. For example, a father and son, each owning a farm but working them together in a partnership, were considered one farm (and thus limited to $50,000 cost share), whereas non-related partners, each owning a farm and working them together, were considered two farms (and were limited to $100,000 cost share).

More (funded) opportunities for interaction among project staff nationwide would be helpful in order to facilitate inter-project information exchange.

4.2.3 Information and Education

4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes

A wide variety of information and education (I&E) activities were conducted to promote the Double Pipe Creek Project. The result was that the objectives and activities of the RCWP project were effectively communicated to both the farm community and the general public.

The Double Pipe Creek RCWP project increased awareness in the project area and throughout the state of NPS pollution and the connection between land use and practices within the project area and the quality of Chesapeake Bay. The RCWP project activity was closely followed by increasing efforts to protect the Bay; the two programs enhanced each other and together increased citizen awareness of the need to protect water quality.

Project personnel consciously directed recruitment efforts to the large producers. The level of treatment indicates that this was an effective strategy.

At the end of the sign-up period, much effort revolved around one-to-one contact with producers. More personnel efforts during this time might have resulted in a higher number of contracts.

The Cooperative Extension Service (CES) had an opportunity to refine its techniques for preparing fact sheets and bulletins that targeted specific information to specific client groups.

Techniques developed during the RCWP are now being used in the daily work of the local and state agencies. For example, the concept of nutrient management was introduced to the project area during the Double Pipe Creek RCWP project. Additional RCWP funds were obtained to employ an agent specifically to work with RCWP farmers on nutrient management. When these funds ran out, the success of this phase of the project was so evident that the Maryland Department of Agriculture allotted funds to the CES to continue the position.

4.2.3.2 Recommendations

More interchanges between local level project personnel and personnel working on other RCWP projects would be helpful, especially in I&E, in order to provide training and support to project staff.

4.2.4 Producer Participation

4.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation

4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes

The project goal of BMP implementation on at least 50% of the farms in the critical area (primarily animal waste management, grassed waterways, and stripcropping) was met. These practices are generally being maintained. Water Quality Plans covering 20,273 acres had been written and approved for 149 contracts by the end of the contracting period (1986).

Implementation is correlated to farm income and farm income is difficult to project over a 10-15 year program period. Weather cycles affect farm income. During the project, the area experienced several serious droughts.

The flexibility to modify and experiment with BMPs and the $50,000 payment limitation were great assets to the project. Many different and innovative waste storage facility designs were tried and RCWP cost share funds were used to modify the designs that didn't work as well as others (unless the farmer had already reached the $50,000 limit). The end result was that Soil Conservation Service (SCS), ASCS, and CES learned a lot about what designs do work best under local conditions.

The tracking and record system could have been better developed at the beginning of the project to facilitate more pertinent data collection in the form later requested.

Availability of contractors with the required experience, equipment, and ability was not a problem.

More personnel were needed to work with landowners and operators on management and maintenance of installed BMPs.

4.2.5.2 Recommendations

It is important to address all problems on a farm that are affecting water quality. This is feasible when the project area acreage is small and when the local agencies have adequate staffing to get the job done.

4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation

4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes

Results through 1990 suggest that BMPs implemented under the RCWP in the project area improved water quality in Big Pipe Creek, where concentrations of ammonia and total organic carbon decreased by 44% and 51%, respectively. Total nitrogen increased by 25% and nitrate-nitrogen increased by 34% in Big Pipe Creek during the project period.

The results of the monitoring program indicate that the state's turbidity and fecal coliform standards are exceeded regularly in Big Pipe Creek.

An adequate pre-implementation water quality characterization was difficult to obtain. Once monitoring sites were picked, both producer and project team were anxious to begin implementing BMPs. The original project guidelines indicated that BMPs had to be implemented within one year of the producer signing a contract. Because of this rule, monitoring sites were chosen on three farms not under contract in order to get two years of pre- project water quality data. These producers either never signed a contract or never implemented the practices and it became impossible to collect post- implementation data.

Water quality data were affected by four major droughts in the project area during the RCWP decade. It is thus possible that some of the perceived water quality improvements were due to lower volumes of runoff rather than the effects of land treatment implemented through the project.

4.2.6.2 Recommendations

Several years and much money were spent monitoring three specific farm sites; however, two farmers decided not to implement BMPs. This illustrates the importance of developing a binding contract with landowners whose participation is essential to the monitoring program, even if implementation of such a contract requires providing special incentives to the landowner.

It would be helpful for project teams to have more guidance on establishing effective water quality monitoring programs within existing/realistic budgets.

Projects should plan an approach to water quality data analysis from the very beginning of the project and then stick to the plan. The Maryland project's monitoring design went through several changes, making it difficult to link the earlier and later phases of the monitoring data and diminishing the ability of the project to document water quality improvements linked with BMP implementation.

4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality

4.3 Project Description

4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame

4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions

4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality

4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size

Streams: Big Pipe Creek, Little Pipe Creek, and Double Pipe Creek (formed by the confluence of Little and Big Pipe Creeks)

4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments

Project area streams and ponds provide public water supply for the city of Westminster and surrounding areas, serving approximately 18,000 people and several businesses. Secondary uses of water resources are contact recreation and fishing.

4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement

High levels of suspended sediment and coliform bacteria impair multiple uses of project area streams. Nutrient export to Chesapeake Bay is a concern.

4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals

Objectives:

Apply BMPs to address the most critical water quality problems in the project, specifically high fecal coliform bacteria and potential sediment loads

Show a measurable improvement in the degree of water quality

Goals:

Reduce the level of fecal coliform bacteria to below 200MPN/100ml (state standard)

Meet the state standard for turbidity (150 NTU, JTU, or FTU units or a monthly average of 50 units) at all times

Reduce the sediment delivery to the streams by approximately 36,000 tons per year

4.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics

4.3.2.2.1

Watershed Area: 112,200 acres
Project Area: 112,200 acres
Critical Area: 18,180 acres

4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors

Mean Annual Precipitation: 45 inches

Geologic Factors: The project area lies within the north central Piedmont Region and is characterized by gently rolling to steep uplands with streams of average to steep gradient feeding into the bottom lands. Predominant soils are moderately erodible. Ground water within the project area occurs primarily in fractures and bedding-plane partings of rocks. It may also occur in solutional cavities in limestone and marble.

4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture

Agriculture in the project area consists primarily of dairy and cash grain. Corn, soybeans, small grain, and hay are the principal crops grown. (Schaeffer, 1992)

4.3.2.2.4 Land Use

Use      % of Project Area    % of Critical Area
Cropland       65                  NA
Pasture/range         12                    NA
Woodland       15                         NA
Urban/roads        8                  NA
Other                -                   NA

4.3.2.2.5 Animal Operations

Operation   # Farms     Total #     Total Animal
            Animals     Units
Dairy            75      19,774      27,684
Beef             NA            6,958        6,958
Poultry              6     700,000      23,100
Hogs             NA            6,222        2,489
Horses              NA       7,747   15,494

These data are as of 1980. Dairy cow numbers decreased by approximately 5,000 animals between 1980 and 1990 (Sanders et al., 1991) and poultry numbers decreased to 330,000 during the same period (D. Greene, Carroll County Cooperative Extension Service, personal communication).

4.3.3 Total Project Budget

Cost Share 3,576,137 0 1,227,613 0 4,803,750 Info. & Ed. 58,939 0 0 0 58,939 Tech. Asst. 1,232,569 0 0 0 1,232,569 Water Quality
Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 SUM 4,867,645 0 1,227,613 0 $6,095,258

4.3.4 Information and Education

4.3.4.1 Strategy

The Information and Education program was designed to utilize a wide diversity of communication methods to promote the Double Pipe Creek RCWP project among the farm community and general public.

4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals

Inform the public and the farming community about the RCWP project and how the project would be funded and administered (Sanders et al., 1991)

Help farmers realize that they were part of the problem and help the rest of the community realize that they were also part of the solution

Encourage farmer and landowner participation in the RCWP (Sanders et al., 1991)

4.3.4.3 Program Components

Media coverage (press conferences, television/radio, news releases, farm newsletters)

RCWP Newsletter; flyers about the RCWP, Double Pipe Creek RCWP project, soil conservation, tours, and demonstrations

Fact sheet on grassed waterway maintenance

Informational displays

Slide tape show

Picture album of sample BMPs

Tours of participating farms for county officials, the general public, and producers

Manure spreader calibration demonstrations during field days and farm tours

Signs for "RCWP Cooperating Farms" and plaques for cooperators completing all of their planned BMPs

Communication with Vocational Agriculture teachers and classes

Individual farm visits

Meetings with contractors who build soil conservation BMPs

Demonstrations for schools, service clubs, and farm meetings of a mechanical ground water model to show the interaction of ground and surface water and how it is affected by human activities

4.3.5 Producer Participation

4.3.5.1 Level of Participation

Producer participation in the RCWP project was very good. The land treatment goal of having an acreage equal to 50% of the critical area under contract by the third year of the project met.

4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation

Cost share rate of 75% for most practices

$50,000 payment limit per producer

Environmental concern during the 1980s related to the necessity of cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay created an awareness in the farm community that there was a problem with NPS pollution from farms and that farm operators would be expected to help solve the problem (Greene, 1992)

Strong leadership within the farm community

Peer pressure

Option for SCS to be flexible in adjusting designs to deal with problems and individual sites

Fear of regulation of farming operations by federal and/or state agencies motivated some farmers to participate in voluntary programs

Success of the initial RCWP contracts

Effectiveness of SCS in properly designing practices and working with farmers

Perception that BMPs installed would benefit the farmer economically and contribute to sustainability of the farm

Interest in manure management as a labor- and cost-saving technique

4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation

Economics of the daiqry situation during the 1980s had a negative impact on farmer participation

Inability of some farmers to afford their share of the cost of implementing BMPs

$50,000 payment limit (for farmers owning more than one farm)

Unwillingness of some producers to participate in any government program

Fear on the part of some producers of being cited for water quality violations if they allowed federal and state agencies on their farms

Lack of interest by absentee landowners in investing in their land

Economic hardship due to three droughts during the project period (Sanders et al., 1991)

4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs

Excellent because of 1) awareness by producers of the connection between their practices and the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and 2) the personal investment made by farmers in the BMPs.

4.3.6 Land Treatment

4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design

Major emphasis was placed on preventative measures and management of the soil resource which directly affected water quality in order to make the project more cost- effective. For example, the concept of diverting fresh water around a livestock area as well as the proper handling of animal wastes inside the facility was considered in all applicable plans. Preventing the displacement of soil particles in a water course was emphasized over collecting it downstream.

4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals

Objective:

Reduce the agriculturally generated pollutant load in the watershed

Goals:

Have an acreage equal to 50% of the critical area under contract by the end of the third year of the project

Treat cropland with conservation tillage and grassed waterways, and improve procedures for animal waste storage and field application

4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application

Criteria:
Distance from major streams
Size of farm operation (especially size of livestock herd)
Present conservation status

4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used in the Project

The general scheme was to treat cropland with conservation tillage and install grassed waterways; build waste storage structures for critical animal operations; and spread manure based on soil tests.

There has been a significant shift in BMP emphasis to conservation tillage without RCWP funding in the project area.

BMPs Utilized in the Project *                    Project Accomplishments


Permanent vegetative cover (BMP 1)                  252 acres
Animal waste management system (BMP 2)                  100 systems
Stripcropping system (BMP 3)                    2,031 acres
Diversion system (BMP 5)               12,287 feet
Grazing land protection system (BMP 6)                   84 systems
Waterway system (BMP 7)                         213,148 feet
Stream protection system (BMP 10)                22 systems
Permanent vegetative cover on critical areas (BMP 11)     14 acres
Fertilizer management (BMP 15)                        26 contracts
Pesticide management (BMP 16)                      28 contracts

*Please refer to Appendix I for description/purpose of BMPs.
Source: Sanders et al., 1991

4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring & Tracking Program

4.3.6.5.1 Description

ASCS reported BMP implementation by units and cost share earned. Animal waste production, major crops, average yields, and fertilizer and pesticide use were also reported. Maintenance was tracked by SCS through annual status reviews of farms.

Land use was not tracked. There were few major land use changes in the project area during the RCWP project period (for example, cropland to residential or woodland); however, significant changes in rotation, contouring, and strip cropping did occur.

4.3.6.5.2 Data Management

Data were maintained by ASCS and SCS.

No geographic information system or other mapping was used.

4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results

Quantified Project Achievements:

Pollutant         Project Area *
Source      Units Total    Implemented 

Cropland acres    72,930         19,847
Pasture     acres    13,464          6,466
Dairies     #           NA            102
Feedlots    #          NA             37
Poultry Farms  #     NA              5
Contracts   #     235            140

* Data not available for critical area only

Sources: Double Pipe Creek RCWP Project, 1990 (form RCWP 3), Sanders et al., 1991, and personal communication from E. Schaeffer, County Executive Director, Carroll County ASCS.

Treatment has exceeded goals for cropland and livestock operations.

The installation of BMPs in the basin resulted in an estimated reduction of in-field soil erosion from cropland of 25,646 tons per year and the storage of 99,919 tons of manure per year by 1989. Based on a calculated average erosion rate of 9.6 tons of soil per acre of cropland for the basin, the net reduction of in-field soil erosion from cropland is approximately 4%. Based on the livestock population numbers for 1989, the net quantity of manure stored increased by 28%. The reduction in soil erosion and the increase in manure stored can be converted into pounds of N and P using the conversion factors of 1.1 pounds of P/ton and 5.4 pounds of N per ton for soil and 1.3 pounds of P per ton and 7.0 pounds of N per ton for manure. The net reduction of nutrients available from eroded soil and manure as a result of the implementation of BMPs was 13% for both N and P. (McCoy and Summers, 1992)

4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation

4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design

The water quality monitoring program had two elements. The first element was designed to detect long-term changes in water quality. The second element was a before/after study to measure the effectiveness of a specific set of BMPs. (McCoy and Summers, 1992)

Conducted in two phases by Versar, Inc. (1982 - 1985) and by the Maryland Department of the Environment (1987 - 1992)

4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals

Establish a baseline water quality data base for evaluating BMP effectiveness at the watershed and field levels by comparing storm event water quality data from a pre-treatment period with data from a post-treatment period

Determine the project's impacts on turbidity levels and fecal coliform levels in Big Pipe Creek

Provide sufficient data to design a long-term monitoring program in the area

4.3.7.3 Time Frame

Phase I - Baseline Monitoring: 1982-1985

Phase II - Final Monitoring: 1987-1992

4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme

4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations

Baseline:
Big Pipe Creek at the Bruceville U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauge no. 01639500
(50% of project area drainage above this site)
3 sites (Schwartzbeck, Stambaugh, Divers farms) monitoring effects of BMPs to treat
animal waste, animal waste and erosion, and erosion

Final Monitoring:
Big Pipe Creek at Bruceville
1 site (Lease farm) monitoring effect of BMPs to treat animal waste runoff

4.3.7.4.2 Sample Type

Automated, flow-proportional composite over the duration of each storm event (all sites)

4.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency

2 - 3 storm events per season (8 - 12 per year) plus some base flow (all sites)
Baseflow samples collected monthly at the Lease farm and Bruceville site

4.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed

(all sites) total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrite-nitrogen (NO2-N), nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N), ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N), total phosphorus (TP), orthophosphate (OP), total suspended solids (TSS), total organic carbon (TOC), fecal coliform (FC) and total coliform (TC) bacteria

4.3.7.4.5 Flow Measurement

Continuous flow over the duration of each storm event sampled
Stream gauge at watershed outlet station
H-type flumes for runoff at three baseline farm sites
24" culvert at Lease farm site

4.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements

Precipitation gauge at one farm site

4.3.7.4.7 Other Important Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information

None

4.3.7.5 Data Management

All data have been compiled into a single data base and verified by the Maryland Department of the Environment as part of the state of Maryland's Trend Monitoring Network.

4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results

Analysis:

The strategy was originally planned as a collection and analysis of before and after water quality data using a step trend. This design was modified in 1987 due to inadequate pre-project data. A decision was made at that time to utilize parametric linear trend analysis.

The following statistical tests were performed on three data bases from the first phase (base flow concentrations, storm flow concentration, and storm flow loadings): 1) parametric: one-way ANOVA, two-way ANOVA, and Scheffe's Multiple Range Test to determine differences between sites, groups of sites, seasons, and storms classified by quantity of precipitation and 2) non-parametric: Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA (test for skewed data sets), Median Test (test of medians for skewed data sets).

The whole data base was analyzed for trends by regressing the log (concentration) against time and time2. A second analysis was performed which adjusted for the effects of flow and season. Specifically, this second analysis involved a two-step process where the residuals from the regression of the log (concentration) against flow (flow2) and season (sin and cos) were generated and then these residuals were regressed against time and time2.

Results:

Water quality monitoring data (1981 through 1990) indicate improved water quality in Big Pipe Creek. Concentrations of ammonia and total organic carbon decreased. Total nitrogen and nitrate-nitrite nitrogen concentrations increased during the project period.

The specific goals of meeting the state standards for turbidity and fecal coliform were not met (Sanders et al., 1991; McCoy and Summers, 1992). Monitoring data indicate that the standard for fecal coliform is regularly exceeded in the creek. The turbidity standard was exceeded several times between 1982 and 1990 (McCoy and Summers, 1992).

The project increased the storage of animal waste in the basin by approximately 99,919 tons per year, thus decreasing the quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus readily available from manure for transport to the stream system by 28%. Decreasing trends in NH4 and TOC concentrations may indicate that less manure is being washed off the land surface, since NH4 and TOC are major manure runoff constituents (McCoy and Summers, 1992).

It has been estimated that the project has reduced the quantity of nutrients available for export from soil erosion and manure application in the basin by approximately 13%. The 13% reduction has not shown up in the PO4 and TP constituent trends because 13% change is too slight to be statistically detected given the large natural variability in PO4 and TP concentrations with changes in river flow (McCoy and Summers, 1992).

Similarly, the project team estimated that soil erosion has been reduced by 25,646 tons/year (4% reduction). This reduction has not shown up in TSS constituent trends because the magnitude of the change is too small to be statistically detected given the variability of TSS concentrations with storm events (McCoy and Summers, 1992).

The increasing trend in nitrate-nitrite nitrogen, which leads to a corresponding increase in total nitrogen, indicates that the soluble forms of nitrogen are leaching through the system. A variety of factors are probably contributing to the observed increase in nitrate-nitrite nitrogen. The increased use of conservation tillage in the region over the last 15 years may have increased infiltration and thus increased the leaching of soluble chemicals into the ground water. The increased storage of animal waste reduces nitrogen losses to the atmosphere and to streams through direct runoff. However, storage of animal waste does result in more manure being applied to the fields, which increases the potential for leaching. The proper timing of manure applications and the incorporation of applied manure also reduces atmospheric losses of nitrogen and increases the quantity of nitrogen being applied. Increased atmospheric deposition of nitrogen and increasing numbers of residences with septic systems also contribute to the nitrogen load increases (McCoy and Summers, 1992).

4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality

None of the BMPs used in association with the RCWP project appear to have been effective in reducing fecal coliform densities in Big Pipe Creek. Additional work is required to determine what practices are effective in reducing fecal coliform densities. (McCoy and Summers, 1992)

4.3.9 Impact of Other Federal Programs on the Project

By helping farmers focus on the need for a farm conservation plan, the Wheat and Feed Grain Program helped encourage farmers to implement BMPs contracted for under the RCWP.

The Maryland Agriculture Land Preservation Program complemented the effects of the Double Pipe Creek RCWP project. In order for a farm to be accepted into the state program, a conservation plan must be developed when easement rights are sold to the state. Since 1980, 21,473 acres of farmland in the Double Pipe Creek project area have been accepted into the program. The program has thus enabled many farmers to remain in farming and at the same time, the Agriculture Land Preservation Program has contributed to improved water quality (Sanders et al., 1991).

4.3.10 Other Pertinent Information

4.3.11 References

Greene, D.L. 1992. Diversity of I&E Efforts Help Obtain Goals for Double Pipe Creek RCWP, In The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium, Ten Years of Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution: The RCWP Experience, September 13 - 17, 1992, Orlando, Florida, EPA/625/R-92/006, p. 313-319.

McCoy, J.L. and R.M. Summers. 1992. Water Quality Trends in Big Pipe Creek During the Double Pipe Creek Rural Clean Water Project, In The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium, Ten Years of Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution: The RCWP Experience, September 13 - 17, 1992, Orlando, Florida, EPA/625/R-92/006, p.181-191.

Sanders, J.H., D. Valentine, E. Schaeffer, D. Greene, J. McCoy. 1991. Double Pipe Creek Rural Clean Water Program Ten Year Report. Cooperators: USDA-SCS, USDA-ASCS, University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Service, Maryland Department of the Environment, and the Carroll Soil Conservation District. 122p.

Schaeffer, E.A. 1992. Farmer Participation in the Double Pipe Creek Rural Clean Water Program, In The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium, Ten Years of Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution: The RCWP Experience, September 13 - 17, 1992, Orlando, Florida, EPA/625/R- 92/006, p. 269-272.