Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
-
Upload
nick-kelley -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 1/57
Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
Nick Kelley
Developing and Implementing Watershed Plans
WMHS 685
December 5, 2013
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 2/57
Table of ContentsChapter 1. Watershed Management ............................................................................................................ 1
Watershed Definition ................................................................................................................................ 1
Watersheds and Water Quality ................................................................................................................ 1
Benefits of a Watershed Approach ........................................................................................................... 1
Watershed Protection Planning ................................................................................................................ 2
Chapter 2. Spring Creek Watershed ............................................................................................................. 3
Ecology and Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Land Use Classification .............................................................................................................................. 5
Climate ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
Chapter 3. Watershed Assessment and Analysis Methods .......................................................................... 7
Stream Segment Description .................................................................................................................... 7
Designated Uses ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Bacteria ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
Monitoring Stations .................................................................................................................................. 8
Load Duration Curve (LDC) ........................................................................................................................ 9
Spatially Explicit Load Enrichment Calculation Tool (SELECT) ................................................................ 10
Data Limitations ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Chapter 4. Impairment Assessment and Pollutant Sources ....................................................................... 12
Monitoring Stations ................................................................................................................................ 12
Station 16394 ...................................................................................................................................... 12
Station 20564 ...................................................................................................................................... 12
Annual Load and Load Reductions .......................................................................................................... 13
Bacteria Trends and Processes at Work ................................................................................................. 13
SELECT results ......................................................................................................................................... 14
On-Site Sewage Facilities (OSSF) ............................................................................................................. 15
Livestock .................................................................................................................................................. 16
Cattle ................................................................................................................................................... 16
Horses ................................................................................................................................................. 16
Sheep and Goats ................................................................................................................................. 16
Wildlife .................................................................................................................................................... 16
Deer ..................................................................................................................................................... 17
Feral Hogs............................................................................................................................................ 17
Chapter 5. Management Measures ............................................................................................................ 18
OSSFs ....................................................................................................................................................... 18
Agriculture .............................................................................................................................................. 18
Livestock Operations ........................................................................................................................... 18
Feral Hog Control .................................................................................................................................... 19
Deer and Other Wildlife .......................................................................................................................... 20
Chapter 6. Outreach and Education Strategy ............................................................................................. 25
News Releases and Newsletters ............................................................................................................. 25
Public Meetings and Field Days .............................................................................................................. 25
Texas Watershed Steward Program ....................................................................................................... 25
Future Stakeholder Engagement ............................................................................................................ 26
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 3/57
Educational Programs ............................................................................................................................. 26
Feral Hog Management Workshop ..................................................................................................... 26
Lone Star Healthy Streams Workshop (Grazing Cattle component) .................................................. 26
OSSF Operation and Maintenance Workshop .................................................................................... 26
Riparian and Stream Ecosystem Education Program .......................................................................... 27
Wildlife Management Workshops ...................................................................................................... 27
Chapter 7. Sources of Assistance ................................................................................................................ 28Federal Sources ....................................................................................................................................... 28
Farm Bill Programs .............................................................................................................................. 28
Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) ........................................................................... 28
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) ................................................................................................. 28
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) .......................................................................................... 28
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) ............................................................................. 29
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)....................................................................................... 29
USDA-Rural Development Program .................................................................................................... 29
Federal Clean Water Act §319(h) Nonpoint Source Grant Program................................................... 29
State sources ........................................................................................................................................... 29
Agricultural Water Conservation Program ......................................................................................... 29
Texas Clean Rivers Program (CRP) ...................................................................................................... 30
Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund ............................................................................................... 30
Supplemental Environmental Project Program (SEP) ......................................................................... 30
Water Quality Management Plan Program ........................................................................................ 30
Other sources .......................................................................................................................................... 30
Chapter 8. Measuring Success .................................................................................................................... 31
Interim Measurable Milestones .............................................................................................................. 31
Monitoring and Water Quality Criteria ................................................................................................... 31
Targeted Water Quality Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 32
Bacterial Source Tracking ........................................................................................................................ 33
Chapter 9. Implementation Schedule ......................................................................................................... 34
Technical assistance ................................................................................................................................ 34
OSSF Management .............................................................................................................................. 34
Agricultural Management ................................................................................................................... 34
Non-Domestic Animal and Wildlife Management .............................................................................. 34
Schedule, Milestones, and Estimated Costs ........................................................................................... 35
Outreach and Education ......................................................................................................................... 35
References .................................................................................................................................................. 38
Appendix A – List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................... 40
Appendix B – Elements of Successful Watershed Plans ............................................................................. 41
Appendix C – Land Cover Classifications ..................................................................................................... 43
Appendix D – Load Duration Curve Approach ............................................................................................ 45
Appendix E – SELECT Model Description and Approach ............................................................................. 47
Appendix F – Load Reduction Calculations ................................................................................................. 49
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 4/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 1
Chapter 1. Watershed Management
Watershed Definition
A watershed is an area of land that water flows across, through, or under on its way to a single common
point in a stream, river, lake, or ocean. Watersheds include not only water bodies such as streams and
lakes, but also all the surrounding lands that contribute water to the system as runoff during and after
rainfall events. Relationships between the quality and quantity of water affect the function and health of
a watershed. Thus, significant water removals (such as irrigation) or water additions (such as wastewater
discharges) are important. Watersheds can be extremely large, covering many thousands of acres, and
often are separated into smaller subwatersheds for the purposes of study and management.
Watersheds and Water Quality
To effectively address water issues, it is important to examine all natural processes and human activitiesoccurring in a watershed that may affect water quality and quantity. Runoff that eventually makes it to a
water body begins as surface or subsurface water flow from rainfall on agricultural, residential,
industrial, and undeveloped areas. This water can carry with it pollutants washed from the surrounding
landscape. In addition, wastewater from various sources containing pollutants may be released directly
into a water body. To better enable identification and management, potential pollutants are classified
based on their origin as either point source or non-point source pollution.
Point source pollution is discharged from a defined location or a single point, such as a pipe, drain, or
wastewater treatment plant. It includes any pollution that may be traced back to a single point of origin.
Point source pollution is typically discharged directly into a waterway and often contributes flow across
all conditions, including both droughts and floods. In Texas, dischargers holding a wastewater permitthrough the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES – see Appendix A for a complete list of
acronyms) are considered point sources, and their effluent is permitted with specific pollutant limits to
reduce their impact on the receiving stream.
Nonpoint source pollution (NPS), on the other hand, comes from a source that does not have a single
point of origin. The pollutants are generally carried off the land by runoff from stormwater following
rainfall events. As the runoff moves over the land, it can pick up both natural and human-related
pollutants, depositing them into water bodies such as lakes, rivers, and bays. Ultimately, the types and
amounts of pollutants entering a water body will determine the quality of water it contains and whether
it is suitable for particular uses such as irrigation, fishing, swimming, or drinking.
Benefits of a Watershed Approach
Because watersheds are determined by the landscape and not political borders, watersheds often cross
municipal, county, and state boundaries. By using a watershed perspective, all potential sources of
pollution entering a waterway can be better identified and evaluated. Just as important, all stakeholders
in the watershed can be involved in the process. A watershed stakeholder is anyone who lives, works, or
engages in recreation in the watershed. They have a direct interest in the quality of the watershed and
will be affected by planned efforts to address water quality issues. Individuals, groups, and organizations
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 5/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 2
within a watershed can become involved as stakeholders in initiatives to protect and improve local
water quality. Stakeholder involvement is critical for selecting, designing, and implementing
management measures to successfully improve water quality.
Watershed Protection Planning
A Watershed Protection Plan is typically developed according to the Elements of Successful WatershedPlans (see Appendix B) by local stakeholders with the primary goal being to restore and/or protect water
quality and designated uses of a water body through voluntary, non-regulatory water resource
management. Public participation is critical throughout plan development and implementation, as
ultimate success of any Watershed Protection Plan depends on stewardship of the land and water
resources by landowners, businesses, elected officials, and residents of the watershed. The Spring Creek
Watershed Protection Plan defines a strategy and identifies opportunities for widespread participation
of stakeholders across the watershed to work together and as individuals to implement voluntary
practices and programs that restore and protect water quality in Spring Creek.
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 6/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 3
Chapter 2. Spring Creek Watershed
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 7/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 4
Ecology and Soils
The Spring Creek watershed has a drainage area of 23,207 acres (~36 mi2) and lies entirely within
Robertson County in the lower Brazos River Basin. The watershed falls within the Texas Post Oak
Savannah ecoregion, which is a transition zone between the Blackland Prairies to the west and the
Pineywoods to the east.
The region is dominated by native bunch grasses and forbs with scattered post oaks and some plateau
live oak, black hickory, and blackjack oak. In recent times this historical vegetation has been replaced by
species such as yaupon holly, cedar elm, sugarberry, and eastern red cedar. Upland areas are typically
where bunch grasses are concentrated. Forested areas in the western region of the Post Oak Savannah
are generally restricted to bottomland areas associated with water, in areas protected from fire, or
those with specific soil types.
The region is underlain by Upper Cretaceous marine chalks, limestone, and shale which give rise to the
development of the characteristic black, heavy clay soils; along major rivers and tributaries a slightly
more sandy soil. The Silstid-Padina-Robco and Hearne-Rosanky-Gasil soils are dominantly sandy and
loamy savannah soils found on the uplands while Benchley-Luling is a dominantly loamy and clayey
prairie soil. The Chazos-Dutek-Silawa, Tabor-Gasil-Rader, and Eufaula-Robco soils are dominantly sandy,loamy, and clayey soils found on terraces and the loamy and clayey Uhland-Sandow-Whitesboro found
in the floodplains.
Figure 2.1. General soils map of the Spring Creek watershed
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 8/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 5
Land Use Classification
Land use in the Spring Creek watershed was derived from the 2006 National Land Cover Database
(NLCD), and is based primarily on the unsupervised classification of Landsat Enhanced Thematic
Mapper+ (ETM+) 2006 satellite data. Land cover data was available at a spatial resolution of 30 meters
and was analyzed using ESRI ArcGIS 10.1 software.
Table 2.1 illustrates the land use types, and their total area and relative proportions in the watershed,
indicating that the Spring Creek watershed consists primarily of deciduous and mixed forests (~53%) and
then pastures and shrub (~24%). Figure 2.2 provides a visual distribution of land cover in the watershed.
Appendix C provides further information regarding land cover classification.
Figure 2.2. Spring Creek land cover classification
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 9/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 6
Table 2.1. Land use classifications by acreage and
as a percentage of the watershed
Climate
Spring Creek lies in a sub-tropical humid climate zone and is influenced by air from the Gulf of Mexico
and the subtropical jetstream. Average rainfall in the areas is 38 inches (965 mm), but typically ranges
from 3 inches (76 mm) to 5 inches (127 mm) throughout the year. On average, slightly more rainfall
occurs in the late spring and late fall. Winters are mild with periods of low temperatures usually lasting
less than two months, and average lows reaching down into the 40°F (4°C) range. Summers are warm
and hot with averages high temperatures reaching into the mid-90°F (32°C) range.
Land Use Classification Total AreaProportion of
Watershed
acres %Deciduous Forest 7077 30
Mixed Forest 5304 23
Pasture/Hay 3198 14
Shrub/Scrub 2363 10
Evergreen Forest 1862 8
Woody Wetlands 1378 6
Developed, Open Space 819 4
Grassland/Herbaceous 809 3
Cultivated Crops 172 < 1
Developed, Low Intensity 66 < 1
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 57 < 1
Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) 43 < 1
Developed, Med. Intensity 32 < 1
Open Water 28 < 1
Total 23208 100
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 10/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 7
Chapter 3. Watershed Assessment and Analysis Methods
Stream Segment Description
Spring Creek proper, classified as Segment 1242M by the TCEQ, is documented in the Texas Water
Quality Inventory as an unclassified water body. The stream is located entirely within a rural watershedand begins about 1.5 miles north of FM 391, flowing 17 miles southwest to its confluence with the Little
Brazos River. Spring Creek is fed by several small streams and tributaries, the most notable being Dunn
Creek. Periods of no flow or near no flow have been recorded yearly.
Designated Uses
TCEQ defines designated uses for all classified and unclassified streams in Texas. These designated uses
define what water quality assessment criteria a water body must adhere to. Spring Creek has been
designated for aquatic life, fish consumption, general, and recreation uses.
Aquatic life use is simply defined as a water body’s ability to support a healthy aquatic ecosystem as
defined by the criteria for dissolved oxygen (DO), toxic substances, ambient water and sediment toxicity,
and indices for habitat, benthic macroinvertebrate, and fish communities.
General use is a set of water quality criteria that are monitored to assess general water quality. These
criteria include water temperature, pH, chloride, sulfate and total dissolved solids (TDS). Additional
concerns for meeting the general use also include levels for nutrients and chlorophyll-a (TCEQ 2010).
Recreation use, more specifically primary contact recreation use, must be supported in all but a few
water bodies in Texas and is designed to evaluate the ability of a water body to support designated
levels of recreation. This use is assessed by quantifying levels of bacterial indicator organisms in 100
milliliter (mL) of water. Escherichia coli (E. coli ) is the bacterial indicator used in Spring Creek to assessthis use.
Bacteria
Based on routine water quality sampling, the TCEQ initially listed Spring Creek as impaired for recreation
use in 2002. This means that the stream does not support the designated use of contact recreation,
which includes wading and swimming. The cause of impairment was cited as bacteria, most likely from
livestock grazing or feeding operations.
Under the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards, water quality criteria for contact recreation in
freshwater streams consist of two parts. The first criterion is a geometric mean concentration of 126 E.
coli colony forming units (cfu) per 100 mL of stream water, or 126 cfu/100mL. The second criterion,
based on grab samples, requires that no more than 25% of single samples from a given monitoring
station exceed 394 cfu/100mL. While the E. coli bacteria that are analyzed in typical water quality
samples are not of the pathogenic strain, their presence can indicate the potential threat of other
harmful bacteria found in the feces of warm-blooded animals.
Spring Creek was designated Category 5b on the 2006 303(d) List, meaning a review of the standards will
be conducted before a regulatory Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is conducted. The tributary streams
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 11/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 8
in the Spring Creek watershed are not individually assessed at this time, but they contribute to the
quality of water in the mainstem of Spring Creek that is regularly monitored.
Monitoring Stations
Spring Creek currently has two water quality monitoring stations maintained by the TCEQ (Figure 3.1).
The first, Station 20564, is located on Jack Rabbit Lane, about 1 mile east from the intersection of JackRabbit Lane and FM 2549 in Robertson County. This monitoring station is located upstream from the
confluence of Dunn Creek, which is the largest tributary to Spring Creek. The second monitoring station,
Station 16394, is located at SH 6/US 190 about 7 miles southeast of Hearne. This station is located
downstream of the Dunn Creek confluence.
Figure 3.1. Spring Creek surface water quality monitoring (SWQM) stations
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 12/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 9
Load Duration Curve (LDC)
A widely accepted approach for predicting whether pollutants are coming from point source or non-
point sources is the use of a Load Duration Curve (LDC). An LDC is developed by first constructing a flow
duration curve using historical streamflow data (Figure 3.2). Flow data are then multiplied by a threshold
concentration of a pollutant, such as a desired target or an official water quality criterion. Typically, a
margin of safety (MOS) is applied to the threshold pollutant concentration to account for possible
variations in loading due to sources, stream flow, effectiveness of management measures, and other
sources of uncertainty. An MOS of 10% was chosen, thus setting the bacteria threshold concentration to
113 cfu/100mL.
Figure 3.2. Example flow duration curve. Historical flow data are used to determine
how frequently stream conditions exceed different flows.
When flow and the critical concentration are multiplied together, they produce the estimated pollutantload. The resulting load duration curve can then be used to show the maximum load a stream can carry
without exceeding regulatory criteria or screening criteria across the range of flow conditions (low flow
to high flow). In addition, stream monitoring data for a pollutant can be plotted on the curve to show
when and by how much the criteria are exceeded. For example, in Figure 3.3, the solid line indicates the
maximum acceptable stream load for E. coli bacteria and the boxes represent monitored loads from
water quality sample data. Where the boxes are above the solid line, the actual stream load has
exceeded the regulatory limit and a violation of the criterion has occurred.
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 13/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 10
Figure 3.3. Example load duration curve. Vertical lines separate flow categories, the
solid line is the maximum acceptable pollutant load, and the boxes are water quality
paired with associated flow rates
By considering the processes at work during high flows, normal flows, and low flows, it is possible to link
pollutant concentrations with potential point or non-point sources of pollution. Next, by using a
regression analysis of monitored data, estimates of the percent reduction needed to achieve acceptable
pollutant loads can be determined. For the Spring Creek watershed, the predicted load reduction for the
second highest flow condition at Station 16394 was used to establish the target reduction for the
watershed. The highest flow conditions only occur 10% of the time or less and are considered infeasible
to manage for. A more detailed description of the Load Duration Curve approach can be found in
Appendix D.
Spatially Explicit Load Enrichment Calculation Tool (SELECT)
To more specifically identify potential E. coli loadings from modeled sources, the SELECT approach was
developed by the Spatial Sciences Laboratory and the Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Department at Texas A&M University. A potential pollutant load is estimated for each source based on
known pollutant production rates. The model distributes these potential loads across the watershed
based on land use characteristics. These estimates are worst-case scenarios that do not factor in any
form of bacteria die-off. As a result, the loading estimates produced by the model are not loads that are
expected to enter the stream. Rather, the estimates are used to show areas with the greatest potential
for impacting water quality and the major potential contributors found in those areas.
Typically, the SELECT model operates on the watershed level which is divided into subwatersheds, and
potential loads are calculated for each subwatershed. Since the Spring Creek watershed is already a
subwatershed, calculations were performed manually using daily average fecal coliform excretion rates
converted to consider E. coli proportions (Teague 2009). A more complete description of the SELECT
approach can be found in Appendix E.
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 14/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 11
Data Limitations
When determining the relationships between in-stream conditions and driving factors in the
surrounding landscape, it is important to consider all potential sources of pollution and rely on the most
dependable data available. Information used in the analysis of the Spring Creek watershed was gathered
from a number of sources, including regional groups, and state and federal agencies.
It is important to remember that information collected in the Spring Creek watershed represents a
snapshot in time of the processes at work. Whether associated with human activities, weather patterns,
animal distributions, or other factors, Spring Creek and other watersheds are very dynamic in nature,
and conditions change dramatically between years and even within a given season. Because of this, the
actual input of pollutants from different sources in the Spring Creek watershed varies considerably over
time. Furthermore, time lags often exist between population census counts and remapping and
updating of land cover and land information use. As a result, contributions from individual pollutant
sources may vary considerably over time.
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 15/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 12
Chapter 4. Impairment Assessment and Pollutant Sources
LDC analysis for Spring Creek was performed for the downstream monitoring station (Station 16394) as
the upstream station did not have sufficient data to perform an LDC. This analysis indicated that E. coli
bacteria loads exceed regulatory limits across all but the lowest flow conditions.
Monitoring Stations
Station 16394
High E. coli loads exceeding regulatory standards occurred across all flow conditions except for low
flows, with the greatest loads occurring during high flows and moist conditions (Figure 4.1). This
indicates that non-point sources are the most probable contributors. Normal and dry conditions also see
some high E. coli levels though this is most likely due to direct deposition into the stream from livestock
and wildlife as there are no notable point sources in the watershed.
Taking into account a 10% MOS, a 78% reduction during moist conditions is required to bring the E. coli load in Spring Creek down to acceptable levels, while load reductions of about 70% and 46% are needed
for normal and dry conditions, respectively. Using a conservative approach, a 78% load reduction will be
the target for Spring Creek. High flows were not considered in this target because those conditions only
occur 10% of the time or less and are typically considered infeasible to manage due to the inability to
prevent large volumes of runoff during large storm events. Low flows were also not considered in this
assessment as the LDC analysis revealed that low flow conditions require no reductions in E. coli loads.
Station 20564
An LDC was not created for this station due to insufficient data. Not enough flow and E. coli data points
were available to conduct a load duration curve with any confidence. It should be noted, however, that
two data points from this station showed very high levels of E. coli : 12,000 cfu/100mL with a streamflow
of 44 cubic feet per second (cfs), and 14,000 cfu/100mL with a streamflow of just 4.8 cfs. These are
compared to the highest E. coli record for Station 16394 of 5,500 cfu/100mL with a streamflow of 14 cfs.
Had enough data been available for an LDC, these two outliers would most likely have skewed the curve
producing questionable results.
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 16/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 13
Figure 4.1. Daily E. coli load duration curve for Station 16394 using data collected by BRA
and TSSWCB between 2001-2009
Annual Load and Load Reductions
The mean daily and annual bacteria loads for Station 16394 are provided in Table 4.1, along with the
reduction goal and required annual load reduction derived from the LDC analysis.
Table 4.1. Mean daily and annual E. coli load estimates and reductions.
Bacteria Trends and Processes at Work
Table 4.2 presents a summary of the estimated average annual bacteria load categorized by flow
conditions for Station 16394. The highest E. coli loads occur during high flows and moist conditions,
accounting for 40% of annual flows. Higher flows occur in association with runoff events which carry
high concentrations of bacteria, nutrients, and other pollutants from the surrounding landscape.
Additionally, bacteria that are associated with sediments may be stirred up and re-suspended in the
water column, contributing to the pollutant load during higher flows. As a result, bacteria loads in Spring
Creek may be elevated both by the increased concentrations ofE. coli bacteria in surface runoff and the
potential re-suspension of bacteria in stream sediments. As flows and contributions from non-point
sources decrease, point sources and direct deposition become dominant contributors during normal and
drier periods.
Mean Daily
Load
Mean Annual
Load
Reduction
Goal
Mean Annual
Load Reduction
cfu/day cfu/year % cfu/year
5.27E+10 1.73E+13 78 1.35E+13
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 17/57
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 18/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 15
Table 4.4. Estimated watershed numbers and daily potential E. coli loadings
for bacteria sources in the Spring Creek watershed
*Populations were calculated using density estimates
On-Site Sewage Facilities (OSSF)
Rural areas across Texas rely on OSSFs, or septic systems, for disposal of household wastewater.
Thousands of new systems are installed statewide each year when homes and businesses are
constructed outside city limits or where centralized municipal sewer service is unavailable. While
municipal wastewater facilities must be operated by trained personnel, septic systems are the
responsibility of the homeowner. If regular and essential maintenance are not conducted, major
problems can occur. Lack of septic system training has been a major issue in some areas and has been
acknowledged by homeowners themselves.
When septic systems fail, wastewater does not receive adequate treatment. This sewage can be asource of bacteria, other pathogens, and nutrients. While inadequate septic system maintenance is a
factor in system failure, other concerns are system design, inappropriate soils, and age. Systems
installed before requirements issued in 1989 are often not as efficient as new systems and are more
prone to failure. Degradation of construction materials can lead to a drop in performance and eventual
failure. Alteration or compaction of the drainfield can also dramatically affect septic system function and
may completely eliminate treatment in worst-case scenarios. Some soils also limit system function,
because they inhibit leaching and increase the likelihood of surfacing. Selection of a system should be
determined by soil type, a practice which has not always been followed. Additionally, a lack of
enforcement of septic system regulations can contribute to system failure. In some cases, governing
bodies do not have adequate resources to inspect and regulate septic systems throughout their
jurisdictions. This allows potential problem systems to go undetected and unaddressed. A combinationof these factors makes septic systems a potential contributor of both bacteria and nutrients to Spring
Creek.
As with most types of non-point source pollution, failing septic systems are found across the landscape.
Those located nearest streams or drainage areas are the most likely to impact water quality. Records of
the location, age, and failure rate for septic systems in the watershed are not available. Estimates for the
number of septic systems were derived from 2010 US Census data to determine the number of
households in the census blocks within the watershed. Being a rural watershed, a conservative
assumption that all households had a septic system was made. This estimate was multiplied by failure
Bacteria SourceCounty
Average
Watershed
Estimate
Daily Potential
E. coli Load
Annual Potential
E. coli Load
# # Billions of cfu/day Billions of cfu/yr
Wastewater
OSSFs - 111 168 61,140
Livestock
Cattle 91,515 2,176 1,845 673,544
Horses 2,301 55 4 1,317
Sheep & Goats 1,798 43 121 44,098
Wildlife
Deer* - 1,224 145 52,994
Feral Hogs* - 666 2,962 1,081,057
5,244 1,914,150Total
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 19/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 16
rates for systems assumed to be installed before 1989 and after 1989, resulting in an estimated 111
failing systems in the watershed.
Livestock
Land use analysis indicated that rangeland and pastures make up a quarter of the land use in the
watershed. Most of this area is devoted to grazing by domestic animals, including cattle, horses, sheep,and goats.
Cattle
Like other animals, urine and feces from cattle represent sources of both nutrients and bacteria. These
pollutants can be transported to streams during runoff events following rainfall. The potential for impact
increases where animals are grazed or confined near streams or drainage areas, or when they are
permitted direct access to stream and riparian corridors. Cattle estimates used in the SELECT analysis
were averaged from the 2007 USDA-NASS Census of Agriculture and 2013 Texas Department of
Agriculture county estimates. Calculated annual total head estimates for Robertson County havedeclined at an average rate of 3% per year from 2002 to 2013. Based on the percentage of suitable land
calculated from land use analysis, there are an estimated 2,176 cattle in the Spring Creek watershed.
There are no concentrated cattle feeding operations, such as feedlots or dairies, in the watershed. Most
animals are grazed on pasture and rangelands.
Horses
Horses are grazed in the Spring Creek watershed, though at much lower densities than cattle.
Nevertheless, the waste from these animals has the potential to contribute bacteria, particularly if
pastures or confinement areas are located near drainage areas or the animals are allowed direct access
to stream and riparian zones. Using the 2007 USDA Census of Agriculture, county estimate anddistributing the horses evenly throughout rangeland and pastures, there are an estimated 55 horses in
the watershed.
Sheep and Goats
While overall numbers in the watershed are not large, goats and sheep are often found in high
concentrations in areas where they are present. The waste from these animals still represents a
potential source of bacteria. Proper grazing management is necessary to reduce the loss of plant cover,
which can increase runoff and erosion of topsoil. In addition, direct access to riparian areas and streams
increases potential contributions. Using the 2007 USDA-NASS data for both sheep and goats, and the2013 TDA estimates for goats in Robertson County, there are an estimated 43 sheep and goats in the
Spring Creek watershed. Although the estimated number appears quite low, estimated E. coli load
derived from SELECT analysis indicates a potential contribution 33 times greater than that of horses.
Wildlife
In many watersheds across the country, E. coli input from wildlife contributes a large portion of the total
stream bacteria load. Wildlife also can be a significant source of nutrients. This is particularly true where
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 20/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 17
populations of riparian animals (raccoon, beaver, and waterfowl) are high. In some cases, bacteria from
wildlife alone cause violations of water quality standards. However, information on the abundance and
contribution of most animal species, such as raccoons and coyotes, is very limited. In Texas, deer and
feral hogs are the primary contributors of E. coli from wildlife, or at the very least, have the most
information regarding their potential bacteria contributions.
Deer
Due to their numbers, white-tailed deer can be a significant potential contributor to wildlife bacteria
loads in some portions of Texas. Deer densities can vary significantly depending on the region and the
level of land development. The rural conditions of the Spring Creek watershed provide adequate habitat
for a significant number of deer. Using a deer density value of 10 acres/deer estimated for the ecoregion
(Rideout 1994) and including only suitable patches of land greater than 20 acres in size, there are an
estimated 1,224 deer in the watershed.
Feral Hogs
In many watersheds across the state and much of the southern United States, feral hogs are a growing
concern. A high rate of reproduction and preference for secluded habitats along streams make high
numbers of hogs concentrated in small riparian areas a potential threat to water quality. In addition,
extensive rooting activities of groups of feral hogs can cause extreme erosion and soil loss, and
herbivory of planted crops can cause significant economic impacts in areas with high numbers of
animals. Hogs are often quite secretive, and little solid data exists on their abundance and distribution,
which is compounded by their high rate of reproduction and tendency to move in groups along
waterways over large areas of a watershed in search of food.
Though density and distribution data are scarce, studies in comparable habitats indicate hogs typically
occur in various bottomland habitats at densities of approximately 30 hogs/mi2, or approximately 21.3
acres/hog (Tate 1984 and Hone 1990). Particularly in periods of low flow and drought, hogs willcongregate around water sources to drink and wallow and in the process deposit a portion of their
waste directly in the stream. As a result, feral hogs can contribute both bacteria and nutrients as a non-
point source and also through direct deposition, depending on their location and stream conditions.
As with all other animals, urine and feces from feral hogs contribute to potential loadings of bacteria in
the watershed. Since no specific data exists for Spring Creek, an average of 33.3 acres/hog (Reidy 2007)
was used to determine feral hog numbers in the watershed. Based on this, there are an estimated 666
feral hogs in the watershed.
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 21/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 18
Chapter 5. Management Measures
OSSFs
All septic systems in the watershed lie outside city limits and are within county jurisdictions. Thus, active
programs in Robertson County will be critical in locating and addressing failing systems and to ensureappropriate preventative management of all systems. The county plans to continue requirements of the
inspection of new systems when new utilities are connected or when properties change ownership. In
order to focus professional inspection, maintenance, and technical assistance of aerobic systems in the
watershed, funding will be sought to add an additional sanitarian for Robertson County.
To target the inspection programs, SELECT analysis was utilized to locate and quantify potentially failing
septic systems in the watershed and to estimate the number of systems within 1000 ft of Spring Creek
and its tributaries. These systems will be targeted for priority repair or replacement due to their greater
potential to impact water quality. Analysis included a 12% failure rate for systems constructed after
1989 (Reed, Stowe, and Yanke 2001) and a higher estimated failure rate of 50% for systems installed
before 1989.
Using this approach of focusing on potentially failing systems near waterways, less time and money will
be spent focusing on systems that may have little impact on the water quality of Spring Creek.
Inspection programs will initially focus on systems within the near-stream buffer, but over time will work
to address all systems in the watershed. Recommended management practices that can be
implemented to modify failing OSSF contributions are outlined in Table 5.2.
Agriculture
To achieve bacteria load reduction goals established for Spring Creek, specific management practices
and combinations of practices will be implemented on agricultural land. It was determined that thiswould best be achieved by developing voluntary, site-specific management plans for individual
operations. Both the NRCS and the TSSWCB offer planning assistance for agricultural producers. Water
Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) are developed by local Soil and Water Conservation Districts
(SWCDs) under the statewide TSSWCB program and are tailored to meet the needs of each operation.
The NRCS offers options for development and implementation of both individual practices and whole
farm conservation plans. Cost-share assistance is available through associated programs to offset
implementation costs. To facilitate development and implementation of these management plans, funds
will be pursued to support a cost-share program and the creation of a new position at the SWCD level to
be housed in the watershed.
Livestock Operations
Based on USDA-NASS Census data, the average farm in Robertson County is estimated to be
approximately 311 acres. Using an estimated average of approximately 50 animal units (AUs) per
operation, a total of 45 operations are estimated to be in the watershed. The number of operations that
should undergo plan development was arbitrarily chosen to be 10, or 22%, of the total estimated
number of farms. This number is considered feasible given the size of the watershed and available
resources.
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 22/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 19
To focus management plan development and implementation, management measures addressing
bacteria will be encouraged and given top priority. Based on site-specific characteristics, plans should
include one or more of the following management practices outline in Table 5.1 to reduce pollutant
loads from agricultural lands. Recommended management practices that can be implemented to modify
cattle and other livestock contributions are outlined in Table 5.3.
Table 5.1. Livestock BMPs and bacteria removal efficiencies.
Source: Peterson et al. 2001 (a-d) unless otherwise noted
1: Also Sheffield et al. 1997
Feral Hog Control
Based on SELECT analysis, feral hogs are the most significant potential contributor of E. coli to Spring
Creek. It is recommended that efforts to control feral hogs be undertaken to reduce the population,
Management Practice: Alternative Shade
Description: Although not currently an approved cost-share practice, creation of shade reduces time
spent loafing in streams and riparian areas, thus reducing pollutant loading.
Effectiveness
Fecal Coliforms: N/A
E. Coli: 85%
Management Practice: Stream Crossings
Description: Creates a stabilized area or structure constructed across a stream to provide a travel way
for people, livestock, equipment, or vehicles, improving water quality by reducing sediment, nutrient,
organic, and inorganic loading of the stream.
Effectiveness
Fecal Coliforms: 44% - 52%
E. Coli: 46%
Description: Manages the controlled harvest of vegetation with grazing animals to improve or
maintain the desired species composition and vigor of plant communities, which improves surface and
subsurface water quality and quantity.
Description: Places a device (tank, trough, or other watertight container) that provides animal access
to water and protects streams, ponds, and water supplies from contamination through alternative
access to water.
Effectiveness1
Fecal Coliforms: 51% - 94%
E. Coli: 85%
Management Practice: Alternative Watering Facilities
Management Practice: Prescribed Grazing
Effectiveness
Fecal Coliforms: 90% - 96%
E. Coli: 66% - 72%
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 23/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 20
limit the spread of these animals, and minimize their effects on water quality and the surrounding
environment.
To address the feral hog issue, heavy reliance will be put on the expertise and resources of the Texas
Wildlife Damage Management Service (TWDMS), a division of the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service.
This agency protects the resources, property, and well-being of Texans from damages related to wildlife.
TWDMS serves rural and urban areas with technical assistance, education, and direct control in wildlife
damage management of both native wildlife and non-domestic animals.
To determine the approximate number of feral hogs that should be removed, the estimated number of
hogs in the watershed was multiplied by the chosen load reduction of 15%. These hog numbers
represent initial goals over the course of the project, and as more information is gathered or if
populations increase rapidly, these targets will be adjusted accordingly. Because feral hogs prefer
riparian corridors and have been estimated to contribute the highest potential E. coli load in the
watershed, initial management efforts will be targeted in those areas along Spring Creek and its
tributaries. Recommended management practices that can be implemented to modify feral hog
contributions are outlined in Table 5.4.
Deer and Other Wildlife
Spring Creek and its associated riparian area undoubtedly provide the best and most used habitat for
the wide variety of wildlife species in the watershed. Many species rely on cover typically associated
with riparian areas for daytime loafing/seclusion, foraging, nesting and roosting among other needs.
Managing deer and wildlife in the watershed will focus on the voluntary implementation of
management practices that will modify their use of the riparian area. This includes items such as the
establishment of food and water resources away from the riparian area, removal of excess cover near
riparian areas and establishment of preferred habitat away from these areas. Recommended
management practices that can be implemented to modify deer and other wildlife behavior are outlined
in Table 5.5.
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 24/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 21
Table 5.2. Recommended action for failing OSSFs
• Provide system repair and replacement services.
An E.coli load reduction of 1.25E+12 cfu/year can be realized annually for each OSSF replaced. A total
annual potential reduction of 1.88E+13 cfu/year could be achieved if 15 systems within the 1000 ft
stream buffer require replacing, compared to the SELECT model estimated potential contribution of
3.55E+13 cfu/year from priority OSSFs.
$30,000
Repair failing OSSFs, focusing within a
1000 ft buffer of the stream and
tributaries
2014-2020 $75,000
Replace failing OSSFs, focusing within
a 1000 ft buffer of the stream and
tributaries
2014-2020 $150,000
Period
Homeowners
Texas A&M AgriLife
Extension Service
Deliver septic system workshops to
homeowners and landowners, as well
as installers, maintenance providers,
and sludge haulers
2014, 2018
Capital Costs
Estimated Load Reduction
Pollutant Source: Failing OSSFs
Problem: Pollutant loading from failing or non-existent OSSFs
Objectives:
• Provide education and outreach for owners, installers, and maintenance providers.
Robertson County
Sanitarian to focus inspection and
enforcement efforts specifically in the
watershed
2014-2017 $150,000
Critical Areas: Entire watershed, but specifically OSSFs within 1,000 ft of the stream or a tributary
Goal: To provide needed services, support, education and outreach to watershed landowners who
own and operate OSSFs, pumping services, and maintenance providers enabling them to better
manage, repair, or replace OSSFs as needed.
Description: Potential OSSF failures will be addressed initially by comprehensive inspection and
enforcement of systems throughout the watershed. Failing systems will be repaired or replaced as
needed. Education and outreach to OSSF owners will also be provided, as well as to pumping services
and maintenance providers who operate in the watershed. Through these efforts, information will be
provided to these groups that outlines proper OSSF installation, operation, inspection, maintenance,
and repair procedures.
Implementation Strategies
Participation Recommended Strategies
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 25/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 22
Table 5.3. Recommended action for cattle and other livestock
Estimated Load Reduction
Prescribed management will most effectively reduce direct deposition as well as bacteria loads from
the landscape. Implementation of alternative watering facilities and prescribed grazing on 22% of the
estimated livestock operations in the watershed, potential annual load reductions from cattle are
estimated to be 2.41E+14 cfu/year for alternative watering facilities and 3.12E+14 cfu/year for
prescribed grazing using the lowest estimated effectiveness rates. Compared to the annual potential
load estimated by the SELECT model of 6.74E+14 cfu/year, the combined reductions (5.53E+14
cfu/year) equal approximately an 82% reduction in E. coli loading from cattle. This estimate is further
explained in Appendix F.
SWCDWQMP Technician to lead plan
implementation and assistance2017-2023 $450,000
$125,000SWCDDevelop and implement
livestock WQMPs2014-2023
Recommended Strategies Period Capital Costs
Pollutant Source: Cattle and Other Livestock
Problem: Direct and indirect fecal loading, riparian degradation, overgrazing
Objectives:
• Work with property owners to develop WQMPs• Customize whole-farm plans
• Provide financial assistance
• Implement WQMPs
Critical Areas: Properties with stream and tributary access
Goal: To develop WQMPs focused on minimizing and planning the time spent by livestock in the
riparian corridor
Description: WQMPs will be developed in desginated areas to most appropriately address direct and
indirect fecal deposition from cattle and other livestock and prescribe BMPs that will reduce time spent
in the stream or riparian corridor, likely focusing on prescribed grazing and alternative watering
facilities.Implementation Strategies
Participation
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 26/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 23
Table 5.4. Recommended action for feral hogs
Estimated Load Reduction
Reducing the feral hog population will reduce bacteria loading to the landscape and direct deposition to
the stream. This effort will primarily reduce direct deposition as these animals spend a majority of their
time in the riparian corridor. As estimated by the SELECT model, feral hogs contribute as much as
1.08E+15 cfu/year of E. coli to the watershed. Using this number, reducing the population by 15% yields
a maximum annual load reduction of 1.62E+14 and reduced the annual load to 9.18E+14 cfu/year. See
Appendix F for calculations.
• Provide education and outreach to watershed landowners
Texas A&M AgriLife
Extension ServiceDeliver Feral Hog Education workshop $22,5002015, 2018, 2021
LandownersVoluntarily conduct aerial gunning
eventsAs needed $2,000/event
Texas Wildlife Services Aerial gunningAs funding can
be secured$650/hour
Landownders, land
managers
Voluntarily identify travel corridors
and employ trapping and hunting in
these areas.
2014-2023 N/A
Voluntarily shoot all hogs on site 2014-2023 N/A
Critical Areas: Riparian areas and travel corridors from cover to feeding areas
Goal: To manage the feral hog population through available means in efforts to reduce the total
number of hogs in the watershed by 15% (100 hogs) and maintain that level of reduction annually.
Description: Voluntary efforts to reduce feral hog populations throughout the watershed
Implementation Strategies
Participation Recommended Strategies Period Capital Costs
• Reduce non-growing season food supply
Pollutant Source: Feral Hogs
Problem: Direct and indirect fecal loading, riparian habitat destruction, and crop and pasture damage.
Objectives:
• Reduce fecal contaminant loading• Reduce hog numbers
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 27/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 24
Table 5.5. Recommended action for deer and other wildlife
2017, 2022
2016, 2019, 2022Texas A&M AgriLife
Extension Service; TPWD
TWRI
Landowners, land
managers
Work with TPWD and biologists
to develop site-specific habitat
management plans
Implement habitat
management practices as
appropriate
Provide Riparian and Stream
Ecosystem Management
Workshop
Deliver wildlife and habitatmanagement workshop
highlighting watershed-specific
needs and assistance
opportunities
N/A
TBD
Estimated Load Reduction
Reductions in the time that wildlife uses the riparian corridors will reduce bacteria loading and direct
deposition in these areas. Given the uncertainy of inputs that go into estimating a load reduction from
recommended practices, load reduction estimates with any confidence cannot be made for expected
reductions as a result of wildlife habitat management. Further discussion can be found in Appendix F.
• Reduce fecal contaminant loading along riparian corridors• Reduce time spent along riparian corridors
N/A
$22,500
2014-2023
2014-2023
Description: Voluntary efforts to establish more desirable wildlife habitat away from riparian corridors
and/or making riparian areas less desirable
Implementation Strategies
Participation Recommended Strategies Period Capital Costs
Goal: To reduce the amount of wildlife-derived fecal contributions in riparian corridors by modifying
the time spent in these areas through habitat management
Pollutant Source: Deer and Other Wildlife
Problem: Direct fecal loading in riparian areas
Objectives:
• Provide eduction and outreach to landowners on proper/improved wildlife management
Critical Areas: Riparian corridors
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 28/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 25
Chapter 6. Outreach and Education Strategy
An essential element in implementation of this WPP is an effective education and outreach campaign.
Long- term commitments from citizens and landowners will be needed to accomplish comprehensive
improvements in the Spring Creek watershed. The education and outreach component of
implementation must focus on keeping the public, landowners and agency personnel informed of
project activities, provide information about appropriate management practices and assist in identifying
and forming partnerships to lead the effort.
News Releases and Newsletters
News releases will be developed and distributed to local media outlets during the development of this
WPP. Newsletters and meeting announcements will also be e-mailed and/or mailed directly to
stakeholders to keep them informed of upcoming project activities. Newsletters will be released
biannually with additional news releases as needed to keep watershed stakeholders informed of project
happenings and upcoming events. Newsletter distribution will be timed such that they are sent at
approximate midpoints between planned meetings. This allows for continued engagement of the
stakeholder group without hosting a physical meeting.
Public Meetings and Field Days
Periodically public stakeholder meetings will be employed to serve several major roles during WPP
implementation. Public meetings will provide a platform to provide pertinent WPP implementation
information including implementation progress, near-term implementation goals and projects,
information on how to sign-up or participate in active implementation programs, appropriate contact
information for specific implementation programs and other information as appropriate. These
meetings will also effectively keep stakeholders engaged in the WPP process and provide a platform to
discuss adaptive management to keep the WPP relevant to watershed and water quality needs. This willlargely be accomplished by reviewing implementation goals and milestones during at least one public
meeting annually and actively discussing how watershed needs can be better served. Feedback will be
incorporated into WPP addendums as appropriate. It is anticipated that public meetings will be held
biannually but will largely be scheduled based on need.
Public meetings engaging watershed stakeholders and local officials will be integral to this effort.
Through these meetings, educational information on practices that landowners could begin
implementing to improve watershed health and water quality while enhancing the operation of their
land will be conveyed as well. Field days further illustrate management practices discussed and give
those interested in implementing a particular practice a chance to speak with landowners that have
already implemented these practices.
Texas Watershed Steward Program
Texas Watershed Stewards is a science-based watershed education program designed to help citizens
identify and take action to address local water quality impairments. The Texas A&M AgriLife Extension
Service will conduct a one-day workshop in Hearne to teach local residents about the nature and
function of watersheds, water quality impairments and watershed protection strategies to minimize NPS
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 29/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 26
pollution. Additionally, this educational platform will allow the collection of vital information on
willingness to adopt management practices that will aid in protecting the watershed.
Future Stakeholder Engagement
Watershed stakeholders will continue to be engaged throughout and following the transition of efforts
from development to implementation of the WPP. News articles and newsletters will be primary toolsused to communicate with watershed stakeholders on a regular basis and will be developed to update
readers periodically on implementation progress, provide information on new implementation
opportunities, available technical or financial assistance; and other items of interest related to the WPP
effort.
Educational Programs
Educational programming will be a critical part of the WPP implementation process. Multiple programs
geared to provide information on various sources of potential pollutants and feasible management
strategies will be delivered in and near the Spring Creek watershed and advertised to watershedstakeholders. An approximate schedule of when specific programs will be held in the watershed is
presented in Table 9.2 in Chapter 9. This schedule will be used as a starting point for planned
programming, and efforts will be made to abide by this schedule to the extent possible. As
implementation and data collection continues, the adaptive management process will be used to modify
this schedule and respective educational needs as appropriate.
Feral Hog Management Workshop
AgriLife Extension personnel will coordinate to deliver periodic workshops focusing on feral hog
management. This workshop will educate landowners on the negative impacts of feral hogs, effective
control methods and resources to help them control these pests. Workshop frequency will be
approximately every 3 years unless there are significant changes in available means and methods to
control feral hogs. Feral hog management education is incorporated into the Lone Star Healthy Streams
program and, as such, is the appropriate delivery mechanism for this programming
Lone Star Healthy Streams Workshop (Grazing Cattle component)
The Lone Star Healthy Streams program is geared to expand knowledge of how to improve grazing lands
by beef cattle producers to reduce NPS pollution. This statewide program promotes the adoption of
BMPs that have proven to effectively reduce bacterial contamination of streams. This program provides
educational support for the development of WQMPs by illustrating to program participants the benefitsof many practices available for inclusion in a WQMP. This program will likely be delivered in the
watershed once every 5-6 years or as needed.
OSSF Operation and Maintenance Workshop
Once OSSFs in the watershed and their owners have been identified, OSSF rules, regulations, operation
and maintenance training will be delivered in the watershed to promote the proper management of
existing OSSFs and to garner support for efforts to further identify and address failing OSSFs through
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 30/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 27
inspections and remedial actions. AgriLife Extension provides the needed expertise to deliver this
training and will likely deliver this training for the first time in 2014 or 2015 pending funding availability.
Based on needs identified early during WPP implementation and during the first OSSF training,
additional trainings will be scheduled accordingly.
Riparian and Stream Ecosystem Education Program
Healthy watersheds and good water quality depend on properly managed riparian and stream
ecosystems. Delivery of the Riparian and Stream Ecosystem Education program will increase stakeholder
awareness, understanding and knowledge about the nature and function of riparian zones, their
benefits and BMPs that can be used to protect them while minimizing non-point source pollution.
Through this program, riparian landowners will be connected with local technical and financial resources
to improve management and promote healthy watersheds and riparian areas on their land. TWRI will
deliver this program in the Spring Creek watershed in the near future.
Wildlife Management Workshops
Wildlife have a significant impact on the Spring Creek watershed in numerous ways, and as a result
periodic wildlife management workshops are warranted to provide information on management
strategies and available resources to those interested. AgriLife Extension Wildlife Specialists and TPWD
will coordinate to plan and secure funding to deliver workshops in and near the Spring Creek watershed.
It is anticipated that workshops will focus primarily on deer management and be delivered every 3
years. Wildlife management workshops will be advertised through newsletters, news releases, and other
avenues as appropriate.
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 31/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 28
Chapter 7. Sources of Assistance
Successful acquisition of funding to support implementation of management measures will be critical for
the success of the Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan. While some management measures require
only minor adjustments to current activities, some of the most important measures require significant
funding for both initial and sustained implementation. Grant and other external sources of funding will
be needed to support implementation efforts. Traditional funding sources will be used where available,
and creative new approaches to funding will be sought.
Federal Sources
Farm Bill Programs
The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, also known as The Farm Bill governs most Federal
agriculture-related programs and includes provisions for administrative and funding authorities for
programs including but not limited to conservation through land retirement, stewardship of land and
water resources and farmland protection. Programs geared toward conservation continue to promoteland conservation and environmental practice implementation (USDA-ERS 2008). Individual programs
falling under the provisions of The Farm Bill are discussed below. It should be noted that The Farm Bill is
currently undergoing a revision and the level and certainty of funding sources that will be available in
the future is unclear.
Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP)
The Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) is a voluntary conservation initiative operated by
USDA-NRCS that provides financial and technical assistance to farmers and ranchers to improve surface
water and groundwater conditions on their agricultural land. AWEP is a part of the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program that operates through program contracts with producers to plan and
implement conservation practices in project areas established through partnership agreements.
Producers engaged in livestock or agricultural production may be eligible for the program and eligible
land includes cropland, rangeland, pasture and other farm or ranch lands.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
The USDA –Farm Service Agency (FSA) operates the Conservation Reserve Program. This is a voluntary
program for agricultural landowners, which enables producers to receive annual rental payments and
financial assistance to establish long-term, resource conserving covers on eligible farmland. The program
also provides up to 50% of landowner costs in establishing approved conservation practices. CRPcontracts vary between 10 and 15 years in length.
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)
The Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) is a voluntary conservation program administered by
USDA-NRCS that encourages producers to address resource concerns in a comprehensive manner by
undertaking additional conservation activities and improving, maintaining and managing existing
conservation activities. CSP is available to private agricultural lands including cropland, grassland, prairie
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 32/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 29
land, improved pasture, rangeland among others and provides equitable access to all producers
regardless of operation size, crops produced or geographic location. CSP encourages land stewards to
improve their conservation performance by installing and adopting additional activities and improving,
maintaining and managing existing activities on agricultural lands.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program is administered by the NRCS. This voluntary conservation
program promotes agricultural production and environmental quality as compatible national goals.
Through cost-sharing, EQIP offers financial and technical assistance to eligible participants for the
installation or implementation of structural controls and management practices on eligible agricultural
land. This program will be engaged to assist in the implementation of agricultural management
measures in the watershed.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)
The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) is a voluntary program administered by USDA-NRCS for
conservation-minded landowners who want to develop and improve wildlife habitat on private lands. It
provides both technical assistance and cost sharing up to 75% to help establish and improve fish and
wildlife habitat. Participants work with USDA-NRCS to prepare a wildlife habitat development plan in
consultation with a local conservation district. National priorities for the WHIP program include
restoration of declining native fish and wildlife habitat, reduce the impacts of invasive species on fish
and wildlife habitats; protect, restore, develop, or enhance important migration and other movement
corridors for wildlife.
USDA-Rural Development Program
The Rural Development Program offers grants and low interest loans to rural communities under avariety of circumstances to construction, repair or rehabilitation of potable and wastewater systems.
Federal Clean Water Act §319(h) Nonpoint Source Grant Program
Through its Clean Water Act §319(h) Nonpoint Source Grant Program, EPA provides grant funding to the
state to implement NPS pollution reduction projects. In Texas, these funds are administered by TSSWCB
and TCEQ. Funds administered by TSSWCB are targeted toward agricultural and silvicultural NPS
pollution while TCEQ funds can address all other areas of NPS pollution.
State sources
Agricultural Water Conservation Program
The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) provides grants and low-interest loans to political
subdivision and private individuals for agricultural water conservation and/or improvement projects.
The program also provides a linked deposit loan program for individuals to access TWDB funds through
participating local and state depository banks and farm credit institutions.
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 33/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 30
Texas Clean Rivers Program (CRP)
The CRP is a statewide water quality monitoring, assessment, and public outreach program funded by
state fees. The TCEQ partners with 15 regional river authorities to work toward achieving the goal of
improving water quality in river basins across the state. CRP funds are used to promote watershed
planning and provide quality-assured water quality data.
Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund
The State Revolving Fund (SRF) administered by the TWDB provides loans at interest rates below the
market to entities with the authority to own and operate wastewater treatment facilities. Funds are
used in the planning, design, and construction of facilities, collection systems, stormwater pollution
control projects, and non-point source pollution control projects. Wastewater operators and permittees
in the Spring Creek watershed will pursue these funds to assist in treatment upgrades and to improve
treatment efficiency in rural portions of the watershed.
Supplemental Environmental Project Program (SEP)
The Supplemental Environmental Projects program administered by the TCEQ aims to direct fines, fees,
and penalties for environmental violations toward environmentally beneficial uses. Through this
program, a respondent in an enforcement matter can choose to invest penalty dollars in improving the
environment, rather than paying into the Texas General Revenue Fund. In addition to other projects,
funds may be directed to septic system repair and wildlife habitat improvement opportunities.
Water Quality Management Plan Program
The WQMP program is administered by the TSSWCB. Also known as the 503 program, the WQMP
program is a voluntary mechanism by which site-specific plans are developed and implemented on
agricultural and silvicultural lands to prevent or reduce non-point source pollution from these
operations. Plans include appropriate treatment practices, production practices, management
measures, technologies, or combinations thereof. Plans are developed in cooperation with local SWCDs,
cover an entire operating unit, and allow financial incentives to augment participation. Funding from the
503 program will be sought to support implementation of agricultural management measures in the
watershed.
Other sources
Numerous private foundations, nonprofit organizations, land trusts and individuals also represent
potential sources of funding that can be used for implementing WPPs. Each group will have its own set
criteria that must be met to receive funding and these criteria should be explored before applying.
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 34/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 31
Chapter 8. Measuring Success
Measuring WPP implementation success is an inherently complex process that requires evaluation of
multiple measures including incrementally measurable milestones, environmental indicators, and water
quality assessments. Adequately and appropriately quantifying each of these measures provides critical
information that will be integrated into the adaptive management process inherent in watershed
planning.
Interim Measurable Milestones
Milestones are used as a measure to evaluate progress in implementing specific management measures
recommended in the WPP. These milestones outline a simple tracking method that clearly illustrates if
management measures are implemented as scheduled.
Milestones are separated into short-, mid- and long-term milestones. Short-term milestones can be
quickly accomplished using existing or easily attainable resources and during the first 3 years of WPP
implementation. Mid-term milestones will take more time to complete and will likely need additional
funds secured before they can be undertaken. These milestones will likely be completed within 4 to 6years of beginning to implement the WPP. Long-term milestones include those management measures
that will take the longest time to organize, prepare for and implement. Significant time will be needed to
secure funding and begin the implementation process of these measures. This group of milestones will
begin to be implemented 6 years after WPP implementation has begun.
Milestones are simply goals of when a specific practice or measure is targeted for implementation. It is
quite likely that some milestones will be accomplished sooner than anticipated while others will be
completed slower than expected. If milestones are completed ahead of schedule, their completion will
be documented and implementation efforts will be shifted to the next implementation milestone as
appropriate given resource availability. Should a milestone not be reached during the anticipated
implementation period, efforts will continue to implement them until the milestone is accomplished. Ifit is determined that the milestone is not achievable, the milestone will be addressed during the
adaptive management process.
Measurable milestones are identified in the implementation schedule outlined in Tables 9.1 and 9.2 in
Chapter 9.
Monitoring and Water Quality Criteria
WPP implementation success will also be gauged by evaluating improvements in water quality. As
impairment due to bacteria is the current issue of concern, monitoring will focus on reducing E. coli
levels in the stream using the established reduction goal of 78%. Pollutant concentration targets were
developed based on complete implementation of the Watershed Protection Plan and assume full
accomplishment of pollutant load reductions by the end of the 9-year project period.
To achieve this goal, implementing the WPP is expected to reduce E. coli levels and loadings over time
and maintain them within the established goal. Water quality data collected across the watershed at
reasonable temporal scales will produce a representative data set that can be used to evaluate long-
term water quality trends. It is important to note that established benchmarks are not static and rather,
are targets that can be adjusted if it is found that they are unrealistic or overly ambitious. Data collected
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 35/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 32
at Stations 16394 and 20564 will provide the quantitative measures needed to evaluate WPP
implementation and gauge the water body’s ability to meet designated benchmarks (Table 8.1). The
most recent 7 years of water quality data will be used as the primary measure in evaluating these trends
and progress toward designated benchmarks. The 7-year data window is the method used by TCEQ in its
biennial water body assessment and will be used here. Long-term trends will also be assessed to
illustrate collective changes in water quality as monitored in the creek.
Table 8.1. E. coli reduction milestones
Due to the dynamic nature of watersheds, some uncertainty is to be expected when a Watershed
Protection Plan is developed and implemented. As the recommended restoration measures of the
Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan are put into action, it will be necessary to track the water
quality response over time and make any needed adjustments to the implementation strategy. As
efforts continue, incorporation of new data will improve the understanding of watershed conditions and
will drive a more efficient implementation process. Adaptive management will allow initial results to
guide future restoration strategies as stakeholders learn through experience. By tracking stream trends,
stakeholders will be able to evaluate whether plan execution is successful and will determine the need
for new action or refocusing of existing programs. This adaptive approach relies on constant input of
watershed information and the establishment of intermediate and final water quality targets.
Targeted Water Quality Monitoring
To supplement routine sampling, a special Surface Water Quality Monitoring project funded by the
TSSWCB and conducted by the BRA will increase the temporal and spatial resolution of sampling efforts
to more effectively pinpoint the timing and sources of high pollutant loads. A summary of the water
quality monitoring components of this project are as follows:
Increase routine sampling at the upstream Station 20564 to coincide with sampling performed
at the downstream Station 16394.
Perform sampling at least 3 times a month with sampling occurring 10 days apart, and provide
additional sampling during rainfall events (12 months).
This intensive monitoring effort will refine the focus of management efforts as well as track the
performance of ongoing implementation activities during the study and help fill data gaps identified
during the development of the WPP.
E. coli
Concentration
cfu/100mL
2012 303
Year 3 (2016) ≤ 244
Year 6 (2019) ≤ 185
Year 9 (2022) < 126
Implementation
Year
Initial Conditions
Reduction Goals
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 36/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 33
Bacterial Source Tracking
It has also been recommended employing Bacterial Source Tracking techniques as an additional
management tool. Bacterial Source Tracking is a relatively new approach in which a bacteria DNA library
is prepared using known sources from within the watershed. Water quality monitoring samples are then
compared to the library to determine the most significant contributors. These data would enhance and
refine results from the SELECT analysis and also could be used to confirm and/or adjust ongoing and
planned implementation efforts. Funding for targeted Bacterial Source Tracking analysis within Spring
Creek will be pursued as a part of the implementation strategy.
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 37/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 34
Chapter 9. Implementation Schedule
Technical assistance
Successful implementation of the Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan relies on active engagement
of local stakeholders, but will also require support and assistance from a variety of other sources. Thetechnical expertise, equipment, and manpower required for many management measures are beyond
the capacity of Spring Creek stakeholders alone. As a result, direct support from one or a combination of
several entities will be essential to achieve water quality goals in the watershed. Focused and continued
implementation of key restoration measures will require the creation of multiple full-time equivalent
positions in the watershed to coordinate and provide technical assistance to stakeholders.
OSSF Management
Site-specific evaluations will be necessary to determine whether existing OSSFs are operating effectively,
or whether they require maintenance, repair, or complete replacement. To support and facilitate this
effort, a new position will be created to focus on OSSF inspection and enforcement in the watershed.The position will work in cooperation with independent contractors and in support of existing programs
in Robertson County. Estimates of needed funding will be adjusted, as appropriate, as the inspection
program is implemented and a more complete understanding of potential contributions and needed
management measures for these systems is developed. In addition, management targets will be
adjusted over time based on field assessments by staff and results of ongoing water quality monitoring
efforts in the watershed.
Agricultural Management
Technical support from the local SWCD and NRCS personnel is critical to selection and placement of
appropriate management measures on individual agricultural properties. A new position dedicated
specifically to WQMP development in the watershed will be created and targets for the number of
livestock WQMPs to be developed will be adjusted as the plan implementation process moves forward.
Assistance from local Extension agents, other agency representatives, and landowners already
participating will be relied upon to identify and engage key potential agricultural producers. The
duration of the position will be dictated by demand for enhanced technical assistance, assuming water
quality monitoring results indicate the need for continued improvement, but is estimated to not be
required for the entire project period.
Non-Domestic Animal and Wildlife Management
Management of the feral hog control program will be coordinated through TWDMS and animal number
targets will be used as an initial measure of program effectiveness. In addition, hog surveys and
supplemental wildlife assessments will be utilized to better define the extent and distribution of the
problem and to direct control efforts.
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 38/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 35
Schedule, Milestones, and Estimated Costs
The implementation schedule, milestones, and estimated costs of implementation, are presented in
Table 9.1. A 9-year project timeline has been constructed for implementation of the Spring Creek
Watershed Protection Plan, divided into 3-year increments. In addition, for most management
measures, estimated quantitative targets have been established. This allows key milestones to be
tracked over time so that stakeholders can more effectively gauge implementation progress and
success. In the event that insufficient progress is being made toward achievement of a particular
milestone, efforts will be intensified or adjusted as necessary. Multi-year increments also take into
account the fact that many management practices will require the acquisition of funding, hiring of staff,
and the implementation of new programs, all of which will have initial time demands. In addition,
changes in water quality often are delayed following initial implementation of management measures,
and substantive changes generally require several years to be discernible. Thus, while annual
assessments of implementation progress will be made, broader evaluations will be used to direct overall
program management.
Outreach and Education
In addition to the implementation of management measures, some financial and technical assistance
will be required to conduct the outreach and education measures designed to improve public awareness
and participation throughout the process. As outlined in Table 9.2, cooperation among personnel from
Extension, TWRI, TWPD, and BRA will be vital to successful engagement of watershed stakeholders. In
addition, local city and county staff will play an important role in the dissemination of important
information released through Spring Creek watershed protection efforts. Development of educational
materials will be done by these organizations and others. Funding for some of these activities will be
supported through routine outreach efforts by these groups. However, additional funding will be
required to enhance and sustain these efforts and will be sought from outside sources. Clean Water Act
(CWA) Section 106 funds will support a number of these strategies and represent an important step in
informing the public about WPP efforts.
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 39/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 36
Table 9.1. Bacteria management measures, implementation schedules and milestones, timeline and costs.
1-3 4-6 7-9
WQMP Technician (New
Position) SWCD $75,000/year 0 $450,000
Livestock Water Quality
Management PlansSWCD $12,500/plan 5 3 2 $125,000
Aerial GunningUSDA-Wildlife
Services
$650/hr @ 5
hr/event3 3 3 $29,250
Trapping and Shoot-On-Site Landowners TBD TBD
OSSF
Inspection/Enforcement
(New Position)
Robertson County $50,000/year 1 0 0 $150,000
OSSF RepairRobertson County;
Landowners$5,000/system 10 5 0 $75,000
OSSF ReplacementRobertson County;
Landowners$10,000/system 10 5 0 $150,000
Targeted Water Quality
MonitoringBRA TBD 1 0 1 TBD
Bacterial Source Tracking TAMU $200,000 1 0 0 $200,000
Develop wildlife habitat
management plansTPWD N/A N/A
Implement wildlife habitat
management plans as
appropriate
Landowners TBD TBDas needed/desired
unknown number of
participants
1
Number Implemented
Year
Feral Hog Management
Water Quality Monitoring
Wastewater Management
Agricultural Management
Wildlife Management
Total CostUnit CostResponsible PartyManagement Measure
as needed/desired
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 40/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 37
Table 9.2. Education and outreach programming, implementation schedules and milestones, timeline, and costs.
1-3 4-6 7-9
Lone Star Healthy Streams
Workshop Extension N/A 1 0 1 N/A
Livestock Grazing
Management EducationExtension $250/each 2 2 2 $1,500
Feral Hog Management
WorkshopsExtension $7,500/event 1 1 1 $22,500
Biannual Newsletters and
News Releases as Needed
Watershed
Coordinator / TWRI$1,500 10 10 10 $45,000
Biannual Public MeetingsWatershed
Coordinator$500 6 6 6 $9,000
OSSF O&M Workshops Extension $7,500/event 1 1 0 $15,000
OSSF Installer & Maintenance
Provider WorkshopsExtension $7,500/event 1 1 0 $15,000
Wildlife Management
Workshops
Extension, Research
& TPWD$7,500/event 1 1 1 $22,500
Stream and RiparianManagement Workshops
TWRI N/A 1 0 1 N/A
Wildlife Programs
Newsletters/News Releases
Public Meetings
Agricultural Programs
Feral Hog Programs
Wastewater Programs
Education & Outreach
ActivityResponsible Party Unit Cost
Number Implemented
Total CostYear
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 41/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 38
References
Babbar-Sebens M, Karthikeyan R. 2009. Consideration of sample size for estimating contaminant load
reductions using load duration curves. Journal of Hydrology. 372(1-4): 118-123.
Hone J. 1990. Notes on seasonal changes in population density of feral pigs in three tropical
habitats. Australian Wildlife Research 17:131-134.
Horsley and Witten, Inc. 1996. Identification and evaluation of nutrient and bacterial loadings to
Maquoit Bay, New Brunswick and Freeport, Maine. Barnstable, MA: Horsley and Witten, Inc.
Environmental Services. Final Report. Submitted to Casco Bay Estuary Project, Portland, ME.
Peterson J, Redmon L, McFarland M. 2011a. Reducing bacteria with best management practices
for livestock: livestock shade structure. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. ESP-408. Available at:
http://www.agrilifebookstore.org/product-p/esp-408.htm
Peterson J, Redmon L, McFarland M. 2011b. Reducing bacteria with best management practices
for livestock: prescribed grazing. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. ESP-415. Available at:
http://www.agrilifebookstore.org/product-p/esp-415.htm
Peterson J, Redmon L, McFarland M. 2011c. Reducing bacteria with best management practices
for livestock: stream crossing. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. ESP-416. Available at:
http://www.agrilifebookstore.org/product-p/esp-416.htm
Peterson J, Redmon L, McFarland M. 2011d. Reducing bacteria with best management practices
for livestock: watering facility. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. ESP-412. Available at:
http://www.agrilifebookstore.org/product-p/esp-412.htm
Reed, Stowe & Yanke, LLC. 2001. Study to determine the magnitude of, and reasons for chronically
malfunctioning on-site sewage facility systems in Texas, pp. vi and x. Austin, Tex.: Texas On-SiteWastewater Treatment Research Council.
Reidy MM. 2007. Efficacy of electric fencing to inhibit feral pig movements and evaluation of population
estimation techniques. Thesis. Kingsville, Texas: Texas A&M University-Kingsville.
Rideout DW. 1994. The Post Oak Savannah deer herd past, present and future. TPWD RP W&100-237B.
Available at: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_rp_w7000_0237b.pdf
Sheffield RE, Mostaghimi S, Vaughn DH, Collins Jr. ER, Allen VG. 1997. Off-stream water sources for
grazing cattle as a stream bank stabilization and water quality BMP. Transactions of the ASABE. 40(3):
595-604.
Tate J. 1984. Techniques for controlling wild hogs in Great Smoky Mountains National Park:
proceedings of a workshop. U.S.D.I. National Park Service Southeast Region,
Research/Resources Manage. Rep. Ser-72. 87pp.
Teague A, Karthikeyan R, Babbar-Sebens M, Srinivasan R, Persyn RA. 2009. Spatially explicit load
enrichment calculation tool to identify potential E. coli sources in watersheds. American Society of
Agricultural and Biological Engineers. 52(4): 1109-1120.
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 42/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 39
TCEQ. 2010. 2010 guidance for assessing and reporting surface water quality in Texas. Available at:
www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/compliance/monops/water/10twqi/2010_guidance.pdf.
Zeckoski R, Benham B, Shah S, Wolfe M, Brannan K, Al-Smadi M, Dillaha T, Mostaghimi S, Heatwole D.
2005. BLSC: a tool for bacteria source characterization for watershed management. Applied Eng. in
Agric. 21(5): 879-889.
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 43/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 40
Appendix A – List of Acronyms
ac Acre
BMP Best Management Practice
BRA Brazos River Authority of Texas
BST Bacterial Source Tracking
cfu Colony Forming Units
CRP Clean Rivers Program
CWA Clean Water Act
DO Dissolved Oxygen
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program
ft Feet
GIS Geographic Information System
LDC Load Duration Curve
LU/LC Land Use and Land Cover
m Metermg/L Milligrams per Liter
mi Mile
mL Milliliter
MOS Margin of Safety
NAIP National Agriculture Imagery Program
NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service
NLCD National Land Cover Dataset
NPS Non-point Source
NRCS National Resources Conservation Service
OSSF On-Site Sewage Facility
SELECT Spatially Explicit Load Enrichment Calculation Tool
SRF State Revolving Fund
SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District
TAMU Texas A&M University
TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TDA Texas Department of Agriculture
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TDPS Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
TSS Total Suspended Solids
TSSWCB Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board
TSWQS Texas Surface Water Quality StandardsTWDB Texas Water Development Board
TWDMS Texas Wildlife Damage Management Service
TWRI Texas Water Resources Institute
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USGS Unites States Geological Survey
WPP Watershed Protection Plan
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
yds Yards
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 44/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 41
Appendix B – Elements of Successful Watershed Plans
The description of each ‘Element of Successful Watershed Plans’ provided below is taken from EPA’s
“Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters” (2008). While these
elements do not encompass everything that is included in a WPP, they are considered minimum
elements that must be included for EPA to provide funding from Clean Water Act Section 319 funds.
A. Identification of Cases and Sources of Impairment
An identification of the causes and sources or groups of similar sources that will need to be
controlled to achieve the load reductions estimated in the water-based plan (and to achieve any
other watershed goals identified in the WPP.) Sources that need to be controlled should be
identified at the significant subcategory level with estimates of the extent to which they are
present in the watershed. Information can be based on a watershed inventory, extrapolated
from a subbasin inventory, aerial photos, GIS data and other sources.
B. Expected Load Reductions
An estimate of the load reductions expected for the management measures proposed as part of
the watershed plan. Percent reductions can be used in conjunction with a current or known
load.
C. Proposed Management Measures
A description of the management measures that will need to be implemented to achieve the
estimated load reductions and an identification (using a map or description) of the critical areas
in which those measures will be needed to implement the plan. These are defined as including
BMPs and measures needed to institutionalize changes. A critical area should be determined for
each combination of source BMP.
D. Technical and Financial Assistance Needs
An estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated costs
and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement this plan. Authoritiesinclude the specific state or local legislation that allows, prohibits or requires an activity.
E. Information, Education and Public Participation Component
An information/education component that will be used to enhance public understanding of the
project and encourage their early and continued participation in selecting, designing and
implementing the appropriate NPS management measures.
F. Schedule
A schedule for implementing the NPS management measures identified in the plan that is
reasonable expeditious. Specific dates are generally not required.
G. Milestones
A description of interim, measurable milestones for determining whether NPS management
measures or other control actions are being implemented. Milestones should be tied to the
progress of the plan to determine if it is moving in the right direction
H. Load Reduction Evaluation Criteria
A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved
over time and substantial progress is being made towards attaining water quality standards and,
if not, the criteria for determining whether the watershed-based plan needs to be revised. The
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 45/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 42
criteria for the plan needing revision should be based on the milestones and water quality
changes.
I. Monitoring Component
A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts over time,
measured against the evaluation criteria. The monitoring component should include required
project-specific needs, the evaluation criteria and local monitoring efforts. It should also be tied
to the state water quality monitoring efforts.
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 46/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 43
Appendix C – Land Cover Classifications
Land cover descriptions are presented in detail below:
Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) - Barren areas of bedrock, desert pavement, scarps, talus, slides, volcanic
material, glacial debris, sand dunes, strip mines, gravel pits and other accumulations of earthen
material. Generally, vegetation accounts for less than 15% of total cover.
Cultivated Crops - Areas used for the production of annual crops, such as corn, soybeans, vegetables,
tobacco, and cotton, and also perennial woody crops such as orchards and vineyards. Crop vegetation
accounts for greater than 20 percent of total vegetation. This class also includes all land being actively
tilled.
Deciduous Forest - Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and greater than 20%
of total vegetation cover. More than 75 percent of the tree species shed foliage simultaneously in
response to seasonal change.
Developed, Low Intensity - Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation.
Impervious surfaces account for 20-49 percent of total cover. These areas most commonly includesingle-family housing units.
Developed, Medium Intensity - Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation.
Impervious surfaces account for 50-79 percent of the total cover. These areas most commonly include
single-family housing units.
Developed, Open Space - Includes areas with a mixture of some constructed materials, but mostly
vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. Impervious surfaces account for less than 20 percent of total
cover. These areas most commonly include large-lot single-family housing units, parks, golf courses, and
vegetation planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes.
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands - Areas where perennial herbaceous vegetation accounts for greater
than 80 percent of vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or covered
with water.
Evergreen Forest - Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and greater than 20%
of total vegetation cover. More than 75 percent of the tree species maintain their leaves all year.
Canopy is never without green foliage.
Grassland/Herbaceous - Areas dominated by grammanoid or herbaceous vegetation, generally greater
than 80% of total vegetation. These areas are not subject to intensive management such as tilling, but
can be utilized for grazing.
Mixed Forest - Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and greater than 20% of
total vegetation cover. Neither deciduous nor evergreen species are greater than 75 percent of total
tree cover.
Open Water - All areas of open water, generally with less than 25% cover or vegetation or soil
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 47/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 44
Pasture/Hay - Areas of grasses, legumes, or grass-legume mixtures planted for livestock grazing or the
production of seed or hay crops, typically on a perennial cycle. Pasture/hay vegetation accounts for
greater than 20 percent of total vegetation.
Shrub/Scrub - Areas dominated by shrubs; less than 5 meters tall with shrub canopy typically greater
than 20% of total vegetation. This class includes true shrubs, young trees in an early successional stage
or trees stunted from environmental conditions.
Woody Wetlands - Areas where forest or shrub land vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of
vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or covered with water.
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 48/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 45
Appendix D – Load Duration Curve Approach
A widely accepted approach for analyzing water quality is the use of an LDC. An LDC allows for a visual
determination of how streamflow may or may not impact water quality, in regard to a specific
parameter.
The first step in developing an LDC is the construction of a Flow Duration Curve. Flow data for a
particular sampling location are sorted in order and then ranked from highest to lowest to determine
the frequency of a particular flow in the stream (Figure D-1). These results are used to create a graph of
flow volume versus frequency, which produces the flow duration curve.
Figure D-1. Example flow duration curve
Next, data from the flow duration curve are multiplied by the concentration of the water quality
criterion for the pollutant to produce the LDC (Figure D-2). This curve shows the maximum pollutant
load (amount per unit time; e.g., for bacteria, cfu/day) a stream can assimilate across the range of flowconditions (low flow to high flow) without exceeding the water quality standard. Typically, a MOS is
applied to the threshold pollutant concentration to account for possible variations in loading due to
sources, streamflow, effectiveness of management measures and other sources of uncertainty. An MOS
of 10% was incorporated in the Spring Creek WPP. For primary contact recreation in Texas, the
geometric mean of E. coli must be below 126 cfu/100mL. Including a 10% MOS, an E. coli value of 113
cfu/100mL was used as the threshold.
Stream monitoring data for a pollutant also can be plotted on the curve to show frequency and
magnitude of exceedances. A regression line following the trend of the stream is plotted through the
stream monitoring data using the USGS program LOAD ESTimator (LOADEST). LOADEST is used to
determine load reductions for different flow regimes using the load reduction percentage (Babbar-Sebens and Karthikeyan 2009). Load reduction percentage was calculated as [Loadest - Water Quality
Goal / Loadest] × 100.
LOAD ESTimator (LOADEST) is a FORTRAN program for estimating constituent loads in streams and
rivers. Given a time series of streamflow, additional data variables and constituent concentration,
LOADEST assists the user in developing a regression model for the estimation of constituent load
(calibration). Explanatory variables within the regression model include various functions of streamflow,
decimal time and additional user-specified data variables. The formulated regression model then is used
to estimate loads over a user-specified time interval (estimation).
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 49/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 46
The calibration and estimation procedures within LOADEST are based on 3 statistical estimation
methods. The first 2 methods, Adjusted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (AMLE) and Maximum
Likelihood Estimation (MLE), are appropriate when the calibration model errors (residuals) are normally
distributed. Of the 2, AMLE is the method of choice when the calibration data set (time series of
streamflow, additional data variables and concentration) contains censored data. The third method,
Least Absolute Deviation (LAD), is an alternative to maximum likelihood estimation when the residuals
are not normally distributed. LOADEST output includes diagnostic tests and warnings to assist the user indetermining the appropriate estimation method and in interpreting the estimated loads.
Figure D-2. Example load duration curve
In the example, the red line indicates the maximum acceptable stream load forE. coli bacteria and the
boxes represent water quality monitoring data collected under high, mid-range and low flow conditions,respectively. Where the monitoring samples are above the red line, the actual stream load has exceeded
the water quality standard, and a violation of the standard has occurred. Points located on or below the
solid line comply with the water quality standard.
To analyze the entire range of monitoring data, regression analysis is conducted using the monitored
samples to calculate a “line of best fit”. Where the boxes are on or below the solid line, monitoring data
at that flow percentile comply with the water quality standard. Where the boxes are above the solid
line, monitoring data indicate that the water quality standard is not being met at that flow percentile.
Regression analysis also enables calculation of the estimated percent reduction needed to achieve
acceptable pollutant loads.
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 50/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 47
Appendix E – SELECT Model Description and Approach
The Spatially Explicit Load Enrichment Calculation Tool (SELECT) is an analytical approach for developing
an inventory of potential pollutant sources, particularly non-point source contributors, and distributing
their potential loads based on land use and geographical location. The LU/LC classification described in
Appendix C was used as the basis for SELECT calculations. Animal densities/populations for cattle, deer
and feral hogs were used as inputs and were applied to designated LU/LC categories within the
watershed to calculate pollutant load potentials.
The SELECT model loading estimates are a worst-case scenario that does not factor in any form of
bacteria die-off. As a result, the loading estimates produced by the model are not loads that are
expected to enter the creek.
Cattle
The average potential daily E. coli load from cattle was estimated using the following calculation:
Cattle Load = (#Cattle) * (2.7E+9 cfu/day)
Where 2.7E+9 cfu/day is the average daily E. coli production per head of cattle (Teague 2009).
Cattle population estimates for Robertson County were derived from the 2007 USDA-NASS Census of
Agriculture and 2013 Texas Department of Agriculture county estimates, with an average cattle
population of 2,176 estimated for the watershed.
Deer
The average potential daily E. coli load from deer was estimated using the following calculation:
Deer Load = (#Deer) * (1.75E+8 cfu/day)
Where 1.75E+8 cfu/day is the average daily E. coli production per deer (Zeckoski et al. 2005).
The potential bacteria concentration of white-tailed deer in the Spring Creek watershed was estimated
using a density of 10 acres/deer (Rideout 1994). Analysis was restricted to parcels of suitable habitat
greater than 20 acres which included forests, rangeland, pastures, and cropland and the total number of
was calculated.
Feral Hog
The daily potential E. coli load from feral hogs was estimated using the following calculation:
Feral Hog Load = (#Hogs) * (4.45E+9 cfu/day)
Where 4.45E+9 cfu/day is the average daily E. coli production rate per hog (Teague 2009).
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 51/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 48
The feral hog population was estimated to be 666 animals for the entire watershed. This estimate
assumed a density of 33.3 ac/animal (Reidy 2007) applied to forests, rangeland, pastures, and cropland.
It was also noted that feral hogs are commonly known to use dense cover such as that found in forests
or riparian areas during the day but venture out from those areas at night to forage.
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 52/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 49
Appendix F – Load Reduction Calculations
Estimates for load reductions are based largely on the characteristics of individual watersheds such as
the expected number of cattle, deer or feral hogs or even the number of OSSFs. Tables F-1 and F-2
presented below illustrate the land use/land cover make up, total acres, animal population estimates
and potential number of OSSFs in the watershed. It should be noted that the species population
estimates presented here represent best estimates and inherently contain uncertainty that cannot be
quantified. Information in this table will be referenced in estimated load reductions described below.
TableF-1. Land use by acreage and percentage in the Spring Creek watershed
Table F-2. Population and E. coli loading estimates for primary
pollutant producers in the watershed
Land Use Classification Total AreaProportion of
Watershed
acres %
Deciduous Forest 7077 30
Mixed Forest 5304 23
Pasture/Hay 3198 14
Shrub/Scrub 2363 10
Evergreen Forest 1862 8
Woody Wetlands 1378 6
Developed, Open Space 819 4
Grassland/Herbaceous 809 3
Cultivated Crops 172 < 1
Developed, Low Intensity 66 < 1
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 57 < 1
Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) 43 < 1
Developed, Med. Intensity 32 < 1
Open Water 28 < 1
Total 23208 100
Bacteria SourceCounty
Average
Watershed
Estimate
Daily Potential
E. coli Load
# # Billions of cfu/day
Wastewater
OSSFs - 111 168
Livestock
Cattle 91,515 2,176 1,845
Horses 2,301 55 4
Sheep & Goats 1,798 43 121
Wildlife
Deer* - 1,224 145
Feral Hogs* - 666 2,962
5,244Total
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 53/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 50
Cattle
Cattle population estimates for Robertson County were derived from the 2007 USDA-NASS Census of
Agriculture and 2013 TDA county estimates and distributed through rangeland and pastures resulting in
an estimated cattle population of 2,176 for the watershed. Watershed population estimates are
presented in Table F-2 and were derived by evenly distributing these animals across appropriate land
uses.
Utilizing the SELECT model, potential fecal loading from cattle throughout the watershed was estimated
for the watershed. The total daily E. coli loading potential from cattle across the entire watershed was
estimated to be 1.85E+12 cfu while the annual potential load was estimated at 6.74E+14 cfu. These
estimates were made using E. coli loading rates presented in Teague (2009) where 2.7E+9 is the daily E.
coli production rate per head of cattle:
Cattle Load = (#Cattle) * (2.7E+9 cfu/day)
This is an absolute worst-case scenario and does not account for any bacteria die-off.
Potential load reductions that can be achieved by implementing practices through WQMP programs willdepend specifically on the particular BMP implemented by each individual landowner and the number
of livestock in each landowner’s operation. BMPs that have been included in WQMP programs, have
been documented to measurably reduce the amount of fecal bacteria loading from cattle and can be
employed in the Spring Creek watershed include prescribed grazing, alternative watering facilities,
stream crossing, and alternative shade. Prescribed grazing and alternative watering facilities are the
practices most likely to be implemented in the Spring Creek watershed, but that decision is up to the
individual landowner.
These BMPs have been the subject of various research efforts and estimated bacteria reduction
efficiencies have been established for these practices through these studies. Table F-1 lists the individual
practice, fecal coliform and E. coli removal efficiencies as described in the literature. While research
conducted in these works was not conducted in the Spring Creek watershed or in Texas in most cases,
these studies do illustrate the abilities of these practices to reduce bacteria contributions from livestock.
Without watershed-specific BMP efficiency evaluations, using the midpoint of the effectiveness ranges is
assumed to be a reasonable and was used to estimate practice efficiency and predict potential load
reductions that may be realized through voluntary BMP implementation in Spring Creek. It should be
noted that using the lowest effectiveness rate will yield a more conservative prediction for load
reductions.
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 54/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 51
Table F-3. Livestock BMP bacteria removal efficiencies
Source: Peterson et al. 2011 (a-d) unless otherwise noted
1: Also Sheffield et al. 1997
To calculate potential load reductions for each of these BMPs, a generic equation has been developed
based upon the number of animal units, average fecal material production rates of beef cattle, the
average E. coli content of beef cattle manure and the selected BMP effectiveness rate as listed above in
Table F-3. This generic form of equation based on animal units was chosen because an accurate
estimation of BMP implementation cannot be clearly defined. Since BMP implementation is strictly
voluntary, no firm number of BMPs that will be installed can be established. The number of cattle or
animal units in an operation that voluntarily implements some of these BMPs can also not be
determined prior to the actual implementation. As a result, basing the equation on the number of
animal units can serve as a starting point for making estimations of potential load reductions that could
be realized by implementing each practice.
Daily Potential Load Reduction
= (#WQMPs) * (#Cattle/WQMP) * (2.7E+9 cfu/day) * (BMP Effectiveness Rate)
In this equation, inputs are as follows:
WQMPs are water quality management plans and are a planning mechanism that incorporates
management measure such as prescribed grazing and alternative water sources to address
water quality issues.
2.7E+9 = the average E. coli production in cfu/day per cattle AU as reported by Teague (2009)
BMP Effectiveness Rate = lowest BMP efficiency for E. coli as illustrated in Table F-3. Choosing
the lowest rate will provide the most conservative estimates.
Management Practice: Prescribed Grazing
Effectiveness
Fecal Coliforms: 90% - 96%
E. Coli: 66% - 72%
Effectiveness1
Fecal Coliforms: 51% - 94%
E. Coli: 85%
Management Practice: Alternative Watering Facilities
Management Practice: Stream Crossings
Effectiveness
Fecal Coliforms: 44% - 52%
E. Coli: 46%
Management Practice: Alternative Shade
Effectiveness
Fecal Coliforms: N/A
E. Coli: 85%
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 55/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 52
Specific load reduction estimates are merely best guesses, as they will depend strongly on the number
of participating ranchers, specific practices implemented and the number of cattle that will be impacted
by a specific management practice.
Spring Creek watershed is home to an estimated 2,176 head of cattle and encompass 23,207 acres.
Using the average farm size of 311 acres from the 2007 USDA-NASS Census, it is estimated that there
are 45 farms in the watershed with approximately 48 head of cattle per farm. A recommendation of
developing and implementing 10 WQMPs has been made. Watering facilities and prescribed grazing arethe likely practices that will be implemented through these WQMPs and loading reduction estimations
will be made with the assumption that each WQMP will include these practices.
Prescribed Grazing Estimate:
Annual Prescribed Grazing Load Reduction
= (10 WQMPs) * (48 Cattle) * (2.7E+9 cfu/day) * (0.66 BMP Efficiency) * (365 days/yr)
Annual Prescribed Grazing WQMP Load Reduction = 3.12E+14 cfu/yr
Watering Facility Estimate:
Annual Watering Facility Load Reduction
= (10 WQMPs) * (48 Cattle) * (2.7E+9 cfu/day) * (0.51 BMP Efficiency) * (365 days/yr)
Annual Watering Facility WQMP Load Reduction = 2.41E+14 cfu/yr
Deer
Deer populations in the watershed were estimated using an animal density of 10 acres/deer (Rideout
1994) applied evenly to parcels of forest, rangeland, pastures, and cropland greater than 20 acres to get
a total population estimate of 1,224 deer.
Using the SELECT model, potential E. coli loadings from deer were estimated to be as much as 1.45E+11
cfu/day, or 5.3E+13 cfu annually. To estimate these potential loads, the daily E. coli production rate for
deer of 1.75E+8 cfu/day per deer was used (Zeckoski et al. 2005).
Expected load reductions from deer and other wildlife will be realized by reducing the amount of time
these species spend in the riparian corridor through habitat management. This practice is a non-descript
practice that will vary from location to location. Adding further uncertainty to the mix is the inability toforce deer and other wildlife away from riparian areas and the lack of an estimate of actual time
reduced in riparian areas that can be expected. Lastly, effective E. coli removal efficiencies are not
available for this practice. As such, a good faith estimate of an expected load reduction from wildlife
habitat management cannot be made.
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 56/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 53
Feral Hogs
The feral hog population is estimated to be 666 animals for the entire watershed and was estimated
using a density of 33.3 acres/hog (Reidy 2007) applied to forests, rangeland, pastures, and cropland. It
was also noted that feral hogs are commonly known to use dense cover such as that found in forests or
riparian areas during the day but venture out from those areas at night to forage.
The SELECT model predicted that feral hogs have the potential to contribute 4.01 E+13 cfu/day of E. coli to the watershed and the potential to contribute 1.08E+15 cfu annually. The daily potential E. coli load
from feral hogs was estimated using:
Feral Hog Load = (#Hogs) * (4.45E+9 cfu/day)
Where 4.45E+9 cfu/day is the average daily E. coli production rate per hog (Teague 2009).
Management reduction goals for feral hogs focus on removing animals from the watershed and keeping
populations at a static level. The goal established is to remove 15% of the total hog population from the
entire watershed on an annual basis. By removing the hogs from the watershed completely, the
potential E. coli load from feral hogs will be removed by an equal amount. In this case, the targetpopulation reduction is 15%.
Assumptions:
feral hogs evenly distributed across entire watershed
15% population reduction results in an equal 15% reduction in potential load
Calculation:
Annual Potential Load Reduction = Annual Potential Load – (Annual Potential Load * 0.1)
Annual Potential Load Reduction = 1.08E+15 cfu/year – (1.08E+15 * 0.15)
Annual Potential Load Reduction = 1.62E+14 cfu/year
OSSFs
Using the assessment described in Chapter 4, the number of OSSFs in the watershed was estimated to
be 307 systems. Using findings from Reed, Stowe and Yanke (2001), a failure rate of 12% was applied to
the estimated number of systems installed after 1989 while a failure rate of 50% was applied to systems
installed before 1989. OSSFs in the watershed considered to be most likely to influence instream water
quality are those nearest the stream and its tributaries. In this case, a buffer zone of 1,000 ft was used,
resulting in only 28 potentially failing systems that would have the highest impact on stream water
quality.
Potential loading from these failing OSSFs was estimated using the methodology presented by Teague
(2009), which includes the following assumptions:
1 failing OSSF in the critical area of the watershed may be replaced
5E+5 cfu/100mL E. coli concentration in OSSF effluent
2.65E+5 mL/person/day is estimated discharge in OSSFs as reported by Horsley and Witten
(1996)
2.58 persons per household average in Robertson County
7/22/2019 Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spring-creek-watershed-protection-plan 57/57
S p r i n g C r e e k W P P | 54
Potential OSSF Load:
(1 failing OSSF) * (5E+5 cfu/100mL) * (2.65E+5 mL/person/day)
* (2.58 persons/household) * (365 days/year) = 1.25E+12 cu/year