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



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



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



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




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.




Chapter 2. Spring Creek Watershed




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




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




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




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




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




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.




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.




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.




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.




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




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




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




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.




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.




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


E. Coli: 85%

Management Practice: Alternative Watering Facilities

Management Practice: Prescribed Grazing

Effectiveness


E. Coli: 66% - 72%




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.




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




Table 5.3. Recommended action for cattle and other livestock


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




Table 5.4. Recommended action for feral hogs


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


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




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


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


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




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




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




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.




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




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.




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.




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




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




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.




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.




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.




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




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




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:


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:


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:


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.




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.




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




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




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.




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




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.




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).




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.




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).




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.




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




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.




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


E. Coli: 66% - 72%

Effectiveness1


E. Coli: 85%

Management Practice: Alternative Watering Facilities

Management Practice: Stream Crossings

Effectiveness


E. Coli: 46%

Management Practice: Alternative Shade

Effectiveness

Fecal Coliforms: N/A

E. Coli: 85%




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.




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




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

Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan

Documents

Transcript of Spring Creek Watershed Protection Plan