Honey Creek Watershed Implementation Project

Shanon PhillipsOklahoma Conservation Commission

• Honey Creek is a tributary to Grand Lake in northeastern Oklahoma

• Impaired for bacteria; Grand Lake Hypereutrophic (P limited)

Honey Creek Watershed

• Landuse:– 57% pastureland– 33% forest– 7% cropland

Honey Creek Watershed

Targeting‐ SWAT Model

Monitoring Design Nested watershed:

HC Upper (control)HC Lower (treatment)

Began weekly monitoring in April 2007

Continuous, flow‐weighted composite sampling (nutrients)

Weekly field parameters and bacteria during recreation season

Honey Creek Project – 2006 ‐ 2014• Using a combination of EPA CWA 319 and state dollars, we worked through Delaware County Conservation District in cooperation with local NRCS

• Hired local staff to lead project

• Convened a Watershed Advisory Group (WAG) to suggest BMPs, cost‐share rates, and prioritization of practices

• Began upstream‐downstream water quality monitoring in Honey Creek to assess effects of BMP implementation

Jill Ashbrener, Project Coordinator

Marti Mefford,Project Coordinator

Joe SchneiderSpecial Projects Coordinator

Honey Creek 

CWA 319 Project

• 112 cooperators were accepted and participated• 42% of SWAT‐identified high‐P areas did adopt BMPs• $1,943,972 invested in BMPs ($975,782 cooperator share)

Demonstration Farm

Riparian Area FencingFeeding Facility or Waste

Storage Facility

Heavy Use Area

Alternative Water Supplies

BMP Implementation

• Riparian Area Establishment and Management– Approx. 510 acres protected with over 45,354 linear feet  of fence

Before After

BMP Implementation‐ continued• Alternative Water Supplies

– 206 water tanks, 44 ponds– 72 wells

• Animal Waste Storage/Feeding Facilities– 25 cattle feeding/waste storage facilities– 2 poultry litter cakeout storage facilities

• Pasture Planting– 296 acres of pasture planting

BMP Implementation‐ cont. • Cross‐fencing

– 310,656 linear feet

• Heavy Use Area Protection– 231 areas with geotextile, concrete, and/or gravel

• Poultry Litter Transport– 26,627 lbs moved out of watershed; 134,888 moved to more appropriate areas in watershed

• Septic System Replacement‐ 16 systems

Before After

2016 Monitoring Results—Total P• Five‐years of monitoring data:

Mean Weekly Total P Load (lbs)

Calibration Period (2007-2009)

Honey Creek Upper (control)

33.6

Honey Creek Lower (treatment)

96.3

Post-implementation Period (2003-2012)

Honey Creek Upper (control)

45.6

Honey Creek Lower (treatment)

87.8

Change in P Load -28%

Additional Results

• Reduced E. coli and Enterococusresulting in delisting  from 303(d) list in 2012 and 2016.

• Reduced nitrate loading (35%) 0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

E. coli, cfu/10

0ml

Honey Creek, E. coliMax = 8100     Max = 10,000   Max = 10,000

Geomean =     Geomean =    Geomean =     Geomean =     Geomean =304.5                  190.5                63.1                   40.0 22.7

Additional Results

• Now working with KS and other partners on an RCPP project in other Grand Lake subwatersheds

Limitations and Challenges

• Natural systems don’t always conform to measuring total impact of a project

• Voluntary programs are limited by stakeholder perceptions and what you can convince cooperators to do

Factors Responsible for Success

• Empowered local involvement and leadership• Great support from partners• People to do the work• Flexibility• Documentation through water quality monitoring

Questions??

• Shanon Phillips, Water Quality Division Director, Oklahoma Conservation Commission– Shanon.phillips@conservation.ok.gov