agricultural watershed studieswatershed sites, soil and land use surveys in all watersheds, analyses...

AGRICULTURAL WATERSHED STUDIES

(CANADA)

ANNUAL REPORT

A P R I L 1975

CO-OPERATING AGENCIES :

AGR.ICULTURE CANADA

ONTARIO MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE & FOOD

ONTARIO MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

TASK GROUP C (CANADIAN SECTION) A C T I V I T Y 1

INTERNATIONAL REFERENCE GROUP ON

GREAT LAKES POLLUTION FROM LAND USE

A C T I V I T I E S - INTERNATIONAL J O I N T C O M M I S S I m

Projects discussed in this report were funded by the Cooperating

Agencies, or through funds made available to the Cooperating Agencies

in support of the International Joint Commission, International Reference

Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities (PLUARG).

iii .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ............................................. V . List of Figures ............................................... vii . List of Tables ................................................ ix . INTRODUCTION ................................................. Xi . SUMMARY ...................................................... xii . SECTION I Agricultural Watershed Studies-1974-75 Progress Report ...... I- 1

Introduction ............................................ I- 2 Discussion .............................................. I- 2

Appendix .................................................... 1-14

SECTION I1 Soil Erosion Investigations . 1974-75 ...................... II- 1

Introduction ............................................ 1 1 - 2 Methods ................................................. II- 2 Results and Discussion .................................. II- 3 References .............................................. 11-21

SECTION 111 Report on Check Laboratory Activities . 1974-75 ............. III- 1

Introduction ........*...................................I1 I. 2 Discussion ............................................ -111- 2 Cmclusions .............................................I1 1.16

Appended Comments ...........................................I1 1.17

........... IV- 1 Acknowledgements ........................................ IV- 2

B . Extension of Monitoring Data ........................ 1v-36

SECTION IV Data Discussion . Preliminary Phase (4/74 . 9/74)

A . Water Quality Monitoring ............................ IV- 3

SECTION V Programme Outline 1975.76. Agricultural Watershed Studies. Task Group C . Canadian Section. PLUARG ..................... V- 1

Introduction ............................................ V- 2 Summary ................................................. V- 3 Overall Programme ....................................... V- 7 Phase I . Monitoring Study .............................. V- 8 Phase I1 . Detailed Studies ............................. V- 9

V .

LIST OF FIGURES

SECTION I Map 1. Agricultural Watersheds - Task C Canadian Section - PLUARG ... 1-10

SECTICN 11 Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

Figure 14.

Figure 15.

SECTION IV Figure la. Figure lb. Figure 2. Figure 3.

Figure 4. Figure 5a. Figure 5b. Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8 . Figure 9.

Location of Agricultural Sub-watersheds in Relation to Major Canadian Task C Basins ........................... 11- 4 Potential Sheet Erosion Losses - Agricultural Watershed # 1, Big Creek (Essex Co.) ................................ 11- 6 Potential Sheet Erosion Losses - Agricultural Watershed # 2, North Creek (Norfolk Co.) ............................ 11- 7 Potential Sheet Erosion Losses - Agricultural Watershed # 3, Little Ausable River ................................. 11- 8 Potential Sheet Erosion Losses - Agricultural Watershed # 4 , Canagagigue Creek .................................... 11- 9 Potential Sheet Erosion Losses - Agricultural Watershed # 5 , Tributary of the Middle Thames River ................. 11-10 Potential Sheet Erosion Losses - Agricultural Watershed # 6, Teeswater River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-11 Potential Sheet Erosion Losses - Agricultural Watershed # 7, Ganaraska River ...................................... 11-12 Potential Sheet Erosion Losses - Agricultural Watershed # 8, Boyle Drain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. 11-13 Potential Sheet Erosion Losses - Agricultural Watershed # 10, North Creek, Twenty Mile Creek ...................... 11-14 Potential Sheet Erosion Losses - Agricultural Watershed # 11, West Humber ......................................... 11-15 Potential Sheet Erosion Losses - Agricultural Watershed # 12, Wilton Creek ........................................ 11-16 Potential Sheet Erosion Losses - Agricultural Watershed # 13, Hillman Creek ....................................... 11-17 Potential Sheet Erosion Losses - Agricultural Watershed # 14, Mill Creek .......................................... 11-18 Potential Sheet Erosion Losses - Agricultural Watershed # 15, Little Jerry Creek .................................. 11-19

Stream Rischarge, Watersheds 2, 3 and 11 .................. IV-10 Cumulative Discharge, Watersheds 2, 3 and 11 .............. IV-11 Concentrations of Potassium, Watersheds 1, 2 and 13 ....... IV-13 Potassium Concentrations and Yields, Watersheds 2, 3 and 11 ...................................o...~o~o~~o.~~~~m IV-14 Cumulative Potassium yields, Watersheds 2, 3 and 11 .-.-.-- HV-23 Turbidity Levels, Watersheds 1, 2 and 13 ......-.-......... EV-E7 Turbidity Levels, Watersheds 3 and 11 ..................... IV-18 Concentrations of (NO +NO3) Nitrogen, Watersheds 1, 2 and 13 .................................................... IV-20 Concentrations and Yields of NO3 Nitrogen, Watersheds 2, 3 and 11 .......................... .................... IV-21 Cumulative Yields of NO Nitrogen, Watersheds 2, 3 and 11 . IV-22 Concentrations of Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Watersheds 1, 2 and 13 .................................................... IV-23

2

3

vii.

L i s t of F i g u r c s - Continued

F i g u r e

F i g u r e

F i g u r e

F i g u r e

F igure

F i g u r e

F i g u r e F igure F i g u r e

F i g u r e F i g u r e

F i g u r e

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16. 17. 18.

19. 20 .

21.

C o n c e n t r a t i o n s and Y i e l d s of Kje ldahl Ni t rogen , Watersheds 2 , 3 and 11 ..................................... Cumulative Y i e l d s of K j e l d a h l Ni t rogen , Watersheds 2 , 3 and 11 .............C..............o..............~ C o n c e n t r a t i o n s of T o t a l Phosphorus, Watersheds 1, 2 and 13 ..................+..............~.......om.....oo. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s and Y i e l d s of T o t a l Phosphorus, Watersheds 2 , 3 and 11 ..*..............................*. Cumulative Y i e l d s of Tota'l Phosphorus, Watersheds 2 , 3 and 11 C o n c e n t r a t i o n s of S o l u b l e Phosphorus, Watersheds 2 , 3 and 11 ............................ ................. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s of Lead, Watersheds.1, 2 and 13 ........... C o n c e n t r a t i o n s of T o t a l DDT, Watersheds 1, 2 and 13 ...... C o n c e n t r a t i o n s of Triazintb H e r b i c i d e s , Watersheds 1, 2 and 13 ................~...b~~........e.............s.o. Discharge from Big Creek and i t s T r i b u t a r y , North Creek .. Locat ions and Major S o i l Types of Big Creek, Big Otter Creek and t h e i r R e p r e s e n t a t i v e T r i b u t a r i e s ............... Discharge from Big Ot te r Creek, North Creek and L i t t l e J e r r y Creek .............*...................... .........

1v-24

1v-25

1v-26

1v-28

1v-29

IV- 30 iv-3 1 1v-33

1v-35 1v-38

1v40

1v-42

SECTION V Map 1. A g r i c u l t u r a l Watersheds, Task C (Canadian S e c t i o n ) PLUARG ... V- 5 F i g u r e 1. Programme O u t l i n e , PLUARG, Task C , Canada, A g r i c u l t u r e ,

1975-76 .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . ~ . . . ~ . a . . e . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ . V- 6

v i i i .

LIST OF TABLES

SECTION I Table 1. Evaluation of the Land Use of Watersheds ............... I- 6 Table 2. Evaluation of Soils, Sediments and Gauging Sites of

the Watersheds ........................................... I- 7 Table 3 . Summary of Parameter Rankings by Watershed - Water

Quality ..........................................*.*... I- 8 Table 4. Characteristics of Watersheds - Phase I1 Studies ....... 1-11

SECTION I1 Table 1. S u m r y of Soil and Land Use Data for Watersheds Studied 11- 5 Table 2. Sheet Erosion Indices for Agricultural Watersheds

Investigated ........................................... 11-20

SECTION I11 Table 1. Water Quality Analyses (PLUARG) - Research Station,

Harrow, Ontario - Watershed No. l., 1974 .............. 111- 4 Table 2. Water Quality Anal.yses (PLUARG) - Research Station,

Harrow, Ontario - Watersheds No. 2 and 2M, 1974 ....... 111- 5 Table 3. Water Quality Analyses (PLUARG) - Research Station,

Harrow, Ontario - Watershed No. 13, 1974 .............. 111- 6 Table 4. Water Quality Anal.yses (PLUARG) - Research Station,

Harrow, Ontario - Watersheds No. 15 and 15M, 1974 ..... 111- 7 Table 5. Comparison of Water Quality Analyses - Nitrogen ....... 111- 8 Table 6. Comparison of Water Quality Analyses - Phosphorus

and Calcium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .* . . . . . . . . . .D. . . . 111-10 Table 7. Comparison of Water Quality Analyses - Magnesium,

Sodium and Potassium .................................e 111-12 Table 8. Expected Standard 'Deviations Based on Analyses of a

Single Sample Selected at Random ...................... 111-15 SECTION IV Table 1. Table 2. Table 3 . Table 4. Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

SECTION V Table 1.

Routine Analyses - Concentrations ..................... IV- 5 Nutrient Concentrations ............................... IV- 6 Heavy Metal Concentrations ............................ IV- 7 Pesticide Concentrations .............................. IV- 8 Distribution of Land Use in Percent for each Agricultural Watershed ................................ IV- 9 Comparison of Transport of Nutrients and Pesticides by Big Creek and its Tributary, North Creek, April to July, 1974 ......................................... IV-39 Comparison of Pollutant Loadings in Big Otter Creek and a Representative Combination of the Inputs from Small Tributary Watersheds ............................ IV-43

Agricultural Watersheds - Phase I and Phase I1 ........ V- 6

ix.

INTRODUCTION

Article VI of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, 1972, requested that t l w Intcrnational Joint Commission inquire into and report on "pollution of the bouiidary waters of the Great Lakes System from agricultural, forestry and other land use activities, in accordance with the terms of reference attached to this agreement". The International Joint Commission (1.J.C.) established the Inter- national Reference Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities (PLUARG) to plan and implement the requested study.

In March, 1973, PLUARG submitted to the International Joint Commission a "Study Plan to Assess The Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activitie~~~. The study plan outlined four main tasks including assessment of the problem (Task A), inventory of land use activities (Task B), watershed studies (Task C) and lake studies (Task D).

Task C was described as follows:

"Intensive studies of a small number of representative watersheds, selected and '

conducted to permit some extrapolation of data to the entire Great Lakes Basin, and to relate contamination of water quality, which may be found at river mouths on the Great Lakes, to specific land uses and practicesf1.

The study plan further described -- "Activity 1 -(Canada)- Pilot Agricultural Watershed Surveys" as follows:

"Intensive studies on a selection of representative watersheds and in some cases of sub-watersheds within selected watersheds, are needed to provide information on output and proportions of yields of nutrients, sediment and pesticides in particular specific sources.11

In February, 1974, the Agricultural Sub-Committee of the Task C Technical Committee, PLUARG, prepared a "Detailed Plan for the Study of Agricultural Watersheds in the Great Lakes Drainage Basin -Canada- 1974-1975". phase study. indicate present levels of pollutants, additional studies for collection of background data required to aid in the development of the second phase of the study and development of a study plan for Phase 11. Phase I1 would consist of detailed studies of pollutants or land uses associated with agricultural land use.

This plan called for a two- The preliminary phase would consist of a monitoring programme to

An overview of the implementation of,the preliminary phase of the Agricultural Watershed Study, April 1974 - April 1975, reports on the supplementary projects carried out, and an outline of the proposed programme for the Phase I1 Detailed Studies, 1975-76, are included in this report.

xi.

SUMMARY

This summary report covers the work carried out under Task C - Canada - Activity 1, Agricultural Watershed Surveys, Sub-Activities 6 through 11, as outlined in "Detailed Plan for the Study of Agricultural Watersheds in the Great Lakes Basin -Canada- 1974-1975, February 1975".

Sub-Activity 6 - Responsibility for implementation of the Preliminary phase was distributed as follows: Agriculture Canada - sampling at 7 of the 16 initial watershed sites, soil and land use surveys in all watersheds, analyses for insecticides at selected watersheds, and initiation of an interlab analysis check programme; Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food - pesticide analyses; Ontario Ministry of the Environment - flow measurement at all sites, routine nutrient and heavy metal analyses, and bacteriological determinations.

Data evaluation was to be a cooperative activity.

Sub-Activity 7 - Preliminary instrumentation consisted of staff gauges where continuous flow recorders were not already present.

Sub-Activity 8 - The implementation of the preliminary phase has been successfully completed with cooperation between all agencies involved. Additional studies on feedlot and manure storage runoff, soil erosion potential, runoff microbiology, interlab analysis comparisons, and evaluation of extrapolation from sub-basin studies to whole basin studies have been incorporated into the preliminary phase.

Feedlot and Manure Storage Runoff - Two sites of each type have been monitored for one year by Agriculture Canada and preliminary results indicate that the unpaved (soil surface) feedlot is less of a potential surface water pollution source than the paved feedlot. The quantity of runoff from manure storage areas is dependent on management and site characteristics, and although runoff quality is poor, pollution potential is highly dependent on the individual manure storage facilities. (Report under separate cover. For reference see p.1-3).

Soil Erosion Potential - Soil type, slope, rainfall and crop characteristics were evaluated by Agriculture Canada for each watershed and a "Universal Soil Loss Equation" applied. "Watershed Erosion Index". Watersheds 7, 1, 13, and 3 were classified as "high", 5, 6, 15, 8 , and 11 as "medium", and 4 , 2, 12, 10, and 14 as "low" soil erosion potential in the order presented. (Report in Section 11).

The watersheds were ranked on the basis of a computed

Runoff Microbiology - A mobile laboratory was used by Ontario Ministry of the Environment microbiologists to study the density of total and fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci following rainfall events in watersheds 3 , 4 , 7, and 8. Significant increases in these types of bacteria were observed, but the data were insufficient to enable the sources to be determined. cover, to be available from Ontario Ministry of the Environment.)

(Report under separate

Interlab Nutrient Analysis CompaTison - Samples from 2 watersheds were analysed separately by the Agriculture Cahada laboratory at Harrow as well as the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Good intercalibration was achieved in most cases, but additional work is necessary to trace the source of some differences in phosphorus and organic nitrogen results. (Report in Section 111).

xiii .

Evaluation of Sub-Basin Extrapolations to a Larger Watershed - Preliminary results indicate that where soil and crop differences are small between the arcas, cxtrapolations are valid for most parameters. Where soil types and land use tire different, extrapolations may be impossible without adequate monitoring of' water quality and, more especially, of water flow rates. details, see Section IV-B).

(For

Sub-Activity 9 - A computer programme was written and used to present the prcliniinary phase water quality arid quantity data for consideration by an Ad tloc Cornmittce. (For details, see Section IV). This committee took into account information on the soils, land use and hydrologic characteristics of the watersheds, formulated an approach to the continuatioh of the Agricultural Watershed Study, and selected sites for detailed studies and continued monitoring.

The Committee recommended that continuation of the project should be based on a distinct monitoring phase, which would be a continuation of Phase I, and a detailed phase to determine the effects olf soils, land use and agricultural practices on concentrations and loading rates of selected pollutants; to derive information on pollutant transport and storage processes in agricultural watersheds; and to develop relationships which may be used to extend the information collected and predict the effect of agriculture on water quality in other watersheds. The Committee further recommended that sediments and nutrients be given highest priority, and heavy metals and pathogens a lower priority. were considered of low priority for detailed study due to the fact that the levels detected in the preliminary phase were generally so low as to cause problems in detecting and evaluating the presence of the newer compounds. Most of those pesticides occurring at detectable limits were also being detected in the intensive pesticide study, Task C -U.S. Continued monitoring of pesticides was, however, considered essential.

Pesticides

Six sites were selected for detailed study - Watersheds 1 - Big Creek, Essex Co;

Middle Thames, Oxford Co; 10 - North Creek, Lincoln Co; and 13 - Hillman Creek, Essex County. Agricultural environments in these watersheds range from intensive cash crop, vegetables and fruit on sandy soils, throclgh cash cropping and livestock production on loam and clay soils to low intensity mixed farming on clay soils.

* - Little Ausable, Huron Co; 4 - Canagagtgue, Wellington Co; 5 - Tributary of the

Five sites were selected for continued monitoring - Watersheds 2 - Venison Creek, Norfolk Co; 6 - Maitland River, Huron Co; 7 - Shelter Valley Creek, Northumberland Co; 11 - West Humber River, Peel Co; and 14 - Mill Creek, Bruce County. Agriculture in these watersheds ranges from tobacco production on sandy soils through mixed farming in different productivity zones to fairly extensive beef raising on clay soils.

Sub-Activity 10 - All of the 6 detailed study watersheds have been instrumented for continuous flow records, with five instruments installed by Ontario Ministry of the Environment (Sites 1, 3 , 5, 10 and 13) and one being an existing Water Survey of Caxada Gauge (Site 4 ) . Gauges (Sites 2 and 7) and the remaining 3 (Sites 6, 11 and 14) will be instrumented shortly. All of the detailed study watersheds will be equipped shortly with C.A.E. automatic samplers to ensure adequate sampling of runoff events.

Two of the remaining 5 sites also have Water Survey of Canada

Sub-Activity 11 - All known Ontario research establishments with available capability (private, University, Federal and Provincial) were invited to submit proposals for research within the scope of the Detailed Phase of the Agricultural Watershed Study. A second Ad Hoc Committee was formed to review the proposals received, evaluate the suitability of each for inclusion in the study and indicate significant inadequacies. A Funding Committee has completed its dellberations and the projects being supported are indicated within the overview of the programme for 1975-76. (Programme Outline - Section V).

xiv.

SECTION I

AGRICULTURAL WATERSHED STUDIES

1974-19;75 PROGRESS REPORT

* AGRICULTURAL SUB- COMMITTEE

TASK GROlJP C CANADIAN SECTION

IYTERVATIONAL REFERENCE GROUP ON GREAT LAKES POLLUTION FROM

LAND USE ACTIVITIES

INTERNATI ONAL JOINT COMMISSION

APRIL 1975

* H.V.Morley, C.D.A., Ottawa; R.Frank, O.M.A.F., Guelph; D.R.Coote, (representing) C.D.A., Ottawa; E.M.MacDonald, C.D.A., Ottawa; R.C.Hore, O.M.O.E., Toronto; W.T.Dickinson, University of Guelph.

1 - 2

INTROIKJCTI ON

This report covers the work carried out under Task C - Canada - Activity 1, Agricultural Watershed Surveys (see page 24-29 , PLUARG Detailed Study Plan, February, 1974). A s indicated in the Detailed Study Plan, Sub-Activities 1 through 5 were completed at the time the Detailed Study Plan was printed. Details of these Sub-Activities hava been presented in the following documents:

1. Detailed Plan for the St,udy of Agricultural Watersheds in the Great Lakes Drainage Basin - Canada, 1974-75; Agricultural Sub-committee, Task Group C (Canadian Section) PLUARG, February 1974.

2. Agricultural Land Uses, Livestock and Soils of the Canadian Great Lakes Basin; a Report of the Activities of the Engineering Research Service and the Soil Research Institute as part of Agriculture Canada's Contribution to the Implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, 1973-74, June 1974.

Both of these presentations are avai,lable from the I.J.C. Regional Office, 100 Ouellette Avenue, Windsor, Ontario, N9A 6T3.

The remaining Sub-Activities which have been completed as of March 31, 1975, are discussed in this report.

DISCUSSION

Sub-Activity 6 - Determine responsibility for sample collection, laboratory analyses and evaluation of results uf the preliminary phase of the Agricultural Watershed Study.

Responsibility for the implementation of Sub-Activity 6 was agreed upon as f 01 1 ows :

Agriculture Canada (C.D.A.) would be responsible for sampling activities at those watersheds which were close to their facilities and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (O.M.O.E.) would be responsible for the remaining watersheds; the two agencies cooperating where possible for maximum efficiency. The Ontario Soil Survey Unit of the Canada Department of Agriculture would be requested t o carry out preliminary soil and land use surveys in each watershed.

Samples would be analysed by the Ontario Mfnistry of the Environment Laboratories in Toronto for nutrients (Kjeldahl N, N02, NO3, "3, Total P, soluble PI, ions (Na, K, Ca, Mg, C1, S O 4 ) , hardness, alkalinity, turbidity, total solids, suspended solids, phenol, total carbon, organic carbon, silica, a number of heavy metals and possibly other parameters.

1 - 3

The Ontario Ministry of Aglriculture and Food (O.M.A.F.) Pesticide Residue Laboratory would conduct pestic~ide analyses on the water samples, doing a general herbicide and a general insecticide analysis on alternate samples. More specific and detailed inseCticide analyses would be done on samples from selected watersheds by the C . D . A . Research Institute at London.

Bacteriological investigat,ions would be primarily the responsibility of O.M.O.E., but other agencies wobld be involved where necessary when distances made transportation of samples t o the O.M.O.E. Laboratories impossible before deterioration occurred.

All water quantity (flow and discharge) determinations would be the responsibility of the Ontario MYnistry of the Environment.

Data evaluation would be a cooperative activity between all participants, and other expert advisers would be consulted when possible. The Soil Survey Unit would be responsible for stream sediment and soil erosion evaluation, and would cooperate with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (O.M.N.R.) in an evaluation of stream bank erosion.

Sub-Activity 7 - Preliminary InGtrumentation. gauges at each watershed outlet site where no existing contimous Water Survey of Canada or O.M.O.E. gauge was located. This task was commenced in March of 1974, and completed by June of '1974, by the Water Resources Branch of O.M.O.E. Some difficulties were experienced with obtaining satisfactory rating curves for all of the staff gauges due to the hydrologic characteristics of some of the streams and the nature of some of the selected gauging sites.

Preliminary instrumentatiofi was restricted to the installation of staff

Sub-Activity 8 - Carry out all aspects of the preliminary phase of the study ,,..e-:, _ . . _ _ _ sufficient e e c i : agricultural region in tenlns of water quality and to determine watershed priorities for the detailed phase of the study.

data has been collected to assess the relative significance of

The sixteen sub-watershed dnonitoring sites described in the Detailed Plan f o r the Study of Agricultural Watersheds in the Great Lakes Drainage Basin - Canada, 1974-75, were sampled, and analyses made, primarily by Agriculture Canada, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, and Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, as determined under Sub-Activity 6. The details of the implementation of the monitoring on each watershed, and of the involvement of other agencies where applicable, are presented in Appendix A.

The Detailed Plan for the Study of Agricultural Watersheds in the Great Lakes Drainage Basin - Canada - 1974-75, outlines a number of special studies to be conducted during the courde of the preliminary phase:

The feedlot and manure Storage runoff study is continuing under the direction of Dr. D.R. Coote, Engineering Research Service, C.D.A.* - A progress report "Runoff Characteristics from Feedlots and Manu+ Storage Areas in South-West Ontario" is available from the E*gineering Research Service, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa.

* D.R. Coote represents the Engineering Research Service, Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, under the terms of a Contract (OSW4-0085).

I - 4

The soil erosion study is continuing under the direction of Dr. G.J. Wall, Ontario Soil Survey, C.D.A., Guelph. A progress report on this study is included, Section 11.

As a quality control measure €or the preliminary phase of the study, the Harrow Research Stibtion participated in the study as a check laboratory under the direction of Dr. J. Fulton. Samples from two watersheds were analysed by the Agriculture Canada Laboratory at Harrow as well as by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment Laboratories, Toronto. An evaluation of the data compatability is given in Section 111.

Water quality data was collected from the mouths of two sub- basins and from the mouths of the whole basitsby Mr. J.R.W. Miles of the C.D.A. Research Institute in London. His comments on the comparison of the data and evaluation of extrapolation from sub-basins to whole basins are included in Section IV.

Discussions were held with a number of involved personnel regarding the availability of data on vegetable growing muck soils, and on the Canadizan and United States fruit growing areas. No report is available as the information has been utilized directly by the Ad Hoc Committee for Watershed Selection (see Sub-Activity 9).

In addition to the special studies mentioned above, the following study was conducted at the agricultural watershed sites:

A special bacteriological study was made by Mr. Eric Leggatt of the O.M.O.E. Microbiology Section, using mobile laboratory facilities. (A report will bo available separately.)

The Agricultural Watershed Study was coordinated during the preliminary phase by Dr. D.R. Coote, Engineering Research Service, C.D.A., Ottawa, and Mr. Dennis Onn, O.M.O.E., Water Resources Branch, Toronto.

Sub-Activity 9 - Utilize prepared data for identification of sub-watersheds to be included in the detailed study.

During August of 1974, all of the water quality and quantity data which had been generated in the preliminary phase of the Agricultural Watershed Study was collected together by Dr. D.R. Coote and Ms. E.M. MacDonald of C.D.A. in Ottawa. All data was coded and punched onto computer cards, and a computer programme was written to sort and display the data in forms of concentration, yield of pollutant per unit area, yield of pollutant per watershed, and estimated yield of pollutant per agricultural region represented. A computer print-out giving parameter concentration and yield per unit area by watersheds, covering the period from April 1 to October 30, 1974, is available to study participants from Dr. D. R. Coote or Ms. E. M. MacDonald, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa.

1 - 5

A summary of the concentratiion and yield per unit area data by watershed f o r some of the major parameters is presented in Section IV. Also presented are some plots of the concentration of selected pollutants in selected watersheds for the time period olf the data available at the end of August, 1974.

An Ad Hoc Committee for Watlershed Selection was formed from among PLUARG participants and experts not invlolved in the study. In September, 1974, this Committee reviewed the data colllected and presented up t o that time, together with the land use and soil inforpation collected by Dr. G.J. Wall (see Table 1, Section IV). Watershed selection criteria and priorities were established. It was agreed that the most important criteria should be the land use and the soil types of the agricultural regions and watersheds. A summary of the land use information and deviations (if any) of the land use in each watershed from that of the region which it was supposed to represent is presented in Table 1. Table 2 shows the evaluations made of the potential for soil erosion, and the suitability of the gauging sites. for each watershed is presented in Table 3 . Tables 1, 2 and 3 summarize the information which was considered in the deliberations of the Ad Hoc Committee for Watershed Selection.

A summary matrix showing parameters of concern

From these deliberations, a consensus emerged regarding the approach which should be followed by the Agricultural Sub-committee during the next 2 years of the PLUARG Study. The Ad Hoc Committee recommended that there should be two phases to the subsequent work, which should be conducted simultaneously. Phase :C would consist of the monitoring of the outlets of a number of small agricultural watersheds, much the same as was done during the spring and summer of 1974 in the Preliminary Phase. Phase I1 wou'Ld consist of a series of detailed studies, to be conducted on approximately 6 watersheds. These studies should be directed towards the identification of pollutant sources within the agricultural activities of the watershed, the determination of transport processes and mechanisms from the field to the stream, and the development of a predictive capability to allow extrapolation of the monitoring results to other watersheds, and to time periods in the future. The Committee summaiized the objectives of the Agricultural Watershed Study as follows:

OBJECTIVES OF TASK C STUPIES ON AGRICULTURAL WATERSHEDS

Phase I

Phase I1

1)

3 )

Phase 111

(Monitoring Programme):

To measure the ambient concentration and loading rates for various potential pollutants that occur with agricultural land use.

(Detailed Sstudies Programme):

To determine the effects of the soil, land use and associated practices on ambient concentrations and loading rat.es of selected pollutants from agriculture.

To derive information on the mechanics of transport and storage of these pollutants within the selected agricultural watersheds.

To develop relationships so that the information derived can be utilized in a predictive sense and extrapolated to other areas.

(Future Requirements)

To develop remedial measures where significant problems aqe identified.

TABLE 1 EVALUATION OF THE LAND USE OF WATERSHEDS

Estimated Area Represented by

- W / S W/S (miles2) Generalized Land Use of W/S* Differences from Area to be

Represented

1 1,562 Cash crops on tile drained clay soils

Area should have some hogs which are not present in W/S

2 920 Tobacco production and associated crops on sands

None

3 1 , 6 3 3 Beef and dairy cattle, feed crops, some cash cropping

W/S should have more hogs to represent area satisfactorily

4 61 1 Dairy farming with feed crop production


5 990 Dairy farming, intensive corn production, some cash cropping


6 786 Beef and hog production, with feed crops

None

2,000 Forest, hobby farms, tobacco W/S should have more livestock with a lower proportion of horses; less total forest

8 108 Dairy farming, mixed non-intensive farming


W/S does not represent area 9 1,292 Non-agricultural - forest, pasture, hobby farms, horses

Generally more depressed than expected

10 1,171 Dairy, poultry, - depressed

11 8 20 Dairy, beef - rapi,dly urbanizing

None

12

13

928 Dairy - non-intensive None

816 Cash crops, fruit, vegetables on sands overlying clays

No livestock in W/S

14

15

877 Beef farming - extensive None

257 Cash crop corn, marginal tobacco, non-intensive mixed farming

Generally less intensive than region to be represented

16 112 Fruit growing Very few vegetables in W/S

1 - 7

TABLE 2 EVALUATION OF S O I L S , SEDIIMENTS AND GAUGING S I T E S OF THE WATERSHEDS

w/ s Soil-Pollutant Transfer Potential

1

2

3

4

5

h

7

8

9

1 0

11

1 2

13

14

15

1 6

clays-

sands-

clays-

clays-

1 oams -

1 oams ,

sands ,

clays-

sands ,

clays-

clays-

1 oams ,

high to surface and ground water

low to surface water, high t o ground water

high to surface, low to ground water


low to moderate to both surface and ground water

sands, complexed- low and moderate to surface water, low to high to ground water

complexed with clays and loams - variable to ground and surface

high to surface and ground water

loams- low to surface, high to ground water



some shallow over bedrock- low to surface, low to high to ground water

sands over clays, loams- low to surface, low to high to ground water

clays- high to surface, low to ground water

mixed soils of variable potential to ground and surface waters

clays, sands- low to high to surface water, high to ground water

Erosion 6heet

high

1 ow

high

high

medium

tnedium

1 ow

high

1 ow

1 ow

me di um

1 ow

high

1 ow

medium

1 ow

Pot entia 1 s t reambank

Turbidity of stream

Suitability for 8a ug ing

high

1 ow

medium

high

low

low

1 ow

medium

low

medium

high

1 ow

high

medium

high

1 ow

high

1 ow

medium

medium

1 ow

1 ow

low

1 ow

1 ow

high

medium

1 ow

high

high

high

high

good - natural control No - ponded at low flows

good - natural control poor site - Feder,al gauge already installed

good - natural control No - excessive channel storage , bank overflows at peaks

inaccessible site - Federal gauge already installed

good - natural control (no hydro for gauge)

good - natural control No - excessive poriding and channel storage

good site if platform provided for high flow measurement

good - O.M.O.E. guage already installed

No - poor control

No - poor control flooding, meandering

No - poor control,, inaccessible, no high flow measurement possible

can be gauged only with precalibrated device

TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF PARAMETER RANKINCS I5Y WATERSHED - WATER QUALITY

Sheet Stream Instr- Water- Turb- Insect- Herb- * Heavy umen t feasibility

NO3 icides icides metals idity erosion bank

potential erosion shed

1. V v V V X V V

3. v V X X V V ( T ) V V

2.

- NOTE: V = h i g h ranking , X = medium ranking

H

I

03

* ( T I = Triazines, ( P I = Phenoxy acetic acids

1 - 9

The following watersheds were chosen as suitable sites for the detailed studies of Phase I1 (see Map 1):-

Watershed #1 - #3 - #4 - #5 - #lo - #13 -

Big Creek, Essex County

Little1 Ausable, Huron County

Upper Icanagagigue, Wellington County

Holiday Creek Tributary of the Middle Thames, Oxford Co.

North Lincol County

Hillmab Creek, Essex County

reek tributary of Twenty Mile Creek, k A new site had to be found for^ Watershed #13, as no satisfactory gauging station could be established ob this watershed.

The present land use and Isoil information for these six detailed study watersheds is summarized in Table 4 . Location, soil, drainage and land use maps for each watershed, including the new Hillman Creek site, are presented in the report "Agricultural Waltersheds , Agricultural Watershed Study, Task C - Canadian Section, PLUARG, Janubry 1975lfO1* m i g h t be used for some aspects1 of the Phase I1 studies, if adequate justiEication exists for the ube of such sites.

It was agreed that other sites

It was agreed that the mo itoring, Phase I, part of the study would be conducted on the six watershed identified for Phase I1 studies, plus the following sites (see Map 1):

Watershed #2

#6

#7

#11 - West Hpmber, Peel County #14 - Mill Ckeek, Bruce County

- Tributhry of Big Creek, Norfolk County - Teeswaper River, Bruce/Huron Counties - Ganarabka River, Durham County

It was recognized that a new gbuging s i te or a new watershed had to be chosen in each case where the existin site was unsuitable for gauging (#2, 6, 11, 14') or where the land use of water 1 hed had been found to be unrepresentative of the Agricultural Region (#7) (see Fable 2).

As of January, 1975, the following changes have been made in the watershed sites to meet the requirements of the Phase I monitoring study:-

Watershed #2 - will bk moved to the Venison Creek tributary of Big Creek,lNorfolk County. Soils and land use are similar to thelprevious site (North Branch, North Creek tributgry of Big Creek), but the area is larger, being about $6 miles2. the mohitoring of Phase I.

Huron $ounty. previohs site (Teeswater River).

This i s considered satisfactory for

Watershed #6 - will be moved to a tributary of the Maitland River, Soils and land use are similar to the

"This report is available fro$ Dr. D.R. Coote or Ms. E.M. MacDonald, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa. i

INTERNATIONAL REFERENCE GROUP ON

GREAT LAKES POLLUTION FROM

LAND USE ACTIVITIES

Task C Technical Committee

Agricultural Sub-committee

AGRICULTURAL AREAS and

REPRESENTATIVE WATERSHEDS

14r.- .*.I b, I . , cr-.* -3.m

% I _ _

M A C 1 AGRICULTURAL WATERSHEDS - TAsK C (CANADIAN SECTION) - PLUARG

I / 0 PHASE I (Mmiiin@ Study)

2

2

Area (mi 1

Area (mi ) Represented (Estimated)

Pol 1 u t ion P o t e n t i a l ( S o i l Group)

S o i l Type

- - L - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - ~-

General ized Land U s e

Small Grains (%)

Corn(%)

Pas tu re or Meadow( % )

Fores t (%)

Soyabeans, lJhite Beans o r Peas(%)

H o r t i c u l t u r a l Row Crops(%)

F r u i t Trees(%)

Fallow(%)

Big Creek Upper L i t t l e Upper Unnamed t r i b . of North Creek of West Branch of (Essex Co.) Au 5 ab 1 e Canagaglgue Middle Thames Twenty Mile Creek Hillman Creek

AG- 1 AG-3 AG-4 AG- 5 AG-10 AG-13

27.6

17.1

2.8

2.5

47.1

I. 4( t m a t oee )

--

24.5 37.0

29.2 19.1

19.9

5.5

32.0

7.0

16.2 --

13.9

39.9

29.2

13.8

2.4

0 . 6 (po t a t oes )

--

12.4

16.8

53.3

13.8

0.4

-- 0.1

1.4

1 ( -11

47 (

0 ( I'

4 ( 'I

1 2 (

18 ( If

5 (

0 (

I - 12 Watershed #7 - will be moved to Shelter Valley Creek, Northumberland

County. The existing Federal gauge is considered satisfactory if water samples are collected upstream of Highway 401 until input from this source can be determined. The watershed has similar soils to the previous site (Ganaraska), but the relative proportions of these soils are more representative of the region. The relative amclunts of forest and livestock are also more representative of the region than in the previous watershed (see Table 2 ) .

Watershed #11 - the final site is still to be confirmed, but it is probable that another tributary of the West Humber River (Salt Crecbk) will be used.

Watershed #14 - will be moved to another site on Mill Creek, having similar soils arid land use to the previous site.

Maps showing the locations, soils, drainage and land use of new watersheds #2, 6, 7 and 14, and proposed watershed #11, are presented in the report, "Agricultural Watersheds,,Agricultural Watershed Study, Task C - Canadian Section, PLUARG, January 1975".

The Ad Hoc Committee for Watershed Selection recommended that the outlets from each of the eleven watersheds, choisen for the two phases of the Agricultural Watershed Study, should have a required minimum of data collected at each site. This should include routine sampling for the Task C standard parameters, with samples collected approximately weekly with additional sampling during runoff events; bottom samples to be collected quarterly.

The Committee recommended that pariameter priorities for the studies of the detailed Phase (11) should be considereid as follows:

High Priority:

Sediment - especially from sheet erosion Nutrients - especially N and P

Medium Priority:

Toxic Heavy Met,als Microorganisms - especially pathogens

Low Priority:

Pesticides

This list is intended only as a guide and does not necessarily preclude the study of other parameters if sufficient justification exists.

I - 13

objectives outlined for the broad-based and valuable. Ad Hoc Committee for Project Committee were forwarded to the Final deliberations were carried

Sub-Activity 10 - Install contjnuous monitoring equipment on outlets of watersheds selected for the deqailed phase of the study.

detailed phase of the study. The response was Evaluation of the submissions was carried out by an Proposal Review. The recommendations of this

Funding Committee by the end of January, 1975. out by the Funding Committee and recommended

The installation of conti uous stage height recording equipment is underway n on all watersheds except those on which Federal Water Survey gauges are already installed (Watersheds #4 and 71. Watersheds #1, 3 , 5 and 10 have been prepared for the installation of automa ic sampling equipment which will be available shortly. The remaining detail ! d watershed sites (#4 and 13) will be equipped with automatic samplers at a f ture date. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Water Resources anch, is responsible for stream monitoring equipment installation.

Continuous recording, weidhing-type raingauges and standard raingauges will be installed in each wate shed except #2, during March 1975. Watershed #2 has an existing meteorological r station close to its boundary. Sub-Activity 11 - Prepare stud plan for detailed phase (Phase 11). Determine monitoring needs for implement 3 tion of the detailed phase of the study so that individual agricultural activitlies and associated management practices may be investigated in the selected watersheds.

The resulting programme folr the Task C Agricultural Watershed Study, 1975-76, is outlined in Section V. Docu entation on the individual projects, including specific objectives, principal m investigators and research establishment, is included. Detailed study plans for the individual projects will be prepared later in 1975.

I - 14

I - 15

APPENDIX

SECTION I

I - 16

SECTION I - APPENDIX

Throughout the Preliminary Phase OF the Agricultural Watershed Studies, personnel of Ontario Government AgencieG were responsible for the collection of the majority of samples and for the bulk of the analyses performed. In the following pages, references to Ontah-io Government Agencies' activities implies the involvement of the appropribte personnel listed below:

Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Water Resources Branch, Hydrology and Monitoring Section: Under the d,irection of Messrs. R.C. Hore and R.C. Ostry, and coordinated by Mr. Dl. Onn, Messrs. J. Lothian (watersheds 1, 2, 3 , 5 , 6, 8, 13, 14, 15), D. Levesque (watersheds 7, 9, 10, 11, 12) and R. Dijkema (watershed 4 ) handled sample collection and flow measurements, with Ms. M. LeBreton, Mr. M. Cameron and Mr. A. Radman supplying complimentary field and oflfice services.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment Laboratory Services Branch: Quality Section under the direction of Dr. T. Brydges with laboratory supervision by Mr. S. Villard; Inorglanic Trace Contaminant Section under the direction of Mr. J. Bishop with heavy metal analyses super- vised by Dr. B. Loescher; Microbiolqgy Section under the direction of Xr. L. Vlassoff with Dr. A. Burger and Mr. E. Leggatt responsible for PLL'ARG related studies. Regional Laboratory under the direction of Mr. D. Glutek. Services Branch activities in the PLUARG programme were coordinated by Dr. F. Dieken, while quality control, was the responsibility of Mr. D. King, Quality Assurance Officer.

Water

Some analydes were conducted at the London The Laboratory

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Pesticide Residue Testing Laboratory under the direction of DxP. R. Frank, who also coordinates the O.M.A.F. involvement in the PLUUG programme. In the Phase I studies, insecticides, other than the DDT group, were analysed by Mr. H. Braun; Ms. M. Holdrinet was rlesponsible for the DDT group of insecticides, PCB and other organo-pollutant analyses; Mr. G. Sirons was responsible for herbicide deteminations.

I .. 1 7

Details of the implementation of qub-Activity 8 , by watershed

Watershed #l - Big Creek Tributaty of the Thames River, Essex County. Watershed #13 - North Branch of tde Hillman Creek, Essex County.

These watersheds qere sampled by personnel from the Agricultural Research Station, IAgriculture Canada, Harrow, under the direction of Dr. J. Fulton. 1 Samples were shipped to the Ontario Ministry of the Environmen (O.M.O.E.) laboratories in Toronto for analyses of nutrients, ion ! , heavy metals, pH, turbidity, solids and other routine parameterd. Samples were shipped to the Pesticide Residue! laboratories of t e Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (O.M.A.F.) at Gue ph for analyses for the presence of herbicides (Triazine forms), 4 and organo chlorine insecticides. Samples were also transported o the laboratories of the Canada Department of Agriculture (C.D. i .) Research Institute in London for a variety of insecticide analy es. Samples for bacteriological determination were iced and tra sported directly to the Ontario Ministry of Health, Public He lth Unit, at Windsor for total and fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus analyses. In addition, duplicate samples were stor d at the Research Station at Harrow for later use in the establ'shment of nutrient and heavy metal laboratories at the Research S 1 ation, and for implementation of a check analysis Stream discharge investigations and measurements were done by the 0.PI.O.E. Water R i sources Branch hydrologists, with the cooperation programme . of Dr. J. Fulton dnd his staff.

4

Watershed #2 - North Branch, Nortlh Creek tributary of Big Creek, near Delhi, Norfolk County. '

Watershed #15 - Little Jerry Creekl, tributary of Big Otter Creek, Elgin County. These watersheds ere sampled by personnel from the Agriculture Canada Research Institute at London, under the direction of Mr. J.R.W. Miles. Sa les were analysed for routine nutrients, ions, solids, etc., and for bacteriological content by the O.M.O.E. laboratories at Lo don. Samples for heavy metal analyses were shipped to the O.M.O.E. laboratories at Toronto. Herbicide analyses (triazine 1 forms) were done on samples shipped to the O.M.A.F. Pesticide1 Residue laboratories at Guelph. analyses were perf rmed by the C.D.A. Research Institute at London under the directio of J.R.W. Miles. Stream discharges were measured by O.M.O. 1 . Water Resources Branch personnel, with gauge readings taken by khe sample collectors.

Insecticide

I -- 18

Watershed #3 - Little Ausable River - upstream end, Huron County. Watershed #4 - North West branch of the Canagagigue Creek, Wellington County. Watershed #5 - Unnamed tributary of the Middle Thames River near Embro,

Oxford County.

Watershed #6 - Teeswater River, tributary of the Saugeen River, Bruce/Huron Counties.

Watershed #8 - Boyle Drain, South Branch, Perth County. Watershed #9 - West Humber River, near Mono Mills, Peel/Dufferin/Simcoe Counties. Watershed #11 - West Humber River, near Wildfield, Peel County. Watershed #14 - Little Mill Creek tributary of the Saugeen River, Bruce County.

These monitoring sites werie all sampled, and flow measurements made*, by the O.M.O.E. Watier Resources Branch personnel, coordinated by Mr. Dennis h n in Toronto. Routine nutrients, ions, solids, etc., heavy metal and bacteriological analyses were carried out at the O.M.O.E. laboratories in Toronto. Herbicide and insecticide analyses were Idone on samples delivered to the O.M.A.F. Pesticide Residue lab. at Guelph.

At Watersheds #3, 5 and 8, daily records of stream stage height were kept by Mr. Brian Pym, Miss Darlene Cannon and Mr. Richard Broughton, respectively, ell of whom are 4-H members interested in the programme.

*Except Watershed #4, where flow measurements were obtained from the Water Survey of Canada: continuous recording gauge at the sampling location.

Watershed #7 - North West Branch of the CEanaraska River, Durham County. Samples were collected dulring the early part of the spring by Dr. D.R. Coote of C.D.A. in Outawa, and by Mr. G. Ingram of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (O.M.N.R.) Forest Station at Elizabethville. Samples were shipped to O.M.O.E. labs. in Toronto for routine nutrients, ions, etc., with heavy metals and pesticides being done by O.M.O.E. labs. in Toronto and O.M.A.F. labs. in Guelph, respectively, on Some samples. After mid-summer, the sampling of this watershed was taken over by O.M.O.E. personnel and handled in the same way as for Watersheds #3, 4 , 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 14 above. Stream flow measurements were taken from the Water Survey of Canada corltinuous recording gauge at the sampling location.

*

I - 19

Watershed #10 - North Creek brancq of Twenty Mile Creek, Lincoln County. Watershed #16 - Unnamed Creek nea# Vineland, Lincoln County.

These streams wer$ sampled by C.D.A. personnel under the direction of Dr. M. Chiba, of the C.D.A. Research Station at Vineland. Routine nutrient, ion, heavy metal, etc., and bacteriological analyses were don$ by O.M.O.E. laboratories in Toronto on samples shipped to them. IHerbicide analyses were done by O.M.A.F. at Guelph, as were i secticides from Watershed #lo. from Watershed #1 t were determined on samples transported to the C.D.A. Research Idstitute at London. Gauges were installed and rated by O.M.O.E. Water Resources Branch hydrologists. Samples were collected by O.M.O.E. at Watershed #lo during the first few weeks of the programme.

Insecticides

Watershed #12 - Wilton Creek upstSeam of Harrowsmith, Frontenac County. Samples were collqcted by personnel from C.D.A. in Ottawa, under the direction of r. D.R. Coote.* Samples for nutrient, ion, heavy metals and O.M.O.E. labs. iniToronto. Samples for insecticide and herbicide (phenoxy acetic aqids) analyses were shipped to the O.M.A.F. Pesticide laboratdry in Guelph. were performed on ~ samples delivered to the Department of the Environment, Healqh Protection Laboratory in Ottawa.

ther routine analyses were shipped to the 1 Bacteriological determinations

After mid-summer, ialternate samples were collected by O.M.O.E. Water Resources Bjanch personnel and handled as for Watersheds #3, 4 , 5, 6, 8, 9 11 and 14. Flow measurements were taken from the O.M.O.E. cont nuous recording gauge located at the sampling site.

Throughout the preliminary phase +f the study, general soil and land use surveys were made of each watershed by C D.A. personnel under the direction of Dr. G.J. Wall, C.D.A., of the Ontario Soi Survey Unit located at Guelph.

* D.R.Coote represents the Research Service, Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, under of a contract (OSW4-0085).

I -* 20

SECTION I1

SOIL 1 EROSION INVESTIGATIONS I

1974 - 1975

$riky:ike Canada niversity of Guelph

4. J. P. VanVliet Canada

lversity of Guelph

q, T. Dickenson hool of Engineering iversity of Guelph

11 - 2

SOIL EROSION INVESTIGATIONS

INTRODUCTION

This report will summarize the results of a soil erosion project that was conducted as part of the preliminary phase of the Canadian Task C Agricultural Watershed Study. The objectives of the soil erosion investigation were two fold: losses from the different agricultural land uses and management practices in Southern Ontario and ( 2 ) to provide a ranking of watersheds in terms of erosion potential that would be beneficial in the selection of a few watersheds for incorporation into the detailed phase of the study.

(1) to assess the magnitude of potential sheet erosion

METHODS

The procedures employed for the identification of distinct agricultural regions within the lower Great Lakes Basin and the location of representative watersheds for each of these regions were described in the report "Agricultural Land Uses, Livestock and Soils of the Canadian Great Lqkes Basin". (Coote et al, 1974).

Potential sheet erosion losses in each watershed were computed by using t 3 e universal soil loss equation (Wishchmeier and Smith, 1965). Detailed information concerning land use, management practices, soil properties and land slopes that were required for the field to field application of the soil loss equation were obtained by a combination of on-site evaluation, laboratory analysis and aerial photographic interpretation. values (K values) were obtained by use of the soil erodibility nomograph (Wischmeier et al, 1971). The rainfall erosion indices ( R values) required for this study were computed from the longtime average yearly total of the storm El values (total kinetic energy of the storm times its maximum 30 minute intensity. (Wischmeier and Smith, 1965).

Soil erodibility

An average erosion value for each watershed was obtained by integration of the average sheet erosion losses from each different cropping practice by the area of the watershed that is occupied by that crop.

I1 - 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The relative location of the 16 watersheds ,.wluded in the pre iminary study phase is depicted in Figure 1. Soil erosion investigations were conducted on all of these wateqsheds with the exception of number 9 and 16. The ranges of soil textures and land uses encountered in the watersheds studied are summarized in Tab14 1.

The universal soil loss e uation was used to compute average annual sheet erosion losses in each w zt tershed area. Figure 2 illustrates average annual sheet erosion losses in watershed #1 (Big Creek, Essex C o . ) . The percentage of the watershed occupied by different crops i s indicated on the x-axis while the average annual potential sheet erosion losses is indicated on the y-axis (Figure 2). In additionJ the range of soil loss that occurs in each cropping system that results from different soil and slope factors is indicated by a range line in Figure 2. For example, the average annual potential sheet erosion losses from a soybean crop i s approximately 3 tons/ac./yr. but soil losses will range from 1.6 to 4.2 tons/ac./yr. depending upon soil erodibility and slope factors (Figure 2). a s depicted in Figure 2 for the Big Creek watershed were obtained for each watershed investigated (Figures 3 - 15).

Data, such

For the purpose of ranking all the watersheds in terms of their potential erosion hazard, it was necessary to derive a single sheet erosion index for each watershed studied. The watershed erosion index was obtained by integration of the average sheet erosion losses from each different cropping practice by the area of the watershed that is occupied by that crop. In Figure 2 for example, the erosion index i s represented by the area under the curve (area of the bargraph). The erosion indices for all the watersheds studied are shown in Table 2. On the basis of the watershed erosion index, each watershed was placed into EL high, medium and low erosion category (Table 2). sheds in the highest erosion category were intensively farmed agricultural areas (Table 2 ) . The Ganaraska watershed had a high erosion potential as a result of steep topography and highly erodible soil material. Agricultural watersheds demonstrating low erosion potential were generally low intensity agricultural regions with large percentages of forage and permanent pasture crops (Table 2) .

With the exception of the Ganaraska watershed (Ag-7), all water-

The detailed study phase to be conducted for two years (1975-1977) is to be directed towards the identification of pollutant sources within the agricultural activities of the watershed and the determination of transport processes and mechanisms. Six of the watersheds studied in the erosion investigations have been included in the detailed study phase (Table 2). The high, medium and low erosion watershed classes will be represented by watersheds AG-3, AG-1, and AG-2 respectively in the detailed study (Table 2) .

-- I

SOUTHERN ONTAR IO c1c o n e

3 w c L O C A T 1 0 N l OF AGRICULTURAL \. b SUB-WATERSHEDS IN RELATION TO

1-16 AGRICULTURAL SUB-WATERS H E DS

0 60 l M h

0 40 80 Ma 1 4 ' I 1 1 I I , , , .

I I

I m 790 w 75.W

i

TABLE 1 - SUflMAI! '~ OF SOIL AND LAND DATA FOR WATERSHEOS STUDIED

Wa t e r shed Number Name

1

2

3

4.

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

? S

B i g Creek (Essex Co.)

Nor th Branch Nor th Creek

L i t t l e Ausable River

Canagagigue Creek

Middle Thames T r i b u t a r y

Teeswater R iver

Ganaraska River

k y l e Dra in

Nor th Creek (20 M i l e Creek)

West Humber ( W i l d f i e l d )

W i l t on Creek

H i 1 lman Creek

L i t t l e M i l l Creek

L I L L I ~ J e r r y Creek I t L 4 . l -

2redorniri.iiIt S o i l M a t e r i a l - ~ -~

:lay t o s i l t y c l a y t i l l s ; leve l t e r r a i n

Sands, sandy loams and loamy sands

S i l t y c l a y loams, s i l t loams, r o l l ing t e r r a i n

S i l t . l o a m s , s i l t y c l a y loams; r o l l ing t e r r a i n

S i l t t o s i l t loams; r o l l i n g t e r r a i n

S i l t loams and loams; r o l l ing t e r r a i n

Sandy loam t i l l s ; stoney, r o l l i ng t e r r a i n

S i l t loam to s i l t y c l a y loam, 1 eve1 t e r r a i n

Clay to s i l t y c l a y

Loam to c l a y loam t o c l a y , l eve l t o r o l l i n g t e r r a i n

S i l t loam, sandy loam, shal low s o i l s

C lays , sand over c lays , l e v e l t e r r a i n

Clay, s i l t y c l a y r o l l i n g t e r r a i n

Sands, sand over c lays , c lays , leve l t e r r a i n

Predominant Land Use and Management ~ ~~

Cash Crops, corn, soybeans, smal l g r a i n s

Tobacco and d a i r y

Cash crops, corn, w h i t e beans, small g ra ins , da i r y

Dai ry , small g r a i n s and corn i n meadow r o t a t i o n s

Dai ry , hogs, corn, small g r a i n s

Beef, hogs, meadow i n r o t a t i o n w i t h +I small g ra ins U

I

VI Forest, hobby farms, tobacco, permanent pasture

Dai ry , hogs, beef, small g ra ins , pasture, corn

Dai ry , hogs, p o u l t r y , permanent pasture, meadow i n r o t a t i on

Beef, da i r y , r a p i d l y u rban iz ing , permanent pasture, corn

Dai ry , f o res t , meadow i n r o t a t i o n , small g ra ins

Cash crops, f r u i t s , vegetables, corn, soybeans, toma toes, e tc .

Beef (extensive), permanent pasture, meadow

Tobacco, da i r y , corn, smal l g ra tns , meadow i n r o t a t i o n

II - 6

0

H

cc 0

gc

m

,Y

I i

v)

z

a

Lu rn

1 I

I 0

vv

u? 0

I

(HV3A

/3H3V/SN

Ol) S3SSO

l NOISO

H3 133HS a3131a3H

d

4.0

3.5

a a W >. w 3.0 LT \

\ 2 v) z

2.5 - v) W v) v) 8- 4 z 2.0 E! a v) 0 W

w w I v)

w

1.5

a

0

a

1.0 Q W

L

0.5

0

CONT.

1 I-

SMALL GRAINS (IN TOBACCO ROTATION)

1 CORN I

NORTH BRANCH OF NORTH CREEK 0.7 tons/acre/year

- co R

RANGE IN SOIL LOSS CAUSED BY DIFFERENT SOIL FACTORS K AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC FACTORS LS. H

H

I

4

SMALL GRAINS ! I \ I I MEADOWINROTATION

PERM AN E NT PASTURE

IOTATION

70 80 90 100 % AREA OF WATERSHED

Figure 3. PQtential Sheet Erosion Losses - Agricultural Watershed No. 2 North Branch of North Creek

7 .O 5.8 4 8 4.0-

3.5.

A

a

5 3.0 a

2

2 W

\ v) 2 I-

v) W v) v)

0 2.5. -

s 2.0 z 0 0 a W 1.5

v)

I- w w 5 n

2 1.0

0 w E

0.5

0

VI’HITE BEANS

I 0 10

CONT. CORN

_I 20

I LITTLE AUSABLE 1.9 tonslacrelyear

CORN IN ROT AT10 N

- 1 I 30 40

SMALL GRAINS

I 1 50 60 7

% AREA OF WATERSHED

RANGE IN SOIL LOSSES CAUSED BY DIFFERENT SOIL FACTORS K AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC FACTORS I LS

H H

I

01,

MEADOW IN ROTATl ON

r 80

PER MAN ENT PASTURE

WOODLAND

90 100

Figure 4. Potential Sheet Erosion Losses - Agricultural Watershed NO. 3 Little Ausable

I1 - 9

ci

ln z

z

I- b-

0

a

z a

h P 8

I 2

I 1

I 1

I '0

9

9

L? 0

0

R cv

(HV

3A/383V

/SN

OI) S

3S

bl N

OISO

H3 133H

S a3131Cl3H

d

4.0

3.5

a 5

3.0 LL

1 z VI z 2 2.5 - VI W VI cn

2.0 s z 0 a W + 1.5 W W I v)

n - W t- 0 1.0 0 a n.

- W

0.5

r

.2

I 10.9

SOYBEANS /

L -

O

CONTINUOUS CORN

--- . I 10 20

TRIBUTARY OF MIDDLE THAMES RIVE 1.7 tonslacrelyear

RANGE IN SOIL LOSSES CAUSED BY DIFFERENT SOIL FACTORS K I AND PHYSIOGRAfHIC \ FACTORS LS.

CORN IN ROTATION MEADOW IN ROTATION I 1 c

40 50 GO 70 80 90 100 I I I I I I I

30 % AREA OF WATERSHED

Figura (j. Potential Sheet Erosion Losses - Agricultural Watershed No. 5 Tributary of Middle Thamcs River

I1 - 11

a

w c

a z

vj

w

w c

-

I I

I I

1 I

I I

0

L" 0

9

R (u

2

7

c

9

L" m

0

-0

c

-0

cia

.o co

.O

h

3:

v)

W c a

a 3. iz 0

a a

OQ

-8

L

w

0

M

3

N

2 3

(0

z 0

I1 - 12

?

m

a

u

>

- a a Y

v)

a a a

2 a (3

I I

(HV

3A/3H

3W/S

NO

l) S3SSOl N

OISO

H3 133H

S C

J3131Q3tld

t

3.5 - a

>. . 3.0 a

5 W

\ 2 2 0 I- 2.5 - v) W v) v)

9 z 2.0 0 v) 0 a I- 1.5 W

W W

5 t; 1.0 n

n

W

- W LT n

0.5

0

c A

rn z

m B

0

1

I I I

I z z o

BOYLE DRAIN 1.4 tonslacretyear

RANGE IN SOIL LOSSES CAUSED BY DIFFERENT SOIL FACTORS K AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC FACTORS I LS.

SMALL GRAINS IN ROTATION <&

4b rjr0 -I

30

I MEADOW IN ROTATION

H H

I

w W

WOODLAND T

% AREA OF WATERSHED

3.0

tx w t a

2.5 a u v) z a \

c P 2.0 v) u VY v) s * 1.5 0 a c 1.0 w

W w I v)

E & 0.5 - n w K a.

0

1 MEADOW IN ROTATION

0

WOOD LAND PERMANENT PASTURE r

b I

CORN IN ROTATl ON

I 10

4- SMALL GRAINS

u

NORTH CREEK BRANCH OF 20 MILE CREEK .5 tons/acre/year

RANGE IN SOIL LOSSES CAUSED BY DIFFERENT SOIL FACTORS K AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC FACTORS LS.

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% AREA OF WATERSHED

W W

I

c.l P

Figure 10. Potential Sheet Erosion Losses - Agricultural Watershed No. 10 North Creek Branch of 20 Mile Creek

Z!

.?

CO

RN

IN

RO

TATI

ON

t PR

EDIC

TED

SHE

ET E

RO

SIO

N L

OSS

ES (

TQN

S/A

CR

E/YE

AR

) F

!Q

W

0

P

P

-.

-.

P

I 1

I I

I I

I 1

1

b )'

'0 C

ON

TIN

UO

US

CO

RN

b

oo

HO

RTI

CU

LTU

RA

L RA

W C

ROPS

I

bp

3

I W

INTE

R W

HEA

T I

I I

h)

4

5

m

v,

4

I

cc

P m m 2 e rn

30 E; 5 I- CJ n

rn -

3.5-

3.0 - 1 a a W >- 2 2.5- u a v) 2

\

\

- E 2.0- v) W v) v)

1.5- E! P w t; 1.0

I- o 0.5 n W K

0

SMALL GRAINS

"WILTON CREEK 0.6" tons/acre/year

RANGE IN SOIL LOSSES CAUSED BY DIFFERENT SOIL FACTORS K AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC FACTORS LS I

MEADOW IN ROTATION

I # I 20 30 40

PERMANENT PASTURE

T I L-1 WOODLAND

T 1 I I I I

-.I I i

50 60 70 80 90 100

% AREA OF WATERSHED

Figure 12. Potential Sheet Erosion Losses - Agricultural Watershed NO. 12 Wilton Creek

G. 1 5.5 4.7 4.4 4.1

HILLMAN CREEK (ESSEX CO.) 2.0 tons/acre/year

3.5.

- a 5 ). . 3.0 a a w 0

v) 2 \

2 2.5

!i s

P

- v)

2.0 z 0

w

w w + 1.5

% z I- 1.0 0 n a n W

0.5

0

- RANGE IN SOIL LOSSES CAUSED BY DIFFERENT SOIL FACTORS K AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC FRACTORS LS.

H H

I

3 2 P a I-0 z w 8

0 a I- I- B

FRUITTREES I-

I a e SMALL GRAINS

IN ROTATION , CORN IN ROTATION SOYBEANS I \ rN D -

30 40 I

10 I

20 50 60 80 90 100 0 % AREA OF WATERSHED

Figure 13. Potential Sheet Erosion Losses - Agricultural Watershed No. 13 Hillman Creek (Essex Co.)

3.0.

0: Q W > $ 2.5. \

0

v) z 0

a

5 2.0

2 3 2 2 $ 1.0

E

s:

\

v) LLJ

1.5

v)

Lu

Lu z v)

6 0.5 - n w

a

- MEADOW IN ROTATION

0

-r

WOODLAND PERMANENT PASTURE - I

1

- Z 0 Z $ I-

0 , a

lb

LITTLE MILL CREEK 0.4 tonslacrelyear

RANGE IN SOIL LOSSES CAUSED BY DIFFERENT SOIL FACTORS K T AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC FACTORS

1 Ls*

% AREA OF WATERSHED

Figure 14, Potential Sheet Erosion Losses- Agricultural Watershed No. 14 Little Mill Creek

11 - 19

Y

w

w u

a

>

0: w

w

A

t- A

a

7

k

TABLE z SHEET EROSION I N D I C I E S FOR AGRICULTURAL WATERSHEDS INVESTIGATED

Erosion C I ass Watershed Erosion Index Number Name tons/acre/yr .

7

1 *

13*

3"

5*

6

15

8

1 1

4*

2

12

1 o* 14

Ganaraska River

B ig Creek (Essex)

H i 1 lman Creek

L i t t l e Ausable

Middle Thames T r ibu ta ry

Teeswater River

L i t t l e Je r ry Creek

Boyle Dra in

West Humber ( W i l d f l e l d )

Canagagigue Creek

North Branch North Creek

Wi l ton Creek

North Creek 20 M i l e Creek .

L i t t l e M i l l Creek

2.9 I 2.0

-High

1.9 . I 1.7 1 1.6

1.5

1 .4

ed i urn .. 1 . 3 I 0.9 .-I 0.7

0.6

0.5

+7 Low

0.4 I

*Watershed Included i n d e t a l l ed s tudy phase

U u I

h) 0

I1 - 21 REFERENCES CITED

1. Coote, D.R., MacDonald, E.M. and G.J. Wall. 1974. Agricultural Land Uses, Livestock and Soils of the Canadian Great Lakes Basin. Combined Report of the Activities of the Engineering Research Service and the Soil Research Institute as Part of Agriculture Canada's Contribution to the Implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

2 . Wischmeier, W.H. and D.D. Smith. 1965. Predicting rainfall-erosion losses from cropland east of the Rocky Mountains. Agricultural Handbook No. 282, A.R.S., U.S.D.A.

3 . Wischmeier, W.H., Johnson, C.B. and B.V. Cross. 1971. A soil erodibility nomograph for farmland and construction sites. J. Soil and Water Conservation 26:189-193.

I1 - 22

SECTION I11

REPORT ON CHECK LABORATORY ACTIVITIES, 1974-75,

Harrow Research Station, Agriculture Canada

J. M. Fulton

Harrow Research Station

Agriculture Canada

Ana lyses R. J. Walker

Analytical Methodology (Heavy Metals) J. D. Gaynor

Statistical Evaluation V. Am Dirks

I11 - 2

INTRODUCTION

The primary responsibility of the Harrow Research Station, in support of the preliminary phase of the Canada Task C Agricultural Watershed Study 1 9 7 4 / 7 5 , was: (1) to collect water samples from the outlet of sub-watershed No.1, Big Creek tributary of the Thames River and sub-watershed No.13 the Northeast Branch of the Hillman Creek and (2 ) to act as a major "check11 laboratory by utilizing an established capacity for analyses of nutrients and minerals and by developing a capability for heavy metal analyses. These responsibilities were discharged as fully as possible considering time constraints imposed by the starting dates and the logistics of establishing communications among a large number of people involved directly or indirectly. Some items of equipment, decisions on sampling techniques and analytical parameters were not available until late in 1974. Nevertheless almost all of the original objectives were achieved and the project was valuable. summary and evaluation of activities of the Harrow programne follows. evaluation of the data collected as part of the %heck1' programme was also carried out by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. in support and amplification of this summary.

A brief An

Comments were prepared (See Appended Comments).

DISCUSSION

Sample Collection and Distribution. of sub-watersheds designated AG-1 and AG-13 beginning in March 1974 and continuing to the present time. Appropriate samples were forwarded as required to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment in Toronto, to the Pesticide Laboratory at Guelph, to the Agriculture Canada Research Institute at London and to the Public Health Laboratory in Windsor. The frequency of samples retained for analyses at ?arrow exceeded that originally suggested. Both AG-1 and AG-13 dried up in July. Nc sanples were collected from AG-1 between July 17 and December 30 when flow resumed at that site. Examination of AG-13 during the summer established that the site selected on the Northeast Branch of Hillman Creek was not satisfactory from a hydrologic standpoint and a new site was selected on the Southwest Branch of the Hillman. Water flow at the new site was adequate for sample collection so that sample collection for AG-13 was renewed on September 30. The Harrow Laboratory received six to eight samples each from watersheds 2, 2M, 15, 15M and 16. The increased frequency of sample retention at Harrow coupled with the reduction in sample numbers resulting from lack of flow during the summer balanced out so that the total number of samples retained at Harrow for analyses approximated that originally anticipated.

Water samples were collected at the outlet

Hydrological instrumentation of AG-1 and AG-13 by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment was incomplete and it is our understanding that little flow data is available for these two watersheds.

I11 - 3

Methods were developed for the heavy metals; copper, zinc, lead, cadmium, iron, aluminum and chromium. Methods for the first five metals listed are operational but instrumental and technical problems remain for aluminum and chromium. Thus the responsibility to develop a capacity to analyze heavy metals has been achieved. These methods will be put to use in Phase I1 during 1975-76.

Analytical methods for total nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, total phosphorus, soluble reactive (ortho) phosphate, calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium were adapted to or developed for the analyses of water samples. All samples collected from AG-1 and 13 along with those submitted to us from AG-2, 2M, 15, 15M and 16 have been analyzed for eaah of the above parameters. presented in Tables 1 to 4.

These data are

Data for all parameters measured at the Harrow Laboratory were compared w i t h i the appropriate data generated by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment for all water samples collected or submitted to Harrow prior to December 31, 1974. Total nitrogen at Harrow was measured in a Kjeldahl procedure which involved a nitrate reduction step and therefore is a measure of the total nitrogen. method used by M.O.E. does not involve reduction so that total nitrogen for the M.O.E. samples was calculated as the sum of their Kjeldahl, nitrite and nitrate determinations. The analytical procedures used by the two laboratories are generally quite different in that Harrow methods were "standard" manual techniques and M.O.E. methods are generally automated. Tables 5, 6, and 7 present comparative data for: total nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, total phosphorus, soluble reactive (ortho), phosphate, calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium. Observation of the comparative data suggests good agreement between the two laboratories. to provide an objective measure af the degree of agreement the paired data was subjected to analyses of variance and correlation analyses. statistical evaluation of the datla follows:

The Kjeldahl

In order

The results of this

Parameter Correlation F Value Mea s ure d r. Observed Req'd. P.05 Req'd. P.01 Parameter C !ue Mea s ure d r. Observed Req'd. P.05 Req'd. P.01

Total N

NO3 -N

Total P

Soluble P

Calcium

Magne s i urn

Pot as si um

Sodium

0.87

0.92

0.83

0.72

0.88

0.90

0.82

0.88

0.32

0.40

0.20

0.91

0.39

54.16

1.19

1.10

4.05

4.07

4.03

4.05

4.06

4.07

4.07

4.07

7.21

7.27

7.17

7.21

7.24

7.27

7.27

7.27

'*A11 the analytical work in this project was conducted by Dr. R.J. Walker and his assistant with advice from Dr. J.D. Gaynor.

Table 1. Water Quality Analyses (PLUARG) - Research S ta t ion , Harrow, O n t . Watershed Number 1, 1974

All da ta Mg/l Total Total

SS;:P Sol P P ca Mg Na K sup. Total NO3

Date Solid N N 15/3/ 74 22/3 31 4 10/4 19/4 24/4 9/5 15/5 23/5 29/5 5/6 12/6 25/6 3/ 7 10/7 17/7

Av

2 13 41 49 0 0

109 529

0 0 2 9

12 17 1

4 27 80.7

7.6 6.4 8.7 7.9 5.1 5.2

15.0 10.5 7.2 3.5 0.9 1.2 2.0

10.7 1.6 1.9 5.9

6.9 5.5 7.3 7.6 4.6 4.0

12.8 7.0 3.6 1.5

*41 .5 *&1.5 "41 .5

9.6 *&1.5 "41 .5

4.9

.038

.040

.046

.053

.015

.015

.225

.118 q . 0 1 5 %. 015 y . 0 1 5 *(. 015 *<. 015

W. 015 3 . 0 1 5

.043

. lo6 ,059 .067 .074 .053 .055 .4ia .216 .055 . om .ooo . 000 .044 .118 .038 .023 .lo2

. lo5

.095

.162

.095

.067

.025

.480

.760

.043

.@?I

.023

.014

.028

.628

.066

.056

.129

84 93 74 77 85 89 68 61 84 73 63 65 57 59 59 63

23 25 19 19 27 27 14 14 26 2? 28 33 26 13 21 25

7 9 6 5

14 12

5 6

10 13 19 23 17 6

16 21

5 5 4 4 6 6 5 5 5 4 3 3 I+

H H

4 I

5 P

4 5

Table 2. Water Quality Analyses (PLUARG) - Research Station, Harrow, Ont. All data Mg/l

so 1

p04 Sol P P Ca Ms Na Date Solid N N I( Total Total N03 susp. Total

18/4/74 2/5 16/5 4/6 9/7 16/7 20/8

19/4 215 16/5 4/6 9/ 7 16/7 20/8

4 4 3 5 0 4 0

37 13 33 29 5 -

20

3.4 3.6 2.1 1.7 1.5 2.9 1.5

3.2 3.0 2.5 1.6 2.0 -

1.5

2.0 1.0 2.0 0.5 0.5 1.9 0.8

1.5 0.6 1.2 0.7 1.1 - 0.9

Watershed #2 .06O .077

*4.015 . 038 *4.015 .053 K O 1 5 .022 *I. 015 020 *(.015 037 *L. 015 019

Watershed #2M Y.015 .034 *<. 01 5 .016

-026 .030 q.015 .038 *(. 015 . 028

- - *<.015 .024

.035

.030

.016

.063

. 044 043

.015

.080

.067

.090

.057 070 -

.036

97 89 96 84 84 84 87

90 86 78 83 84 - 74

12 12 12 11 11 14 11

12 12 10 12 12 - 12

6 6 7 6 6 7 7

5 6 5 6 7 - 7

3 4 3 3 4 3 2

3 3 2 2 cn

2

H H H 1

- 4

Table 3. \dater Quality Analyses (PLUARG) - Research S ta t ion , Harrod, O n t . Watershed Number 13, 1974

All data Mg/l Total Total

Pa;! P Sol P P Ca M CJ K2 K susp. To t a l NO3

- rl3 1 (1 Sol ids N N 15/3/74 22 /3 31 4- 10/4- i9 14- 24/4- 9/5- 15 /5- 23/5- 2$/5- 5/ 6- 12/6- 19/6 2 5/ 6- 3 j 7 - 10/7- 171 7- 30/9** 71 10 15/10- 22/10- 2G/10- 4/11 12/11- lS/ 11- 25/11- 61 12- 11/12- 16/12 2 3 12- 30/12-

AV

8 2

10 8

10 11 72

239 142 79

109 88

143 76

239 63 76 29 6

22 21 17 15 28 12 19

4 18 83

2 41

10.4 10.5 11.7 10.7 9.3 8.5

14.0 11.2 8.9 3.7 5.2 3.4 5.8 5.7

15.1 6.5 3.1 4.9 7.0 4.2 2.3 2.8 4.6 6.1 4.8 5.0 7.3

11.2 17.8 13.4 15.7

54.6 8.1

9.3 9.0 9.6 9.9 8.2 7.3

13.0 9.3 7 . 0 5.5 4.7 2.4 5.2 3.4

13.8 5.6 0.7 1.3 6.4 1.4 2.5 1.9 1.6 2.7 3.6 4.5 4.8

11.3 15.3 12.3 13.2 6.7

.045

.035

.044

.043

.074

.061

.350

.076 *<. 01 5

.090 *&015

.046

.018

.025

.133 ,103

q . 0 1 5 .017

* t o 1 5 .018

*4.015 .016 .119 .018

-015 *<.015

.028 *c 015 *GO15 *<. 01 5 *<. 015

.049

.065

.059 ,036 .095 .115 .088 , 476 .190 .076 .338 .lo6 .135 .141 .160 .252 .070 .lo8 .462 .192 .262 .049 -067 .427 .196 .198 .196 .460 .112 . lo4 .166 . 145 .924

, 075 .060 .084 .095 ,182 .098 .532 .440 .204 .656 .316 .167 .289 .222 .616 .279 .231 ,510 .231 .400 .132 .150 .745 .430 .276 .244 .315 .164 .181 w 120 159 . 278

86 86 87 87 86 91 83 82

101 91 91 94 87 91 74 98 77

12 1 133 118 131 12 6 88

112 123 12 1 120 126 119 135 112

25 18 17 17 19 19 15 15 20 19 18 19 18 18 13 19 19 14 16 14 14 14 11 14 14 15 17 18 19 19 18

6 7 7 8 9

13 9 6 9

14 12 15 12 15 6

15 1 3 16 32 16 12 14 17 18 13 15 18 15 16 15 12

5 5 6 7 8

9 6 8 8

8

-

- - - 7 8 9

20 10 21

9 9

21 13 9

IC 13 10 10 8 - 8

102 5 16.9 12.4 9.8

Pi H H

I

m

** New s i t e on South West Branch o f Hillman

Table 4. \ l a t e r Quzli t y Analyses (PLUh!!G j - Research S t a t i o n , Harrw, C n t . All d a t a Mg/l

Sol Susp. Total NO3 PC4-P Tota l Total

Date Sol i d s N N Sol p P Ca M 9 ?! 5 K

18/4/74 2/ 5/ 74 16/5 41 6 91 7 2018

P.v

18/41 74 2/5 1615 4/ 6 91 7 20/5

A V

19/4/ 74 3/5 1215 1715 2416 IO/5

Av

18 8

27 5 4 1

10.5

40 26

129 12 32 39 46.3

10 42

711 11 4 1

130

2.5 2.9 4.9 3.2 4.7 1.8 3.3

3.8 2.1 4.7 2.1 2.1 1.7 2.8

6.5 8.4

21.8 7.9 6.1 4.4 9.2

3.2 1.6 3 .O 2.1 4.0 1.2 2.5

2.4 1.5 2.1

.6 1.7 0.8 1.5

5.7 5.8

14.6 5.5 3.7 3.5 6.5

Watershed h'15 .035 .053 .056

*LO15 *c 01 .034 .033 .024 ,194

j;c 015 .036 .030 *GO15 .024 ,060

.021 .027 .066 *<. 015 *<. 015 .020

b!atershed #15M "(. 015 .024 .079

.020 .038 .077 -068 .094 .078

*<.015 .032 .041 *<.015 .028 .069 %. 015 .029 .113

.025 .041 .076 tlatershed #16

.020 .034 .055

.158 .558 .292

.760 .666 -

.84 .298 .722

.026 .067 .116

.021 .067 .059

.304 1.7 .249

83 80 72 85 90 67 79.5

87 72 76 80 75 68 76.3

112 100 56 77

145 99 98.2

12 11

9 11 11 11 10.8

12 12 10 13 13 12 12

28 25 13 18 31 31 24.3

7 2 7 5 6 3 8 2 6 2 9 3 7.2 2.8

8 3 9 2 7 3 9 2 9 2 9 2 8.5 2.3

31 7 22 10 10 3 16 7 - 32 8 35 19 24.3 7.5

H H H

I

4

I11 - 8

Comparison o f Water Qual i t y Analyses -- Research S ta t ion , Canada Agriculture, Harrow, Ont. and Ont. Minis t ry o f Environment, Toronto

~~

Agricu l tura l Watersheds(PLUARG) No. 1, 2, 13, 15, 16 N IT ROG E N Table 5

Total ' N( MO E) Ni t ra t e - N

Date Harrow ( U e l d a h l + NO3+ NO2) Harrcw MOE Total N

10/4 19/4 2414 91 5 15/5 2315 29/5 12/6 1916 3/ 7 10/7 17/7 22/ 10 28/ 10 12/ 11 18/11 25/11 6/ 12 11/12 16/12 23/12 30112 314 19/4 24/4

10.7 9.3 8.5

14.0 11.2 8.9 3.7 3.4 5.8

15.1 6.5 3.1 2.3 2.8 6.1 4.8 5.0 7.3

11.2 17.8 13.4 15.7 8.7 5.1 5.2

10.7 8.8 8.3

14.9 11.5 7.8 6.9 3.4 5.9

15.7 6.6 2.8 3.3 3.6 6.1 5.1 5.6 6.6

10.5 19.0 13.6 15.8 8.1 5.6 5.1

9.9 8.2 7.3

13.0 9.3 7.8 5.5 2.4 5.2

13.8 5.6 0.7 2.5 1.9 2.7 3.6 4.5 4.8

11.3 15.3 12.3 13.2 7.3 4.6 4.0

10.0 7.7 7.7

13.0 10.0 6.6 5.6 1.9 4.7

14.0 5.5 0.8 2.2

2.7 3.6 4.6 5.3 9.7

18.0 13.0 15.0 7.3 4.6 4.5

2. a

9/5 15/5 2 3/5 29/5 3/7

15.0 10.5 7.2 3.5

10.7

16.9 9.5 4.4 2.3

11.7

12.8 14.0 7.0 7.1 3.6 3.5 1.5 1.5 9.6 9.3

111 - 9

Table 5 - CONTINUED

Total N(MOE) N i t ra te - N

Date Harmw (Qeldahl + NO3+ NO21 Harrw MOE Total N

1814 2/5 16/5 41 6 9/7 1814 215 1615 41 6 917 1914 315 1215 1715 24/6 10/5

3.4 3.6 2.1 1.7 1.5 2.5 2.9 4.9 3.2 4.7 6.5 8.4

21.8 7.9 6.1 4.4

.4

. 4 1.8 1.3 1.15 0.5 0.5 5 .O 5.2 4.0 7.7 5.1

12.0 9.2 5.0

13.5

2 .o 1.0 2.0 0.5 0.5 3.2 1.6 3.0 2.1 4.0 5.7 5.8

14.6 5.5 3..7 3.5

-- 1.2 0.8 0.7 -- -- 3.7 4.7 3.5 6.9 3.8 7.3 6.8 4.0 9.5

Comparison o f Water Quality Analyses -- Research Station, Canada Agriculture, Harrow, Ont. and the Ont. Ministry o f the Environment (M.O.E.) 1974

Agricultural Watersheds(PLUARG) No. 1, 2, 13, 15, 16 Table 6 PHOSPHORUS AND CALCIUM

Total P Soluble P Cal c i um Date Narrow M.O.E. harrow M.O. E. Harrow M. O.E.

31 41 74 1014 19/4 2414 915 1515 2315 29 15 51 6 1216 1916 2516 3/ 7 101 7 1717 151 10 22/10 28/10 12/11 18/11 25/11 6/ 12 11/12 16/12 23/12 30112 3/4 1014 1914 24/4

.084

.095

.182

.098

.532 ,440 .204 , 656 , 316 .167 ,289 .222 , 616 .279 ,231 , 400 .132 .150 , 430 , 276 , 244 .315 , 164 . lo4 .166 .145 , 162 .095 ,067 ,025

,076 ,086 .150 ,073 .500 , 430 .075 , 290 --

.270

.250

.250 ,530 .270 ,250

.170

.150

.570 210

,260 ,310 , 150 .300 .110 .160 .140

--

-- . l l O .030

.044

.043 ,074 ,061 , 350 ,076 .015 , 090 ,015 , 046 .018 .025 .133 , 103 ,015 .018 .015 .016 .018 ,015 ,015 , 028 .015 .015 .015 .015 .046 .053 .015 .015

.032 , 034 .072 .002 .340 .083 , 042 .047 --

,079 ,075 ,030 ,220 .loo -- --

.062

.060

.340 , 120 ,080 ,230 082 .080 .081 .067 , 065 -- .023 .002

87 87 86 91 83 82

101 91 91 94 87 91 74 98 77

118 131 126 112 123 12 1 120 126 119 135 112 74 77 85 89

-- 96 92 -- 83 43 99 49 -- 94 88 -- 78

108 74

133 00

131 108 130 125 --

120 124 140 115 -- -- 88 --

I11 - 11

T a b l e 6 - CCNTTNUED

Total P Soluble P Cal c i urn Date Rarrw Harrow harrow

9 /5 15/5 23/5 29/5 5/6 12/6 25/6 3/ 7 10/7 17/7 18/4 2/ 5 16/5 4 1 6 9/ 7 16/7 1814 2/5 16/5 4/6 9/7 19/4 3/5 12/ 5 17/5 24/6 10/5

480 .760 .043 0021 .023 -014 ,028 .628 066 056

.035 030

-016 .063 -044 .043 056

.a34 194

.030 -060 .055 .292 -- .722 .116 ,059

.680

.650

.030 ,027 .025 .021 -030 .270 ,036 --

-023 .038 -027 .017 .054 -- .054 -030 230 031 ,039 130

.070 1.600 '

.700 1.100 .480

.225

.118

.015 -015 .015 015

-015 -- .015 .015 .060 -015 015

-015 -015 ,015 .035 .015 033 015

.015 020

-158 .760 840

-026 .021

370 -240 .009 .002 .003 .002 001 120 .005 -- -- --

e 004 . 001 0019 -- -- -- .060 .006 .016 006 015 .590 e 320 033 270

68 61 84 73 63 65 57 59 59 63 97 89 96 84 84 84 83 80 72 85 90

112 100 56 77

145 99

74 36 93 86 64 70

74 61

--

-- 89 88 92 87 86 -- 06 82 77 82 90

115 110 66 86

142 112

:[I1 - 12

Comparison o f Water Qua l i ty Analyses -- Research Station, Canada Agriculture, Harrow, Ont. and the Ont. Mln ist ry o f the Environment (M.O.E.) 1974

Agricultural Watersheds(PLUARG) No. 1, 2, 13, 15, 16 MAGNESIUM, SODIUM AND POTASSIUM Table 7

Magnesium Sod1 um Potass i urn Date barrow M . 0 . E. N~arrow . . . Rarrow

1014 1914 91 5 1515 2315 291 5 1216 1916 31 7 101 7 17/7 15/10 22/10 28/10 12/11 18/11 25/11 6/12 11/12 16/ 12 2 3/ 12 30/12 314 10/4

17 19 15 15 20 19 19 18 13 19 19 14 14 14 14 14 15 17 18 19 19 18 19 19

24 22 20 19 17 23 24 25 17 19 22 17 -- 18 23 18 14

34 22 24 23

--

--

8 9 9 6 9

14 15 12 6

15 13 16 12 14 18 13 15 18 15 16 15 12

6 5

11 13 8 8 8

11 18 19 7

14 18 -- 12 14 18 13 15 -- 15 12 15 12

7.0 7.1 8.0 6.4 9.0 9.4 6.0 6.1 8.0 6.1 8.0 6.3 8.0 8.2 -- 1.4 7.0 7.6 8.0 7.9 9.0 13.0

21.0 -- 9.0 11 .o 9.0 11.0

13.0 17 9.0 12

10.0 10.0 13.0 -_ 10.0 8.4 10 8.1 8 ' 8 8 6.5 4 4

_- --

19/4 241 4 915 151 5 2315 2915 5/ 6

27 29 14 15 6 3.4 27 -- 12

14 17 6 8 5 4.5 26 33 10 6 5 1.1 27 35 13 15 4 1.5 28 37 19 19 3 0.6

-- 6 -- 14 17 5 8 5 2.7

III - 13

Table 7 - CONTINUED

Sodi urn Potassi urn Date ii&Fi%- Harrow M .O. E . harrow 12/6 25/6

3/7 10/7 17/7 18/4 2 /5 16/5 4/ 6 9/7 16/7 18/4 2/ 5 16/5 4/6 9/7 1914 3/ 5 12/5 17/5 24/6 10/5

33 26 13 21 25 12 12 12 11 I1 14 12 11 9 11 11 28 25 13 18 31 31

39

14 29

--

-- -- 13 11 13 12 -- -- -- 12 15 13 35 41 16 21 39 31

23 17 6 16 21 6 6 7 6 6 7 7 7 6 8 6 31 22 10 16 32 35

24 -- 9.0 18 -- 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 --

-- 7 6 5 7 -- 31 36 11 15 35 24

3 4 5 4 5 3 4 3 3 4 3 2 5 3 2 2 7 10 3 7 8 10

1.5

5.7 3.6

--

-- 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.4 -- -- 1.9 1.7 2.5 1.9

5.7 7.6 12.0 0.7

< --

a. 4 8.6

111 - 14

The F values calculated in the analyses of variance show that, except for magnesium, both laboratories found the same level of! the various quality parameters in this group of water samples. that both laboratories detected changing levels of all parameters in a similar way. In the case of magnesium the M.O.E. labocatory measured consistently higher values. The mean value of magnesium measured at M.O.E. was about four Mg/l higher than at Harrow. f o r magnesium multiplied by 1.22 equals M.O.E. values.

The highly significant correlation coefficients indicate

The regression coefficient for magnesium was 1.22 so that Harrow values

These statistical comparisons demonstrate conclusively that the analysis of a group of water samples of this size and containing the range of element levels found here could be assigned to either lgboratory with essentially identical results (magnesium excepted). This fact is espedially reassuring knowing that widely divergent methods were employed and there was no data comparison until all data had been collected.

The excellent agreement between the two laboratories with respect to total N and nitrate N is especially gratifying because the total N for M.O.E. was the sum of three individual determinations, giving rise to three possible sources of error and the nitrate nitrogen at Harrow was done by a colormetric method using phenol disulfonic acid. The phenol disulfonic acid method has proven to produce results equivalent to the automated methods employed by M.O.E. To add confidence in the Harrow data for phosphorus the following analysis of standard samples supplied by the United States Environmental Protection Agency is presented:

Total Phosphorus P04-P

standard value Harrow value

0.713 Mg/l 0.721

0.142 0.150

standard value Harrow value

0.021 0.023

0.393 0.395

A Word of Caution. the two laboratories applied to a population of samples of the size and concen-

The excellent agreement obtained in the analyses conducted by

tration ranges found in- the samples actually analyzed. The expected deviation between the two laboratories would be greater if a single sample were submitted to the two laboratories. The deviations to be expected (statistical) on a single sample selected at random submitted to the two laboratories is presented in Table 8. Even on the basis of a single sample the expected agreement is reasonably good but it would be illogical to look for identical results on any one sample and unwise to base important decisions on a single sample.

I11 - 15 Table 8. Expected standard deviations based on analyses o f a single sample

selected a t random

Total N Nitrate - N Concentration Mgll Concentration Mg/l

0.4 21.8 7.2 1.70 0.5 18.0 6.3 1.22 3.7 21.8 10.7 2.14 0.5 5.3 3.1 0.59

kin. Max . Mean Min. Max. Mean

10.7 21.8 13.8 3.03 0.4 8.4 3.7 1.00

5.5 0.5

18.0 9.6 1.65 2.8" 1.8 0.33

0.4 3.6 2.3 0.99 3.0 10.0 5.7 1.29 3.7 11.2 6.6 0.98 7.3 18.0 11.9 1.44

Total P Soluble P Concentration Mg/l Concentration Mg/l

Min. Max. Mean S.D. Min. Max. Mean 0.014 0.760 0.201 0.0182 0.002 0.840 0.141 0% 0.014 0.292 0.063 0 . 039 0.002 0.350 0.045 0.036 0.104 0.760 0.337 0.110 0.046 0.840 0.246 0.155 0.270* 0.760 0.476 0.159 0.016 0.270 0.084 0.057 0.014 0.066 0.030 0.012 0.030 0.289 0.152 0.044 - .

Calcium Concentration Mg/l

Min. Max . Mean S.D. 36 145 92 8.0

Potassium Concentration Mg/l

Min. Max. Mean S.D. 0 17 6.2 1.6

Magnesi m Concentration Mg/l

Min. M a x . Mean S.D. 9 41 20 2.7

Sodl um . Concentration Mg/l

Min. , M a x . Mean 5 36 13.2 2.5

*One value omit ted i n the comparison

III - 16

coNcLusIoNs

1. The Harrow and M.O.E. Laboratories obtained excellent agreement in their analyses for total nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, total phosphorus, soluble phosphorus, calcium, potassium and sodium.

2. The M.O.E. values for magnesium were consistently 1.22 times the Harrow values.

3 . The analyses of a group of water samples of this size (number of samples) containing the range of elements fourld can be analyzed by either laboratory with essentially equal results.

4. Widely divergent methods employed by competent analysts can produce comparable results.

I11 - 17

SECTION 111

APPENPED COMMENTS

--- . _. . ____^_I - . -

Ontario

111 - 18

Ministry of the Environment

135 St. Clair Avenue West

Suite 100

Toronto Ontario M4V 1P5

248-3064-65

Apr i l 10, 1975

MEMORANDUM:

TO: D r . J. M. Ful ton, Research S t a t i o n , Agr i cu l tu re Canada, H a r r o w , Ontar io

FR0M:D. E. King, Q u a l i t y Assurance O f f i c e r , D r . F. P. Dieken, I . J . C . Projects S c i e n t i s t

€E: COMPATABILITY O F M.O.E. AND HARROW DATA FOR 1974.

W e were p leased to receive a copy of your p rogres s r e p o r t t o PLUARG Task C Technical CommSttee. W e have n o t o f t e n been r e c i p i e n t s o f data eva lua t ions of t h i s type i n t h e p a s t and w e w e l c o m e t he oppor tun i ty t o p r e s e n t o u r own eva lua t ion i n suppor t and a m p l i f i c a t i o n of your assessment.

You make it clear i n t h e r e p o r t t h a t compatabi l i ty appears t o e x i s t on t h e average b u t t h a t ' l i t would be i l l o g i c a l t o look f o r i d e n t i c a l r e s u l t s on any one sample and unwise t o base important d e c i s i o n s on a s i n g l e sample". While w e agree i n general with such a statement, specific projects wi th in t h e PLUARG program r e q u i r e t h a t i n d i v i d u a l r e s u l t s w i l l be bo th as p r e c i s e and as accura t e as p o s s i b l e t o ensure i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t r e n d s both now and i n the fu tu re .

Our eva lua t ion summarized i s t h a t

n i t r a t e i n t e r c a l i b r a t i o n i s q u i t e good and probably excellent cons ide r ing t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s associated w i t h t h e manual phenol-disulphonic acid proaedure.

t h e good c o r r e l a t i o n between H a r r o w (To ta l N ) and MOE (Total Kjeldahl N p l u s Ni t ra te p lus N i t r i t e ) d a t a i s due e n t i r e l y t o t h e high propor t ion of N i t r a t e p r e s e n t i.e. t h e H a r r o w Total N procedure i n fac t recovers n i t r a t e s . This i s born o u t in a p l o t of Harrow To ta l N v s H a r r o w Nitrate data. On t h e o t h e r hand,

t h e c o r r e l a t i o n between Harrow (Total N minus Nitrate) and MOE (To ta l Kje ldahl N ) i s no t gciod because of t h e low level of

111 - 19

"TKN" presen t . Since Organic Nitrogen i s l i s t e d as one of t h e core parameters, Harrow's d a t a could n o t be used t o c a l c u l a t e t h i s parameter with any p rec i s ion .

d) there i s no c o r r e l a t i o n between l a b o r a t o r i e s f o r t h e F i l t e r e d React ive Phosphate d a t a .

e) Total Phosphorus c a l i b r a t i o n i n t h e range of 0.10 t o 0.80 mg/l appears t o 'be compatible provided t h e s c a t t e r could be reduced. B e l o w 0.10 m g / l H a r r o w d a t a appears t o be c a l i b r a t e d high by about 30% compensated by a blank of -0 .01 mg/l.

f) C a l c i u m c a l i b r a t i o n s lope is compatible b u t H a r r o w r e s u l t s are lower than MOE by about 5 mg/l, a r e l a t i v e l y n e g l i g i b l e amount i n t h e range of i n t e r e s t i .e. 50 t o 150 mg/l.

g)Magnesium r e s u l t s from MOE are about 20% h ighe r than Harrow d a t a . This may be r e l a t e d t o t h e MOE procedure which determines Mg by d i f f e r e n c e from Hardness and Calcium d a t a by EDTA t i t r a t i o n al though a t t h e 30 mg/l level, errors of +6 m g / l would n o t be expected.

h) Sodium and Potassium cornplatability between l a b o r a t o r i e s i s a f f e c t e d by t h e r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e scatter due t o l ack of p r e c i s i o n . performance between labs.

.

Fur ther s tudy i n each l a b may improve t h e

The above remarks are hased on l i n e a r r e g r e s s i o n as shown i n t h e a t t a c h e d f i g u r e s . c a l i b r a t i o n between laborataries cannot be i d e n t i f i e d by t h e s e p l o t s . purpose.

compatabi l i ty of t h e t w o l a b o r a t o r i e s ' procedures. The d a t a w a s screened so t h a t t h e c i r c l e d p o i n t s w e r e n o t included i n determining t h e s lope and i n t e r c e p t by l i n e a r r eg res s ion . inclusion of such points would have obscured t h e conclus ions t o be drawn concerning t h e i n t e r l a b o r a t o r y c a l i b r a t i o n .

Linear r e g r e s s i o n assumes t h a t scatter i s e n t i r e l y due t o v a r i a b i l i t y i n t h e dependent v a r i a b l e . v a r i a b l e is p l o t t e d along t h e X-axis. i s no s, p r i o r i reason t o as$ume t h a t e i t h e r MOE o r H a r r o w d a t a i s error f r e e o r , on t h e o t h e r hand, i s t h e sole source of t h e observed scatter. Therefore, t w o r eg res s ion l i n e s can be c a l c u l a t e d which r e p r e s e n t t h e extremes of s l o p e and i n t e r c e p t r e l a t i n g t h e t w o sets of da t a .

The source of observed d e v i a t i o n i n

Other sources of information would be r equ i r ed f o r t h i s

The graphs a t t ached were p l o t t e d t o c l a r i f y t h e c a l i b r a t i o n

Obviously

I n p r a c t i c e t h e independent I n t h e p r e s e n t case t h e r e

I n every c a s e t h e l i n e of l o w e r s lope i s obta ined by assuming t h a t t h e Y data is t h e s o l e source of scatter i.e. r e g r e s s i o n oE Y on X. The l i n e of g r e a t e r s l o p e i s obta ined by assuming t h a t t h e X d a t a is t h e sole source of e r r o r i .e. r eg res s ion of x on Y . T h e angle between t h e t w o l i n e s is d i r e c t l y related t G t h e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t ; as t h e s c a t t e r i n c r e a s e s t h e c o r r e l a t i o n decreases and t h e l i n e s d iverge i n s lope . N o t e t h a t

both l i n e s pass throuph - t h e c e n t r e of g r a v i t y of t h e available d a t a i .e. t h e p o i n t (x, Y).

T h e o r e t i c a l l y both l i n e s should have a s l o p e of 1 .00 and i n t e r c e p t of 0.0 and c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of 1 .00 , represent - i n g p e r f e c t i n t e r l a b o r a t o r y c a l i b r a t i o n and no s c a t t e r . I n p r a c t i c e t h e t r u e c a l i b r a t i o n l i n e will l i e between t h e two r e g r e s s i o n l i n e s . I f t h e p r e c i s i o n of l abora to ry (Y) is known t o be bet ter than t h a t of t h e o t h e r l abora to ry (X) t h e t r u e c a l i b r a t i o n w i l l be better approdimated by t h e r e g r e s s i o n l i n e of X on Y and v i c e versa .

While the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t is a matter of personal preference , i n genera l a c o r r e l a t i o n of 0.98 or better can be considered q u i t e good, 0.95 is f a i r , and 0 .90 o r less sugges ts r e l a t i v e l y poor i n t e r l a b p r e c i s i o n . I n s u f f i c i e n t data o r excess ive ly screened data c a n r e s u l t i n overes t imat ion of t h e correlatiom. V i s u a l examination of t h e graph i s e s s e n t i a l t o draw proper conclusions as t o t h e e x t e n t of scatter.

Conclusions

I n gene ra l i n t e r c a l i b r a t i o n between Harrow and MOE i s good, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r N i t r a t e , Calcium and Total Phosphorus (above 0 . 1 mg/l P) . M a nesium, Scdium a'nd Potassium i n t e r c a l i b r a t i o n

by a blank d i f f e r e n c e between l a b o r a t o r i e s so t h a t d a t a i n mid- range is compatible. Lack of i n - l ab p r e c i s i o n or a n a l y t i c a l s e n s i t i v i t y probably con t r ibu ted t o t h e scatter and doub t l e s s t h i s could be improved. However, Total P appears t o be s u b j e c t t o random moss scatter. The Harrow procedure f o r Fi l tered

sugges t s 1 0 t o +- 20% d l fe rence i n s lope , u sua l ly compensated for

Reactive Phosphate would appear t o be- r e l a t i v e l y i n s e n s i t i v e t o the l e v e l s of t h i s parameter p r e s e n t i n m o s t of t h e samples. Although t h e T o t a l N comparison is good, t h e H a r r o w procedure seems t o l ack p r e c i s i o n f o r deteirmining low level Organic N i t r o s e n i n t h e absence of hiqh l e v e l s of N i t r a t e . -

W e tend t o feel t h a t t h e data i n your table 8 can be considered o v e r l y pessimistic if! g r o s s random d e v i a t i o n s can be reduced or screened o u t be fo re data i s released fo r use . C e r t a i n l y i n t h e MOE labs w e depend q u i t e s t r o n g l y upon i n d i v i d u a l sc reening of each a n a l y t i c a l r e $ u l t be fo re it leaves o u r l a b o r a t o r y t o permit confirmation of dev ian t r e s u l t s by re -ana lyses , and recommend t h i s procedure q u i t e s t rong ly .

Considering t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n methodology and chosen o p e r a t i n g ranges , and t h e "b l ind" manner i n which samples w e r e submit ted for a n a l y s i s , t he r e s u l t s are most g r a t i f y i n g . With c a u t i o n even i n d i v i d u a l r e s u l t s can be considiered compatible. Perhaps, however, as a n addendum t o your report , t a b l e of a n a l y t i c a l ranges, d e t e c t i o n l i m i t s , s t andard dev i&t ions and r e p o r t i n g p r a c t i c e s would be of va lue f o r h i s tor ica l purptbses, s i n c e these w i l l undoubtedly change i n t h e fu tu re .

i Fred Dieken

I11 " 21

LINEAR REGRESSION RESUqTS BASED ON SCREENED DATA TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF INTERCALIBRATION BETWEEN

HARROW AND M. 0. E. LABORATORIES

Range mg/l Equation

Nitrate 0 - 20 a) H = 0.95 M + 0.17 b) H = 0.98 M + 0.01

Total N 0 - 20 a) H = 0.93 M + 0.42 b) H = 0.98 M + 0.01

H a r r o w Total N vs Harrow NOS

0 - 20 a) TN = 1.02 NO3 + 1.25 b) T N = 1.07 NO3 + 0.97

Correlation

t h e intercept i s approximately t he average *TKN" i n t h e s e samples

Total K je ldah l N

0 - 3 a) H = 0.41 M + 0.9 b) H = 3.11 M - 2.6

C a l c i u m 60 - 150 a ) H = 1.00 M - 3.2 b) H = 1.05 M - 8.1

Magnesium 1 0 - 40 a) H = 0.76 M + 1.5 b) H = 0.85 M - 0.6

Sodium 5 - 30 a) H = 0.88 M + 1.1 b) H = 0.98 M - 0.3

Potassium 0 - 1 0 a) H = 0.72 M + 2 . 4 b) H = 0 . 8 8 M + 1.5

0.98

0.97

0.97

0.36

0.98

0.94

0.94

0.90

Total P 0.0 - 0.8 a) H = 1 . 0 2 M + 0.0 0.99* b) H = 1.04 M + 0.0

and i n s u f f i c i e n t data above 0.3 m g / l " a r t i f i c i a l l y t i g h t because of screening

0.0 - 0 . 1 a) H[ = 1.23 M - 0.008 b) H = 1.37 M - 0.014 0.95

F i l t e r e d Reactive Phosphates

i n s u f f i c i e n t s u i t a b l e data, bad scatter

a) equat ion i f Harrow i s major source of scatter

b) equa t ion i f MOE is major source of scatter

111 - 23

3 0 d d 4 It

111 - 25

!

3-

I i

+

.

3 ‘OQ 0

L

I11 - 27

30

3 0

a - t o f

.

III - 28

111 - 29

e I

.

i

i 1

i L

0

I11 - 31

3 L 0 QL (3

i I /

-t-

0.95

.

111 - 32

J + i

I i

L

L 0 . z .

it i

i 1 - k

I -

++

.

I11 - 33

i i

10.0%

i

. 3 5 0 ol d d z L0.04

i +

c 0 . 0 ,

4 - t 4-

e. 02-

111 - 34

S E C T I O N I V

DAT.A D I S C U S S I O N

PRELIMINARY PHASE (4/74-9/74)

PLUARG - TASK C - CANADA

AGRICULTURAL WATERSHED S T U D I E S

MAY 1975

IV - 2

IV - 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

'l'lw aut Iinrs ( \ I t l w fo l , , l owi i ig t w o suh-secticms wi 8h t o acknawlodge t tw SC)UX-CCS 01 tlic dat:a discussed, and thosc responsibl c far tho monitor tug programme. of responsibility for sample collection and analyses between the 16 Agricultural Watersheds and the many Agencies and individuals involved in the Preliminary Phase Study.

Section I of this report presents a breakdown of the distribution

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the following:

Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Water Resources Branch, Hydrology and Monitoring Section - R. Hore, R. Ostry, D. Onn, J. Lothian, D. Levesque, R. Dijkema, M. LeBreton, M. Cameron, A. R dman - flow monitoring and sample collection. (Coordinator), D. King (Quality Control); Water Quality Section (minerals, nutrients, etc.) - T. Brydges, S . Villard; Inorganic Trace Contaminants Section (heavy metals) - J. Bishop, B. Loescher; Microbiology Section - L. Vlassoff, A. Burger, E. Leggatt.

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food: Pesticide Residue Testing Laboratoty - R. Frank (Director); H. Braun (insecticides other than DDT group); M. Holdrinet (DDT group of insecticides, PCB and other organo- 2-llutants); G. Sirons (herbicides).

Agriculture Canada: Harrow Research Station - J. Fulton, J. Gaynor, R. Walker; London Research Institute - P. Moy; Vineland Research Station - M. Chiba; Soil Research Institute - J. McRae, T. Huffman, E. MacDonald, R. Leuty, G. Wall, L. VanVleit.

Flow data for watersheds 4 and 7 and the mouths of Big Creek and Big Otter Creek were supplied by M. Quast and R. Myslik, Water Survey of Canada, Guelph.

The authors wish to express their appreciation for the work of R. Leuty and E. MacDonald in preparing the data discussed for presentation, and to E.M. Cole for typing the manuscript.

Laboratory Services Branch - F. Dieken

DATA DISCUSSION

WATER QUALITY MONITORING *

Tables IV-1, 2, 3 and 4 present a summary of the phase I water quality data in terms of concentrations (mean, range) for some selected parameters a t each of the 16 Preliminary Phase watershed outlet sites. Table IV-5 indicates the 1974 agricultural land use within each watershed.

* By D. R. Coote, Agricultural Watershed Study Coordinator. - This review done under contract (OSW5-0007) to the Engineering Research Service, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, in April-May, 1975.

Nillr'r1N1.: ANALYSES - CONCENTRATIONS (mz/l) Table 1V-1. --

W f S - 1' PH (units) - 1 (17)8.2(7.3-9.5)*

2 (27)8.1( 7.7-8.5)

3 (19)8.0(7.7-8.3)

4 (17)8.2(7.8-9.1)

5 (17)8.2(7.9-8.6)

6 (18)8.0( 7.7-8.5)

7 (12)8.1(7.5-8.3)

8 (1827.9(7.6-8.4)

9 (:9)8.1(7.3-8.5)

10 (19)7.9(7.3-8.4)

11 (20 17 -9 (7 2-8.2)

12 (1337.9(7.2-8.5)

13 (16)7.7(6.3-8.8)

14 (18)8.0(7.5-8.4)

15 (27)8.2(7.4-8.5)

16 (18)8.0(7.3-8.7)

T u r b i d i t y ( F . U . )

(17)53.0(0.7-270.0)

(27) 3.8(1.1- 23.0)

(19)23.8(1.4-220.0)

(17)12.5(2.6- 77.4)

(17) 5.2(0.5- 28.0)

(18) 3.9(0.5- 25.0)

(10) 2.4(1.0- 4.5)

(17) 7.4(1.5- 60.0)

(17) 3.7(1.0- 16.0)

(17)40.2(1.0-150.0)

(19)13.3(2.8- 45.0)

(13) 1.8(0.7- 6.8)

(16)48.8(6.0-180.0)

(18)18.8(2.0-150.0)

(25)26.8(3.8-190.0)

(15)20.9(1.3- 93.0)

I!a t dn v,. v

(14)309.1(24O.O- I8H.O)

( 4) 267 .O ( 2 3 h . 0- 7 f ! O . 0 )

( I 6) 2 57.2 ( 230 0 - 2'J 4 - 0 )

(13)224.0(148.0- 260.0)

(14)268.0(178. - 356. (16)243.1(144. - 288. (10)217.1(206. - 254. (16)236.2(150. - 295.

(17)225.3(162. - 248. )

(17)952.0( 96.0-2700.0)

( 18 )243.1(148 .O- 284.0 )

(13)248.8(206.0- 278.0)

(13)323.4(260.0- 360.0)

(16)201.6(104.0- 240.0)

( 4)254.0(184.0- 280.0)

( 7)414.5(227.0- 516.0)

N3

(14)i3.1( 6.0-24.0) -

(16) 6.4( 5.0-10.0)

(17) 5.4( 3.0- 7.0)

(14) 4.9( 2.0- 9.7)

(15) 4.0( 2.0- 6.0)

(16) 2.6( 2.0- 5.0)

(12) 3.5( 3.0- 5.0)

(16) 8.0( 2.0-18.0)

(17) 8, 51 5.0-11.0)

(17)49.21 4.0-158.0)

(18)14.4( 5.0- 20 .0 )

(13) 6.6( 3.0- 8.2)

(13)12.4( 7.0- 19.0)

(16) 3.3( 1.0- 8.2)

(15) 6.6( 5.0- 9.0)

(17)29.6(11.0- 67.0)

K

(14)3.2(0.6- 7.0)

(16)1.5(1.2- 2.2)

(17)2.1(1.3- 3 . 2 )

(14)3.3(1.2- 8.3)

(15)2.1(1.1- 3.3)

(16)1.6(0.9- 2.3)

(12)1.3(1.0- 1.5)

(16)1.8(0.9- 2.6)

-

(17)1.7(1.2- 2.6)

(17)8.2(4.5-15.0)

(18)4.1(1.2- 6.0)

(13)1.8( -9- 5.2)

(13)6.3(1.4- 9.4)

(16)2.2(1.3- 4-1)

(15)2.3(1.7- 3.4)

(17)7.0(3.7-12.0)

s04 - (15)166.8(71.0- 250.0)

(20) 76.5(12.0- 100.0)

(17) 41.9(25.0- 36.0)

(14) 26.0(15.0- 34.0)

(15) 28.8(20.0- 34.0)

(16) 20.5(13.0- 30.0)

(12) 19.2(15.0- 25.0)

(16) 31.6(15.0- 47.0)

(17) 26.5(20.0- 32.0)

(18)794.8( 7.0-1950-0)

(18) 33.3(22.0- 46.0)

(13) 16.7(12.0- 24.0)

(14)118.8(67.0- 150.0)

(16) 15.9(10.0- 24.0)

(19) 57 4(39.0- 90.0)

(18)179.0(84.0- 270.0)

- (16)3.2(0.2- 3.1)

(17)5.6(3.1- 9.0)

(16)2.7(0.7- 5.2)

(13)2.6(9.7- 5.6)

(14)3.9(0.7- 8.4)

(16)3.6(1.8- 6 . 2 )

(11)7.5(3.3- 9.7)

(16)1.7(9.3- 4.3)

(16)6.3(2.5- 3.5)

(17j2.4(0.2- 7.9)

(16)5.5(0.!- 9.5)

(13)6.7(1.3-:1.5)

(15)5.1(9.1- 9.9) U

< (15)2.5(0.7- 4.3) I

(20)4.4(1.3- 7.5)

(18)5.0(0.3- 9.8)

-t (no. of samples) mean (range)

"#I - Big Creek, Essex Co. ; #2 - North Creek, Norfolk Co.; #3 - L i t t l e Ausable; #4 - Canagagigue; #5 - Holiday Creek, Trib. of the Middle Thames River, Oxford Co.; #6 - Teeswater River; #7 - N.W.Branch, Ganaraska River; #8 - k y l e Drain; #9 - Upper Humber River; #lo - Noth Creek T r i b . Twenty Mile Creek; #11 - West Humber;

Un-named creek near Vineland. \

- Wilton Creek; #13 - Hillman Creek; #14 - L i t t l e M i l l Creek; #15 - L i t t l e Jerry Creek; #16 - Small #

IV - 5

n

n

n

nn

~

no

n

n

n

0 . 9 d I

0 . I- v m . 4 d n

m

W

n

0

d

4

I clr

N

4

9

n

m . . W

. d

U

0

m

d

I 0

4

m

03

I-

n

hl d

W

. . W

.

n

0 . I- d I

0

4 . W

d . d d n 0

rl

W

0 . ‘3, 9 I

N

W

I-

N

I-

n

. d

d

W

0 . N

d

I 0

4

co 0

I-

n

hl d

W

. W

.

n

0

d I

0

? . d W

. \o m

n

m

W

- . 0

0

N I

0

0

d

W

0 . 0

m

n

d

d

W

9 ? Q: r(

d I

rl

W

rl

9

n

d

d

W

- . d N I

0

0 . d

v

3 2 m

d

n

W

9 ?

8 m

d

I

4

W

m

n

m

rl

W

n

0 . m

d

I 0

s W 6

co n

0

rl

W

n

? b

d I

0

9

m m

n

03 . W

W

n

? N

d

I 0

m

0

00 n

N

rl

W

. v .

0

N

d

I

m

4

m

I-

n

m . ?

W

. d

W

n

0

m

d 1 0

I-

r- m

n

Q . . W

. W

a e 1

0

Cn

d

d

I 0

‘w

co

n

I-

9 9 d

W

I 0

0

0

0

n

I-

d

W

e W

. I

I I

00

0

00

0

I 0

? 9 2 W

0

n

W

I 0

9 9 W

d

n

r-l r-l W

I 0

? 9 W

N

n

9

d

W

I 0

9 9 W

d

n

co d

W

I N

0

co

n

co d

W

. W

9

I 0

0

. W

4

9 n co d

W

I 0

9 9 W

N

n

N

d

W

I 0

0

43

n

\o . W

9 d

W

I1

O

d

00

I 0

9 W

N

d

n

co d

. W

. . . w

ww

m

Qd

nn

n

99

m

99

9

dd

d

ww

w

0.

w

w

9m

nn

9

9

rl

d

ww

99

n

14 G

,

I N

0

W

I-

d

. . . n I- d W

n

2

- . I

0

m

0

n

b

N

W

d

. W

n

3

a3 I d

. 9 W

4

d

n

m

d

W

.

n

I-

Q I

0

0

m

d

n

I-

d

W

. e

W

.

n

m

d

I d

. 9 ? W

m

n

I-

d

W

n

9

m I

r(

e

9 ? W

I-

n

a3 d

W

n

9 0

I 0

0

. W

N

n

N

d

v . 9

n

Q

Q I

N

0

m . e

W

9 n 03 d

W

n

co N

I d

. 9 9 W

Q

n

m

d

W

n

Q

Q I

m . ?

W

Q

Q

n

m

d

W

.

n

6

N I

d

. 9 9 W

I-

n

0

N

W

n

a, d

I d

. 9 9 W

m

n

N

d

W

n

m

m I

u) 0

N

m

n

9 . . W

. 4

W

n

4

m I

N

0 . W

m

d

. . n I- d W

n

Q 6 I

m

0 . . W

2 n

I-

N

W

n

9

d

I I- . 9 W

m

m

n

co d

W

e

51 0

P

I P

. m

. W

d

d

d

n

I-

d

W

N I

N

0 . W

9

d

I-

n

I-

d

W

I d

9 W

0

4

N

n

9

d

W

I N

Q

. N

W

N

rl

m - m

r-l W

. I

m

rl . W

Q

N

N

n

I-

d

W

I m

m

. W

N

In . n

N

d

W

1 d

0

03 9 . d n \o

d

W

. W

I 0

N

. W

I-

d

d

n

03 . d

W

I d

9 W

m

co

n

m

d

W

. I d

9 W

d

Q

n

co d

W

. I d

9 W

m

N . n

m

d

W

I N

0

. N

W

N

d

03 n

m

d

W

I d

0

Q

9

n

9 . W

. d

W

I m

I-

W

N

d

m

n

9

d

W

. .

m I

m

? 9 d

W

a

n

a, d

W

0“ z 4-

0

z N

I d

0

. W

N

a, Q

h

r- d

W

d c

4 a 9

) d

2

N I

I No\

mw

d

I 0

m

. W

co 9

n

m . d

W

d I

co u)

m 0

r(

n

I-

d

W

. W

. I 0

N

9

m . W

n

I-

d

W

I 0

m

. W

d

m

n

co d

W

I I-

d . W

m

N

n

N

d

W

. d I

c)

\o

I-

o\

n

03 d

W

W

. d

I I-

N

co 4

n

m

d

W

. W

I- I

m

@

co co . d n m d W

. W

N I

m

m

m

I- . W

. n

0

N

W

d

I d

N

0

9

n

m

4

W

e

W

. d

I co 4

W

I-

m . n

9

d

W

mN

I

1

dm

m

m

. . w

w

9-

92

d

nn

I-I-

dN

w

w

IV - 6

3 c-r z

w u z

0

0

.. 3 I >

c

n

e

0 I

N

0 0

0

W

m

0

n

9

0

W

n

0

l-l 0

W

n

m

W

h

'L-

C 0

I m

0

. W

n

I-

W

n

u, 0

I rl 0

9 W

n

r- W

+ 0 I

rl

/- i

. 9 W

n

9

W

rl

n

In

0 I

l-l

9 W

m

0

n

a3

W

n

0

N I

0

4 . W

n

d

4

W

h

z C . I

m

0 0

W

n

0

rl

W

n

4

9 W

n

0

4

W

n

0

4 . I

4

9 W

n

0

rl

W

hl

n

cn 0

I 4

0 . 0

W 0

9 n

a3

W

n

0

.--I

I 0

4 0

W

. n

m

4

W

n

c

7

0

I m

0 0

W

n

5 W

n

9

0 I

rl . 9 2 W

n

W

n

N

0 I

4 0

9 W

n

m

rl

W

m

n

N

0 I

4

0 . 0

W

n

0

4

W

n

0

4

I 0

rl . 0

W

n

cn W

n

a3 4 . I

m

0 . W

n

0

4

W

n

N

0 0

I rl

0 . W

n

cn W

n

0

N I

4

9 W

n

cn W

d

n

N

0 I

d

0 0

0

W

n

rfl 4

W

n

2 . I 0

d

0

v

n

CY d

U

h

m

d

0

I

0

.-.I 0

U

n

m

d

W

h

N

0 I

4

0 0

0

W

n

m

rl

U

n

0 I

d

0

d

0

. W

n

N

d

W

v)

n

m

0 I

rl

0 0

0

W

N

0

n

I- 0

W

n

0

4

I 0

rl . 0

W

n

m

rl

W

n

m

N . I

rl

9 W

n

m

rl

W

n

N

9 I 4

0 0

W

n

m

rl

W

n

N

0 I

rl . 9

W

4

0

co 0

n

W

9

n

N

0 I

rl

0 0

0

W

rl

0

n

u.7 . W

n

0

4 0

W

n

9

W

n

0

m . I

m

0 0

W

n

I-

W

n

m

0 I

rl

0

9 W

n

I-

W

n

rl

0 I

4 . 9

W

n

I-

W

I-

n

m

0 I

rl

0 0

0

W

n

m

4

W

n

0

m I

0

rl . 0

W

n

2 W

n

u, 0

0

I 4

9 5 W

n

W

n

N

0 0

I rl

0 0

W

n

J, W

n

4

0 I

d

0 0

. W

n

m

4

W

co

n

9

0 I

rl 0

9 W

m

0

n

cn 0

W

n

0

N I

0

rl 0

. W

n

m

d

W

n

I-

0 0

I l-l

9 W

n

N

rl

W

n

N

9 9 I rl

W

n

hl 4

W

n

N

0 I

rl

0 0

0

W

n

0

d

W

OI

n

0

rl

I hl 0

9 9 W

m

n

0

4

W

n

0

N I

0

rl . 0

W

n

4

d

W

n

v, 0

0

I m

0

0

W

r(

r(

W

n

n

N

0 I

4

0 0

0

U

n

4

r(

W

n

0 I

0

rl

. 4 0

W

- d

W

0

0

d

n

9

0 I

rl . 9 9 U

N

n

0

rl

W

n

0

m I

0

4 . 0

W

n

2 W

n

I-

9 9 I d

W

n

N

rl

W

n

N

0 0

I rl

0 0

W

n

N

d

U

n

I-

9 I rl

0 0

W

n

0

I4

W

l-l 4

n

N

0 I

rl

0 0

0

W

n

2 W

n

0

rl 0

W

n

m

rl

W

n

m

9 9 I m

W

n

rl

W

.;r

n

N

9 I l-l 0

0

W

n

2 W

n

N

0 I

rl 0

9 W

n

J, W

N

l-l

n

.;r 0

I 4 0

9 W

n

a3

W

n

0

rl 0

W

n

m

W

n

a3

9 0. I 4

W

n

co W

n

N

0 0

I l-l

9 v

n

a0

W

n

rl

0 0

I 4

0 0

W

n

I-

W

m

d

n

m

0 I

rl 0

9 U

n

m

d

W

n

0

d

I 0

4 0

0

W

n

m

rl

W

n

m

0 . I

rl

0 0

W

n

m

rl

W

n

N

0 0

I rl

9 W

n

m

4

W

n

4

0 I

rl 0

0

. W

n

N

rl

W

.;r l-l

n

m 0 0

I l-l

9 W

N

0

n

N

rl

W

0

n

5: I 0

4 0

W

n

N

rl

v

n

a

9 9 I m

W

n

N

l-l W

n

rl

0. v

n

N

I4

W

n

I4

0 I

4 0

9 W

n

N

l-l U

u)

d

n

e

0 0

I N

9 W

m

0

n

m 0

W

n

0

4 I

0

rl 0

0

v

h

m

W

0

m

0 . I

m

9 W

n

m

W

n

rl

9 W

n

m u

rl

I

n

N

nQ

0

a

d

MP

U

C

a, In al &

l a

m

a, .d

U

-4

d

4 0. a, C .d

&I

'd

C s B .rl M

C

m 0

C

.. El

TABLE IV-4: PESTICIDE C O N ~ : F , t ~ l ' l ~ A ' l ' l ONS (ua/ 1) *

Total DDT 11 w/s - - 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

(11).005(.001- .009)*

(30).006(.002- -024)

(10) .016( o000- -053)

( 8).018(.000- .loo)

( 8).271(.000-2.130)

( 9).014(.000- 0093)

( 4).014(.007- 0025)

( 9).006(.000- -016)

( 8).006(.000- 0018)

(11).003(.000- 0008)

( 9).010( -001- -036)

(11).026(.000- .240)

( 11 ) -029 ( .008- . 056) ( 8).008( -001- -034)

(30)o134(.001-3.746)

(18). 176( -005- -822)

* (number) mean (range) - 1/ see footnote to Table IV-1

PC B - (10).17(,06-.44)

( 1).07( - - (10).21(.00-.53)

(18). 14( -00- . 25) ( 8).20(.06-.53)

( 9).14(.04-.36)

( 5) .19( .08-.27)

( 9).19(.10-.58)

( 7).10(.00-.21)

(11).10(.00-.18)

( 9).16(.07-.24)

(11).12(.00-.32)

(11).21(.09-.38)

( 8).12(.05-.24)

(1%).15( - - 1

( 9).09(.02-.16)

Total Triazines

(13) 3.55( 00 -10.5 )

(14) .36( 00 - 2.8 ( 9)13.99( .2 -118.2)

- - ( 6) 1.30( 02 - 4.4 )

( 1) O.OO( - - - - 1 - -

( 1) O.OO( - - - - I

( 1) 0.0oc - - - - 1

( 6) 0.70(.ilii.1.8 )

( 1) 0.10( - - - - 1 - -

(11) 2.08( 00 - 4.6 )

( 1) 0.00(0.0 1

(20) 1.18(0.1 - 7.8 )

( 4) 2.92(0.2 - 7.6 )

Total Phenoxys

- - - - - -

(6).52(.00-2.81)

(1).20(- - - - )

(6)o02(.00- .LO)

(7).24(.00-1ol )

(7) 10( 000-70 )

(5).00(.00 )

(1).30(- - - - )

(4).00(.00 1

(7).13(.00- -50)

- - (6).00(.00 I

- - - -

!-I c I 4

Ta5le IV-5: 1974 DKSTRIt$iITION OF IAN0 ! I S 1 1 fJ PELCENT FOb EACH AGRICULTURAL klr\'TERSIIED

-

CROPS

Niscellaneous, (roads, I'$t 5 t urc Soya beans railways, fams,

# Watershed Total Area Tobacco Small- Corn or Forest (k-nite Beans) Horticultural Fruit Fallow strecms, lakes, (square miles) Grains Meadow ( or Teas ) Row Crops Trees gravel pits) -

1. Big Creek

2. North Creek

3. Little Ausable

5. Middle Thames

i 6. Teeswater

7. Ganaraska

8. Royle Drain

9. West Huinber (Mono Mills)

10. North Creek (Twenty mile

creek)

11. West Hucher ( Wi 1 d f i e 1 d )

12. Wilton Creek

13. Hillman Creek

,4. Little Hill

5. Little Jerry

6. Special Study (Niagara Fruit

Belt)

20.0

7.7

23.9

8.0

10.6

21.0

15.0

14.4

13.0

11.7

7.2

13.9

10.3

12.0

1.0

21.6

22.9

24.5

37.0

13.9

21.9

12.8

3n.1

12.4

19.7

9.6

13.5

10.1

17.0

--

17.1

23.9

29.2

19.1

39.9

12.2

4.8

16.6

2.8

7.4

19.9

32.0

29.2

47.2

28.9

33.3

2.5

12.6

5.5

7.0

13.8

1 7 . 1

L 2.6

4.5

47.1

-- 16.2

-- 2.4

-- -- 0.7

0.4(tomatoes)

-- 0.9(turnips)

-- 0,6(potatoes)

-- 0.3

-- --- not determined, Frfmarily pasture and forest ---

16.8

11.4

3.3

29.6

1.7

31.2

--

53.3 13.8 0.4 --

57.9 6.2 -- 0.9

53.3 27.9 -- -- 3.5 7.0 22.5 1.7(cabbage)

4.7(potatoes) 8.6(tomatoes)

64.8 14.3 -- -- 19.0 18.0 -- l.l(tomatoes)

13.3 10.3 -- --

0.3

1.4

1.6

2.3

2.4

3.8

2.0

0.2

1.5

3.9

2.5

1.8

1.6

5.9

4.9

2.4

1.2

H c I

OD

8

IV - 9

Two additional presentations of the data have been used in the following pages. One is to compare the concentrations of selected materials in the stream water draining two highly intensive agricultural watersheds in Essex County (watcrsheds 1 and 13) , where the surface so i l s range from clay (#l) t o sririd over1 yiiig clay ( # l o ) , and e predominantly tobacco growing a r m on &*el, sands (watershed 2 ) . on clay soils where the agricultural activity ranges from intensive (watershed 3 ) to low intensity (watershed 11). This second presentation includes the yield of selected materials (concentration x flow).l/Figures IV-la and b show the flow from the three watersheds for which yield data is presented. In- adequate flow data has prevented the calculation of yields from watersheds 1 and 13, except for the latter part of the season. The deep sands of watershed 2 (North Creek tributory of Big Creek, Norfolk Co.) are seen to yield more water per unit area in the spring and summer than the clay soils of watersheds 3 (Upper Little Ausable River) and 11 (West Humber River, Peel CO.). Most of this extra yield is seen t o occur after the beginning of June when runoff from the clay areas decreases rapidly. This higher yield of water is significant, as it tends to compensate for the lower concentrations of most parameters observed in this watershed (#2), so that pollutant yield is not as low as might be suggested by viewing concentrations alone. Note: Although the flow in watershed 2 did not cease entirely, flows were too low for accurate measurement at the selected site after the beginning of August.

The other presentations compare watershed 2 with two wetereheds

When considering the data presented, it should be remembered that the ~m-etcrs'r,2d-. have been selected to represent different soil - crop combinations at varying intensities of agricultural activity, and that an effort has been made to avoid any interference from non-agricultural activities. Thus any differences seen should reflect the effects of agricultural land use and soils.

The following discussion is an attempt to summarize the findings of the preliminary phase watershed monitoring. It will point out some inconsistencies in common assumptions regarding agricultural effect on water, and indicate some land use - water quality associations which may need to be investigated further.

Common Ions and Hardness:

Referring to Table IV-1, the most outstanding differences seen are in the values for hardness and sulphate for Watershed 10, the North Creek Tributary of Twenty Mile Creek. This watershed also has high sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium values compared to the other areas. Except for Watershed 16, a small creek near Vineland, which follows the same trend as Watershed 10, all of the other watersheds are fairly consistent in values for hardness, sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium. The region in which Watersheds 10 and 16 are locattd is one in which ground water (well) levels of SO that the high values seen in these watersheds are probably the result of ground water contributions.

range from 10 to 1,920 mg/lL/, so 4

- l / A complete listing of all Phase I data for all watersheds isavailable to study participants from the author or from E.M. MacDonald, Environmental Information Specialist, Soil Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa K1A OC6.

- 2 / Personal communicatiop R. Ostry, Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

IV - 10 L..

...... :.J**...*.* AG 2 - North Creek t r i b . of Big Creek' 7.- AG 3 - Upper L i t t l e Ausable River - - - - - a - - - - AG 11 -Tr ib . of West Humber River

F i ure IV l a - Water discharge i n l/ha/da -;h Creek), 3 ( L i t t l e Ausabley'and 11 (West tiumber)

spring and summer 1974, Agricul tural Watersheds

IV - 11 .

.........A...*.... AG 2 - North Creek t r i b . Big Creek -0- AG 3 - Upper Little Ausable R. - - - - - m - - - - AG 11 - Trib. West Hurnber River ,

Figure IV-lb; Cumulative water discharge in l/ha, spring and summer 1974, from Agricultural Watersheds 2 (North Creek), 3 (Little Ausable and 11 (West Humber)

IV - 12

Examination of the data shows that SO4 levels in Watershed 10 tended to be low when flow was high - i.e. after a storm; and high when flow as low - after a prolonged dry period when ground water contributions would be dominant. However, it i s noticeable that after Watersheds 10 and 16, sulphate values are highest in Watersheds 1 and 13 in Essex County, where there do not appear to be elevated ground water levels.2/ also be an atmospheric input from the large industrial areas which lie to the west of these 4 watersheds, (Hamilton for Watersheds 10 and 16, and Detroit in the case of Watersheds 1 and 13). data of G. Cox in his study of sulphate build-up of soils from atmospheric inputs east of Sudburyd. north east of Sudbury up to a distance of approximately 60 miles. Precipitation samples confirmed the atmospheric source of this material. Preliminary informa- : i x from Essex County monitoring suggests that atmospheric input is low compared f c ' the values found in the stream water. However, atmospheric input monitoring t o be carried out as part of the PLUARG Programme in 1975-76 will supply data on which to base further assessments of this situation.

This W Y indicate that there may

This possible source is suggested by the

He found elevated sulphate levels in soils to the

Table IV-1 shows that the pattern seen in SO values is repeated for sodium and potassium, and to a lesser extent for cafcium, magnesium and chloride (not listed in Table IV-l), though chloride was not seen to follow the other ions in Watershed 10. Figure IV-2, is presented as an example of cation levels in stream water and shows the changes in potassium concentrations in 3 watersheds. Watersheds 1 and 13, both in Essex County are likely to have high fertilizer K inputs, especially Watershed 13 where tomatoes are grown. Although fertilizer potassium is not usually suspected of being highly mobile, it can be noted that concentrations in the sandier textured watershed (Hillman Creek, Watershed #13) are generally higher than the fine textured watershed (Big Creek, Essex County, Watershed #l). However, the predominantly deep sands area (Watershed #2) has consistently lower concentrations of potassium, although the higher yield of water during low flow periods in the sandy watershed tends t o dampen out overall yield differences.

Figures I V - 3 and - 4 indicate the changes in concentration and yield of potassium in Watersheds 2, 3 and 11. associated with lower fertilizer inputs in the Norfolk County Watershed, but the high concentrations and yield in the low fertilizer input area of Watershed 11 completely contradicts this assumption. Preliminary conclusions must therefore be that potassium yields in stream water are not greatly affected by agricultural activities.

The lower concentrations might be

- 3/ Ground Water Probability, County of Essex; Ontario Water Resources Commission, Water Resources Map 3107-1, 1971.

- 4 / Personal communication, G. Cox, Dept. of Land Resource Science, University of Guelph, 1975.

13

12

11

10

9

8

3.

2.

09 1 2b 3’1 io 20 I 30 E i o i o $1 110 i o 3’0 io 2’0 h ib 2’0 $1 ib

I I : August 1 I Septombor I I July 1 June M a y March 1 Apri l

F f ~ t i r s I V - 2 : Concent ra t ions of Potassium i n mg/l , s p r i n g and summer 1974, A r i c u l t u r a l Watersheds 1 (Big Creek, Essex C o . ) , 2 (North Creek, Norfo lk Co.) and 13 ?Hillman Creek)

IV - 14

-

FiRure I V - 3 : Potassium Concentrations i n m g / l , and y i e l d s i n g/ha/day, spring and summer 1974, Agricul tural Watersheds 2 (North Creek), 3 ( L i t t l e Ausable) and 11 (West Humber)

IV - 15 .

3 500

3000

75n"

2000

n ([I c \ M

W

Q 1500 4 Q) *rl h

5 'rl VI cn ; 1000 a

j7;(i

- 0

I I I I I I I I I I I

I

I ;' .A*** 0-0

I

I ..*..J.--A I . *&.'... .**i* o - ~ ~ ~ o - ~ . - . - - .

; . ...a .* 1 ?"".y + I

I I >- f

/

t ' ."' /* 0 0-0. I

I

r * * * * * : . J - * * * * . * AG 2 - North Creek trib. Big Creek

- - - - 4- - - - - AG 11 - Trib. West Humber River

i I' 0- AG 3 Upper Little Ausable R.

1 1 1 l 1 1 1 l , l I I I l l l l l I 1 1 1 1 l r l l i 1 1 I I l

April May * June July August S e p t em be I:

Figure I V - 4 : Cumulative yield of potassium in g/ha, spring and s u m e r 1974, from Agricultural Watersheds 2 (North Creek), 3 (little Ausable) and 11 (West Humber).

IV - 16

Chloride is often associated with road salt used for de-icing in winter. A check of length of improved (paved) highway per unit area of watershed revealed no relationship with chloride levels found in the water. However, since no information is available as to which sections of highway received de-icing salt, it is not advisable to discount such a relationship. The situation is further complicated, however, by the use of calcium chloride on some unpaved roads in summer for dust control. It is interesting to note that on the day on which the highest values for chloride were found at Watershed #1, the technician by whom the sample was collected noted the spreading of calcium chloride on adjacent roads for dust control. Much more information will be needed before the sources of stream chloride can be identified.

Turbidity: In the absence of adequate suspended solids data, turbidity has

been viewed as an indication of sediment load. This is a poor substitute for suspended solids data. However, generally the trend is for watersheds with high turbidity values (see Table IV-1) to be those with intensive crop production on erodible soils, and vice versa. Exceptions to this trend were seen in Watersheds 10 (North Creek Branch of Twenty Mile Creek) and 14 (Little Mill Creek in Bruce County). the intensive cultivation seen in other high turbidity watersheds. Further study may reveal the reason for this. One possible contributing factor in these two watersheds may be the extensive watering of livestock in the stream. watershed 14 data may well be affected by road reconstruction in the area during the spring of 1974.

Both of these watersheds tended to yield turbid water, without

However,

Further monitoring should help clarify the situation.

Figure IV-5a shows the changes in turbidity in three watersheds from March to September. Watersheds 1 and 13 have been ranked high as potential sheet erosion areas (see Section II), while Watershed 2 is considered to be low potential for soil erosion. The differences in turbidity reflect this ranking to a considerable degree. of the season, the turbidity data presented are also seen to correspond to the rankings for potential sheet erosion from Section 11.

Figure IV-5b shows the turbidity of watersheds 3 and 11 and for most

Turbidity tends to be correlated to some degree with most of the other water quality parameters. Suspended solids, as a major influence on turbidity, may therefore be a critical parameter related to most of the materials discussed here, with the exception of soluble nitrogen and the more soluble pesticides. clarify the relationship between suspended solids and many other parameters.

It is anticipated that the detailed studies starting in 1975 will

Nitrogen:

Certainly Table IV-2 indicates that the watersheds with the highest NO3 + NO2 concentrations were 13, 16 and 3 (in that order), two of which (13 and 3 ) are intensive cash cropping areas, while the third (16) is an orchard and vegetable area, also with high nitrogen fertilizer input. The lowest concentrations were found in Watersheds 12, 11 and 7, all of which are low intensity areas, with a predominance of pasture, forest or unused land (see Table IV-5). support the general association of agricultural nitrogen inputs and stream inorganic nitrogen.

Soluble nitrogen is often attributed to fertilizers used in agriculture.

These results therefore

IV - 17

,n

2

'Tv - 18

80 -0- AG - 3 (Upper Little Ausable R e )

_ _ - - .---- AG - 11 (Trib. West Humber River)

...... k ...... AG - 2 (North Creek, Norfolk C O . 1

Figure IV-5b: Turbidity levels in Formazin Units, spring and summer 1974, Agricultural Watersheds 2 (North Creek), 3 (Little Ausable) and 11 (West Humber).

IV - 19

Figure IV-6 shows that NO2 + NO3 cencentrations are highly variable, whi1.e a comparison of figures IV-1 and IV-7 suggests that they are marginally related to flow. The high loading in June in Watershed 3 could be a reflection of corn sidedressing with nitrogen, often done at this time of year. very little corn, had much lower loadings throughout the study period. however, with a largarea of tobacco on which fertilizer nitrogen inputs are minimal, is seen in Figure IV-6 to have consistently low nitrate and nitrite levels; Figures IV-7 and 8 show that this is somewhat compenxated for by the higher yeild of water fromthis sandy area during the summer months. the cumulative NO3 yield and clearly indicates the far higher contributions from the high

Watershed 11, with Watershed 2,

Figure IV-8 shows

intensity agriculture of watershed 3.

The slightly higher Kjeldahl values (See Table IV-2) on some watersheds do correspond somewhat to higher organic carbon levels, suggesting a higher loading of organic matter in the water. matter content is not readily apparent. One condition which may be indicated for closer study is the presence of cattle in and around the stream, which may be a factor especially in Watersheds 4 , 8 and 10. This condition however, cannot be related to the higher levels of organic matter in Watersheds 1 and 16. A s was discussed above underthe section dealing with turbidity, livestock should also lead to a similar effect in watershed 14. Watershed 14, however does not exhibit the high organic matter levels which might be expected.

The source of this higher organic

Figure IV-9 shows that Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations are far less variable than those of NO3 + NO2 (Figure IV-6). Watersheds 3 and 11 seen in the spring in F3,gures IV-10 & 11 suggest that this parameter is less likely to be influenced by agricultural cropping and nutrient management than are the highly soluble and mobile NOg and N02.

The reversed postions of

In general, the nitrogen picture seen here presents no real surprises, and confirms the conclusions of many previous plot-oriented studies.

Phosphorus :

corresponding to the common association of phosphorus with particulate material. Figure IV-12 shows that higher values of total phosphorus were seen in the two intensive watersheds in Essex County (1 and 13) compared to the predominatly sandy tobacco area (Watershed 2). Tobacco has fairly high requirements for fertilizer phosphorus, but turbidity and suspended solids in Watershed 2 were very low. The data does not therefore support a general association of total phosphorus with agricultural inputs. corn and livestock areas east of London near Embro) would be expected to have high nutrient inputs of phosphorus from agricultural activities. Indeed, the high level of nitrogen in the water reflects this (see Table IV-2). phosphorus levels are low compared to other intensive watersheds, and the only other parameters which are also low are turbidity, organic carbon and Kjeldahl nitrogen. The inference is that sediments and/or organic matter in the water exert more influence on watershed phosphorus levels than agricultural usage of this nutrient.

Total phosphorus values appear to relate fairly well with turbidity,

A s a further example, Watershed 5 (a priraairly

However,

1 I'

14

13

12

11

la

z - 9 0 - 5 a E - 0"' z

0 z S

4

3

1

1

a

H < I

N 0

I I 1

I I

I M a y i June July : A u g u s t f S e p t e m b e r March f A p r i l

Finure IV-6: Concentrations of Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen, spring and summer 1974, Agricultural Watersheds 1 (Big Creek, Essex Co.), 2 (North Creek, Norfolk Co.) and 13 (Hillman Creek)

IV - 21

......A.-*.-AG 2 - North Creek trib. of

- 0-AAG 3 - Upper Littlc Ausable R. - - -.- - - AG 11 - Trib. West Humber R.

Big Crcclc

Fi iirc ZV 7: -1turaI Watersheds 2 (North Creek), 3 (Little Ausab1e)and 11 (West Humber)

Nitrate Nitrogen concentrations in mg/l, and yields in g/ha/day, spring and summerl.974

L --

IV - 22

c

4500

4000

z cn a n a c 23500

z aJ u a k u 4 z IC1 0

Q

W

4

4 Q 3ogv h

5

5

; 2700 $1500 a

u

1000

500

0

_. ~-.-.-.-.-~.-.--.-. , /

e 2

‘ i /. ........ A,...... AG 2 - North Creek trib. Big Creek -0- AG 3 - Upper Little Ausable R. - - - - ..- - - - AG 11 - Trib. West Humber River 6 .

..

A’

Figure I V - 8 : Cumulative yield of Nitrate in g/ha, spring and summer 1974, Agricultural Watersheds 2 (North Creek), 3 (Little Ausable) and 11 (West Humber)

2.6

2. I

2.0

1.4

z ;; - 5 E 1.a - z (9 0

z

- Y

I c - $ O.!

2 0.1

4 9 0.4 W

0 . 3

0.1

0.a

AO-1 --

1 1 I 1 1

I I I

20 31 :o 20 30 1'0 2'0 i o 40 i o io i o JI rb 20 ;I ib March : Apr i l M a y I June I July 1 August September

I

H c I

ru w

. .v*

Figure I V - 9 : Concentrations of Kjeldahl Nitrogen in mg/l as N, spring and summer 1974, Agricultural Watersheds 1 (Big Creek, Essex Go.), 2 (North Creek, Norfolk Co.) and 13 (Hillman Creek)

IV - 24

F -

......, A,...... AG 2 - North Creek trib. Dig Crcck -0'- AG 3 - Upper Little Ausable R. - - -+---- AG 11 - Trib. West llumber River

i \

! I

. $1

i I I \ I I I I 8 I t I

. I

r \ , I ', 0

I \ I \ I \ 1 %

; 1, / (L.4. '\

1 \ 1 1 ' I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' . I 1 1 June September April May

Figure IV-10: Kjeldahl Nitrogen concentrations in m /1 and yields in g/ha/day, spring and summer 1974 Agricultural Watersheds 2 (North Creek), 3 (Littfe Ausable) and 11 (West Humber).

. $1

i I I \ I I I I 8 I t I

. I

r \ , I ', 0

I \ I \ I \ 1 %

; 1, / (L.4. '\

1 \ 1 1 ' I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' . I 1 1 June September April May

i ure IV-10: Kjeldahl Nitrogen concentrations in m /1 and yields in g/ha/day, spring and summer 1974 -ral Watersheds 2 (North Creek), 3 (Littfe Ausable) and 11 (West Humber).

IV - 25

......... A...geee.AG 2 - North Creek trib. Big Creek

- - - - - .- - - - - AG 11 - T r i b . West Humber River 0- AG 3 - Upper Little Ausable k.

l i l l i l S i l 1 i i i r i 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Apri 1 h Y June July August September

Fipure IV-11: Cumulative yields of Kjeldahl Nitrogen in g/ha, spring and summer 1974, Agricultural Watersheds 2 (North Creek), 3 (Little Ausable) and 11 (West Humber)

0.7

0.6

0.5

- '6

2

E 0.4 - (I) 3

0 t a 0.: H 0 X 0

a

c 0.:

4

s

O J

I 0.1

8 I 8 I

I I I I

I

I \ 1

I No f low

/ H c I

N m

Figure IV-12: Concentrations of Total Phosphorus in mg/l as P, spring and summer 1974, Agricultural Watersheds 1 (Big Creek, Essex Co.), 2 (North Creek, Norfolk Co.) and 13 (Hillman Creek)

IV - 27

Figures IV-13 and 14 show the Total Phosphorus situation in the two clay watersheds of different agricultural activities.$/The higher concentrations seen in the intensive watershed in May appear to correspond with those seen in figure IV-12, and suggests that there is a contribution from fertilizer applications at this time of year. confused with increases in stream sediment often seen at this time as a result of cultivations. a minor difference over the whole growing season between the highly intensive and the non-intensive agricultural watersheds, in complete contrast with nitrate for example, which appears to be highly correlated with agricultural inputs and intensities. the deep sand watershed continues to rise during the summer months, aStarr the runoff from the clay areas has practically ceased (see figure IV-14).

These higher concentrations may be

However, figures IV-13 and 14 show that there is only

As was observed with many parameters, the phosphorous yield from

Figure IV-15 shows the soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations in watersheds 2, 3 and 11, and corresponds to the total phosphorus concentrations presented in figure IV-13. In both cases, the intensive agricultural watershed tends to have lower concentrations in early spring, but after May the <:mcentrations increase above those of the non-intensive watershed.

S o l u b l e phosphorus, while obviously being related to total phosphorous shows no real tendency to be related to fertilizer inputs or soil texture (see Table IV-21, except as noted above. after the beginning of May has been observed in other watersheds, and will be investigated in the detailed phase for possible relationships with fertilizer applications. the highest soluble reactive phosphorus levels were the same ones which had the high sulphate and cation concentrations. the solubilities of soil materials in these watersheds may need further investigation.

The increase seen in the intensive watershed

It is also interesting to note that the four watersheds with

Thissuggests that conditions which affect

Heavy Metals: The situation with heavy metals at this time is clearly one where

meaningful statements of any kind are impossible to make (Table IV-3). of the heavy metals were only present above the detectable limi: (.01 - .04mg/1 for all excep. mercury, which has a detection limit of 0.1 ug/l') in occasional samples. Watershed 1, 3, 4 and 13 tended to have detectable levels most frequently, and these are all intensive agricultural areas. However, the data are far too variable to have any confidence in this association.

Most

Concentrations of lead, the only consistently detectable heavy metal, are presented in Figure IV-16 for Watersheds 1, 2 and 13. The pattern defies explanation.

51 - HFgh intensity, watershed 3 ; low intensity,watershed 11.

IV - 2 8 '

........ A,.. .... AG 2 - North Creek t r i b .

-0- AG 3 .- Upper Li t t le Ausable R. - - - - .- - - - AG 11 - Trib. West Humber R.

of Big Creek

I I

1

I I I I I

,

1 1 1 1 1 August September

F i ure IV-13: Total Phosphorus concentrations i n m 11, and y i e l d s i n g/ha/day, spr ing and sumPwr .-icultural Watersheds 2 (North Creek), 8 ( L i t t l e Ausable) and 11 (West Humber)

IV - 29

. ..

......... A........ AG 2 - North Creek t r i b . Big Creek -0- AG 3 - Upper Little Ausable K. - - - - -.--- -- AG 11 - Trib. West Humber River

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 '

July August September April MY

Figure TV-14: Cumulative yield of Total Phosphorus in g/ha, spring and summer 1974, Agricultural Watersheds 2 (North Creek), 3 (Little Ausable) and 11 (West Humber)

IV - 30

e

0.15

n

\ r_

f? - 0.1c io 3 L.l 0 L: a ffl 0 c p1

0)

D 7 4 0 v)

.-4

0.01

0

AG 2 - North Creek trib. Big Creek -@- AG -3 - Upper Little Ausable R. - - - -.--- - AG 11 - Trib. West Humber River

f II II 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1

: I

I ! I

I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I !

\ i

Figure IV-15: Concentrations of' Soluble Phosphorus in mg/l, spring and summer 1974, Agricultural Watersheds 2 (North Creek), 3 (Little Ausable) and 11 (West Hunber)

IV - 31

I V - 32

P e s t i c i d e s

I n s e c t i c i d e s :

Representa t ive of t h e i n s e c t i c i d e s which were determined on samples from a l l watersheds is DDT (and i t s degradat ion products ) which a r e seen t o be c o n s i s t e n t l y p re sen t i n moderate q u a n t i t i e s on ly i n Watershed 16, t h e orchard a r e a nea r Vineland (Table IV-4) 21 Examination of records shows t h a t t h e high means seen i n Table IV-4 f o r Watersheds 5 and 15 are, i n each case , t h e r e s u l t of one high va lue which might be accounted f o r by contamination o r i n t e r f e r e n c e . With means f o r Watersheds 5 and 15 thus recons idered , i t i s seen t h a t t h e next h ighes t va lues were seen i n Watershed 13, which i s t h e only o t h e r watershed wi th more than 1% of t h e a r e a i n orchard crops ( s e e Table IV-51, sugges t ing t h a t r e s i d u a l DDT from p a s t orchard use i s s t i l l a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t o r t o t h e p re sen t low va lues found i n Great Lakes t r i b u t a r i e s . F igure I V - 1 7 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e concen t r a t ion of DDT i n runoff from Watersheds 1, 2 and 13. The h ighe r levels i n Watershed 13, r e f e r r e d t o above, a r e c l e a r l y ev ident .

Throughout t h e pre l iminary phase of t h i s s tudy, samples from a l l watersheds were checked r o u t i n e l y f o r None were found i n t h e s e r o u t i n e checks a t t h e -01 pp 10 level of d e t e c t i o n , but occas iona l samples analysed sepa ra t e ly , a s noted below, i n d i c a t e d t h e i r presence.

t h e presence of organo-phosphorus i n s e c t i c i d e s . 9

Other i n s e c t i c i d e ana lyses were conducted on samples from Watersheds 1 2 13, 15 and 16 by t h e Research I n s t i t u t e , A r i c u l t u r e Canada, London, O n t a r i o d . S%!l q u a n t i t i e s of d i e l d r i n ' ( 1 - 6 pp 10 -&:K>. higher l e v e l s (up t o 29 pp 1012) found i n water from Watershed 13 where vegetab le c rops a r e grown. i n Watersheds 13 and 16, and was undetected i n t h e o t h e r watersheds. D ie ld r in and endr in , l i k e DDT, are organochlor ine i n s e c t i c i d e s no longer permi t ted f o r genera l use.

19 ) were found i n a l l of t h e s e watersheds,

Endrin was only found i n t r a c e amounts (up t o 2 pp lo1*)

Lindane, chlordane and endosulphan are t h r e e organochlor ines s t i l l used commerically; d iaz inon , para th ion and guthion are examples of organophosphorus i n s e c t i c i d e s now used i n orchard and vegetab le production. each of t h e watersheds f o r which it was t e s t e d (Watersheds 1, 13, 15 and 16) but u s u a l l y i n only t race amounts , w i th a maximum recorded level of 10 pp lo1* i n Watershed 13. Endosulfan w a s de t ec t ed i n water from each of t h e watersheds examined by t h e London Research I n s t i t u t e , wi th t h e su lpha te form being most commonly found, and i n h igher q u a n t i t i e s than theorand, j forms. Watershed 16, t h e orchard a r e a , a maximum l e v e l of 100 pp 1 0 l 2 of endosulfan s u l p h a t e w a s found. As with most of t h e o t h e r i n s e c t i c i d e s , t h e second h ighes t levels w e r e found in@te r shed 13, which i n t h i s ca se had a maximum endosulfan l e v e l of 42 pp 10 . Most r e s u l t s f o r t h e o t h e r watersheds were less than 10 pp lo1* f o r a l l forms. watershed (#16) were ana lysed f o r chlordane, diazinon, pa r th ion and guthion. With t h e except ion of two samples which appeared t o be h igh i n pa t h i o n and guthion (pa ra th ion , 110 and 52 pp10l2; guthion, 3050 and 790 PPI0 d iaz inon w a s de t ec t ed wi th any cons is tency a t l e v e l s above 10 pp l0 l .

Lindane occurred i n

I n

Occasional samples form t h e orchard

3, on ly E!

- 61 Some DDT ana lyses were conducted by . the London Research I n s t i t u t e , Agr i cu l tu re Canada, whi le o t h e r s were done by t h e O.M.A.F. P e s t i c i d e Residue Laboratory a t Guelph. Resu l t s supp l i ed by J.R.W.Miles , London Research I n s t i t u t e , Agr i cu l tu re Canada, who w a s r e spons ib l e f o r a l l ana lyses done a t t h e I n s t i t u t e , and f o r t h e c o l l e c t i o n of some of t h e samples ( s e e Sec t ion I ) .

- 7 /

.oca

,055

. osa

.045

.040

.035

.OJO - s E . O i l 6 a

.020

.011

. .oia

.OOS

.ooc

'I

\ I I i I t .

0 . - . * .

l-4 c I

W W

Figure IV-17: Concentrat ions of Tota l DDT i n u ~ / l , s p r i n g and summer 1974, Agr i cu l tu ra l Watersheds 1 (Big Creek, Essex Cob) , 2 (North Creek, Norfolk Co.) and 13 (Hillman Creek)

IV - 34

Herbicides :

discuss as an advance decision was made to restrict analyses to triazines on 8 watersheds and phenoxyacetic acids on the remaining watersheds(see Table I V - 4 ) . This was necessary due to laboratory restrictions. The selection of watersheds for each analysis was made partly on the basis of dominant crops, and the likely- hoood of the use of each type of herbicide. weed control in corn.

The preliminary phase data on herbicides is more difficult to

Triazines are used primarily for

Triazines (Atrazine, simazine, etc.) were detected in the streamwater from all watersheds selected for this analysis (Watershed 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 13,15 and 1 6 ) , in spite of the fact that Watershed 16 had no corn production in 1974. !-!est samples were below 10 ug/l, although one summer storm in Watershed 3 (Little Azsa'zle River) yielded a level of 118 ug/l. i, 2 and 1 3 are presented in Figure IV-28.

Triazine concentrations in Watersheds

The higher concentrations seen in watershed 1 and 13 at the end of May may be the result of spraying at this time. These higher values do not coincide with the peaks for turbidity and many other parameters, which occurred approximately 1 week earlier. The small peak seen in triazine concentrations in watershed 2, appears approximately 6 weeks after that in the other watersheds. It may be speculated that thishasthe same origin. as the others, but the hydrology of the deep sand watershed (#2) compared to the clay and shallow sand over clay watersheds (#1 and 13 respectively) is such that it takes this period of time before the herbicide is enteringthestream in water from sub-surface flow. It is interesting to note that this effect is only barely perceptable for nitrate, the other corn crop related soluble material. for by loss by de-nitrification - a process with no analogous effects for the herbicide. Surface to ground water movement of nitrates, and de-nitrification studies to be followed as part of the detailed phase of the Agricultural Watershed Studies should clarify these observations.

This may be accounted

Phenoxy herbicides were not detected in all watersheds selected for this analysis. this material. 2 , 4-D and 2, 4 , 5-T are phenoxy herbicides which are widely used in small grain crops, and each of these watersheds has small grains grown. However, they are also among minimal. In the remaining five watersheds (Watersheds 4, 6, 7, 8 and 121, phenoxys were detected only occasionally, and at levels up to a maximum of 2.8 ug/l in Watershed #4 (Canagagigue).

Watersheds 9, 11 and 14 consistently showed no detectable level of

the less intensive areas, and herbicide use may be

Pesticides in water would appear to be affected by agricultural activities, with insecticide use on orchard and vegetable crops being most noticeable. However, products no longer permitted for use which are still appearing in the stream water must be considered to be residues from previous use, e.xcept where these products have been stored by farmers, who are now using them. The organophosphorous insecticides are present only in very low quantities, probably because of the instability and short life of these materials. Herbicides are also appearing in stream water from areas in which they are used by farmers, especially the triazines. The phenoxy situation is somewhat confused by the frequent use of these herbicides by municipalities f o r control of weeds on road shoulders and ditch banks.

I

. ..-, Fiaure I V - 1 8 : Concentrations of Total Triazines in ug/l, spring and summer L Y l 4 , Agricuiturai

Watersheds 1 (Big Creek, Essex Co.), 2 (North Creek, Norfolk Co.) and 13 (Hillman Creek)

IV - 36

PCBs : - Since PCBs are readily determined simultaneously with the DDT

analyses, all samples were checked for this material. that the runoff from all watersheds contained some PCBs, and that the degree of similarity between the watersheds was remarkable (see Table I V - 4 ) . This suggests that there is no influence on levels of PCBs in land drainage water from either crops, soils or farming activities in general. It is also noteworthy that, within the small differences between watersheds which did exist, the second lowest mean concentration occurred in the orchard watershed, the only area which consistently yielded detectable DDT in the water. This observation must inevitably weigh heavily against any continued association of PCBs with DDT and other pesticide usage.

The results indicate

B

DATA DISCUSSION

-

EXTENSION OF MONITORING DATA *

One of the objectives of the Phase I Agricultural Watershed Study was to investigate the suitability of small wat,ersheds for the study of inputs to the Great Lakes from agricultural activities. necessarily the only way in which the influence of sources such as industries, urban areas, etc., can be excluded. However, concern has been expressed that changes in pollutant transport downstream in a larger basin, as well as changes in pollutant forms, would render any extrapolation downstream impossible. Further concern has been expressed over the approach taken in this study of monitoring small watersheds representative of each of the major soils and crop growing areas of the Canadian Lower Lakes Basin, and then attempting to relate the information so obtained to the whole Basin by examining the soils and land uses of each segment of the overall Basin and extrapolating the results from the appropriate small watershed or combination of small watersheds.

The study of small watersheds is

* By J. R. Miles, Research Scientisct, Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, London; and D. R. Coote.

zv - 37

It was decided to attempt to test the significance of these concerns by monitoring two larger Basins, and determining the degree to which the overall approach would inisrcpresent. the actual situation. To achieve this, it was drcidc.d t o monitor Rig Crcclc nrid Hi8 Otter Creek at the mouths.

Big Creek is a relatively uniform watershed of approximately 280 square miles of mostly sandy soils. The land use is primarily tobacco, with some corn and small grains. Within this Basin, Agricultural Watershed #2 (North Branch, North Creek) is located, and, since there is only a small amount of urban activity (mainly the Town of Delhi) within the Basin, it would be expected that if there were minimal problems with extending the data collected on a small watershed to a larger one, then the results of monitoring at the mouth of Big Creek should be similar to the ,results of monitoring on the small watershed.

Figure IV-19 shows a comparison of the flow in Big Creek and in the representative small watershed (North Creek). For the period of record available, the two hydrographs are clearly highly compatible.

A surmnary of the results of the Big Creek/North Creek study are presented in Table I V - 6 . It should be noted that for Area and Flow the ratio of Big Creek,/ North Creek is almost identical, indicating that drainage in the subwatershed nust coincide with that of the whole basin. Where transport rates (g/ha/day) f o r zte Sub-watershed and the whole Basin were the same the ratio AG 2M/AG2 equals 1.0.

3;rscex: 5etween the Sub-watershed and the whole stream. Total Phosphorus and 3:::ble Phosphorus do not fit in this category - the ratios 2.4 and 2.2 suggest that much more phosphorus is donated proportionately by the whole basin than by the Sub-watershed. Similarly the ratios for atrazine and DDT are considerably removed from 1.0.

_.__ \.I ~E -.f ths nutrients gave ratios between 0.7 and 1.2 indicating very good

For Big Creek, Norfolk County, and its tributary North Creek, the extrapolation from Sub-watershed data would appear valid for the majority of nutrient:s except phosphorus. The extrapolation would appear to be invalid for pesticides.

The second study was on Big Otter Creek. This creek has a watershed area of about 275 square miles, about 1 / 2 of which is similar in soils and land use to that of Big Creek which was discussed above. The remaining 1/2 of the area consists of clay and loam soil, with scattered sandy areas. The land use differs from that of the rest of the Basin, having only a small area of marginal tobacco, while the dominant crop is corn. Watershed #2, the North Branch of North Creek was used as representative of soils and agriculture of the sandy portion of the Basin, while Little Jerry Creek, a tributary of Big Otter Creek, was used as representative of the remainder of the watershed (see Figure IV-20).

.

uv

U

d

0

?d

v)

IV - 39

Table IV-6: Comparisons of t r a n s p o r t of p o l l u t a n t s by Big Creek, Norfolk Co. and i t s t r i b u t a r y North Creek, A p r i l - J u l y 1974.

AG - 2M AG-2M/AG-2 (North AG-2 Cre d k) (Big Creek)

i g/ha/day (season averages)

NH3-N

Kjeldahl N

N 0 2 - N

N03-N

T o t a l P

Soluble P

T o t a l C

Organic C

Sodium

Pot a s s ium

C a 1 c ium

Xagne s ium

Sulphate (SO4)

S io2 Chlor ide

0.32

6.18

0.23

13.9

0.47

0'. 06

971

93

84

20

992

162

875

58

180

0.22

7.10

0.17

15.3

1.11

0.13

900

93

64

20

930

175

762

71

132

0.7

1.1

0.7

1.1

2.4

2.2

0.9

1.0

0.8

1.0

0.9

1.1

0.9

1.2

0.7

Atraz ine

T o t a l DDT

4.3

0.09 , 2.7

0.33

0.6

3.7

Flow

Area

28.7

28.9

IV -40

Figure IV-20: Locations and major soil types of Big Creek and Big Otter Creek, and their representative tributaries.

IV - 41

Preliminary conclusions are ~ ~ I : T T ~ S ir. the Big Otter Creek re ; r csen :a r l ve sratershed or 2) a;,c strean bank erosion taking significant sources of pollutant will adequately account for this. enquiries regarding the input of Plant81 reveal that this source small portion of the mainstream nutrients is not available). A adequacy of the small watershed confidence .

Figure IV-21 shows the flo picture in the spring and sunnner of 1974. With the exception of the two very high flow periods, either the extrapolation from

combination of these two watersqeds in proportion to the areas they represent representative Watersheds 2 or 1 1,5 is a fair approximation to flow, but the

appears to be the best fit. A exists with the two high flows. They may be caused by intensive sto were missed in the small watersheds due to the period between flow being made, or they may be caused by storms which did not pass representative watersheds, but which contributed a large elsewhere within the Basin. Only continuous in the small watersheds will allow

of these flow differences.

that either 1) there are other agricultural watershed which have been missed by the

place in the main channel of the river are that non-agricultural sources such as urban areas

material, and that only main stream monitoring

nutrients from the Tillsonburg Sewage Treatment With regard to the second possible conclusion,

is not capable of accounting for more than a very total phosphorus load (information on other ditional work is clearly necessary before the approach can be determined with any degree of

Table IV-7 is a summary of ean yields of several materials in Big Otter Creek, and in the combined repr watersheds. It can be seen that the representative watersheds materialsreaching the the two high flow periods discussed above, this to a lesser degree.

underestimates the yield of most

Finally, it must be zed that the comments above are preliminary; nths of data (longer period of concentration

ues may be inaccurate and in some cases even

1 basis, alter the conclusions of this brief

that they are based on data but inadequate tion to accompany it); and that the simplistic approach of misleading. removal patterns, biostorage, etc., have not been considered, investigation.

I

3 Personal comunicatim, J. Ardher, Ontario Ministry of the Environment , Toronto.

TV - 42

vi +

I

s Q

E

m hl

9 ICI

O-

x

h

.xc

o

3 @

%-

I

u m

u v

m a

I I

bl

l

99

2 9

D

I

I 0 : : 1 : i

51 I I

? I

h

Y

m 01 bl 0

s

U

bl 0

z

U

e4

IV - 43

(rep.

Table IV-7: Comparison of pollutqnt loadings in Big Otter Creek and a representative combiqation of the inputs from small tributary watersheds

C ombinat ion comb’nation) (Big Otter Creek)

“3 Kjeldahl N

N02

N03 Total P

Soluble P

Organic C

Na

K

Ca

Mg

s04

2 S i 0

c 1

0.42

6.21 I

0.261

20.6

1.181

0.25

69

76

22

765

132

682

44 1

146

dg/ ha/ day

1.71

11.19

0.63

15.3

3.19

0.47

125

130

49

1092

162

676

60

208

4.1

1.8

2.4

2.3

2.7

1.9 1.9

1.7

2.2

1.4

1.2

1.0

1.4

1.4

Atrazine

1

4.1 17.2 4.2

IV - 44

1 SECTION V

PdOGRAMME OUTLINE

1975-1976

AGRICU&URAL WATERSHED STUDIES

AGRICUUTURAL SUB-COMMITTEE

TASK GROUP C CANADIAN SECTION

INTERNATIONAL REFERENCa GROUP ON GREAT LAKES POLLUTION FROM

M D USE A C T I V I T I E S

INTERNAT4 ONAL JOINT COMMISSION

INTRODUCTION

During the preliminary phase of the Task C Agricultural Watershed Study, 1974-75, it was concluded that a two-phase study (a monitoring phase and a detailed study phase) was required to meet the overall objectives of PLUARG. This would be followed by a third phase to consider future requirements. monitoring phase, and six of these were selected as sites for the detailed studies (Table 1). A programme to meet the following objectives was developed (Figure 1):

Eleven agricultural watersheds were selected for inclusion in the

Phase I (Monitoring Programme):

To measure the ambient concentration and loading rates for various potential pollutants that occur with agricultural land use.

Phase I1 (Detailed Studies Programme):

1) To determine the effects of the soil, land use and associated practices on ambient concentrations and loading rates of selected pollutants from agriculture.

2) To derive information on the mechanics of transport and storage of these pollutants within the selected agricultural watersheds.

3 ) To develop relationships so that the information derived can be utilized in a predictive sense and extrapolated to other areas.

Phase I1 (FutuERequirements)

To develop remedial measures where significant problems are identified.

The projects included in the 1975-'76 programme of the Task C Agricultural Watershed Study are described in this report.

v - 3

SUMMARY

A monitoring prog amme, covering precipit tion (University of Wind r) , stream flow quantity and streamlquality (Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture ,and Food, Agriculture Canada) will be carried out on eleven small agriculturad watersheds representative of identified "agricultural regions". An invdntory of land use practices will be carried out on all watersheds (Ontario qinistry of Agriculture and Food).

For the watersheds included in the Phase I1 Detailed Studies, precipitation A detailed soil survey will

A study on the nature and

quality will be determined (Uniyersity of Windsor). be carried out on three of the qelected watersheds (Ontario Soil Survey), with the remaining three proposed fo4 the following year. enrichment of pollutants in agrdcultural watersheds will involve a mineralogical, physical, organic, trace elemen a1 and nutrient characterization of suspended and bottom sediments (Agriculture C nada, Guelph - Ottawa). These programmes will be

and in the soils. agricultural sources, transport land storage mechanisms of metals. (Agriculture Canada, Harrow and Ottawa).

coordinated to allow assessment,of 1 the relationship of pollutants in the sediments

The latter squdy forms part of an integrated programme on

The study of livestock ope ations is included in two special studies: the study of pollutant transport to It subsurface and surface waters in an integrated farm operation on the Greenbelt farmof the Animal Research Institute (Agriculture Canada); and the study of runof areas on four sites in southwes f ern Ontario (Agriculture Canada). An additional study on surface transport of nl/ttrients with emphasis on livestock operation areas is planned by Beak Consultants ttd.

from cattle feedlots and cattle manure storage

Several studies proposed f+r the Essex County watersheds have been coordinated to form an integrated programmeifor these watersheds. sources of nutrients and heavy hetals (Agriculture Canada, Harrow); the study of the transformation and transport of nitrogen and water in agricultural soils (Agriculture Canada, Ottawa); a$d the study of the role of the groundwater flow regime in the transport of nitrbtes to streams (University of Waterloo).

These include the study of

An integrated programme on surface sources and flow paths for pollutants from agricultural land includes: sufface runoff from small agricultural watersheds (University of Guelph); erosion/ll losses from agricultural land (University of Guelph, Agriculture Canada); transport of fluvial suspended sediments from agricultural land (University of Guelph); and the contribution of phosphorus from agricultural land to streams by^ surface runoff (University of Guelph).

A comparison of the nutrie+t budget of an agricultural stream and a relatively un - developed stream is plannell. This includes nutrient transport and transformation (University of Guelphb and a study of drift (University of Waterloo).

secondary production and organic

Co-ordination and implemenlation of this programme is a joint Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Agriculture Canada and Ontario Ministry of the Environment endeavor.

v - 4

Table 1: AGRICULTURAL WATERSHEDS - PHASE I (MONITORING PROCRAMME) (For locations, see Map 1.)

AG- 1

AG- 2

AG- 3

AG- 4

AG- 5

AG- 6

AG- 7

AG- 10

AG-11

AG-13

.K-- 1.4

Big Creek Tributary of the Thames River (Essex County)

Venison Creek (Norfolk County)

Upper Little Ausable River (Huron County)

Upper Canagagigue River (Wellington and Peel Counties)

Holiday Creek, tributary of the Middle Thames River (Oxford County)

Tributary of the Maitland River (Huron and Wellington Counties)

Shelter Valley Creek (Northumberland County)

Twenty-Mile Creek (North Creek Branch) (Lincoln County)

Salt Creek (Peel County)

West Branch of Hillman Creek (Essex County)

Ui Inot Creek (Bruce County)

AGRICULTURAL WATERSHEDS - PHASE I1 (DETAILED STUDIES) AG- 1

AG- 3

AG- 4

AG- 5

AG-10 Twenty-Mile Creek (North Creek Branch) (Lincoln County)

AG-13 West Branch of Hillman Creek. (Essex County)

Big Creek Tributary of the Thames River (Essex County)

Upper Little Ausable River (Huron County)

Upper Canagagigue River (Wellington and Peel Counties)

Holiday Creek, tributary of the Middle Thames River (Oxford County)

v-

5

,

6

Finure 1

INTERNATIONAL REFERENCE GROUP ON GREAT LAKES POLLUTION FROM LAND USE ACTIVITIES, I.J.C., TASK C, CANADA, AGRICULTURE, 1975--76

1 P R O G R A M M E C O O R D I N A T I O N - D A T A H A N D L I N G A N D TRANSFER(1) I f MONITORING STUDIES - PHASE T

Stream flow quantity

Stream flow quality

Land use information

c D E T A I L E D S T U D I E S - P H A S E 1 1 3 F

Precipitation chemical characteristics

physical and mineralogical characteristics

Sediment t ran s p or t downstream

[soil survey [7>

I metals Soil heavy

Isoil N forms 11 0 Heavy metal transport & I storane

Livestock sources of

Soil physical & moisture characteristics ,

Nutrient source study

Nitrogen transport - - - lwdeJ-- - - - - - Ground water nitrogen

model #13 Hillman Creek .b

#2 Venison

#6 Maitland

#7 Shelter Valley

#11 West Humber I #14 Mill Creek 1

c I

m

v - 7

O V E V L PROGRAMME

D. R. Coote, Engineering

Agriculture Canada - by contract Research Service

E.M. MacDonald Soil Research

Institute Agriculture Canada

1. GO-ORDINATIION - DATA HANDLING AND TRANSFER

Objectives:~ inate projects within the Agricultural

2) To provide liason between individual researchers and the Tas C Co-ordinator.

3 ) To provide liason with other agencies and other

k I

the PLUARG programme.

and liason service for scientists and research

in the PLUARG programme.

5 ) To prepake and analyze some of the general background data requirkd for the study.

6 ) To compibe reports.

7 ) To develbp and co-ordinate data handling procedures.

8) To adaptithe CANSIS land based information system for use by PLUApG studies.

ipate in the planning and implementation of a rol programme for PLUARG.

t-1. Sanderson University of Windsor

R.C. Hore Ontario Ministry of

Environment

Ontario Ministry of Environment

R. Frank Provincial Residue Testing Laboratory Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food

R. Frank Pr ovi nc i a 1 Re s i due Testing Laboratory - Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food

2.

3.

4.

5.

V - 8

PHASE I - MONITORING STUDY

P REC I PIT AT I ON Q UANT I TY

Objectives : 1) To provide accurate on the watersheds.

hourly data of precipitation

2) To determine the variability of runoff by using historic records and a water balance model.

STREAM FLOW QUANTITY

Stream flow gauges will be installed on all of the agricultural watersheds.

STREAM FLOW QUALITY

Water quality data at the outlet of each watershed will be obtained from a routine sampling programme for low flows, with flow orientated sampling of peak flows.

Parameters included in the monitoring programme will be those identified by the Task C Technical Committee as a "standard parameter list".

The monitoring programme for pesticides will include scanning for organochlorine and organophosphorus - insecticides, and phenoxy and t:riazine herbicides.

LAND USE INFORMATION

With the assistance of the agricultural representatives, O W , detailed information on land use practices (e.g. pesticide usage, fertilizer usage, etc.) will be collected. This will provide the required information on inputs and potential soiirces of pollutants.

PHASE I1

PRINCIPAL PROJECT INVEST I GAT OR NO.

M. Sanderson 6 PRE C I PITAT I ON University of

Windsor

C.J. Acton O n t a r i o Soil S u r v e y Un i t - Lgri :,i!c_ure

_ - 2 - 3 = 3 -

C . J . Wall h t a r i o Soil S . i s v ~ y Unit - Agriculture Canada

7

Precipitation: Effects on Agi

Objective: Tc precipitation

Samples for cl analyzed for: Nay C1, K, SO, suspended sol] metal and pes!

SOIL SURVEY

Objective: Tc three of the 1 AG-13) t o pro7 extrapolation PLUARG prograr

The soil survt 1 : 15,840, wi tl Represent at ivc each of the s( ogical characi

8 SEDIMENT CHEM:

The Nature an( sheds: A Mint and Nutrient (

v - 9

- DETAILED STUDIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

HEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Amount, Composition, Temporal Variability and cultural Watersheds.

determine the types and amounts of dry and wet ssociated pollutants falling on the watersheds.

mica1 analyses will be collected monthly and pH, conductivity, total N, total P, Cay Mg,

S. Arrangements will be made for some heavy cide analyses.

conductivity, volatile suspended solids, and

obtain detailed soil survey information on ase I1 agricultural watersheds (AG-4, AG-5, de the necessary background data to enable f the information collected throughout the e.

will be conducted at a mapping scale of the published map at a scale of 1:25,000. soil profile descriptions will be obtained for 1 series with physical properties and mineral- ristics determined as deemed necessary.

AL, PHYSICAL AND MINERALOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Enrichment of Pollutants in Agricultural Water- alogical, Physical, Organic, Trace Elemental aracterization.

Physical and wineralogical Characteristics

Objectives:

1) To obtain luvial suspended and bottom sediment samples from the agricultu a1 watersheds seasonally for use by co-operating agencies invo ved in the qualitative characterization and enrichment st dies - (described as part of projects 1 2 and 18).

2) To conduct,a physical, mineralogical characterization of the fluvial sedimbnts in the agricultural watersheds.

v - 10 PRINCIPAL PROJECT INVEST I GAT OR NO.

PROJECT DESCRI PT I ON

G . J . Wa 11 Ontario Soil (cont'd) three to four times annually from all six of the Phase I1 Survey Unit - agricultural watersheds. The interrelated parameters of Agriculture sediment mineralogy, particle size, sorptive capacity and Canada amphorous constituents will be evaluated. An attempt will be

8 Bulk suspended and bottom sediment samples will be collected

made to establish the relative contribution of the mineral, organic and amphorous materials to the total exchange capacity.

From comparison with data on the soils, the relative changes in parameters such as cation exchange capacity and clay mineral species, from the source areas to the aquatic environment of agricultural watersheds will be computed (for the three watersheds included in the soil survey, project #lo -- Ag-4, AG-5, AG-13).

A . J . MacLean M. Schnitzer Soil Research Institute - Agriculture Canada

!! . 3. ?!i 1 1 e r :qt. Land Resource Science University of

Guelph

Organic and Ta4ke Elemkhtal Charhct&fiStic$

The trace elemental characterization of sediments collected in this programme from the six watersheds, and the organic characterization of a selected number of sediments forms part of the integrated programme on heavy metals and is described under that study (project #.e). Enrichment studies on heavy metals and comparison of humic materials in soils and sediments for three of the watersheds is also included as part of project #.%.

The nutrient component of this programme (sediment characterization and enrichment studies) is included as part of the phosphorus transport study (project #18).

v - 11

PRINCIPAL INVEST I GAT OR

A.J. MacLean M. Schnitzer Soi 1 Research Institute -

Agriculture Canada

J.D. Gaynor Harrow Research

Agriculture Canada

Station

M. Ihnat Chemistry and Biology Research


I PROJECT DESCRIPTION ~

PROJECT NO.

I

9 HEAVY METAL - RANS SPORT AND STORAGE

Agricultural Sburces and Transport and Storage of Metals

Objectives:

1) To determin total and more readily extractable amounts of heavy metals i bottom and suspended sediments and in the soils from whi h they were derived.

2) To assess t e relationship of metals in the sediments and in the soils.

3) To determin relative concentrations and analytical characteristic of humic and fulvic acids in selected suspended and bottom sed ments and in the related soils.

4 ) To determink whether the humic material in the sediment originates fro+ soils by erosion or whether they have been formed in situi.

5 ) To predict baximum weight of metals and organics that could be complexed bb one unit weight of humic and fulvic acid.

6) To study mela1 transport and storage mechanisms for Zn, Cu, Pb and Cd bn three watersheds.

7 ) To determink the heavy metal transported by the suspended solids or in sblution and to estimate that bound to the organic fraction of thk suspended sediment.

8 ) To determin and organic fr t ction of the sediments (by selective extraction). quantity of metal associated with the inorganic

9) To correlat mineralogy, amorphous content, total carbon and organic matter characterization of the soils and sediments with metal content./

10) To assess bossible alternative techniques for analyses of samples (water/, sediment, and soil) containing relatively low metal levels. I 11) To identif agricultural sources of heavy metals (by analyses

animal wastes, and sewage sludge). of

Heavy metal de erminations will be carried out on sediments collected from all Phase I1 agricultural watersheds as part of Project 8*. S il samples will be taken as part of the soil survey and will be fr m the three watersheds included in that study (Project #7). k The enrichment studies and the more detailed studies Carrie out to elucidate metal transport and storage mechanisms wil be carried out on those three watersheds (AG-13, P AG-4, AG-5). ~

*With organic $atter characterization on selected sediments.

v - 12 P RI NC I PAL PROJECT INVEST I GAT OR NO.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

"HARROW" WATERSHEDS

The following five projects (10 - 14) are all located on the "Harrow" watersheds, AG-1 and/or AG-13, and will be co-ordinated in terms of field staff and sampling requirements. Projects 11, 12 and 13 form an integrated programme on the transformatians and transport of nitrogen through soil to the groundwater. This programme interfaces with the project (#14) on transport of nitrates in the shallow groundwater.

J. Fulton 10 SOURCE OF NUTRIENTS AND HEAVY METALS IN THE HILLMAN CREEK (AG-13) J.D. Gaynor Harrow Research Objectives :

Agriculture calcium, magnesium, iron, aluminum, copper, zinc, chromium, Canada cadmium and lead carried by the waters of AG-13.

Stat ion To identify the sources nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sodium,

This project is directed to separation of the inputs from rural housing developments and the inputs from crop production on the truly agricultural portions. Arrangements will be made to have a bacteriological component added to the study. The source identification aspect will be expanded if possible, with some studies on AG-1.

C.G. Kowalenko 11 SOIL NITROGEN FORMS Soil Research

Agriculture Representative Watershed Soils Canada

Institute A Comparative Study of Nitrogen Transformations of

Objectives: To systematically examine transformation processes of the biological nitrogen cycling in watershed soils effected by environmental parameters under controlled conditions.

The nitrogen transformation processes included are mineralization/ immobilization, nitrification, denitrification and asymbiotic N fixation. The parameters that are to be varied are moisture content, temperature and inorganic N additions. Soils will be selected from those watersheds included in the soil survey or from all watersheds. Emphasis will be placed on s o i l s that w i l l have detailed studies being done on thorn (e.8. m n d c l l tng i n project #13) so that limited extrnpolritions c o u l d Iw danc.. 't'tw transformations will be etudicd when so i l R a m euspvtidud or covered by water to give a comparativc index of: t h c reto of procc*Hai(*i when soils are eroded into streame.

V - 13

G. Clarke Topp 12 PHYSICAL Soil Research

PRINCIPAL PROJECT INVESTIGATOR NO

CHARACTERIZATION OF SOILS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION ~

i

The Measurement Controlling Fluid Selected Watershed

and Characterization of Physical Properties (Water Solution) Storage and Transport on Soils


Fields representative practices therein

of watersheds AG-1 and AG-13 and cultural will be selected for characterization of the

D.R. Cameron 13 NITROGEN TRANS~ORT MODEL Soil Research I


Deve 1 opment an Transformation Soil to the Gr

Testing of a Computer Model to Simulate the and Transport of Nitrogen and Water through

Objectives : 1 1) To develop computer model that can be used to simulate water and nitr gen transport in agricultural soils.

2 ) To test the on selected agricultural fields using measured soil and biochemical input factors and observed in fields over time.

nitrogen levels entering cropping and fertilizing

practices.

The develbpmen of the computer simulation will be based on mass balance equati ns with water flux and salt flux and if required a heat transport equation. The nitrogen processes will be defined by empiracal r lationship and include volatilization; adsorption and desorption mineralization and immobilization; nitrification; denitrificatio and nitrogen fixation; and plant uptake. These processes willlbe incorporated into the model as "source1' or l'sinkfl terms. 1

i Using data fro Projects #nand #12 and data collected from selected water hed fields (AG-1 and AG-131, the model will be tested and cal f brated.

V - 14

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

E. 0. Frind J. Cherry Dept. of Earth

Sciences University of Water loo

H.R. Whitely School of Engineering University of

Guelph

PROJECT NO.

14

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

GROUNDWATER NITROGEN MODEL

Transport of Nitrates in the Shallow Groundwater (Saturated) Zone

Objectives:

To investigate by means of mathematical modelling the role of the groundwater flow regime below the watertable in the transport of nitrates to streams.

A number of suitable cross-sections in AG-13 will be selected, instrumented and monitored on a regular basis. with modifications if required, will be used. The subsurface flow regions to be odelled will first be delineated using stratigraphic and "C data. The model will be calibrated for flow using hydrologic data and for transport using nitrate and tritium data. After calibration, the model will be applied to simulate the various conditions that affect the transport and storage of nitrates within the groundwater basin and the nitrate discharge into the streams.

Existing models,

INTEGRATED PROGRA'MME ON "SURFACE SOURCES AND FLOW PATHS FOR POLLUTANTS FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND"

Projects 15, 16, 17 and 18 are included in this programme. The overall plan of the programme includes: The development of conceptual deterministic models of surface water flow, soil erosion and sediment transport, and phosphorus movement from source to stream to downstream locations; the testing, verification and improvement of these conceptual models with detailed data collected from two watersheds (AG-4 and AG-5); testing of the spatial extrapability of the models with monitoring watersheds; and testing of the temporal extrapability of the models.

15 HYDROLOGIC MODEL

Surface Runoff from Small Agricultural Watersheds

Ob j ect ive :

To develop a method of calculating surface runoff from small agricultural watersheds.

r11 t l r f s study N m e t l r o c l of croleulBt ftty ~ t ~ t - l a c c * rui1i11 I I i*oiii nrtlrcl I agricultural watersheds will be developed whicli wt 1 I n:icrl tit* surface runoff in the channel to particular portions of the watershed. A conceptual model based on this apportioning of a watershed into areas exhibiting different potential for surface runoff will be developed and tested using field observations on AG-4. the agricultural watersheds with a detailed data base, and on selected ones witlh less detailed monitoring information.

The calculation procedure will then be tested on other of

1 v - 1 5

PRINCIPAL PROJECT INVEST1 GATOR NO.

G. J. Wall Ontario Soil Survey Unit - University of

Guelph

W.T. Dickenson School of Engineer ing University of

Guelph

16 SOIL EROSION MO~EL

PROJECT DESCRIPTION i ~

17

Erosion Losses from Agricultural Land

Objectives:

1) To update sh et erosion and land use data; 2) To relate PO entia1 sheet erosion losses to measured fluvial sedimen loads;

and streambank rosion components; 4 ) To physical1 of the landscap that produce sediments; 5 ) To employ an empirical mathematical soil erosion model in two of the agri i ultural watersheds.

I

3 ) To partition i the fluvial sediment load into sheet erosion define the seasonal variability in those areas

For the Phase I monitoring sites, the potential sheet erosion losses will be ompared with measured sediment outputs. I n co-operation the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, efforts will to partition the sediment from these watersheds erosion and streambank erosion components.

On two of 'the atersheds (AG-4 and AG-5) studies on seasonal variability in sediment source areas will be carried out. A mathematical s il erosion model will be employed to predict sediment yield 1 on these two watersheds, and hydrological and transport rnodidications made to the Universal Soil Loss Equation.

Transport of Fluvial Suspended Sediments from Apricultural Land

Objective: ~

To determine t e effect of drainage basin size on fluvial sediment loads in selected agricultural watersheds.

Suspended sedi ent samples will be taken at several downstream fro the spring fre delivery

stations the agricultural watersheds during the period of

The suspended sediment be evaluated in terms of effect of drainage

data and established

basin size. 1

V - 16

P R I N C T PAL PROJECT I N V E S T I GAT OR NO.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

18 P TRANSPORT MODEL

M.H. Miller Contribution of Phosphorus from Agricultural Land to Stream Dept. of Land by Surface Runoff Resource Science, University of Objective:

Guelph

19

To develop a capacity for prediction of the amount of phosphorus carried to streams by surface runoff from agricultural land.

On Watersheds AG-4 and AG-5, the P content of the surface soil will be determined, and a relationship determined between total P, soil type and the soil test value (Ontario S o i l Testing Service). This relationship will be evaluated for estimating the phosphorus concentrations in surface soils.

The P content of sediment samples (collected as part of Projects #8 and 16) will be compared with soil values to determine enrichment ratios. A relationship will be developed for the prediction of enrichment factors from soil survey, management and climatic information.

STREAM NITROGEN BUDGET

Comparative Nutrient Budget of the Two Branches of Canagagigue Creek

J. B. Robinson 19.1 Nutrient Transport: and Transformation Dept. of Environmental Objectives:

Biology University of

Guelph

1) To determine the effect that the process of agricultural land development has on the stream transport or retention of pollutants.

2) To study processes involved in nutrient turnover with special reference to temporary and permanent sinks.

A comparison in nutrient stream budgets between agricultural and relatively undeveloped streams will be carried out on two branches of the Canagagigue (one being AG-4). dissolved nutrients and nutrients in the form of fine particulate organic matter will be determined. Nutrient transformation studies pertaining to algal and macrophytic production, nutrient immobilization and denitrification will be carried out on the two stream types.

Inputs and outputs of

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

H.B.N. Hynes Dept. of

Biology University of Waterloo

PROJECT NO.

19.2

20 S.L. Hodd Project Director Beak Consultants

Ltd.

Secondary Produ

Objective:

To provide info solid organic m

Monitoring of d on an agricultu organic materia (e.g. deciduous quatic animals,

LIVESTOCK SOURC

Objectives:

1) To determine of the drainage representing va

2) To determine to this total f

3) To determine phosphorus are

4 ) To determine practices on th surface waters.

5) To determine

V - 17

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

.ion and Organic Drift

iation on movement of nutrients by drift of .ter.

.ft of solid organic matter will be carried out 11 and a relatively undeveloped stream. The would be characterized into biological categories Ind coniferous litter, terrestrial animals, !tc.) and analyzed for nutrients, total carbon, etc.

I OF NUTRIENTS AND BACTI

.he annual flux of nutrients into surface waters )asin from different segments of the basin .ous types and levels of livestock operations.

:he seasonal baseline and event contributions IX of nutrients.

.n which form the nutrients, nitrogen and -ansport ed.

:he effects of various livestock operations and release of total and fecal coliforms to

:he effect of drained versus undrained fields related to the Iflux of nutrients and bacteria into surface waters.

I

Areas or farms representative of various intensities of livestock operations will be identified with control areas located and used as a baseline to differentiate between surface runoff from livestock operatio s and other types of agriculture. laboratory will be used as field station and laboratory for phosphorus and bacteria determinations, suspended solids, pH and conductivi y measurements. The mobile laboratory provides the flexibilityi to conduct a study responsive to runoff events.

A mobile I

V - 18

I’RINCT I’AI, PROJECT LNVESTI GATOR NO.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

SPECIAL STUD1 ES

F.R. Hore 21 FEEDLOT AND MANURE STORAGE RUNOFF Engineering Research Services Objectives : Agriculture Canada 1) To determine the quantity and quality of liquid runoff from

cattle feedlots and cattle manure storage areas in southwestern Ontario which may have the potential to contaminate surface waters.

2) To determine the detention storage capacity requirements to control such contamination.

In addition to regular sampling for nutrients, solids and organic content, s,ome samples will be analyzed for pathogens (Dr. Derbyshire, University of Guelph). Special bacteriological studies will also be carried out at the same sites (E. Leggatt, Ontario Ministry of the Environment).

Y.K. Patni 22 Animal Research


F.R. Hore Engineering Researcp Services Agriculture Canada

A.R.1. - OTTAWA POLLUTANT TRANSPORT TO SUBSURFACE AND SURFACE WATERS IN AN INTEGRATED FARM OPERATION

Objectives:

1) To determine if subsurface pollutant transport in a small field can be extrapolated to a large field, other conditions (nutrient application rate, cropping practice, soil characteristics, etc.) being the same for both the fields.

2) To determine the difference in nutrient transport in tile drainage water und.er a largely coarse-textured soil compared to a fine-textured soli1 under similar conditions of nutrient application rate and cropping practice.

3 ) To determine the contribution to sediment and nutrient content of surface waters in a 1400 acre watershed area under a closely controlled cropping operation.

The proposed studies will be carried out on the Greenbelt Farm of the Animal Research Institute of Agriculture Canada. Through co-operation with the Environmental Health Centre, Department of the Environment (Dr. A. Tennant), bacteriological parameters will be included in the programme (coliform, fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus with possible occasional tests for Pseudomonas Aeruginosa and Salmonella).

agricultural watershed studieswatershed sites, soil and land use surveys in all watersheds, analyses...

Documents